News
Public Interest
Aug. 9, 2002
Marriage Mistake
Forum Column - By Kenneth J. Theisen - The Personal Responsibility and Workforce Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, more commonly known as welfare reform, is due for reauthorization by September. The Bush administration has proposed to divert $300 million from the $17 billion welfare budget to promote marriage among welfare recipients.
Forum Column
By Kenneth J. Theisen
The Personal Responsibility and Workforce Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, more commonly known as welfare reform, is due for reauthorization by September. The Bush administration has proposed to divert $300 million from the $17 billion welfare budget to promote marriage among welfare recipients.
This will be a gigantic federal social engineering experiment, something that conservatives generally oppose. But, in this case, many conservatives are rallying to the marriage cause.
Wade Horn, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said, "My central overriding concern is not marriage; it is the well-being of children."
But the $300 million question is whether this experiment will benefit children.
This emphasis on marriage is not new. The 1996 welfare law begins, "The Congress makes the following findings: Marriage is the foundation of a successful society. Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society that promotes the interests of its children. Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children."
The House Ways and Means human resources subcommittee, which has held hearings on the marriage-promotion proposal, has discussed ways to promote marriage.
These have included requiring welfare caseworkers to discuss marriage with pregnant clients, teaching about marriage in the schools, providing additional money to couples who are married, providing additional money to states with higher marriage rates among welfare recipients and experimenting to discover "ways to increase marriages between poor men and women with children."
It is not clear which if any of these proposals will become law.
But many advocates for women and children receiving welfare argue that weddings are not the remedy for poverty. They claim that making women dependent on men is not a substitute for decent-paying jobs, adequate education and training, affordable child care, substance-abuse treatment programs, successful child-support collection, transportation subsidies, health care access, domestic-violence prevention programs and numerous other activities that have proved to help people successfully move from welfare and beyond poverty. They further argue that diverting $300 million from programs that have proved to alleviate poverty is a mistake.
Marcia Carlson, a sociology professor at Columbia University, believes that most welfare recipients desire marriage.
"Even the unmarried poor ones say, 'Marriage is good for children. I want to get married,'" Carlson says.
But the very fact that people are on welfare often prevents them from getting married.
Carlson states, "The more income you have, the more likely you are to marry."
But numerous studies have found that lack of money is one of the biggest stresses for poor people who are married. Removing barriers that would lead to better-paying jobs would go far in encouraging and promoting marriage and strengthening families.
The real measure of success for welfare reform should be its ability to strengthen families and reduce poverty for these families, not the number of people who get married. Proposals that reward states for the number or percentage of married recipients would not necessarily strengthen families or reduce poverty. They may even have the opposite effect.
In many cases, women may have excellent reasons for not wanting to be married to the father of their child or to their current lover. The partner may be a poor wage earner or an otherwise unfit parent. In many cases, it is the father who has abandoned the family. The mother may have had no choice in the father's departure.
In addition, the marriage pool for poor women is not the same as the general marriage pool. Researchers from the "Fragile Families and Child Well-Being" study, conducted from June 1999 to October 2000 by Princeton and Columbia universities, found that unmarried fathers were twice as likely as married fathers to have psychological or physical problems that interfered with their ability to work. They were several times more likely to have substance-abuse problems. More than a quarter were unemployed at the time of their child's birth.
In many cases, physical abuse in the relationship may make marriage dangerous. Studies show that two-thirds or more of welfare recipients are survivors of domestic violence. Their abusers are many of the same men whom the marriage proposal may force them to marry if it is not crafted carefully.
Financial inducements encouraging marriage to someone living in poverty can be a means of force. A victim of abuse may remain in or enter into an abusive relationship to obtain financial benefits that are needed by her children and herself.
While in many cases, marriage offers economic and maybe even social benefits, the marriage-formation proposal has downsides. Not being married is frequently a result of poverty and economic insecurity, not vice versa. Encouraging couples to marry without solving the problems that make relationships rocky could place them in a worse position, particularly where domestic violence is an issue.
A two-parent family does not end child poverty automatically. Single parenthood does not necessarily result in poverty. In countries with better safety nets, single-parent families are less likely to be poor than in the United States.
