Vol. 7, No. 8                                                                                                                  June 2003
The State’s Role in Supporting Marriage and Family Formation
By Danielle White and Jan Kaplan
 
Background
 
The formation and maintenance of two-parent families is one of the four overarching goals of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This goal reflects a growing recognition by researchers, advocates, policymakers, and service providers of the economic, emotional, and societal benefits of two-parent families, particularly for children. Research supports the belief that family formation and maintenance can play a crucial role in reducing many poor families’ dependency on public assistance. Marriage may not be feasible or desirable, however, when there is domestic or family violence, substance abuse, or criminal activity or when family formation results in financial hardship. Therefore, the welfare reform law gave states the flexibility to design programs and policies to encourage family formation as well as to support responsible parenting by both parents in situations where marriage is not feasible.
 
Several state and federal policies can have an impact on marriage and the decision to marry, including tax policies, child support requirements, divorce laws, and eligibility and participation requirements for public benefits. Public policies may have a greater influence on the marriage decisions of couples who are poor and dependent on government benefits. For example, the financial consequences of increased taxes or the reduction in government benefits that result from marriage may be a disincentive to marry for some low-income couples. Alternatively, public policies and programs to strengthen relationships among unmarried couples, together with job training and ancillary services, may support stable family formation.
 
Until recently, welfare agencies have paid little attention to strategies to support marriage formation because they have been focused on meeting the work participation requirements of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. However, the consideration of federal legislation to reauthorize TANF and the increased attention on long-staying welfare recipients have increased the national focus on marriage and family formation as an integral goal of welfare reform and as a means to support self-sufficiency. Reauthorization legislation passed by the House of Representatives adopted Bush administration proposals to establish two new funds to support family formation activities. Reauthorization legislation pending in the Senate also provides new funds to support marriage-related initiatives. Yet differences in the types of marriage-related policies and programs supported in each bill have generated debate on the role of government and the utility of various marriage-promoting activities.
 
Debate also is occurring at the state level, where policymakers and service providers are examining the implications of family formation initiatives for low-income couples and beginning to design policies to support healthy and stable marriages when feasible. This Issue Note presents key policy issues that states and localities might consider as they move forward with family formation initiatives. For more information, see the Welfare Information Network’s (WIN) Resources for Welfare Decisions on “Family Formation” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/familyformation.htm; or visit the WIN web site on Family Formation at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/famformation.asp.
 
Policy Issues
 
How do some state policies act as disincentives to marriage? Under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the predecessor to TANF, states were not required to provide cash assistance to two-parent families unless one parent was incapacitated. However, the AFDC Unemployed Parent program allowed states to provide assistance to two-parent families if the “principal earner” met certain work history requirements and was not employed for 100 or more hours per month while applying for or receiving benefits. Although the “100-hour rule” was deemed an important deterrent to marriage for many low-income women, about half the states provided assistance to two-parent families that met the criteria. 
 
TANF allows states to eliminate the 100-hour rule and treat one-parent and two-parent families equally when determining eligibility. Thirty-three states now base eligibility solely on financial circumstances and do not restrict assistance to two-parent families. The remaining states continue to restrict assistance for some of these families, which may be a disincentive to marriage for some of them (see Gardiner 2002). Pending federal legislation to reauthorize TANF includes language that is intended to eliminate this potential disincentive. Legislation passed by the House requires states to describe their efforts to provide equitable treatment of married, two-parent families in their TANF programs. Legislative proposals in the Senate require equitable treatment of two-parent families.
 
In addition, the TANF program requires states to meet a 90-percent work participation rate for two-parent families or risk federal financial penalties. This policy has discouraged some states from serving two-parent families. Other states have chosen to establish a separate state-funded program for two-parent families so they can provide assistance but not risk penalties if the families fail to meet the higher work participation rates. Pending federal reauthorization legislation seeks to remedy this policy inequity and potential disincentive for the formation of two-parent families. The bill passed by the House and legislative proposals under consideration in the Senate would eliminate the higher work participation rates for two-parent families.
 
