This item has original tags and shows no visible signs of wear.
Ships same or next day
Free shipping free returns
Responds within: 24 hrsAsk a Question
flat leather sandals with buckles
Regular (M, B)
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.Marni Black Embellished Platform Sandals Size US 8 Regular (M, B)Saint Laurent Silver Glitter Boots/Booties Size EU 41 (Approx. US 11) Regular (M, B),adidas Ray Red/White/White ‘campus’ Sneaker (Women’s) Sneakers Size US 7 Regular (M, B),Tory Burch Red Stripe Logo Espadrille Wedge Slide Sandals Size US 9 Regular (M, B),Jimmy Choo .... Sandals Size US 10 Regular (M, B),Christian Louboutin Nude Iriza 100 Pumps Size EU 34 (Approx. US 4) Regular (M, B),Tom Ford Gold 115-w0991t-mca-gol Pumps Size EU 39 (Approx. US 9) Regular (M, B)Rene Caovilla Black Swarovski Crystal-embellished Pumps Size EU 35 (Approx. US 5) Regular (M, B)Lanvin Black with White Sole Mens Leather High Top Sheepskin Lining Sneakers Size US 7 Regular (M, B),Valentino Ivory Leather Tstrap Buckle Heel with Nude Suede Pumps Size US 8.5 Regular (M, B)Jimmy Choo Black Braided Leather Lima Strappy Sandals Size EU 37.5 (Approx. US 7.5) Regular (M, B),Vince Camuto Gold/Silver Platforms Size US 9 Regular (M, B),Tory Burch Blue/Green Cecily Denim Sequins Espadrilles Flats Size US 7 Regular (M, B),Salvatore Ferragamo Black Leather Ankle Boots/Booties Size US 8 Wide (C, D),adidas Blue Red Multi Zx Flux Xeno Sneakers Size US 8 Regular (M, B),Hermès White & Blue 9 Italy Sneakers Size EU 42.5 (Approx. US 12.5) Regular (M, B),Tory Burch Dulce De Leche Dandy Espadrille Wedges Size US 8.5 Regular (M, B),Tory Burch Coconut Mini Miller 85mm Pumps Size US 5 Regular (M, B),Cole Haan Burgundy "Jodhpur" Equestrian Riding Boots/Booties Size US 8.5 Regular (M, B),adidas By Stella McCartney White Women's Barricade Boost Tennis Sneakers Size US 7 Regular (M, B),swedish hasbeens Black Hippie Low Boots/Booties Size EU 40 (Approx. US 10) Regular (M, B),Burberry Purple Snakeskin Python Leather Sandals Eu 40 Wedges Size US 10 Regular (M, B),Valentino Leopard Pumps Size US 8.5,Jimmy Choo Black Kersey Formal Shoes Size US 6.5 Regular (M, B)Vince Gray Block-heel Over The Knee Boots/Booties Size US 7 Regular (M, B),Vince Camuto Bistone Kylar Boots/Booties Size US 8 Regular (M, B),SCHUTZ Black Suede Margie Caged Single Sole Wedges Size EU 39 (Approx. US 9) Regular (M, B),Tory Burch ***reduced 9/26*** Purple Royal Reign Glitter Ballet Flats Size US 8 Regular (M, B)Salvatore Ferragamo Brown Women's Court Ribbon Accent H Pumps Size US 9.5 Regular (M, B),Christian Louboutin Silver For Barney's Cate "Trash" Slingback Pumps Size US 7,
Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.
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.
P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902
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.
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:
You can also support us on Patreon via the button below:
The Institute for Family Studies is a 501(c)3 organization. Your donation will be tax-deductible.