GOVT 360 American Welfare State Midterm

One option is that we won't see much change at all. The report by Fulwood shows that racial discrimination in housing policy has been remarkably durable, and that pattern might apply to other policies as well.
The other two readings (Williams, Harris and Lieberman) refer to a major change in the relationship between race and public policy. During what decade did that change occur? What happened?

1. • Media portrayals increasingly associated poverty with Black Americans, even though this did not match demographic realities. This shaped public perceptions.

2. • The Moynihan Report in 1965 argued that a "tangle of pathology" in Black families, including high rates of single motherhood, was perpetuating poverty. This was controversial.

3. • Stereotypes about "welfare queens" emerged in the 1970s, depicting Black women as exploiting the welfare system. This shaped negative attitudes toward welfare programs.

4. • Some scholars like William Julius Wilson argued that class, not race, had become the key factor in urban poverty by the 1980s. Others maintained that racism still played a major role.

5. • Welfare policies often treated women differently than men, with assumptions about women's caregiving roles shaping program designs and eligibility.

Williams recognizes that racial inequalities currently exist. What does he see as the primary cause?

1. Some public and private policies that reward dependency and irresponsibility

2. The welfare state, which he claims has fostered out-of-wedlock births and decimated the black family

3. Self-destructive behavior that has become acceptable, particularly in largely black schools, leading to educational opportunities being squandered

4. Williams believes that government should protect people's constitutional rights, but otherwise black people should be "left alone" rather than being "smothered by paternalism inspired by white guilt." He seems to view government intervention and assistance programs as more harmful than helpful in addressing racial inequalities.

According to Harris and Lieberman, racism in the United States has declined. How do they define and measure "racism" to show this decline? 

1. They note that people's perceptions of race relations have improved, and explicit prejudices are now frowned upon socially.

2. Laws have been passed preventing intentional discrimination in areas like employment.

3. However, they argue that the "role of race is more subtle and hidden from view than before, but no less potent."

4. They point to "apparently race-neutral practices" that often mask unequal arrangements.

5. They discuss how stereotypes remain a powerful framing device, even if not expressed openly (referring to "dog whistle" politics).

6. They argue there is still significant discrimination and racial disparities in areas like housing, education, employment, health, and incarceration.

7. They introduce the concept of "constitutional racism" - discrimination originating in established societal institutions that receives less public condemnation.

8. So in essence, Harris and Lieberman argue that overt, legally-sanctioned racism has declined, but more covert forms of racial inequality persist through institutional practices, implicit biases, and disparate impacts of seemingly neutral policies. They see racism as having evolved rather than disappeared entirely.

If racism is declining, then how do they explain the persistence of racial inequalities?

In your opinion, how useful is it to call our present era "postracist"?

Be able to name some of the restrictions on who was eligible for poor relief.

1. Residency requirements - People had to demonstrate they were residents of the local area to receive aid.

2. Ability to earn a living - Those who were deemed able to work were generally not eligible for relief.

3. Availability of relatives - If someone had relatives who could provide support, they were often expected to rely on family rather than public aid.

4. For mothers' pensions in the early 20th century:

   1. Widows were most likely to be eligible

   2. Divorced or deserted mothers were less likely to qualify

   3. Unmarried mothers were least likely to be eligible

5. For mothers' pensions, there were often requirements around:

   1. "Maternal fitness"

   2. Having a "suitable home"

   3. Speaking English

   4. Moral character (e.g. sexual modesty, not drinking or smoking)

6. Race was often a factor, with Black Americans and other minorities less likely to receive aid, especially in the South.

7. For Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) in the 1930s-40s, having any man in the household could disqualify a family.

8. So in general, eligibility was often restricted based on factors like residency, family status, moral character, race, and perceived ability to work. The specific criteria varied across time periods and locations.

Know the main differences between indoor relief and outdoor relief.

Indoor relief:

• Provided in institutions like poorhouses, almshouses, or workhouses

• Could be public (run by local government) or private

• Often seen as more controlling/restrictive for recipients

Outdoor relief:

• Provided directly to people in their homes/communities

• Could include food, fuel, clothing, money, etc.

• Supplied by local government, churches, or charities

• Became more common in latter part of 19th century

• Seen as potentially less stigmatizing than indoor relief

Some other points:

• The mix of indoor vs outdoor relief varied across states and over time

• Indoor relief was more common in first half of 19th century, outdoor relief spread later

• Some reformers like Josephine Lowell opposed outdoor relief, preferring indoor relief where recipients could be monitored/educated

• Outdoor relief was sometimes seen as easier/cheaper for smaller communities that couldn't afford to maintain poorhouses

1. So in general, indoor relief involved institutionalization while outdoor relief allowed people to remain in their homes/communities while receiving assistance. The debate over which approach was better continued for many years.

Give at least two reasons why Josephine Shaw Lowell was suspicious of outdoor relief.

1. She believed that people receiving aid needed education, monitoring, and rules, which could be better provided through indoor relief (like poorhouses or workhouses) rather than outdoor relief given directly to people in their homes.

2. She felt that indoor relief institutions allowed for more control and oversight of those receiving assistance, compared to outdoor relief which provided aid with less supervision.

3. The notes indicate that Lowell preferred indoor relief approaches that would allow for more direct intervention and regulation of poor people's behavior and circumstances, rather than simply providing aid without attached conditions or oversight. She seemed to view outdoor relief as potentially enabling dependency without addressing underlying issues

Name two ways in which mothers' pensions were supposed to be superior to 19th c. poor relief.

1. Mothers' pensions allowed children to remain with their mothers rather than being placed in orphanages or foster care. This was seen as better for the children's wellbeing and development.

2. Mothers' pensions were viewed as more honorable and less stigmatizing than traditional poor relief. They were framed as a form of compensation for the valuable service mothers were providing to society by raising children, similar to how veterans received pensions for their service

Explain how ideas about "service to the state/service to society" helped pave the way for mothers' pensions.

1. Mothers' pensions were framed as a form of compensation for the valuable service mothers were providing to society by raising children. This was seen as similar to how veterans received pensions for their service to the country.

2. Providing pensions to mothers was viewed as better for children's wellbeing and development compared to placing them in orphanages or foster care. This was seen as a service to society by helping raise healthier, more productive future citizens.

3. Mothers' pensions were portrayed as more honorable and less stigmatizing than traditional poor relief. The idea was that mothers were performing an important societal function by caring for children, rather than just receiving charity.

4. Framing mothers' pensions in terms of service helped make them seem more deserving of public support compared to other poor relief programs. It elevated the status of single mothers receiving aid.

5. The concept of service to society helped justify providing public funds to support private family caregiving, which was a relatively new idea at the time.

Poor mothers could be single mothers for different reasons. What kinds of single mothers were more or less likely to get help? What sorts of value judgments were being made?

1. Widows were at the top of the list and most likely to be eligible for aid. They were seen as the most "deserving" type of single mother.

2. Mothers whose husbands were in prison were also relatively high on the list for eligibility.

3. Divorced or deserted mothers were in the middle - less likely to qualify than widows, but more likely than unmarried mothers.

4. Unmarried mothers were at the bottom of the list and least likely to be eligible for aid. They were often seen as "undeserving" or morally questionable.

The notes indicate that value judgments were being made about the mothers' moral character and circumstances. Widows were viewed most sympathetically as they had lost their husbands through no fault of their own. Unmarried mothers faced the most stigma and judgment about their choices and behavior.

