Unmarried Blog

Archive for December, 2010

Marriage programs return to federal welfare budget

In the waning days of the year, marriage programs poured on the charm (i.e., lobbied like mad) and got themselves partially reinstated in the federal budget.  Congress had not included marriage programs when it funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, the umbrella welfare program) from October through December 2010.  However,  it did include them in the new extension through September 2011, though at only three-quarters of their previous dollar level – $75 million instead of $100 million.

Fatherhood programs got a corresponding increase from $50 to 75 million.  From the sidelines, it can be interesting to watch the tug of war between marriage and fatherhood programs.  The Obama administration wanted to merge them into one, even bigger, program that would be managed by the states.  Our analysis of all that is available here.  Congress also seemed to favor programs that help low-income fathers get jobs and stay involved with their kids.  A bill called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (H.R. 2979) was being considered as an alternative to the administration’s proposal.   That bill would have to start from scratch in the new Congress.

The extra year of funding will allow Congress (and us) to review the evaluation results for many more marriage programs before deciding whether to include them in the full five-year reauthorization of TANF.  Of course, the programs are acutely aware of the importance of demonstrating positive results.

Share: economics & poverty, marriage promotion Comments 2 Dec 30th, 2010 by

Meet a board member: Kim Fox

I first became interested in the work of the Alternatives to Marriage Project when I was in graduate school and working on my Sociology dissertation entitled, “A Family of One: Work-Life Balance in Single Person Households.”   I was intrigued by the notion that people living alone had to struggle with boundaries between their time at work and time at home in ways that was not reflected in the research on work-life conflict among married, partnered and parenting individuals.

My own research showed that people living alone spend more time at work and more time with people outside their households than their peers.   Additionally, “live alones” struggle with the line between their own autonomy and their desire for connection to others.  Finally, live alones must work to define boundaries between work and home because they do not have partners or children to provide them with external boundaries.

This research topic came directly out of my personal experience as someone who happily lived alone for 10 years and was part of an extended friend group that served as my family and support system.   While I now live with my partner, I am still confronted with issues that demonstrate how marital status discrimination impacts my life, from an inability to share health insurance to constant questions on when we will get married.

From the first time I began studying families in Sociology while an undergraduate in college, I recognized that families come in many configurations and I wanted to find ways to advocate for alternative family models.  Rather than focusing on one “right” type of relationship or family, I believe that it is important to recognize that carework happens across family forms and all people deserve the right to fulfillment and support no matter their relationship status or style.

AtMP provided me with great resources and interesting discussions when I was merely a quiet member.  Now, as a member of the board, I am happy to step up to advocate for equality across families and relationship statuses.  My hope is to help others recognize that marriage is not the only way to signify a committed relationship and that people in all relationship and living situations – including living alone – are part of our larger community and deserve the same rights and benefits as married individuals.

Share: inside AtMP Comments 1 Dec 23rd, 2010 by

Civil unions for different-sex couples

If civil union or something like it were available to you, would you do it?  Would you be excited, or shrug?  What level of couple registration and rights would satisfy your desire for an alternative to marriage, or are you looking for something completely different?  The LGBT community has debated whether to settle for civil union or keep demanding legal recognition for same-sex marriage.  Where do different-sex couples and others fit in?

In France, different-sex couples get civil unions at the rate of two for every three marriages.  They are quite different from marriage.  In Illinois, different-sex partners will soon be eligible for civil union, which will be quite similar to marriage under state law. In eight other states, different-sex couples have access to varying levels of statewide registry and rights. AtMP supporter Mary Ann Vorasky is campaigning to create civil unions that are legally equivalent to marriage nationwide.

AtMP’s board-approved strategy is that marriage-equivalent civil unions are nice but not enough.  We don’t want to simply re-name marriage, we want to reconsider the rights and responsibilities now associated with married couples. Some should be eliminated altogether; many should be expanded to cover other forms of adult interdependent relationships.

