Welfare Woes

Mixed success in getting people on their own feet

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Unmarried women with children have long been at the core of the welfare controversy in the U.S. In 1984 Charles Murray, currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argued that the increasing generosity and availability of welfare--then called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)--led to the growth of female-headed families. In 2004 there were almost 1.5 million births to unmarried women, a quarter of them teenagers. Since 2000 the number of unmarried women who gave birth for the first time has averaged at least 650,000 a year. Few have had the resources to rear a child properly.

Murray's argument regarding the culpability of AFDC, though contradicted by dozens of independent studies, carried the day. In 1996 the U.S. replaced AFDC with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which mandated a maximum of five years on the rolls, thereby encouraging recipients to join the paid workforce. Proponents have pointed to TANF's success in lowering welfare rolls, and indeed, as the chart illustrates, the number of welfare families declined dramatically. The levels achieved by mid-2005 are the lowest seen since 1969.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe