- read the article posted below. This is a policy analysis that perfectly reflects one of the central ideas of this course – that is, policy (and the programs that policy creates) MUST help people with their basic functioning in order to be successful. This article also demonstrates how research, programming for families, and policy all fit hand-in-hand. In order for policy to be effective, it must reflect current research AND be directly applicable to the needs in peoples’ lives. With that in mind, please answer the questions below.
- What were the three main findings of the research study?
- How was relationship-building instrumental in the findings?
- What were the conclusions and recommendations of the study?
poverty policy
PARTNERING AND PARENTING IN POVERTY: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
OF A RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME, UNMARRIED FAMILIES
Jennifer M. Randles
Abstract
Since the mid-1990s, the federal government has funded numerous relationship skills
programs, including some specifically targeting low-income, unmarried parents, in an
effort to strengthen couples’ relationships and increase family stability. The previous
research on the effectiveness of these interventions has revealed mixed results about
whether such programs can improve the relationships of lower income couples who
tend to experience lower relationship quality, lower marriage rates, and higher rates
of relationship dissolution. This article draws on in-depth qualitative data collected
during an 18-month ethnographic study of one federally funded relationship skills
program for unmarried, low-income couples expecting a new baby. Overall, though
parents found the financial management lessons included in the classes only mini-
mally useful, if at all, they found other aspects of the program particularly useful for
three main reasons: (1) classes allowed parents to focus exclusively on their couple
relationships in ways they rarely did otherwise; (2) program incentives helped parents
make financial ends meet that month; and (3) parents learned that the challenges they
personally experienced were often endemic to the romantic and co-parenting relation-
ships of unmarried parents who have few resources and experience more challenges
that tend to undermine relationship quality, such as financial stress and relational
ambiguity. Engaging with other couples around shared challenges normalized cou-
ples’ relationship problems and lessened the resentment and animosity that typically
characterized their partner interactions. These findings have important implications
for healthy marriage and relationship policy. Program developers should avoid lessons
that imply low-income, unmarried parents’ spending habits and family-formation de-
cisions are deficient. Interventions should instead encourage couples to discuss their
shared challenges and minimize their tendency to individualize relational and financial
strain. C© 2014 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
INTRODUCTION
When Congress overhauled federal welfare policy in 1996 through the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), policymakers
included provisions to encourage marriage and two-parent families to enhance the
economic and social well-being of American children. In the service of this goal, the
federal Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) launched the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) in 2002. The HMI has since
served as a clearing house for information about healthy relationships and marriages
and distributed federal grants for government-supported relationship and marriage
education programs. The main goal of the HMI is to help individuals and couples
learn how to create and maintain healthy, high-quality interpersonal relationships
as a way to promote family stability. State and community-based organizations
apply directly to the ACF for grants that support the creation and administration of
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, 385–412 (2014)
C© 2014 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pam
DOI:10.1002/pam.21742
386 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
educational programs for the general public and specific target audiences such as
engaged couples, high school students, and low-income, unmarried parents.
Research consistently finds that couples from low socioeconomic backgrounds
tend to experience lower relationship quality and less relationship stability (Conger,
Conger, & Martin, 2010). Policymakers and academics often refer to these cou-
ples as fragile families given their greater economic and relational instability. Many
low-income, unmarried couples who share children value and aspire to marriage,
but various social and economic factors, including unmet standards of relation-
ship quality and financial stability, operate as barriers to fulfilling these aspirations
(Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004; Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Edin, Kefalas, &
Reed, 2004; Edin & Reed, 2005; Gibson-Davis, 2007; Trail & Karney, 2012). In ad-
dition to financial concerns such as lack of money and stable, well-paying employ-
ment, low-income couples disproportionately face many noneconomic challenges
that tend to undermine their ability to create and sustain high-quality relationships
that most likely lead to marriage and greater stability for children. These challenges
include trust, domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, mental illness, and on-
going conflict with previous partners with whom the parents share other children
(Carlson & Furstenberg, 2006; Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004; Hill, 2007).
Because economically disadvantaged couples who share children are more likely
to break up and less likely to marry than their more affluent counterparts (England &
Edin, 2007), many policies that have focused on strengthening family relationships,
including the PRWORA and the HMI, have included specific provisions targeting
low-income, unmarried parents. The impetus behind devoting public funding to re-
lationship education programs specifically targeting disadvantaged families is that
strengthening couple relationships could likely promote the numerous positive ben-
efits for children and adults that are associated with relational stability, especially
stable care and consistent economic support for children from both parents.
In the almost two decades since the passage of the PRWORA, policymakers, pro-
gram developers, and scholars have been particularly concerned about which types
of relationship interventions can best support low-income families as they confront
these challenges and strive to create healthier relationships, realize their aspirations
for marriage when that is a personal goal, and create more stable social and eco-
nomic home environments for children. The present study qualitatively investigates
one exemplary community-based, federally funded relationship skills program for
low-income, unmarried parents, pseudonymously referred to hereafter as Thriving
Families. The goal of the research was to generate an in-depth understanding of
how participating parents viewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the program.
Overall, parents found many components of the program useful—especially group
discussions of relationship challenges—while they felt that other lessons, namely
those about how to manage money, were only minimally useful, if at all. This qual-
itative perspective has important policy implications for accomplishing the family-
formation goals of both welfare reform and disadvantaged families.
BACKGROUND AND RELATED LITERATURE
Numerous meta-analytic reviews have found strong empirical evidence that rela-
tionship and marriage education programs can improve relationship satisfaction
and communication for romantically involved couples (Blanchard et al., 2009;
Butler & Wampler, 1999; Carroll & Doherty, 2003; Cowan, Cowan, & Knox, 2010;
Dion, 2005; Fagan, Paterson, & Rector, 2002; Guerney & Maxson, 1990; Hawkins
et al., 2008; Reardon-Anderson et al., 2005). Much of the prior evaluation research
that has tested the effectiveness of relationship and marriage education has focused
largely on programs that primarily served white, middle-class, well-educated couples
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 387
who were already married or planning to marry in the near future (Cowan, Cowan,
& Knox, 2010; Dion, 2005; Johnson, 2012; Ooms, 2007). Most of what empirical
research has shown about the effectiveness of relationship skills programs—and
hence much of the evidence used to make a case for continued government support
for them (Fagan, Paterson, & Rector, 2002)—has been based on the experiences and
outcomes of a social group that was significantly more socially and economically
advantaged than parents who are most likely to be living in poverty and in need
of welfare (Teitler, Reichman, & Nepomnyaschy, 2007). Moreover, by their very
nature as premarital and marital enrichment classes, the programs evaluated in
these studies targeted couples who had already decided to marry. Therefore, those
who comprised the samples for these studies were select groups of couples who
demonstrated an already high level of commitment to their romantic relationships
via marriage.
The focus of most relationship and marriage education programs has been rela-
tionship skills training (Hawkins et al., 2004), including those funded through the
HMI and state healthy relationship and marriage initiatives (Brotherson & Duncan,
2004). Guided by the premise that the communication and conflict resolution skills
taught in existing programs were universally applicable and effective in strengthen-
ing interpersonal relationships—while at the same time recognizing the unique re-
lationship challenges of low-income individuals, couples, and families—curriculum
developers designed several relationship skills education programs specifically for
low-income participants. Some of these newer targeted curricula have been used in
large-scale, government-funded evaluations studies, including the HMI Supporting
Healthy Marriages and Building Strong Families demonstration projects for low-
income, married couples and low-income, unmarried couples expecting a new baby,
respectively. These curricula tend to use more roleplay, discussion, and couples ex-
ercises in lieu of lecture-style teaching, include culturally relevant examples for
African American and Hispanic populations, and specifically address relationship
issues that are especially challenging for low-income couples, such as multiple-
partner fertility, how to create and sustain trust, fidelity, abuse, father involvement,
positive role models for marriage, and goal setting (Dion, 2005; Ooms, 2007). Un-
like most curricula intended for a general audience that focus almost exclusively on
communication and conflict resolution skills, financial literacy lessons on how to
cooperatively manage money, set financial goals, and budget also play a central role
in these targeted curricula for low-income couples.
Some of the research on programs that target low-income couples reveals positive
results. Hawkins and Fackrell’s (2010) meta-analysis of 15 relationship education
programs for low-income couples found that, overall, the programs produced small
to moderate improvements in communication and relationship quality. Kirkland
et al.’s (2011) experimental study of a relationship education program primarily
targeting rural African-American parents found that those who participated in a
six-week study of a program focusing on couple and co-parenting dynamics re-
ported positive effects on prosocial behaviors in children and fewer co-parenting
disagreements. In addition to the results from skills-based programs, government-
supported therapeutic interventions to strengthen couple and family relationships,
such as the Supporting Fatherhood Involvement program that included low-income,
unmarried couples, showed significant positive outcomes in terms of child support,
father involvement, parent–child relationship quality, and couple relationship qual-
ity (Cowan et al., 2009; Cowan, Cowan, & Knox, 2010).
Evaluations of relationship skills programs specifically for married, low-income
couples have also found positive results. Einhorn et al.’s (2008) evaluation of rela-
tionship education for a racially and ethnically diverse population of both unmar-
ried and married prison inmates found that participants showed substantial gains
in relationship satisfaction, dedication, and confidence, as well as communication
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
388 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
skills, friendship, and fewer negative interactions with partners. Another relation-
ship skills program for married military couples evaluated by Stanley et al. (2010)
found that couples who participated in 14 hours of relationship skills education had
a significantly lower risk of divorce than the control group after one year. One of the
three major government-sponsored healthy marriage evaluations projects, Support-
ing Healthy Marriage, targeted low-income, married couples and also found small
positive effects on relationship outcomes, including levels of marital happiness, pos-
itive communication, and warmth and support. However, the program did not affect
whether couples stayed together at the one-year follow-up (Hsueh et al., 2012).