There were also often requirements around "maternal fitness" and having a "suitable home" to qualify for aid. Mothers might be judged on factors like:

• Sexual modesty/behavior

• Not drinking or smoking

• Ability to speak English

• Cleanliness of the home

• Children's school attendance

1. So overall, there were clear moral judgments being made about which types of single mothers were most "deserving" of public assistance, with widows at the top and unmarried mothers facing the most scrutiny and barriers to receiving aid.

How did private charity influence the implementation of mothers' pensions?

1. Mothers' pensions built on earlier private charity efforts, particularly "scientific charity" approaches that aimed to systematically manage aid to the poor.

2. Many of the administrators and social workers involved in mothers' pension programs came from backgrounds in private charities and brought those perspectives.

3. Private charities were often more likely to make judgments about the "fitness" and morality of recipients. This carried over into mothers' pension programs, which often had requirements around maternal fitness, suitable homes, moral character, etc.

4. There was sometimes tension between public mothers' pension programs and private charities, as the public programs took over some functions previously handled by charities.

5. In some areas, private charities continued to play a supplementary role alongside the public mothers' pension programs.

6. The involvement of private charity workers in mothers' pensions contributed to a focus on supervising and modifying recipients' behavior, not just providing financial aid.

7. Racial and ethnic biases present in private charities often carried over into the administration of mothers' pensions, influencing who was deemed eligible or "deserving."

8. So in summary, while mothers' pensions represented a shift toward public assistance, they were significantly shaped by the practices, personnel, and perspectives of the private charity sector that preceded them. This influenced both the structure and implementation of the programs

In practice, mothers' pensions varied a lot from state to state. What sorts of patterns can we see in the level of benefits and the race of the mothers?

1. Benefit levels varied significantly across states:

• More generous benefits were typically provided in Northeastern and Midwestern states

• Southern states tended to have lower benefit levels

2. Racial disparities were common:

• White mothers were generally more likely to receive pensions than Black mothers

• In the South especially, Black mothers were often excluded entirely or received much lower benefits

• Some Northern states provided more equal benefits to Black mothers, but they were still often underrepresented

3. Eligibility criteria often disadvantaged Black mothers:

• "Suitable home" requirements were used to deny benefits to Black families

• Widows were favored over divorced or unmarried mothers, which disproportionately affected Black women

4. Administration of the programs varied:

• Local discretion in determining eligibility allowed for racial discrimination

• Some states explicitly restricted benefits to white mothers only

5. Overall patterns:

• Benefits were most accessible to white widows

• Black mothers, especially in the South, faced significant barriers to receiving aid

• There was more racial equity in some Northern states, but disparities persisted nationwide

1. So in summary, while there was variation, mothers' pensions tended to favor white mothers and provide lower benefits or exclude Black mothers, especially in Southern states. The racial disparities were built into many aspects of how the programs were designed and implemented.

Given that these pensions were so low in most parts of the country, how did poor single-mother families survive?

1. Combining multiple sources of support:

• Mothers' pensions provided some base income, but families likely had to supplement this with other sources.

• Extended family support may have helped in some cases.

• Charity from private organizations or churches could have provided additional assistance.

2. Employment:

• While mothers were often discouraged from working under these programs, some may have taken on part-time or informal work to make ends meet.

• Older children in the family may have contributed income from jobs.

3. Extremely frugal living:

• Families likely had to be very careful with expenses, living in cheap housing and minimizing costs wherever possible.

4. Regional differences:

• The notes mention benefits varied widely by state/region. Families in areas with more generous benefits may have fared somewhat better.

5. Racial disparities:

• The readings indicate black families often received even lower benefits or were excluded entirely, especially in the South. These families likely faced even greater hardship.

6. Inconsistent coverage:

• Not all eligible families received pensions, and benefits could be cut off. Many poor single mothers may not have had this support at all.

2. Overall, the low benefit levels suggest most recipient families still faced significant poverty and hardship, even with the pensions. The program provided some assistance but was far from sufficient to fully support these families in most cases.

Key terms/concepts: scientific charity; "friendly visitor"; eugenics.

Scientific charity:

• Emerged in late 19th century

• Aimed to apply "scientific" principles to charity work and poverty relief

• Focused on systematically managing aid to the poor

• Tried to apply behavioral science to understand causes of poverty

• Aimed to share knowledge between charities to develop best practices

• Went beyond just giving money - focused on modifying behavior, education, etc.

Friendly visitors:

• Part of scientific charity movement

• Middle/upper class volunteers who would visit poor families

• Aimed to provide moral guidance and education, not just material aid

• Often made judgments about the "fitness" and morality of recipients

• Conducted home visits to monitor behavior and living conditions

Eugenics:

• Pseudoscientific belief in improving human population through selective breeding

• Argued some groups (e.g. Southern/Eastern European immigrants) were genetically inferior and predisposed to pauperism, criminality, etc.

• Used to justify immigration restrictions and forced sterilization laws

• Claimed newer immigrant groups were overrepresented in institutions for the poor, insane, etc.

• Social workers and reformers challenged eugenic claims with data showing immigrants were not disproportionately dependent on relief

1. The notes indicate these concepts shaped early 20th century approaches to poverty relief and views on immigration, though social workers increasingly challenged eugenic ideas over time.

Fox (ch. 3) argues that before the New Deal, the United States had three distinct systems of poor relief: one based in the Northeast and Midwest; one in the South; and one in the Southwest and West. For each region, be able to name the key racial or ethnic group; how much help they received compared to poor, native-born Whites; and how much communities in each region relied on public vs. private forms of relief.

Northeast and Midwest:

• Key group: Southern and Eastern European immigrants

• Help received: More generous relief than native-born whites

• Public vs private: Relied more heavily on public relief (local governments, outdoor relief)

South:

• Key group: Black Americans

• Help received: Much less aid than whites

• Public vs private: Relied primarily on private relief (family/friends, churches)

Southwest and West:

• Key group: Mexicans

• Help received: Less aid than whites, but more than blacks in the South

• Public vs private: Mix of public and private, but slightly more reliance on public relief compared to the South

1. In general, the Northeast/Midwest had the highest benefit levels and most public relief, the South had the lowest benefits and most private relief, and the Southwest/West fell in between on both measures

Why were agricultural interests in the South more opposed to poor relief than similar interests in the West and Southwest?

1. In the South:

• Agricultural elites (landowners) opposed New Deal relief programs because the aid provided was often higher than the wages they were paying workers, especially Black workers.

• They wanted to keep workers, particularly Black sharecroppers, in a dependent position with few alternatives.

• There was concern that relief programs would disrupt the existing labor system and social order.

2. In the West/Southwest:

• Agricultural interests were initially more accepting of occasional relief for workers when there was no growing/picking to be done.

• This helped keep their seasonal labor force alive and available for when they were needed again.

• The work was more migratory/seasonal in nature, rather than year-round like sharecropping in the South.

3. However, Western growers did become more opposed to relief over time:

• As relief benefits increased, they began to exceed what workers could make doing agricultural labor.

• This created incentives for workers not to return to the fields, disrupting the labor supply.

1. So in summary, the Southern agricultural system relied more heavily on keeping workers in a state of dependency year-round, while Western/Southwestern growers initially saw some benefits to relief in maintaining a seasonal workforce, before becoming more opposed as benefit levels increased. The different labor systems and racial dynamics in each region shaped their views on poor relief programs.

1) Historically, racial discrimination and racism in the U.S. have been closely associated with the South. Based on the evidence from Fox and from Gitterman, to what extent did this pattern hold true during the New Deal? Explain briefly, and give specific examples.

