U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–266—PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–595

BENEFITS OF A HEALTHY MARRIAGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

AND FAMILY POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 5, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

JON KYL, Arizona

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

TOM DASCHLE, South Dakota

JOHN BREAUX, Louisiana

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

KOLAN DAVIS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND FAMILY POLICY

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania, Chairman

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

JON KYL, Arizona

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

JOHN BREAUX, Louisiana

TOM DASCHLE, South Dakota

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page

Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy ............................................... 1

PUBLIC WITNESSES

Baumgardner, Julie, executive director, First Things First, Chattanooga, TN . 2

Jones, Joseph T., founder, Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development, Baltimore, MD ....................................................................................... 4

Grimes, Dwayne, Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development

Program Participants, Baltimore, MD; accompanied by Mrs. Brenda

Grimes ................................................................................................................... 8

Walker, Dominick, Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development

Program Participants, Baltimore, MD; accompanied by Ms. Charice Diggs ... 8

Edin, Dr. Kathryn, associate professor, Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL ....................................................................... 17

Haskins, Dr. Ron, senior fellow of economic studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC ........................................................................................... 20

Ooms, Theodora, senior policy analyst, The Center for Law and Social Policy,

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 23

Stanley, Dr. Scott, co-director, Center for Marital and Family Studies and

Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO .................................................................................................................. 26

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Baumgardner, Julie:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Bunning, Hon. Jim:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Edin, Dr. Kathryn:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Grimes, Dwayne & Brenda:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Haskins, Dr. Ron:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Jones, Joseph T.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65

Ooms, Theodora:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement w/attachment .................................................................. 71

Response to a question from Senator Grassley .............................................. 174

Santorum, Hon. Rick:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1

Stanley, Dr. Scott:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 176

Page

IV

Walker, Dominick & Charice:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 191

COMMUNICATIONS

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) ................... 193

Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) ............................................................. 196

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions ..................... 203

The Heritage Foundation ........................................................................................ 209

Institute for American Values (Policy Brief) ......................................................... 220

Legal Momentum ..................................................................................................... 229

Stop Family Violence ............................................................................................... 239

(1)

BENEFITS OF A HEALTHY MARRIAGE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

AND FAMILY POLICY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC.

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rick Santorum

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Also present: Senator Bunning.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND FAMILY POLICY

Senator SANTORUM. Welcome, everybody. Let me open this hearing with my thanks to the staff, and in particular Senator Breaux

and his staff, Senator Baucus, for putting together, I think, excellent panels of witnesses together to come and discuss a very important issue, a very timely issue, and that is the issue of healthy

marriages.

In fact, is marriage a public good that government can just simply choose to continue to ignore, or is it something that is a public

good that we should cease to be neutral on and try to, in fact, encourage support and enhance as something that is beneficial to

children?

I think you will hear from witnesses today that will certainly

provide lots of statistical support for that assertion, but also good

for mothers, for fathers, and for communities, and thereby for this

country.

This is a hearing to focus, in particular, on the President’s proposal on healthy marriages, his idea that was debated here on this

panel several weeks ago in the debate on welfare reform, and continues to be a topic of discussion as we hope to come back on the

issue of welfare sometime later this year, and move forward on this

initiative.

But also in the larger context, as we are having the debate on

marriage itself, what marriage means, and what benefits, if any,

there are to society of stable, two-parent families.

This is a hearing focused, in particular, on low-income individuals and the impact of marriage on them, on their children, and

on the communities in which they live. We have an impressive list

of speakers here to testify, which I will call up.

2

First, Ms. Julie Baumgardner. Julie, come on up. As well as Joe

Jones, if you can come up. Bring the folks, the Grimeses, and

Dominick Walker, and Charice, if she is here. Yes, I see Charice.

We are going to keep Zion in the back. Okay.

Mr. JONES. Not as a hostage, though. Right?

Senator SANTORUM. What is that?

Mr. JONES. Not as a hostage.

Senator SANTORUM. Not as a hostage, no. Zion is asleep in the

back. As the father of seven children, when they are asleep, that

is a good thing.

So, we appreciate all of you being willing to come here and testify and share your experiences. One of the things that we wanted

to have a discussion about was whether, in the communities the

welfare bill has a particular impact in, is there a desire, is there

a need, is there a want out there for some help in this area? What

can government do, and what can organizations who are in support

of traditional marriage do to make a positive impact on the community?

We want to see what those experiences are, whether they have

been successful, and how they see government as potentially a

partner, whether they see it as a potential partner and what government can do to assist them in their efforts in promoting marriage.

Our first witness is Julie Baumgardner. Julie is the executive director of First Things First, a not-for-profit organization dedicated

to strengthening families located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. For

those of you who are interested, you can look at the organization’s

website, which is www.firstthings.org.

In the year 2000, my notes say, Tennessee ranked second to Nevada in divorce rate. Most of her research focuses on building marital relationships and strategies to keep the marriage bond strong

between mothers and fathers. In turn, that will benefit children.

Julie, we look forward to your testimony, and you can proceed.

STATEMENT OF JULIE BAUMGARDNER, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, FIRST THINGS FIRST, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you today.

I know that you have heard about the benefits of marriage and

the disadvantages of family breakdown. But what I want to address today is the skepticism that nothing can really be done about

the breakdown of the family, and those people who think that marriage is an outmoded institution, and whether or not government

should be involved.

I want to testify to you about my 7 years of firsthand experience

as part of an experiment to see if we could actually stop the epidemic, reverse the trend, and change the divorce culture in our

community.

In the mid-1990’s, civic leaders of Chattanooga became interested

in community revitalization. They rebuilt the riverfront. They

spruced up the streets. They brought people back downtown. They

built the largest fresh-water aquarium in the world.

3

However, they looked around and realized that one of the most

important parts of the community, the family, was not being

spruced up.

Like the rest of the country, these leaders did not know if anything could be done about this problem, but they decided to give

it a try. They put up private money and they made the decision

that we could not revitalize Chattanooga without revitalizing the

family. They decided they were going to put first things first, so

they started the organization First Things First.

What we knew when we started, was our divorce rate was 50

percent higher than the national average, than the rest of the

country. Not only that, our out-of-wedlock pregnancies were off the

charts: 50 percent of the babies born in the city were born out of

wedlock.

But we knew we had great reason for hope, because the people

of Chattanooga, on an early survey, told us they believed in marriage, they believed in two-parent families. And we figured, if they

valued it, they wanted to learn how to do it.

You have all heard the saying, build it and they will come. Well,

I am here to tell you, offer marriage education and information

about building strong families, and they will come.

In 7 years, there is not anywhere that we have not offered these

services, and everywhere we have gone, the response has been

overwhelming, including working in the prison, places of faith,

schools, divorce courts, government agencies, the media, businesses, birthing centers, housing projects, recreation centers, youth

groups, juvenile detention, and even the biker community. At our

last bike rally—and I am talking motorcycles—we had 500 bikers

helping to raise money to strengthen marriages and families.

We did not know how classes would go over in the prison. They

went great. In fact, one prisoner told us it was the best class he

had ever had, and he learned more in 8 weeks than he had learned

in his entire 50 years.

Parents who were required to take a 4-hour class about how divorce affects their children walked away asking, where was this information when we were getting married? Why was this not required of us then? If it had been, maybe we would not be here now.

I know in my heart of hearts that people are people, and this

hunger is not unique to Chattanooga. Americans all across this

country still believe strongly in marriage. Eighty-five percent

marry at least once, and when their marriages fail, they run out

and try again. Seventy-five percent marry again within 4 years.

They want to be married. They want to raise their children. They

just do not know how.

In seven short years, in the process of figuring out how to do

this, our community has seen a 27-percent decrease in divorce filings and a 23-percent decrease in out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Let me repeat that. We have seen a 27-percent decrease in divorce filings and a 23-percent decrease in teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies. The bottom line is that healthy marriage is good for children and adults.

Research shows that children who grow up in a home with their

two married biological parents do better in school, find better jobs,

4

become taxpayers, are less likely to be involved in crime and risky

behaviors. This, in turn, leads to a brighter future for our children.

One person at a time, one community at a time, we can educate,

collaborate, mobilize and bring positive results to many. If that

does not convince you that the government can, should, and must

get this vital information out to the people, I do not know what

would.

Prevention is significantly less expensive, less painful, and more

effective than intervention. If we have information that we know

can make a significant, positive difference in the lives of children

and adults, we owe it to them to get the information to them. Is

that not what government is supposed to do?

Thank you.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Julie, for your passionate and persuasive, at least from my perspective, testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baumgardner appears in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Next, is Joseph Jones. Joe and I were together just recently with Senator Bayh, talking about an initiative

that Senator Bayh and I have been working on fatherhood, on the

Fatherhood initiative, which is also a part of the welfare bill.

