How Racism Has Shaped Welfare Policy in the US Since 1935
Wednesday, 31 August 2016 00:00 By Alma Carten, The Conversation | News
Analysis
President Bill Clinton signs legislation making cuts to the federal welfare
system at the White House in Washington, on Augugust 22, 1996. (Paul
Hosefros / The New York Times)
A recent UNICEF report found that the US ranked 34th on the list of 35
developed countries surveyed on the well-being of children. According to the
Pew Institute, children under the age of 18 are the most impoverished age
population of Americans, and African-American children are almost four times
as likely as white children to be in poverty.
These findings are alarming, not least because they come on the 20th
anniversary of President Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it"
with his signing into law, on Aug. 23, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193).
It is true that the data show the number of families receiving cash
assistance fell from 12.3 million in 1996 to current levels of 4.1 million
as reported by The New York Times. But it is also true that child poverty
rates for black children remain stubbornly high in the US.
My research indicates that this didn't happen by chance. In a recent book, I
examine social welfare policy developments in the US over a 50-year period
from the New Deal to the 1996 reforms. Findings reveal that US welfare
policies have, from their very inception, been discriminatory.
Blemished by a History of Discrimination
It was the 1935 Social Security Act, introduced by the Franklin Roosevelt
administration, that first committed the US to the safety net philosophy.
From the beginning, the policy had two tiers that intended to protect
families from loss of income.
On one level were the contributory social insurance programs that provided
income support to the surviving dependents of workers in the event of their
death or incapacitation and Social Security for retired older Americans.
The second tier was made up of means-tested public assistance programs that
included what was originally called the "Aid to Dependent Children" program
and was subsequently renamed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children in
the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments to the SSA under the Kennedy
administration.
The optimistic vision of the architects of the ADC program was that it would
die "a natural death" with the rising quality of life in the country as a
whole, resulting in more families becoming eligible for the work-related
social insurance programs.
But this scenario was problematic for black Americans because of pervasive
racial discrimination in employment in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s.
During these decades, blacks typically worked in menial jobs. Not tied to
the formal workforce, they were paid in cash and "off the books," making
them ineligible for social insurance programs that called for contributions
through payroll taxes from both employers and employees.
Nor did blacks fare much better under ADC during these years.
The ADC was an extension of the state-operated mothers' pension programs,
where white widows were the primary beneficiaries. The criteria for
eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred
from full participation because the country operated under the "separate but
equal" doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.
Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation
of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for
whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.
Developments in the 1950s and '60's further disadvantaged black families.
This happened when states stepped up efforts to reduce ADC enrollment and
costs. As I examined in my book, residency requirements were proposed so as
to bar blacks migrating from the South to qualify for the program. New York
City's "man in the house rule" required welfare workers to make unannounced
visits to determine if fathers were living in the home -- if evidence of a
male presence was found, cases were closed and welfare checks discontinued.
Always an Unpopular Program
Because of the strong American work ethic, and preference for a "hand up"
versus a "hand-out," the means-tested, cash assistance programs for poor
families -- and especially ADC renamed AFDC -- have never been popular among
Americans. As FDR himself said in his 1935 State of the Union address to
Congress, "the government must and shall quit this business of relief."
As the quality of life did indeed improve for whites, the number of white
widows and their children on the AFDC rolls declined. At the same time, the
easing of racial discrimination widened eligibility to more blacks,
increasing the number of never-married women of color and their children who
were born out of wedlock.
One point, however, to note here is that there has always been a public
misconception about race and welfare. It is true that over the years blacks
became disproportionately represented. But given that whites constitute a
majority of the population, numerically they have always been the largest
users of the AFDC program.
Holes in the Safety Net
The retreat from the safety net philosophy can be dated to the presidencies
of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
On the one hand, politicians wanted to reduce the cost of welfare. Under
Reagan policies of New Federalism, social welfare expenditures were capped
and responsibility for programs for poor families given back to states.
