After four decades of rising government spending to treat the effects of broken families, a cultural shift in attitudes toward marriage is evident across America. Elected officials, social scientists, community leaders, and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are admitting that strong marriages--not 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 frequently, and are involved in crime or other destructive behaviors less often. But as marriages fail, social problems and social spending to deal with those problems increase.

Although America has invested $8.4 trillion in social programs since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s,¹ welfare dependency, juvenile crime, 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 year subsidizing single-parent families.² This stands in stark contrast to the approximately $150 million they spend each year in an effort to reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce--the two principal causes of single-parent families in America.³

In other words, for every $1,000 that government spends providing services to broken families, it spends $1 trying to stop family breakdown. All society receives in return for this lopsided "investment" is more of what it 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, and

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

Recognizing that federal welfare spending has played a perverse role 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 system. Under P.L. 104-193, states are able to use a portion of their federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) surplus funds--which accumulate under 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 find ways to implement this mandate or to take steps of their own to strengthen marriage. For example,

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

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

• In 1998, the governor of Florida signed the Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act, making the teaching of marriage skills a part of the high school curriculum. The act also encourages premarital preparation by reducing the marriage license fee by 50 percent for those who complete a marriage preparation course.

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, as well as more teenagers pledging to abstain from sexual relations before marriage. These programs offer federal and state policymakers clear guideposts for reforming public policy in ways that will increase marriage and decrease divorce and out-of-wedlock births. For example,

• Marriage 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 Community Marriage Covenants have been signed by clergy, congregations, and civic 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's first Community Marriage Policy.⁵  

• In Washington, D.C., the Best 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 funds at government programs that deal with the effects of family breakdown, federal and state officials should take steps to prevent family disintegration in the first place. The federal government can continue to offer incentives, flexibility, mandates, and money to urge the states to act; but as Representative Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), former chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, wrote in a letter to state governors,

Although we have provided $20 million bonuses to five states that reduced their illegitimacy rates, we need to learn much more about actions which government can take to reduce births outside marriage or, equally important, to promote marriage.⁷

For its part, Congress should build on its historic reform of the welfare system and work with the executive branch to reduce the marriage penalty in the tax code and adjust the earned income tax credit (EITC) so that married low-income couples with children receive a somewhat larger benefit than the one given single parents.

The states also have a large role to play. They are the natural laboratories in which the best 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.

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 act stipulates that states receiving federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money must implement welfare-to-work programs that limit benefits to five years while helping recipients make 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 the states to use some of their TANF surplus funds to strengthen marriage among their recipients. Three of the four statements of purpose in the legislation specify as goals the formation of marriage and the reduction of out-of-wedlock births (see box on page 7).

Even though the intent and spirit of the welfare reform law are clear, only a few states have taken legislative action since 1996 to strengthen marriage, and only the governor of Oklahoma has used his office to ensure that TANF money is being spent on programs that strengthen marriage. The amount of public money dedicated to these state-based projects, however, is small.

• Arizona has authorized spending $1 million per year, while Oklahoma has authorized that $10 million of its TANF surplus funds be spent as seed money to develop ongoing marriage promotion programs that will later be funded annually.

• This $11 million is only 0.16 percent of the $6.9 billion in surplus TANF money that accumulated nationally in 2000.¹⁷

These funds are available because the states 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 least $2.2 billion of the $6.9 billion total is available for initiatives that promote marriage and reduce divorce among the poor.¹⁸

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

How the States are Implementing Marriage-Based Policies

The various ways by which states have begun to implement marriage-based policies to reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce are showing promise. They offer other states and the federal government clear models on which to base policies that strengthen marriage and reduce the costly and damaging effects of family breakdown.

Arizona
In April 2000, Governor Jane Dee Hull (R) signed into law a marriage initiative authorizing the state to spend $1 million 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 marriage.¹⁹ The state Covenant Marriage legislation was signed into law on May 21, 1998.

Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee (R) hopes to reduce the divorce rate by 50 percent by 2010 and is a proponent of a state Marriage Covenant law.²⁰ His strategy is based on his belief that all decision-making should be made at the lowest level of government possible; in the case of welfare policy, this should be the county level. It is a strategy that relies heavily on churches, since pastors officiate at 75 percent of the weddings in Arkansas.

