MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACHES TO FAMILY WELFARE:
AMERICAN DILEMMA AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS*

Daniel B. Lee, Ph. D.
Loyola University Chicago
School of Social Work
U.S.A.

*Paper prepared for Doshisha University Center for Social Welfare Education & ResearchInternational Advisory Conference, Kyoto, Japan, March 11-14, 2008
Key words: Family welfare policies, Social policies, American dilemma, Global family welfare,
Family systems theories

1

___________________________________________________________________________
When a tiny minority is involved, the crack-up of their families may reflect individual failures.
But when divorce, separation, and other forms of familiar disaster overtake millions at oncein many countries, it is absurd to think the causes are purely personal. – Alvin Toffler

INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this paper are fourfold: 1) to formulate a conceptual basis for family social
welfare; 2) to examine the U. S. social welfare policies and programs that are specificallytailored to the family system from both descriptive and critical assessment of the field of social
welfare; 3) to identify American dilemma with regard to family welfare policies; and 4) topropose global implications for future debates and discussions. In this section, an attempt ismade to present the theoretical foundation for formulating and conceptualizing family welfare
policy from multidimensional and global perspectives.
Family System as the Basic Foundation for Social Welfare Structure
Family still plays a significant role in sustaining the social safety net by securing both
economic and emotional needs and resources essential to social well-being throughout the life
cycle from its inception to end. Although most Americans still live in the traditional nuclear
family structure, with two parents to share in producing income, raising children and caring forthe elderly, and maintaining a home, there are increasingly more single parent headed families
that may find it much harder to cope. 1 Changes in labor market demands widen the division
between those who are well educated, along with the commensurate rewards, and those who are
not so prepared for more highly skilled employment. These and other problems (e.g., marital
instability, domestic violence, alternative styles of living, etc.) deepen the conflicts in American
society today (Ford Foundation, 1989). The Executive Panel for the Ford Foundation Project on
Social Welfare and the American Future underscores the importance of family formation as an
essential principle in approaching social welfare policy for future Americans. It states: “For thevast majority of Americans, the family plays the most important role in nurturing individual
growth and protecting people in times of adversity. Many of today’s most urgent social problems
are the direct result of family breakdown 2 . Government policy should strengthen the familyrather than undermine it” (Ibid, p. 86).
1

In 1990, married couple families accounted 56% of all U.S. households, decreased from 76.5% in 1970 (Berns,
1993, p. 90).
2
For the last four decades, this author as a marital and family therapist and clinical social work educator in U.S. andoverseas has dealt with multiple family issues that are linked to external forces of socioeconomic demands, social

2American family policy specialist, Sheila Kammerman (1996), underlines the necessity offamily policy when she wrote, “The premise undergirding family policy, wherever it develops, isthat society needs children and needs them to be healthy, well-educated and eventually,
productive workers, citizens and parents. There is no generally accepted substitute for the family
in its child protection and socialization role, and there is increasing evidence that nurture andcare in a context of love and individualization are essential to achieving the results the society
values. The increased attention to family policy in the latter period of the twentieth century
derives from developments that either threaten this role of the family or are believed to do so” (p.
32). And yet, this institution of family has been treated with far less importance than otherinstitutions (Donati, 1993; Lee, 1998).
Italian family sociologist Pierpaolo Donati (1993) notes pointedly that, “human well-being is
not an individual or collective condition abstracted from the concrete community we live in, but
a relational process of mutual reciprocity between Ego and Alter in any field and at a level ofsocial interventions. It starts in the family. Generational equity signifies all of this; it may well
be a key target for what social policies ought to bring to maturity in the 1990s as our legacy tothe third millennium” (p. 64). This author certainly agrees with his foresight.

Conceptualization of Family Welfare Policy from Three Dimensional Perspectives
Family welfare policy is here defined as institutional efforts to provide publicly needed
services to families, as outlined by the governing society, to preserve and strengthen both
structural and functional aspects of the family system in meeting the basic needs of protection,
nurturing, affiliation and care, and the socially desirable expectations of socialization,
productivity and citizenship (Lee, 1996, P. 4). Family health as a value criterion is a social goal
which needs to be achieved personally and which collectively reinforces the synergy ofcollaborative and shared processes of generating social outputs that are beneficial to humanity. In
approaching such a goal of family welfare policy, three types of social measurements need to beconsidered: 1) preventive measurements; 2) intervention (curative) measurements, and 3)
restorative measurements. These three dimensional measurements are conceptually advanced
from the integration of both ecosystems and shared care model perspectives. The strength of theinjustice, and changing dynamics of interpersonal relationship in gender role conflict and cross-cultural adaptation
processes.

3

ecosystems perspective in developing a comprehensive family welfare policy lies in its
conceptual tools in the assessment and analysis of the multidimensional elements of the familysystem as well as its interfacing and interacting forces of various institutional environments. The
shared family policy model underlines the importance of a collaborative role both the family andthe societal systems play in generating and mobilizing the needed resources to meet an optimallevel of family functioning (Constable & Lee, 2004; Ford Foundation, 1989; Lee, 1998).
1) Preventive Measurements in Family Welfare Policy.

Several principles underlying thisapproach stress the important role family advocacy plays in terms of developmental mastery andrelational matrix.

Society needs healthy families which generate both productive andcontributing citizens from whom it receives benefits. Caring children and elderly parents when
they are in need of adult protection shall not solely left as wards of government where families
function as their primary place for locus of control (e.g., family preservation). Where extra
external supports are needed for the families to carry out their responsibilities in caring forchildren and other needy family members including the disabled and those unable to care forthemselves, the provision for adequate resources must be sought out to alleviate burdens and any
threat to family stability. Intergenerational continuity needs to be strengthened where suchconnections provide the mastery of cultural wisdom and the mobilization of stress reducing
resources. Prevention measurements are also critical for those families where contagious
intergenerational pathology needs to be contained or altered to minimize its impact from its
transmission to a larger society. Such measurements, however, require an integrative approachfrom a wider spectrum of biopsychosocial dimensions, particularly attending to the majority ofsocial membership. Material distribution systems, including the minimum wage, tax systems,
health care, housing, and other social provisions, must be synchronized in yielding the decent
living standards for all families. Preventive measurements aim at all families with the primary
focus being placed on the quality of family living across all ages groups (Donati, 1993). Here,the central theme is: Promoting and maintaining the strength of families as the solid foundation
for a healthy society.
2) Intervention Measurements in Family Welfare Policy. To revitalize families at risk, and to
generate social energy for the development of healthier families, a desirable standard for thedecent living for all families must be first established through the prevention measurements.
However, there still exist multiple social forces (e.g., discrimination, relational conflicts,

