Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4

Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4
January 10, 2018

Ted Baker Kellei Black Womens Black Kellei Leather Trainers d0e7c4

Back to Blog

Highlights

Print Post
  • A new Minnesota law represents the bi-partisan possibilities of enacting legislation based on the consensus that marriage is a vital tool for reducing poverty. Tweet This
  • Minnesota recently enacted a 12-month “honeymoon” period for newly-married couples receiving assistance through the state's TANF. Tweet This

Many discussions about safety-net programs tend to focus on financial cliffs—how the impact of getting a raise or working additional hours may make participants ineligible for the very benefits they need to move into economic stability. Marriage is rarely part of this discussion, even though numerous studies show marriage is an important tool for moving families out of poverty.1 That marriage is often absent from these discussions is especially ironic, since the promotion of family stability—by encouraging marriage and discouraging nonmarital births—was among the chief policy rationales for welfare reform in 1996.

After reviewing research stressing the importance of eliminating marriage penalties, we developed and successfully advocated for legislation that would create a “honeymoon” period for newly-married couples receiving assistance through Minnesota’s version of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The legislation (HF 1453/SF 1165) received strong bipartisan support and was enacted by a Republican Legislature and Democratic Governor Mark Dayton in 2017. In our view, it represents the bi-partisan possibilities of enacting legislation based on the consensus that marriage is a vital tool for reducing poverty and fostering child well-being.

Crafting a Policy

Minnesota’s version of TANF is the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), which provides work support and cash assistance for children and their parents, who are often low wage workers between jobs. There has been no increase in the amount of the cash benefit to participants in over 30 years. Both of our organizations were involved in advocating for an increase.

As we talked with people of faith across our state, especially religious leaders, we kept hearing about couples who wanted to be married but couldn’t afford to make this decision because adding another adult to the family’s income would put them over the poverty threshold used to determine eligibility.2 The concerns were often strongest for couples expecting a baby who wished to be married before birth of their child. Unfortunately, marriage would result in a loss of benefits at the exact time the new mother would be unable to work. We sought to address this marriage disincentive.

Framing the Legislation

In our experience, all elected officials want to help families and individuals in poverty. They desire all our citizens to be economically stable and prosperous, but they often have different ideas about how to make that happen. Our goal was to frame our bill in a way that showed a commitment to helping children live in stable, secure homes that lawmakers from both parties could champion.

To that end, we drafted a bill to create an 18-month window after marriage in which a new spouse’s income would not count when determining eligibility—a “honeymoon” period. This income disregard was modeled on an existing statute that addressed child support for children on MFIP. Due to constitutional concerns related to marriage incentive programs, we consciously chose to structure the bill in a way that would allow couples to choose to marry rather than reward those who married.

Making the Pitch

In seeking bill sponsors (and later other supporters), we spoke about the benefits of marriage to children and the challenges to couples that wanted to marry but knew the very real financial impact this would have on their families. We shared that the federal TANF Program, which is used to fund MFIP, specifically lists two marriage-related goals: to promote marriage and to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.

We provided data from a joint American Enterprise Institute/Los Angeles Times study3 in which people in poverty were asked: “How often do you think unmarried adults chose not to get married to avoid losing welfare benefits?” Twenty-four percent of participants answered, “almost always,” and an additional 23% answered, “often.”

We also gave legislators highlighted copies of a 2009 study of the federal TANF program that showed participation in the TANF program had a negative effect on the probability of marriage, an effect that disappeared once participants moved off the program.4

In building strong bipartisan support for the legislation, we addressed some concerns along the way. For example, we made it clear that we were not judging single parents but instead creating a viable option for couples who wanted to be married. We also clarified that nothing in the bill would trap a parent in a relationship that was dangerous for the parent or children.

Our House author identified a concern we hadn’t anticipated—should the state allow continued participation in the MFIP program if a participant marries a middle or upper-class individual? We addressed this by amending the bill to include a cap on the income disregard, set at 275% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, the standard used to determine whether pregnant women and children are eligible for Medicaid.

