Introduction

decade ago marriagewas the “m-word” inthe U.S. public

arena, viewed as a privatematter beyond governmentintervention. Now, marriageis clearly on the publicagenda. Since 2002, morethan 300 healthy marriage(HM) programs have beenfunded by the Administrationfor Children and Families(ACF). The first wave ofcompetitive HM grants werefunded using discretionaryvehicles available in variousACF offices. The secondwave of grants were awardedin October 2006 for fiveyears, drawing mostly on a

dedicated stream of fundingin the reauthorizedTemporary Assistance forNeedy Families (TANF) pro-gram. In addition, a handfulof state governments haveused state dollars to fund HMprograms. The result is thatmarriage education is nowbeing provided to large num-bers of people across the U.S.from a diversity of economic,racial, and ethnic back-grounds.

Many of the critics’ initialquestions and concerns abouta federal healthy marriage ini-tiative lessened as theylearned about the underlyingresearch rationale for this newagenda and about what hap-pens in these programs. Also,ACF responded to certainconcerns by taking usefulsteps to ensure that participa-tion is voluntary and that allgrantees develop protocols on

how to deal with domesticviolence issues.

But an important questionremains unanswered: Theseprograms were designed for—and have mostly served—white, middle-class, educatedcouples who are engaged oralready married. Can they beeffective with much morediverse populations, many ofwhom are neither marriednor committed to marry?1

It is far too early to be able toanswer this question. Instead,this brief describes the typesof adaptation that are alreadyunderway and gives someexamples. It identifies some ofthe key issues and challenges

The author would like to thank the following

individuals for very helpful comments on a

draft of this brief: Bill Coffin, Nancye

Campbell, David Fein, Courtney Harrison,

Josephine Hauer, and Pamela Wilson.

However, the author alone is responsible for

the content.

A

Adapting Healthy Marriage Programs forDisadvantaged and Culturally Diverse Populations:What are the issues?By Theodora Ooms

About the Author

When this brief was written,Theodora Ooms was a SeniorPolicy Analyst for CLASP. Sheis now a consultant on couplesand marriage policy.

POL ICYBRI EF

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Couples and Marr iage Ser ies M a r c h 2 0 0 7B r i e f N o . 1 0

2 POL I C Y B R I E F

involved in making marriageeducation relevant for andaccessible to culturally diverseand economically disadvan-taged populations, and itraises some questions for thefuture.

The Marriage EducationField Prior to 2000

What did the marriage educa-tion field look like before theadvent of government fund-ing? Its research and programroots go back to the 1950s,but the field was reallylaunched in the ‘70s and ‘80sby mental health practitionersand researchers concernedabout the rising rates ofdivorce and single parenthoodand convinced that existingcounseling and therapy serv-ices offered too little help, toolate, to too few people. Theirexperience and research con-vinced them that individualscould develop the knowledge,attitudes, and skills needed tohave a healthy and happyrelationship, make wise mari-tal choices, and stay success-fully married.

Since then, dozens of pro-grams have been and continueto be developed and tested.While varied in style and sub-stance, they have much incommon.2 Before government

funding, the following gener-alizations characterized themarriage education field:3

■ Marriage education pro-grams were offered toengaged couples, to pre-pare for marriage; to mar-ried couples, to enrich andstrengthen their marriage;and sometimes to highlydistressed couples in crisis.

■ The participants werewhite and middle class andwere typically referred bytheir pastor/minister or byanother couple. A few pro-grams served minority andmore economically disad-vantaged couples, generallyin the military.

■ Marriage education’s psycho-educationalapproach was preventive.The curricula generallyaimed to provide basicinformation about the ben-efits and challenges of marriage and to teach communication, problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills, angermanagement, and emo-tional regulation. Theyencouraged positive inter-action, promoting intimacyand friendship and buildingcommitment and trust.They did not discuss issuesof domestic violence or

refer couples to other services.

