Marriage Education: what do we know? What should we do about it?
By Harry Benson
Other successful approaches
Two other community-oriented approaches appear to have reduced divorce rates (17).
"Community Marriage Policies”.
Community Marriage Policies represent a public statement in support of marriage by clergy in a city. Over 160 cities in the US have now signed such policies.
A typical policy consists of several statements of intent such as: the offer of marriage education to every couple getting married; training of ordinary married couples as “mentors” to these engaged couples; and provision of appropriate ongoing education and support for married couples, those in distress, and those in stepfamilies.
Of these, 29 cities publish divorce data against which the success of such policies can be evaluated. Although these figures have not yet been independently checked, the median reduction in divorce following a CMP signing appears to be 10% over 2 years (18). The size of this reduction suggests that the CMP signing has an effect across the non-church population.
Two cities present especially striking figures. Modesto in California was the first city to sign a CMP in 1986. Since then divorce rates have fallen 56%, marriage rates have risen 12%. These data stand in stark contrast to US national figures. Given these changes in family structure, other social factors associated with family structure should also have improved in Modesto. Sure enough, school truancy rates are down 20% and teenage pregnancies are down 30%.
Kansas City comes close to providing a control study. Since the 1995 CMP signing in “Kansas City, Kansas”, divorce rates have now fallen 46%. Across the river in “Kansas City, Missouri”, there is no CMP and no accompanying media publicity. Divorce rates there are just 6% lower.
“Marriage Savers”
A related project in US churches called “Marriage Savers” may have had even more dramatic effect on divorce rates. Marriage Savers churches agree to promote the benefits of marriage, and offer regular education and support to all couples. Support most often comes through the idea of couple to couple “mentoring” – where those with more experience of marriage spend time with those with less experience. Some couples also use mutual support groups like Marriage Encounter.
Both big and small church communities are experiencing unusually low divorce rates using this approach. For example, a church in Washington has prepared 300 couples for marriage over 10 years. Of these couples, only 6 have since divorced, an 80% reduction compared to forecast 45 divorces, based on national data(19).
Although there is no particular reason to doubt the veracity of the above figures, neither policy has yet been independently evaluated or compared using controls.
Hard evidence of fewer divorces
There are now compelling indicators that suggest three ways in which divorce rates have been reduced substantially.
- “FOCCUS” and “PREPARE” inventories used as pre-marriage courses appear to filter out some 10-15% of couples at high risk before they even get to sign the marriage register. This could represent the majority of couples at risk of divorce in the first five years of marriage. It may also account for much of the success of Marriage Savers in reducing divorces in church populations.
- One particular skills course, PREP, reduces divorce risk substantially over 5 years. One study found 3% of PREP couples divorced compared to 16% of non-PREP couples within a 5-year period. Another study found divorce rates of 1.5% and 10.3% respectively. Both these studies demonstrate an 80% reduction in divorce risk within the first five years of marriage (20).
- Publicly-stated “Community Marriage Policies” in both cities and churches appear to change the prevailing culture in ways that reduce divorce rates.
It needs to be acknowledged again here that courses focusing mostly on awareness raising, communication or empathy undoubtedly do improve “marital satisfaction”. However there is no evidence to date that such courses – on their own – have any effect on “marital stability”.