Marriage and Divorce[Population and Household]Marriage and Divorce
March 26, 2001 40 min read Download
Report 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 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. 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 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. Social science literature is replete with robust findings on the harmful effects of broken families, particularly for children. Juvenile
crime,8 abuse and violence,9 and lowered income are often associated in the research with single-parent families (see Charts
1-5).10 Children born out of wedlock have an increased risk of death in infancy, higher incidence of retarded cognitive and verbal development, and higher rates of drug addiction and out-of-wedlock pregnancy as
teens.11 As adults, they have higher rates of divorce, work at lower-wage jobs, and abuse their children more often.12 Divorce also has particularly
troubling consequences. Studies show that household income for women and children is more likely to drop below the poverty level immediately following a divorce,13 declining by as much as 50 percent and causing substantial reductions in earnings capability and long-term
wealth.14 Compared with children in intact families, children of divorced parents: Have higher rates of crime, drug use, child abuse, and child neglect; Perform poorly on reading, spelling, and math tests, and repeat grades
and drop out of high school and college more frequently; Have higher incidences of behavioral, emotional, physical, and psychiatric problems, including depression and suicide; and Such effects are not isolated; they set in motion a downward cycle of dysfunctional behavior and despair that compounds the problems for their own children and future generations of children. In economic terms, divorce reduces both the capital and the rate of return at an
accelerating rate. The cost to society is exorbitant: One social scientist has estimated that "the "aggregate burden of crime" alone on American society approaches $1 trillion annually.16 Policymakers who hope to stop this societal fall must look instead at ways to reduce divorce and out-of-wedlock birth by strengthening marriage.
Missed OpportunitiesThe 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.
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 Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Encourages Marriage Public Law 104-193, which block grants Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to the states, encourages the states to strengthen marriage and reduce out-of-wedlock births by stipulating that:
1. Public Law 104-193, Section 103, Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (emphasis added). How the States are Implementing Marriage-Based PoliciesThe 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 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 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 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:
Utah 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 Other States 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 InitiativesIncreasingly, 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:
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.
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 The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) is a seven-year-old program that is proving to be very effective in motivating fathers to become more active in their families. Over a four-year period starting in May 1996, the NFI spent $800,000 on a television campaign encouraging fathers to be more involved with their children and families. The campaign garnered 187 times that amount ($130 million) in donated TV air time. In Virginia, the campaign spent $200,000 over an 18-month period, and with impressive results: One in three people recalled the ads; 40,000 fathers changed their activities to spend more time with their children; and 100,000 people became more supportive of the role of fathers or agreed to take a father's place when he was not available.53 Marriage Preparation Courses How to Encourage Marriage and Discourage DivorceThough 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. Promoting MarriageLike 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-wedlock births and increasing marriage. Among the specific steps they can take are the following:
Government action in this area needs to be prudent because issues of personal freedom in making intimate decisions, as well as the protection of the common good, are at stake. Answering Objections to
Educating the PublicJust as the law can serve a teaching function, the communication of traditional universal values in the public forum can uplift public opinion and popular culture. In this respect, state officials can pursue strategies that would advance the importance of marriage as an institution. Specifically:
Changing State LawToday, laws and government policies provide virtually no protection for the institution of marriage. The damaging effects of "no fault" divorces have become so clear that today there are only 17 pure "no fault" states.68 Legislators considering changing their divorce laws should consider the full range of legal options available to them, such as 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 as model legislation. Several proposals could help to slow state divorce rates. Specifically:
Changing School CurriculaSchool 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:
ConclusionA cultural shift is occurring that bodes well for America's children. After four decades of treating society's ills with more government 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-being. Social science 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 marriage, and good programs exist to help couples prepare for marriage. State and local officials should take advantage of what the social science research and the records of "best practices" programs teach. Divorce at community levels can be reduced by 30 percent through community programs to strengthen marriage. Abstinence before marriage will increase with the right programs, and proper attention on marriage in the media can help to change cultural attitudes. Together, public- and private-sector leadership can join with the clergy begin this process, increasing the incidence of marriage and strengthening families while reducing the social problems that accompany family breakdown and out-of-wedlock births. The goal is not small, but it is increasingly more achievable. --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 1. 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 amount 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 marriage and promotes single parenthood among the poor. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, if a single father with one child who works for the minimum wage marries a single mother with one child who also works at the minimum wage, they will lose $8,000 in income transfers, or roughly 33 percent to 40 percent of their combined income. An equivalent penalty in loss of income for a
middle-class couple, each earning $30,000 per annum, who decide to marry would be in the range of $20,000 per year. 4. See Patrick F. Fagan, "The American Family," in Stuart M. Butler and Kim R. Holmes, eds., Issues 2000: The Candidate's Briefing Book (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2000). 5. Marriage Savers, at
