FAMILY TIME vs COSTA RICA: encourage marriage and discourage divorce by Patrick F. Fagan
, Ph.D.
After four decades of increasing government funding to address the consequences of broken families, a change in cultural attitudes about marriage is evident across the United States. Elected officials, experts, sociologists, community leaders and politicians of all colors have come to recognize that marriage together - and not government intervention - is essential to improve personal well-being and society. More and more research shows that children of married couples are healthier, do better in school, less often living in poverty and are involved in criminal activity or other destructive activities more rarely. But as marriages fail, social problems and the tax money to solve these problems, increase.
*
of every 100 children born in recent years, nearly 60 were victims of broken marriages, and
* Births to unmarried mothers has increased significantly from 7% of all births in the 60 to 33% at present. 4
Noting that welfare spending have had backfired by giving poor parents an incentive not to marry after having a child, Congress did something unprecedented in 1966. Passed and President Clinton signed a law reforming the historical consequences welfare system. Under the Law 104-193, states can use funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF English initials) that are left, which are accumulated according to a special formula, if they reduce the number of people receiving welfare payments - programs to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce of the poor.
However, only a few states have found ways to do this, or take action themselves to strengthen marriages. For example,
*
In April 2000, the governor of Arizona passed a marriage law authorizing the expenditure of $ 1 million to develop courses at the local level to resolve marital difficulties.
*
In 1998, the governor of Florida passed a law called the Marriage Preparation and Preservation, that makes teaching of marital difficulties, and the solution, part of the secondary school curriculum. The law also encourages premarital preparation by reducing the cost of a marriage license in 50% for those who have completed a marriage preparation course. The effort to strengthen marriages is increasing among the bases, and several private shows and worthwhile results. Communities and groups that have adopted them report having fewer divorces and marriages stronger and more adolescents also pledging to abstain from sex before marriage. Such programs offer both federal legislators como los estatales, hitos indicadores para reformar las reglas políticas de modo que puedan aumentar los matrimonios y disminuir los hijos nacidos fuera del matrimonio. Por ejemplo,
*
'Marriage Savers' (Salvadores del Matrimonio), una serie de programas de base religiosa para ayudar a los novios, familias irregulares y matrimonios con problemas, ha ayudado a reducir la tasa de divorcios hasta en un 30% a nivel de las ciudades, y prácticamente eliminar el divorcio al nivel de la parroquia.
*
En más de 135 ciudades en todo el país, donde 'Community Marriage Covenants' (Pactos Matrimoniales ) han sido firmados ya sea por el clero, las congregaciones o los líderes community, divorce rates have declined dramatically. In Modesto, California, for example, the divorce rate has plummeted by 47.6 percent since 1986, when 95 pastors signed the first "Marriage Covenant." 5
* In Washington DC, the Best Friends program has led to a reduction of up to 90 percent in the number of extramarital births among teenage members. 6
Instead of throwing more money into government programs that try to solve the results of family breakdown, state and federal authorities should take measures to try to prevent the disintegration of the family first. The federal government can continue offering incentives, flexibility, mandatory measures, and money to urge states to take measures, but as the Representative (Member) Nancy L Johnson ('R'-Republican of Connecticut), former president of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Economic Committee House (House Ways and Means), wrote in a letter to state governors,
Although we have provided $ 20 million extra to five states that have reduced the rate of illegitimate births, we need much more information about what can government do to reduce the number of illegitimate births, or what would be equally important, to encourage marriage. [7]
For Meanwhile, Congress should continue its historic reform the welfare system and reach agreement with the Executive to reduce the "marriage penalty" in tax law, and adjust the tax credit based on income ('earned income tax credit' - EITC) so that low-income married couples with children, receive a benefit somewhat greater than that received by single parents.
States also have an important role. They are natural laboratories in which to discover the best policies to increase marriage and reduce divorce.
Increase the frequency of marriages and reduce the number of divorces are reasonable political purposes and necessary. The future for millions of American children will depend on politicians to succeed in it.
WHY BE GOOD POLICY TO ENCOURAGE MARRIAGE.
The social science literature is replete with findings about the harmful effects of family breakdown, especially for children. Juvenile Crime [8], sexual abuse, violence, [9] and very low income are often associated in these studies with families headed by a single parent. (See tables 1-5). [10] Children born out of wedlock are at a much higher risk of mortality inflantil, increased frequency of delayed cognitive and verbal development, and higher rates addiction to drugs and extramarital pregnancy in adolescence. [11] When large, they have a higher rate of divorce, work in lower paid jobs, and abuse their children more often. [12]
Divorce also has worrying implications. Studies show that family income for women and children is likely to fall below the poverty level immediately after the divorce, [13] fell as much as 50 percent, causing a substantial reduction in the ability to earn money and acquire Fortunately the long term [14] Compared with children from intact families, children of divorced parents * have poor results on tests of reading, writing and mathematics, and repeat a year or drop out of school or university more frequently.
* They have a much higher incidence of behavioral, emotional, mental and physical health, including depression and suicide, and
* Are more likely to divorce when large, and frequently coexist. [15]
Such effects are not isolated, set in motion a downward spiral of dysfunctional behavior and despair, which complicates the problem for their own children and future generations. In economic terms, divorce reduces the capital and interest is earned at an accelerated rate. The cost to society is staggering: An expert on social problems has been estimated that the consequences of crime in American society has a cost close to $ 1 billion (American trillion) annually. [16] The statesmen who wanted to halt the decline of society should look, rather, the ways to reduce the number of illegitimate children, divorce, and how to strengthen marriage.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
The revolution that began with the Law Reform Services Charity of 1996 has been successful in reducing the number of people on the list of grant recipients. The text of the Act states that those states that receive federal money for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families must implement programs that lead to benefit those who receive these grants and the benefits are limited to five years, while helping the recipients to making the difficult transition into work. In addition, to eliminate the incentive that leads to shun marriage in order to obtain greater benefits, Congress increased the money given to abstinence programs and instructed the states to use part of that surplus money to strengthen marriage among beneficiaries. Three of the four statements of purpose of the legislation specified as goals the formation of marriages and extramarital children reduction (see box on page ....)