■ The leaders/educatorswould teach groups of cou-ples in a classroom setting,generally for a couple ofhours a week for six toeight weeks but sometimesin daylong or weekendretreats. Teaching methodsincluded lectures, groupdiscussion, videotapes, roleplaying, interactive skill-building exercises, andhomework tasks. Educatorsaimed to make classesentertaining and enjoyable.

■ The programs were gener-ally free-standing, notembedded in a larger program—although theywere commonly offered infaith-based, university, orcommunity settings.

■ Programs typically chargeda fee of $50 to a maximumof $600.

The advent of federal andstate government funding andthe subsequent rapid increasein the number of programshave resulted in substantialchanges in participant demo-graphics, curriculum content,and program design and infrastructure.

Couples and Marriage Series, Brief No. 10 3

Demographic Diversity

Marital/family status. Asnoted, the traditional mar-riage education programswere designed for engaged ormarried couples. Now, feder-ally funded HM programsserve individuals and couplesat many points along the mar-ital continuum. They includeunmarried parents who mayor may not be living togetheror have plans to marry. Theyalso include single custodialand non-custodial parents,along with increasing num-bers of high school studentsand other individuals andcouples who are “interested inmarriage.” Some HM pro-grams also serve foster par-ents and adoptive parents,most of whom are married.

This expansion of the targetpopulation means that HMprograms are often not adver-tised as “promoting marriage”per se but rather as teachinggeneral relationship skills rel-evant to many types of cou-ples. ACF, however, has firmlyinsisted that, whatever thecharacteristics of the partici-pants, the programs mustprovide information on thebenefits of a healthy marriageand encourage and help par-ticipants who are interested to

take steps toward marriagethemselves.

Income/education. FederalHM programs are notrequired to serve only low-income populations. But sincemost of the funding comesfrom the TANF welfare pro-gram, many programs doserve mainly economicallydisadvantaged families.4

Thus this question arises:what do marriage educatorsneed to know about couplesand marriage in low-incomepopulations?

Until recently, very littleresearch was available on thissubject. But in the last fewyears, the poverty researchcommunity has “discovered”marriage, just as the marriagefield has “discovered”poverty.5 Researchers havefound that disadvantagedindividuals value marriagevery highly but face manybarriers and disincentives tomarriage—and that theirmarriages are less likely tolast.6 Disadvantaged couplesare more likely to experienceexternal stressors such asfinancial hardship, isolationand lack of social support,unemployment, and poorhealth. They have fewer eco-nomic and personal resourceswith which to cope with set-

backs. They also experiencehigher rates of personal prob-lems (such as substance abuse,domestic violence and abuse,and depression) and have amuch harder time gettinghelp for these problems. Allthese factors take a toll oncouple relationships and onthe well-being of any childrenthey may have.

It is now generally under-stood that to be effective serving disadvantaged popula-tions, marriage educationprograms need to respond tomany of the real-life chal-lenges these couples face.

Cultural/racial/ethnicdiversity. Until recently, edu-cators believed that the coreconcepts and components ofmarriage education were uni-versally shared and hence thattheir programs could be effec-tive across different racial andethnic cultures. As programsbegan to serve more diverseparticipants, many leaders inthe field developed an appre-ciation of the need to be cul-turally sensitive. Someprograms select and trainworkshop leaders who speakthe participants’ language andare familiar with their culturalbackground. They areencouraged to use the corecurriculum flexibly, incorpo-

4 POL I C Y B R I E F

rating familiar ideas andexamples.7 In addition, ahandful of curricula have been translated into otherlanguages.

Some marriage educators nowbelieve that they need to gofurther and become culturallycompetent in order to effec-tively serve populations from different cultural back-grounds.8 Cultural compe-tence requires more extensivechanges in curriculum con-tent and program design.This is a complex task, sinceHM programs are now beingoffered to so many differentcultural, racial, and ethnicgroups and subgroups, and itis important not to stereotypeall members of one broadracial or ethnic group. Forexample, among Latinos andAsians cultural beliefs and tra-ditions about marriage andfamily may differ dependingupon the country of origin;religion; or whether they arefirst-, second-, or third-gen-eration immigrants. The chal-lenge is to find ways toacknowledge, respect, andtolerate these cultural differ-ences without sanctioning orexcusing behavior that isunacceptable in the dominantU.S. culture.

