Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

In the early 2000s, federal policymakers began focusing on strengthening marriage and parental relationships to help foster child well-being. As part of the Healthy Mar­riage and Responsible Fatherhood program, 125 healthy marriage (HM) grantees re­ceived federal funding in 2005 and, in 2011, 60 organizations received grants. In both rounds, grantees were to offer one or more of eight “allowable activities” defined in the legislation, such as marriage and relationship skills education, which could include topics on parenting and financial management. The allowable activities in the legislation authorizing the HM grants in 2005 only permitted grantees to offer job and career advancement services to non-married expectant couples. Recognizing that many HM participants were struggling with employment-related needs, eligibility for job and career advancement services was expanded in the 2010 program re-authorization, such that 2011 grantees electing marriage and relationship skills education could also offer these services to any participant.

This presentation will describe how two HM grantees (El Paso Center for Children (EPCC) and University Behavioral Associates (UBA)) offered relationship-focused and job and career advancement services to married and unmarried couples. The research is part of the Parents and Children Together Evaluation (PACT), a multicomponent evaluation of select grantees funded in 2011. 

On average, couples in both programs participated in just over 18 hours of services in their first six months after enrollment, mostly by attending relationship skills education workshops. Couples reported enrolling in these HM programs primarily to improve their roman­tic relationships, and participated in the relationship skills education workshops at a moderately high level, particularly at EPCC. Combined across programs, 85 percent of couples attended at least one workshop session, and about 65 percent attended half or more of the sessions. Strong participation may have resulted from restricting eligibility to couples who reported being in a committed relationship, serving married and unmarried couples in the same workshops, or programmatic efforts to promote attendance. 

Some couples also faced economic instability, a challenge the programs attempted to address through targeted services. Participation in services to address economic stability was low. UBA participants spent more time on this content than did participants at EPCC, which reflected UBA providing economic stability information within the relationship skills education workshop and through separate employment services. At UBA, just under one-fifth of the time couples spent in program activities—about 3.3 hours—was focused on economic issues.  Although the services offered at both programs were of relatively low intensity, more participants at UBA needed jobs and were more likely to attend the job and career services, compared with those at EPCC. The vast majority of couples at EPCC had at least one partner who was employed, which might have limited their interest in those services.