Marriage Guidebook - Philanthropy Roundtable

reviving

By William J. Doherty

Marriagein america

Strategies for Donors

reviving

By William J. Doherty

William J. Doherty is a Professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Marriagein america


Table of Contents

Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1 The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America . . . . . . . . . . . . 9The Benefits of MarriagePhilanthropy and Marriage: Obstacles, Issues and Opportunities

2 The Knowledge to Succeed:The Value of Marriage Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Marriage Education for AdultsMarriage Education for YouthThree Decades of Marriage Education

3 Supporting Healthy Marriages: Community Initiatives . . . . . 24Funding Healthy Marriage InitiativesFirst Things First: Revival in ChattanoogaHealthy Marriages Grand RapidsFamilies NorthwestJohn and Carolyn MutzThe Weatherwax Foundation

4 Supporting Healthy Marriages: National Initiatives . . . . . . . . 37Encouraging a National Movement: The Marriage CoMissionVine and Branches FoundationAnnie E. Casey FoundationTalaris Research InstitutePublic Sector ResponsesWilliam E. Simon FoundationNational Christian Foundation

5 Marriage Strategies: The Voice of Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Eleven Important Lessons

6 Marriage Strategies: TheWays Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Develop a Marriage Resource CenterPascale/Sykes FoundationPartner with Marriage SaversCultivate LeadershipEmbed Marriage Services into Existing ProgramsFour Research PrioritiesUse Your Power to ConveneFund Research and Policy Projects

7 Conclusion: The Time for Marriage Is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix A: Where to Go for More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Appendix B: Nine Major Marriage Education Programs. . . . . . . . 74

Appendix C: Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives (By State) . . 82

Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable

Letter fromThe Philanthropy Roundtable

The Philanthropy Roundtable is delighted to publish William J.Doherty’s guidebook on how philanthropists can support healthymarriages in America.

The institution of marriage has undergone significantchanges and challenges over the last 40 years. The impact thesechanges have wrought on family structure is no longer a matterof debate. A diverse spectrum of researchers agrees that the livesof our children and the well-being of our communities would beimproved if we knew how to promote healthy marriages.

This guidebook aims to give donors a solid foundation in theissues and opportunities in the field of healthy marriage develop-ment.

The Philanthropy Roundtable gratefully acknowledges thegenerous support of Arthur Rasmussen and the Mark and CarolHyman Fund in making this guidebook possible.

The Roundtable holds public meetings around the countrywhere donors can exchange ideas, strategies and best practices.We also offer customized private seminars, at no charge, fordonors who are thinking through how they can make the great-est difference in their giving. Please contact us at 202.822.8333or at [email protected] if you would like fur-ther information.

Adam MeyersonPresident

Stephanie SarokiSenior Director, K-12 Education Programs

5

Introduction

7

Introduction

In 1997 a group of Tennessee businessmen began to talk aboutthe direction of their city. “We wanted to know how we couldreally make a difference in Chattanooga,” says Hugh O.Maclellan Jr., president of the Maclellan Foundation. “We real-ized that the city’s biggest problem was the breakdown of fami-lies, and that every part of Chattanooga was being affected by it.”

Maclellan and his colleagues con-fronted grim statistics that showedChattanooga families were sufferingfrom unusually high rates of divorce,absentee fathers and teen pregnancies,which were hurting not only the indi-viduals immediately involved, but thecommunity as a whole. The numberstold the story:

• The divorce rate in Chattanoogawas 50 percent higher thanthe national average. (The state of Tennessee as a wholeranked fourth worst in the nation for divorce.)

• Chattanooga had the fifth-worst out-of-wedlock birthrate of 128 leading cities in the United States. A 1994study showed 50 percent of births in the city and 39 per-cent of births in the county were to unwed mothers.

• One in three Tennessee families were headed by a sin-gle parent, compared to one in four nationwide; in2000, the state ranked eighth worst in the nation.

Chattanooga’s civic leaders understood what these bleakstatistics meant for their city. Numerous studies have demon-strated that divorce, out-of-wedlock births and the absence offathers greatly increase a person’s likelihood of suffering anumber of ills, among them poverty, violent crime, drug andalcohol abuse, and early death.

Chattanooga’s health, Maclellan and his colleagues con-cluded, depended on the health of its families. With this inmind, they set out to found an organization that wouldstrengthen the ties that bind.

“We realized that the city’s

biggest problem was the

breakdown of families, and

that every part of Chattanooga

was being affected by it.”

Reviving Marriage in America

8

Maclellan thought big because the problem was big. Heset a goal to reduce divorce, births outside of wedlock andnon-responsible fatherhood by 30 percent in Chattanooga.Nine years later, Hamilton County has seen a 28 percent dropin divorce filings, a 20 percent decrease in the divorce rate anda 23 percent decrease in teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Maclellan and his colleagues say their efforts are only par-tially responsible for this progress. Yet Chattanooga achievedimpressive results. It is clear that the Chattanooga model canbe replicated and that similar programs provide opportunitiesfor philanthropists who want to foster healthy marriages andimprove the well-being of our nation’s families.

During the last 40 years, the institution of marriage haschanged more rapidly, and been challenged more forcefully, thanat any other time in human history. For the most part, the phil-anthropic community sat out the social revolution in marriageand the dislocation it has caused for children, adults and com-munities. Many donors now want to get involved but lackgrounding in the issues and key opportunities. This guide aims toprovide that grounding. The pages that follow will examine thecurrent landscape, most effective interventions, and opportunitiesfor donors of all sizes seeking to promote healthy marriages inAmerica.

The State of Our Unions

9

1The State of Our Unions:Marriage in America

Marriage in America has changed a great deal over the past twogenerations. Once uncommon, divorce, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing have increased dramatically. Betweenthe mid-1960s and 1980, the divorce rate in the United Statesdoubled and to this day remains high. What’s more, about 37percent of children in America are now born to unmarried par-ents. These changes have occurredin all social groups, but have beenparticularly pronounced amonglow-income Americans and amongAfrican-Americans in general.

For several decades the impactof this dramatic change in familystructure was the subject of vigor-ous debate among scholars. Nolonger. A diverse spectrum of researchers now accepts what hasbeen common sense for many: that if we knew how to promotehealthy marriages, the lives of our children and the well-beingof our communities would be improved.

The effects of the decline of marriage have proven to bedevastating for society, and in particular for young people.According to David Popenoe, co-director of the NationalMarriage Project and professor of sociology at RutgersUniversity, “children from broken homes, compared to chil-dren from intact families, have six times the chance of grow-ing up poor. For other youth problems like delinquency andteen pregnancies, the rates for broken-home children are twoto three times what they are for children from intact families.”Studies have demonstrated that the failure of parents to formand maintain healthy marriages is associated with crime,poverty, mental health problems, welfare dependency, failedschools, blighted neighborhoods, bloated prisons, and higherrates of single parenting and divorce in the next generation.

Of course, the decline of marriage is not the sole, direct causeof all of these problems; many economic, social and political fac-tors contribute to these social ills. It is clear, however, that the dis-

If we knew how to promote

healthy marriages, the lives of our

children and the well-being of our

communities would be improved.


10

The Benefits of Marriage

Benefits for Adults1. Married men and women have lower mortality rates and tend

to have better overall health than their single counterparts.2. Married couples tend to have more material resources, less stress and

better social support than people who are not married.3. Married men are less likely to abuse alcohol.4. Both married men and women report significantly lower levels of

depression and have better overall psychological well-being thantheir single, divorced, widowed and cohabitating counterparts.

5. Married African-Americans have better life satisfaction than those whoare single.

6. Married men report higher wages than single men and have beenfound to be more productive and more likely to be promoted.

7. Married women tend to have substantially more economic resources thansingle women. The economic benefits of marriage are especially strongfor women who come from disadvantaged families.

Benefits for Children1. Children from families with married parents are less likely to experi-

ence poverty than children from single-parent or cohabitating families.2. Children born to cohabitating couples have a higher chance of experi-

encing family instability, a factor that has been linked to poor childwell-being.

3. Children from married, two-parent families tend to do better in schoolthan those who grow up in single-parent or alternative family structures.

4. Children from intact, two-parent families are less likely to experienceemotional-behavioral problems.

5. The more time children live in a married, two-parent home, the lesslikely they are to use drugs.

6. Children who grow up in a married, two-parent family are lesslikely to have children out of wedlock in their future relationships.

7. Women with married parents are less likely to experience ahigh-conflict marriage.

8. Single mothers report more conflict with their children thanmarried mothers.

9. The rate of infant mortality is lower among married parents.10. Children living with their married, biological parents are less likely to

experience child abuse.

11


solution of marriage lies at the heart of nearly every significantsocial difficulty in our country. If public policy and philanthropicinitiatives to solve most social problems are to succeed, they can-not ignore the indispensable contributions of healthy marriages.

Philanthropy and Marriage: Obstacles to InvolvementUnfortunately, many past policy and philanthropic efforts havefailed to recognize the importance of healthy families and, as aresult, have spent their time, energy and money addressing theeffects of these problems rather than attacking the cause.There are a number of reasons why many philanthropists havebeen reluctant to get involved in marriage issues:

• Many donors have viewed marriage as a private adultrelationship and not as a crucial social institution.They assumed that it was not anyone else’s businesswhether people got married or stay married.

• They have not seen the connection between marriageand children’s well-being, and between marriage andserious social problems such as poverty and crime.

• Some secular donors have regarded marriage as theresponsibility of faith communities and not privatephilanthropies.

• Some “liberal” foundations have avoided marriagebecause they emphasize diversity of family forms andare afraid of stigmatizing single parents.

• Some “conservative” foundations have viewed mar-riage as a personal value, not a public value—a privatemoral issue and not a societal issue.

• Some foundation leaders doubt that anything can bedone to revive marriage at local levels because largersocial forces have undermined it. This is a common vieweven among sociologists and historians who worryabout the decline of marriage.

• Many donors are unaware of the research on whatmakes marriages succeed and fail, as well as recentresearch-based innovations in marriage education andcommunity healthy marriage initiatives. They mayassume that all marriage initiatives are faith-basedefforts that, while worthwhile, lack rigorous evalua-tion standards, or that the only available service is


12

marriage counseling, a direct service that they do notfund.

• Staff and board members have personal and familyexperiences with marriage and divorce, experiencesthat can make them skittish about entering this arena.Carole Thompson of the Annie E. Casey Foundationnotes that, unlike many other areas of funding, “Thisone is personal!”

• In some cases when foundations are interested in sup-porting local marriage initiatives, they have not knownhow to get involved. Community professionals withwhom foundations often work may lack expertise inmarriage and may even discourage foundations from get-ting involved in marriage initiatives.

• Today, some foundation leaders may fear that if theyfund marriage programs, they will become involved inthe culture war over same-sex marriage. Marriage is acontentious issue in contemporary America.

Philanthropy and Marriage: Avoiding Hot-Button IssuesSome skeptics raise two issues regarding the healthy marriageagenda: stigma against single-parent families and discrimina-tion against same-sex couples. Donors can deal with bothissues, but they must be prepared in advance. Here are someperspectives and guidelines from the field.

Regarding concerns about stigmatizing single parents,donors can point to evidence that most people of all socialclasses, races and ethnic groups aspire to lifelong marriage forthemselves and their children. This includes single parents,almost none of whom hope their children will grow up to besingle parents. The donor’s aim is to help people achieve theirown goal for lifelong marriage, not to impose a lifestyle onthem or to cast aspersions on people who are raising childrenoutside of marriage. The marriage agenda is mainly about thefuture—creating the capacity for people to form and sustainhealthy marriages—and not about criticizing anyone for pastdecisions.

As Jeff Kemp, president of Families Northwest, says, “Themarriage movement is for children, for families, for couples,for us all. Married, single, divorced, widowed, old or young,we’ve all got a stake and a role in this positive, preventative


13

social movement focused on what is best for children.” Allfamilies where children are being raised deserve the support oftheir communities, but communities should not be afraid topromote the best environment for children—a loving, married,two-parent family.

Julie Baumgardner, executive director of Chattanooga’sFirst Things First, concurs with this approach. She adds,“Many people forget that 75 percent of divorced people remar-ry within four years of theirdivorce. They are as interested ingetting it right as anybody is, per-haps more so since it didn’t workout the first time. Often, we areafraid to talk about marriage withpeople who are divorced becausewe fear their feelings will be hurt.It has been my experience thatthey are the ones who really want to talk about it, who strong-ly encourage their adult children to take premarital classes,etc., because they know the pain divorce can cause.”

An irony of the criticism that funding marriage programsis unfair to single-parent families is that nearly all foundationand government funding in the past has gone to single-parentfamilies, and will continue to go to them because of povertyand other challenges associated with these families. This neweffort is designed to open a small window for promoting thekind of family that nearly everyone sees as optimal for raisingchildren.

Regarding same-sex marriage, each donor has to decidewhether to tackle this divisive issue. If not, donors should notengage it or they will find themselves dominated by it.

Donors can take the approach suggested by Wade Horn,Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, by emphasizingthe following point: “Our society is having an important con-versation about the legal rights of same-sex couples. This con-versation will continue in many forms, but it’s not part of whatwe are dealing with in our project. We have chosen to focus onthe 97 percent or so of the population who are in heterosexu-al relationships.”

Every national poll on marriage

shows the continued idealism

of American youth and adults

about marriage.


14

No donor is responsible for every social issue and eachdonor must draw boundaries around priority areas. Two addi-tional points can be made about this issue:

• The nonmarital birth rate and the divorce rate aresocial problems primarily in the heterosexual commu-nity, not the gay community. Philanthropists are put-ting their resources where the biggest need is.

• The need for relationship education in order to moveout of poverty is an issue mainly for low-income het-erosexual women.

The key in both areas is not to be defensive about your focusand priorities, and to use the conversation as an opportunity toeducate people about the problems with contemporary marriageand the need for new solutions. Most community members willend up supporting donor initiatives, or at least not opposingthem, if their concerns are approached in these ways.

Philanthropy and Marriage: Avenues of OpportunityWhatever the reasons for the lack of philanthropic participa-tion in the past, the good news is that it’s not too late to getinvolved. Even while researchers are documenting the negativeeffects of failed marriages, they are finding that Americanshave not given up on this vital social institution. In fact, everynational poll on marriage shows the continued idealism ofAmerican youth and adults about marriage. Nor have urbanlow-income Americans given up on the institution of marriage,despite stereotypes assigned to them by many in mainstreamsociety.

In this regard, a study known as Fragile Families and ChildWellbeing has provided important new information aboutunmarried parents in urban areas. Led by Sara McLanahan ofPrinceton University and Irv Garfinkel of Columbia University,and funded by the federal government and 21 foundations, thisstudy is following 5,000 newborn urban children and theirparents, most of whom are unmarried, through 2009.

The Fragile Families study has found that the great major-ity of unmarried new parents in urban areas have a romanticrelationship at the time of the birth, and that most aspire toforming a family together and eventually marrying. In fact,

15


most of these couples see marriage as the best foundation forraising children, a view shared by a majority of Americans ofall social groups.

Along with these encouraging findings about the valuesand aspirations of new urban unmarried parents, the FragileFamilies Study is also finding that without assistance and sup-port, most of these couples will not achieve their goal of mar-rying and raising their child together. The fall-off of couplerelationships over the first year after the child is born is con-siderable. The desire for marriage is there, but the obstacles,both economic and relational, are many.