While the spirit and intent of the law of welfare reform are clear, only a few states have done something in their laws since 1996 to strengthen marriages, and only the government of Oklahoma has used its power to ensure that TANF money is spent on programs that strengthen marriage. The amount of public money devoted to these state programs is small.
* Arizona has authorized spending $ 1 million a year, while Oklahoma has authorized up to $ 10 million of its TANF surplus is used to initiate the development of ongoing programs to promote marriage, later to receive funds from the annual budget.
* This $ 11 million is only 0.16 percent of the $ 6.9 billion in TANF surplus that accumulated in the country in 2000. [17]
These funds are available because states continue to receive its formula grant Washington, even if welfare reform has reduced the number of beneficiaries. Part of this surplus is earmarked for other charitable initiatives, but at least $ 2.2 billion of the $ 6.9 billion would available for initiatives that promote marriage and reduce the number of divorces among the poor. [18]
To reduce the deleterious effects of-wedlock births and divorce, and to encourage marriage, Washington should establish a monitoring mechanism to assess how states are using TANF surplus funds. Responsibility is the key to improving services. The federal government has an obligation to ensure that best practices are being followed.
How are encouraged marriage law of 1996 Welfare Reform.
Public Law 104-193, which provides grants to states for Temporary Assistance Needy Families, encourages states to strengthen marriages and reduce births outside marriage, stipulating that:
The purpose (of this law) ... is to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program to
* provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home or in the homes of relatives;
* end dependence of needy parents government benefits through the promotion of professional training, work and marriage
* prevent and reduce the incidence of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
* Encourage the establishment and retention of families with two parents. 1 _____________________________
1. Public Law 104-193, Section 103, Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (emphasis added)
HOW ARE IMPLEMENTING POLICIES FOR THE DIFFERENT STATES MARRIAGE.
The ways how states are implementing policies to reduce births marriage without marriage and divorce can be encouraged hopes. They offer other states and the federal government clear models on which to base future decisions to strengthen marriages and reduce costs and harmful effects of family breakdown.
Arizona. In April 2000, Gov. Jane Dee Hull (R) approved a law on marriages authorizing the expenditure of $ 1 million from the regular annual budget to develop local courses on how to resolve marital problems to poor couples, and a press campaign in favor marriage. [19] This law was adopted on May 21, 1998.
Arkansas. Governor Mike Huckabee (R) hopes to reduce the divorce rate by 50% by the year 2010 and is one of those who have proposed a state law Marriage Covenant (Covenant Marriage) [20] Their strategy is based on his conviction that all decisions should be made at the lowest possible level in government, in the case of welfare policy, this should be at the county (district). It is a strategy that takes into account the churches, because 75% of marriages are officiated by pastors Arkansas.
Governor's efforts to promote marriages range from posting information on Marriages and policy in its official website [21] to urge pastors, congregations and civic leaders to form community and Marriage Covenants a way to encourage couples to participate in marriage preparation programs and seek help if they have problems in marriage. [22] Huckabee has been thinking about offering a $ 100 credit on taxes for those who take marriage courses, with an estimated annual cost to the state if all couples who are getting married to take such courses, and request your credit would be about $ 4 million. [23]
Cherterfield County in Virginia, and Cobb in Georgia, already offer such programs. Chesterfield County offers marriage preparation classes, and one mental health staff have received training in marital problem-solving skills. The program has been in effect for seven years, and receives a subsidy of local, state and federal government, provides couples in any situation, and is always full. Cobb County offers marriage education courses through the offices of family courts. The courses are funded by contributions from the jurors that they waive their fees, and voluntary contributions.
Huckabee is urging local authorities to monitor the disbursement of surplus TANF and TANF to develop initiatives to encourage marriage and reduce divorce. Details on the selection of charities in federal welfare law [24] for example, would allow religious organizations to compete on equal terms (subject) for contracts to serve the poor in their areas of knowledge, either to seek employment, job training, childcare, counseling about drugs or any other service that can help welfare recipients become self-sufficient.
Florida. In 1998, Florida became the first state to incorporate the resolution of marital problems as part of the cuticle of higher education, when Gov. Lawton Chiles (D) approved the Law of Marriage Preparation and Preservation. The law encourages premarital preparation by reducing the marriage license fee by 50% for those who take a marriage preparation course before marriage. In Leon County, 32% of couples are currently taking pre-marriage courses, [25] primarily in their churches. Moreover, the 1998 law has borne little fruit because it allows loopholes that make it easy to avoid a change of educational curriculum.
Louisiana. The original leader in the movement for marriage among the states, Louisiana caused a national debate in 1997 by passing a law that allows "Marriage Covenant" [26] in which partners promise to stay married for life and give up the right no-fault divorce. The 'no-fault divorce' in Louisiana requires postpone legal action for 180 days. Couples who choose a 'Covenant Marriage' undertake that, if they have problems are to be separated by at least two years before resorting to divorce, and try to obtain the services of a marriage counselor.
Covenant Marriage law has not worked effectively. Because very few employees who report to civil registry for couples seeking a marriage license application of this legal possibility, very few people in Louisiana know it, and a very low proportion of couples have chosen. Not surprisingly, those who have done it starting with very low risk of divorce. [27]
In early 2000, the legislature passed a resolution urging the governor to appoint a Board of marriages could develop, monitor and evaluate marriage policy, programs, educational curriculum, advertising and providing services to families to ensure that the state is not undermining or discouraging to marriages in any way.
Oklahoma. Oklahoma has taken the lead among states legislative efforts to strengthen marriages. In June 1999, Governor Frank Keating (R) called a conference with the Governor and First Lady, on marriage, bringing together business leaders, religious groups, educational and government, and professionals related to the problem, and the press, trying to build the first state action plan to reduce the number of divorces. In March 2000, Keating announced a new initiative with a budget of $ 10 million, allocating 10 percent of TANF surplus funds for efforts to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce.
