NCJ Number
73681
Journal
Houston Law Review Volume: 7 Dated: (May 1970) Pages: 635-653
Date Published
1970
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This comment evaluates the constitutional, statutory, and sociological issues raised when Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare payments are reduced because of a prior overpayment; i.e., a determination other than the need standard defined by the Federal statute.
Abstract
Origins of the AFDC are traceable to the Elizabethan Poor Law of England and the transfer of its concepts to the Colonies, where they remain fundamental to the principles of public assistance. AFDC grants are calculated on the basis of individual determination of need. In 1969, AFDC was the largest Federal public assistance program, involving almost 5 million children and more than 1 million adults, with annual costs above $2 billion. One of the program's most important achievements was helping to keep families together, thus reducing child neglect, illegitimate births, delinquency, and crime among its stress-ridden recipient population. Overpayment occurs when the welfare grant plus a recipient's additional outside income amounts to more per month than the need determined by State standard. In most States, such excess income is subject to adjustment or collection. The result of recoupment provisions is to reduce assistance payments to a level below the minimum State-defined living requirement, usually in the form of a reduction of the monthly grant until the recipient has made restitution of the entire overpayment, long after the additional income has ceased. This practice contravenes the provisions of the mandate that all individuals who qualify as dependent children are entitled to receive aid. Reasons for State's recoupment practices include protection of the public purse and deterrence of fraud. However, courts have consistently rejected economic reasons as a justification for differential treatment, and fear of punishment is of little consequence to a person driven to welfare fraud by the lack of funds for the necessities of life. Furthermore, constitutional issues raised by recoupment involve cruel and unusual punishment in that children are penalized for parental acts beyond their control. Recoupment also implicates equal protection and due process rights because States' classification criteria for recoupment arbitrarily ignores reasonable relationship and compelling justification requirements. Finally, the AFDC is based on fundamental interest, the basic civil rights which override economic considerations. Since the purpose of the AFDC is to aid members of the community who are in need, it is concluded that society must assure the equal distribution of this aid to all those who are eligible according to the need criterion. Footnotes are provided.