How can donors help overcome the many obstacles tohealthy marriages in America? There are three main avenuesfor addressing the decline and revival of marriage: 1) mar-riage counseling, 2) marriage education, and 3) communityhealthy marriage initiatives. Although marriage counselingfor individual couples has been around for decades, its lead-ers, for the most part, have not addressed marriage as a socialand community issue. With some exceptions such as theNational Registry of Marriage Friendly Therapists (co-found-ed by Kathleen Wenger and myself), marriage counseling hasbeen on the sidelines in recent efforts to restore marriage inthe United States. Therefore, the remainder of this volume willfocus on the other two main levers: marriage education andhealthy marriage initiatives.


16

2The Knowledge to Succeed:

The Value of Marriage Education

Marriage education aims to equip individuals and coupleswith the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to succeedin marriage. There are a wide range of programs, both pre-ventive and remedial, enhancing and repairing. Most marriageeducation occurs in classroom settings with trained instruc-tors, though some marriage mentor programs focus on cou-ple-to-couple instruction and support.

A key tenet in marriage education is that marital successdepends not on finding a “perfect match” but on knowledgeand competencies that can be taught and learned. Couples aretaught the benefits and advantages of marriage, reasons to per-severe in marriage, and a roadmap of what to expect along theway. They are trained in areas such as communication, conflictmanagement and positive ways to connect in everyday life.

More detailed descriptions of the major marriage educa-tion programs currently offered all over the United States canbe found on two websites: National Healthy MarriageResource Center—www.healthymarriageinfo.org—and theCoalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education—www.smartmarriages.com.

Thanks to a number of studies in recent years, the field ofmarriage education now has a solid base of knowledge aboutwhat it takes to build a healthy, stable marital relationship.Studies have documented the effectiveness of a number of edu-cational programs for young people, premarital couples andmarried couples. Most programs can be taught by trained laypeople and not just professionals.

Studies show that low-income couples appear to valuemarriage education as much as middle-class couples, althoughthere are barriers of cost and access. Two large-scale, federal-ly funded research studies are underway on the effectivenessof marriage education for low-income families.

The Knowledge to Succeed

17

Marriage Education for AdultsThere are many marriage education serv-ices already in existence that can be adapt-ed to local settings. They include classes incommunication and problem-solvingskills, marriage mentoring in which sea-soned couples coach younger couples,weekend retreats, and support groups.There are specific programs for remarriedcouples in stepfamilies and for couples indistress. Foundations can partner with alocal organization to provide resources totrain local leaders in one or more of thesemarriage education programs.

In practice, most direct marriage edu-cation services are delivered by faithcommunities, although the curricula theyemploy are often secular in nature. Forexample, the New Hope Foundation in Muscatine, Iowa, hasa long track record of funding United Marriage Encounter, aninterdenominational Christian ministry, including staff sup-port and leadership development.

Long-term, the most effective use of philanthropic support inmarriage education is to build capacity for delivering marriageeducation in local communities, rather than providing funds fordirect services. When funding this capacity-building, it is impor-tant to ask a number of questions of service providers. Where didthey learn their craft? Which curricula and premarital inventoriesdo they use? If they are providing marriage mentoring, where didthey receive training in this work? Are they connected to nationalresources such as the Coalition for Marriage, Family and CouplesEducation (see page 21)? Are they familiar with themajor researchfindings about marriage and marriage education?

Local marriage educators should be connecting withestablished programs in the field rather than reinventing everyaspect of their programs. The field of marriage education hasbeen around long enough now, with a growing track record ofsuccess, that donors can expect local leaders to be conversantwith these developments and to explain why they are using ornot using established programs adapted to local needs.

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: New HopeFoundation

LOCATION: Muscatine, IA

PROJECT: United MarriageEncounter

PRIMARY GOAL: To encouragestrong marriages throughthe Marriage EncounterWeekend and othermarriage support ministries

COMMITMENT: Significantdonors


18

Donors should be wary of the solo operator who feels no needto learn from prior work in the field.

In addition it is essential that direct marriage educationproviders develop plans to handle issues of domestic violence.The U.S. government now requires all federally funded projects inthe marriage area to have an explicit plan to protect the safety ofparticipants in marriage education programs. Before long, therewill be a number of domestic violence plans from federally fund-

ed projects that could be adapted byother local organizations.

Prisons represent another frontierfor marriage education programs.Although relatively new, marriageeducation services to prisoners andtheir partners are being developed inseveral parts of the country. Theseservices are being provided by tradi-tional agencies focused on supportingprisoners and their families, such as

the Osborne Association based in New York. Osborne receiveda $600,000 grant over four years to provide the Prevention andRelationship Enhancement Program (PREP) to soon-to-be-released or recently released prisoners and their spouses if theyare raising minor children. The Oklahoma Marriage Initiativealso has developed a program to provide an adapted version ofPREP to prisoners and their spouses. Such services are seen as animportant step in reintegrating prisoners, in addition to decreas-ing the high marital and family dissolution rate among them.

Other marriage education programs for incarcerated indi-viduals and their spouses are being developed in Florida andMissouri, and in Chattanooga, Tennessee, by Rozario Slack ofFirst Things First (see page 25). This area of intervention isexpected to grow even more, as evidenced by a conference onmarriage education in prisons hosted by the federalAdministration for Children and Families in April 2006.

Some direct marriage education services are now beingadapted to cultural communities in the United States. Thebest-developed materials are in the African American HealthyMarriage Initiative; newer initiatives are underway in theHispanic and Asian communities and with low-income whitecouples, a neglected sub-population.

Building capacity for delivering

marriage education in local

communities is more effective in

the long term than providing

funds for direct services.


19

Marriage Education for YouthHelping young people develop good rela-tionship skills before they get married andpreparing them to make good choicesabout mates is crucial to reviving mar-riage in our country. Youth marriage edu-cation is a promising area for donorsbecause it incorporates health, peer vio-lence prevention, pregnancy prevention,and developing community assets. Youngpeople generally are easy to reach becausethey are already connected to schools andyouth programs and are eager to learninformation that is relevant to their cur-rent lives.

The challenge for donors is to have theforesight to understand how helping youngpeople learn skills for their current rela-tionships can prepare them to defer preg-nancy until marriage (or at least untiladulthood), make wise choices aboutwhom to marry, and go on to succeed inmarriage. Marline Pearson, creator and author of the Love U2marriage education program, notes that “all good social servicework can be undone by one failed relationship or pregnancy.”The skills developed in early marriage education, on the otherhand, can last a lifetime.

With five outreach educators covering all 50 states, theDibble Fund for Marriage Education is a good source of con-sultation for foundations interested in this area. Based inBerkeley, California, this nonprofit organization has beendeveloping and funding marriage education programs foryoung people for the past 20 years.

Charles Dibble, a successful engineer until his retirementin 1965, became interested in marriage education shortly afterhis retirement. His involvement in marriage education beganat his great niece’s wedding, at which he was surprised to hearher say, “Don’t worry; it’s just my first wedding.” Dibble real-ized that this flippant remark was indicative of a larger prob-lem and became determined to help change prevailing atti-tudes about marriage.

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: The Dibble Fund

LOCATION: Berkeley, CA

PROJECT: Dibble Fundfor Marriage Education

PRIMARY GOAL: To help youngpeople learn skills whichenable successfulrelationships and marriages;to serve as a nationwideadvocate and resource foryouth marriage educationand to publish materialswhich help teachrelationship skills

COMMITMENT: $750,000since 1991; over $1million prior to 1991

Three Decades of Marriage Education

Marriage education began in earnest in the 1970s, when visionary support-ers of marriage began efforts to try to improve all marriages, not just trou-bled ones. In 1973 David and Vera Mace founded the Association ofCouples for Marriage Enrichment, an organization that to this day continuesto promote couple support groups around the country. Faith communitiesbegan offering workshops and retreats for couples. Professional programswere established in the 1970s to teach communication skills to marriedcouples. These skills included techniques in listening carefully, showingempathy, expressing one’s concerns in a constructive way to one’s spouse,and effective problem-solving.

By far the largest marriage-strengthening program of the 1970s wasMarriage Encounter, which had spread to the United States from Spain.Hundreds of thousands of couples, mostly Roman Catholic but also fromother Christian denominations, attended weekend retreat programs led bya clergyperson and two lay couples. The goals were marital and spiritualrenewal. By the late 1970s, the promise of lay-led, community-based mar-riage programs seemed great.

But in the 1980s, Marriage Encounter weekend retreats dwindled, andfaith communities seemed to turn their attention elsewhere. Professionalsfound they could not fill their communication skills courses. Only programsfor premarital couples continued to attract substantial and growing numbersof couples, in part because participation was required by their clergy as acondition for marriage. It was during this same time, however, that academicresearch on marriage and marriage communication began to take off, pro-viding a growing basis of scientific knowledge for the field.

Looking back at the drop-off in the 1980s, it is now clear how much the1970s activities to strengthen marriage were fed by the human potential move-ment and its focus on personal growth and small group experiences. An“enriched” marriage was part of personal enrichment. But during the 1980s, therise of consumer culture eclipsed the mainstream culture’s fascination with per-sonal growth. This was also a time when academic researchers did not seedivorce and single parenting as major social problems.

Feminist leaders at the time emphasized the dark side of marriage forwomen whose husbands refused to be equal partners to their workingwives and women trapped in abusive relationships. The mainline Christian


20

churches emphasized pastoral sensitivity to divorced people and single par-ents, which seemed inconsistent with proclaiming the unique value of life-long marriage. The conservative Christian churches still preached about life-long marriage but were not organizing programs for couples to help themachieve such relationships.

Overall, during the 1980s there was little academic or cultural fomentabout the decline of marriage. But by the mid-1990s, the seeds of a marriagerenewal were germinating, nourished by broader cultural and academicchanges. A widespread revisiting of the divorce revolution surfaced by mid-decade. The controversy was intense, indicating that a new cultural and pro-fessional conversation had begun. This second half of the 1990s may some-day be viewed as the turning point for marriage in the United States.

In 1996 Diane Sollee, a marriage and family therapist, founded theCoalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education, with the goal of con-necting the disparate marriage education programs, bringing marriage edu-cation to the attention of public policy leaders, and jump-starting a move-ment to foster healthy marriages through education and cultural change.She created a national clearinghouse for marriage information, began anannual national conference, generated intense media attention, and galva-nized public policy, professional and community interest in skills-based edu-cation for marriage in schools, churches, extension offices, military bases,child-birth classes and a variety of other settings. Within the first five years,attendance at Sollee’s Smart Marriages conferences grew from 400 to1,100. By 2006 the figure passed 2,200. Her smartmarriages.com email list-serv provides a steady flow of information on marriage and marriage initia-tives to thousands of subscribers.

The decade after 1995 witnessed the resurgence of interest in profes-sionally developed marriage education programs that attracted the interest offaith communities and government funders. This period also witnessed the ori-gins of community healthy marriage initiatives (see Chapter 3) and significantmarriage reports by institutes and think tanks, in particular David Blankenhorn’sInstitute for American Values, David Popenoe’s and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’sNational Marriage Project, and Theodora Ooms’s Marriage Project (situatedwithin the Center for Law and Social Policy). These think tanks on marriage,which cross the ideological spectrum, were the first centers of intellectual depthon marriage to be funded by foundations and individual donors interested inrenewing marriage in the United States.


21


22

In the 1980s, he focused on reading marriage studies. Hecalled leading researchers, such as David Olson at theUniversity of Minnesota, and asked them two questions:“What do we know about healthy marriages?” which theycould always answer, and “How do we communicate this toyoung people?” which they often hadn’t considered.

Before he died of cancer in 1991, he founded the DibbleFund to serve as a nationwide advocate and resource for youth

marriage education and publisher ofmaterials that help teach relationshipskills to young people. Its initial giftswere to both Philanthropic Venturesand the Peninsula CommunityFoundation (now the Silicon ValleyCommunity Foundation). The fundworks like an operating foundation,with the bulk of Dibble’s money now

residing at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.The organization focuses on marriage education and

teaching teens how to have healthy relationships, skills whichhave wide-ranging effects on teen and domestic violence, ver-bal aggression, sexual behavior, and teens’ relationships withtheir parents. Developing these skills now gives teens the toolsthey will need later to get and stay married.

The Dibble Fund has published a popular brochure, “10Things Teens Should Know about Love and Marriage,” andDibble Fund president Kay Reed often speaks at youth con-ferences and gatherings. The fund works with teachers to pro-mote healthy relationships in schools. Its model works direct-ly through the school because teachers often don’t have thematerial to teach relationship skills.

In addition to the Dibble Fund’s initiatives, there are othernew programs that help young adults with their current rela-tionships but also emphasize the important role of marriage inadult life. Promising examples mentioned by Diane Sollee,founder and director of Smart Marriages, are “10 Great DatesBefore You Say I Do,” “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk,”“The Black Marriage Curriculum,” and “The First Dance:Managing the People Stress of Wedding Planning.” Newopportunities to disseminate the recent wave of innovative“outside the box” programs in marriage education are rela-

Helping young people develop

good relationship skills before

they marry is crucial to reviving

marriage in our country.


23

tively inexpensive because they require no training to deliver,and some are aimed directly at youth or the public at largethrough DVDs.

Donors could help make these programs available in pub-lic libraries, community centers, religious institutions and hos-pitals, or even get them on local public television. Billboardsand public service announcements are a similarly cost-effec-tive, and underutilized, way to get out informational messagesto the public.

Finally, there is currently a big disconnect between whereyoung married people are going for advice—to websites likewww.TheNest.com that create peer communities—and thetraditional offerings of marriage educators. Innovative donorscould partner with web-savvy young adults, who came of agewith the internet and are now making their way into the mar-riage education field, to develop and offer marriage educationon the internet and reach millions of individuals and couples.

24

3Supporting Healthy Marriages:Community Initiatives

Community healthy marriage initiatives are broad-based coali-tions of community groups and organizations that help individ-uals and couples form and sustain healthy marriages and thatpromote cultural change in support of healthy marriages. Theyconsist of a diverse mix of projects sharing the common missionof building healthy marriages, one community at a time.

Funding Healthy Marriage InitiativesCommunity healthy marriage initiatives, often led by dedicat-ed volunteers, can benefit greatly from additional funding inorder to prosper and develop deeper roots in their communi-ties. Those that attract and nurture substantial private andsometimes public funding mature into major marriage mobi-lizations with several full-time staff members and a wide rangeof coordinated events and educational activities for couples,community institutions, media and the general public.

An advantage of partnering with a community healthy mar-riage initiative is that it may be more conducive to continuitythan a single organization whose leadership might change.There may also be more creativity from the cross-fertilization ofdifferent groups in the community, as well as more public visi-bility. Many new community healthy marriage initiatives wouldbe able to take off with relatively modest seed money from afoundation. In addition to an influx of resources, foundationsupport gives fledging coalitions needed credibility in the localcommunity for raising challenge funds. However, experienceddonors recommend not requiring challenge funds at the outsetbecause local organizations often lack the visibility and capaci-ty to raise additional money in the early stages of their work.This capacity comes later.

A recurring opportunity to partner with a local communi-ty healthy marriage initiative is to support the celebration ofNational Marriage Week (February 7-14), Black Marriage Day(the last Sunday in March) and, of course, Valentine’s Day.Appendix C contains a list of community healthy marriage ini-


Supporting Healthy Marriages: Community Initiatives

25

tiatives as of August 2006. New groups are springing up andwill be added to the National Healthy Marriage ResourceCenter website, www.healthymarriageinfo.org.

What follow are examples of some of the best current com-munity initiatives. These mature organizations need ongoingfunding for their programs, as well as infusions of resources forbreakthrough projects that will set the standard for other com-munities. For some donors, these initia-tives may be partnering opportunities; forthose looking to develop new programs,these pioneers can provide inspiration andguidance.

