The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 was passed to reward states for assisting welfare recipients in finding employment and encouraging public assistance recipients to obtain employment. In essence, the statute gives assistance users a set length of time to find employment; if they still haven’t done so after that time, they will no longer be eligible for social funding.
The measure fulfilled Clinton’s campaign pledge to “end welfare as we know it” and was a cornerstone of the Republican Party’s “Contract with America.” In the 1980s, criticism of AFDC had risen, particularly from conservatives who claimed that welfare beneficiaries were “locked in a cycle of poverty.”
Following the 1994 elections, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted two significant pieces of welfare reform legislation, but Clinton vetoed both of them. Congress enacted PRWORA after talks between Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and on August 22, 1996, Clinton signed the legislation into law.
In addition to imposing new limitations on welfare beneficiaries, such as a five-year lifetime benefit cap, PRWORA gave governments more discretion in governing social welfare programs. The number of people getting federal welfare drastically decreased once the bill was passed.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hailed the law as a “re-assertion of America’s work ethic,” partly in response to its workfare provision.
1930s to 1970s
From the 1930s to the 1960s, AFDC caseloads skyrocketed as restrictions on the distribution of financial assistance to low-income families (especially single-parent, female-headed households) were relaxed.
Federal payments for relief expenses were only partially covered by the Social Security Act of 1935, which encouraged local governments to make welfare access challenging.
The Great Migration, which took place between 1940 and 1970 and saw millions of black people move from the rural South to the nation’s industrial north and west in search of employment in the wartime and post-war defense industries, put more lax regulations to the test.
Additionally, two-parent households and all physically capable people without children were initially unable to receive AFDC funds. Many of these laws were overturned through court decisions made during the civil rights movement, expanding the groups of persons who could receive relief.
Community organizations, such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, provided informational packages about citizens’ eligibility for government assistance.
Families getting assistance climbed from 162,000 to 1,875,000 between 1936 and 1969.
However, after 1970, federal support for the initiative slipped behind inflation. After accounting for inflation, the typical benefits for a household of three decreased by 47% between 1970 and 1994.
Motives for the Policy Change
Apprehension about Dependence
The notion that the poor who received welfare had grown overly reliant on government aid further fueled the action. The theory was that those who were on welfare for a long time lost any motivation to look for work.
Welfare recipients understood that accepting a job would result in losing their benefits as well as having to pay for child care, transportation, and clothing. Their new jobs will presumably not pay well or offer health insurance, whereas when they were on assistance, Medicaid would have covered them. Therefore, numerous factors would discourage welfare beneficiaries from working.
1980s and 1990s
Bipartisan criticism of AFDC for the program’s apparent inefficiency grew in the 1980s. Democrats frequently cited the “culture of poverty” justification even though they acknowledged the need for a social safety net.
According to the bill’s supporters, welfare users are “stuck in a cycle of poverty.”
Conservatives frequently referred to the system as a “welfare trap” and vowed to “dismantle the welfare state” while highlighting cases of welfare fraud. Ronald Reagan’s frequently recited account of a South Side of Chicago welfare queen sparked a bigger discussion on welfare reform.
During his tenure as governor of Wisconsin in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Republican Tommy Thompson implemented the state’s first welfare reforms. Thompson sought a system where “pregnant teen-aged girls from Milwaukee, no matter their background or where they live, can pursue vocations and chase their aspirations.” Thompson lobbied the federal government to provide states greater leeway for implementing welfare.
His response was workfare, which required the needy, usually single mothers, to work in order to receive aid. Thompson later served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The passage of PRWORA marked the conclusion of many years of discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of AFDC. Both sides cited research to support their claims, frequently utilizing the same material to promote the opposing viewpoint.
When PRWORA was passed, there was a Democratic president (defined by Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it”), a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Senate (defined by their Contract with America), and a Republican-controlled Congress.
2012
The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo in July 2012 informing states that they could request a waiver for the TANF program’s job requirements, but only if they could come up with other plausible ways to boost employment by 20%.
By waiving the requirement that 50% of a state’s TANF caseload satisfy job requirements, governments would be able to offer assistance without having to enforce the program’s work component.
According to the Obama administration, the modification was made to give states more latitude in how they manage their welfare programs. According to Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy, the waivers would make it easier for states to assist TANF applicants in finding employment.
What Conditions Must a Welfare Recipient Meet?
For the duration of their time on welfare, recipients are only eligible for time-limited financial support if they find a job within two years of enrolling. The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act specifies that the work that must be done must be either subsidized or unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training, work experience, community service, 12 months of vocational training, or providing child care services to those performing community service.
To be eligible for time-limited financial support, a single parent on welfare must work at least 30 hours per week, while two-parent households on welfare must put in at least 35 hours per week.
A family is no longer eligible for cash help from the welfare program after five years of support, though states are permitted to make a limited number of exceptions to this rule.
These time restrictions have a few exceptions as well. If a parent with sole custody of a kid under the age of six cannot locate child care that would enable them to work, the time limits frequently do not apply to that situation. States may also waive the labor requirements for single parents of children under the age of one.
What Are the Law’s Requirements for States?
States are generally required to assist welfare claimants in finding employment by evaluating each person’s work skills to determine the type of work they would be most suited for. Additionally, states are permitted to spend a portion of their federal welfare revenue to pay work for assistance beneficiaries.
Who Can I Contact About a Dispute Over Welfare Payments?
If you have any concerns about welfare, you might want to speak with a government attorney. Your lawyer will be able to inform you of your rights and inform you of the possibility that you are entitled to compensation as a result of an error or discriminatory action committed by the state or federal government.