Share: get gov't out of marriage Comments 11 Dec 17th, 2010 by

Thoughts on year-end giving

Last Friday, Jess and Akilah helped me send out over 200 invitations to those of you who gave generously in prior years. To ensure good karma, over the weekend I sat down to do my personal year-end giving. Since I’ve had to fundraise for a living for the past 14 years, I’m especially conscious of the donor experience. I try to be the type (if not size) of donor I’d most like to have on AtMP’s giving roster, and I try to treat AtMP’s donors as well as (or better than) I’m treated by the organizations I donate to.

I’d truly love to hear what works for you. If you’ve given to AtMP, how can we make your giving feel even better? If you haven’t, is it because of something we have or haven’t done?

Here are some things I’ve learned as a donor.

Share: inside AtMP Comments 1 Dec 15th, 2010 by

Calling all number-lovers

The Census Bureau is starting to release lots of new data, plus new tools for finding and using data.  AtMP needs volunteers to find and compile the new numbers about people who live alone, live together, live with extended families, etc.   If you can help, please contact us!  (Hint – this is a great project for students between semesters!)

Today the Census is releasing American Community Survey (ACS) estimates covering a five year period (2005-2009). Think of the ACS as a “long form” questionnaire that is given to a sample of a few hundred thousand people in order to estimate what the whole country probably looks like.  While the decennial Census counts everyone’s age, race, and where they live, the ACS estimates details like education, income, whether people were formerly married, whether they’ve had children, etc.  And there are many other surveys and estimates too.

Last week the Census used data on births and deaths, international migration and Medicare enrollment to construct estimates of the population that are totally separate from the (still unannounced) results of the 2010 Census.  This yielded five different estimates of the number of people resident in the United States, from 305,684,000 to 312,713,000.  The Census press release says they really want people to understand “the uncertainty in these figures. The 2010 Census provides the official population count, but demographic analysis provides an honest presentation of alternative estimates.”

In January, American FactFinder gets a total overhaul, which is important because it is our primary tool to access all the new 2010 Census data as well as other key data sets such as the ACS.  They’re offering an online video and a tutorial to demonstrate the enhanced features and functions of the new and improved FactFinder, including how to conduct a basic text search, view search results and select a data product to view.

The geek in me is very excited about all this. In September, I attended a Census Bureau presentation for the media and asked whether the five-year or three-year ACS estimates are superior to the most recent one-year estimate.  They said that the one-year ACS is as precise as you need to be when you want to describe the nation as a whole; but for smaller areas the three- or five-year figures are more precise.  This corrects my previous understanding.

The executive in me needs to know that some smart, reliable AtMP members are ready to help digest all the new info, so we can promptly and accurately update the ever-popular statistics section of our website.

Share: inside AtMP, statistics Comments 0 Dec 14th, 2010 by

Americans’ varying definitions of family

Book Review: Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family by Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist and Lala Carr Steelman

BY JANELLE BRAZINGTON

In their book Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family, the authors Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman publish the results of an in-depth study called “Constructing the Family Survey” conducted in both 2003 and 2006 regarding what domestic structures constitute families in America.  The study surveyed 712 and 815 Americans, respectively, about their views regarding gay couples, cohabiting couples, gay marriage, gay adoption, the extension of marital/family rights to gay or cohabiting couples, and finally what Americans count as families.

Counted Out begins with the results of the study being divided into three categories—the Exclusionists, Moderates and Inclusionists.  Exclusionists hold the most rigid view of family and require marriage, the legal contract between a man and a woman, as the foundation for their definition of family.  The Exclusionists’ family may or may not have children. But even with children, their definition of family leaves out unmarried couples or even married same-sex couples. Exclusionists used words relating to the religious and legal aspects of marriage in defining what counts as a family.

In contrast, Moderates will include any combination of adults, but children must be present for the combination to be considered a family.  The survey asked a series of closed-ended questions followed by open-ended questions.  The Moderates, at times, found that they had conflicting views.  Their closed-ended questions revealed one viewpoint, but the open-ended questions where they could talk through their answers without having to choose one option revealed a broader acceptance of varying family systems.  Finally, Inclusionists counted all structures as family, but focused on the quality of the relationship.  Intimacy, cooperation, love—how the members feel about each other and treat each other—defined a family for Inclusionists regardless of a legal marriage, the presence of children or the gender of the adults in the home.