First Things First: Revival in ChattanoogaIn 1997 local leaders in Hamilton County,Tennessee (home of Chattanooga), con-fronted the county’s biggest problem—thebreakdown of the family—head on.Chattanooga had a divorce rate 50 percenthigher than the national average, the fifthhighest unwed birth rate of cities in thenation, and a significant lack of fatherinvolvement—trends that were hurting notonly the individuals immediately involved,but also the entire community, taking a toll on education, eco-nomic development and neighborhood stability.

Confronted with such grim statistics, these civic leaders,led by Maclellan Foundation president Hugh O. Maclellan Jr.,began an effort called First Things First to solidify the institu-tion of the family as the building block of society. Nine yearslater, Hamilton County has seen a 28 percent drop in divorcefilings, a 20 percent decrease in the divorce rate and a 23 per-cent decrease in teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

How did Chattanooga achieve such stunning results?Early on, First Things First made key decisions that shaped itslater success:

• To be a secular organization based on Judeo-Christianvalues that intentionally seeks to build bridgesbetween the sacred and secular, public and private.

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: MaclellanFoundation

LOCATION: Chattanooga, TN

PROJECT: First Things First

PRIMARY GOAL: To strengthenfamilies in HamiltonCounty, Tennessee,through education,collaboration andmobilization

COMMITMENT: $3.4 millionsince 1998


26

• To be proactive, not reactive. By focusing on preven-tive strategies, the donors hoped to stop family break-ups before the worst happened, not just devise ways toaid already distressed families.

• To focus on advocacy, education, mobilization andtechnical assistance rather than providing direct clientservices. (They now provide some direct client servicesbecause existing ones were insufficient.)

• To work with a wide array of programs and initia-tives, and to create a community-wide effort involvinggovernment and political leaders, places of worship,social service agencies, the private sector, the mediaand private citizens.

From the outset, Maclellan wanted First Things First to influ-ence the broader community culture and to develop local capac-ity to strengthen marriage; he wanted to “teach people how tolove a city.” This meant putting together a marketing and publicrelations campaign along with providing traditional services.

This ambitious project therefore needed an executivedirector with skills in civic leadership and public relationsalong with social service experience. In its second executivedirector, Julie Baumgardner, the First Things First boardfound this combination, and Baumgardner assembled a tal-ented staff to partner with churches and local professionals tobuild capacity for marriage education, responsible fatherhoodand related services.Making a Media Splash. An important ingredient in the

success of First Things First has been its media strategy—toattract positive attention to needs in the field as well as to FirstThings First as an organization, which Maclellan reports has 68percent name recognition in Chattanooga. The staff held a pressconference to kick off the initiative and wrote articles for sever-al local magazines to educate the public and to introduce FirstThings First. The organization also used relationships with localmedia to get airtime on morning shows and “Live at 5” stories.

The key, according to Baumgardner, was making FirstThings First a resource for the media by providing interestingstories and taking a partnership approach. It provided thenews stations with compelling and interesting topics aboutmarriage and family, which gave First Things First a platform


27

to educate the public about its mission and purpose. Thisapproach also enabled First Things First to work out arrange-ments where it received discounted prices on airtime or wasgiven unsold inventory slots after paying full price for one ormore primetime slots.From Divorce Mediation to Fatherhood. First Things First

has been involved in a wide variety of projects and programs tostrengthen families in the Chattanoogaarea. It was approached by the statelegislature and a local judge to facili-tate the development of the HamiltonCounty Divorce Education andMediation Project. First Things Firstwas charged with pulling together pro-fessionals working in the area ofdivorce and mediation, including men-tal health providers, mediators, clergy, attorneys and judges, todetermine what type of protocol and curriculum to implementfor divorcing parents with children (where there was no abuseinvolved), and which groups would be approved to teach thecurriculum.

A study by the University of Tennessee-Chattanoogafound that the program resulted in a 50 percent decrease inreturn court visits for child visitation and custody suits. TheDivorce Education and Parenting Plan Pilot Project is perma-nent now, and the state legislature voted to expand the pro-gram statewide in 2000.

In addition to its involvement with the Hamilton CountyDivorce Education and Mediation Project, First Things Firsthas launched fathering and marriage public service cam-paigns, and has trained hundreds of professionals throughmarriage enrichment, step-family-strengthening programs andfathering and parenting seminars.

The organization also sponsors premarital classes and anAfrican-American marriage initiative, which includes ongoingtraining and an annual celebration weekend. It promotes fam-ily-friendly policies in area businesses and recruits localchurches to sign a Community Marriage Covenant.

From the outset, the organization has been closelyinvolved with the domestic violence prevention community.Baumgardner serves on the board of the local domestic vio-

Hamilton County has seen a 28

percent drop in divorce filings

and a 23 percent decrease in teen

out-of-wedlock pregnancies.


28

lence organization. Issues around abuse and violence are inte-grated into the marriage courses, including information abouthow to get help if someone is involved in an abusive relation-ship. First Things First’s partnership with the domestic vio-lence prevention community includes informal consultationon programming and message development, mutual referrals,and providing talks and seminars for each other’s organizations.

Maclellan initially invested $250,000 to give First ThingsFirst enough resources to make an initial splash in the commu-nity, attract a board of “doers,” hire a strong staff and be self-

sufficient for the first few years whiletackling the challenge of attractingadditional funding. The organizationnow has support from 15 foundationsand numerous churches, corporationsand individual donors. A key to thisbroad support is the vision of makinga dramatic, lasting difference for thewhole community on a wide range of

social problems that stem from the failure of marriages to formand flourish.

The Maclellan Foundation continues to fund First ThingsFirst but moved from providing grants outright to providingpartial matching grants and then to the current practice ofrequiring 100 percent matches on all awarded grants. As earlyas 1998, the Maclellan Foundation grants comprised less thanhalf of First Things First’s total budget.Data as a Driver of Success. Another key to First Things

First’s success is its use of data to drive the project and meas-ure its progress. In 1999 the organization issued the HamiltonCounty Marriage Report that described the marriage, divorce,cohabitation, father involvement, and unmarried childbearingattitudes and behaviors of Hamilton County residents.

First Things First also commissions the Barna Research groupto conduct follow-up community surveys every three years tocompare to the original baseline study. The data obtained areused to make the case for community-wide prevention and inter-vention by highlighting the negative factors (such as high rates ofdivorce and unmarried child-bearing) that affect child, adult andcommunity well-being, and to show that the community is inter-ested in initiatives that strengthen marriages and families.

“You can have singles, doubles

and occasionally a home run. First

Things First is a home run. It’s the

best bang for our buck.”


29

First Things First carefully tracks participation in its events,monitoring its own progress and publicizing impressive figures,such as the more than 6,000 people who attended seminars inthe first seven years of the program’s history.

First Things First also uses this data to help craft commu-nity messages and educational programs and to track changesin community attitudes and behaviors. For example, when thedata showed that over 50 percent of Hamilton County residentsdoubted the importance of raising children in marriage withinvolved fathers, staff began marketing messages and offeringtalks that provided evidence to the contrary. Although impres-sive changes in attitudes and behavior in Hamilton Countycannot be assigned solely to First Things First, leaders use thedata to provide indicators that what they are doing con-tributes to these changes. Examples include:

• The earliest surveys found that 48 percent of HamiltonCounty residents believed that premarital preparationwas important, while the latest survey showed that 88percent of Hamilton County residents believe that pre-marital preparation is important.

• Divorce filings inHamiltonCounty have decreased 28 per-cent since 1997. The divorce rate has decreased 20 percent.

• In Hamilton County, teen out-of-wedlock births havedecreased 23 percent. Out-of-wedlock births forwomen of all ages have also decreased slightly.

As a community healthy marriage initiative, First Things Firstis both a template and a training ground for the development ofadditional initiatives across the country. The U.S. Administrationfor Children and Families has brought interested leaders fromaround the country to Chattanooga to provide training in thismodel. Maclellan reports that First Things First has “achieved itsobjective far better than I thought, especially in improving father-ing and reducing divorce.”

“You can have singles, doubles and occasionally a home run.First Things First is a home run. It’s the best bang for our buck,”he says of the foundation’s funding. “Their programs affect everysingle part of Chattanooga society.”


30

Healthy Marriages Grand RapidsHealthyMarriages Grand Rapids, originallyknown as the Greater Grand RapidsCommunity Marriage Policy, began as acommunity initiative in 1997 “to encourageand empower couples for lifelong healthymarriages, and to raise the standard of two-parent families in the community.” Toaccomplish these goals, Healthy MarriagesGrand Rapids (HMGR) offers a variety ofcommunity programs and generates publicawareness through the media.

The organization sponsors premaritalworkshops in both faith-based and civil set-tings, trains pastors and lay leaders (nearly300) to administer premarital inventories,hosts events specifically focused on mar-riage and enrichment in the African-American community, and has designatedFebruary as “Celebrate Marriage Month”to raise awareness in the community aboutthe importance of healthy marriages.

HMGR has been supported by aunique combination of private and publicinvestment. Richard and Helen DeVos,through a donor advised fund of the GrandRapids Community Foundation; the West

Michigan Christian Foundation; Pine Rest Christian MentalHealth Services; and other individual donors have stepped for-ward. In addition, key operational leadership comes through anorganization called City Vision and ten partner agencies.

Virginia (Ginny) Vander Hart describes how the WestMichigan Christian Foundation in partnership with the DeVosFoundation, where she serves as executive director, was the catalystfor the initial funding of HMGR. She reports that the DeVos fam-ily first got involved in marriage work in response to news that thefederal government was interested in funding a demonstrationgrant. “Grand Rapids has a long history of public/private cooper-ation,” she says. The DeVos family, through the Grand RapidsCommunity Foundation, provided the private match for the federalmoney, and the West Michigan Christian Foundation served as the

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: Dick and BetsyDeVos Foundation

LOCATION: Grand Rapids, MI

PROJECT: CommunityMarriage Policy; Institutefor Marriage and PublicPolicy

PRIMARY GOAL: To promotelasting marriages andmarriage preparation; toestablish spiritually healthyfamilies; to provideresearch and publiceducation on ways that lawand public policy canstrengthen marriageas a social institution

COMMITMENT: $75,000 tosupport local CommunityMarriage Policy; over$200,000 to Institute forMarriage and Public Policy

31


convener and provider of technical structure and support for legis-lators and grassroots groups who developed the initial model andapplication. “We quickly realized, however, that although we hadlots of good people around the table, we didn’t have the kind ofexpertise or capacity to deal with the mag-nitude of this multi-million dollar grant. Sowe turned to Pine Rest Family Institute,which had the track record and institutionalcapacity.”

Although attracting a strong institutionalpartner like Pine Rest (and its president andCEO Mark Eastburg) was essential, VanderHart points out that the key operational lead-ership is closer to the ground. In particular,organizations like City Vision, led by EarlJames, and ten partner agencies, mostly non-profits and community-based ministries thathad not worked in themarriage arena before,deliver a number of HMGR services. “It’s amass partnership,” Vander Hart says. “Theseinstitutions are learning thatmarriagework isa critical leg of their community ministries.”

InMay 2003,HMGRwas awarded (in collaborationwith twoother local agencies) a $990,000 federal grant approved by thestate of Michigan to embark on a five-year demonstration projectto improve child support enforcement and the financial well-beingof low-income families. An additional focus of the project is toinfuse healthy marriage and relationship programs into alreadyexisting services provided by the collaborating agencies. The goal isto enable low-income couples to have access to marriage prepara-tion classes, premarital inventories and relationship skills courses.In order to secure the federal dollars, the collaborating agenciesraised $500,000 in matching dollars from foundations, privatedonations and corporate sponsors.

In collaborationwithCalvinCollege,HMGRhas completed sev-eral research projects to understand the attitudes and values that com-munity members have about marriage; to determine the trends indivorce, marriage and unwed pregnancy rates; and to identify theresources within the community that are involved in supporting mar-riage. Research studies are beginning to evaluate the effectiveness ofthese interventions and programs. Their benchmarks for success are

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: Richard andHelen DeVos Foundation

LOCATION: Grand Rapids, MI

PROJECT: Healthy MarriagesGrand Rapids

PRIMARY GOAL: To jointogether with clergy andother community leadersto encourage and enablecouples to reach theirpotential as lifelongmarried partners

COMMITMENT: $500,000


32

thedivorce rate andanassessmentof thenumberofmarriages enteredinto without premarital preparation. They also measure program-matic success by tracking and interviewing past participants.

Families NorthwestFounded in 1997, Families Northwest is a statewide organization inWashington (now extended to Oregon) working to improve the suc-cess rate ofmarriage, decrease the divorce rate, and improve the health

of marriages and families. More thanany other community healthy mar-riage initiative, Families Northwesthas a regional, not just a local, scopeand impact. Families Northwest pro-vides educational resources andtraining services to individuals, fam-ilies, and communities to help themdevelopmarriage initiatives through-

out the state of Washington, with a focus on providing leadershipdevelopment at local and regional levels.

President Jeff Kemp, a well-known former professionalfootball player, emphasizes that “supporting marriage is a pre-ventative approach to social ills. If we are going to solve oursocial problems, we must teach people how to have successfulmarriages and families.” He notes, however, that this messageis not “snazzy in people’s minds” and therefore has to be repeat-ed over and over. “We have to market marital health. The morevisionary and entrepreneurial donors are the ones who get itfirst and lead the charge.”

In 2002 Families Northwest developed “Strategy Blueprints,”which describes the initiatives that will be part of their four-phase,ten-year cultural campaign. The centerpiece of the first phase is the“Marriage and Family Agreements.” Over 700 churches in 175cities and towns have signed a Marriage and Family Agreement.Families Northwest also worked to provide pastors with the latestresearch information on marriage and family issues and to connectthem to resources that will assist them in implementing education-al and preparatory programs for marriages. The remaining phases,which will continue until 2012, focus on informing and enlistingpublic support for the marriage initiatives with the goal of creatinga local marriage culture in each community.

Families Northwest has found that half the battle is getting

“If we are going to solve our

social problems, we must teach

people how to have successful

marriages and families.”

33


the word out about the benefits of healthy marriages. With thatend in mind, the organization sponsors a daily one-minuteradio feature, a bi-monthly newsletter and a weekly online fam-ily news update. Research projects have examined the marriageattitudes and behaviors of Washington residents and the atti-tudes and activities that influence their family time. FamiliesNorthwest intends to be involved in longitudinal quantitativeand qualitative research in collaboration with local universitiesand colleges to determine initiative effectiveness.

Families Northwest has raised most of its funding (about $1million per year) from faith community circles and is working toinclude the broader philanthropic community. The organizationalso recently developed an innovative funding mechanism withlocal communities. Regional staff offer leadership development tolocal healthy marriage initiatives that show they have a “com-munity transformation plan” with the following elements: adiverse group of dedicated clergy; a five-year commitment; andthe ability to mobilize local donors for a 50-50 split of expensesbetween Families Northwest and the local organization.

John and Carolyn Mutz (Indianapolis, Indiana)John and Carolyn Mutz came across First Things First ofChattanooga at a conference sponsored by The PhilanthropyRoundtable and decided to see if there was a need and desire forsuch a program in Indianapolis, Indiana. They were well-situat-ed civic and philanthropic leaders, and John was former presi-dent of the Lilly Endowment and former lieutenant governor ofIndiana. John believes that we need “a movement with the samefeel as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Services areimportant, but we are dealing here with community attitudes.”

