Log in

The Economic Benefits of Marriage and Family Strengthening Programs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Family and Economic Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marriage and family strengthening programs have historically had small magnitude effects on changing relationship outcomes. The present study explores the possibility that although these statistical effects are small, they can be shown to represent meaningful financial impacts. Secondary data from 2092 control and 2042 intervention couples who were married with children and participating in the Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) project were analyzed. Intervention participants had the opportunity to receive standardized curricula (e.g., PREP) and marital counseling. Similar to meta-analytic findings, conventional analysis of these data found only a modest impact on proximal relationship outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). Offering counseling in conjunction with curricula, although costlier and only demonstrating marginally significant improvements in averting divorce, appears to offer a substantial financial return on investment. The implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All dollar amounts are in US dollars.

  2. Conventionally, ROI in the private sector is presented as (earnings/profits-costs) over costs. We present our findings as a means for communicating the value generated per $1.00 or program cost.

  3. If we assume the costs provided by the eight centers implementing the SHM, we can solve for level of spending using the following equation: \(\$ 9986.82(1828) = [{1452_c} + \$ 706.14(1452)] + [{376_c} + \$ 706.14(376 + {36_{\rm{x}}})]\) where c is the curriculum cost and x represents the parameter that is solved for representing total cost of counseling per couple. After we solve for x, the value in the first set of brackets gives the total cost for couples receiving only a curriculum and the second set of brackets gives the total costs for those receiving a curriculum and counseling. If we assume a curriculum cost per couple of $198 for those only receiving a curriculum, then this would yield an average spending per couple on counseling of $44,157.28. If we instead assume a curriculum cost per couple of $3323 for those only receiving a curriculum, then this would yield an average spending per couple on counseling of $28,964.47. When we assume a curriculum cost of $198, this yields an average of spending of $904.14 per couple for those receiving only a curriculum and $45,061.42 per couple for those receiving a curriculum and counseling. If we instead assume a curriculum cost of $3323, this yields an average of spending of $4029.14 per couple for those receiving only a curriculum and $32,993.61 per couple for those receiving a curriculum and counseling. Based on these estimates for counseling seeming implausible and based on us being unable to obtain more detailed information about spending by these eight grantees, we chose to use reasonable estimates from experts and other sources.

  4. It could be argued that the control group participants receiving no services are a more suitable reference group. We explored this possibility by looking at planned contrasts between this reference group and intervention participants receiving curricula or counseling services. The comparison between this control group and the curricula group generally replicated our intervention main effects, suggesting that thinking the relationship was in trouble, satisfaction, and commitment outcomes were more favorable for those receiving curricula. In addition, both couples receiving curricula and couples receiving counseling were less likely to have a husband who binge drank and more likely to have youth with mostly A grades. Differing from this pattern of findings, wives receiving counseling were more likely to think their marriage was in trouble than control wives.

References

  • AHRQ ( 2012). MEPS net Household Component for 2012. Retrieved from http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/data_stats/mepsnet/mepsnethc12.shtml. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

  • Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler psychological distress scale (k10). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25, 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00310.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bir, A., Lerman, R., Kofke-Egger, H., Nichols, A., & Smith, K. (2012). The community healthy marriage initiative: Impacts of a community approach to strengthening families, Technical Supplement, OPRE Report # 2012–34B. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, D. (2010). Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, 10(246), 1–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, V. L., Hawkins, A. J., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2009). Investigating the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples’ communication skills: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonczar, T. P., Hughes, T. A., Wilson, D. J., & Ditton, P. M. (2011). National Corrections Reporting Program: Time served in state prison, by offense, release type, sex, and race. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauser, D. (2010). Violence, stress associated with increased asthma severity in children. Medscape Medical News. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718389.

  • Bray, J. H., & Jouriles, E. N. (1995). Treatment of marital conflict and prevention of divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00175.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDC (2015). NVSS - National marriage and divorce rate trends. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm.

  • Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2004). Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for significantly and chronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaney, B., & Dion, R. (August 2010). 15-month impacts of Oklahoma’s family expectations program. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • deVaus, D., Gray, M., Qu, L., & Stanton, D. (2014). The economic consequences of divorce in Australia. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 28, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebt014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, R. M. (2005). Healthy marriage programs: Learning what works. The Future of Children, 15(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2005.0016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durana, C. (1996). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of the PAIRS psychoeducational program for couples. Family Therapy, 23(1), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettner, S. L., Huang, D., Evans, E., Ash, D. R., Hardy, M., Jourabchi, M., & Hser, Y. (2006). Benefit–cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does substance abuse treatment “pay for itself”? Health Services Research, 41(1), 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00466.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadalla, T. M. (2008). Gender differences in poverty rates after marital dissolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 49(3/4), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502550802222493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. M. (2008). Strengthening couples’ relationships with education: Social policy and public health perspectives. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, 76, 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2010). Does relationship and marriage education for lower-income couples work? A meta-analytic study of emerging research. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691003694927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, A. J., Wilson, R. F., Ooms, T., Nock, S. L., Malone-Colon, L., & Cohen, L. (2009). Recent government reforms related to marital formation, maintenance, and dissolution in the United States: A primer and critical review. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 8, 264–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332690903049265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-version-021914.pdf.