1. In the South:

• Fox notes that Southern agricultural elites strongly opposed New Deal relief programs because the aid provided was often higher than the wages they were paying workers, especially Black workers. They wanted to keep workers, particularly Black sharecroppers, in a dependent position with few alternatives.

• Gitterman indicates that Southern states gave less aid to Black people through programs like Old Age Assistance, either denying eligibility or providing lower benefit amounts.

2. However, discrimination was also present elsewhere:

• Fox discusses how social workers and relief administrators in the Southwest and West also held discriminatory views toward Mexican Americans, seeing them as unassimilable and more prone to welfare dependency.

• Even in Northern states, Fox notes that white social workers often ignored the needs and concerns of Black Americans prior to the Great Depression.

• Gitterman mentions that while Blacks benefited fairly equally with whites from Old Age Assistance outside the South, there were still issues of discrimination and segregation in relief programs nationally.

3. National-level policies:

• Fox points out that at the national level, the Roosevelt administration was often willing to turn a blind eye to racial discrimination in how relief programs were implemented locally, prioritizing getting aid distributed quickly over fighting entrenched racial inequalities.

• Many New Deal programs, like the Civilian Conservation Corps, were segregated nationwide or had very low participation rates for Black Americans.

1. So while the South was certainly a center of racial discrimination, the evidence suggests discriminatory practices and attitudes in welfare programs were present to varying degrees across different regions of the country during the New Deal era. The national government often did not actively combat this discrimination.

What do these acronyms stand for? (CCC; CWA; FERA; FLSA; PWA)

CCC - Civilian Conservation Corps

• Focus on single, unemployed young men, ages 18-25

• Participants lived in wilderness camps and worked on projects like planting trees, clearing trails, building fire towers, bridges, and campgrounds

CWA - Civil Works Administration

• Provided temporary jobs for less skilled unemployed workers

• Built and improved roads, schools, playgrounds

FERA - Federal Emergency Relief Act

• Provided federal funding for cash assistance to states

• Half went directly to states, half at the discretion of Harry Hopkins (head of FERA)

FLSA - Fair Labor Standards Act

• Established national minimum wage, maximum hours, and limits on child labor

• Passed in 1938 after earlier attempts were struck down by Supreme Court

PWA - Public Works Administration

• Aimed to boost employment generally through large public works projects

• Built things like airports, dams, tunnels, schools, hospitals, city halls

• Also constructed military equipment like aircraft carriers and planes

1. These were all New Deal programs and policies aimed at providing relief, recovery and reform during the Great Depression era.

How did many Whites react when Blacks and Mexicans started getting help from the Roosevelt administration? How did they justify treating Blacks and Mexicans differently? 

1. In the South:

• White agricultural elites strongly opposed New Deal relief programs because the aid provided was often higher than the wages they were paying workers, especially Black workers.

• They wanted to keep Black sharecroppers in a dependent position with few alternatives.

• There was concern that relief programs would disrupt the existing labor system and social order.

2. In the West/Southwest:

• Agricultural interests were initially more accepting of occasional relief for workers when there was no growing/picking to be done.

• However, as relief benefits increased, they began to exceed what workers could make doing agricultural labor.

• This created incentives for workers not to return to the fields, disrupting the labor supply.

3. Justifications for differential treatment:

• Some argued that minorities had "lower standards of living" so they didn't need as much welfare.

• There was a perception that Blacks and Mexicans were more prone to dependency and laziness.

• Local authorities often discriminated in how they distributed federal aid, passing over minority applicants.

• Some argued aid should prioritize white workers to avoid sparking civil rights activism and white backlash.

4. At the national level:

• The Roosevelt administration was often willing to turn a blind eye to local racial discrimination in how relief programs were implemented, prioritizing getting aid distributed quickly over fighting entrenched racial inequalities.

So in essence, many Whites reacted with opposition and sought to justify differential treatment based on racist stereotypes, economic interests, and a desire to maintain existing social/labor systems. The national government often did not actively combat this discrimination.

Name one example from chapter 8 in Fox where racial discrimination was explicit and intentional, and one where it was more subtle or indirect.

1. Explicit and intentional discrimination:
   In the South, black families were often explicitly denied access to welfare programs or given much lower benefits compared to white families. For example, some Southern states set very low income thresholds for Aid to Dependent Children eligibility, knowing this would exclude many poor black families.

More subtle or indirect discrimination:
In Northern states, while there were not explicit racial restrictions on welfare programs, social workers and administrators often applied different standards when evaluating black versus white applicants. For instance, they might scrutinize black families' home environments more closely or be quicker to deem black mothers as "unfit" compared to white mothers applying for aid. This resulted in lower approval rates for black families even without formal racial policies

Were European immigrants treated just like native-born Whites during the First New Deal? Explain briefly.

1. According to Fox, cities with larger shares of European immigrants tended to spend more per person on poor relief compared to cities with larger shares of native-born Whites.

2. European immigrants, especially more recent arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe, were often viewed sympathetically by social workers and reformers. There was a belief that they could assimilate and eventually rise out of poverty.

3. Even though many European immigrants were not yet citizens, they were generally eligible for New Deal relief and work programs. Citizenship was not a barrier to receiving aid.

4. In some cases, European immigrants were given preference over native-born Whites for certain New Deal jobs and relief programs, especially at the local level. This was sometimes done to help them establish themselves.

5. However, European immigrants still faced some discrimination and were not always treated equally to native-born Whites. There were still concerns about their "dependency" and ability to assimilate among some policymakers.

So while European immigrants received more favorable treatment than other minority groups like African Americans or Mexican Americans, they did not have exactly equal status to native-born Whites in all aspects of New Deal programs. Their treatment fell somewhere in between

We read chapters 3 and 5 of Fox's book where she described poor relief in the 1910s and 1920s. Name one important continuity and one important change as her story moves into the 1930s.

Continuity:

• Regional differences in poor relief persisted into the 1930s. The Northeast and Midwest continued to provide more generous public assistance, especially to European immigrants, compared to the South and Southwest. The South in particular remained reluctant to provide substantial public aid, especially to Black Americans.

Change:

• In the 1930s, the federal government became much more involved in providing poor relief through New Deal programs. This was a major shift from the 1910s-1920s when poor relief was primarily handled by state and local governments and private charities. Programs like the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) represented unprecedented federal involvement in providing aid and employment to the poor nationwide

(Gitterman) Why did FDR have to scale back his plans for a national minimum wage? How did those changes affect racial minorities?

1. FDR initially wanted to give the president power to set a national minimum wage and maximum hours through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933.

2. However, the Supreme Court invalidated NIRA in 1934, forcing FDR to scale back his plans.

3. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was eventually passed in 1938, establishing a national minimum wage, maximum hours, and limits on child labor. But it had some key differences from FDR's original vision:

4. Congress, not the president, would have to approve any future changes to the minimum wage.

5. The FLSA included many exemptions, particularly for agricultural workers and domestic workers. These exemptions disproportionately affected racial minorities, especially in the South, as they were more likely to work in those exempt sectors.

6. The exemptions were likely included as a compromise to gain support from Southern Democrats, who wanted to maintain lower wages for black workers.

7. So in summary, the scaled back version of the minimum wage law that was eventually passed excluded many minority workers, particularly in the South, from minimum wage protections. This allowed racial wage disparities to persist in many sectors

The Social Security Act of 1935 is often described as the birth of the American welfare state. Our focus today will be on two programs created by that Act -- Old Age Assistance (OAA) and Aid to Dependent Children (ADC). Both were targeted at people with low incomes. Fyi, when Mettler refers to the CES, she means the Committee on Economic Security, which President FDR created in 1934. The members were mostly experts from government, business, and academia.