Governor Keating also proposed a target of reducing by one-third the divorce rate by 2010. In 1999 the state took steps to eliminate disadvantages in the way income is calculated step-married, compared with those of cohabiting couples. Similar changes were made in the way the state calculates who should receive benefits for child care. There are now less incentive to low-income couples who receive benefits, to live together without being married to higher benefits.
Other elements of the initiative in Oklahoma include:
* The establishment of a marriage resource center to provide information on marriage, and guide couples.
* A public education campaign on the importance of marriage;
* An outreach program to change youth attitudes about marriage;
* An effort to promote Community Policies on Marriage and develop community level programs to strengthen marriages, according to the shepherds;
* Provide funds to allow University of Oklahoma a marriage expert, a position he will occupy an expert who has a national reputation.
* Propose statewide conferences on a regular marriage,
* Provide training to state social workers, as has been the agricultural extension service and public health nurses to help teach courses to solve marital problems at the community;
* Improve information collection system to document the marriages and divorces in the state, and
* Partnering with faith-based groups and charitable programs to strengthen marriages.
Utah. Following the lead Governor Michael Leavitt, are becoming more and more efforts to restructure the marriages in the state. In 1998, Governor Leavitt hosted a Governor's Commission to identify programs and approaches that could strengthen marriages. In late February 2001, the state followed the lead of Oklahoma, and spent $ 600,000 of its TANF surplus funds to promote marriage education in the next two years. The legislature had also formed a Matrimonial Commission two years ago, and increased the minimum marriage age from 14 to 16 years. Governor Leavitt chairs a Marriage Week in February each year, and regional conferences which involved the governor and his wife, taking place in various parts of the state. Utah
promotes marriage education in its 105 schools, having added a chapter on marriage to civic education, "Responsibilities and Role of Adults." It also organizes educational courses for teachers on marital problems, through good lectures by experts on marriage, such as David Olson of the University of Minnesota, who developed the first method, and the most widely used premarital assessment.
Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Legislature has allocated $ 210 000 surplus TANF funds during the period 2001-2002 to a proposed marriage policy at the level of the Community, which will be conducted with clergy to develop "standards" on marriage clear overall. Wisconsin is the first state to have provided funding for a full time employee whose mission is to develop Community Marriage Policy. The organization American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made a successful lawsuit against a previous attempt of the legislature, which was based on faith-based initiatives to strengthen marriage. The reworked law now includes judges and magistrates, who are also involved in marriages, and should overcome a judicial attempt to eliminate it.
Other States. Summit meetings, similar to Utah, including businessmen, health, education, counselors, clergy, social workers, media and marriage education have taken place in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
In 2000 the legislatures of Maryland and Minnesota passed laws should establish programs to encourage marriage education, but those laws were vetoed by the respective Governors - Parris Glendening (D) and Jesse Ventura (Independent).
In Maryland Governor Glendening praised the intent of the law of premarital information that would reduce the cost of marriage licenses, saying to "educate individuals about the demands and realities of marriage and parenthood is a laudable and worthwhile", [28] and yet vetoed the bill. The original proponents, Delegates John R. Leopold (R-Anne Arundel) [29] and Kenneth Montague (D-Baltimore) [30] have revised the bill to specify the qualifications of those who can teach the course - social workers, psychologists and religious leaders trained particular - in order to satisfy stakeholders who might feel concerned.
is ironic that while the data show that domestic violence is much lower among married couples, activists against domestic violence have achieved most of the money for marriage licenses. Of the $ 55 for a marriage license, $ 45 is dedicated to reducing domestic violence are only $ 10 for a discount to the cost of pre-marital course.
In Minnesota, Sen. Steve Dille (R) has reintroduced a bill [31] in which couples who take a course of 12 hours of premarital education, will receive $ 55 off the cost of your license. By reforming and re-submit the bill, proponents have consulted extensively with county clerks, in order to avoid a veto by the Governor.
PRIVATE INITIATIVES ON THE MARRIAGE.
More and more political analysts both liberals (progressives) and conservatives agree that divorce and births outside marriage have long-term deleterious consequences for women, children and society, but the evidence is increasing in the private sector that the government could help change that . Studying and applying what is already working in states and localities - the test of effective policy initiatives - could reduce the divorce rate by one third to half, within a few years. The most important elements of this effort are (1) good outcome data with which you can find the best methods in different fields, and (2) the willingness to apply these findings to policy and federal, state and local.
Several non-governmental programs seem to significantly reduce the number of divorces and reduce the number of children born outside marriage, and increase the number of marriages. Those communities that have established groups 'Marriage Savers' (Marriage Savers) and Marriage Covenants in the community show the best of success in reducing divorce. [32] The strategy is to help churches to train counselors for engaged couples who can help them prepare for a marriage for life, and help counsel troubled marriages. Organizations such counselors have been able to help as much as 90 percent of couples have problems that you want.
'Marriage Savers' started the first Community Marriage Covenant in Modesto, California, in 1986. A well-developed service includes seven key religious activities:
1. A minimum of four months of preparation before marriage;
2. Premarital assessment of the views of the couple separately about significant issues such as finance and education of children, using questionnaires such as PREPARE [33] and FOCCUS. [34] Responses to the questionnaire form the basis for discussion during the marriage preparation classes. [35]
3. Training counselors couples how to use the survey results, to facilitate the discussion of those points at which the couple agree, or disagree.
4. A program to strengthen marriages present, such as Marriage Encounter (Marriage Encounter) [36], 'Marriage Alive' [37], or "Family Builders'. [38]
5. A program to help troubled marriages, whether a well-established as "Retrouvaille" [39] or one that uses the community partners who have successfully learned how to provide marriage counseling, many times to solve their own problems. In Rockford, Illinois, the First Assembly of God trained to 14 pairs "rescued from the brink" in his church, to work with troubled marriages. Therapists learn from this place "Marriage Ministry" and sent dozens of their most difficult cases to the First Assembly. In three years, the First Assembly guides have helped more than 100 married couples who were heading for the divorce and saved all but four. [40]
6. Guidelines for step-families. According to research data from the federal government, 20 percent of American children were living with stepparents in 1995. [41] The Rev. Dick Dunn of Roswell United Methodist Church near Atlanta created a support group for stepparents, stepparents operated by couples who had actually managed to organize families together. Four out of five participants have kept their marriages intact during the study period - a result which is almost double the norm for families of this class.