Other evaluation studies have not found that relationship and marriage educa-
tion programs for low-income populations have had the intended outcomes. In
2012, the Building Strong Families (BSF) Project, another one of the three ma-
jor, multisite healthy marriage evaluation projects funded and coordinated by the
federal government, released the final findings from eight relationship skills edu-
cation programs for low-income, unmarried parents. Building Strong Families had
two main components, relationship skills education and family support services,
including services aimed at improving parenting skills and addressing employment,
physical and mental health, and substance abuse. When averaged across all eight
programs distributed throughout the country, the experimental groups that took 30
to 42 hours of group relationship skills classes were not more likely to stay together,
marry, or report having higher relationship quality than control groups (Wood, Mc-
Connell et al., 2012; Wood, Moore et al., 2012). However, the BSF program based in
Oklahoma City did show significant positive results in terms of relationship quality
and stability after 15 months and relationship stability after 36 months. All eight
sites showed positive outcomes for African Americans at the 15-month follow-up,
though not after 36 months. Moreover, in what is called an intention to treat strategy,
all participants in the experimental group, even the 45 percent who did not attend a
single group meeting, were included in the analysis. Therefore, the positive benefits
of these programs were likely underestimated because the overall outcome results
referred to the intervention effects for both the 55 percent of those who did attend
in addition to the nonattenders (Cowan, Cowan, & Knox, 2010).
As public funding for relationship skills programs comes up for Congressional
renewal in the future, large-scale evaluation studies such as Building Strong Fami-
lies are useful for identifying outcomes as defined by predetermined program and
policy goals. Yet, in-depth, smaller scale studies that focus on participant perspec-
tives are also necessary to identify and understand the mechanisms by which these
types of programs succeed or fail to accomplish those goals. Inductive ethnographic
research is particularly well suited for questioning and comprehending how par-
ticipants themselves define program success. For these reasons, the questions of
how and why low-income, unmarried parents benefit (or not) from government-
supported relationship skills programs lend themselves to qualitative methodolo-
gies. Qualitative research, especially of the kind that combines observational and
in-depth interviewing techniques, is particularly well suited for understanding how
program participants engage with and interpret program messages based on their
lived experiences (Edin, 2003). To fully understand how policy operates at the point
of delivery, we need more richly detailed descriptions of how policy is translated
into actual practice vis-à-vis the actions of those on the frontline who implement
policy (Brodkin, 2003).
Sparks (2008) provided one such in-depth qualitative study of a relationship
awareness and communication skills program for low-income, single parents in
Oklahoma that was a part of an orientation for new Temporary Assistance to Needy
Family (TANF) or welfare clients. Sparks found that the curriculum used by the state
aligned well with interviewees’ relationship histories and current challenges. Many
of her respondents reported using the skills several months after completing the
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 389
session, leading her to conclude that clients were receptive to relationship educa-
tion and could likely benefit from it. Conversely, Heath (2012, p. 106), who studied
the same mandatory skills programs for TANF clients in Oklahoma, found that
single mother TANF recipients were largely unreceptive to class messages because
of the program’s “focus on marriage and lack of attention paid to clients’ circum-
stances and needs” and the instructors’ middle-class perspective. The mothers did
however feel that some of the information they received about relationships and
communication was useful, though they resented that attendance was a mandatory
condition of receiving aid.
In the first qualitative study of relationship and marriage education for high school
students, many of whom were economically disadvantaged, Halpern-Meekin’s qual-
itative findings (2012) closely paralleled the quantitative results revealed in her
previous companion study (Halpern-Meekin, 2011) of the same sample popula-
tions. Students at half of the six schools Halpern-Meekin studied showed positive
gains in terms of relationship skills, while students at the other three—including the
two most socioeconomically disadvantaged schools in the study—did not. Halpern-
Meekin concluded that students were receptive to these courses and could learn
valuable information about relationships from them.
Given the potential usefulness of relationship interventions for supporting satisfy-
ing relationships for adults and greater family stability for children, many scholars
have made calls for further research in this area. Huston and Melz (2004) argued
that social scientists should focus on conducting rigorous research that can critically
evaluate what kinds of relationship support programs and policies can help disad-
vantaged families and society the most. McHale, Waller, and Pearson (2012) stressed
the importance of studying interventions that support cooperative co-parenting ar-
rangements regardless of the parents’ relationship status. Johnson (2012, 2013)
noted that much of the existing research on relationship dynamics and interven-
tions has not adequately studied poor couples and couples of color, and does not yet
justify public expenditures diverted from welfare funds on government-supported
marriage initiatives. He therefore has advocated for additional research that focuses
on identifying how best to address the relationship stressors disadvantaged couples
face. Responding directly to Johnson, Hawkins et al. (2013) argued that the exist-
ing research on interventions targeting low-income and minority couples, especially
positive results from the Building Strong Families (Wood et al., 2010), Supporting
Healthy Marriage (Hsueh et al., 2012), and Supporting Fatherhood Involvement
(Cowan et al., 2009) evaluations, are sufficient cause for optimism and justification
for continued support from the government. This exchange between Johnson and
Hawkins et al. ultimately points to the need for more research on interventions
targeting disadvantaged couples that focuses specifically on how existing programs
can be tailored to address their unique needs, challenges, and relational dynamics.
I seek to contribute to this important area of research by drawing on data I col-
lected during an 18-month participant observation study of the Thriving Families
program. This program was funded directly by the federal government through a
HMI grant and targeted the same population as the Building Strong Families eval-
uation, but was not previously studied as one of the eight Building Strong Families
research sites. Previous research has explored the challenges of providing relation-
ship education to low-income individuals and couples from the perspectives of those
who implement and coordinate healthy relationship programs. These challenges
include recruitment, finding effective ways to address the unique relationship stres-
sors of low-income populations, and establishing community partnerships (Ooms
& Wilson, 2004; Vaterlaus et al., 2012). By highlighting participants’ perspectives
about the usefulness of the Thriving Families program, I hope this analysis will
complement the large random-assignment studies funded by the HMI. Collectively,
they can help ascertain which kinds of relationship interventions best support the
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
390 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
family-formation goals and relationship quality and stability of low-income, unmar-
ried families.
This study shows that, overall, Thriving Families couples found the classes useful,
especially the communication skills training that was central to the program and
healthy relationship and marriage interventions generally. However, parents found
the financial management techniques included in the training only minimally use-
ful given how little money they had to manage. What parents found most helpful
was that the classes offered them a rare opportunity to communicate free of the
material constraints that overwhelmingly characterized their daily lives, such as
lack of time and space necessary to focus on their partners. Classes also provided a
unique collective forum for discussion, allowing parents to interpret much of their
emotional stress and, in many cases, their unfulfilled hopes for marriage, as the
result of trying to sustain romantic relationships amid significant economic chal-
lenges. Meeting in groups with other couples who shared similar socioeconomic
and family circumstances enabled parents to understand that many of the chal-
lenges they faced were not simply the result of personal shortcomings, but rather
part of the inherent difficulties that many parents trying to raise a family in poverty
encounter.
In what follows, I describe the Thriving Families program, the parents who partic-
ipated in it, my role in the field, and my data collection and analysis methods. Next, I
describe in greater detail how and why parents found some elements of the program
useful and not others. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of the implications of
these findings for policies and programs that seek to strengthen relationships and
increase relationship quality and stability among low-income families.
THRIVING FAMILIES
According to the Thriving Families program’s mission statement, its principle goal
was to remove barriers to marriage and strengthen the formation of healthy families:
Participants will build the skills necessary for family formation, such as: decisionmaking,
financial management, attending to relationship quality, father involvement, career or
job development, co-parenting, and marriage readiness.
It used the Together We Can: Creating a Healthy Future for Our Family curricu-
lum specifically designed to improve the co-parenting relationships of unmarried
parents. Developers at the Michigan State University Extension received a Special
Improvement Project Grant from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services to implement and evalu-
ate the curriculum. It focused on five major relationship issues that are particularly
germane to low-income, unmarried couples: (1) positive co-parenting relationships,
(2) stress and conflict management strategies, (3) ongoing involvement of both par-
ents, (4) money management and child-support payment, and (5) healthy decisions
about romantic and couple relationships. A pilot study of the program found that the
experimental group experienced higher levels of trust and relationship satisfaction,
improvements in decisionmaking and problem solving, lower levels of relationship
aggression, and improvements in understanding the connections between parenting
and couple relationships (Adler-Baeder et al., 2004).
The federal government designated the site as an exemplary healthy relation-
ship program. Unlike many other relationship skills and marriage education pro-
grams funded by general grants for healthy marriage community organizations, the
community-based organization that coordinated Thriving Families received a HMI
grant from the Department of Health and Human Services specifically to create the
program. They received an award for $500,000 per year for five years beginning
in 2006 to implement a relationship skills program targeting unmarried couples
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 391
around the time of the arrival of a new child. For this reason, the program was
subject to more direct federal oversight of the use of funding. During the 18 months
I spent studying the program, the federal government selected Thriving Families as
one of three programs nationwide to provide technical assistance to other programs
within the same grant area of relationship skills classes for low-income, unmarried
couples with children. The Office of Family Assistance also selected the program as
one of the top 25 “best practices” programs in the country.
The Thriving Families program was based in a midsize West Coast city of ap-
proximately 500,000 residents. Most parents who participated in Thriving Families
qualified as poor according to federal poverty line standards, were racial or ethnic
minorities, and had little formal education. Eighty-four percent of those who en-
rolled in the program were on some form of public assistance, such as food stamps
or TANF. Over half, 53 percent, reported combined household incomes of less than
$1,000 per month, while only 13 percent had household incomes of at least $2,000,
and fewer than 3 percent of participants lived in households that collectively brought
in $3,000 per month or more. Most of the parents had more than one child, and
many lived with their own parents and partners. Since a three-person household
was considered to be living in poverty if they made less than $17,600 in 2008 (De-
partment of Health and Human Services, Poverty Guidelines, 2008), these figures
indicated that most participants in Thriving Families classes lived well below the
poverty line. Half of all participants had only a high school diploma or General
Equivalency Diploma when they enrolled in the classes. Less than 20 percent had
some postsecondary education, while one-third of participants had not graduated
from high school or obtained a General Equivalency Diploma at the time of en-
rollment. Thriving Families classes were also very racially and ethnically diverse:
40 percent of participants identified as Latino/a; 24 percent as African American;
22 percent as white; 3 percent as Asian or Pacific Islander; 2 percent as Native
American, and 9 percent as multiracial or other. Almost all of the program partic-
ipants were recruited through their doctors’ offices, local pregnancy support cen-
ters, or informational recruitment sessions offered as part of local Women, Infant,
Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program offices for low-income, expectant
mothers.