Special populations. Thefirst wave of federal fundingadded a marriage and rela-tionships education compo-nent to services offered toclients of child welfare, childsupport enforcement, andrefugee programs. The sec-ond wave added couples withexperience of incarceration.Also, some states chose to tapwelfare funds to serve TANFclients. Staff of all these pro-grams have been challengedto think through the rele-vance of marriage educationto their clients’ situations.Likewise, marriage educatorsinvolved in these grants havehad to learn a great deal aboutthe needs and circumstancesof these particular client pop-ulations and about the mis-sion, policies, and regulationsof the “host” program (i.e.TANF, child support enforce-ment, child welfare, refugeeand migrant programs, andprison systems).9

Boxes 1-4 offer a few exam-ples of the kinds of culturaladaptations being made bycurriculum developers andprogram administrators forseveral different majorgroups.

B O X 1 : P R O G R A M A N DC U R R I C U L U M A D A P TAT I O N S F O RS E R V I N G A F R I C A N - A M E R I C A N S

The African American Healthy Marriage Initiative

(AAHMI) and other organizations have hosted

conferences and other forums to better

understand the complex array of economic,

historical, and cultural issues that underlie the

“decline in marriage” among African-Americans

at all income levels.1 As a result, several marriage

and relationship education and enrichment

programs have been developed that incorporate

relevant Afrocentric themes.2 These themes

include:

• the legacy of slavery in eroding marital tiesand breaking families apart,

• effects of matriarchy on male-female relations,

• gender distrust and infidelity,

• strengths of extended families,

• the important role of churches in blackcommunities,

• the value of bonding rituals and traditions,and

• the impact of racial discrimination on coupleand family relationships.

In addition, some curriculum adaptations now

also incorporate topics especially germane to

many urban, low-income African-Americans—

especially to unmarried parents:

• multiple-partner parenting,

• male unemployment and incarceration,

• domestic violence issues, and

• involvement with the justice and child supportsystems.

1 See African American Healthy Marriage Initiative athttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/ healthymarriage.

2 These include African American Marriage EnrichmentProgram by Lorraine Blackman (http://www.aafle.org),Basic Training: A Black Marriage Education Curriculumby Nisa Islam Mohammed and Rozario Slack(http://www. blackmarriage.org), and ExploringRelationships and Marriage Among Fragile Families byPamela Wilson and Ademola Ekulona(http://www.cfwd.org).

Two Dimensions ofAdaptation: “Trains” and“Tracks”

To borrow a metaphor usedby Scott Stanley, effectivemarriage education requiresboth “trains” and “tracks.”10

Trains are the instructionalservices (curriculum content,format, and teachingmethod). Tracks are the orga-nizational infrastructure andmodes of delivery needed toeffectively reach and serve theclients. Adaptations are beingmade to both of these dimen-sions of marriage education,in order to respond to themore diverse populationsbeing served. Both types ofadaptations require both mar-riage educators and humanservice providers to changehow they think about and dotheir work.

Domestic violence. One ofthe most complex and diffi-cult issues involving bothtrains and tracks has beenhow HM programs shouldsafely respond to concernsabout domestic violence. ACFhas required each federallyfunded HM program todevelop a site-specific domes-tic violence protocol, whichaddresses how domestic vio-lence is discussed in the cur-ricula and/or in the program

design and infrastructure(recruitment, intake andreferral procedures, stafftraining, etc.). Independentlyof this requirement, severalestablished programs haveincorporated new materialsand procedures on domesticviolence (e.g., the SurvivalSkills for Healthy Families/Family Wellness, RelationshipEnhancement [RE], andPrevention and RelationshipEnhancement Program[PREP]). A preliminary guidehas been developed—drawingupon discussions at a May2006 conference—to helphealthy marriage, responsiblefatherhood, and domestic vio-lence programs get to knowand work with each other.11

