Divorce Rates as an Indicator of Family Well-being

Encouraging Union and Discouraging Divorce

Encouraging Wedlock and Discouraging Divorce

March 26, 2001 40 min read Download Written report

Subsequently 4 decades of ascension government spending to treat the furnishings of cleaved families, a cultural shift in attitudes toward marriage is evident beyond America. Elected officials, social scientists, community leaders, and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are admitting that stiff marriages--non government intervention--are key to improving social and personal well-being. Increasingly, research is showing that children in married families are healthier, perform better in school, live in poverty less oft, and are involved in crime or other destructive behaviors less often. Merely as marriages neglect, social problems and social spending to bargain with those problems increase.

Although America has invested $eight.4 trillion in social programs since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s,¹ welfare dependency, juvenile offense, child abuse, school underachievement, drug abuse, suicide among children, and many other problems have increased. At the same time, federal and state governments still spend about $150 billion each twelvemonth subsidizing unmarried-parent families.² This stands in stark contrast to the approximately $150 million they spend each twelvemonth in an endeavour to reduce out-of-union births and divorce--the ii principal causes of unmarried-parent families in America.³

In other words, for every $i,000 that authorities spends providing services to broken families, it spends $one trying to stop family breakup. All society receives in return for this lopsided "investment" is more than of what information technology subsidizes--broken families, troubled children, and social problems. An analysis of the data shows that:

• For every 100 children born in any recent year, almost 60 entered a broken family unit, and

• Out-of-wedlock childbearing has increased significantly, from 7 percent of all births in the mid-1960s to 33 percentage today.⁴

Recognizing that federal welfare spending has played a perverse part by giving poor parents an incentive not to marry after having a child, Congress took unprecedented action in 1996. It passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, historic legislation reforming the welfare arrangement. Under P.L. 104-193, states are able to use a portion of their federal Temporary Assist for Needy Families (TANF) surplus funds--which accumulate nether the formula grant as they reduce their welfare rolls--on programs that strengthen marriage and reduce divorce among the poor.

However, only a few states have begun to detect ways to implement this mandate or to take steps of their ain to strengthen marriage. For example,

• In March 2000, the governor of Oklahoma earmarked 10 pct of the state'southward TANF surplus funds for an initiative to reduce divorce by i-third by 2010.

• In April 2000, the governor of Arizona signed a marriage initiative authorizing the state to spend $1 million to develop customs-based matrimony skills courses.

• In 1998, the governor of Florida signed the Matrimony Training and Preservation Act, making the teaching of matrimony skills a function of the high school curriculum. The human action also encourages premarital grooming by reducing the matrimony license fee past 50 percent for those who complete a marriage preparation form.

The effort to strengthen marriage is growing at the grassroots level, and several privately run programs are already showing profound effects. The communities and congregations that have adopted them are reporting fewer divorces and stronger marriages, also as more teenagers pledging to abstain from sexual relations before matrimony. These programs offer federal and state policymakers clear guideposts for reforming public policy in ways that volition increase spousal relationship and decrease divorce and out-of-spousal relationship births. For example,

• Wedlock Savers, a set of church-based programs to help engaged couples, stepfamilies, and marriages in trouble, is helping to reduce divorce rates by up to 30 percent at the city level and virtually eliminating divorce at the parish level.

• In over 135 cities around the country where Customs Wedlock Covenants have been signed by clergy, congregations, and borough leaders, divorce rates are falling dramatically. In Modesto, California, for example, the divorce rate has plummeted 47.6 percent since 1986, when 95 pastors signed America'due south kickoff Community Marriage Policy.⁵

• In Washington, D.C., the All-time Friends program has led to reductions of up to 90 percent in the number of out-of-wedlock births among its teenage members.⁶

Rather than throwing more than funds at regime programs that deal with the effects of family breakdown, federal and state officials should take steps to foreclose family disintegration in the first place. The federal government can go along to offering incentives, flexibility, mandates, and coin to urge u.s.a. to act; merely every bit Representative Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), one-time chairman of the House Means and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, wrote in a letter of the alphabet to state governors,

Although we accept provided $20 meg bonuses to v states that reduced their illegitimacy rates, nosotros need to larn much more about actions which government tin have to reduce births exterior marriage or, equally important, to promote marriage. ^seven

For its part, Congress should build on its celebrated reform of the welfare organisation and work with the executive branch to reduce the marriage penalty in the tax lawmaking and conform the earned income revenue enhancement credit (EITC) so that married depression-income couples with children receive a somewhat larger do good than the one given unmarried parents.

United states of america also have a large office to play. They are the natural laboratories in which the all-time practices for increasing marriage and decreasing divorce are already emerging.

Increasing the incidence of marriage and reducing the incidence of divorce are reasonable and necessary policy goals. The future of millions of American children will depend on policymakers' success in achieving them.

Why Emphasizing Marriage is Good Public Policy

Social science literature is replete with robust findings on the harmful furnishings of broken families, particularly for children. Juvenile offense,^viii corruption and violence,^nine and lowered income are often associated in the research with single-parent families (see Charts i-5).¹⁰ Children built-in out of matrimony take an increased chance of death in infancy, higher incidence of retarded cognitive and verbal development, and higher rates of drug addiction and out-of-wedlock pregnancy every bit teens.¹¹ Every bit adults, they have higher rates of divorce, work at lower-wage jobs, and abuse their children more often.¹²

Divorce also has specially troubling consequences. Studies show that household income for women and children is more than likely to drib below the poverty level immediately post-obit a divorce,¹³ failing by every bit much every bit 50 percentage and causing substantial reductions in earnings capability and long-term wealth.¹⁴ Compared with children in intact families, children of divorced parents:

• Have college rates of crime, drug use, child abuse, and child neglect;

• Perform poorly on reading, spelling, and math tests, and echo grades and drop out of high school and higher more often;

• Have college incidences of behavioral, emotional, physical, and psychiatric problems, including low and suicide; and

• Accept an increased probability of divorce equally adults and cohabit more than frequently.¹⁵

Such effects are non isolated; they set up in move a downward wheel of dysfunctional behavior and despair that compounds the problems for their own children and future generations of children. In economical terms, divorce reduces both the uppercase and the rate of return at an accelerating rate. The price to society is exorbitant: One social scientist has estimated that "the "amass burden of crime" alone on American society approaches $one trillion annually.¹⁶ Policymakers who promise to cease this societal fall must wait instead at ways to reduce divorce and out-of-spousal relationship nascency by strengthening marriage.

