In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), other wise known as Welfare Reform. Several of the initiators of this legislation wanted to do away with welfare as we know it. These reformers of social policy have certainly been successful in their endeavors, as welfare caseloads have plummeted to the lowest rate since 1969. Despite this sharp decline in the welfare roles since Reform in 1996, census data reveals poverty is still a harsh reality for children of America’s working class. With this historical shift, Aid to Dependent Families with Children (AFDC) became Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) a program that specifically focuses on work, and lesser known to some, promoting marriage. Welfare was originally created for families with children living in poverty nearly seventy years ago, and was never intended to encourage or promote matrimony. And while the commitment, love and support that accompany a healthy marriage can create a solid relationship to build a foundation for a family; it does not ensure economic stability. Funneling millions of US tax dollars into marriage promotion is certainly not a viable solution to lifting families out of poverty.

Rarely critiqued or discussed by the media are the overlooked and ignored goals of PRWORA legislation "to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and promote marriage." For the first time in history, social programs designed to provide relief efforts to the poor have adopted policy measures using federal funds to revitalize the institution of marriage. Over the last few years, this explicit debate became referred to as family formation, critiquing the actual composition of families, with the argument that marriage is a solution to poverty. Strong supporters of the "neo-marriage movement" aggressively advocate for giving priority to married couples with children for housing assistance and head start slots, childcare vouchers and cash grant programs, before single parent households. Meanwhile, nearly 90% of the recipients of public assistance are single or divorced mothers. Some advocates call for federal TANF funding to be utilized for fatherhood initiatives intended to help absent fathers get involved with their children, rehabilitate themselves and pay child support. Very rapidly, state and federal TANF dollars are being spent to promote marital relations, when this pot of government money was originally earmarked for poor families with children.

In response to this fundamental change in policy, some states including Arizona, Oklahoma and Florida have spent millions of TANF dollars to create abstinence programs and pre-marital skills classes in high schools. Yet, it is indeterminable whether these prevention methods have directly impacted non-marital birth rates. Some states have also begun to encourage and offer marriage counseling for couples on welfare by allocating additional funds. However, counseling services are already available to all welfare clients who qualify for medical benefits. In short, this marriage promotion policy has funded duplicate services. Interestingly enough, the state of Arizona spends more than one million dollars annually to offer marriage skills courses to welfare recipients, distributing a healthy marriage handbook at these classes, most of them single mothers and a small percentage of couples. Still these education efforts and funding for couples counseling have little if any impact of the lives of poor children.

In addition to these programs and policies to promote marriage, cold, hard cash incentives to marry are being offered in West Virginia, who introduced a monthly marriage bonus of $100 for welfare recipients who are currently married and living in the same home. And while decent public policy takes years to refine, these welfare laws have the potential to affect victims of domestic violence who may face severe economic dependence barriers. In fact, most studies indicate 20-30% of women receiving welfare currently or recently experienced physical abuse. Other studies indicate that nearly two thirds of women on public assistance experience some form of domestic violence within the last twelve months. Welfare has been a viable way for women with children to leave abusive relationships without financial strings attached to their abusers. Yet policies that promote and encourage marriage have endangered the lives of families, even resulting the loss of their children to the foster care system. Norma Jean Bauer, a former welfare recipient from Salt Lake City, Utah has endured this exact type of treatment, loosing her children because she attempted to leave her extremely abusive husband. She recently testified at a policy briefing in Washington DC, stating that, "my caseworker told me I had to return to a husband that beat me if I wanted to see my children. These marriage-first policies can tear families apart." Evaluating the dangers of marriage promotion is critical to creating policies that allow for the safety, privacy and choices of women who are experiencing any type of abuse.

Another controversial issue is the extensive use of millions of federal TANF funds, which have not yielded significant reduction of non-marital birth rates. PRWORA legislation introduced an annual illegitimacy bonus available to the top 5 states with the largest reductions of birth rates to non-marital parents. However, no minimum percentage change was required for states to qualify for this "illegitimacy bonus." In fact, 8 of 13 bonuses were allocated to states that reduced their non-marital birth rates by less than 2%. In 2000, Illinois received $20 million for a reduction of less than 1%; and the state of Michigan was the recipient of $25 million in 2001 for a .09% reduction of out-of wedlock births. No consideration has been given to creating bonuses for increased abortion rates, which would also directly reduce the number non-marital births, and the use of public assistance. Ron Haskins, a Brookings Institution fellow says, "there is no discernable protocol for determining which states win the bonus, while others do not."

When examining TANF marriage policies, other significant factors to consider are the relevant cultural shifts around parenthood and marriage. Contemporary American culture reflects this change in family composition. In a country where one in three marriages end in divorce, where single mothers, lesbian and gay couples become parents by choice, and where one can legally marry their spouse in a drive through chapel, it’s obvious that a fundamental shift has occurred in parenting and marital trends. Currently, 30% of children born in the United States are born out of wedlock, regardless of socio-economic status. Some scholars assert that older traditional values of marrying young, till death do you part, and certainly before having children are " losing their normative force." Research indicates that children need one consistent, responsible nurturing care-giving adult, regardless of gender, with whom they have a strong emotional relationship. Various published academics account for the practical stress of parenting and its economic ramifications in their studies. Professor Judith Stacey asserts that factors including parental attention, adequate access to education, financial resources, and social support play a large role in determining the well being of children.

Our nation’s welfare state is standing on the brink of history, because for the first time, no federal safety net will exist for America’s families living in poverty. As we enter into the year 2002, amidst a war on terrorism, in a deep recession, and with a national deficit at an astronomical height, state and federal governments alike are faced with horrendous consequential decisions about the essential needs of our country. Poverty has not been eradicated because of welfare reform. This drastic change in social policy has rapidly decreased caseloads, which in turn, has increased the working class population, without decreasing child poverty rates. Welfare programs were created to combat poverty, not focus on marriage. With the President Bush’s proposed budget allocating an alarming $300 million per year on marriage and family formation, an extensive cost-effective analysis is critical during TANF reauthorization to determine how effective marriage promotion has been at reducing poverty levels. The reality is children in our society are growing up in increasingly diverse family structures. Public policy should not discriminate or violate the constitutional rights to freedom of choice, a value that underlies the very foundation of our country.