Tax policies can also discourage marriage. The federal tax system penalizes marriage when couples are required to file taxes jointly based on a combined income; couples with similar incomes are taxed at a higher rate than they would have been as single filers. Couples face a similar, additional “marriage penalty” in states with tax systems patterned after the federal structure. Moreover, federal and state policies that give lower standard deductions to married wage earners than would be given to two individual wage earners may be a disincentive to marriage, particularly for low-income couples (see Gardiner 2002).
 
State earned income tax credits, modeled after the federal credit, can also be a marriage disincentive. When the credit is reduced for married couples because their income is too high, they may benefit financially by not marrying. Changes to federal policy have increased the income threshold for married couples. However, for couples with earnings that are above the income threshold level, the federal and state credit reductions are still a potential disincentive to marriage.
 
Why might states consider policies and programs to promote marriage and family formation? The benefits of marriage for adults, children, and society are well documented. Parents who marry have higher living standards and are less poor than those living in single-parent households. In addition, adults who marry are healthier, live longer, and have lower rates of alcoholism and drug abuse. Children who live with two biological parents have higher educational achievement and better cognitive and emotional development than do children in single-parent households. Conversely, children living with a single parent are at greater risk of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and school failure. Finally, marriage can result in higher levels of paternal involvement with the family and assistance with child care responsibilities (Jarchow 2003).
 
Several states have established programs and policies that support and encourage family formation; some specifically target TANF recipients and other low-income families. In many states these initiatives are part of a larger welfare reform strategy to meet the goals of the federal law. It is likely that more emphasis will be placed on the support of marriage in the upcoming reauthorization of TANF, so other states may want to explore family formation approaches. Finally, the increased interest in the interrelationships among a healthy marriage, poverty reduction, and economic self-sufficiency has resulted in additional funding opportunities to support state and local innovations. The TANF reauthorization legislation will likely also provide funds for such initiatives.
 
How can states promote healthy marriages and family formation? Several states have established a marriage commission to examine rates of marriage and divorce, the impact of public programs and policies on those rates, and the feasibility of policy changes aimed at encouraging stable relationships. Commissions that involve key community and governmental organizations can provide vision and leadership for a statewide strategy to address the particular issues confronting the state. They can also serve as the foundation for broad public education campaigns. 
 
The primary strategies to promote family formation include providing public and individual education, removing barriers to successful marriage, and eliminating policy and financial disincentives. Education about the benefits of marriage can be provided through public outreach campaigns that include brochures, posters, billboards, newspaper ads, and television shows. In addition, marriage handbooks and public events to promote public policies and programs supporting marriage can be effective. Educational materials can address marriage policy initiatives, the positive aspects of successful marriages, the importance of communication, and ways to prevent domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. They can also list community resources for additional support and information. Collaborations with existing community initiatives dedicated to preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancy among young adults may reach a larger audience, particularly when combined with outreach into high schools, community colleges, and other local organizations.
 
Relationship and marriage education have been used with new and expectant parents, engaged and married couples, couples in conflict, and middle and high school students, though such education is most successful with new and expectant parents. In addition, targeting fathers and stepfathers who do not live with their children can help them develop healthy relationships with their children. Organized programs and curricula can help couples improve their interpersonal communications, develop positive relationships, and strengthen their marriage. Yet most existing structured marriage support programs and curricula have been designed to assist middle-income, college-educated, white couples. They have not been adapted to address the specific challenges that low-income couples face or the unique circumstances facing unmarried parents who may be cohabitating or living separately. Effective programs for low-income couples need to address the social, personal, and environmental factors that may affect these couples and their children. Programs can be coordinated and integrated with services for domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health problems that may affect low-income and TANF families. In addition, states can incorporate relationship education programs for TANF recipients or other low-income couples with other services that are designed to meet their needs, such as parenting, fatherhood, or prenatal care programs. Alternatively, states can modify available relationship education curricula to address the unique service needs of low-income couples and implement programs independently from other services.
 