Missed Opportunities

The revolution that began with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 has succeeded in reducing the numbers of people on the welfare rolls. The language of the human activity stipulates that states receiving federal Temporary Assist for Needy Families money must implement welfare-to-work programs that limit benefits to v years while helping recipients brand the difficult transition to work. In addition, to eliminate the incentive to maximize welfare benefits by avoiding marriage, Congress strengthened funding for abstinence programs and instructed u.s.a. to use some of their TANF surplus funds to strengthen marriage amongst their recipients. Iii of the iv statements of purpose in the legislation specify as goals the formation of marriage and the reduction of out-of-wedlock births (run into box on folio 7).

Fifty-fifty though the intent and spirit of the welfare reform law are clear, only a few states have taken legislative action since 1996 to strengthen wedlock, and only the governor of Oklahoma has used his function to ensure that TANF money is beingness spent on programs that strengthen spousal relationship. The amount of public money dedicated to these country-based projects, even so, is small.

• Arizona has authorized spending $1 million per twelvemonth, while Oklahoma has authorized that $10 million of its TANF surplus funds be spent every bit seed coin to develop ongoing marriage promotion programs that will subsequently be funded annually.

• This $11 million is only 0.16 percent of the $half dozen.9 billion in surplus TANF money that accumulated nationally in 2000.¹⁷

These funds are bachelor because united states of america continue to receive their formula grant money from Washington even as their welfare reforms are working to reduce their rolls. Some of this surplus is earmarked for other new welfare initiatives, but at to the lowest degree $ii.ii billion of the $6.9 billion full is available for initiatives that promote union and reduce divorce amid the poor.^xviii

To reduce the harmful furnishings of out-of-marriage births and divorce and encourage union, Washington should establish an oversight mechanism for evaluating how u.s.a. are using their TANF surplus funds. Accountability is central to improving service. The federal regime has a responsibility to ensure that "best practices" are being followed.

How the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Encourages Spousal relationship

Public Constabulary 104-193, which block grants Temporary Aid for Needy Families funds to united states of america, encourages the states to strengthen union and reduce out-of-matrimony births by stipulating that:

The purpose [of this legislation]…is to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to:

• provide assistance to needy families then that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;

• finish the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, piece of work, and union;

• prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish almanac numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and

• encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. ¹

---

1. Public Police 104-193, Section 103, Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (emphasis added).

How us are Implementing Wedlock-Based Policies

The diverse ways past which states have begun to implement spousal relationship-based policies to reduce out-of-matrimony births and divorce are showing promise. They offer other states and the federal regime clear models on which to base policies that strengthen marriage and reduce the costly and damaging effects of family unit breakdown.

Arizona
In April 2000, Governor Jane Dee Hull (R) signed into law a marriage initiative authorizing the state to spend $1 one thousand thousand of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds each year to devleop community-based marriage skills courses each year to develop community-based marriage skills courses for low-income couples and a media campaign promoting matrimony.¹⁹ The state Covenant Marriage legislation was signed into police on May 21, 1998.

Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee (R) hopes to reduce the divorce rate by 50 percentage by 2010 and is a proponent of a state Wedlock Covenant law.^twenty His strategy is based on his conventionalities that all decision-making should be made at the lowest level of government possible; in the case of welfare policy, this should exist the canton level. It is a strategy that relies heavily on churches, since pastors officiate at 75 percent of the weddings in Arkansas.

The governor'southward efforts to promote marriage range from posting data on Community Marriage policies on his official Web site²¹ to urging pastors, congregations, and civic leaders to form Community Marriage Covenants as a way to encourage couples to participate in marriage preparation programs and find help if their marriages are troubled.²² Huckabee has considered pursuing a $100 tax credit for those taking pre-union courses; it is estimated that the annual price to the state if every marrying couple took such a class and applied for the credit would be most $four million.²³

Chesterfield Canton, Virginia, and Cobb Canton, Georgia, already offer such programs. Chesterfield County offers spousal relationship teaching classes, and a county mental wellness worker has been trained in marriage skills. The vii-yr erstwhile program, which is subsidized by state, local, and federal funding, is offered to couples at any stage of their relationship and is e'er full. Cobb County offers marriage educational activity courses through the county family court offices. The courses are funded by juror fee contributions and volunteers.

Huckabee also is urging county officials who oversee the disbursement of TANF funds and surplus TANF revenue to develop initiatives that encourage union and reduce divorce. The charitable choice provisions in federal welfare law²⁴ for instance, would permit religious organizations to compete without prejudice for contracts to serve the poor in their areas of expertise, be it job seeking, job training, child care, drug counseling, or any service that helps welfare recipients become self-sufficient.

Florida
In 1998, Florida became the commencement land to make learning marriage skills a part of the loftier school curriculum when Governor Lawton Chiles (D) signed the Florida Spousal relationship Preparation and Preservation Human activity. The human activity encourages premarital preparation past reducing the wedlock license fee by 50 percent for those who take a wedlock training course earlier they wed. In Leon Canton, 32 per centum of couples are now taking pre-marriage courses,²⁵ mainly within their churches. Otherwise, the 1998 initiative has borne piddling fruit considering loopholes in the police brand information technology easy to avert irresolute the educational activity curriculum.

Louisiana. The early leader in the country pro-union movement, Louisiana set off a national debate in August 1997 by enacting a law that permits "covenant marriages,"²⁶ whereby couples promise to stay married for life and renounce their legal right to a no-fault divorce. The state's no-fault divorce requirement is to look 180 days before filing for a no-fault divorce. Covenant marriage couples hold instead that, should they have problems, they will separate for a minimum of two years and seek marital counseling earlier applying for a divorce.

The covenant marriage constabulary has not been implemented effectively. Considering county clerks rarely advise couples applying for a license nearly the law, few people in Louisiana are aware of it, and a very low proportion of couples accept elected it. Not surprisingly, those who have washed and so were already at low adventure for divorce.²⁷

In early on 2000, the legislature passed a resolution urging the governor to appoint a council on spousal relationship that would develop, monitor, and evaluate matrimony policy, programs, curricula, publicity, and the delivery of services to families to ensure that the state is not undermining or discouraging spousal relationship in whatever way.