A report in the June 2002 Child Trends, "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" analyzed welfare-reform studies. The authors found, "Favorable impacts were more likely to occur when mothers were able to get and keep a job and increase family income and, to some degree, when mothers were able to raise their educational level."
The same report also found, "Children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. In other words, marriage to just anyone is generally not as good for children as marriage to the biological parent; and marriages that are violent or wracked by conflict can be harmful to children. But, frankly, neither researchers nor policy makers at this point know just how to assure strong marriages or how to reduce childbearing outside of marriage among adults."
Until we have a better idea how to do so, it seems foolhardy to invest $300 million in a grand social experiment.
We may wish to look at the success or failure in states where marriage is a policy priority. Oklahoma is one such state. With its $10 million, it has held pep rallies led by two evangelical "marriage ambassadors." Arizona and Michigan also have made marriage a policy priority.
In West Virginia, those on welfare who are married get an extra $100 marriage bonus each month. What effect has this had on strengthening families? How has it affected domestic violence? Has it alleviated poverty in families that are married or just increased poverty in single-parent families?
We should answer some of these questions. It would make sense to see how these states do before we try the experiment on a national scale. Surely, we should conduct controlled experiments in such states that will cost much less than $300 million.
There are ways to strengthen families and reduce poverty among children with methods that have been shown to work on a national scale. If we are to improve outcomes for children, we not only must provide child care for parents who work but also must invest in early childhood development programs. The earned income tax credit has increased family incomes. Child-support collection has increased family income dramatically when it is collected, not just ordered by the courts.
Programs that promote responsible fatherhood have increased father's participation in their children's lives, as well as increased child-support payments. Job training and educational programs have enabled welfare recipients to obtain living-wage jobs, not minimum-wage jobs that keep them in poverty. These programs enable families to escape poverty and strengthen the family simultaneously. They can enable the families that wish to do so to marry and not worry constantly about money matters that may cause undue stress in a marriage. The $300 million million would be better spent on such programs that work than on untried experiments.
Kenneth J. Theisen is the communications director at Bay Area Legal Aid. Justice for All is a monthly column written by BayLegal staff about public-interest law issues.
By Kenneth J. Theisen
The Personal Responsibility and Workforce Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, more commonly known as welfare reform, is due for reauthorization by September. The Bush administration has proposed to divert $300 million from the $17 billion welfare budget to promote marriage among welfare recipients.
This will be a gigantic federal social engineering experiment, something that conservatives generally oppose. But, in this case, many conservatives are rallying to the marriage cause.
Wade Horn, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said, "My central overriding concern is not marriage; it is the well-being of children."
But the $300 million question is whether this experiment will benefit children.
This emphasis on marriage is not new. The 1996 welfare law begins, "The Congress makes the following findings: Marriage is the foundation of a successful society. Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society that promotes the interests of its children. Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children."
The House Ways and Means human resources subcommittee, which has held hearings on the marriage-promotion proposal, has discussed ways to promote marriage.
These have included requiring welfare caseworkers to discuss marriage with pregnant clients, teaching about marriage in the schools, providing additional money to couples who are married, providing additional money to states with higher marriage rates among welfare recipients and experimenting to discover "ways to increase marriages between poor men and women with children."
It is not clear which if any of these proposals will become law.
But many advocates for women and children receiving welfare argue that weddings are not the remedy for poverty. They claim that making women dependent on men is not a substitute for decent-paying jobs, adequate education and training, affordable child care, substance-abuse treatment programs, successful child-support collection, transportation subsidies, health care access, domestic-violence prevention programs and numerous other activities that have proved to help people successfully move from welfare and beyond poverty. They further argue that diverting $300 million from programs that have proved to alleviate poverty is a mistake.
Marcia Carlson, a sociology professor at Columbia University, believes that most welfare recipients desire marriage.
"Even the unmarried poor ones say, 'Marriage is good for children. I want to get married,'" Carlson says.
But the very fact that people are on welfare often prevents them from getting married.
Carlson states, "The more income you have, the more likely you are to marry."
