adidas W- DA9524 Womens CF Advantage W- adidas Choose SZ/Color. 062aba

adidas W- DA9524 Womens CF Advantage W- adidas Choose SZ/Color. 062aba

Item specifics

New with box: A brand-new, unused, and unworn item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as ... Read moreabout the condition
UPC: 0191028293380
Style: Sport Brand: adidas
US Shoe Size (Women's): Multiple Variations Model: DA9524
Size Type: Regular MPN: DA9524
Material Type: Leather
January 10, 2018

adidas W- DA9524 Womens CF Advantage W- adidas Choose SZ/Color. 062aba

Back to Blog


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.

FIT FLOP womens flip flops blue with application model A63-097 NOVY SUPERNAVYMr/Ms Skechers Women's Mantra Ultra Forte Sneaker Excellent craft Win highly appreciated Speed ​​refund,Nike W Roshe Two Flyknit V2 Black WhiteAdidas Originals Women's EQT Racing ADV Shoes CP9677,Versace 19.69 D18 NAPPA CIELO sneaker Women's Light Blue US,NIKE CORTEZ BASIC QS AH3054 600 Pink 6.5Y = 24.5cmNike Roshe Two Womens 844931-002 Black Anthracite Sail Running Shoes Size 6.5NIKE WOMAN LUNARTEMPO 2 SIZE 7.0 CHALK BLUE RUNNING COMFORT STYLE NEW,Men's/Women's C'N'C Shoes 287023 WhitexMulticolor 38 sell Environmentally friendly Amoy,Women's Nike Classic Cortez SE 902856-202 Casual Shoes Particle Beige Size 8New FILA Womens Disruptor II 2 LINEAR WHITE FS1HTA3103X UNISEX SIZE TAKSE,Nike WMNS Air Force 1 '07 SE Low Mushroom Brown Beige AA0287-200 Womens Size 9,New Balance Women's 996v3 Shoes Grey with Yellow,Reebok Women's Astroride Walk Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,Adidas Ladies Sneaker Shoes Casual Trainers superstar Los Angeles LA Trainer,WOMEN'S NIKE FREE TRAINING FOCUS FLYKNIT SNEAKERS BLACK/ROSE GOLD BNWOB $130,Nike Womens Dunk Sky Hi Size 6.5,NEW AQ1678 KID S ADIDAS CF RACER TK K W SHOES !! NEON/BLACK,North Face Women Athletic Shoes Ultra Fastpack Ii Gore-tex Shoes Tnf Black,Reebok Women's One Distance 2.0 Avon Running Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,Adidas Ladies Shoes Advantage Low VS Clean Sneaker Black Leisure NEW A4122New Balance URGEV2: Women's URGEV2 Alpha Pink/Vintage Indigo Running Sneakers,Womens NIKE DOWNSHIFTER 7 Tea Berry Running Trainers 852466 602,New Balance WW577VW Women's Health Comfortable Walking Shoe White LeatherPearl Izumi Womens W X-Alp Elevat Low Top Running SneakerAsics Ultimate 81 Womens Sneaker - NIB - Free Shipping,Nike Zoom All Out Low Women's Running (Size 6.5 - 11) Bordeaux Berry 878671 605,PUMA Women's Prowl Alt Knit Mesh Trainer PUMA White/Metallic Beige SneakersMen's/Women's Inov-8 Women's F-Lite 260 Running Shoe sell Excellent performance Recommended todayDr. Scholl's Women's Repeat Zip Fashion Sneaker Grey Microsuede Snake 11 M US,

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



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


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


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:

IFS on Patreon

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