METHOD
Between March 2008 and August 2009, I completed 150 hours of participant obser-
vation in Thriving Families classes; three small focus groups with eight total Thriving
Families couples (two with two couples each, and a third group with four couples);
in-depth interviews with 45 parents who graduated from the program (22 fathers
and 23 mothers, including 21 couples); and in-depth interviews with 15 Thriving
Families staff, nine of whom were instructors. The six staff interviewees included
the organization’s founder and executive director, the director of educational ser-
vices, the program coordinator, and three program recruiters. I also observed several
informational recruitment sessions for the Thriving Families program held at a lo-
cal social services office. Finally, I conducted participant observation in a two-hour
training session for the Together We Can curriculum offered at a national marriage
educator conference.
At the beginning of each class, instructors introduced me as a graduate student
doing research on relationship education classes. Unlike everyone else, I did not
attend classes with a partner, nor did I participate in couples’ exercises. I did have
my own workbook for each class and often filled out the same worksheets instruc-
tors asked participants to complete. These notebooks also allowed me to discreetly
take extensive field notes during the lessons and breakout exercises. Though I was
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
392 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
overt about my role as a researcher, parents and instructors easily and completely
incorporated me into the classes, and I participated as fully as I could in the classes
when activities and life experiences reasonably allowed. During breaks, I ate with
participants, chatted with instructors and recruiters, played with older children,
and held newborns so parents could have both hands free to eat. This gave me an
opportunity to observe participants, instructors, and staff during classes, as well as
interact with them more informally.
I discretely took field notes during each observation period using three techniques
that were, respectively, most appropriate for the three kinds of ethnographic data I
sought in the classes. For class lessons, as participants filled out worksheets, I jotted
shorthand field notes in my own workbook, which was particularly effective given
that my notes about how instructors taught particular lessons and how participants
responded corresponded to the worksheet information about that particular class
lesson. During breakout sessions and meals, I used a small notebook to record
jottings during trips to the restroom and unused classrooms in the community
centers where classes were located. Finally, as the field site was approximately 80
miles from my residence, I used the return trip home to record verbal field notes
into a handheld audio recorder. Within 24 hours of each observation period, I typed
more detailed field notes based on these jottings and recordings.
After observing six months of classes an average of four hours per week, I be-
gan recruitment for the interviews. I obtained parents’ contact information from
program staff, as parents had signed a permission form to be contacted after the
end of the class series for research purposes. On a rolling basis, I contacted the full
list of parents who had taken the English classes and graduated from the program
between September of 2008 and June of 2009, which was a total of 88 couples. My
response rate was 27 percent if you include the three individuals whom I did not
interview as members of a couple. The completion rate for parents who enrolled in
the classes during this time period was approximately 50 percent. I chose to inter-
view those who had completed all 14 hours of class time required for graduation
so that respondents would be able to reflect on the full course series. According to
an independent program evaluation, the two main reasons parents offered for not
completing the program once enrolled were the birth of a baby and work conflicts.
Narrowing my sample to only those who graduated likely meant that I interviewed
participants who had an overall greater positive assessment of the program. I aimed
to interview parents approximately six to eight weeks after they attended their last
class. I chose this length of time to strike a balance between giving them enough
time to incorporate the information into their daily lives, while not letting so much
time elapse since they finished the program that they would likely forget their expe-
riences. Those I observed in classes overlapped to some degree with my interview
sample. As the program offered several class series simultaneously, I had observed
14 of the 45 parents in classes prior to the interviews.
The 45 parents (21 couples and three individuals) I interviewed ranged in age
from 17 to 57, though most were in their 20s or 30s, and the average age in my
sample was 27 years old. Nineteen respondents (42 percent) were African American,
eight were Latino/a (18 percent), 17 were white (38 percent), and one (2 percent)
was Asian American. At the time of the interviews, 40 of the parents were still
romantically involved with the partners with whom they had taken the classes. Two
were separated but planning to co-parent after their birth of their daughter, while
another two—one man and one woman—had broken up with their partners and
agreed to speak with me as individuals. One was still involved with her fiancé, but
he was not available to participate in an interview with me. Of the 21 intact couples
I interviewed, 13 were cohabiting, five were cohabiting and engaged, and one was
dating and co-parenting their six-month-old son but living separately. The final
couple was married but had different last names and did not inform the program
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 393
staff of their marital status so they could qualify for the program incentives, which
were only available for unmarried parents per federal funding guidelines.
I interviewed parents both separately and as couples, depending on their prefer-
ences, the space available in their residences, and child care needs. Eleven couples
chose to be interviewed together, while I interviewed the other 11 couples and three
individuals separately. It is possible that partners’ presence influenced how much
parents were willing to discuss their relationships, but I found that either together
or alone, parents easily and willingly discussed their challenges and divergent views
on the classes and instructors. I opted to let parents decide whether to be inter-
viewed separately or together to increase their comfort, aware that each scenario
had advantages and drawbacks. For the couple interviews conducted together, I
ensured that each partner answered my questions separately. If they indicated they
agreed with what their partner had said, which was not always the case, I asked
them to elaborate about why they agreed so as to ensure that I had responses to my
questions from both members of the couple.
With the exception of the sole married couple who was jointly raising their four
shared biological children and another couple in which the man was the social but
nonbiological father for his fiancée’s biological daughter since before birth, all of the
other 41 parents were either expecting or had just experienced the arrival of their
first shared biological child. In one case, a couple was already jointly expecting
another baby by the time of the interview. As is the case with many unmarried,
low-income couples, almost half (19) of the parents had children from previous
relationships. Of the 20 unmarried couples who were still romantically involved
during the interviews, at least one partner had a child from another relationship in
13 cases. At the time of the interviews, only 13 (eight of the women and five of the
men) of the 45 parents were employed. Thriving Families couples were therefore
more likely to be cohabiting and less likely to be employed than similar couples
included in fragile families samples, but were very similar in terms of age, education,
racial and ethnic diversity, and incidence of multiple-partner fertility (McLanahan,
2006).
The interviews lasted from one to two hours. After collecting demographic infor-
mation and a brief sketch of their relationship history, I asked questions pertaining
to three broad topics: their experience in the classes, if and how they found the
course material useful, and if and how they thought the experience influenced their
couple and family relationships. When I interviewed staff and instructors, my ques-
tions focused on their views of the program, what they thought about the course
content, and what motivated them to work for a healthy marriage program. The
majority of my interview questions were open-ended. I also asked all respondents at
the end of the interview if they wanted to comment on anything else pertaining to
their experience, thereby allowing them to discuss issues they found important that
I did not anticipate.
All interviews were transcribed in full, and I thoroughly coded both the interview
transcripts and my field notes for major themes using the grounded theory inductive
coding techniques described by Charmaz (2006). Coding proceeded in two primary
stages. First, during the open coding phase, I read the field notes and transcripts
with a focus on emergent descriptive and analytic themes. I then employed a fo-
cused coding process that entailed a line-by-line rereading of all the transcripts
and field notes with these inductive codes in mind. I was able to observe parents’
participation and their spontaneous responses to course subjects and interactions,
while the interviews gave them the opportunity to be self-reflective about their
experiences. This combination of complementary qualitative methodologies was
necessary to gain a full picture of how relationships skills classes unfolded on the
ground; how staff, instructors, and parents interacted; how parents responded to
course material; and how parents felt about the classes in ways that were not always
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
394 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
obvious given their participation in class. I wrote biweekly analytic memos sum-
marizing the major thematic findings that emerged from the interview transcripts
and detailed field notes. During the course of my fieldwork, I employed both de-
ductive and inductive ethnographic orientations (Burawoy, 1998; Glaser & Strauss,
1969; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I entered the field with knowledge of existing the-
ories about the social and economic constraints faced by low-income parents and
findings from previous studies of relationship and marriage education. Given that
there are no previous ethnographic studies of relationship skills programs for low-
income couples, the Thriving Families classroom served as an ethnographic tabula
rasa, a context in which the conceptual categories I used to code my data necessarily
emerged from the respondents themselves.
FINDINGS
Overall, parents found the Thriving Families classes useful for three main reasons
I discuss in detail throughout the remainder of this article. As noted above, much
of the previous research on relationship skills classes for unmarried, low-income
couples is from large random-assignment studies that have focused on key out-
comes such as measures of relationship quality, relationship stability, and quality of
communication. Because my open-ended questions elicited responses from parents
that were not solely focused on similar measures, this study reveals and highlights
some of the more indirect mechanisms by which group relationship skills classes
are personally experienced as beneficial for low-income, unmarried couples with
children.
First, the incentives offered by the program and the constructive communal at-
mosphere of the classes allowed parents to focus exclusively on their couple rela-
tionships in ways they rarely did otherwise. For many participating couples, the
incentives were also essential for making financial ends meet the month they took
the classes. Though it provoked discomfort for some parents, the classes’ concerted
focus on couples’ relationship priorities and challenges encouraged them to pos-
itively confront those issues they could more readily ignore amid the busyness,
distractions, and economic and emotional strains of daily life.
Second, though parents found many of the financial management skills only min-
imally useful because of the limited amount of money they had to manage, they
did appreciate discussing financial topics, especially when instructors emphasized
inexpensive family bonding strategies. The lessons on communication skills were
the dominant focus of each class series regardless of the particular instructors, and
all instructor pairs tended to adhere strongly to the explicit material and lessons in
the curriculum about communication and conflict resolution. However, there was
significant variation in how instructors taught the lessons on money management—
including how to budget, distinguishing between needs and wants, and identifying
financial values and goals—and parents responded quite differently to these dis-
parate approaches.
Third, the classes taught parents a lasting lesson about how their seemingly unique
relationships challenges were shared by most other couples in the classes. Many of
the parents initially wanted to participate for this very reason. Though parents
could not often recall specific budgeting or communication techniques weeks af-
ter leaving the classes, most eloquently articulated without my prompting in the
interviews how the classes helped reduce feelings of loneliness and blame in their
relationship struggles. By validating one another—and in many cases serving as a
relationship quality barometer for other couples—parents learned, perhaps more
than anything else, that their relationships challenges, such as those with trust,
anger, and money, were neither unique nor an indication of individual failings
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 395
or couple incompatibility. The classes indirectly taught them that the challenges
they personally experienced were often endemic to the romantic and co-parenting
relationships of low-income, unmarried couples who were raising children together
with few resources and a disproportionate share of factors that often undermine
relationship quality, such as unemployment and relational ambiguity. This normal-
ized their relationship problems and lessened the resentment and animosity that
typically characterized interactions with their partners.
