Information and Resources Written by Chris Gersten

1. HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ROLE IN MARRIAGE STRENGTHENING PROGRAMS

• In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which, among other things, gave states the opportunity to use TANF funding to strengthen marriage and encouraged States to use the funding to increase the number of children raised in two-parent homes.
• Between 1996 and 2000, only one state, Oklahoma, launched a major marriage education initiative which has continued to this day. No Federal government action was taken.
• In 2001, the Administration, realizing that States were not using TANF funding to strengthen relationships, fatherhood, or marriage, added an amendment to the proposed TANF Reauthorization legislation which specifically earmarked $150 million for marriage strengthening programs.
• The TANF Reauthorization was not enacted into law until 2006 and included the $150 million; $100 million for marriage education programs and $50 million for Fatherhood programs.
• This $150 million did not include one penny of new funding.  Rather, it took $150 million from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act “Out of Wedlock Birth Bonuses” to the states. These bonuses were a complete failure.  States did nothing deliberately to earn these bonuses.  Each year, three to six states would receive a check for $25 million or more because their out-of-wedlock birth rates accidently went down, or went up slower than the other states.  Not one penny of this money was then used to strengthen relationships, marriage, or fatherhood.  No state won bonus money as a result of any specific policy enacted to reduce out of wedlock births.
• Not a single state complained or lobbied Congress to save these bonuses.
• The 2006 TANF Reauthorization Act earmarked $100 million for marriage strengthening grants to private, non-profit, community and faith-based organizations, state government, universities, and Tribes under eight different categories including:

1. Programs to provide marriage education to unmarried couples
2. Marriage education to couples in troubled marriages
3. Marriage and relationship education in the schools
4. Public affairs campaigns to promote the value of marriage and to educate the public about marriage education
5. Experimental programs to explore ways to overcome financial disincentives to marriage built into the welfare system
6. Mentoring programs to help couples in troubled marriages.

2. THE NEW ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL REPLACING THE MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD TANF GRANTS

• Now the new Administration and HHS have proposed, in the 2011 Budget to Congress, the elimination of this funding after the first five years.  Before the research has been analyzed, before we know whether this program is a success or not, without public discussion about the merits of the grants, and without any input from grantees or the marriage education movement, all the Federal funding will be permanently eliminated.
• This decision to eliminate the current funding was made after only 2/3 of the five year grant cycle has been completed.
• The new legislation, which replaces the $150 million a year grants with $500 million a year for three years, has No Funding for Marriage Education, even though the word “Marriage” is in the title of the legislation.
• The only place where “marriage” is listed in the proposed new legislation is that “Fatherhood programs would be allowed to have a marriage education component.”
• Grantees for the new funding would be eight states.  Marriage education grantees and others would not be allowed to compete for the new Federal funding.

3.  THE NEW FEDERAL BUDGET LANGUAGE

• Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund
  The Budget includes a legislative proposal for a new mandatory fund that
  would provide competitive grants to States(not to community groups or grantees) for program innovations in two areas focused on helping hard-to-reach populations.
• Strengthening families by investing in comprehensive responsible fatherhood initiatives.
  Programs might include expanding service provided through child support enforcement offices, funding comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs, eliminating barriers to employment, providing enhanced training, and employment opportunities. States will partner with non-profits and community organizations withthese programs.
• Improving child outcomes by improving outcomes for custodial parents facing serious barriers to self-sufficiency.
  Funded activities would focus on barriers to employment and could include interventions like home visitation, subsidized employment, transitional jobs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment.
• General specifications for the fund include: Three-year grants to States on a competitive basis; States proposing activities supported by strong evidence will be prioritized; States that receive funding will be expected to rigorously evaluate programs; and, funds may be for statewide or community-specific initiatives.

4. SUMMARY

1. The proposed legislation to replace the current marriage and fatherhood grants is a disguised Child Support Enforcement proposal to help at-risk men with job training, home visitation, subsidized employment, transitional jobs, mental health and substance abuse treatment.
2. The funding will go to eight states.  Individual grantees will not be eligible to apply.
3. The proposal eliminates the marriage and fatherhood grants before any research has been analyzed and only 2/3 of the way through the 5 year grant program.
4. The proposal was made in the absence of any transparency in decision-making.  No discussions were held with the stake-holders.  No research findings were analyzed or discussed.

Q and A  ABOUT THE CURRENT MARRIAGE EDUCATI0N PROGRAMS

Q. Do these marriage and fatherhood programs discriminate against single people?

A.  No, single individuals and unmarried couples are welcome in marriage and fatherhood programs.  Most of the marriage and relationship education classes have singles in the class room learning relationship skills.  Some of these singles are in current relationships and others are not.  Some singles are in the classes seeking to gain relationship and communication skills to help them in future relationships.

Q. Does the TANF Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative coerce unmarried women into marrying?

A. No.  The Act is specifically designed to have local grantees provide people with the skills they need to form and sustain healthy relationships and marriages.  It does not push or coerce anyone into marrying.  The Act and the administration of the Act by ACF/HHS specifically require each grantee to partner with local domestic violence coalitions and to have procedures in place to help women who are victims of domestic violence.

Q. Is Marriage Education research-based?

A. Yes, there is a large body of research in the United States and Europe which clearly proves that couples that have taken an accredited marriage education class are 50% Less Likely to divorce after 5 years and after 10 years than couples who have not taken marriage education classes.   http://www.famli.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=21&Itemid=36

http://uncnews.unc.edu/content/view/2986/71/    Military wives reduce risk of depression if they get relationship training.

Q. The GAO report to Congress on the Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood grants raised questions about the adequate oversight and Administration of the Act.  Have these questions been addressed adequately by the Administration for Children and Families?
A. Yes.  ACF made a number of changes that have addressed the issues raised in the GAO study.  A few grantees had their funding removed.  Some grantees were put on probation until they corrected problems.  The difficulty grantees had in creating new programs was no different than grantees have in all newly created government grants.

Q. Can Gay and Lesbian men and women access the relationship strengthening programs funding by these grants.

A.  A number of grantees partner with faith and community-based organizations that open their classes to members of the Gay and Lesbian communities.  There is no discrimination based on sexual preference in the provision of these services.