States can design programs to overcome personal barriers to marriage. Studies of new parents’ attitudes toward marriage have found that most low-income unmarrieds are romantically involved with each other and more than half believe their children would benefit from them marrying. However, few of these parents have married (Dion and Devaney 2003). For many, personal, financial, and educational characteristics can impede their ability to enter and maintain a successful marriage. Common barriers include bad health, low education and job skills, limited employment history, and poor relationship skills. Therefore, programs that help individuals improve their employability, increase earnings, and develop interpersonal skills can enhance their attractiveness as a marriage partner. States may want to expand existing initiatives to provide job training and employment assistance for noncustodial fathers; provide assessments and services for health, mental health, and substance abuse problems; ensure access to domestic violence services; and ensure access to parent education classes and life skills training. In addition, states can develop or expand fatherhood programs aimed at promoting healthy paternal roles when parents choose not to marry.
 
States can also address tax provisions, TANF requirements, and other government program rules that may discourage marriage. For example, states can revise income-based eligibility policies under TANF and Medicaid that result in decreased benefits or ineligibility for married couples. Specific changes in TANF include eliminating eligibility rules that require a work history for two-parent families. Instead, states can base TANF eligibility solely on financial status for both single and married parents. They can also disregard all or some of a second parent’s income when determining cash assistance levels. In addition, some states are using state-only funds to provide TANF services to two-parent families and are not subjecting them to higher federal work requirements. Other states include stepparents as eligible members of an assistance unit when determining cash benefit levels. Finally, some states have added incentive payments to monthly benefits for married couples and are training TANF staff to teach marriage skills to their clients.
 
Finally, reforming state child support policies could encourage noncustodial parents to become more involved in their children’s lives and make marriage economically feasible. For example, a few states forgive child support arrearages owed to the state if parents marry. In addition, state policies that encourage noncustodial parents’ ongoing financial and emotional involvement with their children can lead to family formation. Reductions in the amount of child support payments held by the government¾or reductions in the required proportion of income that must be paid as child support¾and forgiveness of some arrearages will increase the likelihood that the father will meet his child support obligations and not abandon his children. For more information on state policy and program options, see Gardiner 2002 and Jarchow 2003.
 
How can states target their programs to promote marriage and family formation? A state strategy to promote healthy marriages needs to be multifaceted to reflect the different influences on relationships experienced by various cultural and socioeconomic groups. However, the effectiveness of any policy or programmatic initiative will depend on its relevance for its target audience. Therefore, it is critical that any broad marriage support initiative be relevant to the subpopulations in the state and that the content of counseling and education programs be adapted to the concerns of discrete cultural or socioeconomic groups. For example, educational programs for youth on the benefits of marriage and stable families can be integrated into all middle and high schools. However, the specific curricula for high schools with a substantial proportion of low-income students may need to be modified to address the special challenges confronting these youth. These programs could be coordinated with other youth development initiatives aimed at improving school performance, providing life skills training, and preventing delinquency, teen pregnancy, and substance abuse. Similarly, many couples will be affected by changes to divorce laws to require waiting periods, mediation or other preventive strategies, requirements or incentives for marriage preparation and counseling as part of the marriage license procedure, and increased access to marriage counseling, mentoring, and relationship education programs. However, the specific content of required counseling, mediation or education programs should address the concerns of discrete socioeconomic or cultural groups. 
 
States can also target their marriage initiatives on welfare recipients and other low-income families. Strategies include changes to TANF, Medicaid and other public programs to eliminate potential marriage disincentives, tax policy changes, home visitation, marriage mentoring, conflict resolution and communications training, and workforce development and life skills development intended to improve financial stability and support healthy relationships.
 
What are some concerns about public policies to promote marriage and family formation? Opponents of broad public programs to promote marriage and family formation express concern that these initiatives are beyond the appropriate scope of government, intrude on individual privacy, divert necessary public funds from other programs for low-income and TANF families, and obscure more important problems underlying poverty and poor child outcomes. Some also are concerned that research indicating a relationship between unmarried parenthood and poor child outcomes and child poverty does not conclusively indicate causality.
 
In addition, in some instances, marriage may not be optimal. Some are concerned that marriage-promoting policies and programs could force women into unhealthy and abusive relationships. Research findings indicate that a marriage marked by serious conflict is more damaging to child well-being than is being raised by a single parent. Furthermore, although marriage may improve the financial situation for some single-parents, a stepparent situation may cause emotional problems for children. Research shows children fare better psychologically in long-term stable family relationships, regardless of their form, than in situations marked by multiple marriages (Coontz and Folbre 2002).
 