“A Lot of People in Survival Mode”: Providing a Safe, Distraction-Free Space for
Positive Communication
One of the major benefits of the program according to parents was the incentive
package for participation that not only allowed parents to exclusively focus on their
couple relationships during the classes, but enabled them to be in the classes at all.
These incentives were intended to defray any costs associated with participating.
The program paid each couple $10 per class for a transportation stipend, offered
free on-site child care for an unlimited number of children of any age, and catered
a hot meal from a local restaurant for each class meeting. Initially, even with these
inducements, classes were very small. Staff were constantly troubled about low at-
tendance and retention problems since it was common for couples to show up to one
or two classes, never to return, or to only attend sporadically throughout the seven-
week class series. Program coordinators experimented with several modifications to
the program to increase attendance, including offering longer classes on Saturdays
for fewer weeks and expanding their outreach efforts in the community. Yet nothing
substantially increased attendance and retention until, in an effort to recruit more
couples, program coordinators implemented a graduation stipend, whereby if both
partners attended 14 hours of class time they received a $100 stipend in cash or gift
certificates for local businesses, such as grocery or children’s stores. Before the pro-
gram implemented the graduation stipend, some classes would have as few as one
couple participating, and usually no more than three or four, with many attending
only occasionally. Once the program began to offer graduation stipends, instructors,
staff, and I often had to rearrange chairs and tables before the beginning of class
meetings just to have room for the 10 to 20 couples who would show up.
Though this ultimately worked out to less than $4.00 per hour, per person, this was
a significant amount of money for many of the parents who signed up for Thriving
Families, many of whom were unemployed, in substantial debt, and struggling with
adding another member to their families. Diane, 29 and Latina, told me that since
she was only bringing in $90 every two weeks through her unemployment checks at
the time of the classes, and her fiancé, Pedro, 35 and Latino, was out of work and
making nothing, the money they got for going to the classes doubled their income
that month. Not incidentally, Diane learned about the state’s TANF program through
another mother taking the classes and was receiving cash assistance by the time of
our interview. For those couples who were neither employed nor on government
assistance, the gas money and graduation stipend were their only income for that
time period. In my interviews with them, and even when instructors asked at the
beginning of a new class series why they decided to attend the classes, many parents
candidly and quickly responded that they were there, in large part, because of the
money. The importance of the money and other incentives Thriving Families couples
received for attending the classes could not be overestimated. For some, the money
was extra cash they planned to use to take their family out for a nice dinner or to
buy baby toys or new clothing they otherwise would not have been able to afford.
For others, the $10 transportation stipend they received after class was the only way
they could afford food or diapers for the very next day, while the $100 graduation
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
396 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
stipend was necessary to cover that month’s electric bill or rent. Thomas, a 21-year-
old, African-American father, noted,
we got the $100 probably about two weeks before I got paid . . . . We needed gas in the
car and diapers for the baby. We also needed the car smogged. Then we had money left
to get something to eat, so we really needed the money at the time.
As the program coordinator told me, most of the couples were simply trying to
survive on a day-to-day basis, both relationally and economically:
I call them to confirm they’re coming to class. If we have a list of 20 couples who have
enrolled in the class, five of those phone numbers are now disconnected because they
can no longer pay the bill, four of the couples have broken up in the last five days, but
half of those couples will probably be back together next week in the class, and they
love each other. And some people can’t come because of the health care situation. There
are a lot of sick babies, and people have problems with their pregnancies . . . . We’ve had
people in the classroom who are homeless. They’re just going from place to place, and
one of the reasons they come to our class is because it’s safe, it’s a good place for their
kids to play because there’s nothing dangerous going on, and they’re able to get a warm
meal . . . . It’s just a lot of people in survival mode.
What often got parents’ feet in the door, as they themselves and several of the staff
noted, were the incentives that helped them make it to the next day. They showed
up because for two or more hours they and their children were off the streets and
could depend on a hot meal or two if there were leftovers, which the instructors
and staff always encouraged them to take. Their kids got to eat, and for at least a
little while, could play or watch videos in the company of other children in a heated
room if it was cold outside or in air-conditioning if it was hot.
Once there, parents appreciated how these incentives enabled them to focus,
perhaps for the first time, on setting personal and family goals, deliberately talk-
ing through relationship challenges, and simply having the time and space to talk
with their partners or among similarly situated couples. As Victor, 24 and African-
American, said, “it made time and pushed away other time we didn’t need, like
for arguments and all that.” Even though Lisa, a 24-year-old, Latina focus group
participant, found some of the class exercises “silly,” she enjoyed how the classes
encouraged partners to simply appreciate one another: “They say ‘tell her you love
her,’ you know simple things like that. I think it’s good when they teach you how to
do that because [my boyfriend] never says it. I got teary eyed when he did.” Larisa,
21 and white, told me that “before the class, I had never sat down, held his hand,
looked him in the face, and told him something personal.” The classes provided the
literal and temporal space for couples to attend to one another without diversion.
Veronica, 30 and African American, noted that
while the pregnancy drew us closer, what drew us even closer was sitting there talking
about it because we didn’t really talk about it before. We were always in the moment in
the classes. I was always in pain, and that helped me open up more to him about it.
Many parents explicitly commented on how the classes demanded their partners’
personal attention in ways other situations did not. Even for those parents who
often had the time and space to communicate frequently, they still appreciated the
impetus provided by the classes’ relational emphasis and overall positive tone about
families and relationships. As Victor further commented,
we might have argued all the way until we got to the door, and then we might try to
sit away from each other a little bit, but then because I didn’t know anyone in there, I
couldn’t feel the same way. You can’t be mad forever, or you don’t want to hold a grudge.
Going into the class erased all that.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 397
Several parents used the word safe to describe the classes and how they uniquely
encouraged couples to address their interpersonal dynamic in nonjudgmental ways.
Peter, 35 and white, recounted, “I really felt like it was neutral ground. It was neutral
territory after I had been there a while. When I first went in there I thought I was
going to be attacked, but it wasn’t like that.” Likewise, Chelsea, 32 and white, told
me that
you could tell the truth, and I felt like you wouldn’t be judged because we’re not angels.
I believe in going to get help if you need it. They didn’t judge us at all and that made you
feel safe.
The expectation to deliberately communicate was particularly important for cou-
ples who were experiencing the transition to first-time parenthood and had not
talked directly about the challenges of that transition and the insecurities it pro-
voked. As Gwen, 24 and African American, explained through tears during our
interview,
I’m glad we did it because we actually had time to talk with so many appointments
during the end of my pregnancy . . . and [my partner] used the class as an opportunity
to talk about his father and about how his childhood had been hard, and I was surprised
by these things he didn’t open up and tell me before.
For experienced parents, the classes encouraged them to refocus on their couple
relationship when their attention had previously been directed toward the kids. As
Veronica described,
it reverted our focus back to us because for so long it was the kids, you know, and we
were learning to balance the kids versus us. So it was him focusing on him, me on me,
and then the kids . . . .We’ve been doing a lot more family time lately.
Similarly, Gina, 36 and African American, described how
the classes helped open our eyes to a lot of things we were taking for granted. We didn’t
know how to deal with the baby, coming in and still having the same love, you know
our respect for each other . . . and I wasn’t focused on him no more. I just cared about
my baby and I was pushing him away. And because of the prior relationships that I
had, because I have older children, I was kind of pushing him away from being a father
because I was a single mother before he came along.
The classes also provided couples with a neutral, commonly understood language
and method to identify when they and their partners were not communicating effec-
tively or empathically. This often entailed parents policing one another’s behavior,
such as when Lisa described how her boyfriend “repeated everything from class”
and would tell her “oh, didn’t they say not to do that in class.” In other cases, parents
could identify negative communication dynamics by referring directly or indirectly
to specific communication skills they learned in class without pointedly criticizing
their partners. Isaiah, 24 and African American, described fights he had with his
girlfriend, Gwen.
If she and I aren’t on the same page and the argument starts to escalate, I always tell her
to explain exactly what she’s trying to say. If I don’t get it, tell me what I’m missing. I do
that now instead of just shutting down.
He could not recall the exact term for this tool from class—active listening—but he
remembered that the instructors discussed it and that it helped them communicate
better. Others, including Gwen, recalled specific concepts and how their partners
used them in interpersonal communication. As Gwen described,
when there was any altercation or argument or anything with communication, we had
something to refer back to. I am really trying hard to communicate better, and I went
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
398 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
to that class, and [Isaiah] would mention one of the phrases or topics we had talked
about, and I thought “oh, you were really listening.” Yeah, he’ll say, “you know what
you’re doing right now is not being able to communicate feelings and that’s called . . .
oh goodness, what’s that called . . . defensive listening. He’ll refer back to things.
Finally, all the instructors emphasized to couples the importance of empathic, low-
conflict communication for the sake of their children, whether or not the parents
stayed together. Though Ramona, 30 and Latina, had broken up with her son’s
father by the time of our interview, she enthusiastically described how
as far as parenting, I did learn a lot, that a lot of your parenting when you have a partner
has to do with how good you and your partner get along. You know, it all involves the
same circle. If you and your partner practice love and being at peace, and peace within
each other, it’s like a circle your child falls into. And if you fall into a circle that’s negative,
your whole relationship also has a big influence on your children. That’s what I learned.
Similarly, Malia, 21 and African American, had separated from her unborn daugh-
ter’s father immediately after finishing the classes, but she still felt that she had
gained valuable insight about how to create and maintain a cooperative co-parenting
relationship despite no longer being romantically involved. She said,
it was good because the class gave us tools to use that are best and healthy for the baby
whether we’re together or not. It’s not about us, it’s about her . . . . For them to tell us to
treat that person as a business partner if you’re not together, that makes a lot of sense.
It’s strictly business now. Now it’s the baby, is she okay? Not fighting.
