Are State Marriage Initiatives Having an Eff ect ?An Initial Exploration of the Impact on Divorce and Childhood Poverty Rates

Abstract

To our knowledge … this analysis provides the fi rst macro-level test of state policies and programs intended to promote healthy marriages. Th e central question addressed by this article is the eff ect of state-level marriage initiatives on divorce and childhood poverty rates. State divorce rates have been problematic for researchers because of variation across states in the way they are compiled. Th is research takes a diff erent approach, measuring instead the prevalence of divorce rather than the number of divorces granted in a given state or year. Th e authors use this indicator, derived from Current Population Survey data, as an outcome measure in a test of marriage initiatives, and as an independent variable in a childhood poverty analysis. Th e quasi-experimental design employs time-series and cross-section regression analysis. Results show a signifi cant negative eff ect from marriage initiatives on divorce prevalence, and a signifi cant positive association between divorce prevalence and childhood poverty rates.

Are Government‐Supported Healthy Marriage Initiatives Affecting Family Demographics? A State‐Level Analysis

“…One of the few significant findings to emerge from their study was a negative association between state support for MRE and divorce rates. And the Kirkham and Ford () study found that HMI activity in 11 high‐activity states was associated with declines in the percentage of divorced adults in the population of those states. But we could not replicate this potential effect on divorce with our data, although our focus was on direct funding of HMI services, whereas their focus was on legislation.…”

Evidence Required to Know Whether Marriage Promotion Increases Other Social Benefits

“…However, it is highly likely that the times and places where more money is spent to promote healthy marriages are systematically different from other times and places. For example, Kickham and Ford () found that the states most active in healthy marriage initiatives tended to be Southern states and states with higher proportions of Blacks and higher divorce rates than other states. Those states might also have systematically different culture, politics, and economic changes during any particular period that could confound the interpretation of any changes in marriages and other outcomes.…”

“…Existing research on marriage promotion has focused on the extent to which interventions increase the quantity and quality of marriages themselves. There are many good reviews of that evidence (e.g., Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, ; Kickham & Ford, ; Stanley, Markman, Rhoads, & Prentice, 2010), but that is not our primary purpose here. We begin by describing the evidence that has most often been used to argue that marriage is generally beneficial to the married people, their children, and to society.…”

“…Kickham and Ford () conducted a longitudinal analysis of U.S. states from 1989 to 2005 to determine whether HMIs activity was related to divorce prevalence. In a full model of all 50 states, Kickham and Ford did not find a significant relationship between HMI activity and divorce.…”

“…Marriage promotion is often advocated as a means to provide many other social benefits, such as improving outcomes for children and reducing the burdens of the larger community (Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn, 2013; Kickham & Ford, ; Heath, ). Although proponents of marriage promotion policies often refer to social science evidence as justification, we agree with Huston and Melz () and other critical reviewers (e.g., Lee, ; Musick & Bumpass, ) that social scientists have often not given sufficient attention to the variability in the benefits of marriage, the availability of beneficial marriages, and the complexities of when and how marriages may be beneficial.…”