A Proposed Model for State Policy Initiatives to Strengthen Marriage

As a new administration is beginning to take the reins of federal power, there is a lot of buzz from more conservative elements about a pro-family policy agenda. Much of this buzz focuses on policies such as more generous child tax credits. In a post-Dobbs society, some conservative pro-life advocates are calling for a new vision of family policy that is as much pro-child and pro-parenting as it is pro-life, better supporting the choice to have and rear children. Some even optimistically argue that much of this agenda could bring conservatives and progressives together. Pro-business conservatives are even leading the way on regulating social media to make parental monitoring and control of their children’s social media consumption easier. 

In many ways, I’m intrigued with the potential debate over the next few years about good public policy to better support families. Yet it’s hard to be optimistic about enacting a stronger federal pro-family policy agenda in today’s divided and contentious national political climate. Instead, I’m more optimistic about the feasibility of pro-family policy initiatives at the state level. Sometimes, I think we have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution empowered the states to deal with domestic law and policy. And I think that a 50-state laboratory can be a more effective way to learn what works best. Of course, there is the fiscal challenge of sustaining a new policy initiative. But here most states have a big advantage because they are not breaking under the weight of out-of-control federal budget deficits. 

I’m excited about what could be done at the state level to strengthen families. But even at the state level, I worry that progressives and conservatives alike will lose focus on a crucial pillar of a pro-family policy agenda: helping couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Without increasing the number of couples who form and sustain a stable, healthy, two-parent family, all other pro-family policy efforts climb a much steeper—and costlier—hill. So, as we debate moving forward with a pro-family agenda, let’s not forget the key role that states can play—and, please, let’s not forget marriage. 

What can be done at the state level to help couples form and sustain healthy unions? There are many skeptics on both the left and right who wonder whether policy can or should play a key role here. I understand the skepticism, but I don’t share it. Neither do the leaders of the National Alliance for Relationship and Marriage Education (NARME), who have been discussing this challenge for several years. Many NARME members are running community-based educational programs to help individuals and couples, especially lower-income couples, gain the knowledge and skills needed to form and sustain healthy relationships and stronger marriages. (And many are also running co-parenting and fatherhood education programs, as well.) These relationship education programs have been supported by federal funding for nearly 20 years ($75-100 million a year). But in an era of massive federal budget deficits, NARME leaders and program administrators worry about the future sustainability of these funds (not to mention the political ping-pong problem of successive administrations pulling the initiative now more to the right and now more to the left to match their ideological perspectives). 

These NARME leadership discussions over the past few years have now resulted in a document proposing a state model for legislation and policy to strengthen marriages and families. (Click here to read the full, 1,000-word model.) In short, it calls on states to fund voluntary, high-quality educational resources to help individuals and couples form and sustain healthy relationships and stronger marriages. This includes: (a) relationship literacy education for youth and young adults (including teaching the “success sequence” in public schools); premarital education for engaged or seriously dating couples planning to marry or remarry (and discounted marriage licenses for couples who participate in premarital education); and (c) relationship enhancement programs for married and remarried couples who want to work to make their relationships stronger to reduce their risks of divorce. These kinds of educational programs have been extensively evaluated and are showing small-to-modest success in improving relationship quality and personal well-being. 

States need to lead direct efforts to better support families, not wait for potential federal initiatives. And strengthening marriages should be the foundation of these state policy efforts. 

The NARME model also calls for better educational and therapeutic support for couples in crisis to avoid the necessity of divorce, including tax breaks or other financial incentives for reducing the barriers to good marital counseling. Acknowledging that not all marriages can and should survive (or even form), the model also calls for supporting co-parenting and fatherhood education to minimize the risks of family instability for children.

In addition, the model calls for state legislatures to empower a task force to identify state laws and public policies that may penalize marriage. The choice to marry can be a costly one these days, especially for lower-income couples, and this may be contributing to the decline in the U.S. marriage rate, as well as growing marital pessimism among young adults. Wisely, the NARME model also calls for funding a state commission or office to provide strategic leadership to curate and develop educational resources and manage the day-to-day implementation of these policy initiatives. Without clear leadership, policy initiatives lose focus and energy and ultimately fail. 

The NARME model recommends that states target total funding levels at $1 per resident per year. How would states fund this initiative? The proposed model suggests a highly feasible combination of setting aside a portion of marriage license fees to support this work and allocating 1% of federal TANF block-grant funds that come to states. TANF block grant funds are legislatively scripted to support these kinds of programs, but few states are using them this way. (Click here to read a report detailing how less than 0.5% of TANF funds are used to support these kinds of programs, and states have an annual average of $125 million in unallocated reserve TANF funds.) Of course, private donations could also be solicited from generous philanthropists who value this kind of work. 

Can the model proposed by NARME leadership work? Much of this proposal is already being pilot tested in Utah, and a couple of other states are moving in this direction. As manager of the Utah Marriage Commission, I confess that I’m biased, but I think we are showing that an in-statute commission can effectively and efficiently marshal resources to strengthen the institution of marriage. And it helps that Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, has taken a high-profile position on the importance of strong marriages to a strong society and that he publicly supports Utah’s marriage initiative. It’s still a little early for a rigorous test of its effects, but I’m confident that eventually we will show that the investment of these modest public dollars is yielding a significant bang for the buck in terms of healthier relationships, less domestic violence, higher marriage and remarriage rates, lower divorce rates, less loneliness, improved mental health, and stronger communities. With such successes comes less need for state (and federal) government intervention in personal lives, less demand for public assistance programs, and more productive and happier citizens.

I hope that we can move forward at the federal level with some effective family policies. And I think that federal policymakers could do a much better job of motivating states to enact programs to help couples form and sustain healthy relationships and stronger marriages. Of course, a focus on strengthening marriage is only one part of a more comprehensive, effective family policy agenda, albeit a crucial part. Plus, some of the best family-strengthening initiatives are state and national economic and social policies that help create good paying jobs, affordable housing, and other elements that nurture more fertile soil for healthy marriages to take root and grow. But states should not sit this one out. They need to lead direct efforts to better support families, not wait for potential federal initiatives. And strengthening marriages should be the foundation of these state policy efforts. 

Alan J. Hawkins is an emeritus professor of family life at Brigham Young University, Manager of the Utah Marriage Commission, and current Vice-chair of the National Alliance for Relationship and Marriage Education. The views expressed here are his own.