7. Ministry for separated couples. There are many ways to improve the chances of reconciliation for separated couples, as the work of Joe and Michelle Williams in a program called Reconciling as God Wants (Reconciling God's Way). The couple reports that the program has helped more than 70 percent of those who had separated, to come together again in marriage. [42]
Some pastors and congregations have implemented all seven elements in their parishes. [43]
Over 135 cities have established the Community Marriage Covenants, to encourage congregations 'Marriage Savers' civic líderers and to encourage communities to make efforts to strengthen marriages. In the fall of 1999 alone, Charleston, West Virginia, Baton Rouge and Louisiana Alessandri, Fairfield in Connecticut, Wausau in Wisconsin, Flower Mound, Texas, and Harrisonburg in Virginia, all cities were the Community Marriage Covenant. Earlier that year, Jamestown in New York and Toms River in New Jersey were the first cities in those states that such organized support groups.
Many cities with Community Marriage Covenant reported a reduction of up to 47 percent divorce rates. [44] For example, 95 pastors signed a covenant in Modesto, California, in 1986. Since then, the divorce rate has fallen by 47.6 percent, while marriages increased by 9.8 percent. [45] In some cities, the divorce rate has declined 20 times faster than the national rate of 1.3 percent. [46]
The dramatic difference in divorce rates between Kansas City, Kansas, which has a program of "Marriage Savers, Kansas City, Missouri, which does not, demonstrates the effect of these strategies marriage.
* In Kansas City, Kansas, and the suburbs, the number of divorces has fallen 32.5 percent - from 1530 to 1001 - in just two years, while the number of marriages has remained virtually unchanged. Only 40 ministers - a small fraction of the number of clergy in those two counties, have signed the Community Marriage Policy, but the Kansas CityStar had published several articles on the initiative.
* Meanwhile, across the river, the divorce rate actually increased over the same two years in the metropolitan area that includes Kansas City, Missouri, and its suburbs - from 3586 to 3725.
How to explain the difference: All clergy who participated in the Community Marriage Covenant and all articles published on this initiative, took place in Kansas, not Missouri. A visibly state developed a climate favorable to marriage, the other is dragged without changing attitudes and expectations. [47] This is a very powerful evidence about the effectiveness of policies favoring marriage. Authorities in all states should encourage community leaders to establish and expand programs 'Marriage Savers'. Focused Mediation
('Focused Thinking Mediation "), a program that has helped South Africa to 50 percent couples seeking to divorce, to stay together [48], is now operating in the courts of families in the southern state of Michigan. The courts have used mediation in divorces Focused most violent disputes, with an average of 20 court sessions per year, and an average duration of more than two years. Of the 26 couples who have participated in the program, only two failed to reach amicable agreements and have not needed to return to court. [49] The results were so remarkable that the courts are considering starting to use the program before the divorce. Stan Posthumus
who is a lawyer and social worker [50] and developed and refined the Focus Mediation Over the decade of 1990, hopes to help couples who have filed for divorce, so they can reach agreement with fewer conflicts and dislikes. Well-trained mediators, which may be lawyers, social workers or others, would help a couple start communicating better, sometimes for the first time in years. If the experience of South Africa is, many couples are going to reconsider their decision to divorce, and decided, instead, to compose their marriage on the basis of good communication and mutual agreement.
state authorities and local communities should consider developing Focused Mediation Institute to train and certified mediators both private and government. The direct benefit for the states include fewer divorces and less need for services, reduced court costs, and fewer women and children in poverty.
A program of the Foundation "Best Friends" (Best Friends) [51] in Washington, District of Columbia, has reduced wedlock births among its members by about 90 percent and led to a similar percentage of adolescents to engage to not have sex until marriage. The start too early sex among teens, reduce the likelihood of having a stable marriage later and more likely to have many sexual contacts and sexually transmitted diseases, wedlock births and abortions.
This voluntary program based in schools and volunteer guides for girls, begins in the fifth year (primary school). Encourages girls to set goals and help each other when trying to reach those goals. Since wedlock pregnancies and births can derail the best intentions of the girls, especially girls from poor groups, in which family life is not the norm, such help is essential.
The results are impressive: only 1 percent of those participating in the program became pregnant over a period of about eight years (since the program's inception until it was assessed), and 90 percent abstained from sex. For adolescents in the slums of cities, in which the pregnancy rate can reach 80 or 90 percent, the result is admirable. [52]
National Fatherhood Initiative (National Fatherhood Initiative "NFI) is a program started seven years ago is proving very effective in motivating parents to become more involved with their families. In a period of four years beginning in May 1996, the Initiative spent $ 800,000 on a television campaign encouraging parents to become more involved with their children and their families. The campaign was 187 times that amount ($ 130 million) in ads for free, donated by TV channels. In Virginia, the campaign spent $ 200 000 over a period of eighteen months, with impressive results: one in three people recalled the ads, 40 000 parents changed their habits, to spend more time with their children, and 100 000 people gave further support the role of parents or pledged to make a father when this was not present [53].
Marriage Preparation Courses. Research-based questionnaire support for marriage, such as PREP [54], FOCCUS, and REFOCCUS, have been widely used in marriage preparation programs, or to revitalize them at the parish level for many years. These studies help couples improve their relationships by helping to find and analyze areas of potential conflict - such as finance and the decision to have children, and attitudes that may create feelings of anger or alienation. These courses and methods, as well as other programs like PAIRS, [55] Improved relations (Relationship Enhancement), [56] and others [57] help couples develop the ability to solve problems, listen, and develop effective ways communication that can strengthen their relationships. ENCOURAGING
MARRIAGES AND REDUCE DIVORCE.