Old Age Assistance (OAA):

1. It was designed as a federal grants-in-aid program to states, building on existing state-level old age pension programs.

2. The program had to be implemented statewide, not just in certain localities.

3. States had significant administrative authority, but had to meet some federal standards like providing a minimum for subsistence and health.

4. OAA developed rapidly and was quite popular. Many states liberalized eligibility rules and benefits were relatively generous.

5. Women and men were treated fairly equally in terms of benefit levels.

6. Outside the South, Black Americans benefited fairly equally with whites. In the South, they were underrepresented.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC):

1. It was modeled on existing state-level mothers' pension programs.

2. As a result, it inherited some of the structural discrimination present in those programs.

3. ADC was seen as less important than OAA and received less funding and attention initially.

4. Like mothers' pensions, ADC tended to favor white widows over other types of single mothers.

5. The program reinforced existing patterns of racial discrimination, especially in the South.

6. ADC was more stigmatized than OAA, being associated with the "undeserving poor."

1. For both programs, there was tension between federal standards and state control, with Southern states especially resistant to federal oversight. The programs also differed in how they were perceived - OAA was more popular and seen as "deserved," while ADC carried more stigma

Name two ways in which Congress modified the OAA program before it became law, and then do the same for ADC. Overall, did these changes narrow, expand, or maintain the initial scope of these two programs

Old Age Assistance (OAA):

1. Congress softened the language around eligibility standards, allowing states more flexibility to interpret and determine eligibility themselves, rather than having strict federal requirements.

2. Congress denied the Social Security Board authority related to selection and compensation of personnel administering OAA at the state level.

These changes generally narrowed the initial scope of OAA by giving states more control and reducing federal oversight.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC):

1. Congress made ADC an optional program for states to implement, rather than mandatory.

2. Congress set the federal matching rate for ADC lower than for OAA (1/3 federal funding instead of 1/2).

These changes also narrowed the initial scope of ADC compared to the original proposal, by making it optional and providing less federal funding support.

Overall, the congressional modifications tended to narrow the scope of both programs compared to their initial designs, primarily by increasing state control and reducing federal requirements and funding. This was especially true for ADC, which received less generous treatment than OAA

To what extent did racial factors shape the original design of OAA and ADC in 1934-35? Be specific.

1. For OAA:

• The program was designed to give states significant administrative authority, building on existing state-level old age pension programs. This allowed Southern states to maintain racial disparities in implementation.

• Outside the South, Black Americans benefited fairly equally with whites in receiving OAA. However, in Southern states, Black Americans were underrepresented in receiving assistance.

• The federal government did not impose strict eligibility or benefit level requirements, allowing states flexibility in implementation. This enabled discriminatory practices to continue, especially in the South.

2. For ADC:

• ADC was modeled on existing mothers' pension programs, which had a history of racial discrimination. It inherited this "structural legacy of discrimination."

• Like OAA, ADC gave states significant control over eligibility and benefit levels. This allowed discriminatory practices to continue, especially in Southern states.

• ADC was designed as an optional program for states, unlike the mandatory nature of OAA. This made it easier for some states to avoid or delay implementation, disproportionately affecting Black families.

• The program focused on "suitable homes" and other moralistic criteria that could be used to discriminate against Black mothers.

1. So while the programs did not have explicit racial provisions, their design as state-administered programs with significant state discretion allowed existing patterns of racial discrimination to continue, especially in the South. The federal government prioritized getting states to adopt the programs over enforcing racial equality in implementation

Relatively speaking, how did women fare during the early years of the OAA program?

1. Women and men were treated fairly equally in terms of OAA benefits.

2. The amount women received in OAA payments was only slightly lower than men on average.

3. Women received a lot of old age assistance through the program.

4. While men were overrepresented in the assistance numbers because they were considered heads of households, women were also benefitting as part of those households.

5. New customs developed like allocating benefits to married couples, which benefited women.

6. Outside of the South, black women (along with black men) benefitted fairly equally compared to whites in receiving OAA.

7. So overall, the OAA program seems to have treated women relatively equitably compared to men in its early years, both in terms of eligibility and benefit levels. This was in contrast to some other social programs of the era that favored men. The OAA's focus on need rather than work history likely contributed to this more equal treatment of women.

Relatively speaking, how were Black women and children treated during the first years of the ADC program? (Note: skim Ward's discussion of ADC in the 1950s and 1960s.)

1. ADC inherited the "structural legacy of discrimination" from the earlier mothers' pension programs it was modeled after.

2. The program reinforced existing racial disparities and discrimination, particularly in the South.

3. Black women and children were generally treated less favorably than white recipients:

1. Southern states often gave lower benefit amounts to Black families compared to white families.

2. Some states used eligibility criteria like "suitable home" requirements to deny benefits to Black mothers.

3. Black families were more likely to be deemed ineligible or have their benefits cut off.

4. In many Southern states, Black women were significantly underrepresented among ADC recipients compared to their share of the population.

5. There was less scrutiny of white recipients' home lives and behavior compared to Black recipients.

6. Some states tied ADC benefits to agricultural work seasons, effectively cutting off aid to Black families during harvest times.

1. So while ADC provided some assistance to Black women and children, they faced more barriers to accessing benefits and generally received less generous treatment compared to white recipients, especially in Southern states. The program largely maintained rather than challenged existing racial inequalities in its early years

Name two important similarities and one important difference between mothers' pensions (1910s and 1920s) and ADC (late 1930s-1940s).

1. Both programs favored white widows over other types of single mothers. Divorced, deserted, and unmarried mothers were less likely to be eligible or receive benefits under both mothers' pensions and ADC.

2. Both programs involved judgments about the "fitness" and morality of mothers applying for aid. There were often requirements around having a "suitable home" and demonstrating good character to qualify for assistance.

Key Difference:

1. ADC was a federal program that provided matching funds to states, while mothers' pensions were entirely state and local programs. This meant ADC had more uniform standards across states, though states still had significant discretion in implementation. Mothers' pensions varied much more from state to state and even county to county in terms of eligibility and benefit levels

Public works projects during the Great Depression were a crucial source of employment for millions of Americans. How did these projects make residential segregation worse? Cite specific examples.

1. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and other New Deal agencies built segregated housing for workers:

• They constructed nice homes for white workers and separate, lower-quality barracks or shacks for Black workers.

• This was justified as reflecting and respecting "local norms" for racial housing patterns.

2. Even in areas that were not previously very segregated, these projects imposed segregation:

• For example, the TVA went into parts of the country that weren't initially highly segregated, but implemented segregated housing policies anyway.

3. Public housing projects were often built in a segregated manner:

• Housing projects for white residents and Black residents were constructed separately.

• This was done in cities across the country, not just in the South. Examples included San Francisco, Boston, and Detroit.

4. The location of public housing projects reinforced existing patterns of segregation:

• Projects for Black residents were often built in already predominantly Black neighborhoods.

• This concentrated poverty in certain areas and further entrenched racial segregation.

1. So in summary, rather than using these massive public works and housing projects as an opportunity to promote integration, the federal government largely chose to follow and reinforce existing patterns of racial segregation in how the projects were designed and implemented. This had long-lasting effects on residential segregation patterns in many American cities.

To what extent was racial segregation in public housing a Southern problem or a national problem? Cite specific examples.