Joe has extensive experience here locally in the Baltimore area

in empowering low-income families, working with men in the community in their roles as husband and fathers, and trying to build

healthy and stable relationships in nurturing children.

Joe is the president and CEO of the Center for Fathers, Families,

and Workforce Development in Baltimore, and has been up here on

Capitol Hill and served on the Congressional Black Caucus annual

legislative conference. He has also worked with U.S. AID in Jamaica and has a rather impressive biography, which I will put into

the record.

Joe, thank you very much for being here. As part of your testimony, at the conclusion, if you want to introduce your guests and

let them speak as part of your presentation, that would be fine.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. JONES, FOUNDER, CENTER FOR

FATHERS, FAMILIES, AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Mr. JONES. Great. Thank you, Senator Santorum. I particularly

thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today, for the

rest of the committee, for the audience, and for some of my colleagues, many of whom will be on the second panel, to present.

I am very pleased that we are now getting to the point where we

are getting into the nitty-gritty of the work that has been discussed

for the last several years.

I would like to provide an historical context to talk about the

work that we did, and how we got to the point where we could even

be here today to talk about the benefits of healthy marriage.

Approximately a little over 10 years ago, I began work in Baltimore as a substance abuse counselor, working with pregnant substance-abusing women. In that work of challenging them with getting into early and consistent prenatal care and into drug treatment, I began to encounter the partners of these women, or the faVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
5

thers of the babies to be born to these women. It was very, very

clear.

I was very successful in getting these women into prenatal care

and drug treatment. However, they were going back home to male

partners who were not able to receive the same set of services, although they had the same and similar type problems.

We eventually convinced the people I reported to at the Baltimore City Health Department that we should include men in our

strategies to reduce infant mortality and stabilize families. However, we had no resources to do that.

Fortunately, in 1992, Baltimore City was one of the first recipients of the federally-funded Healthy Start Infant Mortality Reduction Initiative.

Through that application, we were able to design a small pilot

program to serve low-income, non-custodial fathers. This is simultaneous to the modern-day evolution of the field of responsible fatherhood.

I am very, very fortunate that I was able to come into this work

at a time when the field was beginning to build somewhat of an

infrastructure, mainly supported by the private foundation community.

Over the years, we learned that many of the men who we were

working with had issue with child support, had been involved in

the criminal justice system, had limited information about how to

be a good parent, mainly because they were being reared in households that were headed by single females.

Not that single females do not have a role and cannot play a

major part in raising young boys, but the problem is, they do not

have the influence and the guidance of men to help shape their values and beliefs as they grow into adulthood. So, the fatherhood

field began to grapple with these issues and help transform these

men into good fathers, good partners.

Over the years, it became clear that that was not enough, that

we had to find ways in which to create strategies to help men learn

how to stick in there, even when the going gets rough. We were

forced to think about the issue of marriage, not because we were

strategically positioned to do so.

Let me tell you exactly how we got involved in this. On a Monday night during the football season, when Monday night football

was about to come on, I got a call from Dwayne Grimes. Dwayne

asked me, would I come over to his house and sit down with him

and Brenda and talk with them. I said, sure. But to be honest with

you, I was hoping this would be a short conversation so I could get

home and watch Monday night football.

However, that conversation turned into rather a long conversation, because they told me they wanted to get married. In the back

of my mind I am saying, all right, that is fine. But why are you

telling me you want to get married? They said, we want to get married at your center, which was a whole different proposition, because we had never experienced it, never done it, never even considered it.

And the only thing I could think of, was to ask God to give me

some kind of respectful response to this couple who had been a part

6

of our service delivery system that would make sense to them, and

would also respect them.

I asked them if they would find a member of the faith community

of their own choosing who would provide them with premarital

counseling, and that faith leader would talk to me and say, I believe that this family can make it. Then we would consider hosting

their wedding at our facility.

To be honest with you, I was king of hoping they did not take

me up on my word. But they pulled forward. They met with the

faith leader. He called me and said, I believe this thing will work.

Not only do I believe it will work, I will continue to work with

them. I will perform the ceremony at your center.

I was stuck. So, we had to move forward and give them the opportunity to get married at our center. I am pleased to tell you that

they got married at our center over 3 years ago. Today, they are

still married, in a very strong, committed relationship.

I want to provide you a little context in terms of how difficult it

was for them to work through those issues. Dwayne, at that time,

had approximately $30,000 in child support arrearage, in addition

to the monthly payment that he was supposed to make. They were

also living in public housing, where Dwayne was not necessarily

supposed to be.

So, the child support that was accruing was the child support associated with the children from their union and the household

where Dwayne was residing. That is how complex this situation

was.

But they decided that they would deal with all the issues that

they faced, and they would be committed to one another and their

children. Approximately three years ago, they got married and

were able to stick through this.

Now, I would like to tell you that the resources that it takes to

work with a family like that are not necessarily that important, but

they are extremely important because the fatherhood field does not

necessarily have the infrastructure to work with the kind of families like Dwayne’s, and others’, in the communities where we serve

to be able to absorb the number of families who can benefit from

those services. So, we told them we would move forward.

I fast-forward to today, where I have with me. Dominick Walker

and his fiancee, Charice. As you know, they have a 4-week-old son,

Zion, in the back. Well, this young family just completed our 50/

50 Parenting Program, a 10-week curriculum that provides information and education to young, struggling couples who are in that

magic moment period, clearly, when they have some relationship

and romanticism going on.

I think Julie articulated the kinds of struggles that these kinds

of families face. They certainly do not have enough information to

be able to stabilize their families.

Well, Charice could benefit from the resources of the State, but

she refuses to get involved with the State, mainly because she does

not want to take Dominick into the child support system. As a result, Dominick works two jobs. They both graduated from high

school, from the same high school, and they are managing their

young, fragile family.

7

As a fatherhood practitioner, we have been able to take the limited resources available that could greatly be enhanced with the

passage of the bipartisan legislation and provisions in the welfare

reauthorization bill submitted by you and Senator Bayh. We are

looking forward, as time goes forward, to work through that.

However, I do not think that fatherhood and marriage are an either/or proposition. I think they are complementary to one another.

But the challenge is, the fatherhood field and the field of the marriage community has not had an opportunity to really come together and identify issues of common ground where we can begin

to work together. The analogy to that is similar to the responsible

fatherhood field and the child support community.

Several years ago, those two communities did not talk with one

another. Today, we have several intimate partnerships, where child

support and responsible fatherhood are working together to deal

with the issues similar to what Dwayne faced when he had $30,000

worth of child support arrears, like we are doing in Baltimore with

the child support program and our debt leveraging initiative.

Second, there are many partners in the domestic violence community where fatherhood and domestic violence providers did not

come together. As a result of mentoring we received from folks like

Dr. Oliver Williams, Ann Minard, and Jody Raphael from the domestic violence community, we were able to forge a partnership

with the House of Ruth domestic violence program in Baltimore,

where we now have an intimate relationship.

We do not agree on every issue, but what we have done, is said

here are a set of common ground principles that we can work on

to help serve families so that children do not have to plunge further into poverty, so that as families move forward to think and

consider marriage, it becomes a viable option for them and we can

provide those resources and the sets of supports.

One of the things I neglected to mention in my submitted testimony, is that the work of the National Practitioners Network for

Fathers and Families, which is a huge national membership organization for fatherhood practitioners, have begun to think about

ways and strategies to partner with the folks in the marriage community to be able to create a seamless set of services so that as

low-income dads come into the service delivery system, our systems

are prepared to receive them where they are, provide them support,

in addition to the education and information on family stabilization

so that when they become the kind of people that the women would

accept as partners in a committed married relationship, they will

be prepared to walk down that aisle, even if it is in a nonprofit organization like the Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the appendix.]

Mr. JONES. With that, I would like to introduce and give an opportunity for the families with me to talk about their experiences.

First, we have Dwayne and Brenda Grimes, and then Dominick

Walker and Charice Diggs.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you.

Mr. Grimes?

8

STATEMENT OF DWAYNE GRIMES, CENTER FOR FATHERS,

FAMILIES, AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

PARTICIPANT, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, ACCOMPANIED BY

BRENDA GRIMES

Mr. GRIMES. I am Dwayne Grimes, father of seven kids. Like Joe

said, I was reluctant to get into the thing called marriage.

Let me step back for you. I was suffering from an addiction, heroin and cocaine addiction. I have been with my wife, before we got

married, for 13 years, like Joe said, living in sin. Until 1 day, I

stepped into the program that was called Healthy Start at First to

try to get some help to better myself.

I went there, stepped away for a few, came back. I really did not

want the thing called life, until 1 day I looked into the mirror and

saw someone that was supposed to have been me, but it was not

me.

Also, I saw my kids in the background telling me, daddy, help

me, help me. That is when I decided to go back into the program

to get help with my addiction.