Although cultural attitudes, the findings sociology and social programs have begun to recognize the importance of supporting marriage and reduce the incidence of divorce, policies and activities of state governments are still leaning against the marriage. This inclination increases the damage caused by decades of federal welfare policy that has virtually eliminated the marriage of the poor, and federal tax policy that punishes marriage. Regardless of whether the welfare reform to federal Niver take place, states can modify the ways they spend their funds, manage the programs, collect data and conduct research, select the school curriculum, pass laws, and even how they relate to marriage.
promote marriage.
As in Oklahoma, Arkansas and other states that are developing policies that support marriage, other states should start making efforts to reduce the number of divorces and births outside marriage, and increase marriage. Specific measures can be taken are the following:
1. Set a goal of reducing births outside marriage and divorce by 33 percent in each state for 2010. Based on the success of various initiatives already in place around the country, such a goal is realistic and achievable. The All you need is that every state uses its resources to design those programs that best suit their needs and conditions.
2. Make a concerted effort to use TANF surplus on programs that increase marriage and decrease divorce among the poor. As we have seen, there are many resources and many in the country, which if used, could improve the prospects of forming couples marriages. You could make a powerful argument for establishing offices in the states Marriage Initiatives to encourage marriage and reduce divorce, especially among the poor or marginally poor, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. [58] This office should identify effective policies and programs to promote marriage to ensure that the state is using TANF surplus in ways that actually reduce divorces and births outside marriage among the poor. The charitable choice provision in the TANF legislation would apply to those expenses. Charitable choice would allow faith-based organizations to compete with other non-religious groups to obtain funds without disadvantage or prejudice, and be judged solely on the basis of their effectiveness.
3. Distribute state welfare funds to reward districts that reduce wedlock births and divorces. As the federal government rewards to states that succeed in reducing the rates of extramarital births [59] the states should reward those districts (counties) that obtain a significant dsiminución the number of births outside marriage and divorce. However, the states should learn from the experience of the federal government and ensure that districts receiving awards are those who have demonstrated the ability to develop a plan that works, not those who happen to experience a reduction in the number of births outside marriage . The more generous the stimulus will be more enthusiastic competition between districts.
4. Make state laws more favorable marriage. Many states penalize marriage in the tax code. At least each state should eliminate the death penalty. States should make a realistic estimate of how much it costs each family destroyed, and they save the expense of the state, should be better treated by the tax code. A simple way would be to higher tax exemptions for married couples with young children or studying at university.
5. Remove perverse incentives of state laws that increase the benefits of single parents if they have more children. Antimatrimonial To reduce the bias that was so destructive in the old welfare system, states should consider new benefits or expansion of present benefits for married couples who are receiving welfare. When the child born to them, 82 percent of single mothers are emotionally involved with the father, 44 percent live together, and over 70 percent of mothers say their chances of marrying the father are "50 / 50 "[60] The long-term costs to society are immense and not make it clear why these couples should marry.
Supporting initiatives that help couples with problems to get well. Divorce is the main reason why women and children fall into poverty. [61] Many organizations have developed programs to strengthen troubled marriages, such as Retrouvaille [62], Marriage Encounter [63], Marriage Savers and Focused Mediation. Making these programs accessible to the poor and marginalized should be a fundamental task for the Office of Marriage Initiatives.
7. Stimulate the action of churches and faith-based initiatives in poor areas. Few Americans realize how far gone marriages among the poor. In the lowest income quintile, 74 percent of families with children were headed by a mother (or father) single in 1996 [64]. In large part, this is the result of government programs such as welfare, have incentives that penalize marriage, and family planning programs that encourage sexual activity and have children, without regard to marital status. [65] Given the effectiveness of the churches to strengthen marriages, churches in poor neighborhoods are probably the most effective allies of the government in efforts to reduce divorces and marriages increased in communities that suffer the effects of family breakdown. The authorities can not do the work done by churches and the private sector in the repair of the institutions of marriage and family, but it can encourage efforts to increase marriage. They can also fix public attention on the need to support families with father and mother. This system would help change the debate and the cultural climate in their states.
8. Ensure that government employees support the marriage initiative. For a policy to increase the frequency of marriages and reduce the incidence of divorce, the authorities at all levels of government must support the project. Governors and state legislators should use wings district authorities who process marriage licenses, and employee welfare, school counselors, public health nurses and school, having to do with young mothers to that encourage them to participate in marriage preparation classes, and resolution of marital problems. Employees of programs such as agricultural extension services and mental health units, can receive training to enable them to teach locally. And the staff
block or ignore good policy, should be educated about the problem, or replaced.
9. Create incentives for couples to participate in marriage preparation classes before obtaining their marriage license. For example, Florida offers a discount on marriage licenses if couples take a course of four hours of marriage preparation, with a segment on the effects of divorce, and how to get a divorce. Minnesota, Maryland and other states, are also pending legislation that would encourage marriage preparation courses.
een Government action in this area has to be careful because there are details of personal freedom, to make intimate decisions, and protecting the common good are at stake.
RESPONSE TO OBJECT TO THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROMOTE MARRIAGE.
Objection: Critics like Don Block, former president of the American Family Therapy Academy, objects to the use of charitable funds to encourage marriage: "It's actually taking money away from those who are on the brink, people has many needs in health, nutrition, room ... "Others say it is unfair to use TANF monies so that would favor people who are not charities.
Answer: The duty of government is to protect and support the common good. For the past 35 years, the government has a major role in the destruction of marriages among the poor, subsidies for single mothers. To correct the results of that policy in future benefits must be for programs that re-establish the marriage of the poor. this process, the families of middle and upper income can be educated to avoid extramarital children and be better prepared for marriage. Prevent the separation between low-income families and middle income countries is to prevent poverty, and that is good government policy.
Objection: The government has no business encouraging people to marry.
Answer: As stated by Governor Keating of Oklahoma, "When you look at the consequences of divorce, it is better to ask:" What reason we have not to worry? "A good government has a critical interest in stable marriages. The consequence decades of bad policies is a culture of ambivalence about the commitments, with devastating results for children. The common good is based on stable family life, which is based on marital stability. If they break losmatrimonios decreases public order, public expenditure increases, and the need for control by the government to counter problems occurring increases. The restoration of marriage is the most cost-effective system to reduce the tax burden on social programs and improve the welfare of children and poor.