Thus, overall, parents significantly appreciated the communication skills tech-
niques. They thought the lessons on empathic and active listening were a great way
to approach talking with partners and children, so sensible in fact that many parents
referred to them as “common sense.” As one parent said in class, “this is the way
we should all communicate with everyone anyway. It’s just a good reminder.” In
addition to the money, most participants were in the classes to get help with reduc-
ing conflict and connecting more with their partners. Their responses to my focus
group and interview questions indicated that the classes were very effective for help-
ing them accomplish these main goals. Nevertheless, what was most challenging to
parents was employing the skills outside the context of the classroom after the class
series had ended when they did not have a group full of other couples and instruc-
tors to support their efforts. As Chelsea noted during our interview several weeks
after she finished the classes, “we don’t use them and we forget. That’s our fault, not
the classes fault.” Like many other parents, Josephine, 33 and African American,
wanted the classes to be longer because they were too brief and “squeezed too tight.
It was easier to communicate in the classes than at home because they asked us
to participate. They asked us to say how we felt.” At home, she and her partner
did not have the right atmosphere to encourage the more positive communication
techniques they learned in class.
Implementing what they learned therefore proved to be prohibitively difficult
after parents finished the program. Some reasons for this—parents’ tendencies to
forget the positive communication techniques after time had elapsed and the diffi-
culty of having to initiate and follow through with the techniques all on their own
without instructors’ and fellow participants’ support—are likely universal reactions
to relationship skills programs, regardless of couples’ socioeconomic status. How-
ever, other factors described by the parents suggested that much of what couples
learned—such as the importance of deliberately making time for and devoting exclu-
sive attention to one another while actively listening—was particularly challenging
to implement for low-income couples who face significant material constraints, in-
cluding limited physical space and emotional challenges such as the psychological
toll of financial exigencies.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 399
During one class, Joseph, a Latino instructor in his early 30s, gave the group a
homework exercise. He asked parents to spend 15 minutes actively listening and
talking to one another about their feelings before going to sleep each night. The
point, he told us, was to set aside a little time each day just for one’s partner to
keep the relationship strong. The following week, Joseph asked if everyone had
done the homework exercise. One of the fathers, Cody, 18 and white, was there with
his girlfriend, Mindy, also 18 and white, with whom he was currently raising their
infant daughter. The family of three struggled to make financial ends meet on the
money Cody earned from construction work and other part-time jobs he could pick
up intermittently. Cody answered that they had wanted to, but since they lived in
a small studio apartment with his father, their daughter, and occasionally another
friend who stayed at their place because he was homeless, they had no privacy
and thus no opportunity to talk with the baby, the dad, and the friend sleeping on
the floor right next to their bed. Cody compared their apartment to the classroom,
which suggested that it could not have been more than a few hundred square feet.
Unless he and Mindy wanted to go into the closet or the bathroom, he told us,
they had no privacy in the apartment. Their neighborhood had too much crime for
them to feel safe going outside, especially at night. Finally, he said, though he really
wanted to know more about Mindy’s day at home with the baby, he was simply too
tired to keep his eyes open after working two full shifts during the day. Joseph, the
instructor, empathically nodded that he understood their predicament, but simply
responded by saying that they should still try to do what they could to keep their
relationship strong: “Ok, but just try for those few minutes a day when you can.
They really matter.” Cody and Mindy agreed and promised they would try.
Cases similar to Cody and Mindy’s predicament were very common among other
Thriving Families couples. Since the majority lived with parents, friends, and other
couples, many parents were hard-pressed to find a quiet, private space to talk with-
out interruption by numerous other household members living in the same one- or
two-bedroom dwellings. This was especially the case for couples who already had
children, since the unemployment of one or both partners made it likely that parents
were caring for their children (and often others’) around the clock. Unless they were
school-age, very few Thriving Families children spent a significant amount of time
outside the home given that day care was unaffordable for most of the families.
Since many parents neither owned a car nor could afford to go out together for en-
tertainment as a couple, finding quality alone time was rare. This was compounded
by the reality that most couples were adjusting to having a new baby and the fa-
tigue that ensued. Since I did the majority of the interviews with parents at their
residences, I experienced firsthand how the frequent traffic of children and other
household members would render it difficult for many of these couples to find a
quite space to talk uninterrupted.
“Money’s Easy to Mange When You Have Some”: Discussing Finances, Budgeting,
and Family Values
Because of personal inclination or an expressed preference from the parents who
attended their classes, instructors spent most of the allotted class time discussing
communication issues. With few exceptions, parents were more interested in learn-
ing communication skills than financial management strategies, not in spite of their
financial precarity, but because of it. Long accustomed to stretching the meager
resources they did have through budgeting, minimizing their lifestyles, and simply
doing without, most parents did not believe that significantly improving their fi-
nancial situation was amenable to strategies they could learn in a class. This was
in direct contrast to how they viewed communication in that most of the parents
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
400 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
felt they had a lot to learn about how to be better communicators. Most class series
did include at least a brief, often one- or two-hour, discussion of how to manage
money more effectively. According to the instructors I interviewed, the two-day in-
structor training encouraged them to decide how and how much they would teach
financial skills based on input from parents who enrolled in a particular class series.
The class notebook had specific lessons on financial tips, such as how to create a
monthly budget, set financial goals, distinguish between needs (e.g., food, a place
to live) and wants (e.g., beer, designer jeans), and how to contact creditors to work
out a payment plan.
Depending on which strategy instructors used, some parents viewed the money
management strategies as hypothetically useful, while others interpreted them as
condescending and judgmental. One set of instructors, Rochelle and John Wade, a
married African-American couple in their 50s, talked about how they saved money
and how to prioritize the right expenses. Per the guidelines of the program, the
Wades distributed plastic boxes and calculators to couples and encouraged them to
save receipts, file important papers, and keep diligent track of expenses. Rochelle
described how she made a habit of putting all her change in a jar each night and
encouraged participants to do the same. “It’s change you won’t even miss, and you’ll
be surprised how much you can save after a month.” She also emphasized saving
receipts to find needless expenses couples could cut. She used the example of her
favorite frivolous expense—a daily cup of coffee from Starbucks—to illustrate how
such expenses could add up quickly and be converted into savings if, say, she would
opt to make coffee at home. Rochelle and John also strongly promoted the concept of
“paying yourself first,” which meant putting at least a little money away, perhaps as
little as $10, from each paycheck in a savings account as a way to “invest in yourself
and your family, a way to value yourself.” The pay yourself first message, which
Rochelle and John encouraged above all else, was intended to convince parents that
learning to save was an important exercise in self-respect and a way to love your
children.
Amber, 24 and white, took the Wades’ classes with her 35-year-old, Latino fiancé,
Saul. She told me that she was extremely offended by how Rochelle and John talked
about money and saving:
They talked about how they put money away in a savings jar because they have lots of
money to do that. I’m sorry, but I live check to check, and I can’t afford to put money
away like that. I have rent, children, bills, and they’re like, “if you have money, you’ll
find a way to put it away.” No we can’t! We need our money to save for our bills and our
children . . . . Then, the last day of class, [Rochelle] said that job means “just over broke.”
That’s what a job is. That’s what they were telling us. J.O.B. means just over broke . . . .
So my husband’s job is nothing? How did I feel? I felt like they were putting me down all
the time . . . . How can you say that to people? We’re in this class, we’re not rich people.
I just couldn’t believe I was sitting in this class, and they were telling me what I don’t
have and why I’m this way and you’re that way.
According to Amber, the Wades’ financial tips signaled that they had little under-
standing of just how much some of the couples in the classes were struggling. Some
couples’ budgets were so limited that even the pocket change at the end of the day
was a significant amount of money they could not afford to let sit in a jar until the
end of the month.
Katherine and Karl Rogers, another married African-American couple in their
50s who taught the classes, took a different approach. For their lesson on finances,
Katherine and Karl had the class collectively create a monthly budget based on an
income of about $1,500 a month, complete with typical expenses for a couple with
young children. They relied on the parents to suggest the amounts and encouraged
them to include a rainy day fund for unanticipated expenses, such as car repairs. But
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 401
there was always much disagreement among the parents about how much certain
things actually cost. One time during this exercise, one female participant suggested
that she could grocery shop for a family of four for the entire month for just $100. “I
don’t know where you shop,” another participant quickly exclaimed, “but I’ve never
been to that store!”
Some parents who took the Rogers’ classes commented that knowing how much
they spent on certain things each month was helpful. As Abigail, 21 and Latina,
noted,
they started teaching me how to manage money, what you want to spend your money
on, all the things you don’t need, that you should save money for the baby, for your bills.
That helped me out a lot. It reminded me that now we got a baby to think about, and it’s
not about us no more. It’s about her, what she needs, what she wants.
However, others described how learning to budget more effectively did not help
address their financial challenges because the problem was not frivolous spending
or lack of planning, but rather not having enough money to get by. Josh, an 18-
year-old, white participant who also took the Rogers’ classes, told me “the stuff on
money would have been much more helpful if we had any. If we had money, I could
walk into a store, go down the aisles, put everything in the cart I need, and calculate
right there.” Josh boasted that he had always been good at math and had been doing
his mother’s taxes since he was 11. He also described in great detail how he was
able to save his family $200 one month. He taught them to buy in bulk, what could
easily stay frozen for longer, and how to not overspend before the next paycheck by
keeping track of fixed expenses such as rent and utilities. The problem, he argued,
was not that he and his pregnant fiancée, Sarah, 17 and white, were ignorant about
how to stretch money as far as possible. The problem was that the little money they
did have could only be stretched so far. Diane, the woman who was initially bringing
in $180 a month from unemployment, similarly explained “the financial tips might
be helpful, but at the time, what was $90 every two weeks going to do? Even the
best bargain shopper in the store, even in the cheapest grocery store, couldn’t make
that work.”
A third set of frequent instructors, Susan and Jose Alvarez, she white and in her
40s, he Latino and in his 50s, used a different strategy to teach about money that the
parents who took their classes found particularly useful and meaningful. Instead
of talking directly about money, they asked participants to list all the values that
were most important to them. Family, love, and honesty were the themes that most
often topped the list. Jose next asked participants to brainstorm about how they
aligned their spending and saving habits with those values. While parents found
the Wades’ financial tips judgmental, and the Rogers’ strategies impractical, the
approach taken by the Alvarezes seemed particularly amenable to parents and their
precarious financial situations. Lewis, a 57-year-old, African-American father who
took classes with Susan and Jose, reflected on how the classes changed his plans for
the graduation stipend:
We were supposed to get $100. I told her I’m going to do something with my part and
she said, “no you’re not.” We’re going to take the $100 and go get some baby clothes.
