Sociologists Impact Interpretation of Federal Welfare Legislation

by Lee Herring, Public Affairs Office, and Johanna Ebner, Public Information Office

Researchers often rely solely on the media to publicize their results. But they would do well to remember that a policy-relevant piece could attract another equally important audience: the policymakers themselves.

A team of sociologists, led by Andrew Cherlin, Johns Hopkins University, and Linda Burton, Pennsylvania State University, recently learned this lesson when a press release about their December 2004 American Sociological Review article, “The Influence of Physical and Sexual Abuse on Marriage and Cohabitation,” did not attract the anticipated amount of media coverage. Instead, their article garnered attention from nonprofit organizations, lobbying groups, and congressional staff, leading to its use in the political debates about government-sponsored marriage promotion policies.

Both the ASA media office and the press office at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the major funder of their research, issued releases in mid-January on their article (co-authored with Tera Hurt, University of Georgia, and Diane Purvin, Wellesley College). To prepare to speak with reporters, Cherlin and Burton contacted leaders in the domestic violence policy community and staff members at several Washington nonprofit groups in early January and sent them the manuscript on condition that they not cite it before the release date. They hoped to receive comments that would be helpful in responding to questions.

Drawing upon both survey and ethnographic data from the authors’ “Three-City Study” of low-income families, the article reported that one-fourth or more of the mothers had experienced sexual abuse in childhood. These mothers were less likely than others to have had stable, long-term intimate relationships as adults, the study found. Rather, they were more likely to have had a series of short-term relationships, many of them abusive. The authors concluded, “Unless the problem [of sexual abuse and domestic violence] is addressed, the feasibility—and the fairness—of pro-marriage exhortations and public policies is in question.”

During this period, Congress was considering adding funds for marriage promotion programs to the welfare reform legislation, which it must reauthorize. Most activists in the domestic violence community were concerned that marriage promotion could push women into abusive relationships. They preferred not to have government-funded programs at all; but if the programs were created, they wanted Congress to require that providers recognize the magnitude of domestic violence and consult with local domestic violence organizations when setting up a program. Recognizing the value of the article, Cherlin and Burton’s contacts circulated the manuscript to others, including staff members on the key committees in the Senate and the House.

In the meantime, Cherlin was asked to speak to participants in the Journalism Fellows in Child and Family Policy program, sponsored by the University of Maryland, along with Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, on January 24. Rector, an influential supporter of marriage promotion programs, had expressed skepticism that these programs needed to take domestic violence into consideration. But he acknowledged that Cherlin’s presentation suggested that some women would enter the programs with unresolved issues from childhood abuse that could prevent successful marriages. On February 10, Rector testified before Congress on marriage promotion and, citing the ASR article, stated that for women who have suffered childhood abuse, “it would be important to offer services that may help them improve current relationships rather than simply abandoning them to a persistent pattern of relationship failure.”

The manuscript also reached Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice President of Government Relations for Legal Momentum (formerly the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), who invited Cherlin and Burton to speak at a March 9 congressional staff briefing on “Welfare Reauthorization and Marriage Promotion.” Cherlin and Burton presented the results of their study at a session that included a speaker from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and first-person testimony of battered women’s experiences with welfare reform.

When the Senate Finance Committee conducted its “mark-up” of the marriage promotion provisions in March, it included substantial language about domestic violence. “To be eligible for a [marriage promotion] grant,” the Committee staff wrote, “applicants must consult with domestic violence organizations that have demonstrated expertise working with survivors of domestic violence in developing policies, procedures, programs and training necessary to appropriately address domestic violence in families served by programs and activities funded through the grant.” They also must “describe in their applications how their proposed programs or activities will deal with issues of domestic violence; establish protocols for helping identify instances or risks of domestic violence and specify procedures for making service referrals and providing protections and appropriate assistance; and what they will do, to the extent relevant, to ensure that participation in the programs is voluntary and to inform potential participants that participation is voluntary.”

A Senate Finance Committee staff member told Cherlin that the article had been useful. While it is too soon to know whether this language will remain in the final version of the bill, Cherlin and his co-authors may have made a significant contribution to modifying the marriage promotion provisions of the welfare reform bill. The inclusion of the language was the result of many organizations working on the issue.

Ironically, the press release itself elicited little coverage. Only CBS radio news, a few newspapers, and several Internet news sites reported on it. “I guess the moral of the story is that researchers should call the attention of the policy world to their articles, rather than sitting back and waiting for reporters to contact them,” said Cherlin. “And it helps if the timing is right. We were fortunate that the article was released just as Congress was considering this issue.”