4

violence, unemployment, war, etc.) and disabling conditions (e.g., inadequate income, poverty,
disability, alcoholism, etc.) that deter family health throughout life cycle stages. Society needs
continuously to assess these forces and conditions so that effective public counter measurements
be developed at various levels for early detection of high risk families and social conditions that
deter family health.
3) Restorative Measurement. Family disintegration when the former measurements failed to
produce outcomes in the prescribed period and the impact of family deterioration fatal to boththe affected members and society at large, restorative measurements provide specific resources
needed to revitalize the capacity of family functioning either internal or external to the familysystems by mobilizing appropriate resources. Both structural and functional levels of restorationneed to be considered. For instance, the abandoned children are place in the nurturing homes ofadoptive or foster families. Tour of duty soldiers’ families are assisted with supportive networksof military and civilian neighbors curing their prolonged absence. Incarcerated families can behelped to preserve family connection rights. Dispersed families who are suffering from a
prolonged trauma of loss from war, economic or political forces, need to be assisted to resolve
both structural and functional issues inherent in their relational systems.

Family therapy

approaches in addition to other sensitive social provisions including legal, religious, and medical
services can ply instrumental roles to heal many family emotional scars and wounds, causing
family systems dysfunctional.

The current political climate in the U. S. is on debate for family policy as one of national
political agenda. Although both sides of liberal and conservative political communities agree theimportance of healthy families for children, there are many conflicting arguments about thedefinitions of families, structural restoration vs. equality advocacy debate, and critical debate
among family policy scholars and practitioners on the issues of adoption, placement of children,
gender role, and family violence (Zimmerman, 1992). The absence of comprehensive family
policies in the U. S. and conflicting debate on family matters is still reflective of American
dilemma in defining the family system and in advancing social policies in support of families(Ford Foundation, 1989).

Family Systems Theories as the Guiding Frameworks for Family Welfare

5The global transition of the family and the issues that are challenging families today indicatesthat new social and technological realities continually force the family to adapt (Anderson, 1997).
Multicultural family structure, changing socio-demographical trends in America, and diverse
family theories in sociological and psychological literature make it more complex to come up
with a unified definition of family system (Ingoldsby & Smith, 1995).
For the purpose of this paper’s frame of reference on family systems, three theoreticalframeworks are selected in understanding its contextual, ecological and developmental
perspectives:

FamilySystemTheory(Broderick,1993),

Human

Ecology

Theory(Bronfenbrenner, 1986), and Family Development Theory (Duvall, 1988; Rodgers and White,1993).
The Family System Theory encompasses the processes of connectedness and transactional
permeability between the family internal subsystems (i.e., an individual family member, marital
and/or parental dyadic system, and sibling relationships) and the external larger social systems
such as the extended kin networks, neighborhood, school, workplaces, and other institutions(economic, legal, health, religion, social welfare, and like). This perspective allows not only theapplication of micro problem solving approaches to family issues, but also emphasizes macrosocial policy undertakings in strengthening the family in order that the integration of family
members and units into the larger community and culture can be facilitated (Ingoldsby & Smith,
1995; Keeling. & Piercy, 2007).
Human Ecology Theory focuses on human-environment linkages that sustain the “lifesupport system dependent on the natural environment for physical sustenance and on the social
environment for human contact and meaning” (Bubolz & Sontag 1993 in Ibid, p. 13). Unlike
other theories, it posits that “all human populations are interdependent with the earth’s resources,
so human quality of life cannot be considered apart from the health of the world’s ecosystem”(Bubolz-Sontag, 1993 in Ibid, p. 13). The components of this theory consist of the natural
physical-biological environment (e.g., climate, animals, water, and plants); the social-culturalenvironments encompassing human social networks --neighbors and community, cultural
constructions (e.g., laws, values, and norms), and social and economic institutions; and thehuman-built environments (e.g., roads, farms and cities) (Ibid, p. 14). This theory upholds asocial commitment toward ‘human betterment’ in terms of economic adequacy, justice, freedom,and peace. It also provides “a framework to analyze the interactions between human6development and social conditions such as poverty at all eco-systems levels, including theindividual, family, community, and society,” thus, it “could result in public policies, institutional
programs, and community action plans at each level to alleviate such problems” (Ibid, p. 15).
Family Development Theory provides a framework to understand the process of change infamilies as they go through a predictable sequence of family life-cycle stages that are
precipitated by family members’ biological, social, and psychological needs. It also recognizes
the importance of social and historical context for family development.

Most families go

through the following seven family life-cycle stages: (1) Newly established couple (Childless);(2) Childbearing families (infants and preschoolers); (3) Families with school children (one ormore of school age); (4) Families with secondary school children (one or more in adolescence);(5) Families with young adults (one of more over 18); (6) Families in middle years (children
launched); and (7) Aging families (parents in retirement) Family role changes emerge to help
families make transition to new stages and to meet the needs and developmental tasks at eachstage. A crisis may result from the significant role alterations and family reorganization(Mattessich & Hill, 1987 cited in Ibid, p. 15). Because this model was based on a ‘model’ courseof family development, it is criticized for not considering the enormous variation in family
structure and experiences. However, there is “cross-cultural evidence that the ordering andsequencing of family development is universal, whereas the content of family roles and social
expectations of families may vary culturally and historically” (Ibid, p. 16).
From the lenses of the aforementioned family systems framework, it is important torecognize the emerging concept of family resilience from a strengths perspective in order todeconstruct the prevailing negative views on ailing, dependent and vulnerable families affectedby the destructive forces of natural and social economic environments, neglect of public
commitment, and personal accountability. Masten (2001) contends that children sustain
resilience from a set of global factors including “connection to competent and caring adults inthe family and community, cognitive and self-regulating skills, a positive view of oneself, andmotivation to be effective in the environment” (cited in Golbenberg & Golbenberg, 2008, p. 10).
Walsh (2003) identifies some key family processes of resilience including a positive belief
system, organizational processes, and communication and problem-solving processes. Even inpoor families, resilience is facilitated if the family members maintain positive self regard (e.g.,self worth, dignity and purpose) and a sense of self-control rather than viewing themselves as

7

helpless victims of an uncaring society (Aponte, 1999, cited in Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008,
p. 12).