And I said “No, I’m going to take $10 and do something for myself.” And then after that
class about money and values, I was listening to her, and I knew she was right when she
first said it.
Susan and Jose also encouraged couples to discuss between themselves what
their personal financial values were, such as what kinds of activities and objects
were worth spending the limited amount of money the parents did have. Victor,
referring to the Alvarezes’ lessons on personal values and spending, noted that “the
best part to me were the activities that showed you what your differences were and
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
402 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
where you’re the same.” Much like with the communication strategies, this exercise
encouraged couples to discuss deeply held financial principles they did not openly
talk about otherwise.
Though not married to one another, Deborah, an African American in her 50s,
and Mark, white and in his early 20s, taught classes together and took yet another
approach to discussing finances. They also briefly spoke of the importance of care-
fully calculating and keeping track of expenses. Otherwise they used most of their
time allotted for lessons on money to encourage parents to spend quality time to-
gether as a family for free. They urged parents to rethink common assumptions that
family time has to be about consumption and that spending quality time together
necessitated buying things or spending money on expensive hobbies. In one class,
we brainstormed at length about all the many low- or no-cost activities available in
the community, such as going to the zoo or taking a homemade lunch to the park for
a picnic. Deborah and Mark asked us to write down as many free family activities
we could think of on a piece of paper. We then decorated the plastic boxes provided
by the program (the ones distributed by the Wades as a tool to keep and organize
receipts) with magazine photos of kids and families. When we were done, we cut
up our list of activities, folded the pieces of paper, and took them home with the
intention of picking out one activity to do as a family per week. Mark concluded the
lesson with the message that how much you spend on family time matters much
less than the amount of time you spend with family. One of the mothers in Deborah
and Marks’ classes, Chelsea, learned about “things we can do as a family, things to
do that are healthy and cheap and just together.”
“We’re Not on Our Own”: Normalizing and Validating Relational Conflict
The third and most significant reason parents found the classes beneficial was that
they created a nonjudgmental, collective space to discuss romantic and parenting
challenges with other couples experiencing the same relationship and financial dif-
ficulties. This normalized their relationship conflicts over shared challenges with
kids, communication, and money. The social context provided by the classes al-
lowed parents to understand that many of their struggles were not theirs alone, nor
necessarily the result of personal shortcomings, but rather a common and shared
experience among those trying to raise a family and keep a relationship intact in the
midst of poverty.
In their classic study of married couples groups focusing on the transition to first-
time parenthood, Cowan and Cowan (1992) found that one of the main benefits
of such groups is that they help normalize the inevitable conflict that ensues as
partners become parents. Watching and listening as other couples struggled with
similar issues showed parents that they were not alone and allowed them to reinter-
pret their couple conflicts as a normal and shared experience of becoming parents.
A similar process played out in several different ways in Thriving Families classes.
Parents often told me they saw their own experiences reflected back to them in the
relationship stories of others. They felt less alone in their struggles with partners,
parenting, and poverty. What parents tended to find most useful was that the classes
strongly encouraged them not to take their stress—especially when associated with
not having enough money—out on one another, thereby reducing negative interac-
tions and conflict. The classes provided a social context within which to interpret
their experiences and relationship challenges as shared struggles that are exceed-
ingly common among other couples adjusting to being co-parents, wrestling with
long-term commitment decisions, and managing limited financial resources.
In addition to the incentives, this was the main reason parents gave for initially
wanting to attend the classes. They specifically wanted to hear about the relationship
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 403
challenges of other couples and especially about the techniques others used for
resolving common relationship challenges, such as how to handle being a parent and
a partner simultaneously, how to trust more deeply, and how to resolve arguments
more effectively. As Saul told me, “I wanted to hear how other couples go through
their relationships, how they solve their problems. I wanted feedback from other
people and to be able to relate to the stuff they had been through.” On a more basic
level, many parents simply wanted to be around and talk with other adults. As Elsa,
a white focus group participant in her 20s, told the group, “with three kids, we don’t
see other adults very often. We’ve learned a lot about each other in a healthier way
because we’re able to point out things we’ve learned from others along the way.”
The classes had this effect of engendering mutual understanding and thereby re-
ducing defensiveness among the participants because they quickly learned—often as
early as during the first few moments of class after an instructor would ask why they
were there—that they shared the same relationship and financial difficulties. When
I asked parents which relationship challenges they believed were the most common,
the most frequent response was communication, followed closely by money. Marcy,
21 and white, told me
we all had the same problems. We were trying not to mess up the best thing we had
going on. All of us agreed to why we had come to class, the whole communication thing
and how it affects the kids. We all want our kids to be like, “I love my mom and dad
because they can get along.”
Many others described shared financial difficulties. For example, David, a 28-year-
old, African-American father, told me
almost everyone in the class had the exact same problems . . . money issues. I would say
that was about 50 to 75 percent of every relationship. If you have no finances, you’re
struggling. You constantly snap at each other. It’s always a headache, a frustration.
Probably 75 percent of people’s relationship problems are money. If their finances were
good, they’d be more open and happy, but it’s not like that . . . . We didn’t argue when we
didn’t have to worry about money.
Parents’ realization that their most significant and unrelenting relationship strug-
gles were shared with others couples created a sense of empathic mutual under-
standing that they could apply in their interactions with partners. Parents reported
that this sense of empathy gained in the classes affected their communication in two
important, interrelated ways: first by reducing adversarial communication patterns
based on a me against you mindset, and second, by creating a more collaborative
outlook about relationship experiences that supported couples’ attempts to more co-
operatively confront their shared challenges. As David explained about his partner,
Mikalea, the classes
made her feel better because . . . if we have a problem, [she thinks] she’s the only one
going through it. She doesn’t think that I’m going through it with her or that other people
in this world have the same problems or worse . . . . It doesn’t matter where you’re from,
what race, religion, every house has it. It’s how you stand up to it.
Mikalea, 27 and white, agreed, stating that “I would recommend the class to others
because . . . it really helps out. It shares everybody’s lives. It shows people they’re
not on their own.”
Hearing about other couples’ relationship stories, especially those that involved
severe financial and interpersonal distress, was often inspirational for those who in-
terpreted their struggles as milder in comparison. Jennifer, 26 and white, described
how she wanted to attend the classes so that she and Peter, her boyfriend, could com-
municate in a setting free of the antagonistic dynamics that typically characterized
their interactions:
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
404 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
I thought if we could be in an environment where it’s not just him against me that maybe
he would be able to open up more and maybe we could work on it. That really helped. It
was good because so many other couples were going through the same things we were,
and others were even worse. To be able to see how some people are in the same boat as
us, and some are worse off than us, it’s not as bad as it seems.
By reflecting on the relationship experiences of others, couples gained new in-
sight about their own relational behavior and that of their partners. Many parents
described how they thought of other couples who took the classes as a relationship
barometer, a comparison point to gauge the severity, quality, and distinctiveness of
their own relationship challenges. Many also spoke about how their perception, if
not necessarily their experience, of their relationship quality improved after watch-
ing more distressed couples communicate in class. As Gina described,
I’m the kind of person that feels like you’re the only person in the world who is going
through something, and the classes opened my eyes to that, that I’m lucky with what
I’m dealing with. It’s not so bad as I always proclaim. I saw couples that argued and
separated over silly stuff that could be resolved.
Marcy similarly described what she most appreciated about the classes:
I met a couple that had been together for 12 years, and they had a couple of kids. They
had been in [Child Protective Services], but they were finally allowed to keep them, like
the newborn they just had. They were telling me their relationship has hit rock bottom
to the point where they had to stay on the street with their kids. They were in class trying
to keep things together for the family. That was one of the best things about the class.
It kind of hurt me, but it was the best thing. I thought, “okay, your kids got taken away,
but you guys are still trying to make things work,” which is pretty awesome.
Parents also described how they relied on the group to help them more objectively
explain things they had previously struggled to convey to their partners without
being defensive, a situation that, as Jennifer put it, “where it’s not just him against
me.” Other couples and instructors, most of whom were willing to share personal
details about their arguments and relationship challenges, provided a third-party
perspective that was less emotionally charged. Josephine described to me how it
was easier for her to communicate in the classes than at home because
it’s good to know you have someone who has been in the same position, so you’re not
so scared to talk to your partner about everything. Because you know other people
understand where you’re coming from. Because sometimes when you’re just with your
partner and you’re just trying to explain to him, he doesn’t know what you’re talking
about. But if there’s another person who’s been there, either a woman or a man, maybe
he can explain to him better or allow him to understand a little better. You feel like
you’re not so crazy because other people are going through this too. I’m not just crazy.
Jamie, a 20-year-old, white mother, similarly explained how she was much more
receptive when instructors and other parents identified how she needed to improve
her communication:
It helped us to communicate better because I’m selfish and a stubborn person, but if
someone else points out my flaws besides him telling me, well, he’s selfish and angry
too. But if we’re angry and yelling at each other, neither of us wants to listen, but when
they sat down and explained it to me, I realized when I’m wrong.
Participants also responded most favorably to instructors who had overcome pre-
vious relationship challenges and economic problems. Parents did not want to hear
from social scientific experts about relationship trends and child development the-
ories. They wanted to know how real couples fought, worked things out, interacted
with their kids, blended families with children from previous relationships, and
made ends meet when money was tight. In commenting on what they liked about
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 405
Katherine and Karl’s teaching style, one couple, Giovana and Mason, both 24 and
white, talked at length about how important it was for instructors to relate to the
couples and how this was essential for creating a sense of empathy in the classes.
Giovana told me:
They were good because they could actually relate to how couples were . . . . They would
also say that they would always fight, and she said she needed to work on her problems
with herself and her issues before they could work on them. You’ve got to know what
your problems are before you can address them together, . . . and with the people in
the classes, it was like you’re not the only one going through it. Everyone has the same
problems. It’s not just that they’ve already been through it. It’s easier to relate to what
they’re teaching in class as opposed to someone who just reads a book and starts saying
“you need to do this” like it’s scripted. It’s easier and better when someone has gone
through the same thing, learns from it, and then teaches it.