  • Hsueh, J., & Knox, V. (April 28, 2014). Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Eight Sites within the United States, 20032013, ICPSR34420-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34420.v1.

  • Kessler, R. C., Akiskal, H. S., Ames, M., Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P., Hirschfeld, R. M., **, R., Merikangas, K. R., Simon, G. E., & Wang, P. S. (2006). Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of US workers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(9), 1561–1568. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–956. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickham, K., & Ford, D. A. (2013). Effects of divorce on state Medicaid expenditures. Journal of Poverty, 17, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2012.748001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H., Belfield, C., Muenning, P., & Rouse, C. (2007). The costs and benefits of an excellent education for all of America’s Children. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, W., & Chikritzhs, T. (2012). Brief report: Marital status and alcohol consumption behaviors. Journal of Substance Use, 17(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2010.538463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeppke, R., Taitel, M., Haufle, V., Parry, T., Kessler, R. C., & **nell, K. (2009). Health and productivity as a business strategy: A multiemployer study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a39180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, A. E., Altman, N., Chou, P. M., Faucetta, K., Greeney, A., Gubits, D., Harris, J., Hsueh, J., Lundquist, E., Michalopoulos, C., & Nguyen, V. Q. (2014). A family-strengthening program for low-income families: Final impacts from the supporting healthy marriage evaluation, Technical Supplement, OPRE Report 2014-09B. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucier-Greer, M., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2012). Does couple and relationship education work for individuals in stepfamilies? A meta-analytic study. Family Relations, 61(5), 756–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00728.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2015). The evolving role of marriage: 1950–2010. Future of Children, 25(2), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundquist, E., Hsueh, J., Lowenstein, A. E., Faucetta, K., Gubits, D., Michalopoulos, C., & Knox, V. (2014). A family-strengthening program for low-income families: Final impacts from the supporting healthy marriage evaluation, OPRE Report 2014-09A. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marciniak, M., Lage, M. J., Landbloom, R. P., Dunayevich, E., & Bowman, L. (2004). Medical and productivity costs of anxiety disorders: Case control study. Depression and Anxiety, 19(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirzaaghas, R., Kohani, Y., Baniasadi, H., & Tara, F. (2014). Maternal anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Children. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 2(4), 233–237. https://doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2014.3258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, D., & Zheng, A. (2011). Pennsylvania’s best investment: The social and economic benefits of public education. State College: The Education Law Center; Pennsylvania University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K., Kinghorn, A., & Bandy, T. (2011). Parental relationship quality and child outcomes across subgroups (Publication #2011–13). Washington DC: Child Trends Research Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Q., Wood, R. G., Clarkwest, A., Killewald, A., & Monahan, S. (2012). The long-term effects of building strong families: A relationship skills education program for unmarried parents, Technical Supplement, OPRE Report #2012-28C. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services (OPRE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/352397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinquart, M., & Teubert, D. (2010). A meta-analytic study of couple interventions during the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 59, 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00597.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9072-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigerson, H. G., Maciejewski, P. K., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2000). Preliminary explorations of the harmful interactive effects of widowhood and marital harmony on health, health service use, and health care costs. The Gerontologist, 40(3), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.3.349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, L. M., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2014). Problematic alcohol use and marital distress: An interdependence theory perspective. Addiction Research and Theory, 22(4), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2013.841890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, D. G. (2006). Individual and social costs of divorce in Utah. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 21, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-005-9005-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaff, K. A., Wolfinger, N. H., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Smith, K. R. (2008). Family structure transitions and child achievement. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170802342966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, C., Benin, M., & Glick, J. (2012). Drop** out of high school: The effects of family structure and family transitions. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 53, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.635964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohschein, L., Roos, N., & Brownell, M. (2009). Family structure histories and high school completion: Evidence from a population-based registry. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, M., & Hughes, C. (2013). The work versus welfare trade-off: 2013. Cato Institute. Retrieved from http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa240.pdf.

  • Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2003). Comorbidity of relationship distress and mental and physical health problems. In D. K. Snyder & M. A. Whisman (Eds.), Treating difficult couples: Hel** clients with coexisting mental and relationship disorders (pp. 3–26). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2006). Impairment and distress associated with relationship discord in a national sample of married or cohabiting adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. G., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., Killewald, A., & Monahan, S. (2012). The long-term effects of building strong families: A relationship skills education program for unmarried parents, executive summary, OPRE Report #2012-28B. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services (OPRE).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this manuscript was supported through a cooperative agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (90PD0283). The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the Administration for Children and Families. The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen R. Shamblen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Preparation of this manuscript was supported through a cooperative agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (90PD0283). The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the Administration for Children and Families. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The data source for all analyses was the SHM survey data, housed by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR: Hsueh & Knox et al. 2014). These data were received by the first author under an agreement with ICPSR, where there was an institutional review board (IRB)-approved data monitoring and security plan.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shamblen, S.R., Gluck, A., Wubbenhorst, W. et al. The Economic Benefits of Marriage and Family Strengthening Programs. J Fam Econ Iss 39, 386–404 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9565-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9565-8

Keywords

Navigation