Guest Blog (Scott Stanley): A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families | OK Policy Blog

Guest Blog (Scott Stanley): A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families

Scott Stanley is a research professor at the University of Denver, co-Chair of Research Advisory Group for the Family Expectations Program, and co-developer of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) which forms part of the basis of the Becoming Parents Program that is one component of the services provided in Family Expectations.

Something incredible is happening in Oklahoma!  It’s the innovative Family Expectations (FE) program in Oklahoma City. A large, rigorous federal study has now demonstrated that services to strengthen families successfully improved the stability and quality of unmarried parents’ relationships around the time of the birth of a child.  Run by Public Strategies —and funded by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and the Administration for Children and Families —Family Expectations stands to make a major difference in the lives of children who gain an increased chance of being raised in a healthy, stable home.

Why does this matter? While many children raised by single parents or step-parents thrive, decades of research show consistent advantages for children raised by both of their parents within a low-conflict household.  Based on much of this research, Family Expectations engages financially vulnerable couples, both unmarried and married, in a wide range of services, including educational classes where they learn skills and principles to nurture and protect their relationship and parenting information about infant care and development. They also work one-on-one with family support coordinators who help these new parents to apply what they learn and to access other community services.

Family Expectations is actually part of two large, multi-site, federally funded studies commissioned by the Administration for Children and Families.  The Building Strong Families (BSF) study, led by Mathematica Policy Research, is examining the impacts of such programs on low income, unmarried couples, while another study is examining the impacts on low income, married couples.  In each study, half of the couples were randomly assigned to receive services similar to Family Expectations (intervention group) and half received only the services they might otherwise find in the community (control group).

The federal government recently released the results on outcomes at 15 months for the BSF study.  While the national results across sites were disappointing, the findings were so different in Oklahoma that the evaluators drew special attention to the results for Family Expectations (report available here). To start with, compared to most other sites, Family Expectations was able to get more couples through a much greater portion of the intended services.  Likely due in part to the newness of this program model, in some other sites, as few as 40 percent of the intervention group couples ever attended a single educational class together. While many other sites struggled to get and keep couples involved, FE excelled at doing so.  And when it came to making a difference in the lives of couples, those randomly assigned to FE showed a consistent pattern of positive outcomes, including a greater likelihood of remaining together and positive benefits for relationship happiness, emotional support, sexual fidelity, the ability to handle conflict effectively, co-parenting, and father involvement —including a greater proportion of fathers both living with their children and contributing to the cost of providing for their children.  Also of note, the positive impacts were strongest among participating African American couples.

In this type of policy research, it is difficult to demonstrate impacts in community-based, real-world settings. That makes these findings from Oklahoma’s Family Expectations particularly noteworthy. Better still, I believe that the kind of results Oklahoma demonstrated can be achieved elsewhere.  I come to this opinion based on my 25 years of research in this area as well as discussions with the evaluators and with the program’s nationally respected research advisory group. Throughout, FE used procedures that are detailed, methodical, and inventive. That means the procedures could be adopted and used elsewhere.  Family Expectations created a warm environment for the couples that is infused with a commitment to “customer service,” backed by active and strong management, all while relying on existing research that highlights proven strategies for success.

Those interested in improving the lives of the nation’s most vulnerable, young families, can find great encouragement from the impressive set of findings in Oklahoma, especially since success was demonstrated with families that have many other disadvantages working against them as they strive to reach their aspirations in family life. And the citizens of Oklahoma can be proud that their state is leading the nation, once again, as it helps others see they can truly make a difference in the lives of low-income children.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

4 Responses to 'Guest Blog (Scott Stanley): A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Guest Blog (Scott Stanley): A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families'.

  1. [...] A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families [...]

  2. Thanks for this post about this program helping children & families…it is refreshing to see an initiative geared towards family preservation versus money going towards marketing to make more babies available for the adoption industry.

  4. [...] also: Guest Blog (Scott Stanley): A promising approach for strengthening disadvantaged families on the OK Policy [...]

Leave a Comment

via okpolicy.org

Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress (CSTS)

CSTS Newest Developments:

via centerforthestudyoftraumaticstress.org

 

Culture Watch: What the Collapse of Marriage Means for Children

.
 
 

National Marriage Week: What the Collapse of Marriage Means for Children

Related Work

As Marriage Fades, Society Suffers, Chuck Donovan

Marriage and Poverty in the U.S.

Marriage: America's Greatest Weapon Against Childhood Poverty, Robert Rector

Culture Round Up
February 7 - 14,
National Marriage Week
This week-long event
is a collaboration of organizations, communities, and religious institutions to strengthen and promote the benefits of marriage to every member of society.


 

 

Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a Marriage Partner: Helpful Facts for Young Adults : TwoOfUs.org

Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a Marriage Partner: Helpful Facts for Young Adults

Source: The National Marriage Project

Helpful Facts for Young Adults1. Marrying as a teenager is the highest known risk factor for divorce. People who marry in their teens are two to three times more likely to divorce than people who marry in their twenties or older.