Mason, Giovana’s partner, added:
They were people who actually lived through some of the stuff they’re talking about in
that class . . . . It was helpful to see that you’re not the only couple that fights, . . . even
the ones that looked like goodie two shoes. It puts your own relationship in perspective,
that it’s not just your relationship that’s messed up or has problems. Everybody goes
through it.
Another couple, Jessica, 22, and Mitch, 26, both white, found out about the classes
through her Child Protective Services (CPS) case worker. They also especially appre-
ciated the lived experience perspective of the instructors. Jessica was eight months
pregnant when they took the classes and had just given birth to their daughter five
days before I interviewed them. She also had a four-year-old son who no longer
lived with her due to a series of arrests for drug use and possession and fraudulent
checks. The judge who oversaw her case ruled that she had to take a parenting class
to retain custody of the new baby and to have any hope of regaining custody of her
son who was now living with relatives several hundred miles away. She told me:
Mitch wasn’t required to go, but I couldn’t go unless he went. I would have had to go to
one of those boring parenting classes sponsored by CPS. So our CPS worker said if both
of us went to that, it would count. I told him “look we get paid.” I didn’t tell him we have
to go, but I did tell him if you don’t go I have to go to a really boring class. I’ve been to
one of the really boring lecture type classes where there’s an old, bald guy talking to you
for six hours who doesn’t even have children. He just has a Master’s degree in raising
kids, but no kids. He says “Do this, and don’t do that, and this is proven.” Oh my god!
If you don’t even know what you’re doing, then why are you up there talking. [Thriving
Families] was different.
In the Thriving Families classroom, legitimate knowledge was not something you
could learn from handbooks on marriage and family therapy, but rather something
you acquired only through real life experience in the trenches of emotional heart-
break and financial difficulty. Many of the instructors had struggled with both, and
parents responded most favorably to those instructors who shared the intimate de-
tails of how they had come back from the brink of relationship strife and economic
hardship. This encouraged couples to share stories of their struggles as well, creat-
ing a sense of empathy and hope that they, too, could stay together and prosper in
the long run.
Despite their limited ability to recall details about specific class lessons and their
difficulty implementing skills outside the classroom, parents could poignantly de-
scribe weeks after finishing the classes how and why they found the classes useful.
It was not necessarily because the communication or financial management skills
helped them directly address relationship or money problems. Rather, the group
format of the classes created a communal context that revealed how many of their
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
406 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
most significant relationship challenges were shared by similarly situated couples.
Learned in this way, parents understood the communication techniques taught in
the classes as tools that could make bearing these burdens easier. Essentially, they
learned the importance of being a unified team rather than adversarial individuals.
DISCUSSION
Since Congress first earmarked public funding for relationship and marriage edu-
cation through the 1996 PRWORA there has been significant debate about whether
the government should support these types of programs for low-income, unmarried
couples. This debate hinges on the question of how effective relationship educa-
tion is for accomplishing the goals of welfare reform, especially creating the social
conditions in which more American children are raised in stable, if not married,
two-parent homes. By focusing on the perspectives of those who are central to
this debate, the Thriving Families case reveals that there are several benefits to the
families themselves that could potentially support greater relationship stability for
economically disadvantaged parents and children. These perspectives also suggest
recommendations for how to utilize these resources to best accomplish this goal.
According to parents, the program was valuable primarily because it brought
together couples who were similarly constrained and because it went to great lengths
to overcome obstacles that inhibited couples’ abilities to focus on their relationships.
Concerns that arose in the classes and in focus groups and in-depth interviews with
parents revealed that what instructors recommended for developing relationship
skills assumes a certain level of economic advantage, namely parental control over
time, living space, and finances. As one father poignantly revealed in a Thriving
Families class, it can be prohibitively difficult for an impoverished parent to find
just 15 minutes a day to talk with his partner when he is trying to hold down multiple
jobs, is constantly stressed about money, shares a studio apartment with five people,
and does not feel safe talking outside in a crime-ridden neighborhood. Unmarried
couples in poverty live in a particular socioeconomic context in which they could
implement the skills, one that inhibits their ability to practice communication and
especially financial management techniques. People can only manage the money
they have, and they can only practice communication skills with adequate energy,
time, and space. Though finding the time and remembering how to practice skilled
communication can be a challenge for couples of any economic background, low-
income couples face additional daily constraints—such as inadequate housing and
the emotional stress of poverty—that exacerbate these challenges.
Given that these types of programs were initially framed as a poverty-reduction
and marriage-promotion strategy around the passage of welfare reform in the 1990s,
many previous critiques of relationship skills programs rightly pointed out that such
methods do not address the root causes of poverty (Cherlin, 2003; Coontz & Fol-
bre, 2010; Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Pulling couples above the poverty line was not
the main goal of the Thriving Families program. No government intervention of this
kind could effectively address the many structural constraints faced by impoverished
families. Parents found the classes useful because they temporarily suspended their
socioeconomic constraints, not because they provided the means to escape them.
In doing so, the program did effectively allow parents to focus exclusively on their
relationships, meaningfully consider their long-term relationship prospects, and
enact their commitment to their partners and their obligations to their children.
Perhaps most importantly, the communal nature of the classes revealed to parents
how many of their most significant relationship challenges were economic and not
necessarily because of incompatibility or inherently flawed partners. This allowed
them to understand that many of their problems would only get worse if they took
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 407
their financial and other stresses out on one another, and that they would not neces-
sarily be resolved by breaking up. This finding might explain why similar programs,
namely the Building Strong Families Oklahoma site, ultimately found positive ef-
fects on relationship stability, but not relationship quality, among participating
couples (Wood, McConnell et al., 2012; Wood, Moore et al., 2012).
Understood as a public service that can help low-income parents create and main-
tain more stable co-parenting relationships, with or without being married, Thriving
Families and similar programs may ultimately be effective for improving the rela-
tional stability of disadvantaged couples and hence their children’s well-being. I
spoke with parent after parent who told me how the classes helped improve their
relationships with their partners, even though in very few cases did it ultimately in-
fluence their decisions to get married. Only two of the 45 parents I interviewed told
me the classes had any impact on their decision to marry, and both were already
considering marriage prior to taking the classes. Several others told me that taking
the classes helped them decide to break up with their children’s other parents and
helped them negotiate the challenges of co-parenting without being romantically
involved. For almost all the parents, the classes served as a form of free counseling
they would not have been able to afford otherwise. The program offered participants
a collective forum for discussing relationships, one that characterized relationship
and communication problems as common and normal for all relationships. Fram-
ing this type of intervention as education rather than therapy also destigmatized
talking through relationship problems, especially for those who believed that seek-
ing counseling or therapeutic services implied their relationships were troubled.
This approach reduced parents’ tendencies to see one another as adversaries and
encouraged cooperative problem solving. Thus, rather than understanding financial
constraints as what might undermine the effectiveness of relationship strengthen-
ing programs for low-income couples, I argue that such programs can be especially
useful for low-income parents. They face more than their fair share of relationship
stressors, but have fewer means that enable them to access other counseling-type
services when poverty-related stress ultimately takes its toll on those relationships.
CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
As relationship and marriage education policies evolve, there are many lingering
questions about how best to support low-income, unmarried couples through rela-
tionship interventions. Qualitative research, especially of the kind that focuses on
how participants experience these programs in the context of their daily lives, is
particularly well suited for helping us answer these questions. Given this project’s
in-depth, ethnographic focus on the perspectives of parents who participated in one
government-funded program, my analysis necessarily has several limitations. First,
the federal government has funded hundreds of relationship skills programs. My
findings reflect the implementation of only one. It is likely that programs with dif-
ferent staff and instructors, using different curricula, and implemented in different
geographical locations vary in terms of pedagogical approach, class size, and other
program features. That said, given its focus on communication, conflict resolution,
trust, parenting, and marriage, the Together We Can curriculum is fairly representa-
tive of the various, yet similar curricula currently in use in government-supported
relationship education programs for low-income, expectant parents. Second, since
I did not observe or interview parents who participated in the Spanish classes, I
do not know if they experienced the Thriving Families program differently than
those who attended the English classes. Forty percent of program participants iden-
tified as Latino/a, while only 18 percent of my respondents did; their perspectives
are therefore underrepresented in my analysis. Third, my ethnographic data from
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
408 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
class observations, focus groups, and in-depth interviews with parents emphasizes,
respectively, my own interpretations of class activities and a retrospective experi-
ential viewpoint of parents. Though I think this perspective is uniquely valuable to
complement large-scale evaluation studies, it does exclude other kinds of data that
are crucial for understanding the value of these types of programs, such as specific
outcome measures, pre- and post-treatment differences, and differences between
control and treatment groups. The Thriving Families program staff distributed pre-
and post-class surveys, as well as one-, three-, and six-month follow-up surveys
asking couples to rate the quality of their communication. I do not have access to
this data. These measures, along with others related to program and policy goals,
such as financial outcomes and children’s outcomes, would be extremely helpful
for determining which strategies are best suited for improving the relationships of
low-income, unmarried couples and their children’s lives.
The findings from this case study, especially parents’ belief that the classes helped
them understand the larger social and economic forces that negatively influenced
their relationships, suggest that relationship strengthening programs could better
help parents if they directly address poverty-related stressors. These problems, such
as tensions and anxieties related to unemployment and unmet material needs, add
to and compound the challenges of creating high-quality relationships, including
communication conflicts, psychological distress, and the transition to parenthood.
Much like a sole focus on marriage, communication skills, or financial literacy is
likely insufficient to strengthen couples’ relationships and improve childhood out-
comes, it is unlikely that attention to couples’ economic constraints would automat-
ically improve those relationships. Therefore, my recommendation that relationship
skills programs for low-income couples should also address the social and economic
forces that influence their relationships is not meant to suggest that targeting eco-
nomic factors, such as income or employment, is alone sufficient to support healthy
relationships. As Thriving Families parents clearly described to me, their relation-
ship challenges are multifarious, a result of numerous and overlapping personal,
psychological, financial, and social issues. We already know that some relationship
strengthening programs have had measurable positive effects on parents and chil-
dren in low-income families. As more research becomes available from different
types of government-sponsored, relationship-focused programs, we will be able to
gauge which types of interventions are most helpful. Existing research, including the
Thriving Families case, suggests that to be successful, these interventions will need
to reflect the empirical reality that relationship quality and stability are intimately
intertwined with socioeconomic stability and support.