Oklahoma
Oklahoma has taken the legislative pb in land-based efforts to strengthen wedlock. In June 1999, Governor Frank Keating (R) convened the Governor'south and Kickoff Lady'due south Conference on Union, bringing together leaders from the business community, religious congregations, education, and government, also as service providers and the media, to forge the nation's first state activeness plan for reducing divorce. In March 2000, Keating announced an innovative $ten million marriage initiative earmarking 10 percent of the country's TANF surplus funds for efforts to strengthen spousal relationship and reduce divorce.

Governor Keating also appear the goal of reducing the state'due south divorce charge per unit by one-third past 2010. In 1999, the state took steps to eliminate the disadvantage in the mode income is calculated for married stepparents compared with cohabiting partners. Similar changes were fabricated in the way the country calculates eligibility for child-care benefits. There are now fewer incentives for low-income or welfare couples to live together outside of marriage in order to collect higher benefits.

Other elements of the Oklahoma initiative include:

• The establishment of a marriage resource middle to provide data on union and mentors to couples;

• A public education campaign on the importance of spousal relationship;

• An outreach program to modify the attitudes of youth about spousal relationship;

• An endeavor to promote Community Wedlock Policies and develop community-based marriage-strengthening programs with pastors;

• Funding a one-twelvemonth scholar-in-residence chair at Oklahoma Country University, to be filled by a nationally respected expert on marriage;

• Regular statewide spousal relationship conferences;

• Grooming for country workers, such as agronomical extension service workers and public health nurses, to help them teach marriage skills courses at the customs level;

• An improved data-gathering organisation to document marriages and divorces in the state; and

• Partnerships with faith-based and charity groups on programs that strengthen families.

Utah
Nether the leadership of Governor Michael Leavitt, efforts to rebuild marriage within the state are mounting. In 1998, Governor Leavitt organized a Governor's Commission on Union to identify programs and tools that could strengthen marriage. In tardily Feb 2001, the state followed Oklahoma's atomic number 82 and earmarked $600,000 of its TANF surplus funds for the promotion of union education over the adjacent two years. The legislature also formed a Marriage Commission two years ago and raised the minimum marriage age from 14 to 16. Governor Leavitt presides over an annual Matrimony Week each Feb, and regional marriage conferences featuring the governor and his wife are hosted effectually the state.

Utah promotes union teaching in its 105 high schools, adding a marriage component to the civics course, "Adult Roles and Responsibilities." It also conducts teacher didactics in union issues through continuing education conferences featuring peak wedlock experts, such as David Olson of the University of Minnesota, who developed the first and most widely used pre-spousal relationship cess instruments.

Wisconsin
The Wisconsin legislature has designated $210,000 in unspent TANF funds in 2001-2002 for a Community Matrimony Policy projection, which will work with members of the clergy to develop clear community-wide "standards" for matrimony. Wisconsin is the commencement country to fund a full-time worker whose chore is to create Community Union Policies. The American Ceremonious Liberties Wedlock successfully challenged an earlier legislative attempt that focused on church initiatives to restore matrimony. The reworded legislation now includes judges and magistrates, who also officiate at marriages, and information technology should withstand a court challenge.

Other States
Summits similar to Utah's that involve stakeholders in business, health care, education, counseling, clergy, social work, media, and marriage educational activity have been held in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

In 2000, the Maryland and Minnesota legislatures passed laws that would establish programs to encourage marriage pedagogy, but these bills were vetoed by the states' respective governors--Parris Glendening (D) and Jesse Ventura (Ind.).

In Maryland, Governor Glendening praised the intent of a pre-marriage counseling bill that would have reduced the marriage license fee, saying that "educating individuals nearly the demands and realities of marriage and parenthood is a commendable and worthwhile goal,"²⁸ but nonetheless vetoed it. The original sponsors, Delegates John R. Leopold (R-Anne Arundel)²⁹ and Kenneth Montague (D-Baltimore),³⁰ revised the beak to specify the qualifications of those who can teach the form--social workers, psychologists, and specially trained religious leaders--thereby satisfying the key special interests affected.

Ironically, though the data prove that domestic violence is much lower amongst married couples, advocates against domestic violence have already captured most of the marriage license money. Of the $55 fee for a marriage license, $45 now goes toward reducing domestic violence; merely $10 is left for a discount on the cost of the pre-wedlock course.

In Minnesota, Senator Steve Dille (R) has re-introduced a nib³¹ under which couples who take a 12-60 minutes grade of premarital didactics would be granted a $55 waiver on their union license fees. In reshaping and resubmitting the neb, the sponsors accept consulted widely with county clerks in an try to avoid the governor'southward veto.

Private Marriage-Based Initiatives

Increasingly, liberal and conservative policy analysts agree that divorce and out-of-wedlock births have long-lasting detrimental effects on women, children, and society; but evidence is growing in the private sector that government can help to reverse this blueprint. By studying and applying what is already working in usa and local communities--the laboratories of constructive public policy--it should be possible to reduce the divorce rate by equally much equally one-tertiary to 1-half in a few short years. The most of import elements of such an endeavour are (1) adept plan upshot data with which to identify the best practices in the different fields and (2) the will to employ the findings to federal, country, and local policies and programs.

Several non-governmental programs appear to reduce divorce significantly and to drive down the numbers of out-of-wedlock births while increasing matrimony. Communities that take established Marriage Savers congregations and Community Marriage Covenants are demonstrating the most success in decreasing divorce.³² The strategy: Assistance churches railroad train mentors for engaged couples who can aid them prepare for a life-long marriage commitment and help counsel marriages in trouble. Congregations with such mentors have helped upwards to ninety percent of troubled married couples who take come forward.

Marriage Savers started its kickoff Community Spousal relationship Covenant in Modesto, California, in 1986. A full-service program should contain vii fundamental church activities:

1. A minimum of four months' training before marriage;

2. A pre-marriage assessment of the couple's individual opinions on significant issues, such as finances and child-rearing, using such inventories as Ready³³ and FOCCUS.³⁴ Answers to the surveys become the basis for discussion during the marriage preparation classes.³⁵

3. Training for mentoring couples in how to use inventory results to facilitate discussion virtually issues on which the couple agrees and disagrees.