2. The most likely way to find a future marriage partner is through an introduction by family, friends or acquaintances. Despite the romantic notion that people meet and fall in love through chance or fate, the evidence suggests that social networks are important in bringing together individuals of similar interests and backgrounds, especially when it comes to selecting a marriage partner. According to a large-scale national survey of sexuality, almost 60 percent of married people were introduced by family, friends, co-workers or other acquaintances.

3. The more similar people are in their values, backgrounds and life goals, the more likely they are to have a successful marriage. Opposites may attract but they may not live together harmoniously as married couples. People who share common backgrounds and similar social networks are better suited as marriage partners than people who are very different in their backgrounds and networks.

4. Women have a significantly better chance of marrying if they do not become single parents before marrying. Having a child out of wedlock reduces the chance of ever marrying. Despite the increasing numbers of potential marriage partners with children, one study noted, "having children is still one of the least desirable characteristics a potential marriage partner can possess." The only partner characteristic men and women rank as even less desirable than having children is the inability to hold a steady job.

5. Both women and men who are college educated are more likely to marry, and less likely to divorce, than people with lower levels of education. Despite occasional news stories predicting lifelong singlehood for college-educated women, these predictions have proven false. Though the first generation of college-educated women (those who earned baccalaureate degrees in the 1920s) married less frequently than their less-educated peers, the reverse is true today. College-educated women's chances of marrying are better than less well-educated women. However, the growing gender gap in college education may make it more difficult for college women to find similarly well-educated men in the future. This is already a problem for African-American female college graduates, who greatly outnumber African-American male college graduates.

6. Living together before marriage has not proved useful as a "trial marriage." People who have multiple cohabiting relationships before marriage are more likely to experience marital conflict, marital unhappiness and eventual divorce than people who do not cohabit before marriage. Researchers attribute some but not all of these differences to the differing characteristics of people who cohabit—the so-called "selection effect"—rather than to the experience of cohabiting itself. It has been hypothesized that the negative effects of cohabitation on future marital success may diminish as living together becomes a common experience among today's young adults. However, according to one recent study of couples who were married between 1981 and 1997, the negative effects persist among younger cohorts, supporting the view that the cohabitation experience itself contributes to problems in marriage.

7. Marriage helps people to generate income and wealth. Compared to those who merely live together, people who marry become economically better off. Men become more productive after marriage; they earn between 10 and 40 percent more than do single men with similar education and job histories. Marital social norms that encourage healthy, productive behavior and wealth accumulation play a role. Some of the greater wealth of married couples results from their more efficient specialization and pooling of resources, and because they save more. Married people also receive more money from family members than the unmarried (including cohabiting couples), probably because families consider marriage more permanent and more binding than a living-together union.

8. People who are married are more likely to have emotionally and physically satisfying sex lives than single people or those who just live together. Contrary to the popular belief that married sex is boring and infrequent, married people report higher levels of sexual satisfaction than both sexually active singles and cohabiting couples, according to the most comprehensive and recent survey of sexuality. Forty-two percent of wives said they found sex extremely emotionally and physically satisfying, compared to just 31 percent of single women who had a sex partner. And 48 percent of husbands said sex was extremely satisfying emotionally, compared to just 37 percent of cohabiting men. The higher level of commitment in marriage is probably the reason for the high level of reported sexual satisfaction; marital commitment contributes to a greater sense of trust and security, less drug and alcohol-infused sex, and more mutual communication between the couple.

9. People who grow up in a family broken by divorce are slightly less likely to marry, and much more likely to divorce when they do marry. According to one study, the divorce risk nearly triples if one marries someone who also comes from a broken home. The increased risk is much lower, however, if the marital partner is someone who grew up in a happy, in-tact family.

10. For large segments of the population, the risk of divorce is far below 50 percent. Although the overall divorce rate in America remains close to 50 percent of all marriages, it has been dropping gradually over the past two decades. Also, the risk of divorce is far below 50 percent for educated people going into their first marriage, and lower still for people who wait to marry at least until their mid-twenties, haven't lived with many different partners prior to marriage, or are strongly religious and marry someone of the same faith.

via twoofus.org

U.Va. study says recession putting major pressure on marriages

--------------------
U.Va. study says recession putting major pressure on marriages --------------------

Mark Holmberg gets reaction from local, national family organizations.

February 8 2011

RICHMOND -- A newly released University of Virginia study of marriages underscores the perception that the long-running recession is putting heavy pressure on many relationships, but at the same time cutting the divorce rate because couples can't afford lawyer fees and separate homes. The complete article can be viewed at:
http://wtvr.com/wtvr-uva-marriage-study-recession,0,662535.story Visit wtvr at http://wtvr.com

Beverly Willett: Divorced + Children + Relocating? Fuhgeddaboudit

I'm tired of the "wintry mix." Here in New York snowfall in January broke a record. My heating bills set a record, too, and the winter's far from over.