http://www.marriagesavers.org/ 6. For more information, contact the Best Friends Foundation at (202) 237-8156. 7. Emphasis added. At the same time, Representative Johnson warned against "supplementation," or the use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families surplus money to defray program costs normally paid by state tax revenue. Doing so, she warned, would invite Congress to reduce the level of TANF support to eliminate any surplus funds. 8. For example, a fairly recent U.S. longitudinal study tracking over 6,400 boys for over 20 years found 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, "Father 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 up to six times more likely to be delinquent than are children from intact families. See David B. Larson, James P. Swyers, and Susan S. Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce (Rockville, Md.: National Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995) p. 123. 9. Research has found that serious abuse is much higher among stepchildren than among children in intact families, and that adults who were sexually abused as children are more likely to have been raised in stepfamilies than in intact married families. See, for example, David M. Gergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and L. John Horwood, "Childhood Sexual Abuse 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, see 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 can accompany it render children twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times as likely to become out-of-wedlock teen parents, and 1.4 times as likely to be unemployed. See S. S. 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. See Patrick F. Fagan, "Rising Illegitimacy: America's Social Catastrophe," Heritage Foundation F.Y.I. No. 14, June 29, 1994. 13. See Fagan and Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children." 14. See Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity." 15. Fagan and Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children," pp. 17ff. 16. David Anderson, "The Aggregate Burden of Crime," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42 (October 1999), pp. 611-642. 17. For the basis of calculations, see Ed Lazere, "Welfare Balances After Three Years of TANF Block Grants: Unspent Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Funds at the End of Fiscal Year 1999," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2000, pp. 14-15. 18. Gene Falk, "Welfare Reform: Financing and Recent Spending Trends in the TANF Program," Congressional Research Service, RL30595, updated January 4, 2001. 19. Arizona Statute 41-2031. Information on this statute can be obtained from its legislative sponsor, Hon. Mark Anderson, Arizona House of Representatives, at [email protected]. 20. Governor Mike Huckabee, State of the State speech, January 9, 2001. 21. See http://www.state.ar.us/governor/governor.html. 22. See http://www.state.ar.us/governor/marriage/index.html. 23. Personal communication with Governor Huckabee's office. 24. P.L. 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's Law Center provided legal expertise for the draft legislation and has consulted with eight other states on similar bills. 27. Personal communication with Dr. Stephen Nock, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, the principal author of the research, and Dr. Alan Hawkins, Department of Family Studies, Brigham Young University, who was a consultant on the project. 28. Christian Davenport, "Getting Help Before the Honeymoon," The Washington Post, February 25, 2001, p. C1. 29. For more information, contact Delegate Leopold at (800) 492-7122, ext. 3217. 30. For more information, contact Delegate Montague at (800) 492-7122, ext. 3259, or e-mail him at [email protected] 31. Senate File (S.F.) No. 1021, at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=S1021.0&session=ls82. 32. See http://www.marriagesavers.org/. 33. See http://www.lifeinnovation.com/. 34. See http://www.foccusinc.com/. 35. Marriage Savers reports that between 15 percent and 20 percent of couples who take this inventory decide not to marry. Others report entering marriage with better understanding and communication skills. 36. See http://www.wwme.org/. 37. See http://www.marriagealive.org/. 38. See http://www.familybuilders.net/. 39. See http://home.vicnet.net.au/~retro/home.htm. 40. Michael J. McManus, "How Do You 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. See http://www.marriagesavers.org/how_do_you_create_a_marriage_sav.htm. 43. See "Six Churches That Have Virtually Eliminated Divorce," at http://www.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. Marriage Savers, at http://www.marriagesavers.org/divorcerates.htm. 47. Sources for this information, according to Marriage Savers, are the county clerks of Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas and Clay and Jackson Counties in Missouri. 48. Client record follow-up data from South Africa, provided by Stanley Posthumus. 49. From court record data, provided by Stanley Posthumus. 50. For more information, contact Stanley Posthumus, LLB, at [email protected]. 51. For more information, contact the Best Friends Foundation at (202) 237-8156. 52. David R. Rowberry, "An Evaluation of the Washington DC Best Friends Program," dissertation, University of Colorado, 1995. 53. For more on the National Fatherhood Initiative, contact Wade Horn at [email protected]. 54. See http://www.prepinc.com/. PREP, the most research-based program, is based on the work of Professors Howard Markman and Scott Stanley of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver. 55. PAIRS Foundation e-mail: [email protected]. 56. See http://www.nire.org. 57. See http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html. 58. See the following on a federal Office of Marriage Initiatives:
http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/ 59. This bonus for decreasing out-of-wedlock births was part of the welfare reform legislation of 1996. 60. Benheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, and Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University, "Fragile Families Research Brief" No. 1, May 2000. 61. For a review of the literature, see Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity," pp. 3-6. 62. See http://home.vicnet.net.au/~retro/home.htm. 63. See http://www.wwme.org/. 64. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 1997. See Fagan, "The American Family," Chart 6.18. 65. See Patrick F. Fagan, "Family Planning, Family Failure," The Washington Times, July 13, 2000, p. A22. 66. See Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000), for authoritative research on this issue. 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 College of Law, University of Iowa, at http://www.uiowa.edu/~mfblaw/. 69. John Crouch, Americans for Divorce Reform, "Divorce Reform Page," at http://adams.patriot.net/~crouch/divorce.html. Who initiates divorce United States?A 2015 study by the American Sociological Association revealed that women initiate 69 percent of all divorces in the U.S. Further, the same study found that college-educated women initiate divorce at an even higher rate of 90 percent.
Which group has the highest rates of divorce in the United States?Women get divorced at a significantly higher rate compared to men. In particular, they get divorced at a rate of 7.7 per 1,000 citizens in the United States, according to the CDC.gov report. At the same time, the current national divorce rate is 2.3 per 1,000 people.
Which of the following measures tells how many divorces there are in the United States relative to the total size of the population?Which of the following measures tells how many divorces there are in the United States, relative to the total size of the population? A better "divorce rate" measure that compares how many divorces occurred in a given year relative to the number of married people in that year is: divorce rate.
Who is most likely to initiate divorce proceedings quizlet?Who is more likely to file for divorce? Men are twice as likely as women to initiate a divorce. The number of older women who are divorcing is increasing. The majority of divorces today result in one parent receiving sole custody of the children.
|