Trains: Curriculum adapta-tions. Many of the HM pro-grams are informally adaptingstandard curricula to fit theneeds of more diverse clients.A program might use certainparts of an existing curricu-lum, rewrite others, omitsome parts, blend sections ofdifferent curricula together,and/or add new content.There is relatively little infor-mation available about theseinformal adaptations. Andseveral of the best-knowncurriculum developers are (oralready have) systematically

Couples and Marriage Series, Brief No. 10 5

B O X 2 : P R O G R A M A N DC U R R I C U L U M A D A P TAT I O N S F O RS E R V I N G L AT I N O S

The Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative (HHMI)

has sponsored three research conferences in

which participants identified and discussed the

issues that need to inform healthy marriage

programs targeting Latino populations.1 Some of

these issues are gradually being incorporated

into existing marriage programs and curricula. In

addition, a few curricula have been designed

specifically for Latino populations.2 Specific

issues include the need to:

• Acknowledge the tensions families face inaccommodating to American ideals of genderequality and individualism, which conflictwith the gender roles and group-orientedvalues of their traditional cultures.

• Build on traditional cultural values—such asmachismo, marianismo, and familismo(prioritizing parent-child relations overspousal)—to emphasize their positive aspectsand de-emphasize negative concepts (i.e.those related to power and control).

• Recognize Latinos’ dependence on extendedfamily and the stressful experience ofseparation from children and extended familywho remain in the home country.

• Adapt to Latinos’ nonverbal, indirectcommunication styles and to their preferenceto avoid conflict.

• Acknowledge that discrimination, lack of legaldocumentation, and involvement with theimmigration and justice systems can highlystress spousal and family relationships.

1 Resources for programs serving Hispanics—based onthese conference discussions—are posted on theHispanic Healthy Marriage Web site:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ healthymarriage.

2 See HHMI Web site.

revising or rewriting their tra-ditional curricula, or addingnew material. Some of thesecurricula are available “out ofthe box,” while others areavailable only to participantsin curriculum training.Others are not yet availableexcept as part of federaldemonstrations. Box 5 (p. 8)

contains examples of curricu-lum adaptations developed aspart of federal demonstra-tions, while Box 6 (p. 9) con-tains examples of programsdeveloped independent offederal demonstrations.

Following current recom-mended practice in adult edu-cation, many of these adaptedand new curricula are placingless emphasis on didactic, lecture-oriented teaching andmore on interactive exercisesand group discussions, videosand DVDs, “coaches” whohelp couples practice commu-nication skills, and workbookswritten for lower literacy lev-els. Some programs also useopening and closing group-bonding rituals.

Since these programs oftenincorporate a great deal morecontent than traditional mar-riage education programs,they may take more time tocomplete and may be offeredover a longer period. Thefederal demonstrations arethe longest; for example, theBSF programs are offeredover a period of roughly 40weeks.

Tracks: Infrastructureadaptations. There are manytypes of challenges involvedin creating and laying down

effective tracks. Several ofthese are discussed in prelimi-nary implementation reportsfrom the three federal HMdemonstrations, as well as inan Urban Institute explora-tory study.12

■ Organizational structureand settings. Most pro-grams use one of twodesign options. The morecommon is to embed anHM program in an existingprogram—for example, ahome-visiting program or aretreat program for adop-tive parents—or in a multi-service agency. A fewprograms are beingdesigned from the groundup, existing as free-standing programs. Theresources and constraintsof a particular setting influ-ence almost every aspect ofthe program, from howparticipants are recruitedto the location and dura-tion of the program. Eachtype of setting seems tohave advantages and disadvantages.