Carolyn also believes strongly in marriage. She says, “Ibelieve that marriage is the foundation of all communities. Mybackground is in counseling and social psychology, so whileJohn thinks marriage is economically important, I’m moreinterested in its social benefits.”

John and Carolyn gave a small grant to a community organ-ization to convene local leaders for several meetings to talk aboutmarriage and to determine whether the community was ready fora serious effort in this area. Although he had extensive experiencewith political hot-button issues, John says that he was taken bysurprise at the negative reaction and resistance from mainline


34

social service organizations and providers, and the reluctance ofother foundations to get on board.

This experience is common among pioneering philanthropists inthe marriage arena; supporting healthy marriage and two-parentfamilies seems to be a “no brainer” to donors who come to under-

stand the issues. They are then caught offguard by resistance and even attacksfromgroups expected to be first to get onboard. The key divisive issues are same-sexmarriage and fear of stigmatizing sin-gle parents and divorced people (seepages 12-13). Being formarriage appearsto some people as being against othergroups. “After that we changed course,”says Carolyn, “and we invested in a sur-

vey. We believed the most useful next step for Indiana would be tohave a research base and a reliable source of information on the stateof marriage.”

With an eventual green light from local leaders, the firstaction step was to survey community attitudes toward marriage.TheMutzes believed that creating a public-private partnership onbehalf of marriage would require focusing on tangible bench-marks such as reducing the higher-than-average divorce rate inIndianapolis and emphasizing the connection between stablefamilies and worker productivity.

Once the research was completed, the Mutzes published it ina pamphlet, for a total cost of about $53,000. This study has alsobeen used by a number of other local organizations, both privateand public. The Mutzes made an important decision to “over-sample” black households in their survey. This common researchstrategy involves polling minority groups in greater numbers thantheir proportion in the population, in order to ensure that in thefinal analysis there are enough members of certain groups todraw legitimate conclusions. Perhaps in part because of this sur-vey decision, black clergy have been eager to get involved in theconversations about healthy marriage.

The Indianapolis version of First Things First is still in its form-ative stage. John, Carolyn and their associates currently are in con-versations with the mayor’s office and the governor’s office aboutsupporting a citywidemarriage initiativemodeled after First ThingsFirst. They are also connecting with the Indianapolis Front Porch

Public attitudes and will are

crucial to the success of community

initiatives to revive marriage and

stabilize families.


35

Alliance, a cooperative partnership among the city, faith institu-tions, neighborhoods and community members, to address localproblems. Like Chatanooga’s Hugh Maclellan, the Mutzes recog-nize the central importance of leadership in any umbrella organi-zation established in Indianapolis. In particular, the executive direc-tor must be able to relate to many groups in the community andestablish a visible, positive face for the initiative. Ultimately, theybelieve, it is public attitudes and will that are crucial to the successof a community initiative to revive marriage and stabilize families.

The Weatherwax Foundation (Jackson, Michigan)A small private foundation in Jackson,Michigan, theWeatherwaxFoundation developed a community-wide healthy marriage initia-tive in response to a pattern they discovered in its grantmaking.Executive Director Maria Miceli Dotterweich explains, “So manyof the problems we saw crossing our desks were related to familybreakdown. We felt that if we could address that issue, then wecould forestall other problems down the road.”

After a visit to First Things First in Chattanooga during aconference sponsored by The Philanthropy Roundtable, thefoundation approached the United Way with a request to con-vene a community planning team to explore the possibility of ahealthy marriage initiative in Jackson County, which has a high-er divorce rate than the state average.

The foundation provided funding for a nine-month plan-ning process, during which the team explored opportunities tostrengthen marriages in Jackson County, while providing edu-cation, preparation and enrichment activities in support ofmarriage. For example, the community collaborative spon-sored a monthly Brown Bag Lunch Series to highlight healthymarriages and families through continued education and dis-cussion, and hosted a successful “Laugh Your Way to a BetterMarriage” workshop weekend for 500 people.

Another key part of the planning process was determiningattitudes of local residents toward marriage-related issues.One survey question asked, “Do you think cohabitation helpsprepare you for marriage?” According to Dotterweich, initialsurvey responses will later serve to measure the success of theinitiative: “After we see what those attitudes are, then we willbegin a campaign to move them in healthier directions sup-ported by data. Later, we will go back to see if we were able


36

to encourage a community-wide change in those attitudes.”The Weatherwax Foundation’s involvement in marriage is

guided by three principles. First, the foundation worked withthe Jackson community to develop a two-line definition toshape the scope of its work: “The healthy marriage initiativeprovides education, preparation and enrichment activities insupport of marriage. In addition, this initiative promotes theempirical value of the personal and societal merits of marriagefor wives, husbands and children.”

Second, the Weatherwax Foundation is committed to a posi-tive approach, particularly in its language, an approach whichDotterweich described as “uniquely American.” She explains, “Wedo not go out and say, ‘If you divorce, bad, bad thingswill happen.’We say, ‘A healthy marriage means these good things; two parentsin the home means these benefits for your children.’ Americans,with their natural bent for self-improvement, are interested in learn-ing about the best exercise program or the bestway to buy a house.Why not the best way to be married and raise children?”

Third, Weatherwax has leveraged its resources by engaginga wide range of constituencies. The planning process involvedpartners such as human service providers, clergy, attorneys andparents who deal with the effects of broken families, thus build-ing a solid foundation of support for a strong communityhealthy marriage initiative.

As the nine-month planning process concludes, Weatherwaxenters the next phase of its healthy marriage initiative with valu-able knowledge of its community’s needs. A surprising thing thefoundation learned is that “people are looking for very basic life-skills, which are necessary to be successful in marriage or any-thing else,” says Dotterweich. “People are entering marriagewithout the skills of home management, or how to put a mealon the table, or communication—some real nuts-and-bolts kindsof things that cut across every spectrum.”

In response, the foundation is focused on addressing theseneeds by developing programs that can be used in a variety ofsettings, such as churches, businesses or community centers.Dotterweich says: “We want our healthy marriage program-ming to be used across all settings, because this is an issue whichinvolves our whole community, not just one select group.”

Supporting Healthy Marriages: National Initiatives

37

4Supporting Healthy Marriages:

National Initiatives

National initiatives, as the name implies, are attempts to fos-ter nationwide solutions to marriage issues. These initiativesrange from programs to stimulate community healthy mar-riage initiatives across the country, to seeking model solutionsfor underserved populations, to supporting research.

Encouraging a National Movement: The Marriage CoMissionUnder the direction of Chick-fil-A senior vice president Don“Bubba” Cathy and his wife Cindy, WinShape Marriage, anonprofit organization founded by Bubba’s parents Truett(founder & CEO of Chick-fil-A, Inc.) and Jeannette Cathy in1984, hosted a 2004 Marriage Movement Summit, whereleaders of various organizations and healthy marriage initia-tives formed a new national partnership named the MarriageCoMission.

Convinced that a renaissance of mar-riage depends on local leadership, theCoMission supports “catalytic city mar-riage initiatives” by providing trainingand strategies for effective collaborationbetween business, faith and civic organi-zations in communities. Director JeffFray affirms that this country “has beenprimed for a season of collaboration.”The CoMission works to balance sensi-tivity to diverse cultures while stayingtrue to its shared mission: “to strengthenthe desire in men and women for life-long, healthy marriages and equip themto lead strong families.”

As a result, their “co-strategy” is tooverlap efforts within the coalition andintegrate them behind city marriage ini-tiatives. To that end, the CoMission hasformed a series of working groups tozero in on strategic sectors, such as the

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: WinShapeFoundation

LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

PROJECT: WinShape Marriage;Marriage CoMission

PRIMARY GOAL: Through prayer,worship, group discussionsand couple mentoring, toassist couples inmaintaining and growingtheir relationships; toprovide training andstrategies for collaborationbetween business, faith,and civic organizations incommunities

COMMITMENT: Over$20 million since 2003

Vine and Branches Foundation:The Marriage CoMission Goes Local

“It’s got to be local,” the Vine and Branches Foundation’s executivedirector John Stanley explains. “In order to increase healthy marriages inthe country, donors must focus on their communities first. The statisticssay it looks hopeless—but it’s not. We believe we’ve got one generation toturn this around.”

The private Christian Vine and Branches Foundation in Wisconsinsees local organizations with “talent, resources and Rolodexes” as grass-roots catalysts for the national Marriage CoMission. The foundation’sinvolvement in the healthy marriage movement began “in the hearts ofthe founders.” Aware of the impact of unhealthy marriages on friends,family and the community, the founders sought ways that they “couldhelp turn the tide.”

The Vine and Branches Foundation brought the national marriagemovement to local Wisconsin communities by joining with other donors tocreate the Foundation for a Great Marriage. Stanley explains how the foun-dation leveraged its funds: “We were able to add some heft to a start-upidea, and now our involvement signals other donors to join us to move asocial cause.”

Working in partnership with a broad cross-section of individuals andorganizations in the community who influence families, the Foundation fora Great Marriage’s goal is to educate and encourage people toward ahealthy marriage. The organization is now focused on 12 counties inWisconsin that contain 80 percent of the state’s people—suburban, rural andurban populations that all require different programming.

The Vine and Branches Foundation understands that “raising public


38

media, corporations, church and education. The CoMissionprovides tools and strategies for donors interested in poolingnational resources to better invest them locally in cities andcommunities.

For the year 2006, eight cities qualified as MarriageCoMission Target Cities and have entered into a collaborativerelationship with the CoMission. The CoMission’s CommunityMobilization Team also convened over 50 leaders from these

awareness is a huge challenge,” but feels that this work can be done bestby community leaders who come together with the common goal of “mov-ing the needle on healthy marriages in their county.” Stanley says, “We knowthere are three qualities of a great grantee that can never be compromised:Leadership, Leadership, Leadership.” To Stanley, a “compelling mission anda well-laid out plan pale in comparison to the community leader in whomyou are investing.”

Another thing the Vine and Branches Foundation is clear about is how tomeasure success: “We will know we’re successful if county statistics show themarriage rate in a given community is up and the divorce rate is down. Wewill know we are successful over time if the out-of-wedlock childbirth rate isdown, domestic violence is down, and finally, if healthy marriages are publiclynoticed.” In order to achieve success, the Vine and Branches Foundation isvery involved in helping its organizations build capacity: “We’re not only aboutprogram grants. We’ve taken a lesson from one of our friends who says ‘weare called to spend ourselves and not just our money.’” Stanley concludes,“We let our feet follow our giving in many cases.”

So far, Vine and Branches’ initial investment has had huge returns: Inless than two years, the Foundation for a Great Marriage has secured a $5million federal grant for the state of Wisconsin.

Building on its initial success, the Vine and Branches Foundation willcontinue to work to achieve the vision of the Marriage CoMission inWisconsin by empowering local leaders with “the resources and relation-ships they need to strengthen marriage in their communities.” Stanley seesboth hope and challenges on the road ahead: “We need to generatetremendous public awareness about the benefits of healthy marriage in thiscountry. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

39


eight cities in a three-day intensive training on best practicesconducted by experts from leading organizations in the field.

The Marriage CoMission has received funding fromWinShape Foundation; additionally, the Cathy family hasmade substantial financial commitments to improving mar-riages, including a multi-million dollar conversion of BerryCollege dairy barns into a marriage retreat center and supportof various marriage enrichment programs for company


40

employees. Bubba and his wife Cindy, having taught a newly-wed and engaged couples Sunday school class for over 20years, have now greatly expanded their marriage ministry.Bubba says, “Seeing my mom and dad being successful in themarketplace as well as having a successful marriage has beenan inspiration to my family and me. Chick-fil-A is a marriage-

and family-friendly company and wereceived our inspiration from the head ofour company, Truett and JeannetteCathy.”

Annie E. Casey FoundationWith a long history of work for the bet-terment of children and families, particu-larly low-income, ethnic minority fami-lies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation inBaltimore is now one of the largest pri-vate donors in the marriage arena. It hascontributed over $2 million to its mar-riage initiatives.

Ralph Smith, senior vice president ofthe Casey Foundation, articulated thefoundation’s move toward a marriageagenda in this way: “If we want children tomatter, we’ve got to say that work matters,

and we’ve also got to say that marriage matters.”According to Carole Thompson, who leads marriage ini-

tiatives for the foundation, Casey has come to appreciate theimplications of the decline in marriage in the black communi-ty and the importance of stable, healthy two-parent familiesfor children’s well-being.

Casey’s primary strategy is to bring together policymakersand practitioners around research and best practices. For exam-ple, the foundation has funded Rev. Robert Franklin, a promi-nent theologian, to convene consultation meetings with blackclergy on the issue of marriage in the black community. Thesemeetings have led to reports and strategic planning for the nextsteps in restoring marriage and two-parent families to theprominence they once had in the black community.

An additional strategy is to help local community groupsdevelop their capacity to apply for and obtain federal funds

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: Annie E. CaseyFoundation

LOCATION: Baltimore, MD

PROJECTS: Matching funds forfederal demonstrations; localmeetings with black clergy;research and conferences

PRIMARY GOAL: To promote theimportance of stable, healthytwo-parent families for childwell-being by unitingpolicymakers and practitionersaround solid research

COMMITMENT: Over $2 million

41


for marriage initiatives. Casey provided nearly $1 million inmatching funds for two Building Strong Families federaldemonstrations in Atlanta and Baltimore. Casey was also theonly private sector supporter in 2006 of the federal AfricanAmerican Healthy Marriage Conference and the HispanicHealthy Marriage Forum.

Casey avoids viewing family and other social issues as thepitting of one interest group against another, and its staffstrives to work across divides—such as those between singlemothers and divorced fathers, and between men’s and domes-tic violence advocacy groups—to shape dialogues that focuson the needs of children, families and communities. Caseyhelped fund a 2006 Building Bridges conference that broughtrepresentatives from domestic violence, healthy marriage, andresponsible fatherhood groups together for the first time.

The foundation has also partnered with the Institute forAmerican Values and the Brookings Institution to convenemini-conferences and write reports on marriage—reports thatprovide intellectual fuel for strategic planning and commonground for both liberals and conservatives to come together inconstructive dialogue. During a 2004 panel sponsored by theBrookings Institution on the topic, “The Marriage Movementand the Black Church,” Smith remarked, “We are certainly inan incipient movement, and we find ourselves inside a fairlybig tent. The conversation is no longer about ‘right and left.’”

Talaris Research InstituteTalaris Research Institute is an example of an organizationthat does not list marriage as an explicit priority but is opento investing in marriage initiatives when they clearly relate toits core mission: early childhood education and parenting.Talaris is a Seattle nonprofit that emphasizes social, emotion-al and cognitive development in children from birth to age fiveand develops long-term partnerships with local and nationalgroups working in this area. Out of these partnerships comeresearch, tools and intellectual property that can be used byorganizations around the country.

Talaris became involved in the marriage area through itspartnership with prominent psychologist and marriage expertJohn Gottman of the University of Washington. Gottman hasdeveloped the “Bringing Baby Home” program, which provides

Public Sector Responses

Although government has always been involved in marriage through areas suchas marriage and divorce law and welfare policies, there were few public sectorinitiatives to promote healthy marriage until the Bush administration took officein 2001. The 1996 welfare reform legislation had called for initiatives to pro-mote marriage and two parent families, but states largely ignored these provi-sions of the statute. (Most social service professionals have been neutral oreven skeptical about marriage for the populations with whom they work.)