On the other hand, the demographic shift in the welfare rolls exacerbated
the politics around welfare and racialized the debate.
Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" narrative only reinforced existing white
stereotypes about blacks:
"There's a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addressees, 12 Social
Security cards and is collecting veterans' benefits on four nonexistent
deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, is getting food stamps and welfare
under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."
Reagan's assertions that the homeless were living on the streets by choice
played to conventional wisdom about the causes of poverty, blamed poor
people for their own misfortune and helped disparage government programs to
help the poor.
The 1990s Gear Change
By the late 1990s efforts of reforms targeting the AFDC program shifted to
more nuanced forms of racism with claims that the program encouraged
out-of-wedlock births, irresponsible fatherhood and intergenerational
dependency.
The political context for the 1996 reforms, then, was fueled by racist
undertones that played into public angst about rising taxes and the national
debt that were attributed to the high payout of welfare checks to people who
were not carrying their own weight.
This emotionally charged environment distorted the poverty debate, and paved
the way for a reform bill that many saw as excessively punitive in its harsh
treatment of poor families.
Although credited to the Clinton administration, the blueprint for the 1996
welfare reform bill was crafted by a caucus of conservative Republicans led
by Newt Gingrich as part of the Contract with America during the 1994
congressional election campaign.
Twice President Clinton vetoed the welfare reform bill sent to him by the
GOP-dominated Congress. The third time he signed, creating much controversy,
including the resignation of his own adviser on welfare reform, the leading
scholar on poverty David Ellwood.
President Clinton announces the new welfare bill.
The new bill replaced the AFDC program with Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). Stricter work requirements required single mothers to find
work within two years of receiving benefits. A five-year lifetime limit was
imposed for receiving benefits. To reinforce traditional family values, a
core principle of the Republican Party, teenage mothers were to be
prohibited benefits, and fathers who were delinquent in child support
payments were threatened with imprisonment. States were banned from using
federally funded TANF for certain groups of immigrants and restrictions were
placed on their eligibility to Medicaid, food stamps and Supplementary
Social Security Income (SSI).
The Impact
Despite many bleak predictions, favorable outcomes were reported on the 10th
anniversary of the bill's signing. Welfare rolls had declined. Mothers had
moved from welfare to work and children had benefited psychologically from
having an employed parent.
However, the volume of research generated at the 10-year benchmark has not
been matched, in my observation, by that produced in years leading up to the
20-year anniversary.
More research in particular is needed to understand what is happening with
families who have left welfare rolls because of passing the five-year
lifetime limit for receiving benefits but have not sustained a foothold in
an ever-increasing specialized workforce.
Disentangling Intertwined Effects of Racism and Poverty
US welfare policy is, arguably, as much a reflection of its economic
policies as it is of the nation's troublesome history of racism.
In the words of President Obama, racism is a part of America's DNA and
history. Similarly, the notion that anyone who is willing to work hard can
be rich is just as much a part of that DNA. Both have played an equal role
in constraining adequate policy development for poor families and have been
especially harmful to poor black families.
Racism has left an indelible mark on American institutions. In particular,
it influences how we understand the causes of poverty and how we develop
solutions for ending it.
Indeed, with the continual unraveling of the safety net, the 20th
anniversary of welfare reforms can be an impetus for taking a closer look at
how racism has shaped welfare policy in the US and to what extent it
accounts for the persistently high poverty rates for black children.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
ALMA CARTEN
Alma Carten is an associate professor of social work and a McSilver faculty
fellow at New York University.