In both chambers, the bill passed unanimously and was included in an omnibus bill signed by our Governor. Ultimately, the bill had to be amended to provide an income disregard for 12 months instead of the original 18. This change was unfortunate given that, ideally, this honeymoon period would last two or three years. Despite this amendment, the new law will likely make a significant impact by removing an obstacle to marriage for low-income households in our state.

Mizuno Wave Creation 16 Running Shoes - Pink, Blue, Silver - Women's size 11 New,Adidas Womens Terrex Swift R2 GTX Hiking Shoes CM7503 Black/Ash Green Size 7,New Vivobarefoot PRIMUS TRAIL SG Womens Mesh Olive Minimalist Sneaker Trainer,ASH WOMAN CASUAL SNEAKER SLIP ON SHOES LEATHER CODE JORDY FW15-S-105892-003Shoes Lifestyle Retro 90s New Balance White Women WSX90-CLA,FitFlop Women's Halo Thong Wedge Sandal Taupe Snake Embossed Leather,Asics GT 2000 4 Womens Runner (B) (4050) + Free Delivery Australia WideNike Womens Air Foamposite One "SIlver" - AA3963 100,SZ.7.5 Nike Womens Air Jordan 1 REBEL XX AO1530-100 OffWhiteSuecomma Bonnie multi colored women's Sneakers SZ 7.5 US,NEW BALANCE 770 MADE IN ENGLAND WOMEN W770SMP PINK WOMAN CASUAL TIME,New Mizuno 410874 0090 Wave Horizon White / Black Women's Running Shoes 7.5 US,Nike Air More Uptempo Women’s Size 9 White/Chrome-Blue Tint 917593 100 NewNew Adidas Adipower Boost Boa Golf Shoes Sz 7.5 WMNS Purple White TW Q44291,HOGAN REBEL WOMEN'S SHOES HIGH TOP SUEDE TRAINERS SNEAKERS R141 BLUE 615Women’s Nike ACG Lupinek Flyknit Defender Repellent Systems 862512-001 Size 8,Nike Air Huarache City Womens AH6787-002 Black Navy Racer Pink Shoes Size 8,NIKE Womens Nike Air Zoom Pegasus 34 880560-001 BLACK Size 9,ASICS Vollyball shoes GEL-NET BURNER White×Black TVR477 from japan(Choose Size),Nike Women's Epic React Flyknit Gunsmoke White Black Grey Running AQ0070-010Brand New Air Max 270 Women's "Light Grey" Fashion Sneakers [AH6789 007],NIKE Womens Nike Free Rn Running Flyknit 2018 942839-801 CRIMSON PULSE Size 10WMNS NIKE EPIC REACT FLYKNIT ID BLACK-DARK GREY SZ 7.5 [AJ7286-994],Harley-Davidson Women's Kemper Bootie Black Full Grain Leather ZipperNike Wmns Air Max 95 Leather Purple Smoke Women New Mauve Sneakers AQ8758-200,Nike Special Field Air Force 1 Mid GS Triple Black Juniors Girls Womens BoysSKECHERS Shape Ups Fitness Women's Walking Sneakers Shoes Size 8 White Silver,NIB Hoka One Vanquish 3 Running Road Shoes Women 11 Purple Microchip SOLD OUTBrand New Nike LunarElite Sky Hi Wedge Sneaker 38.5 7.5 patent burgundy purpleBelstaff Dillon High Top Fashion Sneakers, Silver,

Join the IFS Mailing List

Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.

Institute for Family Studies

© 2018 Institute for Family Studies

Nike Free RN Flyknit 2017 Womens 880844-002 Wolf Grey Running Shoes Size 6.5,

Contact

Interested in learning more about the work of the Institute for Family Studies? Please feel free to contact us by using your preferred method detailed below.
 

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902
 


610.733.4804

Media Inquiries

We encourage members of the media interested in learning more about the people and projects behind the work of the Institute for Family Studies to get started by perusing our "Media Kit" materials.

Media Kit

Support

Thanks for your interest in supporting the work of The Institute for Family Studies. Please mail support checks to the address below:

The Institute for Family Studies
P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902

If you would like to donate online, please click the button below to be taken to our donation form:

Donate

You can also support us on Patreon via the button below:

IFS on Patreon

The Institute for Family Studies is a 501(c)3 organization. Your donation will be tax-deductible.