New ACF Evaluation Policy

The Administration for Children and Families has established a new evaluation policy addressing the principles of rigor, relevance, transparency, independence and ethics in the conduct of evaluations. In a recent blog post, Acting Assistant Secretary George H. Sheldon noted that ACF’s “mission demands that we continually innovate, improve and learn. Through evaluation, the Administration for Children and Families and our partners can learn systematically so that we can make our services as effective as possible.”

Presidential Rank Award for OPRE Director

OPRE director Naomi Goldstein has been awarded the Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive. These awards are presented to a very select group of career civil service executives and senior leaders whose integrity, strength, leadership, and sustained performance have earned them one of the most prestigious honors in government. Recipients are selected after being nominated by their agency and undergoing a rigorous review process that includes evaluation by private citizens.

Recently Released Reports

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) recently released several reports.

Secretary's Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation Final Report

OPRE released a report of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation. The Committee and its subcommittees met from January 2011 through summer 2012 to discuss the findings of evaluations of Head Start and Early Head Start, identify research-based recommendations for improving Head Start practice, and identify areas in which more research is needed to inform practice improvement.

Report of Third Grade Follow-Up to the Head Start Impact Study

OPRE released a report on the Third Grade Follow-Up to the Head Start Impact Study. This report presents findings on children's cognitive and social-emotional development, health, and parenting practices. The report also examines how impacts differed for children from different populations, such as children with special needs versus not, children from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and children from higher- versus lower- risk households. This study is conducted by Westat and its colleagues Chesapeake Research Associates, Abt Associates, American Institutes for Research, the University of Virginia Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, and AMSAQ.

Child Outcomes and Classroom Quality in FACES 2009

OPRE released a new report from the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey: “Child Outcomes and Classroom Quality in FACES 2009.” This report provides a portrait of children who entered Head Start in fall 2009 and completed a year in the program in spring 2010. It includes descriptive information on the children’s family characteristics and experiences in Head Start; child cognitive, social and physical development; and teacher characteristics and classroom quality. FACES 2009 is the fifth in a series of national cohort studies of the Head Start program. Previous cohorts were initiated in 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2006. The FACES 2009 study is conducted by Mathematica Policy Research and its partners Educational Testing Service and Juárez and Associates.

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Policies Database Book of Tables: Key Cross-State Variations in CCDF Policies as of October 1, 2011

OPRE released the second book of tables based on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Policies Database, a project being conducted by The Urban Institute to provide a single source of detailed information on CCDF policies across time and across the fifty states, territories, outlying areas, and the District of Columbia. This Book of Tables presents key aspects of the differences in CCDF-funded programs as of October 1, 2011. Data files with detailed policy variables have also been released. The data files can be found at http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/resources/17048

On-Site Approaches to Quality Improvement in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems: Building on the Research on Coaching  

OPRE released a brief entitled “On-Site Approaches to Quality Improvement in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems: Building on the Research on Coaching.” The brief was produced through a contract with Child Trends to summarize the research evidence on coaching as an on-site quality improvement initiative that could inform QRIS activities. The brief also identifies research needed to extend the effectiveness of these approaches to quality improvement in the context of QRIS.

Two Reports from the Family-Provider Relationship Quality Project

OPRE released two reports from the Family-Provider Relationship Quality project: “Review of Conceptual and Empirical Literature of Family-Provider Relationships” and “Review of Existing Measures of Family-Provider Relationships”. The literature review identifies key elements of family-provider relationships in early care and education settings that can be measured in order to assess the quality of those relationships. The review of existing measures provides a summary of existing instruments from various fields that examine family-provider relationships; identifies methodological, conceptual, and logistical issues related to producing a measure of the quality of these relationships; and identifies gaps as well as promising approaches and items for measuring these relationships. These reviews were undertaken in preparation for the development of a new measure and are intended as companion documents. This project is being conducted by Westat and Child Trends.

Impacts of a Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

OPRE released a new report titled “Impacts of a Community Healthy Marriage Initiative.” This is the final report documenting the implementation and impacts of selected grant programs providing healthy marriage and relationship education services to diverse population groups (e.g., married couples, unmarried parents, singles, etc.) in defined neighborhood communities. The evaluation utilized a non-experimental design with matched pairs of communities to assess impacts on a range of family life outcomes at the community level. The study is being conducted by RTI in collaboration with the Urban Institute.

The Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Evaluation: Impacts of a Community Approach to Strengthening Families – Technical Supplement

OPRE released a report from the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) Evaluation. This project is being conducted by RTI. This supplement is a companion document to the CHMI impact report. The supplement provides additional details about the study’s research design, data sources, methods used to construct the outcome and subgroup measures, and analytic approach for the 24-month impact analysis. It also presents findings from supplemental analyses including treatment-on-the-treated and the effects of geographic proximity to services.

The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation – Early Impact Findings on Low-Income Families Technical Supplement

OPRE released a report from the Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) Demonstration Evaluation. This project is being conducted by MDRC. This supplement is a companion document to the SHM impact report released in February 2012. The supplement provides additional details about the study’s research design, data sources, methods used to construct the outcome and subgroup measures, and analytic approach for the 12-month impact analysis. It also presents a series of sensitivity and robustness tests of the impact estimates presented in the earlier report. It further presents the full set of impact results generated when the data are combined across local SHM programs and when the impact results are estimated separately by local SHM program or by subgroup.