There were, however, several pioneering efforts before 2001, notablyLouisiana’s covenant marriage law of 1997 and Florida’s 1998 statute onpremarital education. Under the leadership of Governor Frank Keating,Oklahoma in 1999 began using a $10 million set aside of surplus welfarereform funds for marriage education at the community level. Utah GovernorMichael Leavitt (now Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services) created the first Governor’s Commission on Marriage,which sponsors events around the state. Other states have gotten on boardwith modest efforts to strengthen marriage, most often in the form of leg-islation to encourage premarital education. Minnesota, for example, gives a$65 discount on marriage license fees for couples who complete twelvehours of premarital education that includes a premarital inventory.

A major shift in the public sector has been the federal government’srecent funding of programs aimed at “helping couples form and sustainhealthy marriages.” The Administration for Children and Families (part of theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services) launched the HealthyMarriage Initiative (HMI) in 2002 with a special focus on low-income indi-viduals and couples. The goals of the HMI are five-fold:

• To increase the percentage of children raised by married parents andfree of domestic violence.

• To increase the percentage of couples who are in a healthy marriage.• To increase awareness about the value of a healthy marriage.• To equip couples, youth and young adults with skills to choose, form

and sustain a healthy marriage.• To support research on healthy marriage and marriage education.

To date, healthy marriage activities are being funded in 44 states throughgrants totaling over $60 million. Rather than creating a new service delivery


42

system for healthy marriage activities, ACF sought to reach families they werealready connected to through its existing programs. From 2002 to 2005, ACFprovided more than 100 grants through its key program offices:Administration for Native Americans, Children’s Bureau, Office of ChildSupport Enforcement, Office of Community Services, Office of RefugeeResettlement, Office of Family Assistance, and Office of Planning, Researchand Evaluation.

These grants are varied in their focus, target population and level offunding. Some examples include: Child Welfare Training Grants awarded bythe Children’s Bureau to develop and field test training curricula to assistchild welfare staff in promoting healthy marriage and family formation;Special Improvement Projects (SIPs) grants awarded by the Office of ChildSupport Enforcement to improve child outcomes by providing child supportand marriage education services to parents; and Compassion Capital Fundgrants provided by the Office of Community Services to help faith and com-munity based organizations increase their organizational capacity and toimprove the services they provide. For more information on the types ofgrants and the offices that award them, see the ACF website atwww.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage.

In addition to funding direct service programs, ACF has contracted witha number of the major evaluation firms in the country to conduct system-atic research and evaluation on the effectiveness of a variety of approachesto helping couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Indeed, the marriageinitiative may include the most intensive evaluation plan of any federalsocial project in history.

ACF has also funded a national web-based resource with comprehen-sive information on healthy marriage and marriage education for the public,educators and policymakers. The National Healthy Marriage ResourceCenter, which has been developed for ACF with partner organizations, canbe accessed at www.healthymarriageinfo.org. (Note: The author of thisguidebook was one of the developers of the National Healthy MarriageResource Center.)

Finally and significantly, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 (into which a long-awaited welfare reform reauthorization bill was folded) included substantial fund-ing for community projects, with $119 million per year going to 225 grantees, themajority of which are healthy marriage programs and the remainder responsiblefatherhood programs. A list of organizations receiving these grants can be foundat www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/grantees/list10-06.htm.

43



44

education to prospective new parents. The program combinescouple relationship training with preparation for parenthood.

Talaris assisted in the development and evaluation of thisproject, with funding provided by the Apex Foundation,established by Bruce and Jolene McCaw, who became inter-ested in early brain development following the birth of theirown children. Now that the results of Bringing Baby Homeshow improvements in maternal depression rates, couple rela-tionship satisfaction and fathers’ connection with theirinfants, the center is funding the development of trainingmaterials so that this program can be transported widely.

Terrence Meersman, Talaris’s executive director and a veteran

ACF’s key program offices will continue to provide other funding for mar-riage strengthening activities. These are the allowable activities for all federalgrants in the marriage arena:

1. Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skillsneeded to increase marital stability and health.

2. Education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, andbudgeting.

3. Marriage education, marriage and relationship skills programs that mayinclude parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution and job andcareer advancement for non-married pregnant women and non-marriedexpectant fathers.

4. Premarital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples andfor couples interested in marriage.

5. Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for marriedcouples.

6. Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills.7. Marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models

and mentors in at-risk communities.8. Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid

programs, if offered in conjunction with any activity described in thissubparagraph.

45


of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,emphasizes the importance of paying carefulattention to how projects such as BringingBaby Home can be brought to scale in othercommunities and sustained over time.Talaris takes a deliberate approach to inves-tigating which kinds of programs and insti-tutions can adapt Bringing Baby Home totheir own needs—for example, prenatal pro-grams and pediatric offices.

Meersman emphasizes that developinginnovations is only the first step; rolling themout to existing institutions requires an equallevel of creativity, resources and patience.

William E. Simon FoundationIn keeping with its longstanding interestin family life, the William E. SimonFoundation has funded intellectual thinktanks in the marriage arena, such asthe Institute for American Values andthe National Marriage Project, for anumber of years, as well as ManhattanInstitute’s marriage and family scholarKay Hymowitz. It has also funded anumber of family-strengthening pro-grams in inner cities.

The New York City-based foundation would like toexpand its marriage work to include local marriage initiativesin the communities of Jersey City and the South Bronx. “It isclear that marriage is an institution beneficial to adults, chil-dren and society, and that it is in crisis, particularly in innercities,” said the foundation’s vice president Sheila JohnstonMulcahy. “Despite any political or cultural momentum awayfrom marriage in these locations, the Simon Foundation willcontinue working to promote and strengthen marriage in prac-tical ways in the community.”

The Simon Foundation is working to circumvent potentialobstacles while continuing to fund innovative reports, pro-grams and small research projects on marriage in low-incomecommunities.

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: William E. SimonFoundation

LOCATION: New York, NY

PROJECTS: Institute forAmerican Values; NationalMarriage Project

PRIMARY GOAL: To contributeintellectually to strengtheningfamilies and civil society inthe United States and theworld; to provide researchand analysis on the state ofmarriage in America; and toeducate the public on thesocial, economic and culturalconditions affecting maritalsuccess and child well-being

COMMITMENT: $25,000 toInstitute for AmericanValues; $100,000 toNational Marriage Projectsince 2003


46

National Christian FoundationBased in Atlanta, the National Christian Foundation providesa vehicle for donors to fund projects that support priorities oftheir choosing within the realm of Christian work. Under thedirection of its donors, the foundation has made hundreds ofgrants to marriage and family organizations, including groupssuch as Focus on the Family, Family Life, America’s FamilyCoaches, the Family Research Council and similar entities. Itdoes not do systematic follow-up, leaving that to the donorsthemselves and the organizations they fund. Of particularnote, however, is the increasing interest among the founda-tion’s donors in funding marriage-related activities.

47

Marriage Strategies: The Voice of Experience

5Marriage Strategies:The Voice of Experience

So far, this guide has discussed marriage education and com-munity healthy marriage initiatives, and given examples of avariety of programs and foundations working in these areas.With this picture in mind of the current marriage philanthro-py landscape, here are 11 important lessons donors new to thefield can glean from the successes and setbacks of the pioneersin marriage philanthropy.

1. Ground new initiatives on marriage in your current mis-sion and priorities. Connect them to your goals ratherthan viewing marriage as a new arena disconnected from,say, your historical interest in helping children, improvingfamily life or serving the poor. Because healthy marriage isconnected to almost any priority area that relates to socialwell-being, your work will be better integrated if youmake that connection clear.

2. Make your case for marriage in simple language.Philanthropist Arthur E. Rasmussen, who has funded avariety of marriage projects for the Institute for AmericanValues and other groups, argues for making the “base casefor intact marriage” in common language. He thinks peo-ple in the marriage movement have yet to articulate thiscase for the public in a compelling way. Arizona philan-thropist Craig Cardon similarly emphasizes the impor-tance of “having a simple answer to the question, ‘Whymarriage?’” In making your case, it can be helpful to useadjectives that describe the kind of marriage you want topromote, such as “healthy” or “strong.” Otherwise, crit-ics might think you are promoting marriage for its ownsake, regardless of its quality, or telling everyone theyshould get married even if they have no suitable partner.


48

3. Emphasize the research findings, not just your values. “Familyvalues” are endlessly debatable in our contemporary society,but four research findings are now beyond serious debate:

a. children do best, on average, in healthy, stable, mar-ried families;

b. most adults of all social groups aspire to marriage forthemselves;

c. when they achieve a reasonably good marriage, peopleare happier, healthier and more economically prosper-ous; and

d. marital success and failure is passed down from gen-eration to generation.

Professionals and other community members who argue oth-erwise have not kept up with the research. As Ronald Haskins,consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation and senior fellowand co-director of the Center on Children and Families at theBrookings Institution, suggests, “Always start with the data.”The powerful implication of the research data is that helpingpeople build healthy, stable marriages is one of the most prom-ising investments we can make in future generations.

4. Explicitly use the word “marriage” in your publications andconversations.Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Childrenand Families at the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices and the leading government advocate for healthymarriage initiatives, argues that donors can make a cultur-al contribution just by using the term “marriage” moreexplicitly in their priorities and program descriptions. It’snot enough to talk about “relationships,” “families” or“life skills” if you thereby avoid using the term “marriage.”Grantees will become more comfortable with the idea ofnurturing marriages if donors are bold about standing upfor marriage and not regarding all forms of intimate rela-tionships as equally important for the well-being of chil-dren, families and communities.

5. Seek out individuals and groups already doing work for healthymarriages in your community,orwho are eager to do thiswork.Don’t begin by trying to convince reluctant or ambivalent

49


groups that they should care more about marriage. As men-tioned before, some frontline social service professionals believethat marriage is irrelevant to their constituents and even bring-ing up the topic would be an affront. Many of these profes-sionals will come around eventually when they observe success-ful programs that attract interestedmembers of their communi-ties. Michael Hartmann, director of research and evaluation atthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, stresses the impor-tance of “going to local neighborhoods and finding the bestpeople. They will introduce you to others, and eventually youwill find the right group to begin working with.”Many donorshave found it worthwhile to seek out leaders and volunteerswho already are connected to “communities of trust.” Forinstance, faith communities are often a good place to startbecause they have the trust of members. Americans havelearned to trust their clergy and churches on the issue of mar-riage more than any other professional group or institution.

6. Don’t try to replicate ambitious projects without ambi-tious resources. The most successful programs, such as FirstThings First in Chattanooga and Families Northwest, haveleaders and donors with expertise, connections and charisma.A number of foundations have reported mixed results inreplicating these successful programs without the excep-tional leaders and resources involved in the original pro-gram. Joseph Dolan, executive director of the Achelis andBodman Foundations, expresses concern about the trans-portability of programs without “strong local leaders whoare ready to run with them.” Executive Director Fritz Klingof the Parker Foundation in Virginia suggests that recruit-ing and supporting high-level leaders for ambitious mar-riage projects requires substantial funding for salaries andinfrastructure over enough years to create a secure base offunding and community recognition.

7. Develop community capacity rather than fund direct services.There are just too many people who need marriage educa-tion for foundations to make a substantial contributionthrough funding direct services. Julie Baumgardner, execu-tive director of First Things First, believes that “foundationscan serve best by providing training for professionals and


50

lay leaders who in turn serve the community.” For example,you could fund a nationally recognized trainer to come toyour community to prepare 50-100 professionals and layleaders in one of the established marriage education pro-grams. These trainees can then provide the new service, forfree or at low cost, to members of their faith communitiesand in other settings. Since this is not counseling or therapy,marriage educators can be trained in two to three days andthen teach classes of 20 or more couples. Training theseinstructors is a potentially cost-effective enterprise for a fun-der to support.

8. If you plan to fund a new program, be sure to set up stan-dards and methods for evaluating the success of your initia-tive. Jeff Kemp, executive director of Families Northwest,believes one funding barrier is that “measurable outcomes arehard in this kind of work, and faith communities who aredoing the work are not oriented to measuring outcomes.”Only the most ambitious projects such as First Things First,Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids, and Marriage Savers’Community Marriage Policies have set the goal of reducingdivorce or unmarried parenting. To measure these bigimpacts, they rely on county and regional statistics of mar-riages, divorces and births to unmarried parents, mindful ofthe difficulty of assessing a direct cause-and-effect relation-ship. For more modest projects, donors generally expect eval-uations of intermediate outcomes rather than long-termimpacts on the community. The best programs keep carefulrecords of who participates in marriage programs and howthey evaluate the services, and they follow up with partici-pants to recruit them into further services. Communityhealthy marriage initiatives should be evaluated not only onthe basis of the number of participants served but also on thebreadth and depth of community connections and partner-ships. Programs that engage in community awareness proj-ects should document their impact through opinion polls andmedia saturation coverage of their work. All of this, ofcourse, depends on the size of the grant awarded to the proj-ect. But documentation of activities and outcomes of mar-riage programs should not be too burdensome and should in


51

fact help such programs. This may require additional supportfrom donors, especially with faith communities that may notbe accustomed to systematic evaluation of their programs.

9. Get personally involved by participating in a marriage edu-cation experience. Families Northwest president Jeff Kempmakes the point that marriage education is one of the fewphilanthropic arenas where donors can develop first-handexperience with the services. There is no substitute for first-hand experience to understand the potential of marriageprograms. A first step could be attending a Smart Marriagesconference to sample the various marriage education pro-grams, or maybe taking a marriage education weekend witha spouse to catch the spirit of the marriage movement.

10. Find a small marriage ministry that works, partner with itand help it grow. United Marriage Encounter is aChristian ministry to help good marriages become better.Marriage Encounter Weekends give married couples 48hours to learn better ways to communicate and to growcloser to each other and to God, and follow-up supportgroups are offered after the weekend. David M. Stanley,president of the New Hope Foundation in Muscatine,Iowa, says he and his wife, Jeanie, attended a UnitedMarriage Encounter Weekend, “wanting a weekendtogether but with a firm commitment: ‘Remember, dear,we will NOT get involved in another organization.’ Ourexperience was so good that we did get involved.”

United Marriage Encounter then was a tiny all-volun-teer ministry, active in only three cities. The New HopeFoundation’s grants allowed the organization to hire thefirst staff couple and begin to build an endowment. Theendowment now provides the paid staff and other sup-port, so that all of the many contributions by couples areused for program services. United Marriage Encounter hasexpanded to serve married couples in about 20 states plusseveral countries in Asia and Europe. NewHope continues tomake annual unrestricted grants—smaller, as giving by othersgrows, reducing the need for New Hope’s financial help.


52

11.Walk humbly into the arena of marriage initiatives.Although there is solid evidence for the importance of mar-riage to individuals and society, there is much to be learnedabout how to turn around the decline of marriage. No onehas yet figured out a blanket solution for the wide range ofcommunities who need support for healthy marriages.Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary WadeHorn strongly encourages establishing “relationships oftrust” in which community partners are free to be honestabout the problems and struggles with their projects. Forexample, they may have trouble recruiting the expectednumber of couples into their marriage education classes ormentoring programs. You should make it safe for them toshare this difficulty, along with strategies for overcomingit. Otherwise, they may recruit more people into the pro-gram by changing the nature of the program into some-thing else, such as parenting classes.

Marriage Strategies: The Ways Forward

53

6Marriage Strategies: The Ways Forward

The areas you decide to fund will depend on your resources,priorities and community. We’ve already described in depthhow you can invest in two chief strategies: marriage educationand community healthy marriage initiatives, and we’ve lookedat some of the best programs out there. Now let’s look at someother opportunities for giving in this field.