THE U. S. SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES IN SUPPORT OF FAMILIES
Major Family Welfare Policies in the U. S.
The following chart contains public social welfare policies at a federal level in support offamilies and children.
Year
1911

Law
(no federal law but
all states have
Workers’Compensation
laws)

1930’sand on1935

Federal Housing
Assistance
Old Age, Survivors
and Disabled
Insurance Program
Social Security Act

Objective
Since 1911, every State has adopted a workers’ compensation
law, but there are no national standards for this system. The
goal of workers’ compensation programs is to provide prompt,
adequate benefits to injured workers’ while at the same time
limiting employers’ liabilities. Workers’ compensation has
become a substantial component of the U.S. social insurance
system and a significant element of the overall cost of
employment.

The passage of the Social Security Act (the Act),signed into law August 14, 1935.
This law established two social insurance programs on anational scale to help meet the risks of old age andunemployment: a Federal system of old-age benefits for retired
workers who had been employed in industry and commerce,
and a Federal-State system of unemployment insurance. The
choice of old age and unemployment as the risks to be coveredby social insurance was a natural development, since theDepression had wiped out much of the lifetime savings of theaged and reduced opportunities for gainful employment. The
Act also provided Federal grants-in-aid to the States for themeans-tested programs of Old-Age Assistance and Aid to theBlind, which were replaced by the Supplemental Security
Income program that was enacted in 1972. These programs
supplemented the incomes of persons who were either ineligible
for Social Security (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI))
or whose benefits could not provide a basic living. The intent ofFederal participation was to encourage States to adopt suchprograms. The law established other Federal grants to enable
States to extend and strengthen maternal and child health andwelfare services. These latter grants became the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program, which was replaced in 1996
with a new block grant program, Temporary Assistance for8Needy Families. The Act also provided Federal grants to States
for public health and vocational rehabilitation services.
Provisions for these grants were later removed from the Social
Security Act and incorporated into other legislation.
1935

1956

Unemployment
Insurance(Public Law 74271)
Part of OASDI
Disability Insurance

The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary
and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployedworkers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize
the economy during recessions.

1958

OASDI

1960

OASDI

1964

Food Stamp Act(there had beensome pilot
programs
previously)

Food stamps are designed primarily to increase the foodpurchasing power of eligible low-income households to a point
where they can buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet.
Participating households are expected to devote 30 percent of
their counted monthly cash income to food purchases.1 Foodstamp benefits then make up the difference between thehousehold’s expected contribution to its food costs and an
amount judged to be sufficient to buy an adequate low-cost diet.
This amount, the maximum food stamp benefit, is set at thelevel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s lowest cost foodplan (the Thrifty Food Plan or TFP), varied by household size,
and adjusted annually for inflation. Thus, a participatinghousehold with no counted cash income receives the maximum
monthly allotment for its household size while a household withsome counted income receives a lesser allotment, normallyreduced from the maximum at the rate of 30 cents for eachdollar of counted income.

1967

OASDI

The 1967 amendments provided disability benefits for widows
and widowers aged 50 or older.

1972

OASDI

The 1972 amendments provided for automatic cost-of-living
increases in benefits tied to increases in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) and created the delayed retirement credit, which
increased benefits for workers who retire after the full
retirement age (FRA) (then age 65).

Benefits were provided for severely disabled workers
aged 50 or older and for adult disabled children of deceased or
retired workers.
In 1958, the Social Security Act was further amended to provide
benefits for dependents of disabled workers similar to thosealready provided for dependents of retired workers.
In 1960, the age 50 requirement for disabled worker benefits
was removed.

9

1972

Supplemental
Security Income

1974

Child Abuse
Prevention andTreatment Act
P.L. 93-247

1974

1974

1974

Replaced Old Age Insurance and Aid to the Blind.
These programs supplemented the incomes of persons who
were either ineligible for Social Security (Old-Age andSurvivors Insurance (OASI)) or whose benefits could notprovide a basic living.

From www.childwelfare.gov
CAPTA provides Federal funding to States in support ofprevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, andtreatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies
and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs andprojects. Additionally, CAPTA identifies the Federal role insupporting research, evaluation, technical assistance, and datacollection activities; establishes the Office on Child Abuse andNeglect; and mandates Child Welfare Information Gateway.
CAPTA also sets forth a minimum definition of child abuse andneglect.
Juvenile Justice and From www.buildingblocksforyouth.org
Delinquency
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)
Prevention Act
of 1974 provides the major source of federal funding to improvestates' juvenile justice systems. The JJDPA was developed witha broad consensus that children should not have contact withadults in jails and other institutional settings and that status
offenders* should not be placed in secure detention. Under the
JJDPA and its subsequent re-authorizations, in order to receive
federal funds, states are required to maintain these coreprotections for children.
The Special
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Supplemental
Infants, and Children (the WIC Program) provides foodNutrition Programassistance, nutrition risk screening, and related services (e.g.,
for Women,
nutrition education and breastfeeding support) to low-income
Infants, andpregnant and postpartum women and their infants, as well as toChildren (WIC)
low-income children up to age 5. Participants in the program
must have family income at or below 185 percent of poverty,
and must be judged to be nutritionally at risk.
The Special
Supplemental
Nutrition Program
for Women,
Infants, andChildren (WIC)The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (the WIC Program) provides foodassistance, nutrition risk screening, and related services (e.g.,
nutrition education and breastfeeding support) to low-income
pregnant and postpartum women and their infants, as well as to
low-income children up to age 5. Participants in the program
must have family income at or below 185 percent of poverty,
and must be judged to be nutritionally at risk.