Correlations in the data were found in levels of education; whether or not people believed the Bible to be the actual word of God, the inspired word of God or a book of fables; in racial differences; and urban vs. rural and/or regional differences.  Interestingly enough, having gay friends or relatives had a significant impact on one’s views of what constitutes a family, with many Exclusionists not having any gay  friends or family.  In addition to analyzing people’s views on what domestic structures count as families, the study also collected data regarding Americans’ views on religion and sexuality, gender and parenting, and changing one’s name as a result of marrying.

While religion and/or the legality of marriage influences many Americans’ opinions on what counts as a family, the authors point out that over the time between the two phases of the study (2003 to 2006), there was a significant decrease in the number of people who hold the Exclusionist viewpoint in a relatively short period of time.  And during the opened-ended questions, many respondents revealed their viewpoints as being tied directly to their comfort level with certain words, phrases or concepts.  This shift might suggest that as more people are exposed to ways of life and love that are different or foreign to their experiences, people will be more open in what they count as a family.

Counted Out is an in-depth presentation of thoroughly-analyzed data but in an easy-to-read format and language.  This book could be used as a text for classroom discussion, a monthly selection for your book club, or an insightful read over your next holiday.  While academic in its approach and integrity, Counted Out is an engaging book.  Through this presentation of data, we can see a more tolerant and accepting world in our near future.  A world where individuals choose their own family structures and these varying structures are respected and accepted in society.

*The term ‘gay’ is used instead of ‘same-sex’ or ‘LGBTQ’ in accordance to the authors’ usage in the text.
Janelle Brazington lives with Matt, her cohabiting partner, in Kansas, where they are raising her daughter.

Share: book reviews, statistics Comments 0 Dec 13th, 2010 by

Meet an AtMP board member – Alissa Wise

As a rabbi I have a complicated relationship to marriage.  On the one hand, I believe in the transformative power of ritual and want to facilitate meaning-making and connection whenever we are able to have it. We live in an uncertain world where opportunities for celebration should not be passed by, and certainly people making bold commitments and affirmations of love are one of those opportunities.

On the other hand, as a spiritual leader, I can not stay silent when I see the harm marriage has long been in our culture. A coveted seat of privilege, marriage reinforces systems of privilege and oppression in our culture, dividing us in harmful ways, whether through ill-advised immigration laws, through cutting people off from their support networks in hospitals, by making invisible non-romantic love and connection, or by distracting the LGBTQ community to see marriage as the ultimate goal for gender and sexual liberation.

As a board member with AtMP, I am fortunate to be able to advocate for concrete changes in the way that our government links marriage and civil rights and to fight for the rituals, celebrations, and connections that we all so much deserve.

Share: inside AtMP Comments 1 Dec 9th, 2010 by

New national standards for hospital visitation

In August, AtMP commented on the proposed federal hospital visitation rule. We urged that it explicitly ensure visitation access by health care proxies, access to incapacitated patients who have not designated visitors and/or completed advanced directives, and access without discrimination on the basis of marital/relationship status.

In late November, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) published the final rule, along with general responses to all the comments it received (nearly 7,600, of which “more than 6,300 were versions of a form letter”). We didn’t get everything we wanted, but overall we’re delighted that a strong and inclusive visitation rule is now in place for practically all hospitals.

For this result, you should thank your fellow AtMP members, who bravely shared their private heartbreaks for the sake of preventing yours.  Much credit also goes to Jess, who slogged through the regulatory process, and to Heather, who drafted AtMP’s initial analysis.  And credit also Nancy Polikoff, who set us on this course back in 2008 by correctly predicting that hospital right were the low-hanging fruit for a valuing-all-families approach to policy change.