The governor's efforts to promote marriage range from posting information 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-marriage courses; it is estimated that the annual cost to the state if every marrying couple took such a course and applied for the credit would be about $4 million.²³

Chesterfield County, Virginia, and Cobb County, Georgia, already offer such programs. Chesterfield County offers marriage education classes, and a county mental health worker has been trained in marriage skills. The seven-year old program, which is subsidized by state, local, and federal funding, is offered to couples at any stage of their relationship and is always full. Cobb County offers marriage education 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 marriage and reduce divorce. The charitable choice provisions in federal welfare law²⁴ for example, 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 first state to make learning marriage skills a part of the high school curriculum when Governor Lawton Chiles (D) signed the Florida Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act. The act encourages premarital preparation by reducing the marriage license fee by 50 percent for those who take a marriage preparation course before they wed. In Leon County, 32 percent of couples are now taking pre-marriage courses,²⁵ mainly within their churches. Otherwise, the 1998 initiative has borne little fruit because loopholes in the law make it easy to avoid changing the education curriculum.

Louisiana. The early leader in the state pro-marriage 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 wait 180 days before filing for a no-fault divorce. Covenant marriage couples agree instead that, should they have problems, they will separate for a minimum of two years and seek marital counseling before applying for a divorce.

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

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

Oklahoma
Oklahoma has taken the legislative lead in state-based efforts to strengthen marriage. In June 1999, Governor Frank Keating (R) convened the Governor's and First Lady's Conference on Marriage, bringing together leaders from the business community, religious congregations, education, and government, as well as service providers and the media, to forge the nation's first state action plan for reducing divorce. In March 2000, Keating announced an innovative $10 million marriage initiative earmarking 10 percent of the state's TANF surplus funds for efforts to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce.

Governor Keating also announced the goal of reducing the state's divorce rate by one-third by 2010. In 1999, the state took steps to eliminate the disadvantage in the way income is calculated for married stepparents compared with cohabiting partners. Similar changes were made in the way the state 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 center to provide information on marriage and mentors to couples;

• A public education campaign on the importance of marriage;

• An outreach program to change the attitudes of youth about marriage;

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

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

• Regular statewide marriage conferences;

• Training for state workers, such as agricultural extension service workers and public health nurses, to help them teach marriage skills courses at the community level;

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

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

Utah
Under 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 Marriage to identify programs and tools that could strengthen marriage. In late February 2001, the state followed Oklahoma's lead and earmarked $600,000 of its TANF surplus funds for the promotion of marriage education over the next 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 Marriage Week each February, and regional marriage conferences featuring the governor and his wife are hosted around the state.

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

Wisconsin
The Wisconsin legislature has designated $210,000 in unspent TANF funds in 2001-2002 for a Community Marriage Policy project, which will work with members of the clergy to develop clear community-wide "standards" for marriage. Wisconsin is the first state to fund a full-time worker whose job is to create Community Marriage Policies. The American Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged an earlier legislative attempt that focused on church initiatives to restore marriage. The reworded legislation now includes judges and magistrates, who also officiate at marriages, and it 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 education 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 education, 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 about the demands and realities of marriage and parenthood is a laudable and worthwhile goal,"²⁸ but still vetoed it. The original sponsors, Delegates John R. Leopold (R-Anne Arundel)²⁹ and Kenneth Montague (D-Baltimore),³⁰ revised the bill to specify the qualifications of those who can teach the course--social workers, psychologists, and specially trained religious leaders--thereby satisfying the key special interests affected.

Ironically, though the data show that domestic violence is much lower among 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; only $10 is left for a discount on the cost of the pre-marriage course.

In Minnesota, Senator Steve Dille (R) has re-introduced a bill³¹ under which couples who take a 12-hour course of premarital education would be granted a $55 waiver on their marriage license fees. In reshaping and resubmitting the bill, the sponsors have consulted widely with county clerks in an effort to avoid the governor's 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 pattern. By studying and applying what is already working in the states and local communities--the laboratories of effective public policy--it should be possible to reduce the divorce rate by as much as one-third to one-half in a few short years. The most important elements of such an effort are (1) good program outcome data with which to identify the best practices in the different fields and (2) the will to apply the findings to federal, state, 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 marriage. Communities that have established Marriage Savers congregations and Community Marriage Covenants are demonstrating the most success in decreasing divorce.³² The strategy: Help churches train mentors for engaged couples who can help them prepare for a life-long marriage commitment and help counsel marriages in trouble. Congregations with such mentors have helped up to 90 percent of troubled married couples who have come forward.