10

1975

Earned Income Tax
Credit
EIC; Code sec. 32

From the Center on Budged Policy and Priorities:“One of the key goals of the EITC is to “make work pay” toreward low-wage work by reducing the taxes that low-wage
workers pay on their earnings and by supplementing theirwages, and to bring a family with a full-time minimum-wage
worker to the poverty line so the family does not have to raise
its children in poverty.”
The EIC is available to low-income working taxpayers. Three
separate schedules apply. Taxpayers with one qualifying child
may claim a credit in 2003 of 34 percent of their earnings up to$7,490, resulting in a maximum credit of $2,547. The maximum
credit is available for those with earnings between $7,490 and$13,730 ($14,730 if married filing jointly). The credit begins tophase down at a rate of 15.98 percent of earnings above $13,730($14,730 if married filing jointly). The credit is phased down to$0 at $33,692 of earnings ($34,692 if married filing jointly).
Taxpayers with more than one qualifying child may claim acredit in 2003 of 40 percent of earnings up to $10,510, resulting
in a maximum credit of $4,204. The maximum credit isavailable for those with earnings between $10,510 and $13,730($14,720 if married filing jointly). The credit begins to phasedown at a rate of 21.06 percent of earnings above $13,730($14,730 if married filing jointly). The credit is phased down to$0 at $33,692 of earnings ($34,692 if married filing jointly).
Taxpayers with no qualifying children may claim a credit ifthey are over age 24 and below age 65. The credit is 7.65
percent of earnings up to $4,990, resulting in a maximum creditof $382. The maximum credit is available for those withincomes between $4,990 and $6,240 ($7,240 if married filing
jointly). The credit begins to phase down at a rate of 7.65
percent of earnings above $6,240 ($7,240 if married filing
jointly) resulting in a $0 credit at $11,230 of earnings ($12,230
if married filing jointly).

1975

Child Support
Enforcement Act

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) and Paternity
Establishment program, enacted in 1975, was a response by
Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining
support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help
non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public
assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside
marriage so child support could be obtained for them.
The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D
to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended,authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing

11

support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishingpaternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting childsupport payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also
been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial
parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical
support as part of most child support orders.

1975

Education for
Handicapped
Children Act
Not clear when thisswitched to…
Individuals with
Disabilities
Education Act

1977

OASDI

1978

Indian Child
Welfare Act

It is the purpose of this Act to assure that all handicappedchildren have available to them, within the time periods
specified in section 612(2) (B). a free appropriate public
education which emphasizes special education and related
services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that therights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians areprotected, to assist States and localities to provide for theeducation of all handicapped children and to assess and assure
the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children.
Idea added the IEP:
The act requires that public schools create an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) for each student who is found to beeligible under the both the federal and state eligibility/disability
standards. The IEP is the cornerstone of a student's educational
program. It specifies the services to be provided and how often,
describes the student's present levels of performance and how
the student's disabilities affect academic performance, andspecifies accommodations and modifications to be provided forthe student.[
The 1977 amendments changed the method of benefit
computation to ensure stable earnings replacement rates overtime.
Congressional declaration of policy
The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of this Nation
to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote
the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by theestablishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal ofIndian children from their families and the placement of suchchildren in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect theunique values of Indian culture, and by providing for assistanceto Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service
programs.

1980

Adoption
Assistance andFrom the Library of Congress summaries:

12Child Welfare Act

1993

A bill to amend the Social Security Act to make needed
improvements in the child welfare and social services programs,
to strengthen and improve the program of Federal support for
foster care of needy and dependent children, to establish a
program of Federal support to encourage adoptions of children
with special needs, and for other purposes.
Family Preservation From www.archerspite.org
and Support
Services
The Family Preservation and Support Services program is thefirst major change to Title IV-B since the Adoption Assistanceand Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, which wasintended to•••Prevent the unnecessary separation of children fromtheir families
Improve the quality of care and services to children andtheir families
Ensure permanency for children by reunifying them with
their parents or through adoption or another permanentliving arrangement

For a wide variety of reasons, these goals have not been fully
realized. Social, cultural, and economic changes have affected
the number of families referred to child welfare agencies andthe severity of their problems. Among these changes are an
increase in substance abuse, community violence, poverty, andhomelessness. Reports of child abuse, particularly child sexual
abuse, and neglect have also risen dramatically.

1994

Multi-Ethnic
Placement Act

From www.acf.hs.gov
The Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) was enacted in 1994
amid spirited and sometimes contentious debate abouttransracial adoption and same-race placement policies. At theheart of this debate is a desire to promote the best interests ofchildren by ensuring that they have permanent, safe, stable, andloving homes that will meet their individual needs. This desireis thwarted by the persistent increases in the number of children
within the child protective system waiting for, but often not
being placed in, adoptive families. Of particular concern are theAfrican American and other minority children who aredramatically over-represented at all stages of this system, wait
far longer than Caucasian children for adoption, and are at far
greater risk of never experiencing a permanent home. Amongthe many factors that contribute to placement delays anddenials, Congress found that the most salient are racial and13ethnic matching policies and the practices of public agencies
which have historically discouraged individuals from minority
communities from becoming foster or adoptive parents. MEPA
addressed these concerns by prohibiting the use of a child's or aprospective parent's race, color, or national origin to delay ordeny the child's placement and by requiring diligent efforts to
expand the number of racially and ethnically diverse foster andadoptive parents.

1997

Adoption and Safe
Families Act of1997
Public Law 105-89

ASFA embodies a number of key principles that must be
considered in order to implement the law:
The safety of children is the paramount concern that must guideall child welfare services.
Foster care is a temporary setting and not a place for children togrow up.
Permanency planning efforts for children should begin as soon
as a child enters foster care and should be expedited by theprovision of services to families.
The child welfare system must focus on results andaccountability.
Innovative approaches are needed to achieve the goals of safety,
permanency and well-being.