4. A programme to strengthen existing marriages, such as Union Encounter,³⁶ Matrimony Alive,³⁷ or Family Builders. ³⁸

5. A program to help troubled marriages, whether an established one such equally Retrouvaille³⁹ or one that uses couples in the congregation who take undergone matrimony counseling successfully. In Rockford, Illinois, the Outset Assembly of God trained 14 "back-from-the-brink" couples in their church to work with troubled marriages. Local therapists learned about this "Marriage Ministry building" and sent dozens of their toughest cases to the Commencement Assembly. In three years, First Assembly'southward mentors accept met with more than 100 married couples headed for divorce and have saved all but iv of them.⁴⁰

6. Mentoring for stepfamilies. According to federal survey data, twenty percent of American children were living with stepparents in 1995.⁴¹ Rev. Dick Dunn of Roswell United Methodist Church near Atlanta created a Stepfamily Back up Grouping led by stepfamily couples who had learned to brand a truly blended family. Four out of five participating couples accept kept their marriages intact over the study period--a result almost twice the normal outcome for stepfamilies.

7. Ministry to separated couples. There are many ways to ameliorate the chances of reconciliation for separated couples, as the work of Joe and Michele Williams in a program called Reconciling God'due south Fashion shows. The couple report that the program has helped over 70 per centum of those who were separated to come together once again in marriage.⁴²

A few pastors and congregations take implemented all 7 of these elements in their parishes.⁴³

Over 135 cities take signed Customs Spousal relationship Covenants to motivate Matrimony Saver congregations and civic leaders to rally communities backside efforts to strengthen union. In the fall of 1999 alone, Charleston, Westward Virginia; Billy Rouge and Alexandria, Louisiana; Fairfield, Connecticut; Wausau, Wisconsin; Flower Mound, Texas; and Harrisonburg, Virginia, all became Community Matrimony Covenant cities. Earlier that year, Jamestown, New York, and Toms River, New Jersey, became their states' first cities to organize such networks.

Many cities with Community Marriage Covenants report reductions of up to 47 percent in their divorce rates.⁴⁴ For case, a covenant was signed by 95 pastors in Modesto, California, in 1986. Since and so, the divorce rate has plunged 47.six pct, while marriages accept climbed 9.8 percent.⁴⁵ In some cities, the divorce rates have declined 20 times faster than the national rate of ane.3 percentage charge per unit.⁴⁶

The dramatic deviation in divorce rates between Kansas City, Kansas, which has a Wedlock Saver programme, and Kansas City, Missouri, which does non, demonstrates the effects of union-based strategies.

• In Kansas City, Kansas, and its suburbs, the number of divorces has plunged 32.five per centum--from 1,530 to 1,001--in just two years, while the number of marriages has remained almost unchanged. Only 40 pastors--a small fraction of the number of clergy in the two-county area--had signed the Customs Marriage Policy, simply The Kansas City Star had published a number of stories about the initiative.

• Meanwhile, just across the river, the number of divorces really rose over the aforementioned two years for the metropolitan expanse that includes Kansas Metropolis, Missouri, and its suburbs--from three,586 to 3,725.

The difference: All of the clergy participating in the Community Marriage Covenant and all of the stories written about the initiative were in Kansas, not Missouri. One country developed a visibly pro-matrimony climate; the other plodded forth without changing attitudes or expectations.⁴⁷ This is powerful evidence of the effectiveness of pro-marriage policies. Officials in every country should encourage community leaders to establish and expand Spousal relationship Savers programs.

Focused Thinking Arbitration, a program that in South Africa has helped as many as 50 pct of couples seeking divorce decide to remain married,⁴⁸ is now operating in Southern Michigan's family courts. The courts have used Focused Thinking Mediation for their most acrimonious post-divorce cases, which represent an average of twenty courtroom dockets per couple per yr and on average stayed before the court for 2.25 years. Of the 26 couples who take participated in the course, all but two take reached amicable agreements and have not returned to the courts.⁴⁹ The results are so impressive that the courts may before long brainstorm using the program in pre-divorce cases.

Lawyer and social worker Stan Posthumus,^fifty who developed and refined Focused Thinking Mediation during the 1990s, is hoping to help couples who accept filed for divorce come up to terms with less conflict and animosity. Trained mediators, who could be lawyers, social workers, or other mediators, would work with a couple to help them brainstorm to communicate more than effectively, usually for the starting time time in years. If the experience in South Africa is any indication, many couples will reconsider their decision to divorce and determine instead to rebuild their marriages based on clear communication and understanding.

State and local officials should consider sponsoring Focused Thinking Arbitration institutes to train and credential private- and public-sector mediators. The direct benefits to the states would include fewer divorces and lower need for services; reduced court costs; and fewer women and children falling into poverty.

A program run by the All-time Friends Foundation ⁵¹ in Washington, D.C., has reduced out-of-wedlock births among its members by as much every bit 90 percent and has led about the aforementioned percentage of teenage participants to pledge that they volition remain sexually abstinent until marriage. Early initiation of sexual intercourse in teens reduces the likelihood of stable marriage later on and increases the likelihood of multiple sexual partners and sexually transmitted diseases, out-of-wedlock births, and abortions.

This school-based voluntary and volunteer-run mentoring plan for girls begins in the fifth grade. It encourages the girls to articulate their goals and to support each other as they try to reach those goals. Considering out-of-matrimony pregnancy and birth can derail a girl's best intentions, especially among girls in poor communities where married family life is not the norm, such support is vital.