Finally, marriage does not always improve the single parent’s economic situation. Marriage to a partner who lacks education or job prospects, or who has a criminal record or substance abuse problem, may not improve the household’s financial status; it may even cause a loss of financial resources. Additional financial burdens also may result from marrying someone with child support obligations from other relationships.
 
Therefore, states need to be aware of the potential limitations of broad marriage-supporting initiatives and policies. First, family formation strategies that are not coordinated with domestic violence policies may place women at risk of abusive relationships. Most states have adopted the family violence option under PRWORA or a similar policy to ensure TANF clients who experience domestic violence are identified, receive needed services, and are exempted from TANF requirements, if necessary. Coordinated family formation and domestic violence policies can provide needed services to women and help ensure children’s long-term emotional and financial well-being. Second, poverty reduction strategies that include family formation initiatives as a primary tool are more likely to help families move toward economic self-sufficiency when they are combined with other services and interventions. Third, not all marriages are successful despite focused supports and interventions. States may want to consider comprehensive family formation strategies that include systems to ensure basic emotional, financial, and other supports are available when relationships fail. For more information, see Coontz and Folbre 2002.
 
What state-level research is needed to assess the impact and effectiveness of programs to promote marriage and family formation? Little is known about the reason people marry or divorce, the role of external influences and interventions on those decisions and on the long-term stability of marriage, and the relationship among poverty, child well-being, and two-parent families. Research at the state level could address these questions by examining the effects of demographic, economic, and psychological factors on the formation and quality of two-parent relationships. Program evaluations could explore the interactions of demographics and other factors with program components and the impact of policy changes on marriage and family formation.
 
For example, state-level evaluations of programs and policies could examine the types of interventions used and their implementation, the effect of the interventions on decisions to marry, the quality of relationships, parenting behaviors, father involvement, and child and parental well-being. In addition, they could study the effectiveness of certain interventions on subgroups. States can also conduct research on the determinants and impacts of cohabitation and remarriages on family well-being and long-term economic stability. Some states may want to determine the cost of providing services or making policy changes to support family formation, including the effect on the costs of providing public benefits.
 
Data collection efforts to support research strategies may require improvements in vital statistics systems within the state to expand or strengthen information that is gathered on marriage and divorce. In addition, data on both men and women will enhance the quality of research and provide valuable information on the role of men in marriage decisions and success. Data on specific intervention models could be collected through surveys and administrative systems. For more information, see Dion et al. 2003 and Fein et al. 2003.
 
How can states fund initiatives to promote marriage and family formation? States may use TANF funds to provide services to couples and to create policies that promote healthy marriages and reduce the incidence of divorce. In addition, TANF funds may be used for fatherhood initiatives aimed at promoting greater involvement by fathers in their children’s lives. Under current law, federal funds may be spent on marriage and family formation activities targeted to a broader population and are not limited to low-income families. However, state maintenance-of-effort funds are limited to programs for low-income families. TANF reauthorization proposals in the House and Senate include funds to promote marriage through research and demonstration projects, technical assistance to states, marriage education programs, and other initiatives.
 
In addition to funds available under current law and the potential for new funding streams in the reauthorization legislation, states may be able to use other federal and state funds or private monies to support activities related to family formation and marriage promotion. Other sources of federal funds for targeted initiatives include the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) for activities aimed at preserving and reuniting families; the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program for family support, parent education, and family reunification services; the Administration for Native Americans for services to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood among Native Americans; and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant (Title V) for abstinence-until-marriage programs. In addition, some marriage promotion activities may be funded under the federal Head Start program as well as through fatherhood initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Labor, and other federal agencies (see Welfare Information Network 2001). Other potential funding sources include the child support program, state children’s trust funds, state marriage license fees, and foundation grants. For more information, see Jarchow 2003.
Research Findings
 
A recent literature review documents the general consensus among researchers that children in single-family households are at greater risk for poor health, behavioral, and educational outcomes. They also are more likely than children in two-parent families to live in poverty, drop out of high school, abuse drugs or alcohol, and exhibit delinquent behavior. Conversely, children who grow up with married, biological parents are more likely to complete high school, have better health, and become economically self-sufficient as adults (Dion et al. 2003). An analysis by Fagan et al. (2002) of the relationship between unmarried parenthood and child poverty concluded that a child raised by a never-married mother is seven times more likely to live in poverty than a child raised in an intact family with biological parents. The study also found that nearly 80 percent of child poverty occurs in broken or never-formed families, and it concludes that more marriages could reduce poverty, particularly among low-income women. Child poverty could be reduced by as much as 25 percent.
 