Today, I have 5 years of sobriety, by the grace of God. That is

when I decided to go to Joe Jones. I really wanted to marry this

woman. I said, she is the only one that has stuck beside me

through the good, bad and ugly. My life is like a Clint Eastwood

movie. It was. No matter what I did to her, or put her through, or

put my kids through, this woman was on my side.

I asked her once to marry me. She told me no. I did not blame

her. The next time, she asked me. I said, sure, why not? We decided to call Joe. This was two days after, if I am not mistaken.

Joe thought I was joking, but I was dead serious. I wanted to

marry this woman. She is the only one that I ever really cared for.

As far as marriage, it was a big step. I really did not understand

that thing called responsibility, or being a responsible man. Today,

I am a man. I can say that. I am taking care of what a man is supposed to take care of, a wife, kids, everything.

As far as my kids, I have seven beautiful kids. I wish I could

have brought them with me. Being married, being with those seven

kids in my household without anyone telling me I have got to get

out, I cannot be there, is a wonderful feeling. Today, no one can

tell me that, that those kids are not mine.

I am a little nervous.

Mr. JONES. That is all right. We will come back to you.

Dominick, do you want to chime in?

STATEMENT OF DOMINICK WALKER, CENTER FOR FATHERS,

FAMILIES, AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

PARTICIPANT, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, ACCOMPANIED BY

CHARICE DIGGS

Mr. WALKER. Yes. My experience with CFWD came when my

fiancee got pregnant. When I was younger, I had not had the opportunity to get to know my father because he was not actively involved in my life. So, CFWD, they helped me build some kind of

foundation, because being a parent does not come with a handbook.

I completed the 50/50 Parenting for my son and for my fiancee

to better our relationship and to better the foundation, to fill in all

the gaps, basically, that my father and I never had, to be there to

9

spend time with my son and be actively involved in his life, and

do the things that my father did not do with me, to do with him.

CFWD helped me build that foundation.

Mr. JONES. How hard is it for you with these two jobs?

Mr. WALKER. It kills me sometimes. I work seven days a week.

I work one job Monday through Friday and I work the other job

all day Saturday and Sunday. So, I am constantly going to sleep

and waking back up. I do not really have time to myself. I do what

I can, and that is all we can do. I am only one person. I just try

to take things day by day, and just for the most part be there to

support my family.

Mr. JONES. Charice and Brenda, as women who are, one younger

than the other, but women in the Baltimore community, what is it

like for you all to grapple with this issue of stabilizing your families, one in a marriage situation and one aspiring to get there, but

dealing with all the struggles associated with that?

Mrs. GRIMES. Basically, it is kind of hard. But I just keep the

faith and hold on, and just pray that He makes it better for us.

Dealing with six kids, you just do not know. It is not easy. They

are getting to be teenagers. They are not little babies any more.

I have a 15-year-old, a soon-to-be 13-year-old, two 11-year-olds,

and 8- and a 7-year-old, and it’s hard, especially when their father

works the hours he works. Then I have to come home from my job,

cook, clean. Basically, it’s very hard.

Mr. JONES. How different, though, is it being a wife as opposed

to a girlfriend?

Mrs. GRIMES. To me, it is the same. I mean, you might as well

say we were married. We were together. We just did not have the

paper or the ring. To me, it seems like it is the same.

Mr. JONES. Well, if that is the case, then why get married?

Mrs. GRIMES. Get married?

Mr. JONES. Why did you take the step, then?

Mrs. GRIMES. I guess because I wanted that last name.

Mr. JONES. All right.

Mrs. GRIMES. So it will not be, oh, wow, her name is different

than all the children. I think it was the last name.

Mr. JONES. Charice?

Ms. DIGGS. Yes. The name is something that really stands for

something. It is hard doing what I do, as me being engaged, and

Nick never being there. He works a lot and I have to take care of

the little boy. It is just, I want that fairytale life. I want to have

my son and my husband, and our own home. That is what we are

working for. That is what we are here for.

Mr. JONES. So, those are the things you think you need to have

before you can make that final leap and say I do, or——

Ms. DIGGS. Oh, no. No. No. Because we have got basically what

we need. We have got love and understanding. We understand each

other and what we want, what we are out for. There was nothing

out here for us. Once we found each other, we just said, hey, how

about getting married? How about having a family? I mean, the

family part came from partying after high school. I am not going

to laugh, but it is——

Mr. JONES. That is the reality.

Ms. DIGGS. Yes. That is just the way it is.

10

Mr. JONES. Senator, we are very pleased and very willing to answer questions, as hard as they may be. I think for us to really create opportunities in the communities that we are talking about,

just for context, Brenda and Dwayne live in East Baltimore,

Dominick and Charice reside in West Baltimore, but they both live

in the federally-designed empowerment zones, so it gives you some

sense of the demographics associated with their day-to-day existence.

But they are here and are strong, committed partners to one another, one married for 3 years, and the other in that pipeline, if you

will. They are very prepared to answer any questions, as difficult

as they may be.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you, Mr.

and Mrs. Grimes, and Dominick and Charice. Thank you so much

for your testimony, and Julie.

Let me, since we are talking here, focus a couple of questions to

you. First, a comment. That is, what you related to me is the difficulty in relationships and marriage, and how it is a struggle. I

want to assure you that I think most married couples will say that

at points in time in every marriage there is struggle. The key, is

how we resolve that struggle, how we get through it.

My question is, did you find—in your case, since you are working

with Joe—Joe’s organization helpful to you in getting you through

some of the more difficult times that you have had to experience

in those relationships?

Mrs. GRIMES. I do. I do, because I had lots of problems where I

called him, and he talked to me and he let me know that everything was going to be all right. That is all I have to do. If I have

any problem, I just call him or one of his employees, and they will

talk to you.

Ms. DIGGS. As far as me, I had problems with speaking my feelings. I would rather give him the cold shoulder than to talk it out.

During my 50/50 Parenting Program, it helped me to loosen up to

the fact that he is not going to read my mind. He does not read

minds. We talk now, so it was a lot of help.

Mr. WALKER. It also helped us out in a way with a lot of things.

There are a lot of things going on today in the world. It is like,

with all the things around us, we are prone to anything, like drugs,

everything.

It is just something positive throughout the community, that we

can go and we will not have to be affiliated with the street or

caught up somewhere we do not want to be. So, being there, between there and work, it was like I wanted to be there. I felt as

though I was making that step to change.

Like I said, I never had my father. Everything I basically know,

I had to find out on my own. I did not have anybody there to really

tell me right from wrong. My mother was there, but she cannot

show me how to be a man. I needed my father there for some of

the questions I needed answers to.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mr. GRIMES. Right now, my problems have been resolved. Like

I said, my biggest problem was my addiction. But I still venture

down there. Right now, like I said, I work 10 hours a day, 4 days

11

a week, 5:00 to 3:30 in the morning. So, I really do not have time

to attend the program like I am supposed to.

But I still venture down there when I have problems, like when

I have marital problems and I need to talk to a man. I might venture down there and holler at one of the fellows, get some input.

Senator SANTORUM. Can you tell me, if you did not have, in this

case, Joe’s program, do you think you would be sitting here today?

Do you think you would be in a situation where you would either

be married or you would be contemplating marriage?

Mr. GRIMES. No, I would not. I would not be sitting here today.

I would not even be married, truthfully. I do not know where I

would be. Like I said, my issue was my drug addiction. Thank God

for them, they helped me out with that.

Senator SANTORUM. Can you say, as a result of you being married, that your children are better off and the two of you are better

off?

Mr. GRIMES. Oh, most definitely. Yes, indeed. There is more

structure in my house right now than there was back then.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you.

Joe, I have a question for you with respect to a comment you

made, which I thought was somewhat remarkable. You said that

the fatherhood groups and the marriage groups are not together.

Most people, when they think of fatherhood, they think of marriage. But you are really talking about organizations in the community that promote fatherhood, but do not necessarily promote marriage. Is that a truism? Is that what is happening?

Mr. JONES. I do not think it is necessarily that they do not have

the belief that marriage has its place. I would not necessarily say

they would actively go out and promote marriage. It is a part of

the discussions that happen in the peer support and curriculum

groups.

But the problem is, the infrastructure of the fatherhood movement is so fragile, that it is hard for the fatherhood field to take

on additional strategic responsibilities and be able to engage external partners such as those in the marriage community. It is sort

of like building a house. If you continue to add on to the house and

you do not put pillars in to support the infrastructure, it will collapse.

There has been no real strategic efforts, with the exception of a

very few, where people have brought the fatherhood community

and the marriage community together to have dialogue, discourse

and debate to figure out ways in which to merge the two. Like I

said, I do not believe they are either/or propositions.