The results are impressive: Only 1 percent of program participants became pregnant during a period of about viii years (from the inception of the program to the year of its evaluation), and 90 percent have remained sexually abstemious. For teenagers in an inner-city environs in which the overall teen pregnancy charge per unit tin can range from lxxx per centum to 90 pct, this is a remarkable achievement.⁵²

The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) is a seven-yr-old program that is proving to exist very effective in motivating fathers to become more agile in their families. Over a four-year menses starting in May 1996, the NFI spent $800,000 on a boob tube campaign encouraging fathers to exist more than involved with their children and families. The entrada garnered 187 times that amount ($130 million) in donated Goggle box air time. In Virginia, the entrada spent $200,000 over an 18-month period, and with impressive results: 1 in three people recalled the ads; 40,000 fathers inverse their activities to spend more time with their children; and 100,000 people became more supportive of the role of fathers or agreed to have a male parent's identify when he was not available.⁵³

Wedlock Preparation Courses
Enquiry-based inventories of compatibility for spousal relationship, such equally PREP,⁵⁴ FOCCUS, and REFOCCUS, have been used extensively in marriage preparation and revitalization programs at the parish level for many years. These assessments assistance couples amend their relationships past getting them to discuss potential areas of conflict--like managing finances and having children--and deportment that could create anger or alienation. These courses and tools, as well equally programs like PAIRS,⁵⁵ Human relationship Enhancement,⁵⁶ and others,⁵⁷ help couples learn such skills equally problem solving, listening, and constructive forms of communicating that tin strengthen their relationship.

How to Encourage Union and Discourage Divorce

Though cultural attitudes, social science findings, and social policies take begun to recognize the importance of supporting marriage and decreasing the incidence of divorce, the policies and activities of state governments are even so biased against marriage. This bias amplifies the damage caused by decades of misguided federal welfare policy that has virtually eliminated wedlock among the poor and federal tax policy that is penalizing matrimony. Regardless of whether additional welfare reform is passed at the federal level, states can alter the way they spend their revenue, administrate their programs, collect data and bear research, select high schoolhouse curricula, enact laws, and even talk about spousal relationship.

Promoting Union

Like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the other states that are implementing marriage-based policies, the remaining states should begin to focus their efforts on reducing divorce and out-of-spousal relationship births and increasing marriage. Among the specific steps they tin can take are the following:

1. Set a goal of reducing out-of-matrimony births and divorce by 33 percent in each state by 2010
   Based on the success of various initiatives already in place around the state, such a goal is both realistic and attainable. All that is needed is to harness each state'south unique resources to design programs that would best address their needs.

2. Make a concerted endeavour to use TANF surplus revenues on programs that increment matrimony and decrease divorce amidst the poor
   Equally noted, in that location are many resources and much expertise around the country that, if harnessed, could improve couples' prospects of entering a solid marriage. A strong case tin can be made for creating a state Role of Marriage Initiatives to encourage matrimony and discourage divorce, especially among the poor or near poor, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.⁵⁸ Such an part should identify constructive marriage-based policies and programs and assure that the state is using its TANF surplus funds in ways that actually decrease divorce and out-of-matrimony birth amongst the poor. The charitable pick provision in the TANF legislation would apply to such spending. Charitable selection would permit faith-based organizations to compete with other non-organized religion based groups for funding support without prejudice and be judged on the basis of effectiveness alone.

3. Allocate state welfare funds to reward counties that reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce
   Just as the federal government rewards states that perform well in reducing out-of-union nascency rates,⁵⁹ u.s.a. should reward counties that achieve a significant decrease in the number of out-of-wedlock births and divorces. However, the states should learn from the federal government'southward experience and make certain that the counties existence rewarded are those that take shown the ability to devise a workable plan, not just those that randomly achieve a reduction in out-of-wedlock births. The more than generous the rewards, the more energetically counties will compete for them.

4. Brand land tax laws more marriage-friendly
   Many states have a union punishment in their tax lawmaking. At a minimum, every state should eliminate this penalty. States should have a realistic estimate of the extra toll that broken family life puts on the public purse, and those who save the state such costs should receive better treatment in the taxation code. A uncomplicated manner to do this would exist to make the personal exemption higher for married couples with dependent children under age nineteen or in college.

5. Eliminate perverse incentives in state laws that advantage unmarried parents for having more children
   To decrease the anti-spousal relationship bias that proved so destructive in the former welfare organisation, states should consider new benefits or an expansion of current benefits for married couples on welfare. At the time their child is born, 82 percent of unmarried mothers and fathers are romantically involved, 44 percent are living together, and over 70 per centum of the mothers say their chances of marrying the begetter are "50-l."^threescore The long-term costs to social club are immense for not making articulate the reasons these couples should marry.

6. Support initiatives to help troubled marriages get back on rail
   Divorce is the principal reason women and children fall into poverty.⁶¹ Many organizations have established programs to strengthen troubled marriages, such every bit Retrouvaille,⁶² Marriage Run across,⁶³ Marriage Savers, and Focused Thinking Mediation. Making these programs accessible to the poor or the nearly poor would exist a cardinal task for a state Function of Matrimony Initiatives.

7. Encourage the work of churches and faith-based organizations in poor areas
   Few Americans realize the extent to which marriage has disappeared amid the poor: In the lowest income quintile, 74 percent of families with children were headed by a single parent in 1996.⁶⁴ In large function, this is the result of such government programs equally welfare, with incentives that penalize spousal relationship, and family unit planning programs that back up sexual activity and childbearing without regard to marital status.⁶⁵ Considering of the effectiveness of churches in strengthening marriages, churches in poor areas are probably regime'due south near constructive allies in efforts to decrease divorce and increase marriage in communities beleaguered past the furnishings of family breakdown. Public officials cannot do the work of churches and the individual sector in rebuilding the institutions of marriage and family, only they tin can encourage their efforts to increment matrimony. They also can focus public attention on the need to back up two-parent families. This arroyo would help to change the cultural discourse and climate in their states.

8. Ensure that government personnel back up a spousal relationship initiative
   For public policy to increase the incidence of spousal relationship and decrease the incidence of divorce, officials at all levels of authorities must fully support the endeavor. Governors and state legislators should employ county clerks who process spousal relationship licenses, as well as welfare workers, school counselors, and public health and school nurses who interact with immature mothers, to encourage participation in marriage preparation and skills classes. Workers in such programs every bit agriculture extension services and mental health units can be trained to teach effective skills at the local level. Personnel who ignore or block practiced policy should be educated nigh the trouble or replaced.

9. Create incentives for couples to participate in pre-marriage preparation classes earlier receiving a marriage license
   For example, Florida offers a discount on a marriage license if the couple takes a four-60 minutes spousal relationship grooming class with a segment on the effects of divorce besides as how to get a divorce. Minnesota, Maryland, and other states take legislation pending that would similarly encourage pre-marital grooming courses.

Government action in this surface area needs to be prudent because issues of personal freedom in making intimate decisions, as well every bit the protection of the common good, are at stake.