Develop a Marriage Resource CenterOne easy way to get into funding marriage initiatives is to helpa local coalition mount a web resource center. Some start-upcommunity healthy marriage initiatives focus mainly on gather-ing and disseminating (generally web-based) information onmarriage and marriage education in a community. The OrangeCountyMarriage Resource Center (OCMRC) has been a spark-plug for the development of marriage resource center websites.These sites may serve as anything from an electronic clearing-house for local organizations and events in marriage educationto an instrument with which to build a coalition.

By providing a central location for groups to advertise theirevents, the websites improve communication, help build relation-ships and increase publicity. “[A good website] quickly establish-es you as the residential expert in community healthy marriageinitiatives,” observes OCMRC founder Dennis Stoica. “Youdon’t even need a technical person to start the website,” he adds.

Marriage resource center sites are also quite inexpensive—Stoica estimates that it would only cost $150 in hard expensesfor the first year. As a result of this low cost and Stoica’sefforts, the sites have flourished throughout California andacross the country. They are becoming essential tools for localinitiatives and providing new energy to the movement. DianeSollee, founder and director of Smart Marriages, advises, “AMarriage Resource Center website is the single most effectiveand cost-efficient way to organize and grow your healthy mar-riage initiative.”

Pascale/Sykes Foundation:Embedding Marriage Services into Existing Programs

The marriage connection is clear to leaders in the Pascale/Sykes Foundation. Itsmission is to support low-income working families, particularly in New York Cityand New Jersey. As foundation president Frances Sykes says, “Everything worksbetter when the marriage is working well.” The foundation’s key strategy is tofocus on a range of “life skills” that include jobs, health, education—and marriageand preparation for marriage. It uses the Mathematica model developed for thefederal government. (Mathematica is a research and evaluation company with amajor contract to develop and test a marriage support program for low-incomecouples.) This model emphasizes life skills, basic services, coordinators to helpfamilies access services, and supportive public policies.

The foundation has had great success partnering with local institutions andagencies. For example, the foundation works with Project Hope in Camden, NewJersey, to incorporate a marriage component in services such as English as a sec-ond language, parenting classes, and “peacemaking” classes for children. Sykessponsors conferences aimed at helping staff in Project Hope and other programsunderstand the role of healthy marriages in their existing efforts, and she expectsprojects to track marriage outcomes—for example, how many couples married orbroke up. The focus is on healthy relationships, including but not limited to marriage.


54

Partner with Marriage SaversAnother vehicle for jump-starting a community healthy mar-riage initiative is Marriage Savers, a national organizationthat assists churches in strengthening marriages. AlthoughMarriage Savers as a formal organization has been in exis-tence since 1996, founders Mike and Harriet McManus havebeen promoting the establishment of Community MarriagePolicies across the country since 1986, when Modesto,California, became the first city to organize local congrega-tions as “Marriage Saver” congregations.

“Mike and Harriet McManus started their MarriageSavers organization with a small staff and tiny budget,”recalls David M. Stanley, president of the New HopeFoundation of Muscatine, Iowa, and a frequent donor to the

The Pascale/Sykes Foundation funds day-long conferences for grantees ata local hotel in a convenient location (something that Frances Sykes notedwas important). The total for a recent conference, including facilities, food,materials, and $1,000 for a facilitator, was just under $2,400.

“The key,” Frances Sykes notes, “as with anything, is to stay in touch. Wediscuss marriage and two-parent families with grantees often. On site visits wediscuss efforts to involve dads, guiding grantees to ask such questions as,‘Would you like to spend the rest of your life with this person?’ and to take itfrom there, focusing on the children’s need for stability and consistency. Weask agencies to report three times a year and to include data that reminds theagency that marriage and fathers are important for family stability. We urgeagencies to reach out especially to dads. Two agencies have been pleasantlysurprised with the number of husbands and fathers who have joined familyprograms after the agencies reached out to them. Both agencies said that themen were glad to be asked to be part of something that had previously beenfocused on mothers and children.”

Sykes also recommends a hands-on way for local people to jump-starttheir understanding and training in marriage education: fund trips to the annu-al Smart Marriages Conference, which is the single best source of learning andinspiration in the marriage education field.


55

organization. “Marriage Savers has had an impact out of pro-portion to its size. The Community Marriage Policies that theMcManuses promote—agreements by local clergy of all faithsto require premarital counseling and provide marriage men-toring—have already helped to sharply reduce divorce rates inmany communities,” Stanley says.

A church becomes a Marriage Saver congregation byrequiring premarital education for engaged couples, by train-ing mentor couples to work with engaged and young marriedcouples, and by developing programs for couples and familiesto promote marriage enrichment, reconciliation of troubledmarriages, and support groups for step-families.

Mentor couples are generally selected by local pastors andare chosen because they are considered to be in a vital, long-term marriage (15-50 years married). Training prepares the


56

mentor couple to administer and discuss the results of a pre-marital inventory with the mentored couple and to engage thecouple in communication and conflict resolution exercises.“Back from the brink” couples are recruited and trained tohelp couples currently in troubled marriages. The formerlydistressed couple shares how they turned their marriagearound and leads the troubled couple through 17 “MarriageMinistry Action Steps,” a process similar to the 12-stepAlcoholics Anonymous model.

Marriage Savers has been pivotal in the development ofmany community healthy marriage initiatives around the coun-

try. It has been instrumental in the ini-tial development of major initiativessuch as Healthy Marriages GrandRapids, Families Northwest, and FirstThings First. Approximately 10,000clergy in 215 cities across the countryhave signed a Community MarriagePolicy pledging their commitment asMarriage Saver Congregations. Anational evaluation found evidence

that Community Marriage Policies have a modest but meaning-ful impact on reducing divorce rates in local communities, a strik-ing finding considering that the implementation of these commu-nity policies differs widely across the country.

Cultivate LeadershipAnother funding opportunity which emerged from the researchfor this guidebook is the need to train and mentor the next gen-eration of community marriage leaders. A key concern thatemerged from interviews with donors is the lack of transporta-bility of the best programs that aim to make the biggest impact.Currently, leaders of the handful of highly successful communityhealthy marriage initiatives give one-day trainings to prospectiveleaders from other communities, followed by some telephonesupport as time permits. A potentially powerful project for afoundation, a private donor or a consortium of donors would becreating an institute for leadership development for communitymarriage programs. The charge would be to provide training andongoing mentoring for local leaders in the multiple tasks of mobi-lizing a community on behalf of marriage.

Community Marriage Policies

have a modest but meaningful

impact on reducing divorce rates

in local communities.


57

A number of people interviewed for this guidebook point-ed out that those who go into marriage work have “peopleskills” but not necessarily civic, management, fundraising andpublic relations skills. These skills must be taught throughcoaching and mentoring, but such assistance is labor-intensiveand difficult to finance without external resources.

Second, there is an urgent need among clergy, who arenatural leaders of a marriage revival in America, for renewingtheir own marriages. Indeed, a widely recognized but little-discussed barrier to the infusion of marriage education intofaith communities is that many clergy worry that they are notliving according to the principles of healthy marriage. Clergyare often expected to be “married” to their congregations andin the process move their own marriages to the back burner;their spouses are often expected to do the same. Often clergydon’t have the time to be “married well.” The result is thatleaders of our faith communities are reluctant to preach whatthey are not practicing; they are not credible when they urgecongregants to work on their marriages.

Perhaps the single most important thing that donors coulddo for marriage education in religious settings would be to sup-port regular retreats for clergy couples (in nurturing, attractivesettings), with follow-up support and educational groups. Theripple effects of revitalized clergy marriages could be enormous.

Embed Marriage Services into Existing ProgramsIn addition to direct marriage education, there are opportuni-ties to embed marriage education into existing services forindividuals and families. For instance, GFC Foundation inOrem, Utah, supports a Family Education Center at theAmerican Heritage School, a private K-12 school in AmericanFork, Utah. The center hosts a monthly Family Lecture Seriesdevoted to strengthening marriages and families. Topics haveincluded “The Secret to a Happy Home” by Gary and JoyLundberg, authors of Married for Better, Not Worse, and“Building A Healthy Family” by James MacArthur, who holdsa Ph.D. in counseling psychology and has over 30 years ofexperience observing and researching the family.

Marriage messages could also be included in paternityestablishment services, prenatal classes, welfare services, absti-nence and sex education, divorce education, day care centers,


58

and Healthy Start programs for unmarried expectant mothers.Since healthcare settings are a relatively unexplored territory,there is a new push for combining marriage education withprograms for weight loss and chronic illness.

One especially ripe opportunity is to work with responsi-ble fatherhood programs to help them expand their purviewto include marriage. Indeed, a number of marriage advocatesbegan in the fatherhood arena, saw the connection betweenresponsible fatherhood and healthy marriage, and subse-quently became active in marriage initiatives.

Many indirect services related to marriage are aimed at low-income families, a priority group for many foundations. This is a

Four Research Priorities

W. Bradford Wilcox is an assistant professor of sociology at the University ofVirginia and a prominent scholar in research on marriage, cohabitation and reli-gion. He was lead author for Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: 26Conclusions from the Social Sciences, a research summary published in 2005by the Institute for American Values. Here are his recommendations for fundingbasic research that would contribute to the current healthy marriage movement:

1. An honest, updated appreciation of gender differences in marriage is long over-due. There is no need to turn the clock back to the 1950s, but we need toknow how gender differences in relationship styles, relationship expectationsand work-family preferences influence the quality and stability of contemporarymarriages. My research suggests—contrary to conventional wisdom—that mar-riages organized along 50-50 egalitarian lines are less happy than marriagesorganized along more complementarian lines. But we need to know a lot moreabout how a healthy appreciation of gender differences (in areas besides theactual division of tasks) can foster good marriages. For instance, are wives hap-pier in their marriages when they understand that husbands often respond toproblems by “shutting down” communication to think about those problems?

2. How does the pervasive sexualization of our culture—from internet pornog-raphy to “hooking up” in college—affect the quality and stability of contem-


59

key strategy of the Pascale/Sykes Foundation in New Jersey anda central recommendation of Doug Besharov, director of theSocial and Individual Responsibility Project at the AmericanEnterprise Institute and trustee of the Mark and Carol HymanFund. Indirect marriage services have the advantage of a fargreater reach than do direct services in which only a handful ofindividuals and couples choose to participate. The challenge is tomake the marriage message more than a token one.

Experience shows that it takes a number of years of part-nership with local social service agencies before a marriage com-ponent becomes genuinely integrated into the programs, ratherthan being an add-on or a way to generate additional resources

porary marriages? We know very little, for instance, about the effect of pre-marital sexual activity—e.g., number of partners—or pornography use onmarital success. Understanding the consequences of this hypersexualizationis a particularly important issue in low-income communities, where perva-sive infidelity fuels a deep distrust between the sexes that inhibits the for-mation of good marriages.

3. Our nation’s recent retreat from marriage—as evidenced by increases in ille-gitimacy, divorce, and single parenthood—has fallen disproportionately onthe backs of minorities and the poor. How have churches serving thesecommunities responded to this retreat? Are they stressing marriage and thevalues and virtues necessary for good marriages, or are they avoiding thissensitive topic? What can churches do to strengthen marriage in the com-munities where it is weakest?

4. Cohabitation now plays an important role in American courtship patternsand—among some groups—in organizing child-bearing and child-rearing.First, we know that premarital cohabitation is linked to a higher risk ofdivorce, but we don’t really know why. We need to learn how, if at all, pre-marital cohabitation is linked to lower levels of marital commitment, trustand happiness. Second, we need to figure out precisely how cohabitationfunctions differently for childless adults in various social groups, and howthe growing number of children spending some time in a cohabiting house-hold are affected by this experience.


60

for current services that do not include a marriage element.Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Wade

Horn cautions donors that true integration of marriage edu-cation into health, education and social services, while animportant goal, is quite challenging. He notes that the federalgovernment has had its best success at this kind of integrationwith Early Head Start, post-adoption services, refugee servic-es and faith communities.

Use Your Power to ConveneSeveral foundations, notably the Annie E. Casey Foundation,have used the strategy of funding conferences with the objectiveof bringing new groups into the marriage conversation and devel-oping new strategic action plans.

The Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin, also lever-ages its power to convene, funding conferences for up to 40people through its Wingspread Conference Center. The founda-tion, which provides conference facilities, meals and logisticalsupport, has sponsored important meetings on marriage-relatedissues. Funding travel and lodging for a WingspreadConference, in cooperation with the Johnson Foundation,could be a useful contribution for foundations interested inmarriage initiatives.

Of particular value are conferences on topics such as therole of marriage in alleviating poverty, which can bring dis-parate groups into conversation and expose those who areskeptical about marriage programs to the latest research. Onestrategy the Casey Foundation has found successful is to ask alocal organization that has not been at the forefront of mar-riage work to convene and host a meeting on this subject co-planned with foundation staff. It may require a number ofsuch conversations for frontline social service providers tobegin to embrace a marriage component to their work. Whenthey engage in new work on marriage and see the response oftheir constituents, these organizations and individuals oftenbecome enthusiastic supporters of marriage initiatives.

Fund Research and Policy ProjectsAs mentioned before, the most common area of funding formarriage until recently has been for policy and research insti-

61


tutes such as the Institute for American Values, the NationalMarriage Project, the Heritage Foundation and the Institutefor Marriage and Public Policy. Examples of influential publi-cations from these programs are theannual reports on “The State of OurUnions” from the National MarriageProject and “Does Divorce Make PeopleHappy?” from the Institute for AmericanValues. The latter document receivedhuge media exposure in its challenge tothe widespread beliefs that people do bet-ter when they leave unhappy marriages,and that unhappy marriages are not like-ly to get better.

Foundations such as the William E.Simon Foundation generally have respond-ed to requests for sponsoring limited indi-vidual projects and publications from theseresearch and policy centers. Some individ-ual donors have signed on for extendedprojects and even non-targeted support fora center. The Achelis and BodmanFoundations first funded the work of the Institute for AmericanValues on responsible fatherhood, and then continued to fundInstitute projects as the case became clearer for the role of mar-riage in promoting responsible fatherhood and preventing a widearray of community problems.

Joseph Dolan of Achelis and Bodman emphasizes theimportance of the credibility of the intellectual center that isseeking funding. He looks for institutes that have a trackrecord of good scholarship, a leader with national credibility,and an academic advisory board of established scholars.Philanthropic investment in these intellectual centers has pro-vided essential support for the marriage movement.

There is still a great need for research to support thehealthy marriage agenda. W. Bradford Wilcox, assistant pro-fessor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has severalrecommendations for “basic” research on marriage and mar-riage-related topics such as cohabitation (see pages 58-59). Inaddition, the field needs “applied” research to improve its

DONOR SPOTLIGHT

FOUNDATION: JohnsonFoundation

LOCATION: Racine, WI

PROJECT: WingspreadConference Centerprograms

PRIMARY GOAL: To cultivateideas that sustaincommunity by supportingeducation, sustainabledevelopment andenvironment, democracyand community, and family

COMMITMENT: In-kind donor


62

understanding of effective marriage education at the commu-nity level, delivered by frontline social service providers. Inother words, how does marriage education work in faith com-munities and local social service agencies where staff and vol-unteers are not trained by leading experts in the field? Whatattracts individuals and couples to these programs and servic-es, and how are their lives changed as a result? We haveresearch on the effectiveness of marriage education classes,but little on the effects of mentoring. All of these issues areparticularly important to study in low-income and ethnic-minority communities.

Beyond the individual program level, there is a big needfor research on the effectiveness of community- or cultural-level interventions such as those being conducted by FirstThings First in Chattanooga. Repeated community polls totrack knowledge and attitudes about marriage and healthyrelationships, as well as people’s awareness of communityhealthy marriage activities, would give local leaders a sense ofhow their cultural messages are working beyond broad out-comes such as marriage and divorce rates.