I think there is a firm place in our society where both of these

social institutions have a place where they need to work together

to get to the point where we can provide the kind of continuum of

services that will take somebody from the street through a set of

services, deal with any issues that they are dealing with, prepare

them for the next step where it is either with our colleagues in the

marriage community, the faith community, or in partnership with

all three, that then prepares them. When Dwayne and Brenda

came to me and asked if they could get married at our center, it

was three-plus years ago. The debate and discourse around marVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
12

riage has gotten to the point now where we actually have this hearing today.

We did not have the same kinds of relationships with folks like

Theodora Ooms and Scott Stanley, and others who are here representing the marriage community. We did not have those kinds of

relationships then. We need to build on those relationships.

We need to find ways in which to pass legislation and provide resources for the fatherhood field to be able to become a legitimate

field within the social sciences and partner with the marriage community to build that continuum of a set of services that will support these families.

Senator SANTORUM. My time is up.

Senator Bunning? Then I will come back with more questions.

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put an opening

statement into the record.

Senator SANTORUM. Without objection.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Bunning appears in the appendix.]

Senator BUNNING. Let me ask both couples kind of a bottom-line

question. Are you able to see some light at the end of the tunnel,

now that you are either married or about to be, with your families?

How did Mr. Jones help you to arrive at that decision?

Mr. WALKER. CFWD’s Men’s Services program. There were two

programs I was attending at Healthy Start. I was attending Men’s

Services and I was attending 50/50. One thing about the program

was, you had to open up. You had to want to make that change

for yourself. So, issues of marriage and just different issues, they

would all be discussed during the time of the programs.

Senator BUNNING. So you think Mr. Jones and his programs

have put you in the position that you are in now, you are working

many hours, that sometimes prevents you from some kind of a relationship with your wife, or your wife-to-be, and your kids.

I have been there, done that, so I understand how long and consuming work can be so you can make ends meet. But there is a relationship that has to be, obviously, built between you and your

spouse or your wife-to-be and your family.

Mr. WALKER. Communication plays a big role. Communication is

always there. We have to constantly communicate on a daily basis,

whether it is by telephone when I am not there. She talks to me

and tells me what is going on. I mean, lack of communication is

basically a failure of a lot of relationships that go on today.

One person does not hear what the next person is trying to say,

whereas, if they just talked, maybe they could come to some kind

of understanding, even though they are not going to agree on all

things. Maybe they can come to some kind of understanding about

things and work through things.

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Grimes, can you give me a little insight?

Since you are working at very difficult hours, your relationship

with your kids would be strained a little bit because of your hours.

You do have some time, on the 3 days that you are not working.

Mr. GRIMES. Yes.

Senator BUNNING. Do you catch up on your sleep, or do you——

13

Mr. GRIMES. Oh. Like my brother says, it is about communication. I would say, when she is coming in, I am leaving. Basically,

we are just missing each other. But I know exactly what time she

gets in. Once I know she is in there, I am on the phone. I am calling her. Are you there, and how is everything, letting her know

that I made it to work safely.

I can say it is about communication. I mean, truly, we do not see

each other that much, even on my days off. I am asleep. I really

do not have much time to really spend with family. But I make

that time on my days off, no matter how tired I am. I might not

get out there and play with my kids, but I am there, letting them

know the rights and wrongs of what not to do, and how to do, compared to back then.

Senator BUNNING. Did you get involved with Mr. Jones because

of addiction? What, specifically, is the connection there?

Mr. GRIMES. I got involved with Mr. Jones because I needed help

with my addiction.

Senator BUNNING. All right.

Mr. JONES. After he dumped us for a long time.

Senator BUNNING. Let me ask you, Mr. Jones. Fragile Families.

For the last 10 years you have been working with them.

Mr. JONES. Correct.

Senator BUNNING. And what are the major changes, except the

coordination between family and marriage? It just is amazing to

me that for the last 10 years there has been an evolution of that.

I thought that was kind of a normal procedure, but I obviously am

in the dark.

How many changes have you seen in the case work between you

and the family group?

Mr. JONES. Well, my work originally was in the Healthy Start

Program. Again, they serve low-income pregnant women. As a result, we created a fatherhood program. In 1999, I created the Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development and

transitioned the work I was responsible for, which included employment services, out into the nonprofit community. However, my fatherhood staff still are located in the two neighborhood Healthy

Start centers located in East and West Baltimore.

So, that intimate partnership with a family service provider is

critical, because we need the linkages that when women are in that

magic moment state, that we are able to get the referrals from the

case managers who work with those pregnant women to my program, where my staff can then go out in the community, go door

to door, looking for the guys who are about to become fathers, similar to what we did with Dwayne.

Once we make that connection, then we try to identify the issues

that prevent them from being the best fathers, the best men, the

best partners, and the best citizens that they can be and develop

a case management system and set of interventions to be able to

deal with those issues, whether it is addictions, whether it is just

simple under-employment or unemployment. A lot of these men—

almost all of these men—want to do the right thing.

Some of them need intensive services, like Dwayne, but others

just need a little bit of a push, a little opportunity to come together,

get some peer support, get some information about the positive asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
14

pects of being a father, being a partner, being a good citizen, and

being able to take that and transition them into mainstream behavior.

One of the common themes that runs through the men who run

through our program, is more often that not, they have not been

reared in households where men are present. You cannot have

young boys and young girls growing up in our country, in our community, thinking what it is to be a good man.

Little girls are going to emulate what they see from other men.

If they do not get it from their fathers, they are more likely to get

it from some man on a street corner. Young boys do not learn how

to manage their aggression. They do not learn how to respect

women in the right kind of way, particularly with the social influences we have coming from the media and other places that really

demean women today.

It is important that men come into interventions in social settings where families are treated and respected where they are, accept them where they are, but in some cases put an arm around

their shoulder and say, look, I am going to help you get to the next

step. Sometimes, really, it is a foot in the behind. But communitybased organizations have that responsibility and they have that

credibility, and I think we have built that credibility with the families that we serve.

Having a young man like Dominick to be able to come here to

the U.S. Senate, as nervous as he is, to talk with you and say what

it is he believes he needs to support his family, to get to the point

where he can be married and be a role model not only for his children, but can you imagine the impact that this young man has on

the other young men in his community when they see Dominick

standing up saying, this is what we need to do to form our families

and to right our neighborhood. His influence goes far beyond mine,

far beyond that of the organization, and it represents young men

across this country.

I think we have one heck of an opportunity, particularly when

we have folks in the marriage community and the fatherhood community coming together, establishing areas of common ground, continuing to work on these tough issues, even we do not agree, and

work on one issue at a time until we form a public social welfare

strategy that supports these families and allows them to thrive,

just like everybody else in our community.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you.

Ms. Baumgardner, the last question. How does First Things First

get its funding?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. We are a not-for-profit organization and we

receive our funding from individuals, corporations, places of faith,

grants, foundations.

Senator BUNNING. Just like any other nonprofit.

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Yes.

Senator BUNNING. You do not have a Federal funding source?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. No, sir.

Senator BUNNING. In other words, you would apply for grants.

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Yes.

Senator BUNNING. What was unique about Chattanooga that allowed the community to come together to form First Things First?

15

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. I think the community leaders really seeing

that the family was suffering, was the first piece of it. Second, recognizing with the high divorce rate and with the high out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the fatherlessness that was happening, we

were really falling apart at the seams in our community.

When we first came out with this in 1997 and started talking

about, we were going to work to reduce divorce and out-of-wedlock

pregnancies and increase father involvement in the lives of their

children, the phone started ringing off the hook because people

were hungry for it.

So, I think the hunger, people just jumping on the opportunity

to get the education, to find out where the resources are, to know

what you need to do to stay at the table as a parent and stay engaged with your children, talk to them about tough issues like sex,

abstinence until marriage, and understanding realistic expectations

of marriage before you walk down the aisle. People wanted that information, and I think that, as we have grown over 7 years, the

classes have grown. People have continued to want more.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you.

Did you base your program on another model?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. No, Senator.

Senator SANTORUM. You just sort of created this.

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. We created it based on what the research

showed. When we saw the high numbers, the coalition made the

decision that we needed to focus in the three areas. And I do think

that is what makes First Things First unique. You cannot look at

marriage without, as Joe said, looking at fatherhood and looking at

how we are going to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. They all go

together.

Senator SANTORUM. So you did not have a situation such as Joe

is talking about that maybe has happened in Baltimore where you

had a separation of the fatherhood groups and marriage groups. It

was not that.

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. We had a fatherhood group doing a small

amount of work. We have a great group doing abstinence education, and we really had no one focusing on marriage. So when we

came together and formed First Things First, we focused on all

three and we partnered. Part of what we do is collaborate with lots

of different groups in the community to do the work that we do.

Senator SANTORUM. Has anybody copied your model? Are there

any other cities that are doing what you are doing?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. We have worked with more than 200 cities

across the country to train them in how to do this in their community. I do not think there is a cookie-cutter approach, but I think

that there are a lot of lessons that we have learned that these communities can take and build upon and create something similar

that would help people have healthy marriages, to help fathers be

more involved, and reduce the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates.

