Monday, April 1, 2002

A story published today by the Washington Post reports that new state strategies to encourage marriage, all paid for with federal subsidies, would proliferate across the country under one of the most ambitious -- and divisive -- parts of President Bush's proposal for renewing the nation's welfare laws.

The administration has defined the promotion of healthy marriages as an essential, unfinished piece of the welfare reforms the federal government set in motion in the mid-1990s. "Stable families should be the central goal of American welfare policy," Bush declared at an Anacostia church where he announced his welfare plan in February. "So my administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening marriages."

To accomplish that goal, the president is asking Congress to devote $300 million a year for states to experiment with programs that try to increase the proportion of children growing up in "married-couple families."

The White House also wants to require states, for the first time, to include in the welfare plans they must submit to the federal government "explicit descriptions of their family-formation and healthy--marriage efforts." And in a subtle but potent shift, the administration proposes rewording part of the 1996 law that overhauled the welfare system, amending a basic purpose of the program, "formation and encouragement of two-parent families," so that it contains the extra words: "healthy, two-parent married families."

In addition to those changes, which require congressional approval, the administration is considering whether to funnel more money to states to conduct marriage campaigns through a program created to help single parents collect child support.

The dispute has reached into Congress, as lawmakers discuss how to renew the welfare law, set to expire this fall. Many Republicans endorse the White House's proposal.

The issue, however, has put Democrats in an awkward position --- uncomfortable with the president's plans but reluctant to sound as if they oppose marriage. It is unclear how much political capital they will expend on an issue that is divisive but, budgetarily, relatively minor.

Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), one of the party's most influential members on the subject of welfare, gave a tepid reaction to Bush's marriage proposal, saying, "I'm not ready to condemn it." Cardin said he would like to offer states the opportunity to use subsidies to strengthen families for broader purposes than the administration envisions --  such as for programs that focus purely on fathers, regardless of whether they want to marry. He also said any such subsidies should be entirely new, not --  as the administration intends -- a recycling of funds that have been used for other welfare purposes.

Other congressional Democrats, particularly women and the party's strongest liberals, are more vehemently opposed. Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) said marriage is less important in determining whether families escape poverty than education. He accused Bush of latching onto an idea that is popular with the GOP political base, including conservative Christians, in an election year. "I can't help but believe this is a program sold at the prayer breakfasts around the country," Stark said.

Researchers across the ideological spectrum agree with the administration's basic premise: Children raised in stable environments with both parents tend to fare better than those who are not. But liberals say there is no guarantee that government efforts to nudge people toward marriages -- even if they succeed -- will lift them from poverty or produce stable households.

Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said poverty among mothers and children appears to be caused less by a failure to marry than by teenage births. "So I just feel all this talk about marriage is a little bit off-tune," she said.

Administration officials acknowledge they are unsure exactly what methods will foster skills that can make marriages succeed. That, they say, is precisely why the government should pay for experiments across the country to see what might work.

Officials in the few states that have begun to use welfare subsidies for marriage initiatives say they are trying to evaluate their worth. Oklahoma is especially energetic, using $10 million in welfare subsidies in a gubernatorial initiative intended to promote marriage and reduce the state's high divorce rate. The state has been training people at social service agencies, religious groups and health departments to detect those who might benefit from marriage workshops. It also has trained 175 people across the state to teach the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, a 10-hour class that focuses on how to communicate clearly, argue constructively and keep fun in marriages.

The tensions such efforts may stir within states, if Congress agrees to Bush's plans, are being foreshadowed in places where they are being tried. The governor of Arizona, for instance, was uncomfortable when a state legislator proposed two years ago using more than $10 million in welfare subsidies on a multi-pronged marriage program.

Gov. Jane Hull (R) "is a Goldwater conservative. She thinks government ought to stay out of people's lives," said Jodi Beckley, the governor's policy adviser for human services. Besides, with welfare caseloads rising after years of decline, Hull was reluctant to divert welfare money from more traditional welfare services such as job-training and transportation, Beckley said.

In the end, Arizona compromised on a $1 million project that would create a marriage commission, a 27-page pamphlet that -- like Utah's video-- is being handed to couples that apply for marriage licenses, and marriage workshops.

Beckley said Bush's proposal is appealing because it would be a special subsidy, eliminating the choice whether to devote welfare money to marriage programs or other purposes. "As long as we can feel comfortable that you are not spending bread-and-butter money on social experiments, we're fine with it."