First, here’s the final rule, which goes into effect on January 18th, 2011:

Patient visitation rights: A hospital must have written policies and procedures regarding the visitation rights of patients, including those setting forth any clinically necessary or reasonable restriction or limitation that the hospital may need to place on such rights and the reasons for the clinical restriction or limitation. A hospital must meet the following requirements: (1) Inform each patient (or support person, where appropriate) of his or her visitation rights, including any clinical restriction or limitation on such rights, when he or she is informed of his or her other rights under this section. (2) Inform each patient (or support person, where appropriate) of the right, subject to his or her consent, to receive the visitors whom he or she designates, including, but not limited to, a spouse, a domestic partner (including a same-sex domestic partner), another family member, or a friend, and his or her right to withdraw or deny such consent at any time. (3) Not restrict, limit, or otherwise deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. (4) Ensure that all visitors enjoy full and equal visitation privileges consistent with patient preferences.

We are delighted that CMS directly addressed our concern that legally appointed health care agents be assured visitation:

One commenter suggested that health care proxies or powers of attorney that are legally recognized in one State also be recognized by hospitals in other States for the purpose of establishing visitation rights. Response: We agree that the patient’s representative and/or support person, as the individual responsible for exercising the patient’s rights on the patient’s behalf when the patient is incapacitated or otherwise unable to do so directly, should be granted direct access to the patient. This basic concept is embodied throughout the current hospital regulations, including through the requirement at § 482.13(a) and (b) that the patient or patient’s representative must be informed of the patient’s rights and how to exercise those rights. We also agree that using the information provided in an advance directive or other written document, whether it is or is not legally recognized by the State, may be useful for hospitals when trying to determine appropriate visitors when a patient is unable to communicate his or her own wishes and a legal representative as established consistent with State law or a support person is not available to exercise the patient’s visitation rights on his or her behalf.

We are also pleased with CMS’s approach to ensuring visitors for incapacitated patients.

[C]ommenters stated that, when a patient is incapacitated, the patient’s … support person should not be chosen solely based on an individual’s legal relationship with the patient. Commenters noted the lack of protection for ‘‘families of choice,’’ which do not necessarily fit a traditional definition of a family, one based on bloodlines, marriage, or adoption, make it difficult for visitors to gain access to sick loved ones. … Response: … In the absence of a verbal support person designation, hospitals would look to their established policies and procedures for establishing a support person for the purpose of exercising a patient’s visitation rights. … [T]here are numerous sources of information and documentation that may be appropriate to establish the appropriateness of an individual to exercise an incapacitated patient’s visitation rights on his or her behalf… [Furthermore] we believe that documentation to establish support person status for the purpose of exercising a patient’s visitation rights should be required only in the event that the patient is incapacitated and two or more individuals claim to be the patient’s support person.  (emphasis added)

Obviously, we are disappointed that marital/relationship status was not added to the final rule.  Here’s how CMS addressed that point:

Commenters stated that the protected categories in the proposed rule should be expanded to also include: marital status, family composition, age, primary language and immigration status. In addition, commenters suggested that the proposed rule make explicit that institutional or individual conscience cannot be used to deny a visitor access to the patient. Response: As revised, we believe that this rule makes clear that hospitals must establish and implement visitation policies that grant full and equal visitation access to all individuals designated by the patient or support person, consistent with patient preferences. Patients (or their support persons) may designate anyone as an approved visitor, and a hospital or CAH may not discriminate against any approved visitors (and may impose only reasonable, clinically necessary restrictions or limitations on visitation). We believe that this regulatory policy is responsive to the concerns of commenters while still adhering to the specific instructions of the President’s April 15, 2010 memorandum to the Secretary. Therefore, we are not expanding the list of explicitly protected classes at this time. (emphasis added)

This response proves how important it is to educate the President himself so that he sends good instructions to his agencies.  It also offers a sobering lesson: identity-based advocacy yields narrow victories that can alienate rather than build the base.

***Lastly, it is easy to confuse visitation with medical decision-making rights. (In fact, CMS repeatedly noted that many commenters had addressed decision-making issues instead of or in addition to visitation issues.) Please remember that it is the states (not the federal government) that regulate who can make medical decisions for incapacitated patients who have not completed advance directives. In those situations, a hospital must follow the law of the state where it is located.  You should complete advance directives naming your health care proxy, power of attorney or agent, today! Learn more, or go directly to your state’s free paperwork.

Share: health care Comments 0 Dec 7th, 2010 by

Search our Blog

Search our Website

Recent Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Editors