Long about this time every year I get the urge to head south, or west, for good. I'm aware that last month every state except Florida had snow on the ground, though it's not usually that way. Still, fantasizing about moving is about as far as I'll get-- divorce pretty much prevents it.

My daydreams about running away began after my ex-husband left. Not that I really wanted to pull up stakes from where I'd set them down 20 years before or uproot my children's lives even further. (Just like I never wanted a divorce.) But getting smacked in the face by a wrongful lawsuit at mid-life made Jon-Kabat Zinn look like the enemy. At least in the beginning.

"I've seen judges prohibit custodial parents from moving more than a few blocks," my attorney Saul Edelstein said when I inquired about my options.

"But I have no family here to help me," I said. "And it's expensive."

"Too bad," Saul said. In other words, as the well-known Brooklyn sign says when you're about to exit the borough: Fuhgeddaboudit.

Though I was still trying to save my marriage, resentment set my imagination spinning. Conjuring up places to move I never even had an inclination to visit, especially after finding out the law provided no countervailing compensation for the restrictions on my constitutional right to travel.

"Years ago, I left Manhattan and a great group of friends to move upstate with my husband, only to have him leave me for another woman," Erica Manfred told me. "Now I'm stuck in the boonies, much older and alone, because we co-parent my daughter."

Of course, in certain circumstances courts do permit custodial parents to relocate. But getting the green light can be complicated. Laws vary from state to state, from balancing tests to the "best interests of the child" standards; some states require proof of good faith. Suffice it to say unless your ex and non-custodial spouse blesses your relocation plan, even if it's only to the adjoining school district, you'll likely find yourself in a complex, costly legal mess by petitioning to head out of Dodge.

Proof will be required on a whole host of matters such as your your relocation plan, reasons for it and proposal for how your child will maintain contact with the non-custodial parent; your child's relationship with parents, siblings and grandparents, special needs, and the impact of relocation, including quality of life and effect on education and social relationships; the financial impacts, etc. Before it's all over there may be psych evaluations of the entire family as well as appointment of a law guardian to interview your child. Older children might have a say, and that can engender an entirely different sort of stress on the home front. (And who can blame them - as a rule, children don't want their parents divorcing in the first place!) The move may be expensive, too, along with the physical and emotional strain of readjusting.

"The bottom line is if you choose divorce, or have it chosen for you, you ultimately put the courts in charge of everything related to your kids until they are grown - including where you live and by extension, where you'll work and where your new spouse may work," says matrimonial attorney John Crouch.

Indeed, the courts--or even your ex--may force your hand.

"Courts can order that child custody change to the other parent if the custodial parent moves," says Crouch.

"When I was in the middle of divorce, my lawyer asked the court if my four kids and I could move to Houston where I have lots of family and the cost of living was much lower," Debby from Chicago told me. "My ex said of course I could move and come back whenever I wanted to visit my children. Needless to say, I remained in Chicago, where we had no family other than each other. Ten months later my ex left the state to avoid paying child support."

Awhile ago my own doctor said divorce had caused such stress that I should consider a long sabbatical.

"But my daughter's a teen, and she'd miss her dad," I pleaded. No matter that he and I had been through the litigation mill; he was her father. I understood her needs, even though I had my own oxygen mask to think about.

Only my doctor had something else in mind. "You're misunderstanding me," he said. "You should go alone." Talk about a sucker-punch. He's a brilliant, caring physician, but I ignored his advice for the time being and stayed put.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, however, the law generally imposes no impediments on the constitutional right to travel of non-custodial parents, even if they're the ones who do the leaving. They don't need a good reason to move, just like under no-fault divorce they don't really need a good reason to leave the marriage or family either. (Of course, custodial parents don't really need a good reason either.) If a better employment opportunity comes knocking, or an out-of-town romance presents itself, or pure whimsy strikes, they answer to no one but themselves.

Of course, not all non-custodial parents want to flee, even the left ones.

Charlie, a once full-time stay-at-home dad, who asked me not to use his real name because he's fearful of repercussions, told me that he, too, was the victim of a unilateral divorce. As a result, his parenting time dwindled to half. And, now after years of not working outside the home, he's forced to re-enter the job market during one of the worst unemployment periods in recent history. He hasn't been able to find work nearby, and doesn't want to move because his parenting time would be slashed even further. But he may have no choice.

Sadly, it's the kids who invariably get caught in the middle. There are few studies of the effects of relocation on children of divorce, but the data that exists along with research about the effects of relocation on children generally suggests that the picture is not pretty. Moreover, the social science research shows that in the majority of cases the best interests of children are better served if parents remain together in the first place. Indeed, why not have a "best interests of the children" standard where it counts most? Unfortunately, our divorce laws and practices do nothing to educate parents about the harmful effects of divorce on children or to promote reconciliation. (Of course, divorce may be better for children in certain cases such as those riddled with abuse.)

February 7-14 is National Marriage Week. So why not celebrate this year by tossing that divorce complaint where it belongs? In the garbage.

Follow Beverly Willett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeverlyWillett

via huffingtonpost.com