TANF Policy Analysis: History, Goals, and Social Impact

Background: The Failures of AFDC and the Rise of TANF

Congress grew frustrated with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program due to its cost, nature, and scope, and ultimately decided to end it. In 1994, a record number of families — 5 million, representing more than one-eighth of all American children — were enrolled in the program. Over 50% of the children enrolled were born out of wedlock, and approximately 75% had a physically able parent not living with them (Blanche, 1995). Nearly 50% of enrolled families received program benefits for more than five years, including repeat spells. In the 1994 fiscal year, benefit costs reached their peak at $22.8 billion, with $12.5 billion from federal funds and $10.3 billion from state and local funds. Some legislators pressed for cutting AFDC spending to control costs, while others believed that permanent assistance offered to children from single-parent households encouraged family breakups, allowed births out of wedlock, and promoted long-term dependency.

The traditional AFDC program appeared to trap many welfare recipients in near-permanent reliance on government support. Welfare reform sought to address this problem by instituting time limits to ensure that government welfare would not become a permanent way of life for such families. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) established a federal five-year limit; states, however, retained the authority to shorten time limits further if they chose to do so. Simultaneously, an explosion of welfare-related activities in the form of new urban programs, healthcare initiatives, job training, and other services occurred in the 1960s alongside additional AFDC expansions. By 1965, 4.3 million individuals were receiving AFDC; that figure rocketed to nearly 10 million by 1972. A rapid expansion of welfare rolls occurred despite the era being characterized by low unemployment and general economic growth (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009; Alfred, 2007).

Historical Significance of Welfare Problems

It has been widely acknowledged that a proper safety-net initiative delivers benefits to a greater number of individuals during periods of rising unemployment and difficulty finding work. The term "safety net" implies that people are, at least partly, protected from the deprivation and sometimes destitution that accompanies job and income loss. Federal welfare constituted an open-ended entitlement that encouraged long-term reliance. It was widely regarded as a serious failure — neither reducing poverty nor helping the poor become self-sufficient. Rather, the program fostered births outside of marriage and undermined work ethic, allowing these pathologies to persist across generations (Blanche, 1995).

The 1996 welfare reforms were significant; however, the U.S. federal government has continued to administer numerous costly yet ineffective welfare programs. Many analysts have argued that federal government involvement in initiatives like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program should be phased out and that low-income support programs should be transferred to state authorities or private-sector agencies. Private welfare agencies, it is argued, understand better than government programs that lasting improvement begins with people making better life choices. Federal government participation in the field has produced a costly tangle of paperwork, rules, and procedures while contributing little to long-term poverty reduction (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009; Alfred, 2007).

How the AFDC Policy Was Handled Before 1996

Prior to 1996, federal aid represented an open-ended entitlement that contributed to long-term dependence. Most observers agreed that the program was a failure: it neither alleviated poverty nor encouraged the poor to become self-sufficient. Work ethic was weakened, births out of wedlock increased, and these problems endured across generations (Blanche, 1995; Alfred, 2007). Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was the first federal aid program, developed under President Roosevelt's 1935 New Deal, with the aim of supplementing pre-existing state support programs for widows and providing assistance to households in which the head of the family was absent, deceased, or unable to work.

Though initially intended to be a small-scale program, ADC expanded rapidly. By 1938, nearly 250,000 households were enrolled. ADC enrollment continued rising despite rapid economic growth and declining poverty levels during the 1950s. By 1956, more than 600,000 families were receiving federal benefits. Fixed block grants were distributed to each state, based principally on pre-reform federal funding of their respective AFDC programs. This arrangement, however, caused states that had provided more generous benefits to receive far greater federal funds per poor household than states that had offered lower benefits (Blanche, 1995).

Origins and Legislative History of TANF

TANF was created in 1996 through Congressional legislation signed by President Clinton. The PRWORA replaced the earlier AFDC program, which had been established by Congressional legislation under the Social Security Act of 1935 (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009). PRWORA represented the most significant restructuring of AFDC since its inception. Key elements of the restructuring included: (a) the transfer of key program design components and block-grant funding to individual states; (b) the enforcement of strict work requirements as a condition for receiving federal welfare; and (c) lifetime limits on the number of years benefits could be received from federal resources (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009; Alfred, 2007).

TANF was developed by Congress through the 1996 PRWORA in an effort to end the existing welfare system as it had operated. AFDC, which had been in place since 1935 and provided benefits to poor households with dependent children, was replaced by TANF. TANF, along with state-level requirements covering time limits, work requirements, immigrant eligibility, and child support rules, was established under the 1996 welfare law. Under the law's work provisions, states were required to mandate that recipients participate in work activities, levy sanctions (through termination or reduction of benefits) for recipients who refused to work, and achieve work-participation levels consistent with the provisions specified in the law (Strom-Gottfried, 2008).