Senator SANTORUM. And there still is a demand in Chattanooga

for your services?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Absolutely. No question.

Senator SANTORUM. I assume you could use more resources.

16

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Most definitely.

Senator SANTORUM. And can you tell me about your cooperation?

Joe mentioned the faith community. Do you have any coordination

with the faith community?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. Yes. We are a secular organization. We work

with sacred and secular public and private entities. We work with

many different places of faith to help them know the resources that

are available to provide classes, to train folks within the place of

faith so that they can do their own training and have their resources available all the time.

Senator SANTORUM. In reviewing your testimony last night, I was

looking at all of the different things that you do. I mean, your organization does lots of things. You commented that you established

your organization based on research. Have you contracted, or has

anybody looked at your organization and done some research to

find out what works, what does not work, what you need to do

more of?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. We are currently looking at that. We are so

young, that it will take time to really know that. But we do work

with Barna Research Group, and we also work with Wirthlin

Worldwide to conduct research on an ongoing basis.

We started with Barna when we first began in 1997, and we continue to work with them every 3 years to look at the baseline data,

how we are making progress, what is the community thinking

about these issues, and how can we more effectively address them.

Senator SANTORUM. And you do evaluations on a program-by-program basis as to how you think things are going.

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. That is right. Yes. In fact, we have a marriage education program called Before You Say I Do. In our State,

if couples participate in a minimum of four hours of marriage education before they marry, they get a significant discount on their

marriage license.

We have people write all the time on the bottom of the evaluation, ‘‘we came for the discount, walked away with so much more,

surprisingly so.’’ They appreciate the information and feel like it is

definitely going to make a difference in their marriage relationship.

Senator SANTORUM. So what would you tell the U.S. Senate, in

contemplating the issue of supporting marriage, supporting traditional marriage and actually putting money out there for States

and for community groups in support of marriage, what would you

say to them, from your experience, as to whether government can

play a role in helping to support or fund this kind of activity?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. I think the bottom line is, this is about the

people that you serve. They want to know how to do marriage right

and they want to know how to be engaged parents. How can we

turn our heads and say we are not going to do that?

I mean, we are talking about a huge issue that affects every community across this country. And if we are really out for the public

good and we want to make a difference for people right where they

live, then we are going to go to the community level, to the grassroots level, and we are going to help them get it right. The way

that you do that, is by funding it, supporting the efforts, educating

people, giving them the opportunities.

17

Senator SANTORUM. And you can say that marriage, itself, that

component itself, has made a huge difference in changing the dynamics in Chattanooga?

Ms. BAUMGARDNER. People tell us all the time. I can be walking

down the street, and people will stop me and say, you have no

earthly idea what a difference you are making in this community

with your organization.

With the media messages that you get out, with the speaking engagements and the classes that you do, and the resources you provide, you are putting a consistent message out there and it is making a difference for people in all walks of life. It matters not where

you live, who you are, how much money you make. This information is important, and we appreciate what you do.

Senator SANTORUM. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate, in particular, the families

that came here today. I know these two folks are experts in testifying before committees, but for you to come up and tell your personal story, I thank you very, very much for your candor and for

your courage in doing so. God bless you. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SANTORUM. For our next panel, we go from the practitioners to the scientists, social scientists, although I think you are

going to have a hard time topping that first panel.

But let me thank you all for being here. I certainly appreciate

the tremendous work that all of you have done in this area. You

have 5 or 10 minutes to present your statements, then we will have

a question period.

First, is Kathryn Edin. Kathryn is an associate professor of the

Institute of Policy Research at Northwestern University, although

I have been informed she is coming to Philadelphia, so maybe she

will not be a professor at Northwestern University much longer.

She is a co-principal investigator for Couples Dynamics and Father Involvement, which is a quantitative study of 75 low-income

married and unmarried couples with young children in Chicago,

Milwaukee, and New York City. This is a project that is an offshoot

of the Fragile Families study and is funded by the MacArthur

Foundation. She is a graduate of North Park College and have a

doctorate in sociology at Northwestern.

Dr. Edin, thank you for being here. Please.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN EDIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

Dr. EDIN. In 1950, only 1 in 20 children was born to an unmarried mother. Today, that rate is 1 in 3, and usually to those least

likely to be able to support a child on their own. This has led some

to charge that the marriage norm is dead in poor communities.

We entered into the lives of 162 low-income single mothers living

in eight destitute neighborhoods across Philadelphia. We spent 5

years chatting over kitchen tables and on front stoops.

We learned that in America’s inner urban poor, romantic relationships often proceed at lightening speed, and conception often

occurs within a year of when the pair begins their romantic relationship.

18

Though conception rarely stems from an explicit plan, the large

majority say they were not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy

at the time.

Many, though, say they wanted a child, though they were not

sure it was the right time, or the right relationship, for one. Thus,

many decided to let fate take a hand.

One mother told us, ‘‘I was confused. I wanted to have a baby,

but just not at that time, you know. But I always loved kids. I

mean, I would go through a time where I would try to get pregnant, but then I would figure, well, how am I going to raise this

baby?’’

Pregnancy puts many still-new couple relationships into overdrive, as the would-be mother begins to scrutinize her mate like

never before, wondering whether he will find a job, settle down,

and become a family man in time.

Some soon-to-be fathers do rise to the occasion, but others greet

the news with threats, denials of paternity, and physical violence.

Male infidelity is also quite common during pregnancy.

Frequently, though, the magic moment of the birth reunites the

new parents, who then resolve to stay together for the sake of their

child.

The well-known baseline results of the Fragile Family survey

show that most new unmarried parents have marriage plans. We,

too, have been following 50 Fragile Families couples over the last

4 years, visiting them in their homes and interviewing them repeatedly and in depth.

We, too, find very high marital aspirations. But though couples

do hope to marry, few have made any concrete plans. In fact, most

see marriage as 4, 5, or more years off.

Why? Like their middle class counterparts, poor young women

and men now set a high financial bar for marriage. Marriage is an

elusive, shimmering goal, one they feel ought to be reserved for

those who can support what they call a ‘‘white picket fence’’ lifestyle: a mortgage on a modest home, a car and some furniture,

some savings in the bank, and enough money left over to pay for

a ‘‘decent’’ wedding. These are prerequisites for marriage.

Most importantly, though, mothers want to hold off on marriage

until they can be sure they have found a partner they can trust,

as do fathers. Their relationships are often fraught with violence,

infidelity, drug and alcohol addiction, criminal activity, and the

threat of imprisonment. On the street corners and front stoops of

these poor urban neighborhoods, the social stigma of a failed marriage is worse than an out-of-wedlock birth.

One mother said, ‘‘When you take those vows up at the altar, I

think the vows are very sacred. And if you’re not going to abide by

them, I don’t think you should get married. You should not marry

until you have been in a relationship for five or 6 years because

by that time you know him, and he knows you.’’

Another told us, ‘‘I’d rather say, yes, I had my kids out-of-wedlock than say, I married this idiot. It is like a pride thing.’’

Ironically, most believe that bearing children while poor and unmarried is not the ideal way to do things. Yet, given their already

limited economic prospects, they have little motivation to time their

births as precisely as middle class women do.

19

When we asked these young mothers what their lives would be

like if they had not had children, we thought they would express

regret over foregone opportunities for schooling and careers.

But instead, most believe their children ‘‘saved’’ them. Many describe lives before conception that were spinning out of controls,

struggles with parents and peers, wild, risky behavior, depression,

and school failure. Their children, they say, offered an opportunity

to make meaning and create relationship intimacy, when few emotional resources existed elsewhere.

In sum, the poor already believe in marriage, and profoundly so.

Given the often perilously low quality of their romantic relationships, programs aimed at improving their relational skills with

poor couples who aspire to marriage are a worthy goal. However,

relationship skills training must address the very serious problems

I have alluded to above.

But relationship skills alone are unlikely to move to many poor,

unmarried parents into stable marriages. The poor marry, but they

insist on marrying well. This, in their view, is the only way to

avoid an almost-certain divorce.

The divorce rate in the U.S. rose until 1980, and has declined

only slightly in the two decades since. However, the overall trend

masks the fact that, during the 1980’s and 1990’s, the marriages

of college-educated women became far more stable, while the marriages of those on the bottom actually became increasingly less stable over time. Some might charge that marriage standards of the

poor are too high, but those ideals do correspond to the marital relationships most likely to last.

Until poor, young women and men have more access to jobs that

lead to financial security, unless there is reason to hope for a rewarding life pathway outside of bearing and raising children, the

poor will continue to have children far sooner than most Americans

think they should, and in less than ideal circumstances. Meanwhile, they will probably continue to defer marriage.