Answering Objections to
Having the Government Promote Spousal relationship

Objection: Critics like Don Bloch, past president of the American Family Therapy University, object to using welfare funds to promote marriage: "It is really taking money abroad from those at the thin edge, people who take a whole range of needs, health, diet, housing…." Others say it is unfair to utilize TANF money in ways that would aid people who are non welfare recipients.

Response: The duty of authorities is to protect and foster the common skilful. For the past 35 years, government has played a major role in the devastation of wedlock amongst the poor by subsidizing out-of-wedlock birth. To redress the effects of this policy, hereafter spending should target programs to restore wedlock amid the poor. In the process, families in the middle- and upper-income brackets may exist persuaded to avoid out-of-spousal relationship births and to prepare more diligently for union. Preventing divorces in low- and middle-income families is preventing poverty, and that is good public policy.

Objection: Authorities has no business promoting marriage.

Response: As Governor Keating of Oklahoma has said, "[W]hen you look at the consequences of divorce, the amend question is: 'What business organization practice we accept not getting involved?'" Adept government has a critical interest in stable marriages. The issue of decades of misguided policy is a culture of ambivalence toward commitment, with devastating effects on children. The common proficient relies on the stability of family life, which is premised on the stability of marriage. To the extent that union breaks down, public order decreases, public costs increment, and the need for regime controls to contain the resulting issues increases. Restoration of marriage is the almost cost-effective way to reduce the taxation brunt for social programs and ameliorate the welfare of children and the poor.

Educating the Public

Just equally the law can serve a teaching part, the communication of traditional universal values in the public forum can uplift public opinion and pop culture. In this respect, state officials tin pursue strategies that would advance the importance of marriage equally an institution. Specifically:

1. Fix definite goals for decreasing divorce
   States tin follow the lead of Oklahoma and Arkansas by setting a goal for reducing divorce and out-of-wedlock births past 2010. This would send a clear message to the citizens of the state besides every bit the state bureaucracy that increasing marriage is a priority at all levels of government.

2. Launch public data campaigns in print and on tv set and radio
   1 of the advantages of being a public leader is the ability to alter ideas and motivate people to become involved in a worthwhile campaign. Speeches go tools for advancing public policy and changing a culture of rejection to a culture of commitment. Television campaigns take a similar effect, every bit such public-private sector initiatives as the one between the National Fatherhood Initiative and the Commonwealth of Virginia have shown.

3. Create brochures that summarize the administrative research on the effects of divorce and out-of-wedlock births and on the benefits of marriage,⁶⁶ sexual abstinence before matrimony, and adoption. These brochures should also point out the legal and financial consequences for those who father a child out of wedlock. Such pamphlets could be distributed in schools, welfare offices, parole offices, public health facilities, parishes, and private organizations to generate a healthy debate on these serious issues. Experts in family research should exist tasked with creating these brochures, which could become the basis for a pre-matrimony test as suggested above.

States should brand every effort to inform women of the consequences of out-of-wedlock births. This should be targeted to women betwixt the ages of 20 and 35. Women between the ages of xx and 40 are responsible for roughly 75 percent of all out-of-marriage births and 82 percent of those who have a second child out of wedlock, which is most probable to lock a woman into long-term poverty. A public awareness campaign on the effects of out-of-wedlock births on the female parent and her child would be a constructive use of TANF surplus funds.

4. Convene a land conference on marriage and the family
   Governor Keating'southward conference on matrimony brought together key players from the media, medicine, law, pedagogy, government, and the clergy to focus on the effects of out-of-wedlock births and divorce on the land. As a result, many participants became stakeholders in the effort to reduce divorce and increment marriage. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, State Senator Mark Boitano (R) was instrumental in convening a marriage conference in October 2000.⁶⁷ Such conferences focus attending on the issues and motivate people in all sectors of society to reverse the effects of cleaved families and rebuild a culture of family love and commitment.

5. Create a marriage enquiry center
   Good statistics are needed for effective planning, instruction, and evaluation of land initiatives. A research center that provides reliable up-to-date data should runway marriages, divorces, and out-of-wedlock births in the land. Country officials should be able to utilise these data to sympathize where the problems and needs are the greatest. The center should also rails how the state compares with other states in increasing spousal relationship and decreasing divorce.

In improver, the center should analyze and provide data on the relationship between family unit structure and juvenile crime, homicide, suicide, out-of-wedlock births, abortions, poverty, drug use among juveniles, educational attainment, employment, and unemployment in the land. Quantifying these problems would help lawmakers target policy and funds to efforts to reduce such plush social problems.

6. Foster scholar-in-residence positions at state universities
   These scholars in psychology, folklore, economic science, or the law should be tasked with tracking what is working best to increment stable marriage and decrease divorce in the state. The legislature could help to increment scholarship in the areas of marriage and the family by awarding prizes to undergraduate seniors for the all-time review in the sociology or psychology literature on marriage or divorce. The value need non be high: A $twenty,000 grant would generate needed work in this area as well every bit interest in this field amid social science students.

Changing State Police

Today, laws and government policies provide most no protection for the institution of marriage. The damaging effects of "no mistake" divorces accept become so clear that today there are just 17 pure "no fault" states.⁶⁸

Legislators considering changing their divorce laws should consider the full range of legal options available to them, such every bit those compiled by Americans for Divorce Reform and posted on their Internet "Divorce Reform Page"⁶⁹ This site presents arguments for and against the initiatives as well equally model legislation.

Several proposals could help to slow state divorce rates. Specifically:

• Require understanding before filing for divorce. Married couples who accept minor children should exist required to complete divorce education and a mediated co-parenting program before they tin can file for divorce. Divorce didactics could help some of these couples resolve their problems and relieve their marriages. It is most constructive early in the divorce process. Requiring a co-parenting program would enable the couple to develop a more realistic picture of what life will exist like after divorce, and this could lead some couples to renew their efforts to save their union.

• Require mediation earlier divorce. Married couples with small-scale children should exist required to participate in mediation classes earlier their instance is brought before the court. The Office of Child Support Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services too reports expert results from mediation.⁷⁰

• Stop "no-mistake" divorce for parents with children under age eighteen. ⁷¹ No-fault divorce is a meaningless term for the children whose parents divorce. Lawmakers in Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Virginia, Texas, and Washington take introduced legislation to require mutual consent for a no-mistake divorce. In the absence of such consent, the spouse petitioning for divorce has to evidence the other spouse's "fault." This may brand sense for childless couples, but the welfare of children under eighteen should exist the threshold for all other couples, who should have to prove that grave harm would be visited upon the children past the continuance of the matrimony.

