New with box: A brand-new, un, and un item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as ... Read moreabout the condition
|UK Shoe Size (Women's):||UK 6.5|
Does not apply
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.adidas Originals Women's Aerobounce 2 Running Shoe - Choose SZ/Color：Men's/Women's：Good Selling All over the World,MEN'S NIKE AIR PIPPEN WORK BLUE/UNIVERSITY RED-SUMMIT WHITE 325001-403 NEW 2018,NEW ADIDAS ORIGINALS SUPERSTAR CASUAL WOMENS SHOES SCARLET RED WHITE 5.5 - 11,adidas Originals FLB Runner Women's Aero Green/White/Ash Green CQ1971,Nike DUNK HIGH PRO SB Game Royal Black White 305050-404 (440) Men's Shoes,Adidas Pure Boost X Element Womens BB6085 Grey Knit Running Shoes Size 9.5Adidas Y-3S approach low boost+Neu+OVP+Gr. 38 2-3-yeezy-nmd-max!!!1710 adidas Originals Stan Smith Bold Mid Women's Sneakers Sports Shoes BY9663,2006 Nike SB DUNK LOW CL AIR JORDAN II 2 RETRO WHITE BLACK RED 304714-117 12,ADIDAS PUREBOOST W Q4 M21408 WOMENS RUNNING SHOES PINK/BLACK,Womens Adidas Forum Up W - Q22076 - Pink Silver White Trainers,Adidas Volley Response 2 Boost NEW Authentic,adidas Women's Gymbreaker Bounce Training Sneakers,1711 adidas Originals Haven Women's Sneakers Sports Shoes BY9572WOMENS ADIDAS SOLARGLIDE BOOST LADIES RUNNING/SNEAKERS/FITNESS/RUNNERS SHOESAdidas Superstar Nube Blanco Core Negro Niños UnisexNike Komyuter SE KMTR Birch Black Brown Orange Yellow AA0531-200 Men's 10-12 NEW,Nike Air Griffey Max 1 (GS) Men's Shoes Size 6Y 437353-107 White/Blue/Gold,New with box ADIDAS PUREBOOST XPOSE Women's Grey / White Sneakers 5.5 B(M) US,New WOMENS ADIDAS GRAY LIQUID ZX FLUX NYLON Sneakers Running Style,adidas Campus - Beige - Womens,Adidas Nmd_r1 W Womens CQ2011 CBLACK,CARBON,White Womens Size 10：Man's/Woman's：Trendy New,Adidas Superstar Glossy Toe Size 7.5 Women's Tecste Black S76723 Sneakers StyleAdidas Originals Women’s Running shoe Pink White Size 8,Adidas Originals Gazelle Pack Zapatillas Running Hombre BB5246 Zapatillas,adidas Duramo 7 Womens Running Sneakers / Sports Shoes - BlueAdidas NMD R1 Stlt Primeknit Womens CQ2029 Steel Pearl Running Shoes Size 9,1709 adidas Supernova St Women's Training Running Shoes BB3507,Mens Nike SHOX GRAVITY Running Shoes "Metallic Gold" -AQ8553 009 -Sz 11.5 -New,Adidas NMD_R1 W Ice Blue BY8763 Sz 9,
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.