Overview and Background
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was created in 1935 by the Social Security Act. It regulated the payment process for dependent and destitute children. Among the disadvantages of this program was its blatant sexism toward women since it encouraged fertility and limited women’s opportunities to work. The whole program was discriminatory because only white women had access to it. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has changed the philosophical framework and the rules and regulations that apply to low-income families with children seeking federal income support (Karger & Stoesz, 2018). Unfortunately, it is a new system that restricts life planning somewhat and makes it less flexible than those with AFDC. The responsibility for the future development of TANF is primarily concentrated in the hands of politicians.
Differences in Programs
U.S. government policy in drawing up the AFDC was racist, which led to the political aspects of all social programs remaining discriminatory for a long time. Although they have undergone changes, such social divisions have remained in the system itself. Administrative agents chose their eligibility criteria (Karger & Stoesz, 2018). It meant that each state regulated its payments and amount, so families used this tool to create the illusion of access to the good life. TANF’s successor has limited the time and money criteria for aid.
The funding structure of TANF is very different from AFDC. In TANF the federal government contributes at least $1 to matching funds for every dollar spent by the states (Azevedo-McCaffrey & Safawi, 2022). The federal TANF block grant and state Department of Education contributions are the primary fundi, g sources for state TANF programs. State appropriations were set in 1996 based on historical spending and have not changed to account for demographic changes or population growth. TANF allowed families to expand the range of fields the money could be used for: child care and education. Instead of the earlier principle of total free payments, the new system tightened benefit eligibility. The procedures introduced were much more complicated, and families felt more humiliated: In addition, the problem of poverty did not disappear.
Current Situation with TANF and Its Future
The main spending category of TANF is essential assistance and child care. In total, more than $12 billion is spent on these needs, but limited access to benefits shows disappointing data (Azevedo-McCaffrey & Safawi, 2022). Instead of distributing funds evenly, each state chooses its policy on basic assistance. Wide state flexibility in the use of allocated funds means that problems of social disadvantage are not eliminated.
The instability of the TANF system is that it continues to be affected by systemic racism, which aggravates the quality of life of a large percentage of people. States distribute benefits unevenly, and parents cannot focus on their goals, making them unable to help their children. In addition, not all oppressed groups are evenly affected by systemic racism: for example, blacks are more oppressed than Hispanics. Based on this, additional constraints are created in developing stable well-being.
Based on the problems in TANF regulation outlined above, the political and social aspects of this system must change. Arguably, states should create a fixed minimum above what is already in place since essential assistance is still insufficient. In addition, politicians should turn their attention to their support and sponsorship of these benefits (Azevedo-McCaffrey & Safawi, 2022). Legal inconsistencies are likely to arise, so politicians need to reflect on influencing their settlement. Policymakers can offer various allowances for critical uses, allowing families to plan for future spending. Because of the significant money politicians manage, they can create short-term lump-sum funds. Most importantly, it would require the elimination of complicated procedures for obtaining benefits. Politicians have enough power and status to influence TANF implementation and distribution processes positively.
References
Karger, H. J. & Stoesz, D. (2018). American social welfare policy. Pearson.
Azevedo-McCaffrey, D. & Safawi, A. (2022). To promote equity, states should invest more TANF dollars in basic assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Web.