• Make Covenant Marriages a legal pick. Couples should be able to commit to lifelong marriages if they and so want by agreeing to strict requirements for separation or divorce. The consequence of such a commitment would be salutary, and the emphasis information technology places on the seriousness of the matrimony commitment would strengthen the ideal of marriage in gild. Couples should undergo serious preparation before making such a commitment, notwithstanding, since it would comport the force of law. Too many individuals marry with the intention of staying married until death, merely to find out that their spouse had no such intention. In Covenant Marriages, couples sign a marriage contract that lengthens the process for obtaining a divorce past two years. Louisiana and Arizona have enacted Covenant Marriage laws, and Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas accept considered them. (In at to the lowest degree 25 other states, such legislation has been introduced and is moving through the system. Some of the states are considering means to ameliorate the concept.)

Irresolute School Curricula

Schoolhouse curricula reflect what the state wishes children to know for the common good. Emphasizing marriage clearly should fall within this area, since the decline of marriage imposes smashing costs on society, and marriage has many benefits for individual family unit members.⁷² To that extent, public schoolhouse curricula should:

• Include marriage preparation courses at the high school level. Utah and Florida have passed legislation to include spousal relationship curricula in high schoolhouse coursework. By taking courses on bones marriage skills, adolescents will be better prepared to make some of the biggest decisions in their lives. The success of such a course evidently will depend on both content and teacher, of form. To foreclose it from being co-opted to support another calendar, legislators should mandate in police that the content of the curriculum supports traditional marriage. They can build the content of the class on research already conducted by such experts every bit Professors Scott M. Stanley and Howard Markman of the University of Denver⁷³ and David Olson of the Academy of Minnesota.

• Promote and expand teen chastity programs. Federal money for guiltlessness education can be supplemented by TANF funds. Reducing the number of teens who are sexually active has a dramatic effect on the out-of-matrimony nascency rate. The Best Friends programme in Washington, D.C., has constitute this to be the example.⁷⁴

Determination

A cultural shift is occurring that bodes well for America's children. Later 4 decades of treating social club's ills with more regime spending, elected officials, social scientists, community leaders, and policymakers across the ideological spectrum admit that strong marriages--not government largesse--are key to improving both personal and social well-beingness. Social scientific discipline research is showing that children in married families are healthier, perform better in school, and are involved less frequently in crime or other destructive behaviors.

Much has been done over the past few decades to understand the benefits of wedlock, and good programs exist to help couples prepare for marriage. State and local officials should accept reward of what the social science research and the records of "best practices" programs teach. Divorce at community levels can exist reduced past 30 percent through community programs to strengthen marriage. Abstinence before marriage will increase with the right programs, and proper attention on spousal relationship in the media tin help to change cultural attitudes.

Together, public- and private-sector leadership tin can join with the clergy begin this process, increasing the incidence of marriage and strengthening families while reducing the social bug that accompany family breakdown and out-of-marriage births. The goal is not small, just it is increasingly more doable.

--Patrick F. Fagan is the William H. G. FitzGerald Senior Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues at The Heritage Foundation.

PDF March 26, 2001 | Executive Summary |  |

Endnotes

one. This is the sum of all means-tested spending from 1965 to 2000, expressed in constant 1999 dollars, not including Social Security and most Medicare spending.

2. $150 billion is approximately the corporeality spent each year by federal, state, and local governments on means-tested welfare programs. Because almost all welfare programs are means-tested, this system of estimating eligibility for welfare effectively penalizes spousal relationship and promotes single parenthood amongst the poor. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, if a single father with one kid who works for the minimum wage marries a single mother with one child who likewise works at the minimum wage, they will lose $8,000 in income transfers, or roughly 33 percent to xl pct of their combined income. An equivalent penalty in loss of income for a middle-class couple, each earning $xxx,000 per annum, who determine to marry would be in the range of $20,000 per year.

3. This is primarily federal teen abstinence coin, with some state matching monies and federal rewards for reduction in out-of-wedlock births at the state level.

4. Run across Patrick F. Fagan, "The American Family," in Stuart Thousand. Butler and Kim R. Holmes, eds., Issues 2000: The Candidate'due south Briefing Book (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2000).

5. Marriage Savers, at http://www.marriagesavers.org/
those_interested_in_creating_a_c.htm .

6. For more information, contact the Best Friends Foundation at (202) 237-8156.

7. Emphasis added. At the aforementioned time, Representative Johnson warned against "supplementation," or the use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families surplus money to defray program costs usually paid by state tax revenue. Doing and so, she warned, would invite Congress to reduce the level of TANF support to eliminate any surplus funds.

8. For instance, a fairly contempo U.Due south. longitudinal study tracking over 6,400 boys for over 20 years constitute that children who grew up without their biological father in the home were roughly three times more likely to commit a crime that led to incarceration than were children from intact families. Cynthia Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, "Male parent Absence and Youth Incarceration," findings presented at the 1998 meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco. Others have found that children of divorced parents are upwardly to six times more than likely to be delinquent than are children from intact families. See David B. Larson, James P. Swyers, and Susan S. Larson, The Plush Consequences of Divorce (Rockville, Md.: National Institute for Healthcare Enquiry, 1995) p. 123.

nine. Enquiry has found that serious abuse is much higher amidst stepchildren than among children in intact families, and that adults who were sexually abused every bit children are more likely to have been raised in stepfamilies than in intact married families. Encounter, for example, David M. Gergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and Fifty. John Horwood, "Childhood Sexual Corruption and Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adulthood," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34 (1996), pp. 1355-1364.

10. For a comprehensive review of the literature on these and other effects, run into Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, " The Effects of Divorce on Children," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1373, June 5, 2000.

11. A single-parent family background and the poverty that tin can accompany it render children twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times every bit likely to get out-of-matrimony teen parents, and 1.4 times equally probable to be unemployed. Run across S. Southward. McLanahan, "The Consequences of Single Motherhood," The American Prospect, Vol. 18 (1994), pp. 48-58. See also Patrick F. Fagan, " How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999.