Educate the public.
While the law can serve an educational function, communicating universal values \u200b\u200btraditional public forum can provide new dimensions to public opinion and popular culture. In this sense, state officials can use strategies that advance the importance of marriage as an institution. Specifically:
1. Can offer clear targets for reducing divorce. States may follow the example of Oklahoma and Arkansas setting a goal of reducing divorce and extramarital births in 2010. This would send a clear message to the citizens of the state and the state bureaucracy to increase the marriage is a priority at all levels of government.
2. Launch public information campaigns, the press and on radio and television. One of the advantages of being a public leader is the ability to exchange ideas and motivate the public to become involved in a worthwhile campaign. The speeches are transformed into instruments of political progress and serve to change a culture a rejection of compromise. Television campaigns have a similar effect - as demonstrated by private sector initiatives between the National Fatherhood Initiative and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
3. Create brochures that summarize the valuable research. The effects of divorce and extramarital births and the benefits of marriage, [66] sexual abstinence before marriage and adoption. These brochures should also indicate the legal and economic consequences for those who beget children without being married. Such leaflets could be distributed in schools, welfare offices, police offices and parole, hospitals and public clinics parishes, and private organizations to produce a useful debate on serious issues. Family research experts should be responsible for preparing these pamphlets, which could become the basis for a premarital test, as suggested above.
States should make serious efforts to inform women of the consequences of having children without being married. This should be aimed at women between the ages of 20 and 35. Women between the ages of 20 and 40 are responsible for roughly 75 percent of all births outside marriage and 82 percent of those who have a second child out of wedlock, which is likely to be subjected to a a woman poverty long term. A public information campaign on the outcome of children born out of wedlock to a mother and her child might be a good way to use surplus TANF funds.
4. Calling a state conference on marriage and family. Governor Keating's conference brought together figures on marriages of first importance of the press, medicine, law, education, government and clergy to examine carefully the consequences of extramarital childbearing and divorce in the state. As a result, many participants were transformed into engines of effort to reduce divorce and increase marriage. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, State Senator Mark Boitano (R) was responsible for organizing a conference on marriage in October 2000. [67] These events focus attention on the problem, and motivate people from all sectors of society to counteract the effects of family breakdown and to give new life to a culture of love and commitment within the family.
5. Create a study center marriage. Good statistics are needed to make effective planning, education and to evaluate state initiatives. A research center to provide accurate and timely information should keep track of marriages, divorces and births outside marriage in the state. Authorities the state should be able to use that data to find out where there are major problems and needs. The center should also study how the state compares with other states to increase marriage and reduce divorce.
addition, the center should analyze and provide information on the relationship between family structure and youth crime, homicides, suicides, births outside marriage, abortions, poverty, drug use among young people, educational outcomes, employment and unemployment in the state. The magnitude of these phenomena should be useful in developing appropriate policies and provide funding for TRENGTHENING to reduce such costly social problems.
6. Encourage the creation of positions for experts in these fields at state universities. These experts in psychology, sociology, economics or legislation should take care of keeping track of such initiatives that provide the best products to increase stable marriages and reduce the number of divorces in the state. The legislature could help increase the education in the areas of marriage and family, establishing awards to students in advanced courses by the best studies of psychological and sociological literature on marriage and divorce. The value need not be large: A stipend of $ 20 000 would generate significant studies on these issues, and arouse interest in this field among students of social sciences.
CHANGE STATE LAW.
At present, laws and government policies do not provide virtually no protection for the institution of marriage. The deleterious effect of divorce "without fault" ('no fault') has become so obvious that there are currently only 17 states "without fault." [68]
Lawmakers are considering changing their divorce laws should consider the full range of legal options available, such as those compiled by Americans for Divorce Reform and inserted in Divorce Reform page on the Internet [69] This site presents arguments for and against initiatives, and model legislation.
Several proposals could help reduce divorce rates. Specifically:
* Require couples to reach agreement before initiating a divorce. Married couples who have young children should have to complete an education on divorce and parenting plan before initiating divorce proceedings. Divorce education could help some of these couples to solve their problems and save their marriages. It is particularly effective at the beginning of the divorce process. The need to have a shared parenting plan should allow the couple to develop a more realistic picture of what will be life after divorce, and this could lead some couples to renew their efforts to save the marriage.
* Require mediation before divorce. Married couples with small children should have to participate in classes of mediation before your case can be viewed by the court. The Office of Child Support Department of Health and Human Services (Office of Child Support Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) also reported having had good results with the mediation [70]
* Complete with no-fault divorce " for parents with children under 18. [71] no-fault divorce "is a meaningless term for Children whose parents divorce. Legislators in Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Virginia, Texas and Washington have proposed legislation to require consent of both parties for a no-fault divorce. " In the absence of such consent, the husband who wants to divorce must prove that the other has the "blame." This may be reasonable for childless couples, but the welfare of children under 18 years should be the threshold for all those couples, they should have to prove that the children would suffer serious harm if the marriage continued. * Set the Covenants
Double legal option. Couples should be able to commit to marriage for life if they wish, accepting very stringent requirements for separation or divorce. The effect of such an undertaking would be healthy, and its emphasis on the seriousness of engagement would strengthen the ideal of marriage in society. Couples should take serious preparation before making that commitment, however, as it would have the force of law. Too many people marry in order to stay married until death, only to find that her husband had no such intention. In marriage covenant, the couples sign a marriage contract that lengthens the process to obtain a divorce for two years. Louisiana and Arizona have passed laws of this kind, and Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas have considered. (At least 25 other states, such legislation has been proposed and is moving through the system. Some states are seeking ways to improve the concept.)
CHANGING THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM.