The Long-Term Effects of Building Strong Families: A Relationship Skills Education Program for Unmarried Parents

OPRE released a report entitled “The Long-Term Effects of Building Strong Families: A Relationship Skills Program for Unmarried Parents.” The Building Strong Families (BSF) evaluation, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, involved eight demonstration programs across the country providing services under the BSF model, which included relationship and marriage education sessions and support services to over 5,000 low-income, unmarried couples expecting a child. The report and companion technical report present 36-month impacts of the BSF demonstrations on couples’ relationship status and quality, parenting and father involvement, and child well-being.

Two Reports from Wave Two of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being

OPRE released two research reports using data from the 18-month follow-up of the second cohort of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW): Wave 2 Children’s Services, and Wave 2 Caregiver Health and Services. These are part of a series of reports based on data from NSCAW, a nationally representative, longitudinal survey focusing on children who come to the attention of the child welfare system through investigation by child protective services. The survey is being conducted by RTI. The Children’s Services report describes children’s receipt of health care, developmental and special education services, and behavioral health services in the year prior to the 18-month follow-up interview. The Caregiver Health and Services report describes the health, well-being, and services received by their caregivers.

******************************************************************************

All ACF news releases, fact sheets and other materials are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

All OPRE research projects, reports, conferences, and funding announcements are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/

Read ACF’s Family Room Blog at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/blog

Please forward this message to friends or colleagues who may find it of interest. To subscribe to OPRE’s listserv, visit the OPRE website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/

December 5, 2012

Column #1,632

Dangers of Cohabitation

By Mike McManus

            When Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend and then committed suicide, Bob Costas commented on Sunday Night Football, “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

            True, but there is a more important lesson to be learned from this incident.  Cohabitation is dangerous to both adults and their children and should be avoided.

            Dr. James Dobson interviewed me for his Family Talk radio show on this issue recently because my wife and I wrote a book, Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers.

            One myth believed by women is that cohabitation is a step toward marriage. However, many men cohabit to AVOID marriage – living together “for convenience – available sex and shared expenses,” we write. 

            This can lead to conflict that becomes violent.  A University of New Hampshire study reports that “severe” violence is five times higher for cohabitants vs. married couples.

            The National Crime Victimization Survey of the Justice Department over 9 years reported that 65% of violent crimes against women were committed by a boyfriend or an ex-husband with only 9% caused by a husband.

Marriage is the safest place for women – and children. 

The danger actually increases when the cohabiting relationship ends. Women are 18 times more likely to be assaulted by their male cohabitant after breaking up than they would be by a spouse.

Cohabiting couples are as likely to have children as married couples, but children of unwed parents are at high risk.

A recent study by the Institute for American Values, “Why Marriage Matters,” reports that the rise of cohabitation “is the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.” A huge 42% of American children will live in a cohabiting household and “are markedly more likely to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused than children in both intact, married families and single parent families.” In fact, twice as many U.S. children will live with cohabiting parents as those children affected by a parental divorce (23%).    

While a child of divorce is 12 times more likely to be incarcerated than one from an intact family, a kid of cohabiting parents is 22 times more apt to be jailed.

            Of the 7.6 million cohabiting couples last year, only 1.5 million married.  The other 6.1 million experience what we call “premarital divorce.”  That is so painful, the number of never-married Americans tripled from 21 million in 1970 to 63 million last year.  Small wonder the marriage rate has plunged 54% in these years.

            What is driving up the cohabitation rate, and reducing marriages?  States subsidize couples to live together.  Subsidize an activity, and you will get more of it.

            Consider three facts.  First, 41% of all births in America are to unwed parents.  That is 20 times the 2% rate of Japan, and other Asian countries!  Second, the U.S. divorce rate is also twice as high.  So only 46% of American kids are reared by married parents.  No wonder U.S. kids score only 487 on math tests vs. 540-600 by Asian kids, who are in stable homes.

            Third, most unwed births are to cohabiting parents.  Yet government awards the unwed mother welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. – as if she were raising the child alone.  Yet most unwed moms enjoy the salary of their cohabiting partner as if married. 

            However, if the cohabiting couple does marry, they lose all those subsidies that Heritage Foundation estimated were worth $20,000 in 2004.  Therefore, few marry.

            Result: from 1990-2009, the marriage rate plunged 26% in Maine, 28% in Louisiana, 39% in Virginia, and an alarming 43% in Kentucky in only 19 years.

            There were 144,000 cohabiting couples in Virginia last year, but only 54,000 marriages.  Even though two-thirds of marrying couples were living together, three out of four cohabitating couples broke up short of marriage.  That leaves the mother and child on the dole till the kid turns age 18.

            What can be done?  It makes no fiscal sense to subsidize cohabitation nor is it in the interest of unwed parents or their children.

            Why doesn’t a governor make this statement in his State of the State Address: “In Virginia we believe in marriage. Therefore, I’d like to make an offer to cohabiting couples with children:  If you marry – which is in your best interest, and that of your child – Virginia will not cut such benefits as Medicaid for two years, and then taper them off over three years.”

            The marriage rate would rise as cohabitation and unwed births fall.

            States should stop subsidizing cohabiting couples.

  -------

Copyright © 2012 Michael J. McManus, President of Marriage Savers and a syndicated columnist.

My new email address is mike@marriagesavers.org

Michael J. McManus
syndicated columnist
"Ethics & Religion"
President & Co-Chair
Marriage Savers
9311 Harrington Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
www.marriagesavers.org
301-469-5873