An agenda aimed at enhancing relational skills and improving

access to economic resources, on the other hand, might help more

new, unmarried parents achieve their own stated goal: a healthy,

lasting marital relationship.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Dr. Edin.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Edin appears in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Our next witness is Ron Haskins. Ron is the

senior fellow at the Economic Studies program at The Brookings

Institution and a senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, and, truth be told, probably the principal architect of the 1996 welfare bill.

He did outstanding work as the director of the Human Resources

Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and someone, to

the consternation of many, who taught me everything I know about

the issue of welfare when I was Ranking Member on that subcommittee when I was in the House in 1993 and 1994.

Dr. Haskins, it is an honor to have you here.

20

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, SENIOR FELLOW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for that fine introduction. Clay Shaw wrote the Welfare Reform bill, with help from

you, and I just watched. Thank you.

We are here today because our culture is denying far too many

children the benefits of life in a two-parent, married couple family

and we are making very little progress.

I regard the debate we are having over marriage as just an extension of the debate that we started in 1995 and 1996. As you will

recall, within the Republican party and between Republicans and

Democrats, and eventually involving just about all of the interest

groups and so forth, we had a huge debate over nonmarital births.

The issue was, how many different provisions, and how strong

would those provisions be?

Many of the issues were not resolved until the bill came to the

Senate floor and some of what people on the left regarded as ‘‘extreme measures’’ were taken out of a bill as a result of votes on

the Senate floor.

So, this is not a new debate. This is something that we have been

talking about within the Congress at least since 1995–1996, and in

many cases before that. I have to mention that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former colleague of yours and a chairman of this

committee, in 1965, drew attention to part of this problem. So, it

is not a new problem. We should begin with, how did we get here?

The answer is, we got here through almost every way that you

could. First of all, we had huge increases in nonmarital births.

When Moynihan wrote that famous paper in 1965, the nonmarital

birth rate among blacks was 25 percent, and he was alarmed by

that.

Today, the nonmarital birth rate among blacks is close to 70 percent. The overall nonmarital birth rate, as Kathy said in her testimony, is about 1 out of 3 children, about 33 percent. So, a huge

increase in nonmarital births resulting in kids in single-parent

families.

Second, we have had very substantial declines in marriage rates.

Again, the worst problems are among low-income families and minority families, again, as Kathryn said in her testimony. So, we

have had a major decline in marriage rates, which also contributes

to having more kids in single-parent families.

Third, we had a very substantial increase in divorce rates

through the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s, and early 1980’s. In the last

20 years it has been more or less stable, but, nonetheless, we send

about a million, or somewhere between 1 million and 1.2 million

kids into single-parent families every year in the United States

through divorce, and somewhere around 45 percent or so of all

marriages formed today will end in divorce.

So, all three of these problems have gotten us into a situation

where we have more than doubled the number of children in female-headed families over the last 30 years. So, that is the problem.

So what? The first answer, is that there is a huge difference in

poverty rates. It is especially interesting to reflect on that in this

21

room, where the Federal Government has allocated billions and billions of dollars in programs to attack poverty and to help people

who are in poverty.

We now see, and it is very clear in every piece of research that

I am familiar with, that kids in female-headed families have five,

six, or seven times the poverty rate, depending on the year, of children in married couple families. Children in never-married parent

families have even higher poverty rates than children with all female-headed families.

So, poverty, which is a problem that the Congress has been focused on for decades, is—a major contributing factor to poverty is

single parent families.

Second, we now have growing literature that there are substantial impacts on children’s growth and development of being reared

in single parent families. I have no brief against single parent families. I was a single parent family myself at one point in my life.

Many single parents make heroic efforts.

But the facts are the facts. The data continues to pour in that

there are major differences between the health and well-being of

children in female-headed families and children in two-parent married couple families.

So, logically, if more of those children could be in two-parent

married couple families, their growth and development would improve in health, in school performance, in the probability of going

to college, the probability of having a job, and in several other

things that, again, this committee has focused on as important social issues that the Congress should deal with.

Third, we now know that marriage is good for adults—and if I

could add to this—especially men. [Laughter.] Men are, in many

ways, lost outside marriage. Problems of alcoholism, accidents,

even heart disease is greater for men, and for women, to some extent, outside marriage. So, marriage is even good for adults.

So with all these advantages of marriage, what can we do to

solve the problem? I would like to recommend three things, but I

would like to preface it by pointing out—and I think it is wonderfully reflected by the testimony on this panel—we have a lot of

agreement. There is way more disagreement and consternation and

sound and fury over this issue in this building, and in the Senate

and the House than there seems to be in the countryside.

Again, I would point to the witnesses on this panel, not all of

whom are Republicans, as evidence for my point. Julie

Baumgardner shows that there is a grassroots movement. It is

small, but it is growing. It is becoming more and more influential.

More and more people are committed to the issue of forming

healthy marriages. So, that is the first thing that we have in common.

Second, we now know from every piece of research that most people, including poor people and minority people, want to be married.

It is still the standard and the ideal, again, as Kathy just pointed

out.

Third, there is now widespread agreement that marriage does, in

fact, confer the advantages on people that I just described, on children, on adults, and especially, and very clearly, on reducing poverty, which is probably related to the other two factors.

22

We also had a surprising degree of agreement, as you will find

out in a minute from Scott Stanley, of what a good marriage is,

what a healthy marriage is. It basically has to do with safety, both

physical and emotional safety, which I hope Scott will talk about

during his testimony.

And we also have agreement that we do not know much about

how to promote healthy marriages. This is the greatest problem

that we face. I believe it is the reason why we need a strategy that

I would like to describe to you now, just briefly.

The first thing that we need to do, I refer to as jaw-boning. We

need to talk about this. We need to have the leadership of the

country, and Baumgardner made this especially clear in her testimony, that the leadership in Chattanooga was very clear about the

crucial importance of marriage to the well-being of children, families, and to the community.

We need to have as much of that as we can, hearings like this

with national leadership, State and local leadership, making it very

clear, our religious leaders, marriage is the foundation of our society.

Second, we need to continue reducing nonmarital births. It will

be good for the people involved in and of itself. But a very important statistic is that a young lady who has a nonmarital birth, her

probability of ever getting married declines quite substantially.

So, the focus on nonmarital births that we started in 1995 and

1996, and the many policies, should also contribute to promoting

marriage and to helping prepare people better for marriage. It is

better to wait until you marry to have children, as everybody

knows.

Third, we need an explosion of community-based programs

throughout the country like the one described by Ms. Baumgardner

that will focus on helping couples become married.

This is a market that we are talking about here. There will be

so many different programs all over the country. This is a version

of ‘‘build it and they will come.’’ Make the money available, set the

broad goals, and there will be brilliant people throughout the country who will organize and conduct these programs.

I would like to especially draw attention to the fact that we know

from research as well that many of the couples that do have nonmarital births are closely associated. They are in loving relationships. Half of them co-reside. About 80 percent say that they are

in love and exclusively dating each other. They are committed to

the child.

There are many reasons why we should believe that, at the moment they give birth to that child, that if we could help them with

services of the kind that Joe Jones was describing, that we can

move them toward marriage, if they choose that for themselves, of

course.

So, these are three strategies that I think that this committee

should pursue. The most important right now, the one that is on

the table, is money for various activities that would support communities, faith-based organizations, to conduct pro-marriage activities and to try to increase the rate of healthy marriages, both by

saving marriages that are already formed and by promoting new

marriages among people who want to be married.

23

I hope that we can pass this as soon as possible. I would like to

conclude with this. We must carefully evaluate these programs.

The reason is, we do not know what works. The world is full of advocates. Any person who runs a program immediately becomes an

advocate.

We are not going to find out from them, reliably, what works. We

need scientific studies with random assignment to find out what

really works. This is an extremely important public issue and it is

too bad that we have waited 2 years already to pass this legislation.

I hope that this committee, under your leadership and under the

leadership of Chairman Grassley and the Minority members of the

committee, will find their way through to cut a deal and to pass

this legislation so we can get started on this extremely important

project.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Ron.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Haskins appears in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Our next witness is Ms. Theodora Ooms. She

is a senior policy analyst at The Center for Law and Social Policy,

CLASP, where she works on couples’ and marriage policy, with a

special focus on low-income families.

Ms. Ooms, thank you very much for being here.

STATEMENT OF THEODORA OOMS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,

THE CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. OOMS. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today.

I will just add to that introduction that independently I am a senior advisor to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, and I have also

consulted with various other State and community marriage initiatives.

Until recently, marriage was considered a very private issue and

not the business of government, especially the Federal Government. This has changed. A new report that we just released last

week, Beyond Marriage Licenses: Efforts in States to Strengthen

Marriage and Two-Parent Families, shows that there is quite a bit

of marriage-related activity going on around the country. The report also, I should say, includes fatherhood programs that are

doing co-parenting and marriage activities.

At the Federal level, the administration has already committed

over $90 million to funding healthy marriage research, evaluation,

and demonstration projects, and they are described in our report.