1997

1999

State Children’s
Health Insurance
Program

From www.ncls.gov

OASDI

The 1999 amendments reformed certain provisions under the DI
Program, specifically to create stronger incentives and bettersupports for individuals to work.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted Title XXIof the Social Security Act and allocated about $20 billion
over ten years to help states insure more children. The law
authorizes states to provide health care coverage to "targeted
low-income children" who are not eligible for Medicaid andwho are uninsured. States receive an enhanced federal match(greater than the state's Medicaid match) and have three years to
expend each year's allotment.

14

1996

Temporary Aid to
Needy Families

Enacted in August 1996 after three years of debate, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act(PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193) repealed the 61-year old program of
Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) and created the block grant
program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
in its place. The law entitles States to fixed block grants ($16.5
billion annually) through fiscal year 2002, to operate programsof their own design, but imposes work-trigger time limits,
lifetime benefit-cutoff
time limits, and minimum work participation rates. Within
limits, it allows States to reduce their own spending on behalf ofneedy children. The 1996 law also sharply expands funding forchildcare.
Frustration with the character, size, and cost of AFDC rolls
contributed to the dramatic decision by Congress to “endwelfare as we know it.” Enrollment had soared to an all-time
peak in 1994, covering 5 million families and more than
oneeighth of U.S. children. More than half of AFDC children
were born outside marriage, and three-fourths had an ablebodied parent who lived away from home. Almost half of thefamilies had received benefits for more than 5 years, counting
repeat spells. Benefit costs peaked in fiscal year 1994 at $22.8
billion ($12.5 billion in Federal funds, $10.3 billion inState/local funds). Some policymakers urged that Congress put
a cap on AFDC funds to control costs. Some maintained thatoffering permanent help for needy children in single-parent
families had encouraged family breakup, enabled non-maritalbirths, and fostered long-term dependency.
The size and character of the welfare rolls have changed under
TANF. This is illustrated by comparing FY1996 AFDC datawith FY2001 TANF data:
Caseload size in terms of families dropped 53 percent, from
4.5 million to 2.1 million (see Table 7-7).
The number of child-only cases dropped from 978,000 to
787,000, but their share of all cases climbed from 21.5 percent
to 37.2 percent (see Table 7-29).
7-4
The share of adults with paid jobs more than doubled, from
11.3 percent to 25.8 percent (see Chart 7-5).
The share of non-Hispanic white adult recipients declined
from 39.7 percent to 32.2 percent (see Table 7-30).
The number of teen parents who receive welfare declined
50 percent, from 242,913 to 122,265, but their share of all15

recipients rose from 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent (see Table 7-29).
The share of AFDC/TANF dollars spent on cash welfare
declined from about 73 percent to 44 percent. (Chart 7-3 shows
2001 spending breakdown.) The caseload now includes manyfamilies who receive
services, including work support, rather than cash.
Section 401(a) of the Social Security Act says that the purposeof TANF is to increase flexibility of States in operating a
program designed to:
1. Provide assistance to needy families so that children may becared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits
by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
3. Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing
and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and4. Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families.

2001

No Child Left
BehindFrom www.ed.gov
No Child Left Behind is based on stronger accountability forresults, more freedom for states and communities, proveneducation methods, and more choices for parents.

Stronger Accountability for Results
Under No Child Left Behind, states are working to close theachievement gap and make sure all students, including those
who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. Annual
state and school district report cards inform parents andcommunities about state and school progress. Schools that do
not make progress must provide supplemental services, such as
free tutoring or after-school assistance; take corrective actions;and, if still not making adequate yearly progress after five years,
make dramatic changes to the way the school is run.

More Freedom for States and Communities
Under No Child Left Behind, states and school districts have
unprecedented flexibility in how they use federal education
funds. For example, it is possible for most school districts totransfer up to 50 percent of the federal formula grant funds theyreceive under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants,

16

Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe andDrug-Free Schools programs to any one of these programs, or totheir Title I program, without separate approval. This allows
districts to use funds for their particular needs, such as hiring
new teachers, increasing teacher pay, and improving teacher
training and professional development.

Proven Education Methods
No Child Left Behind puts emphasis on determining which
educational programs and practices have been proven effective
through rigorous scientific research. Federal funding is targeted
to support these programs and teaching methods that work to
improve student learning and achievement. In reading, forexample, No Child Left Behind supports scientifically based
instruction programs in the early grades under the Reading First
program and in preschool under the Early Reading First
program.

More Choices for Parents
Parents of children in low-performing schools have new options
under No Child Left Behind. In schools that do not meet state
standards for at least two consecutive years, parents may
transfer their children to a better-performing public school,
including a public charter school, within their district. The
district must provide transportation, using Title I funds ifnecessary. Students from low-income families in schools thatfail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible toreceive supplemental educational services, including tutoring,after-school services, and summer school. Also, students who
attend a persistently dangerous school or are the victim of aviolent crime while in their school have the option to attend asafe school within their district.

Characteristics of the U. S. Family Welfare Policies: A Critical Assessment
Based on literature review, the characteristics of American family welfare policies are
critically examined.
•

Moralistic Assumption. Social policy regarding families reflects the long-standing

17

assumption that individuals and families experience hardship primarily due to fault of their own,
and this assumption continues to restrict public spending on social programs to support families(Ozawa, 2004). The U.S. has not developed a comprehensive or integrated family social policy(adopting an incremental approach instead), and spending on family support programs remains
inadequate to meet needs. Compared to Sweden (a nation known for its comprehensive familysocial policy as well as substantial expenditure on family benefits), the U.S. spends only afraction on family support programs. Moreover, Swedish family policy is “inclusive, enabling,developmental, and nonmoralistic” focusing on “horizontal equity” (equality between gender andamong children, regardless of family structure) in order support individuals in the roles of parent
and worker, to the benefit of all of Swedish society. In contrast, U.S. family policy centers on“vertical equity” and tends to deal with social problems after they arise (e.g., providing benefits
after a family has become poor), rather than anticipating and addressing them proactively(Ozawa, 2004).
•

Curative Approach. Other characteristics of U.S. family policy are its limited scope andexpenditure, reliance on income and earnings testing (which results in stigmatized, rather thanuniversal, programs), and lack of core family supports, including family allowances for children
and paid parental leave (Ozawa, 2004).
•

Accessiblity Barriers. Low-income families are increasingly dependent on government

supports, but significant barriers exist that limit eligibility and accessibility. Simplifying
application procedures, increasing families’ knowledge through outreach, and coordination
across programs could effectively reduce some of these barriers (The Urban Institute, 2007).
•

Variability.

