How effective are ACF‐funded couple relationship education programs? A meta‐analytic study

Hawkins, Alan J.; Hokanson, Sarah Chobot; Loveridge, E; Milius, Emily H.; Duncan, M. C.; Booth, McCall; Pollard, Brittany

doi:10.1111/famp.12739

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, parental conflict is associated with long‐term negative outcomes for children (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Cummings et al, 2015; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Although the program reduced conflict for couples, the size of the significant effect was small, which is consistent with small effects that have been observed in other rigorous randomized trials of programs funded by the ACF initiative (Hawkins et al, in press).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…A more recent meta‐analysis of studies in the ACF program context suggested that the effects among couples at varying levels of disadvantage (high or low, etc.) may be similar, but the authors acknowledge important confounds in testing this question (Hawkins et al, in press). Amato re‐examined the data for the 15‐month follow‐up in the BSF study and found that sociodemographic risk moderated the effects, with significant impacts on relationship quality for those at greater sociodemographic risk (2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact evaluation of the family expectations program and moderation by sociodemographic disadvantage

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The federal government, through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), has funded community‐based relationship education programs for couples, individuals, and families, with a strong focus on serving economically disadvantaged and racially diverse families. This study evaluated the impact of a 36‐hour, workshop‐based couple relationship education program that was funded by ACF using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design and intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analyses. Participants were 1320 couples who were either expecting a baby or had a baby within the past 3 months, at the time of enrollment. Follow‐up surveys were administered 12 months later. Analyses evaluated program impacts on relationship stability, constructive communication, and destructive conflict compared to a no‐treatment control group. Analyses showed a statistically significant impact of the program on destructive conflict (d = 0.10) but not on constructive communication (d = 0.06) or stability (dCox = 0.10). Based on findings from previous evaluations, we also examined whether participants’ levels of sociodemographic disadvantage moderated these effects. There was significant moderation by sociodemographic disadvantage on constructive communication and destructive conflict, but not on stability. Effects were observed for those at higher levels of sociodemographic disadvantage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact evaluation of the family expectations program and moderation by sociodemographic disadvantage

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both relationship adjustment and individual distress may be conceptualized as global or general outcomes, which may explain the positive change that both treatment and waitlist control groups experienced at 30 days, but did not sustain across either group over time. The non‐significant findings for individual distress and relationship adjustment are inconsistent with previous randomized trials of relationship education (Hawkins et al, 2022; Roddy et al, 2020). However, there are some differences among the studies that should be considered.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 84%

“…The significant intervention effects on the rate of positive change in dyadic coping and emotion regulation add to the growing body of literature that support relationship education as an efficacious intervention for couples with low‐income. Hawkins et al (2022) conducted a meta‐analysis among RE intervention studies funded specifically by the Administration for Children and Families (the same funder for this study). They identified small, positive, intervention effects on relationship quality, relationship skills, mental health, and co‐parenting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, relationship adjustment may take longer to demonstrate meaningful gains, or may be too broad of a construct to assess meaningful short-term RE intervention effects, unlike relationship skills. That said, Hawkins et al (2022) included relationship adjustment in their definition of relationship quality. Their results showed that RE programs can impact relationship quality, but that the impacts are generally small.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized trial of relationship education using Within Our Reach for economically vulnerable couples

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Couples relationship education is grounded in teaching couples' skills and strategies to form and sustain healthy relationships. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of a relationship education intervention on emotion regulation, individual distress, dyadic coping, and relationship adjustment utilizing a randomized control trial for economically vulnerable couples. The analysis sample included 1418 couples (2836 individuals) who were randomly assigned to receive the 12-h Within Our Reach curriculum immediately, or to a wait-list control group.We estimated multilevel growth curve models over time among outcomes between treatment and wait-list control conditions. Treatment group couples demonstrated statistically significant improvements over the 6-month study period on emotional regulation and dyadic coping when compared to their wait-list group counterparts. Although models showed improvements in individual distress and relationship adjustments, these improvements did not amount to statistically significant group differences.Implications and limitations are also noted.

show abstract

Public policy for family equality

Fomby

2024

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

hereafter, WH) introduce a marriage paradox: in the United States, the benefits to marriage are increasing and its social value remains high, but people are increasingly disinclined to get married. Why? My response is that the gains to marriage are uneven and uncertain, and for today's adults, getting and staying married is largely predicated on costly prior personal achievements that are out of reach for many. WH propose strategies to make marriage more desirable and accessible and thereby improve personal welfare and population well-being. I suggest that instead we target well-being directly. Doing so may increase marriage among those who desire it while also ensuring that achievement, fulfillment, and security are not dependent upon family structure.WH argue that stable marriage causally improves well-being because it is an institution with legally and normatively enforceable bonds where family members share resources, time, and care efficiently and effectively. Meta-analyses and other comprehensive reviews also provide evidence that marriage improves economic security and health relative to remaining unpartnered or divorcing. But there are many caveats. The magnitude and scope of these effects diminish in study designs that rigorously account for selection mechanisms and use plausible comparison groups (McLanahan et al., 2013;Raley & Sweeney, 2020;Smock & Schwartz, 2020). Studies have often reported average effects that overlook sociodemographic variation in the returns to marriage (Baker & O'Connell, 2022; Cross et al., 2022) and the harm that comes from remaining in a poor-quality marriage (Williams, 2003). And WH appear to focus on families headed by couples in a shared first marriage with all children in common. Repartnered families do not gain from marriage in equal measure (Ginther & Pollak, 2004;Raley & Sweeney, 2020).Another perspective generally missing from comparisons of married and non-married households is that many of the apparent benefits to marriage arise from and contribute to deeply-rooted social inequality in ways that may actually be counterproductive to marriage formation and satisfaction. For example, as WH note, married men and fathers earn more than unmarried and childless men. Yet for women, a longstanding motherhood wage penalty persists (Cukrowska-Torzewska & Matysiak, 2020). Gendered market responses to marriage and parenthood reflect outmoded expectations aboutThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

How effective are ACF‐funded couple relationship education programs? A meta‐analytic study

Cited by 22 publications

References 49 publications

Impact evaluation of the family expectations program and moderation by sociodemographic disadvantage

Impact evaluation of the family expectations program and moderation by sociodemographic disadvantage

A randomized trial of relationship education using Within Our Reach for economically vulnerable couples

Public policy for family equality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About