Dynamics of Ethics: Welfare Reform Program for adults with children
The program used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); today people call the program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). What was the reasoning behind changing the program names? There were some changes that took place outside of just the name. What is the preferred outcome with all these changes? Will these changes be positive or negative? Who will benefit or who will not benefit from these changes?
Let us first look at AFDC; what was it? AFDC was formulated in 1935 and was put in place to assist families that were considered poor whom also had children under the age of 18 some ...view middle of the document...
TANF is supposed to be a “time-limited program designed to protect those who cannot work and to require those that are able to work to do so” (State of Hawaii, 2004-2008). TANF is more state funded rather than federally funded.
The two major changes that came into effect when TANF came about were work requirements and a time limit for financial benefits. Along with these came stronger penalties and incentives. The change that the state wanted to see was these families becoming more independent. As with my case, there were many families that were totally dependent on the assistance these programs offered. “TANF require work and promote self-reliance, responsibility, and family stability” (State of Hawaii, 2004-2008). The TANF program wanted to spend more money in giving these adults that were able bodied to work the opportunities needed to succeed in a stable life for their families. The time limit that is set for this program is five years; after each year so much percent of the assistance was dropped. “In December 2001, eligibility expired for 539 families who were the first to reach the five-year time limit” (State of Hawaii). From 2002 through 2005 there were over 2500 cases closed due to the five-year time limit for financial services.
As seen with these statistics anyone can see that there were many people who were affected through these changes. The question then lies, was the change a benefit or repercussion? Personally I have had two different views to these changes. The reason that I have two different views is because I have been on both sides of the fence. I have been a recipient of AFDC when this all started and now being no longer on any kind of assistance and a productive member of society; my feelings from when this program changed and now is different. As an AFDC participant when these changes came into effect I felt angry, frustrated, and appalled. Now that I am a productive member of society I feel pleased, blessed and satisfied.
As an AFDC participant when these changes were taking place there were many people who were as angry and frustrated as I was. I remember feeling that it was not fair. How can the state take this from me? This was the only thing that I...