If We Build It, They Will Come: Exploring Policy and Practice Implications of Public Support for Couple and Relationship Education for Lower Income and Relationally Distressed Couples

• Author: Alan J. Hawkins,Jennifer Acker,Angela B. Bradford
• Date: 01 December 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12151
• Published date: 01 December 2015

If We Build It, They Will Come: Exploring Policy and

Practice Implications of Public Support for Couple

and Relationship Education for Lower Income and

Relationally Distressed Couples

ANGELA B. BRADFORD*

ALAN J. HAWKINS*

JENNIFER ACKER

†

Over the past decade, public funding for Couple and Relationship Education programs

has expanded. As program administrators have been able to extend their reach to low-

income individuals and couples using this support, it has become apparent that greater

numbers of relationally distressed couples are attending classes than previously antici-

pated. Because psychoeducational programs for couples have traditionally served less

distressed couples, this dynamic highlights the need to examine the policy and practice

implications of more distressed couples accessing these services. This paper reviews some

of the most immediate issues, including screening for domestic violence and coupl e needs,

pedagogical considerations, and the potential integration of therapy and education ser-

vices. We also make suggestions for future research that can inform policy and practice

efforts.

Keywords: Couples; Distressed; Funding; Implications; Low- income; Relationship

Education

Fam Proc 54:639–654, 2015

INTRODUCTION

Almost two decades ago, the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed into

law the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF overhauled

U.S. welfare policy, replacing federal entitlements for low-income families with state-

directed efforts to encourage and support work for all TANF recipients. Also central to

TANF purposes were discouraging nonmarital childbearing and encouraging two-parent

families and marriage (Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Many policy makers had become concerned

about the role of welfare policy in family instability (Haskins & Sawhill, 2009). Of course,

they were also concerned with the costs of family instability. One scholar has conserva-

tively estimated the public cost of family instability to be $112 billion a year (Scafidi,

2008), a figure that does not include private-sector and personal costs. Marital distress

has been estimated to account for 30% of sick time (Gottman, 1998) and $6.8 billion in

losses for U.S. businesses (Forthofer, Markman, Cox, Stanley, & Kessler, 1996). Addition-

ally, it has been linked to lower work satisfaction (Rogers & May, 2003; Sandberg et al.,

*School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

†

The Parenting Center, Forth Worth, TX.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Angela B. Bradford, School of Family

Life, Brigham Young University, 239 TLRB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: angela_bradford@byu.edu.

639

Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2015 ©2015 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12151

2013), which in turn is linked to decreased work productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &

Patton, 2001). In addition to the economic costs of marital distress and instability, the so-

cioemotional costs of unhealthy relationships are significant, including diminished parent-

ing practices (e.g., McCoy, George, Cummings, & Davies, 2013; Pedro, Ribeiro, & Shelton,

2012), poorer child outcomes (Cummings & Davies, 2010), mental health problems (Whis-

man, 2007), and increased physical health risks (see Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001;

Smith et al., 2011).

State TANF policy makers have given most of their attention to work-requirement

issues associated with implementing TANF and, to a lesser extent, reducing nonmarital

births. Only a few states have given significant attention to the other purposes of TANF—

promoting stable two-parent families and marriage. As a result, the George W. Bush

administration began exploring ways to promote efforts focused on strengthening families.

With the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress reauthorized the $16.5 billion TANF pro-

gram but added to it some direct funding to support a new policy experiment to provide

couple and relationship education (CRE) targeted to lower income individuals and couples

(Hawkins & VanDenBerghe, 2014). Funding was $100 million a year from 2006–2011 and

$75 million a year from 2012–2014. Over the past decade, the Administration for Children

and Families (ACF) has given about $800 million in competitive grants to community

organizations to deliver free CRE programs to lower income and less educated individuals

and couples (Hawkins & VanDenBerghe, 2014). Funds were also allocated to supp ort

responsible fatherhood and co-parenting education programs aimed at increasing father s’

positive involvement with their children. Funding for responsible fatherhood programs

was $50 million a year from 2006–2011 and $75 million a year from 2012–2014.

An important debate has emerged about the wisdom, merits, and effectiveness of this

new social policy initiative to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages and rela-

tionships (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2013; Heath, 2012; Johnson, 2012). Johnson (2012) and

others argue that these CRE programs have been built on an inadequate research base of

how to strengthen marriages and relationships of low-income couples. Hawkins et al.

(2013) argue, however, that there is emerging evidence that these programs can have posi-

tive effects on disadvantaged couples. We think it is fair to say that early research paints

an unclear portrait. The largest and most rigorous test of CRE for unmarried, low-income

parents—the Building Strong Families (BSF) study—overall found only a few positive

effects for families and even a few potential negative effects at the 3-year follow-up (Wood,

Moore, Clarkwest, & Killewald, 2014), similar to what was found in a smaller, less rigor-

ous field study by Wilde and Doherty (2013). However, there were positive effects at one

BSF site—Oklahoma—and a reanalysis of the 15-month outcomes showed numerous

small but significant positive effects for the most disadvantaged, at-risk participants

(Amato, 2014). The largest and most rigorous test of CRE for married, low-income couples

generally found small but significant positive effects for families at the 3-year follow-up

(Lundquist et al., 2014), echoing results found in a smaller experimental study of low-

income, mostly-married parents in California (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong,

2009). A meta-analysis of recent studies of CRE programs for lower income couples showed

small but significant positive effects, especially on self-reports of relationship quality, com-

munication, and aggression. There were somewhat stronger effects for married couples,

“near-poor” (vs. poor) participants, those experiencing more relationship distress, and

participants who actually invest in the programs (Hawkins & Erickson, 2015). We note

that most large-scale studies such as those we have referenced tend to have low effect

sizes, so the effectiveness evidence to date is mixed (which is not unusual for new policy

initiatives), and more research needed.

While this debate continues and is informed more by ongoing research, it appears that

substantial public funding of CRE will continue in the United States (U.S. Department,

www.FamilyProcess.org

640

/

FAMILY PROCESS