Welfare Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Research Paper Example

 Welfare Aid to Families with Dependent Children Abstract Aid to families of Dependent Children is a welfare program. Its objective was to provide financial assistance to the poor and dependent children. In every country, the social agency, whether private or owned by the federation, plays an important role. Some financial, educational, and social help that is provided by one party can therefore be provided by the other. This can change the poverty status and literacy rate, and improve conditions of any other problem faced by the country. Welfare Aid to Families of Dependent Children Thesis Statement The paper will be representing the social welfare program named Aid to Families of Dependent Children. This program was the most prominent cash assistance program for the poor. As the name indicates, the program was developed to assist the children whose parents were financially unstable. This welfare program worked for 60 years, until it faced criticism from the Congress. History Aid to Dependent Children that was later named Aid to Families with Dependent children was Title IV of the Social Security Act 1935. In 1933, President Roosevelt created Aid to Families with Dependent Children that was designed to be a short term solution to the problem faced by single women in bringing up their children. Cash assistance was provided to the parents with dependent children but this required eligibility. The program had some limitations in giving the assistance to the desirable families. The plan was written and presented by Grace Abbott and Katherine Lenroot, the directors of the U.S. Children’s Bureau. The goal of this Bureau was to facilitate the mother who lacked to provide their children with proper life. Moreover, Abbott and Lenroot designed the welfare program to work with socially appreciated standards and offer services and assistance to lone mothers. When the draft was presented to the Congress, it revised and changed some of the objectives. The revision transformed the essence of the legislation and made various amendments (Bell, 1965). Ironically the revision created the effects that were totally opposite to what the developers were intending. The Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) worked as a private social agency for its first three decades. The caseworkers were given the responsibility to investigate the financial condition of the client, deduct some of the benefits that were determined to be inappropriate, and also cut off benefits to those who violated the regulations of the welfare program. In mid sixties, an organization that was being operated by African-American women began to defend the ADC recipient’s rights; they filed hundreds of cases challenging the administration and casework of ADC. The goal of this organization was to create uniform standards for ADC and eliminate the eligibility provisions. The cases that were challenged failed to prove anything; as a result, the federal officials made some changes in the program and named it Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1962. The program grew from a minor social program to a federal controlled system. The program operated from 1935 to 1996. In 1996, after facing criticism, AFDC was replaced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This was much restricted and conserved than AFDC (Bell, 1965). Mission Statement Aid to Families with Dependent Children was a federal assistance program, administered by the US department of Health and Human Services. The program functioned from 1935 to 1996. The aim of this welfare program was to provide cash assistance to children whose families had no income or were struggling for the income. Needy children were defined as having been underprivileged - whose parents were unable to support or lacked the resources to support. The program was designed as a federal-state coalition. The federal legislation required states to provide assistance to all the eligible families and the state administered the program, set up income level for families to qualify,y and established level of benefits to be awarded to them (Larner & Page, 1997). The goal of this program was to help and facilitate the children who were left dependent, by reasons of death, incapacity, and continued absence of parents from the home. The main mission of this program was to provide assistance to the families of children who were less than 18 years of age. The main objective was to provide cash assistance, medical insurance, food card, and social security. All this was awarded to unemployed parents or second parents of the dependent children. With all these facilities, the program was highly acknowledged and till 1970s majority of the parents were supported by this program (Larner & Page, 1997).] Financial Reports and Summaries of the Operation Before the program was replaced by another one in 1996, the AFDC became a social program that was assisting numerous families nationwide. As the number of families receiving cash assistance from AFDC increased, the cost of the program grew as well. The program cost depended on the number of families entitled to getting benefits. Total federal and state spending on AFDC benefits increased from $15.5 billion to $22.3 billion during the 23 years from 1970 to 1993. However, even though the number of recipients increased by 91%, costs increased by only 44%. The grants provided to each family declined in standard; the growth in cost was restrained. The average monthly AFDC benefit per family decreased by almost half between 1970 and 1992. The expenditures on AFDC were a very small portion of both state and federal budgets (Ritchie, 1995). In 1995, federal spending on AFDC, Security Income for the disabled, and food stamps together constituted less than 4% of the federal budget, as it had for most of the preceding three decades. In 1991, states spent just over 5% of their general funds on AFDC. Critical Analysis When analyzing this welfare program critically, one finds a lot to be criticized. The program was replaced with another restricted one due to the criticism. It was criticized for offering incentives to women for staying at home, raising their children, and having more children. Earlier, the officials were concerned if this program encouraged unwed motherhood later from 1960s through 1980s; it was examined that AFDC encouraged childbirth, especially among the members of the society that were less productive, for instance, black and Hispanics. The federal officials were highly concerned about bringing this critical argument in the Congress (Mayo, 1975). AFDC was also criticized for giving