In conclusion, the findings from this study suggest several important lessons for
policymakers and program developers who provide relationship education to low-
income and minority couples:
1. Avoid assumptions that parents’ relationships or spending habits are deficient.
Low-income couples are more receptive to program messages and teaching
techniques that recognize their unique relationship challenges and validate
their strengths. Curricula and instructors should avoid moralistic judgments
about couples’ family-formation decisions and financial circumstances, espe-
cially when working with unmarried couples who likely have very good reasons
for not yet getting married and low-income parents who likely already go to
great lengths to stretch their meager resources.
2. Teach couples about how external processes and factors, such as the transition
to parenthood and living in poverty, are known to significantly affect relation-
ship quality. This would help take some of the onus of relationship stress off of
individual couples and help them recognize which aspects of their relationship
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 409
problems are socially patterned and therefore less likely to be solved by faulting
their partners or breaking up.
3. Encourage couples to meaningfully and collectively talk about these shared
stressors. Programs that provide a collective framework in which couples
can learn to interpret their challenges as normal and directly related to the
larger, external stressors of their lives—rather than relational or personal
deficiencies—could be particularly effective for increasing relationship quality
and stability. This is especially likely to be the case among couples who are
more socially isolated.
Ultimately, any curricular component that helps couples recognize the common
tendency to individualize relational and financial strain and externalize it in conflict
with partners and kids would likely be helpful. These strategies are most likely to be
effective if implemented over a longer period of time during which participants have
ample opportunities to learn and practice empathic communication techniques in
conversation with similarly situated couples. If implemented in this way, publicly
supported relationship skills education could be a valuable social service in a society
in which relationship stability and long-term marriage are increasingly becoming
privileges of the most highly educated, those who are more economically secure,
and those who can already easily access relationship support services.
JENNIFER M. RANDLES is Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State Uni-
versity, Fresno, 5340 N. Campus Drive, M/S SS97, Fresno, CA 93740-8019. (e-mail:
jrandles81@gmail.com).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Kathryn Edin, Maureen Pirog, the anonymous reviewers, Orit Avishai, Barrie Thorne,
Sandra Smith, Cybelle Fox, Carolyn Cowan, and Philip Cowan for their constructive feedback
on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was generously supported by the National
Science Foundation (grant no. 0903069) and the following at the University of California,
Berkeley: Center for the Study of Social Change, Institute for Governmental Studies, and
Center for Child and Youth Policy.
REFERENCES
Adler-Baeder, F., Lippert, L., Pflieger, J., Higginbotham, B., Armstrong, S., & Long, A. (2004).
Evaluating a marriage education program for low-resource families: The Family Connec-
tions in Alabama project. Technical Report. Auburn, AL: Auburn University.
Blanchard, V. L., Hawkins, A. J., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2009). Investigating the
effects of marriage and relationship education on couples’ communication skills: A meta-
analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 203–214.
Brodkin, E. A. (2003). Street-level research: Policy at the front lines. In M. Lennon & R.
Corbett (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 145–
163). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Brotherson, S. E., & Duncan, W. C. (2004). Rebinding the ties that bind: Government efforts
to preserve and promote marriage. Family Relations, 53, 459–468.
Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16, 4–33.
Butler, M., & Wampler, K. (1999). A meta-analytic update of research on the couple commu-
nication program. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 223–237.
Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families.
Demography, 41, 237–261.
Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered
fertility among urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 718–732.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
410 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
Carroll, J., & Doherty, W. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital preven-
tion programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52,
105–118.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cherlin, A. (2003). Should the government promote marriage? Contexts, 2, 22–30.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes,
and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704.
Coontz, S., & Folbre, N. (2010). Briefing paper: Marriage, poverty, and public policy. In B. J.
Risman (Ed.), Families as they really are (pp. 185–193). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for
couples. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cowan, P., Cowan, C. P., & Knox, V. (2010). Marriage and fatherhood programs. The Future
of Children, 20, 205–230.
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K, Pruett, K., & Wong, J. J. (2009). Promoting fathers’
engagement with children: Preventative interventions for low-income families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 71, 663–679.
Department of Health and Human Services, Poverty Guidelines. (2008). Federal Regis-
ter, 73, 3971–3972. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/
O8poverty.shtml.
Dion, M. R. (2005). Healthy marriage programs: Learning what works. The Future of Children,
15, 139–156.
Edin, K. (2003). Client-based ethnographic research as a tool for implementation analysis. In
M. Lennon & R. Corbett (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare
reform (pp. 165–192). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before
marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Edin, K., Kefalas, M., & Reed, J. (2004). A peek inside the black box: What mar-
riage means to low-income unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
1007–1014.
Edin, K., & Reed, J. (2005). Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage among the
disadvantaged. The Future of Children, 15, 117–137.
Einhorn, L., Williams, T., Stanley, S., Wunderlin, N., Markman, H., & Eason, J. (2008). PREP
inside and out: Marriage education for inmates. Family Process, 47, 341–356.
England, P., & Edin, K. (2007). Unmarried couples with children: Hoping for love and the
white picket fence. In P. England & K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp.
3–21). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fagan, P., Patterson, R., & Rector, R. (2002, October). Marriage and welfare reform: The
overwhelming evidence that marriage education works. The Heritage Foundation: Back-
grounder. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Gibson-Davis, C. (2007). Expectations and the economic bar to marriage among low-income
couples. In. P. England & K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp. 84–103).
New York, NY: Sage.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1969). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Guerney, B., Jr., & Maxson, P. (1990). Marital and family enrichment research: A decade
review and look ahead. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 1127–1135.
Halpern-Meekin, S. (2011). High school relationship and marriage education: A com-
parison of mandated and self-selected treatment. Journal of Family Issues, 32,
394–419.
Halpern-Meekin, S. (2012). School variation in students’ experiences of high school relation-
ship and marriage education courses. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1688–1712.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis / 411
Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2010). Does relationship and marriage education for lower-
income couples work? A meta-analytic study of emerging research. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 9, 181–191.
Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., Doherty, W. J., & Willoughby, B. (2004). A comprehensive
framework for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 547–558.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and
relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76, 723–734.
Hawkins, A. J., Stanley, S. M., Cowan, P. A., Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Cowan, C. P.,
Rhoades, G. K., Markman, H. J., & Daire, A. P. (2013). A more optimistic perspective on
government-supported marriage and relationship education programs for lower income
couples. American Psychologist, 68, 110–111.
Heath, M. (2012). One marriage under God: The campaign to promote marriage in America.
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Hill, H. (2007). Steppin’ out: Infidelity and sexual jealousy among unmarried parents. In P.
England & K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp. 104–132). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Hsueh, J., Alderson, D. P., Lundquist, E., Michalopoulos, C., Gubits, D., Fein, D., & Knox, V.
(2012). The supporting healthy marriage evaluation: Early impacts on low-income families.
OPRE Report 2012–11. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Huston, T., & Melz, H. (2004). The case for (promoting) marriage: The devil is in the details.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 943–958.
Johnson, M. D. (2012). Healthy marriage initiatives: On the need for empiricism in policy
implementation. American Psychologist, 67, 296–308.
Johnson, M. D. (2013). Optimistic or quixotic? More data on marriage and relationship
education programs for lower income couples. American Psychologist, 68, 111–112.
Kirkland, C. L., Skuban, E. M., Adler-Baeder, F, Ketring, S. A., Bradford, A. Smith,
T., & Lucier-Greer, M. (2011). Effects of relationship/marriage education on co-
parenting and children’s social skills: Examining rural minority parents’ experi-
ences. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v13n2/kirkland.html.
McHale, J., Waller, M. R., & Pearson, J. (2012). Coparenting interventions for fragile families:
What do we know and where do we need to go next? Family Process, 51, 284–306.
McLanahan, S. (2006). Fragile families and the marriage agenda. In L. Kowaleski-Jones & N.
H. Wolfinger (Eds.), Fragile families and the marriage agenda (pp. 127–157). New York,
NY: Springer.
Ooms, T. (2007, March). Adapting healthy marriage programs for disadvantaged and cultur-
ally diverse populations: What are the issues? Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Policy Brief, No. 10. Washington, DC: CLASP.
Ooms, T., & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering relationship and marriage education
to low-income populations. Family Relations, 53, 440–447.
Reardon-Anderson, J., Stagner, M., Macomber, J. E., & Murray, J. (2005). System-
atic review of the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/serv_delivery/reports/systematic_rev/
systematic_rev .
Sparks, A. (2008, July). Implementation of “Within my Reach”: Providing a relation-
ship awareness and communications skills program to TANF recipients in Oklahoma.
National Poverty Center Working Paper Series, No. 08–11. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., & Prentice, D. L. (2010). De-
creasing divorce in army couples: Results from a randomized controlled trial using PREP
for strong bonds. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 149–160.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
412 / Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed-Methods for Policy Analysis
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Teitler, J., Reichman, N., & Nepomnyaschy, L. (2007). Determinants of TANF participation:
A multilevel analysis. Social Service Review, 81, 633–656.
Trail, T. E., & Karney, B. R. (2012). What’s (not) wrong with low-income marriages. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 74, 413–427.
Vaterlaus, J. M., Bradford, K., Skogrand, L., & Higginbotham, B. J. (2012). Providing relation-
ship education for low-income and diverse audiences: A phenomenological investigation.
Family Science Review, 17, 40–61.
Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Hsueh, J. (2010). The Building
Strong Families project: Strengthening unmarried parents’ relationships: The early impacts
of Building Strong Families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematic Policy Research.
Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Hsueh, J. (2012). The effects of
Building Strong Families: A healthy marriage and relationship skills education program
for unmarried parents. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 228–252.
Wood, R. G., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., Killewald, A., & Monahan, S. (2012). The long-term
effects of Building Strong Families: A relationship skills education program for unmarried
parents, executive summary. OPRE Report 2012-28B. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy
Research and the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration of Children
and Families.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Copyright of Journal of Policy Analysis & Management is the property of John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