PRWORA was passed in August 1996 following three years of debate. It repealed the AFDC program, which had been in operation for 61 years, and replaced it with the TANF block grant program. Under the PRWORA, states were eligible for pre-set block grants of $16.5 billion annually through fiscal year 2002 for operating self-designed programs. However, minimum work-participation rates, lifetime benefit limits, and work-trigger requirements were imposed. Within these parameters, states could reduce personal expenditure on needy children. PRWORA also substantially increased childcare funding (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009).

Ongoing Congressional efforts since the 1960s to reduce welfare dependency and foster self-sufficiency had generally yielded discouraging results. Restructuring measures had encompassed work requirements and incentives, "rehabilitative" services, support services such as childcare, education and skills training, establishment of paternity for children born out of wedlock, and enforcement of child support. The 1988 Family Support Act emphasized the mutual responsibility of both welfare recipients and the government to promote self-sufficiency among AFDC recipients. During the early 1990s, many states were granted permission through AFDC federal waivers to test reform ideas such as behavioral incentive policies, penalties, rewards, and welfare-to-work plans (Benjamin and Kerry, 2009).

Several governors, beginning in early 1995, called for a block grant arrangement that would free them from the rules established under AFDC. This pre-set block-grant concept, which allowed states to use grants for work-conditioned and temporary self-designed programs, was incorporated into reform bills that passed but were vetoed in 1995, and ultimately included in the PRWORA. At the time TANF was passed, 4.4 million households were enrolled in AFDC. TANF's mandatory commencement date was July 1, 1997; however, a majority of states adopted it earlier. TANF consolidated into a single structure two related programs — JOBS and Emergency Assistance (EA) for needy families — along with federal funding mechanisms for AFDC administration and benefits (Strom-Gottfried, 2008).

Conclusion: TANF's Impact on Social Relations and Professional Social Work Values

The rationale for a safety net in U.S. social policy can be summarized as follows: when individuals lose their jobs or encounter unforeseen negative income shocks — particularly those for which they are not responsible — they should have some form of government assistance to rely on, at least in the short term. Perhaps the most troubling consequence of welfare dependency is the effect on recipients' attitudes toward work. Research has shown that welfare dependents often lack a strong sense of responsibility for directing their own lives, seeking employment, or striving for self-sufficiency (Strom-Gottfried, 2008).

In fact, many recipients come to believe that it is the government's duty to provide for their basic needs. These psychological effects can also be observed in other recipients of government subsidies, such as senior citizens, farmers, and businesses reliant on federal assistance. Farmers who receive substantial subsidies, for instance, may be less inclined to make difficult decisions about cost-cutting or income diversification, knowing that the government will intervene during adverse market conditions. Long-term government dependency is not a healthy pattern for poor families or farmers alike (Casciano and Massey, 2008).

One of TANF's defining features was the requirement that recipients engage in work-related activities. While most state programs focused on activities leading to paid employment, TANF's definition of such activities encompassed a broad range of options. TANF expanded the role of caseworkers, but ethnographic studies found that caseworkers without social work training were required to rapidly change their job responsibilities without adequate orientation or additional training (Blanche, 1995; Strom-Gottfried, 2008). Caseloads were also excessively high, hindering caseworkers' effectiveness and their ability to work with participants in developing individualized plans. Findings from ethnographic research indicate that the divergence between program objectives, workforce characteristics, and workers' multiple demands created caseworker stress and uneven service delivery.

Additionally, TANF expanded states' ability to outsource aid services to faith-based organizations, nonprofits, and for-profit entities. American federal social welfare policy has long depended on contracts with private parties, and TANF legislation extended this pre-existing trend. Proponents of decentralizing public assistance maintain that private-sector programs deliver more responsive, efficient, and effective services (Blanche, 1995).

Alfred, Mary V. (August 2007). Welfare Reform and Black Women's Economic Development. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 293–311.

Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems. (February 2009). The Return of Welfare as We Knew It. The Wall Street Journal, 10.

Blanche, Coll. (1995). Safety Net: Welfare and Social Security, 1929–1979. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, p. 104.

Blank, Rebecca. (2002). Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 40(4), 1105–1116.

Casciano, R., & Massey, D. (2008). Neighborhoods, employment, and welfare use: Assessing the influence of neighborhood socioeconomic composition. Social Science Research, 37, 544–558.

LaDonna Pavetti. (2000). Creating a New Welfare Reality: Early Implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 609.

Strom-Gottfried, K. (2008). Values and Ethics for Professional Social Work Practice. Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1(6).