Now, the Senate has been debating the provisions in the Welfare

Reauthorization bill, and there are three Senate subcommittees

holding hearings on healthy marriage this month. So, clearly, marriage is no longer the ‘‘M’’ word that it was until quite recently.

I agree with many of the points that have been made, and will

be made by the other panelists, most of whom, incidentally, we

work together with on a variety of projects, even though we may

come from different political perspectives.

In my view, strengthening marriage and two-parent families has

the potential of being a genuinely nonpartisan issue, so long as we

keep child well-being as the central goal. But marriage is a very

24

new issue and it is more complex than some of the marriage advocates suggest. There are certainly promising program ideas out

there, but there is so much that we still do not know.

What is more, while I agree with Ron Haskins and others there

is now a very broad agreement that healthy marriage is good for

children, adults, and society, the healthy marriage agenda—and

here I disagree with Ron—remains very controversial, not only in

the Congress, but outside in the country, particularly for people

who are just hearing about it.

For example, there was a spate of editorials after a New York

Times front page article on the President’s new marriage initiative

all around the country, and most of them were very negative about

the agenda because they just discovered it. (At least, I think that

is part of the reason).

I want to inject a note of caution and highlight some concerns

and questions that many of us have about this evolving agenda,

based in part on what is being learned in States and communities

and what might be called the ‘‘marriage-plus’’ perspective.

First, there is the issue of domestic violence, which I know you

have heard a lot about in this committee. Now, we can all agree

that marriage programs and policies should not force or pressure

women, especially young, poor and vulnerable women, to enter or

remain in bad or abusive marriages, or even perhaps encourage

them with incentives.

The assurances, that the Administration has given that the marriage services will be voluntary and the protections that the Senate

put in place in the reauthorization bill that you are considering are

very welcome, and we need to underscore that, but my point is to

say they are not enough.

The proposal review process for these grants—if the reauthorization bill is enacted—the regulations, the administrative guidance,

and ongoing technical assistance are all vehicles that can be used

and should be used to ensure that marriage programs and the domestic violence community work together, as indeed is happening

in Oklahoma, Florida, and Arizona.

I could make the same statement that Joe Jones made about the

need for the fatherhood community and the marriage programs to

work together and to have resources to do so.

The second point, is that relationship and marriage education

should not be the only strategy being employed to strengthen marriage, especially not in low-income populations.

As the work of Kathy Edin and other researchers in the Fragile

Families and Child Well-Being study point out, economic factors

such as coping with the multiple stresses of poverty, unemployment, ill health, bad housing, all seriously strain and damage couple relationships and they are often a key reason for the failure of

so many low-income parents to marry or stay married.

Likewise, however, failures in relationships can often derail an

individual mother or father’s progress towards gaining greater economic stability and well-being.

This suggests, I think, that relationships and marriage education

programs need to go hand in hand with efforts to improve both parents, mothers’ and fathers’, income, work skills, housing, and inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
25

crease their access to substance abuse, mental health, and other

services.

These are not competing strategies. We need to do both, and they

reinforce each other. I think we have heard that from several panelists today.

Third, the goals of healthy marriage initiatives should be broadened to include promoting better relationships and co-parenting for

couples for whom marriage to each other is not feasible, or perhaps

even desirable, such as if the relationship is already irretrievably

broken down, and the couple may have moved on to new partners.

First, co-parenting is really important for children, because it

helps the father stay involved in their lives. Also, these people may

go on to marry someone else. So, I think the targets of these

‘‘healthy marriage’’ programs need to include unmarried parents

who do not necessarily contemplate marriage to each other.

Now, this is happening already in several State and community

initiatives. I will just cite in Louisiana, for example, there is a marriage and co-parenting curriculum that is being developed for noncustodial fathers and parents—Joe Jones was instrumental in helping with this—called Exploring Relationships and Marriage in

Fragile Families.

They also developed a reader-friendly publication called ‘‘Raising

Your Child Together: A Guide for Unmarried Parents,’’ which addresses issues of co-parenting, and then for those who are thinking

about marriage, it talks about marriage. So we are saying these

two can go together.

We are learning additional lessons from the current State and

community initiatives that suggest a number of other questions for

policy makers, including members of this committee, that should be

considered carefully, I think, as you pursue government-funded

marriage activities:

Will public officials, community leaders, and program administrators be able to use grant funds to invite a wide range of individuals, including the potential skeptics and critics such as the domestic violence community, to help plan their marriage activities? This

can take a lot of time, as we found out in Oklahoma and other

places. This broad consultation is really essential to obtain buy-in

and support for these efforts.

A second question is, as States seek to expand marriage programs to new populations, how do we need to adapt existing programs and curricula to meet the needs of a more economically, racially, and culturally diverse group of participants? These programs

were largely developed for, and offered to, middle class, committed

couples.

The third question is, will the funds be available to be used to

build capacity to implement these healthy marriage services? There

are really very few people out there who are trained to do this kind

of work. We need to train trainers to deliver the marriage programs, train administrators, supervisors, and front-line workers,

and members of the community to discuss these relationship

issues, the way Joe Jones did, with the clients and refer them to

these services.

The last question is, will public officials and marriage advocates

be given the resources to help them design programs and policies

26

based on the best theory and research available, rather than the

program that they happen to know and like, and carefully document how public funds are being spent and invest in—as you said,

Ron—research and evaluation.

If these concerns and other questions are addressed, I really believe we will be more likely to create effective, healthy marriage

programs and policies that will gain broad support and will also

avoid causing harm. And if this happens, we can expect and hope

that the well-being of both present and future generations of children will be improved. Thank you.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Ms. Ooms.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ooms appears in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Our final panelists is Scott Stanley. Dr.

Stanley is the co-director of the Center for Marital and Family

Studies and an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at the University

of Denver. He has authored several articles on the issue of relationships and is an expert on marriage and marriage commitment.

Dr. Stanley, thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT STANLEY, CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

MARITAL AND FAMILY STUDIES AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,

DENVER, COLORADO

Dr. STANLEY. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate this

opportunity to testify about healthy marriage and marriage education.

As you noted, my name is Scott Stanley. I am the co-director of

the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of

Denver, where my colleague Dr. Howard Markman and I have

worked for over two decades to better understand the factors that

put couples at risk for distress, breakup and divorce, and what

steps can be taken to help couples achieve healthy marriages. This

research program has been supported by the National Institute of

Mental Health since 1980.

I am also one of two senior advisors, sitting close to the other,

of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, which is an ambitious and

strategic effort that is yielding much useful knowledge for other

States.

There are several questions I raise in these remarks.

Question one: Why marriage, and why not? As has been said,

this is a time where there is a rich and sustained discussion about

marriage among policy experts and social scientists from very diverse philosophical and political backgrounds, liberal and conservative.

This discussion has moved well beyond ideological differences, to

a serious focus by many with historically disparate views on real

problems that couples and families face.

I believe that this convergence may be the single most important

and helpful trend related to marriage in the past 10 years. This is

a group discussion going on at this level. It is based, in very large

part, on growing evidence of the beneficial effects of healthy marriages for children and adults.

27

Question two: What is healthy marriage? Healthy marriages become a language of common ground because it clarifies the nature

of reasonable public policy goals about marriage.

In our work, we have been expanding the theory that underlies

our prevention approach by focusing on three fundamental types of

safety that will exist in a healthy marriage.

One, safety in interaction. This type of safety pertains to being

able to talk openly, ideally with emotional safety and support. In

contrast, relationships that are characterized by chronic negative

interaction are clearly damaging to adults and the children living

with them.

Number two, personal safety. This type of safety pertains to a

freedom from fear of physical or emotional harm. Interventions to

foster healthy marriage could be expected to help reduce domestic

violence by any of several means.

For example:

(1) educating young people about how to avoid physical aggression;

(2) reducing the likelihood of violence in relationships where conflict has spilled over to physical contact in the past, but where the

pattern is not the type of domestic violence that is most dangerous

or least likely to change; and

(3) helping women realize the need to leave or avoid relationships with dangerous men.

The third kind of safety that we emphasize now is safety in commitment. This type of safety pertains to the security that comes

from mutual support, teamwork, and a clear commitment to the future. People need a sense of security about the future in order to

fully invest in the present. Of course, this does not mean that it

makes sense for all couples to have a future.

Based on a wide range of research, as well as experience working

with people from various cultures around the world, it appears to

us that these themes of safety are basic and universal, and they

are also very measurable.

Question three: What is marriage education? As part of our

work, Howard Markman and I, and numerous colleagues, have

spent considerable energy developing an empirically based educational model for couples called PREP, which stands for the Prevention in Relationship Enhancement Program.

PREP fits in the context of a broad range of efforts designed to

help people develop attitudes and behaviors associated with marital success. While our work in research has historically focused on

committed couples, we have been developing an expanded view of

the possibilities for preventive education.

