Did you know that there existed a “Man in the House” rule in the 1960s?
“Man in the house” rules sought to enforce social norms about who was morally deserving of welfare. Specifically, the rules prevented adult males from residing with mothers and children who received assistance. The rules sought to ensure only women with children, who at the time were expected not to work, benefitted from welfare. Households with an adult male were viewed as undeserving of assistance because adult males were expected to provide for their families through work. “Man in the house” rules, enforced through highly invasive inspections, forced many families to choose between maintaining welfare supports and keeping their families intact. —Memo to Members of the National Low Income Housing Coalition
This rule was thought to have a negative effect on low income families, especially Black minorities. Married couples had to make decisions that would protect their welfare assistance status. Sometimes that resulted in fathers leaving the home.
In his 1992 article for The Baltimore Sun, Welfare's unintended consequences, Glenn McNatt posits that:
The expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s coincided with the decline of the factory economy in the worst possible way because the no-man-in-the-house rule actually encouraged the breakup of stable, two-parent families.
But there is more to the story. In 1935 the Social Security Act was passed. It was “a federal safety net for elderly, unemployed and disadvantaged Americans.” As part of the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented new programs:
to respond to a wide range of problems facing the country: stabilizing the banks and stimulating the economy, creating jobs and raising wages, investing in public works and modernizing lagging regions, and giving ordinary Americans a new sense of security and hope.
This was due to the Great Depression that was triggered by the stock market crash of 1929. The government also thought that it would be better to create “private-public partnerships to boost manufacturing.” Unfortunately, there were unintended consequences from these social programs. They would have generational implications in the foreseeable future.
Part of the Social Security Act of 1935 was a grant program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Under this program states would be able to:
provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined "need," set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at "matching" rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
Over the years following the Social Security Act of 1935, many states began creating and enforcing what was known as the “man in the house” rule. Under this rule:
a child who otherwise qualified for welfare benefits was denied those benefits if the child's mother was living with, or having relations with, any single or married able-bodied male. The man was considered a substitute father, even if the man was not supporting the child.
The general gist of this rule was to deter men from relying on welfare benefits if they are able to work. It seemed innocent enough when taken at face value. Unfortunately, this had an adverse effect on some women and children. A suit challenging the legality of the “substitute father” regulation was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 23, 1968.
In King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court entertained a challenge to the man-in-the-house rule brought by the four children of Mrs. Sylvester Smith, a widow. These children were denied benefits by Dallas County, Alabama, welfare authorities, based on their knowledge that a man named Williams was visiting Smith on weekends and had sexual relations with her.—LawBrain
Williams was not the father of any of the four children, but was an “able-bodied male” that frequented the house where the four children lived with their mother. Hence, he was considered the “substitute father” because of his weekend affaire de coeur.
On June 17, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that:
Alabama's substitute father regulation is invalid because it defines "parent" in a manner that is inconsistent with § 406(a) of the Social Security Act, and, in denying AFDC assistance to appellees on the basis of the invalid regulation, Alabama has breached its federally imposed obligation to furnish aid to families with dependent children with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals. Pp. 392 U. S. 320-334.
Some have argued that remnants of the “man in the house” rule still exist today, especially in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program.
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed belong solely to P2T!
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.