1. Segregation in public housing projects occurred in cities across the country, not just in the South. Specific examples mentioned include San Francisco, Boston, and Detroit.

2. Even in areas that were not previously highly segregated, New Deal agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) imposed segregated housing policies when building worker housing. The TVA went into parts of the country that weren't initially very segregated, but implemented segregated housing anyway.

3. Public housing projects for white residents and Black residents were often constructed separately in cities nationwide.

4. The location of public housing projects tended to reinforce existing patterns of segregation, with projects for Black residents often built in already predominantly Black neighborhoods.

5. The readings note that rather than using massive public works and housing projects as an opportunity to promote integration, the federal government largely chose to follow and reinforce existing patterns of racial segregation in how the projects were designed and implemented across the country.

6. So while the South certainly had extensive housing segregation, the evidence indicates this was a nationwide issue in public housing policy and implementation, not limited to one region. The federal government's policies and practices enabled and perpetuated segregation in public housing across different parts of the United States

With respect to race and public housing, how much did it matter if the officials in charge were Democrats or Republicans?

1. The notes state that "Both parties had programs that were at least tolerating if not embracing discrimination" in public housing.

2. Racial segregation in public housing was described as a national problem, not limited to one party or region. Examples of segregated public housing were given for cities across the country, including in both Democratic and Republican-controlled areas.

3. The federal government under both Democratic and Republican administrations implemented policies that reinforced or worsened residential segregation through public housing programs.

4. For example, agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority imposed segregated housing policies even in areas that weren't previously highly segregated, regardless of which party was in power.

5. So in summary, the notes suggest that racial discrimination and segregation in public housing was pervasive across party lines, with both Democrats and Republicans implementing or tolerating such policies at various levels of government. The party affiliation of officials does not seem to have made a significant difference in this regard

Why should we care if housing policies fostered residential segregation 50-75 years ago?

1. Ongoing impacts: The residential segregation patterns established decades ago continue to shape neighborhoods and opportunities today. Many communities remain highly segregated along racial lines.

2. Intergenerational effects: Segregation has led to disparities in wealth accumulation, education quality, job opportunities, and other factors that are passed down through generations. This perpetuates racial inequality.

3. Public health consequences: Segregated neighborhoods often have less access to quality healthcare, healthy food options, green spaces, etc. This contributes to health disparities.

4. Concentrated poverty: Segregation has concentrated poverty in certain areas, making it harder for residents to access economic opportunities and move up the socioeconomic ladder.

5. School segregation: Residential segregation leads to de facto school segregation, perpetuating educational inequalities.

6. Social cohesion: Segregation reduces interactions between racial groups, potentially increasing misunderstanding and racial tensions.

7. Policy implications: Understanding the roots of segregation can inform more effective policies to address its ongoing effects and promote integration.

8. Moral/ethical considerations: Acknowledging this history is important for reckoning with past injustices and working towards a more equitable society.

9. In essence, the segregation fostered by past housing policies continues to shape opportunity structures and social outcomes today. Understanding this history is crucial for addressing current racial inequalities and disparities across many domains of American life

chapter 4 from Rothstein's book. The main idea is that government policies favored Whites over Blacks when it came to buying a home in the middle of the 20th century. Thus, race mattered not only for low-income renters (ch. 2), but also for working-class and middle-class homeowners (ch. 4).

1. Racial discrimination affected not just low-income renters, but also working-class and middle-class homeowners.

2. Government policies made it easier for white families to purchase homes, while creating barriers for Black families.

3. This had long-lasting effects on wealth accumulation and housing segregation, as homeownership is a key way for families to build wealth over time.

4. The discrimination in homeownership policies compounded the racial segregation already occurring in rental housing and public housing (discussed in chapter 2).

5. By limiting Black families' ability to buy homes in certain areas, these policies reinforced and expanded patterns of residential segregation.

6. This shows how racial discrimination in housing policy operated at multiple levels - affecting both renters and potential homeowners across different income levels.

7. The chapter likely provides specific examples of discriminatory policies and their impacts, but I don't have those details from the summary provided. The overall argument seems to be that government housing policies played a major role in creating and maintaining racial inequalities in homeownership and wealth

In the early 1960s, the United States did not have official statistics re- poverty or hunger. According to Michael Harrington, how many Americans were poor? What kinds of people were likely to be poor?

1. In his book The Other America (1962), Harrington estimated that 40-50 million Americans were poor.

2. To arrive at this estimate, Harrington:

   1. Used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate a modest but adequate annual income for different types of households in the late 1950s

   2. Adjusted this for different household types

   3. Divided the number in half to create a poverty threshold

   4. For example, he used $3000-3500 as the poverty line for an urban family of four

3. This was a measure of relative poverty rather than absolute poverty.

4. The lecture notes don't provide specific details on what kinds of people Harrington identified as likely to be poor. However, given the time period, it's likely he focused on groups like:

   1. The elderly

   2. Racial minorities, especially African Americans

   3. Rural families, particularly in areas like Appalachia

   4. Single-parent families headed by women

   5. The long-term unemployed

5. So in summary, Harrington estimated a much larger poverty population (40-50 million) than was officially recognized at the time, using a relative measure of poverty based on typical household incomes. This helped draw attention to the issue of "hidden poverty" in America

Why were many of the poor invisible? What was new or different about poverty compared to earlier eras?

1. Before the 1960s, there were no official government statistics on poverty or hunger in the United States. This made it harder to quantify and draw attention to the issue.

2. In his book The Other America (1962), Michael Harrington estimated there were 40-50 million poor Americans, which was a much larger number than was officially recognized at the time. This helped draw attention to "hidden poverty."

3. The 1960s saw rapid economic growth and rising living standards for many Americans. This prosperity made poverty seem more stark and unacceptable by comparison.

4. There was a growing sense that many Americans were being left behind despite overall economic growth. This "poverty amid plenty" was seen as a new phenomenon.

5. The civil rights movement began focusing more on economic inequality in the mid-1960s, bringing more attention to poverty among African Americans in particular.

6. Migration of African Americans to Northern cities made urban poverty more visible.

7. Media coverage of poverty increased dramatically in the mid-1960s, especially portrayals of black poverty. This made poverty more visible to the general public.

8. New ways of measuring and defining poverty were developed in the 1960s (like Harrington's work and the official poverty line), allowing for better quantification of the issue.

9. So in essence, a combination of new data/measurements, changing economic conditions, social movements, and increased media attention made poverty newly visible in ways it hadn't been before, even though poverty itself was not new. The "newness" was more about perception and measurement than the reality of poverty itself

Arguments about a "culture of poverty" are usually associated with conservatives. In their view, poverty occurs because some people don't respect mainstream values and therefore make bad choices re- school, work, marriage, and having children. How did Harrington, who was very left-wing politically, use this phrase?

1. as very left-wing politically, use this phrase?

   1. Harrington was very left-wing politically, unlike conservatives who usually use this phrase.

   2. While conservatives tend to blame individual choices and values for poverty, Harrington saw the "culture of poverty" as more of a structural/systemic issue.

   3. For Harrington, the "culture of poverty" referred to how poverty could become self-perpetuating due to the environment and limited opportunities people in poverty face.

   4. He argued that living in poverty creates a distinct subculture with its own way of life, rather than blaming individual moral failings.

   5. Harrington saw this "culture" as a result of economic and social conditions, not as the cause of poverty itself.

   6. His goal in using this phrase was to draw attention to the persistent nature of poverty and argue for more government intervention to break the cycle, rather than to blame the poor for their situation.

