Welfare Reform

The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act (PRWORA; Pub. L. 104–193) in 1996 drastically changed the U.S. welfare system. The centerpiece of this legislation repealed the former cash welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC; the Social Security Act of 1935 Title IV-A) and replaced it with a block grant program called Temporary [Page 1138]Assistance for Needy Families (TANF; the Social Security Act of 1935 Title IV-A). Under the old AFDC program, states were mandated to provide assistance to all eligible poor families, with the federal government providing half or more of all program costs on an open-ended basis. In contrast, the new welfare law, PRWORA, provided each state with a block grant and broad discretion in using the funds for cash welfare programs and other services that provided for needy families, as long as the programs promoted workforce participation among welfare recipients and decreased long-term dependence on cash assistance. The federal guidelines outlined in PRWORA included a 5-year lifetime maximum on the receipt of cash assistance, the introduction of work requirements for virtually all welfare recipients, and stricter sanctions for women not complying with the rules. At the same time TANF also provided the states with greater discretion in program design, eligibility requirements, and the services they offered to low-income families.

Since the passage of PRWORA, welfare caseloads have fallen and large numbers of poor single mothers have entered the workforce. Caseload reduction is probably a combination of a number of factors, including welfare reform, the strong economy of the 1990s, and the expansion of programs aimed at promoting workforce participation, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). When PRWORA was passed, there was considerable debate regarding the impact that welfare reform policies would have on children's developmental trajectories, with some arguing that welfare reform would enhance positive child development and others arguing that the reforms would harm children.

Supporters of PRWORA argued that growing up in a family on welfare was harmful to children and fostered intergenerational dependency on the state. Supporters contend that moving mothers into the workforce would benefit children because it would increase family income, provide children with positive role models, and stabilize family routines through the introduction of a regular work schedule. However, critics of PRWORA make the case that an original goal of welfare was to enable poor mothers to raise their children at home, a condition viewed by many as developmentally important for young children. Opponents of PRWORA also argued that the reforms would reduce the time mothers have to spend with their children, increase parental stress and decrease parents' ability to successfully monitor their children's activities, and move children into low-quality child care or unsupervised settings. Critics also feared that families going off welfare would fall deeper into poverty, because they would not be able to earn sufficient incomes to support themselves. Moreover, they suggested that some families would become further impoverished if they were unable or unwilling to comply with work requirements.

What proponents for and against welfare reform share is the belief that social policies have the potential to significantly influence child development. The effect on children is thought to occur indirectly, most likely by influencing parents' employment, income, and resources, and family structure (Huston, 2002). In turn, these effects are likely to influence the environmental context of children, including their physical and material environment (e.g., standard of living), family environment (e.g., parent well-being), and social and community environment (e.g., child care and after-school settings). These contexts, in turn, are likely to affect children's physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development.

...