The school curriculum reflects what the state wants children to know for the common good. An emphasis on marriage is clear that should fall in this area, because the decline of marriage imposes high costs on society, and marriage has many benefits for all family members. [72] To this end, the public school curriculum should:
* Include marriage preparation courses in high school. Utah and Florida have passed laws to include marriage curriculum in high school. By taking basic training for marriage, teens are better prepared to do some of the most important decisions of their lives. The success of such courses will obviously depend on the content and teaching. To prevent the program can be diverted to serve some other agenda, lawmakers should provide in the law curriculum content supports traditional marriage. They can organize the course content based on research already done by experts such as Professors Scott M. Stanley and Howard Markman of the University of Denver [73] and David Olson of the University of Minnesota
* Promote and expand teen chastity programs. Federal funds for education in chastity can be supplemented with TANF funds. Reduce the number of children being sexually active has a dramatic effect on the rate of births outside marriage. The Best Friends program in Washington DC has shown that this is the case. [74] CONCLUSION
is experiencing a cultural shift that has good prospects for American children. After four decades of trying to tackle social problems more tax money, elected officials, sociologists, community leaders and statesmen of all political persuasions have come to recognize that strong marriages - not government largesse-are key to improving the welfare of individuals and society. Sociological research shows that children in married families are healthier, do better in school, and involve less in criminal activities and other destructive behaviors.
has done much in recent decades to understand the benefits of marriage, and there are good programs to help couples prepare for marriage. State and municipal authorities should take advantage of what sociological research and the evidence of the "best results" have made clear. Divorce in the community can be reduced by 30 percent through programs to strengthen marriage. Abstinence before marriage will increase if the right programs are used, and conservative treatment of marriage by the media can help to change cultural attitudes.
Working together, leaders of public and private sector can join forces with the clergy begin this process, increasing the incidence of marriage and strengthening families while reducing the social problems of marital breakdown and births outside marriage. The goal is not small, but it seems more and more attainable.
- Patrick F. Fagan William HG FitzGerald is Senior Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] This is the sum of spending on direct aid from 1965 to 2000, expressed in constant 1999 dollars, not including Social Security and Medicare the most, medical care of the elderly. (In translation, the U.S. billions are billions in English, and "trillion, trillion, trillion).
[2] $ 150 billion is roughly the amount spent each year by the federal government, state and local government welfare programs for the poor, and the system used to decide who gets these benefits, cause damage to married couples, and promotes the children of single mothers among the poor. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, if a single parent with a child, working for minimum wage marries a single mother with a child, which also earns the minimum wage, will lose $ 8 000 in benefits, ie between 33 and 40% is your combined income. An equivalent loss of income for a middle class family in which each earn $ 30 000 a year, they decided to marry, would be around $ 20 000 per year.
[3] This amount is primarily federal funds for abstinence education, with equal amounts contributed by some of the states and special contributions to the success of federal government programs that reduce births to unwed mothers.
[4] See Patrick F. Fagan, "The American Family" in Issues 2000: The Candidate's Briefing Book, edited by Stuart M. Butler and Kim R. Holmes. (Washington DC: Heritage Foundation, 2000)
[5] Marriage Savers, at http://www.marriagesavers.org/
those_interested_in_creating_a_c.htm.
[6] For further information, contact Best Friends Foundation at (202) 237 8156.
[7] Emphasis added. At the same time, Rep. Johnson said he had to caution against the "supplementation", ie using money left over from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to pay normal income usually paid with the state. Doing so, he warned, would lead Congress to reduce the level of TANF funds to eliminate surpluses.
[8] For example, a recent longitudinal study that followed more than 6400 male children over 20 years found that those children who grew up without his biological father at home, was approximately three times more likely to commit crimes than lead to prison than children from intact families.
Cynthia Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration," paper presented at the 1998 meeting of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco. Others have found that children of divorced parents are six times more likely to be delinquent than children from intact families. See David B. Larson, James P. Swyers, and Susan S. Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce (Rockville, Md.: National Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995) p. 123.
[9] Research has shown that serious abuse is more common among stepchildren than among children from intact families. See, for example, David M. Gergusson, Michael T. Lynskey and L. John Horwood, "Childhood Sexual Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adulthood", Journal of the American Academy of Chile and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol 34 (1996), pp. 1355-1364.
[10] For a more complete review of the literature on these and other effects, see Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No 1373, June 5, 2000.
[11] The history of a family with one parent and the poverty that accompanies it that children are twice as likely to drop out of school, 2.5 times greater chance of becoming, in turn, single parents adolescents, and 1.4 times more likely to not find work. See SS McLanahan, "The Consequences of Single Motherhood," The American Prospect, Vol 18 (1994) pp. 48-58. Véase también Patrick F. Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity", Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999.
[12] Véase Patrick F. Fagan, "Rising Illegitimnacy: American Social Catastrophe," Heritage Foundation F.Y.I. No. 14, 29 de Junio de 1994.
[13] Véase Fagan y Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children".
[14] Vése Fagan "How Broken Families Rob Children of their Chances for Future Prosperity".
[15] Fagan y Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on Children", pp.17 y siguientes.
[16] David Anderson, "The Aggregate Burden of Crime". Journal of Law and Economics, Vol 42 (October 1999), pp. 611-642.
[17] For the basis of these calculations, see Ed Lazere, "" Welfare Balances Alter Three Years of TANF Block Grants: Unspent Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Funds at the end of Fiscal Year 1999, "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , January 2000, pp. 14-15.
[18] Gene Falk, "Welfare Reform: Financing and Recent Spending Trends in the TANF Program", Congressional Research Service, RL30595, updated January 4, 2001.
[19] Arizona Statute 41-2031. Information about this law is available from the lawmaker who proposed it
[20] Governor Mike Huckabee, speaking on status of State, January 9, 2001.
[21] See http://www.state.ar.us/governor/governor.html.
[22] See http://www.state.ar.us/governor/marriage/index.html.
[23] Personal communication from the Office of Governor Huckabee.
[24] PL 104-193, Section 104.
[25] Personal communication from Richard Albertson, Leon County, Florida.
[26] Proposed by state Rep. Tony Perkins. Spaht Professor Catherine Law Center of Louisiana State University provided the legal expertise to the legislative proposal, and has served as counselor for eight states have considered laws similar.