RELATED STORIES
Welfare Limits Left Poor Adrift as Recession Hit
By Jason DeParle, The New York Times News Service | Report
Poor Prospects in a "Middle Class" Society
By Gary Lapon, Socialist Worker | News Analysis
Discrimination Against Children of Color Begins in Preschool, Says New Study
By Judy Molland, Care2 | Report
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
How Racism Has Shaped Welfare Policy in the US Since 1935
Wednesday, 31 August 2016 00:00 By Alma Carten, The Conversation | News
Analysis
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. President Bill Clinton signs legislation making cuts to the federal
welfare system at the White House in Washington, on Augugust 22, 1996. (Paul
Hosefros / The New York Times)
. A recent UNICEF report found that the US ranked 34th on the list of
35 developed countries surveyed on the well-being of children. According to
the Pew Institute, children under the age of 18 are the most impoverished
age population of Americans, and African-American children are almost four
times as likely as white children to be in poverty.
These findings are alarming, not least because they come on the 20th
anniversary of President Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it"
with his signing into law, on Aug. 23, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193).
It is true that the data show the number of families receiving cash
assistance fell from 12.3 million in 1996 to current levels of 4.1 million
as reported by The New York Times. But it is also true that child poverty
rates for black children remain stubbornly high in the US.
My research indicates that this didn't happen by chance. In a recent book, I
examine social welfare policy developments in the US over a 50-year period
from the New Deal to the 1996 reforms. Findings reveal that US welfare
policies have, from their very inception, been discriminatory.
Blemished by a History of Discrimination
It was the 1935 Social Security Act, introduced by the Franklin Roosevelt
administration, that first committed the US to the safety net philosophy.
From the beginning, the policy had two tiers that intended to protect
families from loss of income.
On one level were the contributory social insurance programs that provided
income support to the surviving dependents of workers in the event of their
death or incapacitation and Social Security for retired older Americans.
The second tier was made up of means-tested public assistance programs that
included what was originally called the "Aid to Dependent Children" program
and was subsequently renamed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children in
the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments to the SSA under the Kennedy
administration.
The optimistic vision of the architects of the ADC program was that it would
die "a natural death" with the rising quality of life in the country as a
whole, resulting in more families becoming eligible for the work-related
social insurance programs.
But this scenario was problematic for black Americans because of pervasive
racial discrimination in employment in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s.
During these decades, blacks typically worked in menial jobs. Not tied to
the formal workforce, they were paid in cash and "off the books," making
them ineligible for social insurance programs that called for contributions
through payroll taxes from both employers and employees.
Nor did blacks fare much better under ADC during these years.
The ADC was an extension of the state-operated mothers' pension programs,
where white widows were the primary beneficiaries. The criteria for
eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred
from full participation because the country operated under the "separate but
equal" doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.
Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation
of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for
whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.
Developments in the 1950s and '60's further disadvantaged black families.
This happened when states stepped up efforts to reduce ADC enrollment and
costs. As I examined in my book, residency requirements were proposed so as
to bar blacks migrating from the South to qualify for the program. New York
City's "man in the house rule" required welfare workers to make unannounced
visits to determine if fathers were living in the home -- if evidence of a
male presence was found, cases were closed and welfare checks discontinued.
Always an Unpopular Program
Because of the strong American work ethic, and preference for a "hand up"
versus a "hand-out," the means-tested, cash assistance programs for poor
families -- and especially ADC renamed AFDC -- have never been popular among
Americans. As FDR himself said in his 1935 State of the Union address to
Congress, "the government must and shall quit this business of relief."
As the quality of life did indeed improve for whites, the number of white
widows and their children on the AFDC rolls declined. At the same time, the
easing of racial discrimination widened eligibility to more blacks,
increasing the number of never-married women of color and their children who
were born out of wedlock.
One point, however, to note here is that there has always been a public
misconception about race and welfare. It is true that over the years blacks
became disproportionately represented. But given that whites constitute a
majority of the population, numerically they have always been the largest
users of the AFDC program.
Holes in the Safety Net
The retreat from the safety net philosophy can be dated to the presidencies
of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
On the one hand, politicians wanted to reduce the cost of welfare. Under
Reagan policies of New Federalism, social welfare expenditures were capped
and responsibility for programs for poor families given back to states.