■ Hiring and training staff.HM programs try to hireand train individuals whohave some familiarity withthe circumstances of theparticular population to beserved. One of the chal-lenges is that most social

6 POL I C Y B R I E F

B O X 3 : P R O G R A M A N DC U R R I C U L U M A D A P TAT I O N S F O RS E R V I N G N AT I V E A M E R I C A N S

Since 2003, the Administration of Native

Americans (ANA) has used discretionary dollars

to fund 23 tribal healthy marriage programs and

to provide them with training and technical

assistance. Some of these programs are also

supported by tribal funds beyond the required

match. Curriculum and program adaptations are

shaped by the particular tribal context and by

whether the target population lives on a

reservation or is disbursed in the general

community. However, there are several cultural

challenges that have been experienced across

most of these programs.

Native Americans in general regard couple and

family issues as intensely personal and private

and are uncomfortable talking about them,

especially to strangers. There is considerable

distrust of “government-sponsored” programs.

The fact that federal officials do not

acknowledge the validity of traditional tribal

marriages (which have the status of common-

law marriages within the tribe) has also been a

problem. Nevertheless, these and other

challenges are typically overcome when tribal

leaders and elders strongly endorse and support

the program—for example, as the governor of

the Chickasaw Nation has in Oklahoma.

service agency staff withthe required kinds of back-grounds have spent theircareers helping individualsingle mothers, and theyoften find it difficult toshift to involving men andaddressing the needs of acouple.

■ Gateway to other serv-ices. HM programs areincreasingly being viewedas gateways to getting helpfor other problems that canprofoundly affect the qual-ity and stability of a rela-tionship—includingsubstance abuse, depres-sion, domestic violence,and economic problemssuch as unemployment,low wages, and heavy debtburdens.13 As noted, dis-cussion of these and otherissues is now beingincluded in some of themarriage education curric-ula. In addition, both theBuilding Strong Families(BSF) and the SupportingHealthy Marriages (SHM)demonstrations includeadditional components thatprovide individualized sup-port and referral to otherneeded services. The BSFmodel includes a familycoordinator, who meetswith the couple on a regu-lar basis over a period of upto three years. The SHM

model includes a familysupport coordinator and anarray of other servicesdesigned to extend orenrich the core curriculum,including booster sessions,peer mentoring, and groupactivities such as socialevents and date nights.

■ Recruitment and reten-tion. Programs funded byfederal grants are expectedto meet certain participa-tion targets, as set out inthe grant application. Thiscreates pressure to findeffective ways both torecruit couples and to helpthem stay the course. Forboth cultural and economicreasons, many HM pro-grams have had difficultywith recruitment. It isoften especially difficult torecruit men, so hiring malestaff and married couples isconsidered especiallyimportant. The AfricanAmerican HealthyMarriage Initiative(AAHMI) has hosted manydiscussions about how tomost effectively marketmarriage and relationshipeducation to African-Americans. Once individu-als and couples attend aclass, they generally like itand report that it is veryhelpful. However, the livesof many of the disadvan-

Couples and Marriage Series, Brief No. 10 7

B O X 4 : P R O G R A M A N DC U R R I C U L U M A D A P TAT I O N S F O RS E R V I N G R E F U G E E S

In 2006, the Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR) funded about 50 five-year healthy

marriage programs serving refugees from

countries in Central Europe, Africa, and South

Asia. (This was the second wave of programs.)

Refugees make up an extremely diverse

population. They are also quite vulnerable, as

they have multiple and urgent needs for

housing, jobs, health care, language programs,

and so forth. The traumas refugees have

experienced in the past and the challenges of

assimilation to American culture place a great

stress on their marriage and family life. And

women and children often become

Americanized more quickly than men, whose

adaptation is hampered by their sense that their

traditional authority is increasingly being

questioned and undermined. These tensions can

threaten the stability of families.

Generally, refugees’ gender role expectations,

attitudes toward seeking help from strangers,

and communication styles are very different

from the dominant American culture. Healthy

marriage programs have worked together with

leaders of these refugee communities to find

ways of designing programs and choosing and

adapting curricula that will be acceptable to and

effective with individuals from more traditional

cultures. Successful strategies for recruitment

have emerged, including public endorsements

from community leaders and advertising that

the programs will also offer help to parents

(e.g., with unruly teenagers) or provide concrete

financial services (e.g., information about how

to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

taged participants are ingreat flux, and frequentschedule and job changesmean that many do notcomplete the program.