63

Conclusion

7Conclusion:

The Time for Marriage Is Now

The case for philanthropic support for marriage is clear and indis-putable. The problem of marital failure is at the root of manysocial problems to which donors devote their time, attention andfiscal resources. Leaders across the country are now asking whatwe can do to resuscitate the institution of marriage for the bene-fit of all Americans, in particular low-income Americans whohave been hit the hardest by the negative effects of its decline.

There is grassroots momentum for this resuscitation inmost states across the nation. Over the past few decades, greatadvancements have been made in researching how to helppeople choose a good mate and form and maintain a healthy,lifelong marriage. There are established, cost-effective mar-riage education programs that can be taught by lay people, aswell as emerging programs that offer self-directed learning.The media have caught the wave and are now spreading themessage that marriage matters. Religious leaders and publicofficials are speaking out about the benefits of healthy mar-riages and intact, two-parent families.

Most of this progress has occurred with bootstrap funding,but additional resources are needed to bring the message andthe programs to more Americans, especially the neediest groupswho may need innovative approaches not yet developed. Therecent infusion of resources by the federal government may betemporary (given political shifts) and comes with importantlimitations for groups such as faith communities and small localorganizations that cannot compete for federal funding.

The philanthropic community, which has a long traditionand an enduring future of local partnerships, will determinethe success of the fledging movement to revitalize marriage.Donors will need to retool, but the pioneers described in thishandbook are showing the way. For good or ill, our nationtends to focus on a particular social problem only for a limit-ed time. The time for marriage is now, and opportunitiesabound for donors to make a difference.


64

Appendix AWhere to Go for More Information

Projects mentioned in this report

Administration on Children andFamilies Healthy Marriage Initiative370 L’Enfant Promenade, SWWashington, DC 20447acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/index.html

America’s Family CoachesGary and Barb Rosberg2540 106th Street, Suite 101Des Moines, IA 50322515.334.7482888.608.COACHamericasfamilycoaches.com

American Enterprise Institute1150 17th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036202.862.5800aei.org

Association of Couples for Marriage EnrichmentP.O. Box 21374Winston-Salem, NC 27120336.724.1526800.634.8325acme@bettermarriages.orgbettermarriages.org

Black Marriage CurriculumWedded Bliss Foundation236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Number 610Washington, DC 20002301.613.1316blackmarriageday.com

65

Appendix A: Where to Go for More Information

Brookings Institution1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC [email protected]

Center for Law and Social Policy1015 15th Street NW, Suite 400Washington, DC 20005202.906.8000clasp.org

City Vision, Inc.1422 Madison, SEGrand Rapids, MI 49507616.446.1699cityvisioninc.org

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education5310 Belt Road, NWWashington, DC [email protected]

Families NorthwestP.O. Box 40584Bellevue, WA 98015-4584425.869.4001888.923.2645info@familiesnorthwest.orgfamiliesnorthwest.org

Family LifeP.O. Box 7111Little Rock, AR 72223800.FL.TODAYfamilylife.com


66

Family Research Council801 G Street, NWWashington, DC 20001202.393.2100frc.org

The First Dance1769 Lexington Avenue North, Number 334St. Paul, MN 55113651.895.6919thefirstdance.com

First Things First620 Lindsay Street, Suite 100Chattanooga, TN [email protected]

Focus on the Family(street address not required)Colorado Springs, CO 80995719.531.5181800.A.FAMILYfocusonthefamily.com

Front Porch Alliance3210 Michigan AvenueKansas City, MO 64109816.921.8812exec@frontporchalliance.orgfrontporchalliance.org

Hamilton County Divorce Education and Mediation ProjectCircuit Court Clerk500 Courthouse, 625 Georgia AvenueChattanooga, TN 37402423.209.6700hamiltontn.gov/courts/CircuitClerk/education.aspx

67


Heritage Foundation214 Massachusetts Avenue, NEWashington, DC [email protected]

How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk600 East Smith RoadMedina, OH [email protected]

Institute for American Values1841 Broadway, Suite 211New York, NY [email protected]

Institute for Marriage and Public PolicyP.O. Box 1231Manassas, VA [email protected]

Love U2 — Dibble Fund for Marriage EducationP. O. Box 7881Berkeley, CA 94707-0881800.695.7975relationshipskills@dibblefund.orgbuildingrelationshipskills.org/love_u2_relationship_smarts.htm

Marriage CoMission1827 Powers Ferry RoadBuilding 15, Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30339404.775.8808marriagecomission.com


68

Marriage EncounterWorldwide Marriage Encounter, Inc.2210 East Highland Avenue, Suite 106San Bernardino, CA [email protected]

Marriage Savers9311 Harrington DrivePotomac, MD 20854301.469.5873marriagesavers.org

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.P.O. Box 2393Princeton, NJ 08543-2393609.799.3535info@mathematica-mpr.commathematica-mpr.com

National Council on Family Relations3989 Central Avenue NE, Suite 550Minneapolis, MN [email protected]

National Healthy Marriage Resource Center1620 Eye Street, NW, Suite 210Washington, DC 20006877.962.0099nhmrc@healthymarriageinfo.orghealthymarriageinfo.org

69


The National Marriage ProjectRutgers University54 Joyce Kilmer AvenueLucy Stone Hall B217Piscataway, NJ 08854732.445.7922marriage.rutgers.edu

The National Registry of Marriage Friendly Therapists1769 Lexington Avenue North, Number 117St. Paul, MN 55113marriagefriendlytherapists.com

The Osborne Association3631 38th StreetLong Island City, NY 11101718.707.2600osborneny.org

Pine Rest Family Institute300 68th Street, SEP.O. Box 165Grand Rapids, MI 49501616.831.2622pinerest.org

PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program)P.O. Box 4793Greenwood Village, CO [email protected]

Project HopeOur Lady of Lourdes Medical Center1600 Haddon AvenueCamden, NJ [email protected]


70

Stepcouples: Me or the Kids?cgtaylor.com/index.htm

Talaris Research InstituteP.O. Box 45040Seattle, WA 98145206.859.5600talaris.org

Ten Great Dates329 Canterwood LaneGreat Falls, VA [email protected]

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services200 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20201202.619.0257877.696.6775os.dhhs.gov

Funders mentioned in this report

Achelis and Bodman Foundations767 3rd Avenue, 4th FloorNew York, NY [email protected]/grantmaker/achelis-bodman/index.html

Annie E. Casey Foundation701 St. Paul StreetBaltimore, MD 21202410.547.6600aecf.org

71


Apex FoundationP.O. Box 245Bellevue, WA 98009425.456.3103

Chick-fil-A, Inc.5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, GA 30349-2998404.765.8000chick-fil-a.com/Home.asp

Dibble Fund for Marriage EducationP. O. Box 7881Berkeley, CA 94707-0881800.695.7975dibblefund.org

Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation126 Ottawa Avenue, NWSuite 400Grand Rapids, MI 49503616.643.4700

GFC Foundation584 South State StreetOrem, UT 84058801.224.8600

Johnson Foundation33 East Four Mile RoadRacine, WI 53402262.639.3211johnsonfdn.org

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation1241 North Franklin PlaceMilwaukee, WI 53202-2901414.291.9915bradleyfdn.org


72

The Maclellan Foundation820 Broad Street, Suite 300Chattanooga, TN [email protected]

National Christian Foundation1100 Johnson Ferry Road, NE, Suite 900Atlanta, GA 30342404.252.0100800.681.6223nationalchristian.com

New Hope FoundationP.O. Box 209Muscatine, IA 52761563.264.8000

Parker Foundation500 Forest AvenueRichmond, VA 23229804.285.5416parkerfoundation.org

Pascale/Sykes FoundationP.O. Box 3085Sea Bright, NJ [email protected]

Philanthropic Ventures1222 Preservation Park WayOakland, CA 94612-1201510.645.1890info@venturesfoundation.orgventuresfoundation.org

73


Richard and Helen DeVos FoundationP.O. Box 230257Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0257616.643.4700

Silicon Valley Community Foundation1700 South El Camino Real, Suite 300San Mateo, CA 94402-3049650.358.9369siliconvalleycf.org

Vine and Branches Foundation Inc.125 N. Executive Drive, Suite 206Brookfield, WI 53005262.754.2799vineandbranchesfoundation.org

Weatherwax FoundationP.O. Box 1111Jackson, MI 49204517.787.2117

William E. Simon Foundation140 E. 45th Street, Suite 14DNew York, NY 10017212.661.8366wesimonfoundation.org

WinShape Foundation—WinShape Retreat /WinShapeMarriageP.O. Box 490007Mt. Berry, GA 30149-0007877.WS.RETREATwinshape.org


74

Appendix BNine Major

Marriage Education Programs

Note: Descriptions are from the federally funded NationalHealthy Marriage Resource Center (www.healthymarriageinfo.org),which will add more program descriptions over time.

PROGRAM 1ACME: Building Better Marriageswww.bettermarriages.org

The Association for Couples in Marriage EnrichmentP.O. Box 21374Winston-Salem, NC 27120

Phone: 800.634.8325 or 336.724.1526Fax: 336.721.4746Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• ACME (The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment)

is an international, nonprofit, non-sectarian organizationwhose purpose is to promote better marriages by providingenrichment opportunities and resources that strengthen cou-ples’ relationships, increase intimacy, and enhance personalgrowth, mutual fulfillment and family wellness.

• ACME is for couples whose marriages are functioning rea-sonably well, but which could be more satisfying.

• The basic objectives of ACME are to: 1) increase awarenessof self and partner, 2) identify areas for relationship growth,3) develop effective communication and problem-solvingskills, and 4) increase intimacy and empathy.

• These objectives are achieved through experiential learning,group process and couple dialogue.

75

Appendix B: Nine Major Education Programs

• ACME leaders are married couples who are committed tomarital growth and have undergone training to becomecertified ACME leaders.

PROGRAM 2Caring Couples Networkwww.gbod.org/family.cnn

General Board of DiscipleshipP.O. Box 340003Nashville, TN 37203-0003

Phone: 877.899.2780Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• Caring Couples Network (CCN) is a model in which mar-

ried couples, clergy and professional consultants (e.g., thera-pists, physicians, attorneys) organize as teams in religiouscongregations or community centers to serve couples andfamilies experiencing difficulties.

• The purpose of the program is to help married couplesand families in crisis and prepare engaged couples formarriage.

• Caring Couples are not counselors. Their primary role is tolisten and share from their own life experiences.

PROGRAM 3Couple Communication I and IIwww.couplecommunication.com

Interpersonal Communication Programs, Inc. (ICP)30772 Southview Drive, Suite 200Evergreen, CO 80439


76

Toll free: 800.328.5099Phone: 303.674.2051Fax: 303.674.4283Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• Couple Communication (CC) is a series of programs

aimed at helping partners talk, listen, and effectivelyresolve conflicts.

• The four major objectives in Couple Communication are: 1)increase awareness of self/partner/relationship, 2) teach skillsfor talking and listening, 3) expand options for enriching therelationship, and 4) increase relationship satisfaction.

• Couple Communication I and II help teach effective com-munication skills.

• Great Start is a pre-marriage/early marriage program that isused in conjunction with CC I and CC II.

• CC is appropriate for couples of different ages, couples ofvarious socioeconomic groups, distressed couples and well-functioning couples.

• Instructors for CC come from a variety of human servicesprofessions. Not all instructors hold a graduate degree andeducation levels vary.

PROGRAM 4Family Wellnesswww.familywellness.com

Family Wellness AssociatesP.O. Box 66533Scotts Valley, CA 95067-6533

Phone: 831.440.0279Fax: 831.461.9564Email: [email protected]: [email protected]

77


Brief Summary of Program:• The Family Wellness program teaches practical skills based

on proven principles that strengthen, uphold and empowerindividuals, couples and families in order to promotehealthy relationships.

• The instructors are required to take a 40-hour trainingcourse that models the skills and experiences of FamilyWellness. The course is designed for school personnel,teachers, ministers, mental health and employee assistanceworkers, and others interested in assisting families.

• Topics covered in Family Wellness include: communication,problem-solving, values, money management, intimacy,community service, stepfamilies, parent and in-law issues,domestic violence, parenting, and separations due to mili-tary deployment/health/jail.

PROGRAM 5PAIRSwww.pairs.com

PAIRS Foundation, Ltd.1056 Creekford DriveWeston, FL 33326

Toll Free: 888.PAIRS.4U or 888.724.7748Fax: 703.476.6650Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• PAIRS is a series of programs that teaches concepts, skills,

attitudes, knowledge and practices in order to improve rela-tionships, including effective communication, constructiveproblem-solving, safe and constructive anger expression,and safe and constructive fighting.

• PAIRS emphasizes the importance of communication skills,emotional intimacy and empathy in relationships.


78

• PAIRS programs are taught by both instructors (lay people)and trained professionals (licensed mental health professionals).

PROGRAM 6PREPwww.prepinc.com

PREP Inc.P.O. Box 4793Greenwood Village, CO 80155-4793

Toll Free: 800.366.0166Phone: 303.759.9931Fax: 303.759.4212Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program)

is a divorce-prevention/marriage-enhancing program.• PREP is a skills and principle-building curriculum designed to

help partners to: 1) clarify and modify their relationshipbeliefs and expectations, 2) improve their communicationskills, 3) improve their problem-solving skills, and 4) increaseintimacy and enhance commitment.

• PREP is education, not therapy.• PREP is appropriate for distressed and non-distressed couples.• Lay people and therapists can become PREP instructors.

PROGRAM 7PREPARE/ENRICHwww.prepare-enrich.com/indexm.cfm

Life InnovationsP.O. Box 190Minneapolis, MN 55440-0190

79


Toll Free: 800.331.1661Phone: 651.635.0511Fax: 651.636.1668Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• PREPARE/ENRICH is a program based on a set of five

inventories that examine major relationship issues a couplemay experience.

• PREPARE/ENRICH helps couples: 1) explore relationshipstrength and growth areas, 2) learn assertiveness and activelistening skills, 3) learn how to resolve conflict, 4) discussissues related to their family or origin, 5) discuss financialplanning and budgeting, and 6) focus on personal, coupleand family goals.

• These inventories must be administered by a trained PRE-PARE/ENRICH Counselor and combine four to six feed-back sessions in which the counselor facilitates discussionbetween the couple based on their inventory results.

• PREPARE/ENRICH counselors include lay people, clergyand therapists.

PROGRAM 8Relationship Enhancementwww.nire.org

National Institute for Relationship Enhancement4400 East-West Highway, Suite 28Bethesda, MD 20814-4501

Toll Free: 800.4FamiliesPhone: 301.986.1479Fax: 301.680.3756Email: [email protected]


80

Brief Summary of Program:• Relationship Enhancement is both a psycho-educational pro-

gram and a brief therapy model that employs a skills-trainingmethodology for empowering even the most distressed cou-ples and families to resolve problems on their own.

• Couples learn to resolve issues, restore intimacy andincrease relationship satisfaction.

• Families learn to improve communication, effectivelyresolve conflicts, and manage family transitions.

• In addition to the psycho-educational programs, individu-als/couples/families may elect to participate in supplementaltherapy to help develop effective coping skills and empowerchange in one’s self and relationships.

• Relationship Enhancement is facilitated by both lay-leadersand therapists.

