Advertisement

Fragile Families and the Marriage Agenda

  • Sara S. McLanahan

Abstract

The Bush Administration is proposing to spend 1.5 billion dollars over the next five years on programs to promote “healthy marriages.” The new programs are based on three assumptions: (1) that unmarried parents will participate in programs designed to promote marriage, (2) that participating in the programs will increase marriage, and (3) that children will be better off if their parents marry. This paper uses data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to assess whether these assumptions are consistent with what we know about unmarried parents and whether the new marriage programs are likely to be successful. I argue that parents are likely to participate if services are provided around the time of the birth, that improving parents’ relationship skills is likely to increase marriage, and that we can be guardedly optimistic about the effects on children.

Key words

marriage non-marital fertility parental relationships child well-being social policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, G. 2002, Children’s experience of family disruption and family formation: Evidence from 16 FFS Countries, Demographic Research 7:343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, S. L. 2000, Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations, Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:833–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Building Strong Families Project. Conducted by Mathematica Policy Research under contract to Administration for Children and Families and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Website: www.buildingstrongfamilies.info.Google Scholar
  4. Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., and Cherlin, A. J., 1991, The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage, Journal of Marriage and Family 53:913–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowan, P. A., Powell, D., and Cowan, C. P. 1998, Parenting interventions: A family systems perspective, in: Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 5, W. Damon, ed., J. Wiley, New York, pp. 3–72.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G., and Brooks-Gunn, J. 1997, Consequences of Growing up Poor, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, I., and McLanahan, S. S. 2003, Strengthening fragile families, in: One Percent for the Kids: New Policies, Brighter Futures for America’s Children, I. Sawhill, ed., Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 76–92.Google Scholar
  8. Horn, Wade. 2003, Mission Statement for Administration for Children and Families Initiative, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/region5/htm_pages/healthy_marriage.htm.Google Scholar
  9. McLanahan, S. S., and Carlson, M. 2001, Poverty and gender in highly industrialized nations, in: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, N. Smelser, and P. Baltes, eds., Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 11894–11900.Google Scholar
  10. McLanahan, S. S., and Sandefur, G. 1994. Growing up with a Single Parent, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. McLanahan, S. S., and Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N., and Teitler, J. 2001, Unwed parents or fragile families?, in: Out of Wedlock: Trends, Causes, and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, L. L. Wu and B. Wolfe, eds., Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 202–228.Google Scholar
  12. Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., and Markman, H. J. 1999, Helping couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach, in: Preventive Approaches in Couples’ Therapy, Berger and Hannah, eds., Brunner/Mazel, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 279–393.Google Scholar
  13. Waite, L. J. 1995, Does marriage matter?, Demography 32:483–507.Google Scholar
  14. Waite, L. J., and Gallagher, M. 2000, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially, Broadway Books, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara S. McLanahan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Internatioinal AffairsPrinceton UniversityPrinceton

Personalised recommendations