   7. So while Harrington used similar language to conservatives, his underlying analysis and policy conclusions were quite different - he saw structural change and government action as necessary to address poverty, rather than focusing on changing individual behavior

Although the war on poverty is closely linked to Lyndon Johnson, some planning was underway during the Kennedy administration (see the Brauer article). What kinds of initiatives were favored by Kennedy's advisors? What sorts of policies were seen as political non-starters

1. Kennedy's advisors initially focused on:

• Structural factors in the labor force, particularly human capital issues

• They believed poverty was caused mostly by lack of education, job training, and poor health among the poor

2. Some small changes implemented in 1961-1962 included:

• Area Redevelopment Act

• Pilot program for Food Stamps

• Expansion of minimum wage coverage and rate

• Manpower Development and Training Act

• Public Welfare Amendments (more funding for work/training programs, child care, counseling)

3. Kennedy's approach emphasized:

• Helping the "dependent people" return to independence

• Using tax cuts as the main tool to boost the economy and help the unemployed

4. Policies seen as political non-starters:

• The notes don't explicitly state which policies were seen as non-starters, but they imply that large-scale federal anti-poverty programs or major expansions of the welfare state were not seriously considered early in Kennedy's term.

5. Shift in focus:

• In early 1963, Kennedy directed advisors to develop more comprehensive plans to attack poverty

• He also began focusing more on civil rights issues

1. So in summary, Kennedy's initial approach was more limited and focused on human capital/job training, with some small expansions of existing programs. More ambitious anti-poverty planning only began late in his administration.

Why did Johnson seize on poverty as an issue shortly after he became President?

1. Johnson wanted to claim the poverty issue as his own and distinguish himself from Kennedy. The Kennedy administration had started some anti-poverty planning, but Johnson gave it even more attention and prominence.

2. Johnson thought fighting poverty would be a politically winning issue.

3. Johnson grew up in Texas and, while not poor himself, grew up around poverty. This gave him a personal connection to the issue.

4. While Kennedy had focused more on public works programs or direct cash assistance, Johnson wanted to embrace a broader range of services and programs to address poverty.

5. It allowed Johnson to put his own stamp on domestic policy quickly after unexpectedly becoming president following Kennedy's assassination.

6. So in essence, Johnson saw poverty as both a genuine policy priority and a politically advantageous issue to champion early in his presidency. It aligned with his personal background, political instincts, and desire to emulate FDR's domestic achievements

Please read, closely and carefully, President Johnson's famous 1964 speech where he declared unconditional war on poverty. Be able to name three or four specific policy changes that Johnson wanted Congress to pass in order to fight poverty.

1. Extending minimum wage laws to cover more workers who were previously unprotected.

2. Providing tax cuts to create more jobs and increase take-home pay.

3. Establishing a youth employment program to provide work and training for young people.

4. Increasing funding for education, including more money for schools in poorer areas and expanding adult education programs.

5. Providing more funding to build community facilities like libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes.

6. Johnson emphasized that these measures, along with others, were needed as part of a comprehensive approach to attack poverty "on many fronts." He called for Congress to work quickly to pass legislation implementing these policy changes as part of the broader War on Poverty effort

How did LBJ connect race and poverty (if at all)?

In general, which parts of the entire speech might have appealed to liberals, and which parts to conservatives?

1. LBJ argued that a colorblind war on poverty was not enough - the government needed to do more specifically to reduce black poverty.

2. He highlighted a few key issues contributing to black poverty:

• Chronic unemployment among blacks

• The ongoing effects of past and present white racism

• Disintegration of black families (e.g. out-of-wedlock births, single-mother families)

3. LBJ framed addressing racial inequalities as necessary for achieving true equal opportunity.

As for which parts may have appealed to different groups:

Liberals likely appreciated:

• Acknowledging racism as a factor in poverty

• Calling for more government action to address poverty and racial inequalities

• Emphasis on education funding and job training programs

Conservatives may have liked:

• Focus on promoting self-reliance and independence rather than "handouts"

• Emphasis on job creation and economic growth to reduce poverty

• Tax cuts as part of the anti-poverty strategy

1. So LBJ tried to frame the issue in a way that could appeal to both liberals and conservatives, while still highlighting the specific challenges facing black Americans. The speech aimed to build broad support for anti-poverty efforts

Key questions for Food Stamps (est. 1964):

1) What were some of the main obstacles to creating Food Stamps? How were these obstacles overcome?

2) How did the Civil Rights Movement shape the early years of the Food Stamps program?

1. Main obstacles and how they were overcome:

• There was opposition from the Department of Agriculture in the 1950s to implementing a food stamp-like program.

• To overcome agricultural/producer interests' opposition, they came up with different colored stamps to ensure people would spend as much or more on food as before.

• The program was initially made optional for states, rather than mandatory, to reduce opposition.

• Some states chose not to implement food stamps, opting for surplus commodity programs instead.

2. How the Civil Rights Movement shaped the early years:

• Initially, race was not a major part of the program's history or design in the early 1960s.

• After the program was created, the civil rights movement became interested in it as part of a focus on economic rights.

• Southern conservatives began equating food stamps with the civil rights movement, thinking Johnson was trying to buy votes.

• Food became a weapon in the South, with stamps and aid being withheld from civil rights activists and workers.

• There was greater investigation into hunger and poverty, partly spurred by civil rights activists and a new hunger lobby. This included home tours showing poverty that affected politicians like Robert F. Kennedy.

1. So while race and civil rights were not central to the initial creation of food stamps, the program quickly became intertwined with racial politics and the civil rights movement shortly after its establishment in 1964.

Key questions for Medicaid (est. 1965):

1) To what extent did the national government help finance medical care for the poor before Medicaid? Why wasn't that enough?

2) How was Medicaid originally structured? Think about eligibility, benefits, financing.

1. National government involvement in medical care for the poor before Medicaid:

• In 1950, the federal government first authorized medical payments for recipients of welfare programs.

• The Kerr-Mills Act of 1960 set up a matching program for states to provide medical assistance to the "medically indigent" elderly who were not on welfare but couldn't afford medical care.

• However, this was seen as insufficient because:

  • Only some states implemented Kerr-Mills programs

  • It only covered the elderly, not other low-income groups

  • There was growing need for health insurance as the elderly population grew and healthcare costs rose

  • Assistance was needed for other groups like the blind, disabled, and families with children on aid

2. Original structure of Medicaid in 1965:

Eligibility:

• States could choose to participate, but had to cover all public assistance categories if they did: blind, families with dependent children, disabled

• States could choose to also cover the "medically needy" above welfare income levels

Benefits:

• Required services: inpatient/outpatient hospital care, lab/x-ray, skilled nursing for those over 21, physician services

• Optional services: prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc.

Financing:

• Federal matching funds with no cap, based on state per capita income

• Open-ended entitlement structure

• States had to demonstrate efforts to broaden services and eligibility to receive federal funds

1. So in summary, Medicaid expanded on previous programs by covering more groups, providing more comprehensive benefits, and giving states flexibility but also incentives to expand coverage. The open-ended federal funding was a key feature of its structure.

* Given that people like Linda Taylor do exist, why is it problematic to talk about welfare queens?

* Is it fair to blame Ronald Reagan for the growing use of this phrase if he seldom said it?

* Does it matter that one of the first national publications to use the phrase "welfare queen" was Jet, a black-owned and run magazine?

1. It exacerbates tensions and unfairly applies the term to a large number of people, rather than just the few who may actually be abusing the system.