A series of studies by The Urban Institute (2002) found that marriage significantly improves the living standards of mothers and their children. The studies also found that families with two married parents had more stable home environments, fewer years in poverty, and diminished material hardship. Specifically, poverty rates for cohabiting, unmarried parents were double those for married parents. In addition, 15 percent of married couples, compared with 30 percent to 36 percent of cohabitating and single parents, experienced material hardship, including insufficient food, poor housing, or lack of utilities. According to the studies, these findings do not indicate a causal role for marriage, but they demonstrate a strong relationship between reduced material hardship and two-parent families.
 
Analyses of the characteristics and attitudes of low-income fragile families have found that unmarried fathers are twice as likely as married fathers to have a physical or psychological problem that interferes with their ability to find and keep a job and that they are several times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol. More than 25 percent of unmarried fathers were unemployed when their child was born, compared with fewer than 10 percent of married fathers (Coontz and Folbre 2002). An examination of variables affecting family formation and stability found a positive association between a man’s employment and marriage and cohabitation. The study also found that a wage increase of one dollar per hour increases the odds of marriage by 5 percent. In contrast, neither a mother’s employment status nor her predicted wages affect family formation, though her education level has a positive impact. Finally, this analysis found that physical violence and substance abuse are significant deterrents to stable relationships (Center for Research on Child Wellbeing 2003). 
 
An analysis of key empirical studies and reviews by Fein et al. (2003) identified the major determinants of union formation, stability, and quality, particularly among disadvantaged families. The major influences include teen and nonmarital childbearing; transition to initial parenthood; cohabitation; women’s employment and earnings; men’s economic status; cultural perceptions of the importance of marriage and alternatives; gender role expectations; patterns of interpersonal behavior; social-psychological impacts on couple interaction; and economic, demographic, environmental, and sociocultural impacts on interaction.
 
Dion and Devaney (2003) completed an analysis of the components of effective initiatives to support healthy marriages among low-income families. They suggest a three-pronged approach that makes public policy changes to remove economic disincentives, provides services to strengthen a couple’s relationship skills,  and helps couples deal with personal problems and circumstances that make them less “marriageable.”
 
A review of welfare demonstrations implemented in the late 1990s finds that reforms that most directly influence welfare benefits had the greatest effect on family formation. An evaluation of Minnesota’s Family Investment Program, which tested financial work incentives and resulted in substantial increases in family income, found an increase in marriages among long-term recipients and a substantial reduction in marriage failures. Researchers hypothesized that increased family income led to decreased familial stress and conflict. An evaluation of Delaware’s A Better Chance demonstration found modest positive impacts on marital cohabitation among women below age 25 with less than 12 years of education (Fein et al. 2002). The Welfare Reform and Family Formation Project is conducting additional research that will examine the impacts of welfare reforms on marriage, childbearing, and related attitudes and behaviors. For more information, visit http://www.researchforum.org/cfm/reprot.cfm?id=343 or http://www.abtassociates.com/wrffproject.
 
Research on the effectiveness of marriage education and enrichment programs for low-income families is limited. A literature review by Fagan et al. (2002) found that numerous marriage promotion programs reduce strife, improve communication, enhance parenting skills, and increase marital stability and happiness. According to this review, the programs were effective across socioeconomic classes. Although Dion and Devaney (2003) found that many of the tested marriage education programs do not address the common stress factors facing low-income couples, they concluded that these programs can form the basis for interventions for low-income unmarried couples. Ongoing research by the Building Strong Families Evaluation is testing specific interventions to identify effective approaches that strengthen marriage and relationships skills and address personal and environmental barriers to healthy relationships. For more information, visit http://www.researchforum.org/cfm/report.cfm?id=379 or http://www.buildignstrongfamilies.info.
 