To address recruitment andretention, most programsprovide help with child careand transportation, offer foodand drink, and hold classes ina community setting that isfamiliar, convenient, andcomfortable. Programs usecreative advertising and mar-keting and often offer attrac-tive incentives, such as meals,prizes, and vouchers for babysupplies.

Future Directions

This rather rapid process ofexpanding marriage and rela-tionship education to servemore diverse populations hasrequired adaptations to bothtrains and tracks. In theprocess, the mission and goalsof the field of marriage educa-tion—and of the federalhealthy marriage initiative—have broadened. Meanwhile,practitioners and administra-tors are already learning manylessons about the kinds ofadaptations that are necessary,and they are testing manycreative approaches.

The ACF-funded HealthyMarriage Resource Center

8 POL I C Y B R I E F

B O X 5 : F E D E R A L D E M O N S T R AT I O N S A N D C U R R I C U L U MA D A P TAT I O N S

The Healthy Marriage, Healthy Relationships (HMHR) program. This Grand Rapids,

Michigan program targets low-income, largely African-American populations (see

www.healthymarriagegr.org). HMHR—a community-based initiative funded in June

2003 as a five-year Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver—is

a partnership between an established marriage program and 10 grassroots, community

faith-based institutions, called the Institutions of Trust. The partnership is coordinated

by City Vision, an intermediary, and the partners have established a close working

relationship. One of their achievements was to select three curricula from a number of

options that they believed best met the needs of their target population and to then

make a number of adaptations to each.1

The Building Strong Families (BSF) demonstration. In this federal demonstration, three

well-known curricula were selected as options for seven program sites. The curriculum

developers worked with the sites to make various adaptations to the chosen curricula

to better fit the needs of low-income, unwed expectant and new parents—for

example, by including information about parenting newborns (see www.building

strongfamilies.org).2 In addition, a group of curriculum experts were commissioned

to develop and pilot test four new supplemental modules, which were then

incorporated into these curricula. These modules address major barriers to marriage in

this population, such as building or repairing trust, the complexities of having children

and co-parents from previous unions, financial management and partnership, and

understanding the benefits and challenges of marriage.3

The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) federal demonstration (see www.supporting

healthymarriage.org) has selected four curricula and is at present following a similar

approach to adaptation—but focusing on low-income married couples.4

1 Anupa Bir and Robert Lerman, Piloting a Community Approach to Healthy Marriage Initiatives:Early Implementation of the Healthy Marriage, Healthy Relationships Demonstration, RTIInternational, 2005, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/streengthen/eval_com/reports/grand_rapids/grand_rapids.html.

2 These curricula are Loving Couples, Loving Children by John and Julie Gottman (info@lclconline.org),Love’s Cradle by Mary Ortwein and Bernard Guerney (http://www.nire.org), and Becoming ParentsProgram by Pamela Jordan (http://becomingparents.com).

3 M.R. Dion, S.A. Avellar, et al., Implementing Healthy Marriage Programs for Unmarried Couples withChildren: Early Lessons from the Building Strong Families Project, 2006,http://www.buildingstrongfamilies.org. At this point, these curricula and the additional modules areavailable only to BSF sites.

4 These curricula in development are Within Our Reach (PREP), For Our Future, For Our Family (PAIRS),Becoming Parents Program, and Loving Couples, Loving Children. Personal communication withVirginia Knox, SHM project director, February 14, 2007.

hopefully will serve as onemechanism through whichlessons will be shared withother programs and newgrantees, to avoid their rein-venting the wheel.14 However,it is the individual curriculumdevelopers who decide whenand under what circumstancesa modified or new curriculumwill be shared with others.