12. Run across Patrick F. Fagan, "Ascent Illegitimacy: America's Social Ending," Heritage Foundation F.Y.I. No. 14, June 29, 1994.

13. Encounter Fagan and Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children."

14. Run across Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity."

fifteen. Fagan and Rector, "The Furnishings of Divorce on Children," pp. 17ff.

16. David Anderson, "The Aggregate Burden of Crime," Journal of Constabulary and Economics, Vol. 42 (Oct 1999), pp. 611-642.

17. For the basis of calculations, run across Ed Lazere, "Welfare Balances Afterward Three Years of TANF Block Grants: Unspent Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Funds at the Cease of Fiscal Year 1999," Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2000, pp. fourteen-15.

eighteen. Cistron Falk, "Welfare Reform: Financing and Recent Spending Trends in the TANF Program," Congressional Research Service, RL30595, updated January 4, 2001.

nineteen. Arizona Statute 41-2031. Information on this statute can exist obtained from its legislative sponsor, Hon. Mark Anderson, Arizona House of Representatives, at manderso@azleg.state.az.us.

twenty. Governor Mike Huckabee, State of the Land speech, January nine, 2001.

21. Meet http://www.land.ar.us/governor/governor.html .

22. See http://world wide web.country.ar.united states/governor/marriage/index.html .

23. Personal advice with Governor Huckabee'southward office.

24. P.50. 104-193, Section 104.

25. Personal communication with Richard Albertson, Leon County, Florida.

26. Sponsored by State Representative Tony Perkins. Professor Katherine Spaht of Louisiana State University'due south Law Center provided legal expertise for the typhoon legislation and has consulted with eight other states on like bills.

27. Personal communication with Dr. Stephen Nock, Section of Sociology, University of Virginia, the principal author of the inquiry, and Dr. Alan Hawkins, Department of Family Studies, Brigham Young University, who was a consultant on the project.

28. Christian Davenport, "Getting Aid Before the Honeymoon," The Washington Post, February 25, 2001, p. C1.

29. For more information, contact Delegate Leopold at (800) 492-7122, ext. 3217.

xxx. For more information, contact Delegate Montague at (800) 492-7122, ext. 3259, or e-mail him at kenneth_montague@house.land.md.us

31. Senate File (S.F.) No. 1021, at http://www.revisor.leg.land.mn.u.s./cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=S1021.0&session=ls82 .

32. See http://www.marriagesavers.org/ .

33. See http://www.lifeinnovation.com/ .

34. Encounter http://www.foccusinc.com/ .

35. Marriage Savers reports that betwixt 15 percentage and 20 pct of couples who take this inventory decide not to marry. Others report entering spousal relationship with improve understanding and communication skills.

36. Run into http://www.wwme.org/ .

37. See http://www.marriagealive.org/ .

38. See http://world wide web.familybuilders.net/ .

39. See http://dwelling house.vicnet.net.au/~retro/home.htm .

xl. Michael J. McManus, "How Practice Yous Create a Marriage Savers Church?" at http://www.marriagesavers.org/how_do_you_create_a_marriage_sav.htm .

41. Survey of Consumer Finance, 1995, Federal Reserve Board; Heritage Foundation calculations.

42. Run into http://www.marriagesavers.org/how_do_you_create_a_marriage_sav.htm .

43. Encounter "Six Churches That Have Virtually Eliminated Divorce," at http://world wide web.marriagesavers.org/SixChurches .

44. In Modesto, California, according to Mike McManus, president of Marriage Savers.

45. Information from Mike McManus, president of Marriage Savers.

46. Matrimony Savers, at http://www.marriagesavers.org/divorcerates.htm .

47. Sources for this information, co-ordinate to Spousal relationship Savers, are the county clerks of Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas and Clay and Jackson Counties in Missouri.

48. Client tape follow-up information from South Africa, provided by Stanley Posthumus.

49. From court record data, provided by Stanley Posthumus.

l. For more information, contact Stanley Posthumus, LLB, at stanp@bellatlantic.cyberspace.

51. For more information, contact the Best Friends Foundation at (202) 237-8156.

52. David R. Rowberry, "An Evaluation of the Washington DC All-time Friends Program," dissertation, University of Colorado, 1995.

53. For more than on the National Fatherhood Initiative, contact Wade Horn at nfi1995@aol.com.

54. See http://www.prepinc.com/ . PREP, the virtually research-based program, is based on the work of Professors Howard Markman and Scott Stanley of the Middle for Marital and Family Studies at the Academy of Denver.

55. PAIRS Foundation east-mail: epairs@aol.com.

56. Meet http://www.nire.org .

57. Come across http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html .

58. See the following on a federal Office of Marriage Initiatives: http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/
pdf/550/550marriageinitiatives.pdf ; http://world wide web.heritage.org/mandate/budget/
pdf/550/550marriage.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/
pdf/550/550childsupport.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/
pdf/550/550familyplanning.pdf.

59. This bonus for decreasing out-of-marriage births was role of the welfare reform legislation of 1996.

sixty. Benheim-Thoman Center for Research on Kid Wellbeing, Princeton Academy, and Social Indicators Survey Eye, Columbia University, "Fragile Families Research Brief" No. 1, May 2000.

61. For a review of the literature, encounter Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Time to come Prosperity," pp. 3-half-dozen.

62. See http://home.vicnet.cyberspace.au/~retro/dwelling house.htm .

63. See http://www.wwme.org/ .

64. U.South. Agency of the Demography, Current Population Survey, 1997. Encounter Fagan, "The American Family," Chart half-dozen.xviii.

65. Encounter Patrick F. Fagan, "Family Planning, Family Failure," The Washington Times, July 13, 2000, p. A22.

66. Meet Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Example for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000), for authoritative research on this result.

67. Mark Boitano also introduced legislation for a $100 tax credit for taking marriage preparatory courses and appropriations for statewide distribution of a brochure to help couples prevent divorce.

68. Margaret Brinig of the Higher of Law, University of Iowa, at http://world wide web.uiowa.edu/~mfblaw/ .

69. John Hunker, Americans for Divorce Reform, "Divorce Reform Page," at http://adams.patriot.net/~crouch/divorce.html .

milesafearighted.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/encouraging-marriage-and-discouraging-divorce

Share this post