Innovative Practices
 
Several states have developed initiatives aimed at supporting marriage among TANF recipients and other low-income families. For additional program examples, see Parke and Ooms 2002 and Administration for Children and Families 2002; or visit the Welfare Information Network’s web site on Family Formation at http://www.welfareinfo.org/famformation.asp.
 
Alabama. The Alabama Family Coaches Program is a volunteer mentoring program for low-income families and for TANF recipients who are making the transition from welfare to work. The program provides a network of support through volunteers recruited from churches, civic organizations, and elsewhere. Family coaches help families set and achieve goals to strengthen relationships and achieve greater self-sufficiency. Contact Michelle McInnish, Family Guidance Center of Alabama, Inc., 334-270-4100; or visit fcp@familyguidancecenter.org.
 
Arizona. The Marriage and Communication Skills Commission oversees the state’s Healthy Marriage Initiative, which is funded with TANF funds. The commission is charged with developing and distributing a free marriage handbook and selecting community-based organizations to provide marriage and communication skills workshops for married couples or those getting married. Parents with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level may attend the workshops at no cost. Clients receive information about the Healthy Marriage Initiative at the time of enrollment in TANF, and workshop participation is counted as an allowable work activity. Contact Ben Levine, 602-542-2106 or blevine@mail.de.state.az.us.
 
Iowa. The Iowa Department of Human Services’ Marriage Initiative Grant Fund provides funds to individuals who are “authorized to solemnize a marriage,” such as judges and members of the clergy, for marriage promotion activities. Funds may be used for premarital diagnostic tools, the implementation of marriage agreements, marital counseling, and volunteer mentors. State legislation authorized the use of federal marriage promotion monies to fund the program. Contact Betsy Marmaras, Child & Family Policy Center, 515-280-9027 or marmaras@earthlink.net.
 
Louisiana. Recent amendments to the TANF state plan allow the office of family support to provide services to improve and promote family relationships, encourage marriage, and decrease the rate of divorce. Services include developing an information clearinghouse; conducting best practices research; developing a statewide network of marriage trainers and additional partners such as health care providers, faith-based organizations, and members of the judiciary; and developing handbooks, videos, curricula, and demonstration projects. Eligibility for services is limited to needy families, and services are considered nonassistance under the TANF block grant. Contact James Sanders, Office of Family Support, 225-342-4054 or jsander1@dss.state.la.us.
 
Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI) is a public-private partnership dedicated to reducing the state’s divorce rate, strengthening families, and reducing dependency on government support. The program is financed through allocations from the state’s TANF block grant. OMI has trained more than 350 employees of the state human services department  and nearly 600 community service providers, including high schools, faith-based organizations, community action agencies, corrections departments, and law enforcement agencies, to teach specialized relationship skills classes using the Prevention & Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) curriculum. In addition, OMI is training nurses in a statewide home visiting program to focus on relationships between parents and, when appropriate, refer them to relationship workshops. Contact Mary Myrick, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, 405-848-2171.
 
Utah. The Utah Department of Workforce Services, the state TANF agency, contracts with state and local government agencies and private and nonprofit agencies on several initiatives to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Educational materials and workshops have been developed for low-income families, fragile families, and engaged and newlywed couples through a contract with the Governor’s Commission on Marriage. Vouchers are provided to low-income couples for counseling, mediation, and attendance at workshops or conferences. Marriage education training and curricula are provided to religious communities, extension services, and continuing education programs. The Governor’s Commission on Marriage also maintains a web site, www.UtahMarriage.org, which is designed to provide current research-based information to individuals and couples who want to maintain and strengthen their marriage. Contact the Utah Department of Workforce Services, 801-526-9675.