But numerous studies have found that lack of money is one of the biggest stresses for poor people who are married. Removing barriers that would lead to better-paying jobs would go far in encouraging and promoting marriage and strengthening families.
The real measure of success for welfare reform should be its ability to strengthen families and reduce poverty for these families, not the number of people who get married. Proposals that reward states for the number or percentage of married recipients would not necessarily strengthen families or reduce poverty. They may even have the opposite effect.
In many cases, women may have excellent reasons for not wanting to be married to the father of their child or to their current lover. The partner may be a poor wage earner or an otherwise unfit parent. In many cases, it is the father who has abandoned the family. The mother may have had no choice in the father's departure.
In addition, the marriage pool for poor women is not the same as the general marriage pool. Researchers from the "Fragile Families and Child Well-Being" study, conducted from June 1999 to October 2000 by Princeton and Columbia universities, found that unmarried fathers were twice as likely as married fathers to have psychological or physical problems that interfered with their ability to work. They were several times more likely to have substance-abuse problems. More than a quarter were unemployed at the time of their child's birth.
In many cases, physical abuse in the relationship may make marriage dangerous. Studies show that two-thirds or more of welfare recipients are survivors of domestic violence. Their abusers are many of the same men whom the marriage proposal may force them to marry if it is not crafted carefully.
Financial inducements encouraging marriage to someone living in poverty can be a means of force. A victim of abuse may remain in or enter into an abusive relationship to obtain financial benefits that are needed by her children and herself.
While in many cases, marriage offers economic and maybe even social benefits, the marriage-formation proposal has downsides. Not being married is frequently a result of poverty and economic insecurity, not vice versa. Encouraging couples to marry without solving the problems that make relationships rocky could place them in a worse position, particularly where domestic violence is an issue.
A two-parent family does not end child poverty automatically. Single parenthood does not necessarily result in poverty. In countries with better safety nets, single-parent families are less likely to be poor than in the United States.
A report in the June 2002 Child Trends, "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" analyzed welfare-reform studies. The authors found, "Favorable impacts were more likely to occur when mothers were able to get and keep a job and increase family income and, to some degree, when mothers were able to raise their educational level."
The same report also found, "Children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. In other words, marriage to just anyone is generally not as good for children as marriage to the biological parent; and marriages that are violent or wracked by conflict can be harmful to children. But, frankly, neither researchers nor policy makers at this point know just how to assure strong marriages or how to reduce childbearing outside of marriage among adults."
Until we have a better idea how to do so, it seems foolhardy to invest $300 million in a grand social experiment.
We may wish to look at the success or failure in states where marriage is a policy priority. Oklahoma is one such state. With its $10 million, it has held pep rallies led by two evangelical "marriage ambassadors." Arizona and Michigan also have made marriage a policy priority.
In West Virginia, those on welfare who are married get an extra $100 marriage bonus each month. What effect has this had on strengthening families? How has it affected domestic violence? Has it alleviated poverty in families that are married or just increased poverty in single-parent families?
We should answer some of these questions. It would make sense to see how these states do before we try the experiment on a national scale. Surely, we should conduct controlled experiments in such states that will cost much less than $300 million.
There are ways to strengthen families and reduce poverty among children with methods that have been shown to work on a national scale. If we are to improve outcomes for children, we not only must provide child care for parents who work but also must invest in early childhood development programs. The earned income tax credit has increased family incomes. Child-support collection has increased family income dramatically when it is collected, not just ordered by the courts.
Programs that promote responsible fatherhood have increased father's participation in their children's lives, as well as increased child-support payments. Job training and educational programs have enabled welfare recipients to obtain living-wage jobs, not minimum-wage jobs that keep them in poverty. These programs enable families to escape poverty and strengthen the family simultaneously. They can enable the families that wish to do so to marry and not worry constantly about money matters that may cause undue stress in a marriage. The $300 million million would be better spent on such programs that work than on untried experiments.
Kenneth J. Theisen is the communications director at Bay Area Legal Aid. Justice for All is a monthly column written by BayLegal staff about public-interest law issues.
#337183
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com