Numerous questions remain.How much adaptation isreally necessary, and of whatkinds? What factors accountfor the success of an HM pro-gram that aims to serve a par-ticular minority group: theskills and rapport of theleader, the content of the cur-riculum, the program settingand design components, sup-port for marriage education inthe community, all of thesecombined, and/or other fac-tors? We can hope and expectthat the evaluation of federaldemonstration experimentsand other programs will even-tually provide some answers.

The fact that these new HMprograms are funded with taxdollars means that questionsabout accountability—to date,largely unaddressed by mar-riage educators—willundoubtedly become moreimportant as the field maturesand seeks to reach more peo-

ple. Are the monies being wellspent? Are the programsbeing faithfully implemented?Are staff properly qualifiedand adequately trained? Willthe programs last? Such ques-tions about program fidelityand quality, staff credentialing

and licensing, evaluation andcost effectiveness, and sus-tainability will likely beaddressed in the future.

Couples and Marriage Series, Brief No. 10 9

B O X 6 : C U R R I C U L A D E V E L O P E D I N D E P E N D E N T O F F E D E R A LD E M O N S T R AT I O N S

Exploring Relationships and Marriage with Fragile Families was developed by

the Center for Fathers, Families and Workforce Development and the Louisiana

Department of Human Resources. Designed for romantically involved, never married,

low-income African-American parents, the curriculum has three different versions: the

first and second for mothers and fathers separately and the third for couples who are

interested in further exploring commitment and marriage (see www.cfwd.org). Each

of the three is offered over eight sessions. The curriculum explores many issues

especially salient to this population; one example is its integration of information

about domestic violence.

Within My Reach (WMR) is a 15-hour curriculum, developed by Scott Stanley and

Marline Pearson, that is designed for individual economically disadvantaged adults,

typically single parents. The curriculum grew out of the experience of delivering PREP

workshops to welfare clients as part of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. WMR is

based on a six-session, twelve-hour PREP foundation, with additional material on

choosing partners wisely, deliberative decision making, leaving damaging and

dangerous relationships, and achieving desired relationship success and stability to

benefit participants and their children (see www.prepinc.com).

Love U 2—which grew from developer Marline Pearson’s experience teaching low-

income, working adults—offers a comprehensive relationship education program for

teens. It consists of four self-standing units that offer young people guides,

knowledge, and skills for developing emotionally healthy and ethically sound

relationships. Love U 2 includes a major focus on the elements of a “healthy”

relationship; engages teens on the emotional and social aspects of sexuality; and

motivates teens by raising awareness of how a child is affected by parents who are

young, unmarried, and unprepared. Teens develop ideals and goals for their future

family life while learning about the benefits of appropriate sequencing (i.e. marriage

before babies), using real-world scenarios written with the help of low-income youth

(see www.dibblefund.org).

Endnotes

1 See T. Ooms and P. Wilson,“The Challenges of OfferingRelationship and MarriageEducation to Low-IncomePopulations,” FamilyRelations 53 (2004), 440-447.

2 For summary descriptions ofmany of these programs, seehttp://www.healthymarriageinfo.org and http://www.lewin.com/spotlights/LewinHP/marriage.htm.

3 For further backgroundabout marriage education,see Theodora Ooms, TheNew Kid on the Block: Whatis Marriage Education andDoes it Work? Center forLaw and Social Policy, 2005,http://www. clasp.org.

4 The exceptions are theBuilding Strong Families(BSF) and SupportingHealthy Marriages (SHM)multi-site experimentaldemonstration programs,which are required to serveonly low-income couples.

5 This discussion draws on apaper by David Fein andTheodora Ooms, What DoWe Know About Couples andMarriage in DisadvantagedPopulations? Reflections froma Researcher and a PolicyAnalyst, Center for Law andSocial Policy, 2005/revised2006, http://www.clasp.org.

6 See Paula Roberts, Out ofOrder? Factors Influencing

the Sequence of Marriage andChildbirth AmongDisadvantaged Americans,Center for Law and SocialPolicy, 2007, http://www.clasp.org.