There is wide variability across states in terms of the implementation of

welfare programs, including eligibility rules, application procedures, and accessibility forsupportive services (Bok & Simmons, 2002; The Urban Institute, 2007).
•

Discrepency. After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996, individuals and families transitioning from the welfare system (due to theimplementation of time limits and sanctions) experienced increased financial hardship anddecreased resources and access to medical care (Lindhorst & Mancoske, 2006).
•

Punitive Sanctions.

The 1996 welfare reform laws introduced sanctions (e.g., reduction

or termination of cash benefits) for failure to comply with the new work requirements. States
have considerable flexibility in the nature (e.g., partial versus full) and implementation (e.g.,18strict versus discretionary) of sanctions, and so these can vary widely. The philosophies
underlying welfare sanctions include both incentives (e.g., assumed to motivate recipients’personal responsibility and compliance with work requirements) and punishment (e.g., designed
to diminish noncompliance, as well as motivation to apply for benefits) (Wu, 2007). Because
welfare recipients who have been sanctioned—particularly those receiving more severe
sanctions—are more likely to leave the welfare system without a job (or at most, with a lowearnings job), sanctions appear to function more as punishment than to function as incentives towork.
•

Paradoxical Consequences. Focus is often on reducing welfare caseloads and increasing

work participation, and (often due to lack of information or accessibility) families often lose theirincome as well as other supportive services (e.g., health insurance, food stamps, childcare) at thesame time upon the transition from welfare to work (Bok & Simmons, 2002).
•

Lack of Continuity.

In both the U.S. and Japan, welfare policies have been successful

in increasing work participation rates in single mothers. However, there is a great need forcontinued supports as former welfare recipients merge with the working poor. As illustrated inJapan, high work rates do not tend to lift these families from poverty, and there is still a need forsupportive programs—so the form of support merely changes from cash assistance to supportive
services and in-kind benefits (Ezawa & Fujiwara, 2005). Reducing cash assistance is notadequate in the absence of a continued safety net of support, as well as policies to address thecauses of continued low incomes.
•

Disconnectedness.

Coinciding with the significant decreases in welfare caseloads

since the 1996 welfare reforms has been an increase in “disconnected” individuals (often single
mothers), or those who are neither receiving welfare nor working (Blank, 2007). Often, these
individuals face significant barriers to employment, yet receive neither adequate employment
supports nor flexibility regarding work requirements.
•

Lack of Empowerment. Women moving from welfare to work have identified bothbenefits (increased income; increased self-esteem, feelings of independence, and social
integration; and the ability to model work and self-sufficiency values for children) and costs(working without increased income; overload, exhaustion, and stress; and less time and energy to
be with, supervise, and support children) associated with this transition (London, Scott, Edin, &Hunter, 2004). New policy initiatives should address these costs and benefits in order to develop

19

programs that will allow parents to work as well as meet their family obligations and maintain ahealthy family life.
•

Inadequate Provision for Quality of Living. Although governmental supports for low-income, working families increased following welfare reform, families with children headed by
low-income, single females subsequently had more expenditures on materials necessary forworking rather than on those that could support child well-being, such as childcare or
learning/enrichment activities (Kaushal, Gao, & Waldfogel, 2007).
•

Unclear Definition. As noted by Hawkins (2005), “using self-sufficiency as a social

welfare policy goal results in programs and evaluations that are unclear, inequitable,
dichotomous, and limited in scope. There is little agreement in how “self-sufficiency” should be
defined or measured. Further, although welfare caseloads have decreased, there has been lesssuccess in helping low-income people obtain appropriate, stable employment and improve theireducational and socioeconomic circumstances—perhaps more appropriate indicators of “selfsufficiency” (Hawkins, 2005).
•

Need for Comprehensive Goal. Most social welfare policies have emphasized the goal ofself-sufficiency. However, a more holistic and lasting alternative is the notion of Personal andFamily Sustainability, which aims for sustainable communities and “maximiz(es) full humanpotential to establish long-term economic, physical, psychological, and social well-being forindividuals and their families” (Hawkins, 2005).

AMERICAN DILEMMA
The United States is relatively a young nation, 260 years old, when compared to the long
history of European (United Kingdom or Sweden) and Asian countries (Japan and Korea), and yet
she has maintained the third largest population (303 million, today) after China and India. Thechanging makeup of the U. S. population from 2005 to 2050 (projected) largely driven primarily
by immigration is as follows (USA Today, 2/12/2008, 3A):
Race/Ethnicity•

White (non-Hispanic)

67% to 47%•

Hispanic

14% to 29%•

Black (non-Hispanic)

13% to 13%•

Asian (non-Hispanic)

5% to

9%

20

Foreign-born

12% to 19%

Like other countries cited above, America is aging with fast growing elderly, thus the gap
between the number of working-age people and the children and seniors who depend on themwill widen as boomers age (Ibid).
As a superpower, militarily and economically, the U. S. consumes its vast resources in
the operations of war, national security, and global defense infrastructures, in addition to
expanding the capital economic structures worldwide. Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush
Government has adopted a more repressive and reactive stance toward alien, legal or illegal
immigrants, and has alienated her allies from her lack of cooperative and diplomatic engagement
in resolving cultural conflicts in the Arab region of Islam and elsewhere (e.g., the war in Iraq,
Iran, N. Korea, Middle East.). While it is essential to secure economic stability and growth,social welfare issues and challenges are complex in nature as they are interwoven with dominanteconomic, political and ideological forces and priorities. It requires a high level of integrationand cooperation between and among different systems of Government and various sectors ofvoluntary and civic organizations in establishing national and global strategies in amelioratingsocial conditions of poverty, disparity, oppression, violence, hate crime, indulgence, inequality
and injustice, and destruction. The most compelling dilemma facing American society withregards to family welfare policies and practices includes:•

Exclusive Individualism out of balance with Inclusive Communality•

Fragmentation of Family and Social Welfare Systems without CoordinatedComprehensive Social Policies•

Crisis Based Reactive Approaches rather than Promoting Preventive andProactive Approaches to Solution.