2. It turns 'welfare queen' into a caricature that is applied to all welfare recipients, rather than recognizing it as an extreme outlier case.

3. It promotes fearmongering about tax dollars being ripped off and people getting by without working.

4. It vilifies people on welfare and makes them feel bad about their situation, even if they are legitimately in need of assistance.

Regarding Ronald Reagan's role:

• While Reagan very rarely said 'welfare queen' explicitly, he constantly referenced the concept or alluded to "that woman from Chicago"

• This was seen as an implicit way to associate welfare primarily with minorities, without saying it outright

• It allowed Reagan to frame the story in a way that absolved listeners from accusations of racism, while still promoting negative stereotypes

On the Jet magazine point:

• The fact that a black-owned publication used the term early on doesn't necessarily make its wider use less problematic.

• Some argue that marginalized groups sometimes embrace or reclaim derogatory terms as a form of empowerment. However, when used more broadly, especially by those in power, such terms can still promote harmful stereotypes.

• The wider context and impact of how the term was used matters more than who used it first.

1. So in summary, while individual cases of welfare fraud may exist, promoting the "welfare queen" stereotype broadly is seen as harmful because it unfairly characterizes a whole group of people in need of assistance. The origins or specific uses of the term don't negate its overall negative impact when used to shape public perception and policy

Chapter by Charles Murray: What is the story of Harold and Phyllis supposed to teach us about programs for the poor? To what extent did race factor into his analysis? Do you think Murray is promoting stereotypes of the poor similar to the "welfare queen"?

1. Murray argues that welfare programs create perverse incentives that discourage work and marriage among low-income people.

2. In 1960, Harold and Phyllis had incentives to get married and for Harold to take a low-paying job. Welfare benefits were not very generous at that time.

3. By 1970, welfare benefits had become more generous. Murray claims this incentivized Harold and Phyllis to not get married, for Phyllis to collect welfare, and for Harold to only work sporadically to supplement their income.

4. Murray argues these incentives apply regardless of race - he says it doesn't matter if Harold is black or white, the same economic principles would apply.

5. However, the notes suggest that if you factor in racial discrimination, the incentives to not marry and rely more on welfare would be even stronger for black couples in 1970.

Regarding race and stereotypes:

• Murray claims his analysis is race-neutral and based purely on economic incentives.

• However, by focusing on out-of-wedlock births, single motherhood, and welfare dependency, Murray is promoting stereotypes similar to the "welfare queen" idea, even if he doesn't explicitly mention race.

• The notes suggest Murray's framing implicitly reinforces racial stereotypes about welfare recipients, even as he claims race doesn't factor into his economic analysis.

1. So while Murray presents his story as a race-neutral economic argument, it relies on and reinforces many of the same stereotypes as the "welfare queen" narrative, just in a more subtle way. The economic framing allows Murray to promote these ideas without explicitly mentioning race

Article by Mead: What's so "new" about poverty? How does Mead think that government policies need to change in order to deal with this new poverty?

What's "new" about poverty according to Mead:

• Instead of systemic issues, poverty is now about people not wanting to work

• It's about passivity and lack of motivation among the poor

• There's a lack of competence among the poor to manage their own lives

• The poor are violating social norms, not willing to work, more prone to crime and drug use, and having children out of wedlock

How government policies need to change:

• We can't just cut off all aid like Murray suggests, as the poor have developed too many bad habits over time

• Government help is still needed, but it should be contingent on certain behaviors we want to promote

• Mead advocates for "help with hassle" - providing assistance but with strings attached

• There should be work requirements, limits on having more children, requirements to get a GED, etc.

• The focus should shift from free cash to requiring effort from recipients

• The national government is better suited to implement these policies with attached conditions

• Overall, Mead wants to maintain government assistance but make it much more paternalistic and focused on changing the behavior of the poor

1. In summary, Mead sees poverty as now being caused by the behavior and culture of the poor themselves, rather than external factors. His policy prescriptions focus on using government aid as leverage to try to change those behaviors

Article by Kaus: What are the defining features of the underclass and their culture of poverty? What does Kaus think government should and should not do to address this problem?

Defining features of the underclass and culture of poverty:

• Largely black culture

• A minority of those on welfare; those permanently on welfare

• Similar to Mead's view that some people aren't playing by the usual rules and are substantially dependent on welfare for years

What Kaus thinks government should do:

• Embrace New Deal-style jobs programs

• Actually provide people with jobs, not just training

• Require people to take these government-provided jobs rather than giving welfare

• Jobs should pay slightly less than minimum wage to provide incentive to find better work

• Provide free daycare to support work

What Kaus thinks government should not do:

• Does not like states' "workfare" experiments

• Criticizes voluntary programs like Massachusetts Employment Training as too "soft"

• Argues these programs only help a small fraction of welfare recipients

• Opposes training programs, favoring actual job provision instead

1. Overall, Kaus emphasizes work over welfare and wants the government to directly create and require jobs for welfare recipients, rather than relying on training or voluntary programs. He sees this as necessary to address the culture of long-term welfare dependency among the underclass

For all three readings (Murray, Mead, Kaus): What do you see as the strongest and weakest parts of this argument?

Murray:

Strengths:

• Uses specific examples and data to illustrate how welfare policies may create perverse incentives that discourage work and marriage among low-income people

• Attempts to analyze welfare policies from an economic perspective, looking at how they shape people's decision-making

Weaknesses:

• Oversimplifies complex social issues by reducing them primarily to economic incentives

• Ignores structural factors like discrimination that may limit opportunities for minorities

• Assumes people always act as rational economic actors, which may not reflect reality

Mead:

Strengths:

• Recognizes that simply cutting off aid (as Murray suggests) may not be effective given entrenched poverty

• Argues for a more nuanced approach that maintains government assistance but with behavioral requirements attached

Weaknesses:

• Takes a paternalistic view that poor people lack competence to manage their own lives

• Focuses heavily on changing individual behavior rather than addressing systemic issues

• May reinforce negative stereotypes about the poor

Kaus:

Strengths:

• Proposes a concrete alternative policy (government job programs) rather than just criticizing existing welfare

• Recognizes need for childcare support to enable work

Weaknesses:

• Oversimplifies the "underclass" and culture of poverty

• Dismisses training/education programs too quickly

• Mandatory work program could be seen as coercive

Overall, while each author raises some valid critiques of welfare policies, they tend to focus heavily on individual behavior/incentives while downplaying structural factors and may reinforce negative stereotypes about the poor. Their proposed solutions are also quite controversial.

(Note: when Beland and Waddan refer to the FSA, they mean the Family Support Act of 1988; the FAP refers to the Family Assistance Plan that was debated in Congress @1969-72, but ultimately rejected.)

key terms: AFDC waiver; Contract with America; block grant; PRWORA; TANF; family cap

1. AFDC waiver: Allowed states to experiment with changes to AFDC rules, like work requirements or time limits, with federal approval. Became common in early 1990s.

2. Contract with America: 1994 Republican campaign platform that included welfare reform proposals like time limits and work requirements.

3. Block grant: Fixed amount of federal funding given to states, replacing the previous open-ended entitlement structure of AFDC. Key feature of 1996 welfare reform.

4. PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Major welfare reform law that replaced AFDC with TANF.

5. TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The new welfare program created by PRWORA to replace AFDC. Included work requirements and time limits.

6. Family cap: Policy that denied additional benefits to families who had additional children while receiving welfare. Allowed as a state option under TANF.

