Family Policy in the 1980s: Controversy and Consensus

Abstract

During the Reagan administration pressure groups claiming to be pro-family were successful in dismantling existing family welfare programs. Their name was a misnomer because what they advocated resulted in more rather than less suffering for poor families. Members of these groups advocated a return to the idealized fictional world were women stay home and care for children while relying on men to support them. While this situation has never been the case these fanciful beliefs do not take into account all the divorced couples unwed mothers and single women with children that are currently in the work force. Family policy in the US does not benefit from any high level official representatives in either the state or the federal government although a great deal of the policies that do come from these sources do have a direct impact upon the family. The 2 programs that receive most of the money and thus most of the attention are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Social Security. These programs were designed to protect the children and the elderly. Both sides of the debate on family welfare use the War on Poverty years of the Johnson administration and its aftermath during the 70s to support their points of view. There was consensus that these programs were not effective at helping heads of poor households out of poverty. This resulted in agreed upon proposals tying family payments to individual job training or work obligations. Absent fathers were also required to pay child support. This culminated in the Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 that required single parents on AFDC with children older then 3 to get jobs or enroll in job training courses at state or federal expense. The future for family policy is not good. Lack of financial support has largely failed to meet the goals of the FSA. Cutting funding has clearly not solved the problems the children and the elderly.