The policy recommendations of the Executive Panel of Ford Foundation Project on Social
Welfare and the American Future (Ford Foundation, 1989) are transformative and visionary as
they provide what American policy makers need to consider in building a more comprehensive
family welfare policy for all ages.
LIFE CYCLE
Infancy and Childhood: A Time to Sow

RECOMMENDED POLICY AREAS-Investing in Infants-Extending Prenatal Care
-Better Nutrition for Young Children-More and Better Preschool Program-Improving Day Care
-Stronger Child Welfare Services
21

Young Adulthood: Preparing for a
World of Work

The Working Years: Increasing Economic
Opportunity and Social Protection

Old Age: A Time to Reap and Sow Again-Reducing School Dropouts Rates
Collaborations Between Schools andBusinesses-Integrating Remedial Education, Work
Experience, and Life Options Services-Reducing the Number of Teen Pregnancies-Coordinating Efforts-Economic Growth: A Necessary but Not
Sufficient Condition-Improving the Return on Work
-Assuring Health-Care Coverage-Reducing Unemployment and Welfare
Programs-Welfare That Assure Adequate
Incomes and Work
-Community Programs-Protecting the Weakest Today-Protecting the Many Tomorrow-Rescuing Medicare-Creating Protection for the Long-TermCare

The Panel in its summary of recommendation states: “There is no lack of sound ideas. All that isneeded is the political will (Ibid, p. 87).

GLOBAL IMPLICATIONSBuilding a Global Agenda for Family Welfare Policies
We need to ask public policy makers and our students: How can we better socialize andcare for our succeeding generations to circumvent the misuse of global resources and to redirect
the social agenda in building the global community of healthy children, youth, and families into
the third millennium?
Child and family welfare is no longer the domain of any single state as the world isincreasingly becoming interconnected in governing human affairs from economic to politicalrealities. John Naisbitt (author of Megatrends 2000), in his recent book, Global Paradox (1994),
shed his optimism towards people’s greater participation in economic growth and sharing thewealth in lifting people out of poverty in the case of Argentina (p. 352). While such a view is
promising, the recent economic collapse in Asia, including Indonesia and S. Korea, clearly
demonstrated how the global economic realities (e.g. the International Monetary Fund) have22brought devastating impact on the lives of many nations, and particularly on those who lost theirlivelihood (e.g., increased rate of suicide in case of S. Korea, and civil disorder in Indonesia).
Ethnic bashing and religious conflicts in the Middle East, natural disasters and famine, chemical
toxins and environmental hazards, HIV/AIDS epidemics, forced migration and refugees inAfrica Asia, and South America, war and territorial conflicts, effects of global warming, poverty
and other emerging issues continue to challenge the credibility of dominant paradigms ingoverning the world resources and the priorities of public policies across nations.
The survival of the human race ultimately rests with reshaping the global order topreserve and promote the well-being of human families and children, and is the most valued
institutional goal for all people of all nations.

Raising Collective Conscience of Human Families in Crisis
Over the years those who have contributed to the promotion of family health—family life
educators, family therapy practitioners, family researchers and theorists—have all advanced ourknowledge and skills in reshaping human families when there exist paradoxical dilemmas or
dysfunctional patterns within or outside of the family system. From an ecosystems perspective,
families become vulnerable when they are interfaced with outer forces including economic
realities (e.g., unemployment), cultural change (e.g., intergenerational value conflicts), or
political pressures (e.g., geographical relocations, migration).
While these efforts at micro and mezzo levels do serve certain societal purposes (social
production and control), what we are witnessing in current global trends is generational
discontinuity among highly industrialized societies (Donati, 1993) and an intergenerational
derailment phenomenon among the migrating families across different geographical and culturalenvironments as they pursue opportunities and better life (Lee, 1989).

Eliminating Toxic Elements from Family Environments and Social Conditions
To reshape human families from a family work perspective, reduction and alteration of atleast the following patterns of human behaviors and social conditions are strongly indicated(Downs, Costin & McFadden, 1996).
•

Violence, whether it is domestic or not•

Abuse of sexual, conjugal incestuous, or other type23

•Neglect of parental/guardian responsibility, primary or substitute•Transmission of pathology, physical or psychological•

Unplanned pregnancy, minor or adults•

Infant mortality•

Poverty, both levels of subsistence and economic structure•

Gender inequity, overt or covert•

Generational inequity, between generations and for different age groups
Discriminatory culture/environments, toward race, nationality, religion, gender,
disability, etc.

•

Ecological malaise, toxic, unsafe environments•

Public policies and laws detrimental to children and family health•

Violation of child rights, parental rights and human rights

Developing Collaborative Strategies to Promote Global Family Welfare
Donati (1993) addresses a number of new perspectives in promoting the welfare ofchildren and families which can serve a wider global community. These include, but are notlimited to:•Promotion of better communication on family policies, again including, but not limited
to: interventions on women’s condition and motherhood; income and social security,
particularly in cases of broken and at risk families; child-care services and provisions.

•

Creating social designs for family- and children-focused policies:

1) The general goals aimed at the reform of social security systems according to family life
cycle and with respect to the number of social conditions of their members;
2) The strategies designed to community-based intervention with collaboration of both
statutory and informal aid, the development of social organizations mediating thelinkages between families and political authorities, intersections in social policies inmeeting different needs, and relational guidance to design plans of intervention;3) The specific measures for the intervention in favor of young couples, the economic
support of families, family and work, family and welfare services, the enlargement ofsocial entitlements for children, and the institution of political bodies which represent
family associations at the regional, state, and community levels (pp. 59-63).
24

Many countries including the U. S. have tested various policies and measures aimed atpromoting family and child welfare, but few efforts have gone into promoting a global
perspective in integrating various social policies aimed at strengthening the family system as thecentral focal point.