7. The Family Support Act of 1988 (FSA) was an earlier, more modest welfare reform law that expanded work requirements. The Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was Nixon's failed welfare reform proposal from the early 1970s that would have provided a guaranteed minimum income

In general, how did welfare reform fit with Bill Clinton's desire to re-invent the Democratic party?

1. Clinton had campaigned on a promise to "end welfare as we know it" in 1992. Pursuing welfare reform allowed him to follow through on this pledge.

2. It positioned Clinton and the Democrats as being tougher on welfare and more focused on promoting work, which was seen as more politically popular than traditional Democratic stances on welfare.

3. It was part of Clinton's broader "Third Way" approach of moving the Democratic party toward more centrist positions on certain issues.

4. Welfare reform aligned with Clinton's emphasis on "personal responsibility" and moving people from "welfare to work."

5. It allowed Clinton to co-opt what had traditionally been a Republican issue, potentially neutralizing it as a line of attack against Democrats.

6. The reform maintained some assistance for the poor while imposing new requirements, which fit Clinton's desire to balance traditional Democratic priorities with more conservative approaches.

7. So in essence, welfare reform was a key part of Clinton's strategy to reposition the Democratic party as more centrist and shed its image of being too soft on welfare recipients. It was meant to appeal to moderate voters while still maintaining some assistance programs

By the early 1990s, Democratic and Republican officials wanted to move more welfare recipients into the labor force, but they disagreed over the best method. Which approach did each side favor?

Democrats favored:

• More emphasis on job training and education programs for welfare recipients

• Providing support services like child care and transportation assistance to help people transition to work

• Maintaining the basic entitlement structure of welfare

Republicans favored:

• Stricter work requirements with time limits on benefits

• Giving states more flexibility to design their own welfare programs

• Changing welfare from an open-ended entitlement to a block grant program

1. The key difference was that Democrats wanted to focus more on training and support to help people become employable, while Republicans wanted to push people into the workforce more quickly through stricter requirements and time limits. Democrats wanted to maintain the basic entitlement structure, while Republicans wanted to fundamentally change the program to give states more control and end the entitlement nature of welfare

Pay close attention to the key parts of the final bill passed in 1996 (pp. 61-62). Be able to name at least three ways that the 1996 reforms cut back on programs for the poor.

1. Time limits: It imposed a 2-year limit per spell of welfare receipt and a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving benefits.

2. Block grants: It changed AFDC from an open-ended entitlement to a fixed block grant to states, capping federal funding.

3. Restrictions on legal immigrants: It imposed a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants could access benefits, whereas previously they were treated the same as U.S. citizens

Christine Kim and Robert Rector wrote their article a decade after welfare reform became law. Name two or three signs they point to that welfare reform was a genuine success.

However, these authors believed that welfare reform was unfinished. What problems needed more attention, in their view?

Signs of success:

1. Less welfare dependence - There was a significant reduction in the number of people receiving welfare benefits.

2. Less poverty - Poverty rates, especially among children and single mothers, declined after welfare reform.

3. Increased employment - More single mothers entered the workforce and found jobs after welfare reform.

Problems that still needed attention:

1. Out-of-wedlock births - Welfare reform did little to reduce births to unmarried mothers, which was one of its original goals.

2. Temporary nature of poverty reduction - The overall decline in poverty rates was seen as temporary rather than a long-term trend.

3. Need for more education and marriage promotion - The authors argued that to further reduce poverty, there needed to be more focus on education and encouraging marriage among welfare recipients.

4. Work requirements in other programs - They advocated for expanding work requirements to other means-tested programs beyond just cash welfare.

1. The authors seem to view welfare reform as partially successful in reducing dependence and increasing employment, but felt it fell short in changing family formation patterns and creating sustainable pathways out of poverty. They advocated for further reforms focused on education, marriage, and expanding work requirements.

Gwendoyn Mink argues that the new TANF program threatens poor women by limiting their "vocational liberty" and "family freedom." What, specifically, does she mean? Do you agree that these threats are troubling?

Vocational liberty:

• TANF limits women's ability to choose or pursue jobs/careers

• Women have to take the first available job, regardless of wages, hours, working conditions, etc.

• They don't have the freedom to shop around for better jobs or pursue education/training

Family freedom:

• TANF compromises women's ability to raise children on their own terms

• It pressures women to get married, name the father of their children, etc.

• This limits their choices about family structure and parenting

Mink sees these as troubling threats to poor women's autonomy and rights.

Some potential critiques of Mink's argument:

• The "vocational liberty" limitations apply to many workers, not just poor women on welfare

• There may be valid public policy reasons to encourage work and two-parent families

• The old welfare system also limited choices in some ways

• Providing aid doesn't necessarily mean the government can't attach any conditions

1. Overall, Mink raises important concerns about autonomy and rights, but there are also counterarguments about the role of welfare policy in shaping behavior. Reasonable people could disagree on whether these TANF provisions are overly restrictive or appropriate policy tools

The article by Holland features an interview with Joe Soss, who had just co-authored a book called Disciplining the Poor (2011). Soss argues that the implementation of welfare reform at the state and local levels was deeply racialized. How so?

1. States with higher proportions of African Americans on welfare rolls tended to choose tougher, more punitive rules for their welfare programs. As Soss states: "All of the states with more African-Americans on the welfare roles chose tougher rules."

2. The study found evidence of racial bias among welfare case managers in Florida. Through survey experiments using vignettes, they found case managers were systematically biased against women of color in terms of how they applied sanctions and rules.

3. Soss argues this racialization occurred even though welfare reform policies were ostensibly "colorblind" on paper. The racial disparities emerged in how policies were actually implemented at state and local levels.

4. He suggests these racialized outcomes were not necessarily due to overt racism, but rather emerged from how race shapes perceptions and decision-making in more subtle ways throughout the welfare system.

5. The result was that African American welfare recipients tended to face harsher treatment and more punitive policies compared to white recipients, even when controlling for other factors.

6. So in essence, Soss argues that race significantly shaped how welfare reform was put into practice, leading to disparate impacts and treatment for recipients of different racial backgrounds, despite the policies being race-neutral in theory

The latter part of the 20th century is commonly described as a period of welfare state retrenchment. That was certainly true for AFDC/TANF, but not for every social program. As you read the chapter assigned for today, think about these questions:

1) Advocates for expanding Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) tried hard to distance those programs from "welfare." Name two ways for each program.

2) During the 1980s, Medicaid was gradually "de-coupled" from AFDC, which meant what?

3) Why did the EITC have bipartisan appeal?

1. Ways Medicaid and EITC were distanced from "welfare":

Medicaid:

• It was framed more as a health insurance program rather than cash assistance

• Eligibility was gradually expanded beyond just AFDC recipients to include other low-income groups

EITC:

• It was structured as a tax credit rather than a direct payment

• It only went to working people, reinforcing work rather than dependence

2. "De-coupling" Medicaid from AFDC meant:

• Eligibility for Medicaid was gradually expanded beyond just those receiving AFDC

• People could qualify for Medicaid even if they didn't qualify for AFDC

• This allowed Medicaid to grow even as AFDC was being cut back

3. Reasons for EITC's bipartisan appeal:

• It encouraged and rewarded work rather than dependence

• It could be framed as a tax cut by Republicans

• It helped working families without creating a new bureaucracy

• It was seen as pro-family by both parties

• The costs were often hidden in larger tax bills, making it less visible than other programs

The reading suggests these factors allowed Medicaid and EITC to expand even during a period of general welfare state retrenchment, by distinguishing themselves from traditional "welfare" programs