7 A good example is theSurvival Skills for HealthyFamilies program, which hasbeen successfully offered toLatino and Asian communi-ties in California by FamilyWellness Associates(http://www.family wellness.org).

8 “Cultural competence” is aterm becoming widely usedin the education, health, andmental health care profes-sions. For the marriage edu-cation field it refers to theability to understand thespecific cultural differ-ences—the shared values,attitudes, beliefs, customsand traditions, history, andinstitutions—that may affectcouple, marital, and familybehavior in a specific popu-lation group or subgroup.

9 The Oklahoma MarriageInitiative has had extensiveexperience with makingadaptations of one “flagship”program—PREP— to offerto special client populationsacross the state, includingTANF clients, adoptive par-ents, state prison inmates(male and female), juvenilefirst offenders and their par-ents, and high school andmiddle school students. SeeR.M. Dion, Oklahoma

Marriage Initiative: AnOverview of the LongestRunning Statewide MarriageInitiative in the US.Mathematica PolicyResearch Inc., 2006,http://www.acf.hhs/healthymarriage.

10 See S.M. Stanley, M.Pearson, and G.H. Kline,The Development ofRelationship Education forLow Income Individuals:Lessons from Research andExperience, Paper presentedat the APPAM FallConference, November 3-5,Washington DC, p. 31,http://www.prepinc.com.

11 See Theodora Ooms et al.,Building Bridges betweenHealthy Marriage,Responsible Fatherhood, andDomestic Violence Programs:A Preliminary Guide, Centerfor Law and Social Policy,2006, http://www.clasp.org.

12 See Bir and Lerman (2006)supra; Dion, Avellar et al,(2006) supra; MDRC,Guidelines for SupportingHealthy Marriage Demon-stration Programs, 2005,http://www.supportinghealthymarriage. org; andJ.E. Macomber, J. Murray,and M. Stagner, ServiceDelivery and EvaluationDesign Options for Strength-ening and Promoting HealthyMarriages, 2004, UrbanInstitute, http://www.urban.org.

10 POL I C Y B R I E F

13 The idea that marriage edu-cation is often a “gateway”to other services was firstarticulated by Scott Stanley.See “Making the Case forPremarital Education,”Family Relations 50 (2001),272-280.

14 The National HealthyMarriage Resource Center’sprincipal mission is to sup-port ACF in furthering itscommitment to promotingand supporting healthy mar-riages and child well-beingby providing key audiences

with research and programinformation and generatingnew knowledge about promising and effectivestrategies. See http://www. healthymarriageinfo.org.

Couples and Marriage Series, Brief No. 10 11

1015 15th Street, NW, Suite400Washington, DC 20005

202.906.8000 main 202.842.2885 fax

ABOUT CLASP

The Center for Law and Social

Policy (CLASP) is a national

non-profit that works to

improve the lives of low-income

people. CLASP’s mission is to

improve the economic security,

educational and workforce

prospects, and family stability

of low-income parents, children,

and youth and to secure equal

justice for all.

The Couples and MarriagePolicy Brief series seeks toinform the debate about publicpolicies to strengthen andstabilize two-parent familiesand marriage. The seriesfocuses on the effects on childwell-being, with a specialinterest in couple relationshipsand marriage in low-incomecommunities.

This series of briefs is madepossible, in part, by fundingfrom the Annie E. Casey

Foundation. It was inspired by a

meeting held at the Wingspread

Conference Center in December

2000, which was co-sponsored

by the Johnson, Casey, Ford,

Gund, and Rockefeller Founda-

tions. We thank them for their

support but acknowledge that

the findings and conclusions

presented in this brief are those

of the author alone, and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions

of these foundations.

Couples and Marriage Series, No. 10

POLICYBRIEF

CENTERFORLAWANDSOCIALPOLICYPOL ICYBRI EF

M a r c h 2 0 0 7B r i e f N o . 1 0

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Couples and Marr iage Ser ies