Hong (2008) formulates a framework to incorporate global economic

realities in mobilizing social welfare sectors to build a global scheme of balancing the demandsof economic and social developments.
CONCLUSION
Social welfare is an instrumentation of societal responses to perverse the most precious
social unit worthy to be supported in caring the generations to come. Still, many social issues
such as poverty, violence, unemployment, disability, substance abuse, aging, disease, the effects
of global warming and other disruptive forces including technology and culture may continue toweaken family stability, as Alvin Toffler predicted. In this era of electronic revolution, he also
saw the need for solving the prevailing problem of human alienation in the context of revolutionof love, that is, caring for others in need. Government alone cannot provide adequate resources
and mechanisms, as witnessed in the social welfare systems of the United States. We need toinvest our resources more towards preventive social measures rather than spending them more
expensively and inadequately in dealing with the after-fact problems in residual and fragmented
ways.

National as well as global priority settings in allocating public resources are often

reflected in the mindset of politicians and lawmakers, while economic and social realities put
pressures on the decision making processes of public policies including social welfare. Advocacy
for the promotion of healthy family systems and institutional support in meeting societal
purposes of families is an important mission of social welfare sectors including professional
education, academic research, practice and policy developments.
In defense of the family system as the foundation of humanity, wherever it exists,families must be preserved and strengthened in order that human spaces protect their survival,
provide socialization, and produce responsible and healthy living on the globe. Family welfare
then becomes a primary source of societal provision in supporting family to function
productively for the common good. When special needs that requires external intervention arise,25the ethical balance must be exercised to the extent that human dignity, rights and responsibilities
of family members are duly observed while any harmful consequences must be altered in theworks of intervening mechanisms of society. In a final analysis of this paper, the author believesin the divine mystery of creation that family is still the best gift for humanity, where the genesisof caring relationship is rooted in the fulfillment of a societal goal that is safe, just, inclusive, andpurposeful toward building a global community of peace, harmony and prosperity.
Political leaders need to come together at a World Summit for the well-being for families
and address the economic, social and political problems which made the well-being of families
so difficult to achieve. The insights of social scientists and religious leaders could shape theagenda for this important world summit.

REFERENCES

Acs, G. & Nelson, S. (2004). Changes in living arrangements during the late 1990s: Do welfare
policies matter? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23 (3), 273-290.
Anderson, G. L. (Ed.) (1997). Introduction, In A. Gordon (Edited). The family in global
transition, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, ix-xxiv.
Apponte, H. J. (1999). The stresses of poverty and comfort of spirituality. In F. Froma (Ed.),
Spiritual resources in family therapy, New York: Guilford Press..

26

Berns, R. M. (1993). Child, family, community: Socialization and support. Fort Worth, TX: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Blank, R. M. (2007). Improving the safety net for single mothers who face serious barriers towork. The Future of Children, 17(2), 183-197.
Bok, M. & Simmons, L. (2002). Post-welfare reform, low-income families and the dissolution of
the safety net. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(3), 217-238.
Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature anddesign. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
Bubolz, M. M. & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, et al., Sourcebook
of family theories and methods (pp. 419-448zzzz0. New York: Plenum Press.
Constable, R. & Lee, D. (2004). Social work with families: Process and content. Chicago, IL:
Lyceum.
Donati, P. (1993). The development of European policies for the protection of families andchildren. Anthropostes, 9(1), 43-68.
Down, S. Costin, L. & MaFadden, E. (1996). Child welfare and family services, policies andpractices. White Plains, NY: Logman.
Ezwa, A. & Fujiwara, C. (2005). Lone mothers and welfare-to-work policies in Japan and theUnited States: Towards an alternative perspectives. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare.
32(4), 41-63.
Ford Foundation (1989). The Common good: Social welfare and the American future. New
York: Author.
Hawkins, R. L (2005). From self-sufficiency to personal and family sustainability: A newparadigm for social policy. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32(4), 77-92.
Hong, P. (2008 in printing). Global social policy and civil society: Social responses to thenegative effects of globalization. In B. Mohan & C. Aspalter (Eds.). Debating Social
Development (Vol. 3): Pathways to the Future. Casa Verde Publishing.
Ingoldsby, B. B. & Smith, S. (Eds.).(1995). Families in multicultural perspective. New York:The Guilford Press.
Kammerman, S. (1996). Child and family policies: An international overview. In E. Zigler, S.
Kagan, and N. Hall (eds.), Children, families & government. New York: the Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge, pp. 31-50.

27

Kaushal, N., Gao, Q., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Welfare reform and family expenditures: How are
single mothers adapting to the new welfare and work regime? Social Service Review, XX, 369396.

Keeling, M. L. & Piercy, F. (2007). A careful balance: Multinational perspectives on culture,gender, and power in marriage and family therapy practice. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 33(4), 443-463.
Lee, D. (1996). Toward building an integration model of family welfare policies: A newchallenge for institutional and professional collaboration. Paper presented at the 5th Annual
Conference of Global Awareness Society International, San Francisco, Ca, May 17-19, 1996.
Lee, D. (1998). Promoting child and family welfare: A global perspective. Paper presented at the
7th Annual Program Meeting of Global Awareness International, Istanbul, Turkey, May 28-31,
1998.
Lee, D. (1989). Family disintegration in changing societies: Social welfare implications. Journalof Social Development Issues, 12(2), 35-50.
Lindhorst, T. & Mancoske, R. J. (2006). The social and economic impact of sanctions and time
limits on recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 33(1), 93-114.
London, A. S., Scott, E. K., Edin, K., & Hunter, V. (2004). Welfare reform, work-family
tradeoffs, and child well-being. Family Relations, 53, 148-158.
Mattessich, P. & Hill, R. (1987). Life cycle and family development. In M. b. Sussman & K.
Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 437-469), New York: Plenum Press.
Ozawa, M. (2004). Social welfare spending on family benefits in the United States and Sweden:
A comparative study. Family Relations, 53(3), 301-309.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow & Co.
The Urban Institute. (2006). Government work supports and low-income families: Facts andfigures/
Williams, J. C. & Cooper, H. C. (2004). The public policy of motherhood. Journal of Social
Issues, 60(4), 849-865.
Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.).
Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Wu, C. (2007). Severity, timing, and duration of welfare sanctions and the economic well-beingof TANF families with children. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 26-44.

28

Zimmerman, S. (1992). Family policies and family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

29