Clarks Loafer Women's Black Leather 15260 Casual Slip On Loafer Clarks Shoes Size 7.5 M eabd8f

Clarks Loafer Women's Black Leather 15260 Casual Slip On Loafer Clarks Shoes Size 7.5 M eabd8f

Item specifics

Condition: :
An item that has been or previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections.See all condition definitions- opens in a new window or tab
Seller Notes: Good condition with normal wear. Has some scuffing on heels. From a smoke free and pet free home.
Model: 15260 UK Shoe Size (Women's): UK 5.5
Country/Region of Manufacture: China Pattern: Solid
Style: Loafers EUR Shoe Size (Women's): EUR 38
Fastening: Slip On Color: Black
US Shoe Size (Women's): US 7.5 Occasion: Casual
Heel Height: Med (1 3/4 in. to 2 3/4 in.) Brand: Clarks
Material: Leather Toe Type: Round Toe
Width: M) Heel Type: Block
UPC: Does not apply
January 10, 2018

Clarks Loafer Women's Black Leather 15260 Casual Slip On Loafer Clarks Shoes Size 7.5 M eabd8f

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.

NIB NEW Stuart Weitzman Allgood womens' black suede leather boots 6 6.5 7 $655+,Frye 'Melissa' Gore Zip Boot Black Stretchy [SZ 5.5 5 ½] EUC,Rock & Candy Womens Brown Slides Size 6.5 (404415),Rock & Candy Womens Black Ankle Strap Flats Size 6 (405136),Dr.Martens 21898001 Dr Martens Coraline LTT Boot Womens- Choose SZ/Color.,Nine West Women's Zofee Leather Ankle Boot Black 8 M US,Bed Stu Women's Blaire Tan Rustic Short Boots F387011,Women Fashion Mixed-color Bow Pointed Toe Flat Pump Leisure Shoes Unique GothicMou - Ankle boots - 320967 - Pink,FRYE 78035 Womens Danica Peep Bootie Boot- Choose SZ/Color.,AUTHENTIC ALEXANDER WANG FRANKIE CREEPER BLACK GOLD HARDWARE BOOTS SZ 5,Men's/Women's Sesto Meucci Womens Mirka High-quality The highest quality material Sales online store,02-1097 Easy Spirit Motion Leather Oxfords Size 9.5 D,Women's Winter Plush Flat Shoes Warm Slip On Lazy Peas Casual Loafers Breathable,Anne Klein Women's Globalist Leather Ankle Bootie, Black, 6 M US,Bandolino Ballet Flats Womens Size 8.5 Blue Textile Bow Front Loafers-5734Lucky Women's Keno Toffee 8 B(M) US,NEW Women's CROFT & BARROW KAT Pink Flats Fashion Casual Slip On Loafers Shoes,Sperry Top-Sider Women's Malibu Navy Fashion Sneaker 5.5M,Munro Breeze Black Fabric Women's Shoes Size 10 N,Bass Jupiter1 Womens Mules Brown Leather Size 7 M Slip On Drivers Heel Shoes,Easy Spirit Women's Icerink Ankle Bootie - Choose SZ/Color,Men's/Women's NEW FRYE WOMENS BILLY PULL ON Moderate price excellent Known for its excellent quality,Summer Flat Bottomed Anti Skid Hollowed Shoes Nurse Flat Sandals SummerMr/Ms Bogs Women's Classic Butterflies Snow Boot online sale Medium cost The first batch of customers' comprehensive specifications,Saks Fifth Avenue black size 7/12 loafer,NIB Brooks Brothers 346 White Slingback Open Toe Jute Heel Shoes Size 5,US SIZE Womens Pointy Toe Patent Leather Slip On Flats Pumps Dress Shoes OxfordsMANOLO BLAHNIK 36.5 Black Snakeskin Python Leather Ankle Boots 6,Men/Women Durango Women's Crush Cowgirl Boot Online Shopping Has a long reputation Shopping promotion,

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

Womens Ladies Faux Leather Slip On Tassel Toe Loafer Low Heel Casual Shoes,

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.