[27] Personal communication from Dr. Stephen Nock, Department of Sociology at the University of Virginia, the lead author of the research, and Dr. Alan Hawkins, Department of Family Studies, Brigham Young University, who was a consultant on the project.
[28] Christian Davenport, "Get help before Luna de Miel", The Washington Post February 25, 2001., Pg. C 1.
[29] For further information, contact the Delegate Leopold, (800) 492-7122, ext. 3217.
[30] For further information contact the Delegate Montague at (800) 492-7122, ext. 3259, or send an e-mail to kenneth_montague@house.state.md.us
[31] Record of the Senate (Senate File SFNo. 1021, in the http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=S1021.0&session=ls82.
[32] See http://www.marriagesavers.org/.
[33] See http://lifeinnovation.com/.
[34] See http://www.foccusinc.com/.
[35] 'Marriage Savers' reported that between 15 and 20 percent of couples who take this quiz decide not to marry. Others report that they have contracted marriage with a better understanding and greater ability to communicate.
[36] See http://www.wwme.org/.
[37] See http://www.marriagealive.org/.
[38] Véase http://www.familybuilders.net/.
[39] Véase http://home.vicnet.net.au/~retro/home.htm.
[40] Michael J.McManus, "How do you Create a Marriage Savers Church?" at http://www.marriagesavers.org/how_do_you_create_a_marriage_sav.htm.
[41] Survey of Consumer Finance, 1995, Federal Reserve Board; Heritage Foundation calculations.
[42] Véase http://www.marriagesavers.org/how_do_you_create_a_marriage_sav.htm.
[43] Véase "Six Churches That Have Virtually Eliminated Divorce" at http://www.marriagesavers.org/SixChurches.
[44] En Modesto, California, de acuerdo Mike McManus, president of 'Marriage Savers'.
[45] Information from Mike McManus, president of 'Marriage Savers'.
[46] Marriage Savers to http://www.marriagesavers.org/divorcerates.htm.
[47] The sources of this information as 'Marriage Savers' are the secretaries of Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas and Jackson in Missouri.
[48] Data from South Africa, provided by Stanley Posthumus.
[49] Data from the court, provided by Stanley Posthumus.
[50] For further information contact Stanley Posthumus, LLB, a stanp@bellatlantic.net.
[51] For further information, contact the Best Friends Foundation, telephone (202) 237-8156
[52] David R. Rowberry, "An Evaluation of the Washington DC Best Friends Program," dissertation, University of Colorado, 1995.
[53] For further information on the National Fatherhood Initiative, contact Wade Horn to nfi1995@aol.com.
[54] See http://www.prepinc.com/. PREP, the program most used in research, is based on the work of Professor Howard Markman and Scott Stanley, Study Center for Marital and Family at the University of Denver.
[55] PAIRS Foundation, e-mail epairs@aol.com.
[56] See http://www.nire.org.
[57] See http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html.
[58] See the following on a Federal Office of Marriage Initiatives: http://www.heritage org/mandate/budget/pdf/550/550marriageinitiatives.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget / pdf/550/550marriage.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/pdf/550/550childsupport.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/mandate/budget/pdf/550/550familyplanning . pdf.
[59] This benefit lower-wedlock births was part of the reform of the welfare law in 1996.
[60] Benheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, and Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University, "Fragile Families Research Bried" No.1, May 2000.
[61] For a review of the literature, see Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity", pp. 3-6.
[62] See http://home.vicnet.net.au/ ~ retro / home / htm.
[63] See http://www.wwme.org/.
[64] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 1997. VEPE Fagan, "The American Family", Chart 6.18.
[65] Patrick F. VEPE Fagan, "Family Planning, Family Failure", The Washington Times, July 13, 2000, p.A22.
[66] See Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000) for serious investigation in this regard.
[67] Mark Boitano also proposed a bill of $ 100 tax credit for those who take marriage preparation courses, and have money to distribute pamphlets statewide to help couples avoid divorce.
[68] Margaret Brinig's College of Law, University of Iowa, at http://www.uiowa.edu/ ~ mfblaw /.
[69] John Crouch, Americans for Divorce Reform, "Divorce Reform Page" in http://adams.patriot.net/ ~ crouch / divorce.html.
[70] Lynne M. Fender, Kerry Pisacane, and Sylvia Ellison "State Child Access and Visitation Programs", American Institutes for Research, Washington DC, 1999, prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services.
[71] In a no-fault divorce, either can end the marriage simply by asking for a divorce. This "reform" was introduced with the idea that the finding "fault" caused greater hostility and division in the divorce proceedings.
[72] Waite and Gallagher, The Case for Marriage.
[73] Drs M. Scott Stanley and Howard J. Markman, director of the Center for Family Studies and Marriage at the University of Denver, and are the best experts in this type of research, and what to teach.
[74] Best Friends Foundation and National Abstinence Clearinghouse, at info@abstinence.net.
While the U.S. has invested $ 8.4 trillion since the war on poverty began in the 60's, dependence on welfare funds, juvenile delinquency, child abuse, low education, substance abuse, suicide, children, and Many other problems have increased. At the same time, federal and state governments still spend about 150 billion each year in subsidies to families with one parent. This contrasted with the approximately $ 150 million spent each year in an effort to reduce children single mothers, and divorce - the two main causes of single parent families in the U.S.. In other words, for every $ 1000 that the government spends on services to families torn apart, spends $ 1 to try to avoid the fragmentation of the family. And everything that the company receives for this "investment" unbalanced is an increase that to grant giving - broken families and children with difficulties and social problems. An analysis of the data shows that: 
In March 2000, the governor of Oklahoma spent 10% of TANF surplus funds for an initiative that aims to reduce by one-third of divorces for 2010. 
* have higher rates of crime, abuse drugs, being sexually abused, and receiving negligent care. 
couples living together before marriage have a 50 percent 
Remember how your heart beat when you first learned that she loved your partner? What happened to those feelings? 
• Accept the individuality of family members. 