PROGRAM 9Worldwide Marriage Encounterwww.wwme.org

Worldwide Marriage Encounter, Inc.Suite 1062210 San Bernardino, CA 92404-4666

Phone: 909.863.9963Fax: 909.863.9986Email: [email protected]

Brief Summary of Program:• Marriage Encounter (ME) is a weekend experience that

emphasizes personal reflection and communication betweena husband and wife.

• ME is most often held in a retreat setting away from thedistractions and tensions of the couple’s everyday life,allowing the couple to concentrate on their relationship.

81


• A clergy person with volunteer couples who haveexperienced ME and received additional training leadencountering couples through the weekend process.

• A series of presentations helps couples examine themselves,their marriage, and their relationship to God and the world.

• There is no specific age or religious background require-ment. All faiths are welcome.

• Marriage Encounter is not marital therapy and is notappropriate for couples with severe marital distress.


82

Appendix CCommunity Healthy Marriage Initiatives

(By State)

ALABAMAAlabama Community Healthy Marriage InitiativeFrancesca Adler-Bader, Ph.D.Associate Professor, HDFSDirector, Center for Children, Youth & FamiliesSpecialist, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service286 Spidle Hall, Auburn UniversityAuburn, AL [email protected]

The Children’s Trust FundDept. of Child Abuse and Neglect PreventionMarian Loftin, DirectorP.O. Box 4251Montgomery, AL [email protected]

Madison County Coalition for Healthy MarriagesDeborah Preece, Coordinator7308 Wood Creek CourtOwens Cross Roads, AL [email protected]

ARIZONAStrong Families FlagstaffBob Tures, Program DirectorP.O. Box 696Flagstaff, AZ [email protected]

83

Appendix C: Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives—By State

CALIFORNIAOrange County Marriage Resource CenterDennis Stoica, Executive Director2556 Woodland Drive, Suite GAnaheim, CA [email protected]

Sacramento Healthy Marriage ProjectCarolyn Rich Curtis, Director918 J StreetSacramento, CA 95814916.972.9227Carolyn@SacramentoHealthyMarriage.orgSacramentohealthymarriage.org

San Diego Marriage Resource CenterCathy Brown-Robinson, MA, LPC11339 Carmel Creek RoadSan Diego, CA [email protected]

San Gabriel Valley Marriage Resource CenterKen AllisonP.O. Box 1600Claremont, CA [email protected]

Stanislaus County Healthy Marriage CoalitionJim Steward744 Thompson RoadModesto, CA [email protected]


84

DELAWAREDelaware Healthy Marriage CoalitionRev. Robert P. Hall, Executive DirectorDelaware Ecumenical Council on Children and Families240 N. James Street, Suite B1BWilmington, DE [email protected]

GEORGIANorthwest Georgia Marriage InitiativeKathy Schleier1220 Covie DriveDalton, GA [email protected]

IDAHOHealthy Families Nampa411 3rd Street SouthNampa, ID 83651208.461.5475hfn@healthyfamiliesnampa.orghealthyfamiliesnampa.org

ILLINOISChicagoland Marriage Resource Centerc/o Family Ministries155 East SuperiorChicago, IL 60611312.751.1002contact@chicagolandmarriage.orgchicagolandmarriage.org

85


INDIANACommunity Marriage BuildersAnn Gries, Ph.D., Executive Director1229 Bellemeade AvenueEvansville, IN [email protected]

IOWAMarriage Matters of IowaMichael Hartwig, Ph.D.1100 N. Hickory Boulevard, Suite 105Pleasant Hill, IA [email protected]

KANSASKansas Healthy Marriage InstituteMichael Duxler, Ph.D.Newman University3100 McCormickWichita, KS 67213316.942.4291, ext. 2190

Catholic CharitiesJoyce Webb, Ph.D.437 North TopekaWichita, KS 67202316.263.6941

KENTUCKYBluegrass Healthy Marriage InitiativeErik Carlton, Project Director149 Washington AvenueLexington, KY 40525859.257.7734


86

Marriage Education and Resource Center, MERCYPenny and David HudsonLaGrange, [email protected]

MAINEHealthy Relationships InitiativesMary Schiavoni, President1321 Washington Avenue, Suite 205Portland, ME 04103207.699.2464

MICHIGANDownriver Marriage Resource CenterJulie Bock, Executive Director23400 Michigan Avenue, Suite P18Dearborn Riverview, MI [email protected]

Healthy Marriages Grand RapidsMark Eastburg, Ph.D.Executive DirectorPine Rest Family Institute300 68th Street SE, P.O. Box 165Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0165616.831.2622healthymarriagesgr@pinerest.orghealthymarriagesgr.org

Marriages ThatWork and Family Matters of Southeast MichiganJoyce E. Faulhaber517.266.8525

87


MISSOURIOzarks Marriage MattersNikki Rorabaugh, Executive Director2885 W. Battlefield StreetSpringfield, MO [email protected]

St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition3322 Olive Street, Room 002St. Louis, MO [email protected]

NEBRASKANebraska Healthy Marriage InitiativeDoris Lassiter, CoordinatorDoral Group, Inc., CoordinatorsNebraska State Office Building1313 Farnam on the Mall, 3rd Floor, Box 16Omaha, NE 68102Phone: 402.491.4123Fax: [email protected]

NEVADALas Vegas Marriage Resource CenterRoger Marcussen, Executive Director2118 Fort Halifax StreetHenderson, NV 89052702.286.0808

NEW HAMPSHIRECommunity Marriage Initiative of New HampshireRon Tannariello & Des Coffee134 Hollis RoadAmherst, NH [email protected]


88

NEW JERSEYNew Jersey Healthy Marriage CoalitionRev. Darrell Armstrong, PresidentTrenton, NJ609.695.5700

NEWYORKHealthy Marriage Coalition of Central New YorkPatricia Ennis1342 Lancaster AvenueSyracuse, NY 13210315.472.6728, ext. [email protected]

NORTH CAROLINAFirst Things First of Gaston County, Inc.Teresa Rankin, Executive DirectorP.O. Box 953Gastonia, NC [email protected]

Guilford County Marriage Resource CenterFamily Life Council301 E. Washington Street, Suite 204Greensboro, NC 27401336.333.6890, ext. [email protected]

OHIOCleveland Marriage CoalitionSandra Bender, Executive Director1991 Lee Road, Suite 104Cleveland Heights, OH [email protected]

89


Columbus Marriage CoalitionStephen M. Judah, Ph.D., Chair2290 Pinebrook RoadColumbus, OH [email protected]

Miami Valley Marriage CoalitionMike & Debbie Nieport359 Forest AvenueDayton, OH [email protected]

Ohio Marriage Resource CenterDick Cronk, [email protected]

OKLAHOMAOklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI)301 NW 63rd Street, Suite 600Oklahoma City, OK 73116405.848.2171877.435.8033okmarriage.org

OREGONEvery Marriage Matters:Marriage Resources for Clackamas CountyThomas and Elizabeth Dressel, Directors1005 Woodlawn AvenueOregon City, OR [email protected]


90

PENNSYLVANIAGreater Philadelphia Healthy Marriage CoalitionRita DeMaria, Ph.D.GPHMC Steering Committee CoordinatorP.O. Box 738Spring House, PA [email protected]

Strengthening Families First:Berks County’s Healthy Marriage and Family Coalition227 North 5th StreetReading, PA 19601610.376.6988, ext. 231 or 224strengtheningfamiliesfirst.org

TENNESSEEFamilies MatterJim HunterMemphis, TN901.260.8521

First Things First (FTF)Julie Baumgardner, Executive Director620 Lindsay Street, Suite 100Chattanooga, TN [email protected]

91


TEXASGreater Houston Healthy Marriage CoalitionWinnie Honeywell, ChairTim Louis, SecretaryFamily Services3815 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200Houston, TX [email protected]@familyservices.org

VIRGINIAFirst Things First of Greater Richmond5200 Grove AvenueRichmond, VA 23226804.288.3431, ext. [email protected]

Marriage Alliance of Central VirginiaLarry Compter, Executive Director21129 Timberlake RoadLynchburg, VA [email protected]

WASHINGTONFamilies NorthwestJeff Kemp, Executive DirectorP.O. Box 40584Bellevue, WA 98015-4584425.869.4001888.923.2645info@familiesnorthwest.orgfamiliesnorthwest.org


92

The Philanthropy RoundtableThe Philanthropy Roundtable is a national association of indi-vidual donors, foundation trustees and staff, and corporate giv-ing officers. The Roundtable attracts independent donors whobenefit from being part of an organization dedicated to helpingthem achieve their charitable objectives. In addition to offeringexpert advice and counsel, the Roundtable puts donors in touchwith peers who share similar concerns and interests. Members ofthe Roundtable gain access to the full range of ideas and informa-tion on what does and does not work well in philanthropy.

Mission

The Philanthropy Roundtable’s mission is to foster excellence inphilanthropy, to protect philanthropic freedom, to assist donors inachieving their philanthropic intent, and to help donors advanceliberty, opportunity, and personal responsibility in America andabroad.

Guiding Principles

H Voluntary private action offers solutions for many of soci-ety’s most pressing challenges.

H A vibrant private sector is critical for generating the wealththat makes philanthropy possible.

H Excellence in philanthropy is measured by results, not goodintentions.

H A respect for donor intent is essential for philanthropicintegrity.

Philanthropy Roundtable Services

H The Annual Meeting is The Philanthropy Roundtable’s flag-ship event where donors share ideas, strategies and bestpractices and hear from America’s experts in private innova-tion and forward-thinking policy. Nearly 400 donors from32 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada attendedthe 2006 Annual Meeting, “Raising the Bar: AchievingExcellence in Giving,” in Charleston, South Carolina,November 9-11. The Fifteenth Anniversary Annual Meetingfeatured speakers such as Micheal Flaherty (Walden Media),Paul Gigot (Wall Street Journal), Julie Gerberding (Centers

93

The Philanthropy Roundtable

for Disease Control and Prevention), Tom Tierney(Bridgespan), and The Honorable John Walters (WhiteHouse Drug Policy Office). Our 2007 Annual Meeting,“Inspiring the Philanthropic Imagination,” will be held atthe Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, in Dana Point, California,November 8-10.

H Held across the country throughout the year, our RegionalMeetings assemble grantmakers together to develop strate-gies, programmatic solutions, and effective innovations forlocal, state and national giving. Donors hear experts inK-12 education, conservation, higher education, nationalsecurity, and other noteworthy topics and learn how toapply sound policy to their philanthropy.

H Our magazine Philanthropy. Recent cover stories include agroundbreaking examination of donrs, think tanks, and thetransformation of public policy by John J. Miller, an in-depth look at Walden Media founder Philip Anschutz andpresident Micheal Flaherty’s vision for transformingHollywood, and the most significant tribute to the philan-thropic achievements of the late John Walton.

H Our excellent collection of guidebooks for donors, includingStrategic Investment in Ideas: How Two FoundationsReshaped America, a history of the achievements of theJohn M. Olin and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations;Michael Hartmann’s Helping People to Help Themselves: AGuide for Donors; Tom Bray’s Soaring High: NewStrategies on Environmental Giving; and our latest guide-book, The Struggle Against Radical Islam, by NadiaSchadlow of the Smith Richardson Foundation on nationalsecurity giving.

H Our work on Capitol Hill to protect the freedom and philo-sophical diversity of foundations. Our Alliance forCharitable Reform has played a critical role in stopping theenactment of harmful legislation affecting grantmakingfoundations.

H Our Breakthrough Groups in K-12 education, conservation,higher education, and national security—all subjects wherewe think philanthropy can achieve dramatic breakthroughsover the next decade. Each Breakthrough Group has itsown meetings, publications, and other services.


94

Qualifications for Membership

Philanthropists who contribute at least $50,000 annually tocharitable causes are eligible to become members of ThePhilanthropy Roundtable. Members of the Roundtableinclude:

H Individual Philanthropists

H Private Foundations

H Corporate Foundations and Corporate Giving Programs

H Community Foundations

H Venture Philanthropy Partnerships

H Eligible Donor Advised Funds

H Public Charities which devote more than half of theiroperating budget to grants for external activities

The Philanthropy Roundtable accepts memberships fromqualified philanthropists for any amount of $500 or more.All members receive our magazine, invitations to Roundtableevents, and other information about the Roundtable.

The following membership levels are suggested:

H $25,000 and above: Builder. This level of membership isfor philanthropists who want to help the Roundtable togrow and flourish. Builders help sustain and advance theRoundtable’s major programs and operations.

H $10,000 and above: Investor. This level of membership isfor philanthropists who admire the quality of Roundtableconferences, publications, and customized services andwant to enable the Roundtable to sustain them.

H $5,000 and above: Sponsor. This level of membership isfor philanthropists who believe the services and principlesof the Roundtable are important for American philanthro-py. This is the recommended minimum level of member-ship for active participants in our Breakthrough Groups.

95

The Philanthropy Roundtable

H $1,000 and above: Friend. This level of membership is forphilanthropists who want to show their appreciation forhelpful ideas, strategies, and contacts they have acquiredfrom Roundtable programs and publications.

H $500 and above: Associate. This level of membership isfor philanthropists to see if they want to develop a closerrelationship with the Roundtable.

Join The Philanthropy Roundtable:

H By phone at 202.822.8333

H By email at [email protected]

The Philanthropy Roundtable also accepts contributions fromall individuals who would like to help us foster excellence inphilanthropy, protect philanthropic freedom, help donorsachieve their philanthropic intent, and assist donors inadvancing liberty, opportunity, and personal responsibility inAmerica and abroad. You do not need to qualify for member-ship to financially support our principles and programs.

To provide an individual contribution to The PhilanthropyRoundtable, please contact Amanda Telford, DevelopmentDirector, at [email protected] or202.822.8333.


96

Yes, I want to become a Member!

Name

Title

Affiliation

Address

City State Zip

Business Phone Fax

Home

Suggested Contribution Levels

q Builder: $25,000 and above

q Investor: $10,000 and above

q Sponsor: $5,000 and above

q Friend: $1,000 and above

q Associate: $500 and above

Membership contribution amount enclosed:___________________________

q I have enclosed a check made payable to The Philanthropy Roundtable.

q Please charge my memership to the following credit card:

American Express Discover MasterCard Visa (circle one)

Name on Card:____________________________________________________

Card Number:____________________________Expiration Date:__________

The Philanthropy Roundtable is a nonprofit tax-exempt organization undersection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are fully tax-deductible.


During the last 40 years, the institution of marriage has changedmore rapidly, and been challenged more forcefully, than at any

other time in human history. For several decades, the impact of thisdramatic change in family structure was the subject of vigorous debateamong scholars. No longer. A diverse spectrum of researchers nowaccepts what has been common sense for many: that if we knew howto promote healthy marriages, the lives of our children and the well-being of our communities would be improved.

For the most part, the philanthropic community sat out thesocial revolution in marriage and the dislocation it has caused for chil-dren, adults and communities. Many donors now want to get involvedbut lack grounding in the issues and key opportunities. This guide aimsto provide that grounding. The pages that follow will examine the cur-rent landscape, most effective interventions, and opportunities fordonors of all sizes seeking to promote healthy marriages in America.

The Philanthropy Roundtable is committed to helping donorsachieve maximum impact in the arena of marriage and family issues.We are dedicated to assisting interested donors in determining whichtypes of programs best speak to their interests.

1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 503Washington, D.C. 20036

T: 202.822.8333 . F: 202.822.8325 . E: [email protected]

Free copies of this guidebook are available to qualified donors.Nonprofit organizations may access a free PDF at www.PhilanthropyRoundtable.org.

revivingMarriagein america

Documents

Marriage Guidebook - Philanthropy Roundtable