called "man-in-the-house" rules, which disqualified families if there was any adult male present in the household whatsoever. This was part of a broader attempt to discourage welfare dependency by the undeserving, in particular black families where the man didn't have work or where the woman had a relationship with men who didn't take care of the family. The "man-in-the-house" rule was struck down in 1968 by the Supreme Court in King v. Smith. Thereafter, families with males in the household were eligible for benefits if they were not deemed to be actual or substitute parents, although any financial contribution on the part of the male to the family was still considered a part of the family's total income. By 1981, the Supreme Court went further and required that states take into consideration the income earned by step-fathers. Thirty-and-a-third rule The year 1967 saw the establishment of the thirty-and-a-third rule, which allowed families to keep their first $30 earned along with one third of their income following the first $30 without the change affecting their eligibility for benefits. This and other factors led to a large increase in enrollment. For example, caseloads rose 24% from 1960 to 1965, but rose 126% in the period from 1965 to 1970. Criticism Early in the program, there were concerns about whether it encouraged unwed motherhood. Some advocates complained that the rule had the effect of breaking up marriages and promoting matriarchy: [T]he AFDC program tended to treat households with a cohabiting male who was not the natural father of the children much more leniently than those with a resident spouse or father of the children. This feature created a clear disincentive for marriage and also a clear incentive for divorce, because women who married face the reduction or loss of their AFDC benefits. In 1984, libertarian author Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, suggested that welfare causes dependency. He argued that as welfare benefits increased, the number of recipients also increased; this behavior, he said, was rational: there is little reason to work if one can receive benefits for a long period of time without having to work. His later work and that of Richard J. Herrnstein and others suggested possible merit to the theory of a dysgenic effect, however, the data are not entirely clear. One economist was unable to find convincing evidence that welfare programs have a strong effect on the