Marriage Savers started its first Community Marriage Covenant in Modesto, California, in 1986. A full-service program should incorporate seven key church activities:

1. A minimum of four months' preparation 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 PREPARE³³ 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 about issues on which the couple agrees and disagrees.

4. A program to strengthen existing marriages, such as Marriage Encounter,³⁶ Marriage Alive,³⁷ or Family Builders. ³⁸  

5. A program to help troubled marriages, whether an established one such as Retrouvaille³⁹ or one that uses couples in the congregation who have undergone marriage counseling successfully. In Rockford, Illinois, the First 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" and sent dozens of their toughest cases to the First Assembly. In three years, First Assembly's mentors have met with more than 100 married couples headed for divorce and have saved all but four of them.⁴⁰  

6. Mentoring for stepfamilies. According to federal survey data, 20 percent of American children were living with stepparents in 1995.⁴¹ Rev. Dick Dunn of Roswell United Methodist Church near Atlanta created a Stepfamily Support Group led by stepfamily couples who had learned to make a truly blended family. Four out of five participating couples have 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 improve the chances of reconciliation for separated couples, as the work of Joe and Michele Williams in a program called Reconciling God's Way shows. The couple report that the program has helped over 70 percent of those who were separated to come together again in marriage.⁴²  

A few pastors and congregations have implemented all seven of these elements in their parishes.⁴³

Over 135 cities have signed Community Marriage Covenants to motivate Marriage Saver congregations and civic leaders to rally communities behind efforts to strengthen marriage. In the fall of 1999 alone, Charleston, West Virginia; Baton Rouge and Alexandria, Louisiana; Fairfield, Connecticut; Wausau, Wisconsin; Flower Mound, Texas; and Harrisonburg, Virginia, all became Community Marriage 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 example, a covenant was signed by 95 pastors in Modesto, California, in 1986. Since then, the divorce rate has plunged 47.6 percent, while marriages have climbed 9.8 percent.⁴⁵ In some cities, the divorce rates have declined 20 times faster than the national rate of 1.3 percent rate.⁴⁶

The dramatic difference in divorce rates between Kansas City, Kansas, which has a Marriage Saver program, and Kansas City, Missouri, which does not, demonstrates the effects of marriage-based strategies.

• In Kansas City, Kansas, and its suburbs, the number of divorces has plunged 32.5 percent--from 1,530 to 1,001--in just two years, while the number of marriages has remained virtually unchanged. Only 40 pastors--a small fraction of the number of clergy in the two-county area--had signed the Community Marriage Policy, but The Kansas City Star had published a number of stories about the initiative.

• Meanwhile, just across the river, the number of divorces actually rose over the same two years for the metropolitan area that includes Kansas City, Missouri, and its suburbs--from 3,586 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 state developed a visibly pro-marriage climate; the other plodded along without changing attitudes or expectations.⁴⁷ This is powerful evidence of the effectiveness of pro-marriage policies. Officials in every state should encourage community leaders to establish and expand Marriage Savers programs.

Focused Thinking Mediation, a program that in South Africa has helped as many as 50 percent 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 20 court dockets per couple per year and on average stayed before the court for 2.25 years. Of the 26 couples who have participated in the course, all but two have reached amicable agreements and have not returned to the courts.⁴⁹ The results are so impressive that the courts may soon begin using the program in pre-divorce cases.

Lawyer and social worker Stan Posthumus,⁵⁰ who developed and refined Focused Thinking Mediation during the 1990s, is hoping to help couples who have filed for divorce come 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 begin to communicate more effectively, usually for the first time in years. If the experience in South Africa is any indication, many couples will reconsider their decision to divorce and decide instead to rebuild their marriages based on clear communication and agreement.

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

A program run by the Best Friends Foundation⁵¹ in Washington, D.C., has reduced out-of-wedlock births among its members by as much as 90 percent and has led about the same percentage of teenage participants to pledge that they will 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 program 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. Because out-of-wedlock 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 eight years (from the inception of the program to the year of its evaluation), and 90 percent have remained sexually abstinent. For teenagers in an inner-city environment in which the overall teen pregnancy rate can range from 80 percent to 90 percent, this is a remarkable achievement.⁵²

How to Encourage Marriage and Discourage Divorce

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

Changing School Curricula

School 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 great costs on society, and marriage has many benefits for individual family members.⁷² To that extent, public school curricula should:

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

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