Resource Contacts
 
·         Abt Associates, David Fein, 301-913-0500 or David_Fein@abtassoc.com.
·         The Brookings Institution, Isabel Sawhill, 202-797-6118.
·         Center for Law and Social Policy, Mary Parke, 202-906-8014 or mparke@clasp.org; and Theodora Ooms, 202- 906-8010 or tooms@clasp.org.
·         Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, Sara McLanahan, 609-258-5894 or mclanaha@princeton.edu; or visit www.crcw.princeton.edu.
·         Council on Contemporary Families, Stephanie Coontz, coontzs@msn.com.
·         Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan, 202-546-4400; or visit www.heritage.org.
·         Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Robin Dion, 202-484-9220.
·         National Conference of State Legislatures, Courtney Jarchow, 303-364-7700.
·         Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bill Coffin, 202-260-1550 or BCoffin@acf.hss.gov.
·         The Urban Institute, Robert Lerman, 202-833-7200; or visit www.urban.org.
 
Publication and Electronic Resources
 
Administration for Children and Families. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fourth Annual Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 2002. Available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/ar2001/indexar.htm.
 
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Union Formation and Dissolution in Fragile Families. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, January 2003. Available at
http://crcw.princeton.edu/files/briefs/ResearchBrief14.pdf.
 
Cherlin, Andrew, and Paula Fomby. A Closer Look at Changes in Children’s Living Arrangements in Low-Income Families. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 2002. Available at
http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/19837BriefLivingArrang.pdf.
 
Coontz, Stephanie, and Nancy Folbre. Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy. New York, N.Y.: Council on Contemporary Families, April 2002. Available at
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/briefing.html.
 
Dion, Robin, and Barbara Devaney. Strengthening Relationships and Supporting Healthy Marriage Among Unwed Parents. Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2003. Available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/redirect_PubsDB.asp?strSite=BSFisbr1.pdf.
 
Dion, Robin, et al. Helping Unwed Parents Build Strong and Healthy Marriages: A Conceptual Framework for Interventions. Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., January 15, 2003. Available at http://www.buildstrongfamilies.info/Publications/Framework/helpingunwed.pdf.
 
Fagan, Patrick F., et al. Marriage and Welfare Reform: The Overwhelming Evidence that Marriage Education Works. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, October 2002. Available at http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1606es.cfm.
 
Fein, David J., et al. The Determinants of Marriage and Cohabitation among Disadvantaged Americans: Research Findings and Needs. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc., March 2003. Available at http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/litrev_abt.pdf.
 
Fein, David J., et al. Welfare Reform and Family Formation: Assessing the Effects. Washington, D.C.: Abt Associates, Inc., June 2002. Available at http://www.abtassociates.com/attachments/wrffproject.pdf.
 
Gardiner, Karen N., et al. State Policies to Promote Marriage¾Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 2002. Available at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage02f/index.htm.
 
Jarchow, Courtney. Strengthening Marriage and Two-Parent Families. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures, February 2003. Available at http://www.ncsl.org.
 
Kakuska, Courtney J. National Healthy Marriage Academy. Fairfax, Va.: Caliber Associates, February 2003. Available at http://www.calib.com/peerta/policies/pdf/marriage_report.pdf.
 
Mauldon, Jane G., et al. What Do They Think? Welfare Recipients’ Attitudes Toward Marriage and Childbearing. Bethesda, Md.: Abt Associates, Inc., November 2002. Available at
http://www.abtassociates.com/attachments/wrff.rb2.pdf.
Parke, Mary, and Theodora Ooms. More Than a Dating Service?: State Activities Designed to Strengthen and Promote Marriage. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, October 2002. Available at http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1034879939.91/Marriage_Brief2.pdf.
 
The Urban Institute. Wedding Bells Ring in Stability and Economic Gains for Mothers and Children. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 5, 2002. Available at
http://www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID=7858.
 
Welfare Information Network. Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs. Washington, D.C.: Welfare Information Network, January 2001. Available at
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/fatherhoodprogramsresource.htm.
 
 
The Welfare Information Network is supported by grants form the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Ford Foundation

 

The Finance Project has a great new resource!  The Information for

Decision Making (IFDM) website is a comprehensive Internet clearinghouse designed to assist policy makers, researchers, program administrators and others interested in topics related to improving results for children, families, and communities.  The 20,000 links and 10,000 electronic resources available through IFDM are organized into 20 different easy-to-navigate information areas, including the Welfare Information Network (WIN) website, and cover a broad array of information on human service, management, and governance issues.

Visit the IFDM site at www.financeprojectinfo.org.