away benefits to those who did not deserve them. Some people left working for getting the medical insurance through AFDC. The food stamps also made some to intentionally leave their jobs. All in all, AFDC incentives were supportive enough that they did not require the recipients to work. These critical issues made the Congress bring a more restricted welfare program. Dealing with the criminal justice is also very crucial. A criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law with a defined set of rules and limitations. In the US, there are separate criminal rules for federal and state, and each has different system for adults and youngsters. The respondents and institutions in the criminal justice system are highly interdependent. The interaction with the criminal justice system during the time of AFDC was also critical. The payment through the program destabilized the families’ strength and interfered in the work incentives. It destroyed the set up of the society and made most of the people sit at home and increase the childbirth rate. The real value of AFDC and food stamp payment to the poor declined the welfare rate and the urban schools fell into despair. In a society obsessed with single mother on welfare, more money was spent at the filed drug war than on the welfare. As the government investment in the social and employment sector in the cities became stable, the criminal justice system came to fill the space. The expenditure of federal, state and local, for court, police, and legal services grew. By 1990, the country was spending $70 billion annually to catch the offenders (Mayo, 1975). For the white majority, it was a popular way to go as it became clear that these measures would fall heaviest on the minorities, in general. The police arrested 399,277 offenders for assault in 1990 and only 13% resulted in wrongdoing. The police were charging arrest with violent crimes that they didn’t commit. The training of critical personnel during that time, needed to be preplanned. The police, being helpless, arrested everyone they doubted. This increased the annual expenditure of the institutions. Since the social control is the primary function of the welfare, the increase in the number of recipients resulted in social unrest. The critical personnel issues include the discrimination factor, zero tolerance level, promotions, and incentives. When all these are equally distributed the critical personnel can be trained (Mayo, 1975). The services provided by the AFDC are the medical insurance, food stamp, cash assistance and social security. The medical insurance was provided by the Medicaid. Due to the insurance, many recipients were locked into the welfare system because, typically, the jobs they were able to find did not offer health insurance. This increased the expenditure of the program and resulted in the low job rates. Many people preferred to apply for the assistance than get a job. The cash assistance provided a monthly stipend according to the need of the family, as estimated by the caseworkers. This also encouraged families’ to sit back and enjoy the free assistance. This affected the economy of the country. Similarly, the food stamp was a credit, from which the families could buy the food items without paying, or paying just a small proportion. The services provided by the program were comforting and tension free. The parents no longer worried about their children. Though the welfare system had many positive aspects, the critics exposed it as a program with greater number of negative aspects. Improving the Effectiveness The officials should develop good indicators of performance to improve the effectiveness of the welfare program. Performance indicators can motivate state offices, caseworkers, and staff to be more effective in achieving the program's goals. Performance indicators can provide information on what program strategies lead to long-run success. To be most useful, performance indicators must be simple and timely; they should control the factors other than the program's effectiveness that influence welfare recipients’ success. The performance indicators must exhibit the difference in welfare recipients’ lives on account of the program, compared to the people who are not facilitated by the program of kind (Barthik). The social agency must continue an intensive evaluation of the program to reassess the procedures’ impact on productivity and achievement of goals.  Critical elements in the success of a productivity improvement project may include full, visible support by the policy makers and officials; early involvement of affected personnel; wide implementation of recommended improvements; and continued review of their effectiveness. Although no single work-method project can solve all problems connected with an agency’s way of carrying out its work, the process developed by the concerned department can be applied usefully by both public and private child welfare agencies as they seek ways to improve the efficiency of the welfare program. Future of Social Agency The future of social agency greatly depends on the criminal justice system, training of the critical personnel, and the type of services being provided by the program. If the official improves the effectiveness of the system, the impact that the criminal justice system might have can be negated. When the social agency plans all the aspects of the welfare system, the social agency can have a bright future with very less faults. Conclusion The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was the most prominent cash assistance program for the poor. The program was developed to aid children whose parents’ financial condition was unstable. This welfare program worked for 60 years and later after facing criticism turned into a new program having the same goals but different mission statement. Even though AFDC no longer formally exists, most of what is known about US welfare policy and its effect on families and children has been known by studying the AFDC framework. References Barthik, T. (n.a.). Using Performance Indicators to Improve the Effectiveness of Welfare-to-Work Programs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, pg 95 Bell, W. (1965). Aid to Dependent Children. New York: Columbia University Press. Larner, M. & Page, S. (1997). Introduction to the AFDC Program, Vol 7, Issue 1. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_01_01.pdf Mayo, J. (1975). Patterns of Mobility in the AFDC Program, Social Services Review, The University of Chicago. Ritchie, S. (April 1995). Welfare spending in state budgets. Albany, NY: Center for the Study of the States, Rockefeller Institute of Government, p. 24 Read More