programs back to the states. Block grants, in the
amount of $16.5 billion, representing funds that
would have been part of AFDC, were distributed to
states in hopes that more effective and creative pro-
grams would be developed, based upon the particular
needs of each state.
Within the PRWOA legislation, the new welfare
program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), and it differs significantly from the
old AFDC program in many ways. One significant dif-
ference is that recipients are no longer guaranteed or
entitled to receive assistance. Furthermore, TANF
stipulated that eligible recipients of cash assistance
must be working within two years of receiving bene-
fits. Likewise, in an effort to address concerns about
long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five-
year, lifetime limit on receiving assistance except for
a certain 20 percent of recipients who are considered
to fall within a ‘‘hardship’’ category. Many states have
opted to reduce the five-year cap to an even fewer
number of years, which is allowed under the PRWOA
legislation. The TANF policy is clear that only preg-
nant women and families with children are eligible
for the assistance, although states have been given a
certain amount of latitude in determining how they
spend their federal block grant monies.
Since the enactment of TANF, the number of
people on welfare has been reduced dramatically. By
1999, only 7.2 million recipients remained on wel-
fare, compared to the 14.2 million of 1994. This 7.2
million figure included 2.6 million families and 5.1
million children. Policy analysts contended that sev-
eral factors contributed to the decline in welfare num-
bers, including an improved American economy and
tougher work requirements of the welfare programs.
From the late 1990s into the initial years of the twen-
ty-first century, recipients moved more quickly off of
welfare than in the past, and fewer people began re-
ceiving benefits for the first time.
Analysis of Welfare Reform
At the start of the twenty-first century, advocates
of welfare reform were pleased with the declining wel-
fare caseloads and viewed the reform as a success. Op-
ponents of welfare reform argued that poverty had
not really been reduced, only the number of people
receiving welfare benefits. The research regarding
welfare reform was mixed, and any number of articles
were available to point to either the success or failure
of welfare reform. A New York Times article from Janu-
ary 23, 2000, indicated that the welfare-to-work poli-
cies had actually helped improve academic
achievement of low-income students. The article went
on to suggest that certain welfare programs empha-
sizing increased work and increased income im-
proved the lives of children significantly. The author,
however, did not mention that research existed sug-
gesting that many children and families continued to
live below the poverty line, despite increased income
from work.An article from the February 21, 2001, issue of
the Boston Globe reported on a discrepancy in public
opinion and policy analysis regarding the implica-
tions of welfare reform. Although some evidence con-
firmed that many recipients were leaving the welfare
rolls and then finding and keeping jobs, other evi-
dence showed that hunger and poverty continued to
be significant issues that were not being addressed by
the reform policy. The article reported that whereas
14 percent of families had reported hunger while re-
ceiving welfare benefits, 22 percent of families report-
ed hunger after leaving welfare.Conclusion
The issues surrounding welfare and welfare re-
form are controversial, political, and difficult to re-
solve. Almost seventy years after the formation of the
welfare state, debate continued about who deserves
and who does not deserve benefits. With TANF sched-
uled to be reauthorized and reevaluated in 2002, the
successes and failures of U.S. welfare programs were
certain to make for interesting policy discussions well
into the twenty-first century.See also: POVERTY; STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM; WOMEN, INFANTS, AND
CHILDRENBibliography
Ellwood, David T. Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family. New
York: Basic, 1988.
Morales, Armando, and Bradford W. Sheafor. Social Work: A Profes-
sion of Many Faces. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989.
Noble, Charles A. Welfare as We Knew It: A Political History of the
American Welfare State. New York: Oxford University Press,
1997.
Pear, R. ‘‘Gains Reported for Children of Welfare-to-Work Fami-
lies.’’ New York Times (January 23, 2000):A11.
Ranalli, R. ‘‘Welfare Reform’s Success an Issue.’’ Boston Globe (Feb-
ruary 21, 2001):10.
Schneider, Anne L., and Helen M. Ingram. Policy Design for Democ-
racy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [web site]. 2001.
Available from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov; INTERNET.
Walkowitz, Daniel J. Working with Class. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1999.Kim Harrison434 WELFARE PROGRAMS