Following many poverty policy experts, I have argued that when poverty assistance programs are restricted, less aid goes to needy families than would otherwise be the case. In some instances, their benefit levels go down as the state legislature becomes stingier or ignores the eroding effect of inflation. Program requirements can be made more onerous as well by the federal and state governments, which can lead in turn to more sanctions and expulsions. In other moments, the eligibility rules can be tightened, such that a smaller percentage of the poor are eligible for admission into the AFDC/TANF program. Then there are the needy families that are technically eligible for admission but are indirectly discouraged from applying. Perhaps the welfare office is so understaffed that the waiting rooms are overcrowded and the backlog of cases is daunting. Or perhaps information is withheld from the applicants such that they find it difficult to press for equitable treatment, the application forms are overly complicated and confusing, and nonnative English speakers are not provided with translators.

It is highly likely that the paternafare requirements are operating along these lines. The governmental data on sanctions and expulsions already reveal the importance of paternafare as a benefit-trimming and roll-trimming device. It is also possible that poor single mothers now perceive paternafare as an intimidating and extraordinarily demanding system.