One of the big issues that is relevant to all types of social welfare programs is the ideal level of government for administration. What are some of the relative advantages or disadvantages of having social welfare programs controlled at the state level or at the federal level? Ideally, I would like to see some examples as well.
use the student response as an example and discussion post is 2 paragraphs
no citations or quotations
4 sentences max
There are many advantages to having state and federal control over social welfare programs. States are seen to better understand the needs of their citizens and therefore they are able to allocate resources to those citizens pretty well. An example of this would be the AFDC versus TANF. One of the main reasons AFDC was changed was because states did not have control over the requirements. Meaning, they were just giving money to people without them meeting certain requirements that the state felt they should. When TANF was put in place it gave the states more control and they were able to make citizens meet certain requirements in order to receive assistance. This is beneficial in my opinion because it allows states to allocate these funds in a more useful way. It makes it more difficult to “cheat” the system and also makes sure that we get fund to people who truly need it. The block grant is more effective for this type of programs. A disadvantage is that states have different requirements for some programs. A good example is the eligibility for SNAP benefits. Disqualification rules are inconsistent across states and this is not a serious issue but it can be. Some may feel it is unfair to give SNAP benefits t someone who does not pay their child support while other may feel that the person needs it and it can only be used for food. Another issue with SNAP is that states have inconsistent way of verifying citizenship. This may be better regulated at the federal level is this becomes a serious issue.