On the other hand, the demographic shift in the welfare rolls exacerbated
the politics around welfare and racialized the debate.
Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" narrative only reinforced existing white
stereotypes about blacks:
"There's a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addressees, 12 Social
Security cards and is collecting veterans' benefits on four nonexistent
deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, is getting food stamps and welfare
under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."
Reagan's assertions that the homeless were living on the streets by choice
played to conventional wisdom about the causes of poverty, blamed poor
people for their own misfortune and helped disparage government programs to
help the poor.
The 1990s Gear Change
By the late 1990s efforts of reforms targeting the AFDC program shifted to
more nuanced forms of racism with claims that the program encouraged
out-of-wedlock births, irresponsible fatherhood and intergenerational
dependency.
The political context for the 1996 reforms, then, was fueled by racist
undertones that played into public angst about rising taxes and the national
debt that were attributed to the high payout of welfare checks to people who
were not carrying their own weight.
This emotionally charged environment distorted the poverty debate, and paved
the way for a reform bill that many saw as excessively punitive in its harsh
treatment of poor families.
Although credited to the Clinton administration, the blueprint for the 1996
welfare reform bill was crafted by a caucus of conservative Republicans led
by Newt Gingrich as part of the Contract with America during the 1994
congressional election campaign.
Twice President Clinton vetoed the welfare reform bill sent to him by the
GOP-dominated Congress. The third time he signed, creating much controversy,
including the resignation of his own adviser on welfare reform, the leading
scholar on poverty David Ellwood.
President Clinton announces the new welfare bill.
The new bill replaced the AFDC program with Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). Stricter work requirements required single mothers to find
work within two years of receiving benefits. A five-year lifetime limit was
imposed for receiving benefits. To reinforce traditional family values, a
core principle of the Republican Party, teenage mothers were to be
prohibited benefits, and fathers who were delinquent in child support
payments were threatened with imprisonment. States were banned from using
federally funded TANF for certain groups of immigrants and restrictions were
placed on their eligibility to Medicaid, food stamps and Supplementary
Social Security Income (SSI).
The Impact
Despite many bleak predictions, favorable outcomes were reported on the 10th
anniversary of the bill's signing. Welfare rolls had declined. Mothers had
moved from welfare to work and children had benefited psychologically from
having an employed parent.
However, the volume of research generated at the 10-year benchmark has not
been matched, in my observation, by that produced in years leading up to the
20-year anniversary.
More research in particular is needed to understand what is happening with
families who have left welfare rolls because of passing the five-year
lifetime limit for receiving benefits but have not sustained a foothold in
an ever-increasing specialized workforce.
Disentangling Intertwined Effects of Racism and Poverty
US welfare policy is, arguably, as much a reflection of its economic
policies as it is of the nation's troublesome history of racism.
In the words of President Obama, racism is a part of America's DNA and
history. Similarly, the notion that anyone who is willing to work hard can
be rich is just as much a part of that DNA. Both have played an equal role
in constraining adequate policy development for poor families and have been
especially harmful to poor black families.
Racism has left an indelible mark on American institutions. In particular,
it influences how we understand the causes of poverty and how we develop
solutions for ending it.
Indeed, with the continual unraveling of the safety net, the 20th
anniversary of welfare reforms can be an impetus for taking a closer look at
how racism has shaped welfare policy in the US and to what extent it
accounts for the persistently high poverty rates for black children.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Alma Carten
Alma Carten is an associate professor of social work and a McSilver faculty
fellow at New York University.
Related Stories
Welfare Limits Left Poor Adrift as Recession Hit
By Jason DeParle, The New York Times News Service | ReportPoor Prospects in
a "Middle Class" Society
By Gary Lapon, Socialist Worker | News AnalysisDiscrimination Against
Children of Color Begins in Preschool, Says New Study
By Judy Molland, Care2 | Report
Show Comments