Unfortunately, most discussions about marriage education assume a very narrow definition of it, imaging couples sitting in a

room learning, which is certainly a key focus.

In contrast, all of the following can be viewed as forms of marriage education that could plausibly lead to an increase in the percentage of healthy marriages and the number of children being

raised in those contexts in our society: for example, helping high

school students or young adults develop realistic expectations about

marriage; helping someone understand key risk factors for marital

and relationship distress in general, or in their relationship in parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
28

ticular; and working with individuals who need help recognizing

unhealthy or dangerous relationships and how to exit them, or

never enter them in the first place.

Question four: Does marriage education work, and for whom does

it work? That gauge of development, practice and research lay a

strong foundation for optimism that marriage education can help

people succeed.

Three decades of studies demonstrate promising findings from a

wide range of marriage and relationship education efforts. There is

evidence of gains in communication, improvements in relationship

satisfaction, and in some studies, a lower likelihood of relationship

dissolution.

Yet, not all variations of what is possible have been attempted

on a broad basis or fully empirically tested. For example, there is

a clear need for more program implementation, refinement, and

evaluation among those in poverty, likewise, for those from diverse

racial and cultural groups.

However, there are some studies showing encouraging findings

with groups not typically studied, such as our recent evaluations of

PREP with the U.S. Army, where we find just as strong effects, at

least in the short run, among those who have lower incomes or who

are racial minorities.

Question five: what are best practices in healthy marriage education? The defining elements of research-based approaches for

helping people achieve healthy marriages are three: (1) that they

be empirically informed, meaning that core strategies are based on

the best available sound science; (2) that they be empirically tested,

or at least testable; and (3) that they are regularly refined based

on ongoing research in the field of marriage and family.

We live in a time when much is being discovered, much is

known, and much more will be known 10 years from now. We can

revise our approaches as we learn more and as we go.

Such uses of empiricism provide a strong basis for optimism in

our efforts to help couples and families. We do not know everything

we would like to know, but we can build on the confidence of

present approaches while refining strategies over time.

Thank you.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Dr. Stanley.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stanley appears in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Let me go back to Dr. Edin, first. In the people that you looked at, you said they had marital aspirations. But

they have sort of a view of marriage that would not be considered,

at least in this committee, as what we would sort of see as our view

of marriage.

That definition of marriage. Where does it come from? Do you

have any information as to, how are they influenced in determining

what marriage is, and what does marriage mean? Did you ask

them, what does marriage mean?

Dr. EDIN. It is really interesting. In doing this research, that was

probably the most surprising thing we found, are these high aspirations or standards for marriage. They really do have two components. One, is a financial component.

A couple believes that they have to have, in some sense, arrived

financial already, or accumulated a set of assets that shows to the

29

rest of the community that they are serious, that they are stable,

that they have some sense, some purchase on a piece of the pie of

the American dream before they feel that they ought to be married.

And this is put in very moral terms. It is not right to marry, according to this moral code, unless you are financially set. The second aspect is relational, and this really——

Senator SANTORUM. Before you do that, where does that come

from?

Dr. EDIN. I think where that comes from is, number one, the

middle class, who has also been delaying marriage until careers are

set, and all of that. Second, it probably comes from the fact that

if you ask the poor, in national surveys, whether there are a lot of

good and stable marriages around them, they will say no.

Indeed, the divorce rate has continued to grow among the poor.

So, the poor are now taking their cue from the marriages that are

lasting, which are these kind of middle class super-marriages that

people in my generation are entering into.

But the second aspect to this standard for marriage is a relational one, and that is where I think relationship skills training,

if done correctly, is so important. Mistrust is pervasive in these

communities, and that is partly because of the often perilously low

quality of the couple relationship.

We have to hit head on, in particular, the problems of domestic

violence, but also infidelity, and in particular, male infidelity. We

are often not talking here about a one night’s stand, we are talking

about a chronic and persistent pattern of infidelity. This infidelity

is not limited to one racial or ethnic group. We find it across lowincome whites, Hispanics, and African Americans.

Senator SANTORUM. Can you talk about the cultural influences

on that, the popular culture? Have you looked at the influence of

the popular culture on that?

Dr. EDIN. We have not. But one thing that is really interesting

about these couple relationships is that the state of cohabitation,

although it is seen as a cue that the parental couple is heading toward marriage, is a very ambiguous state, and couples really do

not know what it means.

It is still not normative in the American context to co-parent

while cohabiting. So, in some ways they borrow expectations from

dating relationships, which are very low commitment.

But in other ways, they are borrowing expectations from marital

relationships, which are very high commitment. So, in some ways

they see themselves still in the partner market, but in other ways

they insist on honesty, trust, and sexual fidelity.

It is this ambiguity, I think, that leads to such a high rate of infidelity in the cohabitational state. National surveys have shown

that infidelity is much higher within cohabitation than in marriage.

Senator SANTORUM. The other question I had, when you were

talking about these 50 families, the 50 couples that you were following, how many of those 100 people came from stable, married,

intact families?

Dr. EDIN. Not very many. About a third came from two-parent

families. In some of those cases, the marital models they saw were

not necessarily ones that they wanted to pattern their own relaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 092535 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95266.000 SFINANC2 PsN: SFINANC2
30

tionships after. Mostly, these couples, when they have seen marriages, have seen the negative models of marriage.

So, in my view we need to work to improve the marital quality

of all marriages, not just the marriages among those at the bottom

of the income distribution. I know that there is a lot of support for

that and a lot of innovation going on in that area in many States,

and that is encouraging.

Senator SANTORUM. You said we need to improve them. How

would you suggest—and anybody can pitch in on this—that we better model marriage for those who, at least in two-thirds of the

cases, have no personal experience with marriage, and at least in

a third, I would assume that a fair number of the third probably

come from divorced households, or probably at least half of those

third, maybe even more. How do we model?

Dr. EDIN. That is a really good question. I think you have to

start with the marriages that are most proximate to those groups.

Seventy-one percent of women who ever have a nonmarital birth

will eventually marry, if current demographic trends hold. So, it is

not that they are never marrying, it is that they are maybe not

marrying the father of their first child, or the father of any of their

children.

These couples do want to marry and, if demographic trends hold,

will marry. So, we need to focus on strengthening the marriages

that are occurring, as well as encouraging people who are not yet

married. So, increasing marital stability in the bottom of the distribution, I think, should also be a key policy goal.

Dr. HASKINS. Senator, one of the interventions that have been

tried was by Charles Ballard, whom you may know. I believe he

has testified before this committee in the past.

The basis of his strategy is to take married couples and house

them in the same community with low income, unmarried couples,

and to have them serve as mentors and role models for the couples

that they are working with, the unmarried couples that they are

working with, trying to show them, through their own example,

how it is possible to move towards marriage and to sustain a marriage within a low-income community.

The second variant of this is mentoring, that many churches now

are doing, where older, experienced married couples who have been

married for many years work with younger couples and give them

guidance and advice about financial matters, resolving conflicts,

and all that sort of thing.

So, there are attempts that are already under way to model good

marriages and to teach young, either unmarried or newly married

couples about how people who have a lot of experience with marriage work through their problems and get it done.

Senator SANTORUM. The groups that you were working with, did

any of those individuals get support in talking about marriage, or

fatherhood?

Dr. EDIN. No. One thing that was interesting, we have been following these couples now for 4 years. Their children have just

turned four. They get so excited when we come back to talk to

them every year, even though the interviews are really long and

grueling.

31

And part of the reason for their enthusiasm, is they really do

not—especially the men—get a chance to talk about this anywhere

else. I cannot think of a single couple that really has that kind of

supportive infrastructure.

Senator SANTORUM. So it goes back to Julie and Joe’s thing, that

there is a real need out there for programs to help mentor or educate, or just listen, to the problems that are going on in that community.

Dr. EDIN. I agree.

Senator SANTORUM. Let me, Ron, move on to you for a couple of

questions.

First, you have the chart over here and I want to work on that

chart and some comments you made. In the 1996 welfare bill, we

worked on work as being sort of the central focus and we tried to

sort of touch on the issue of, at the time, we referred to it as illegitimacy and were hammered down repeatedly for using that term.

It is interesting that the social stigma, as Julie said, of having

a child out-of-wedlock—or maybe, Dr. Edin, you said that—is less

than being divorced. So, stigmas do have an influence and terminology has meaning. So, I would just throw that out as food or

thought.

We did focus on work and we did focus on trying to at least create a connection between fathers for paternity establishment, but

we sort of stopped there and were hesitant to go into ‘‘controversial’’ areas like marriage.

Can you talk about work as reducing poverty versus other factors

that you studied and tell us your findings?

Dr. HASKINS. I apologize. I did not realize the chart was there,

so I adjusted my testimony as I was going on. I could not see it.

This is a very interesting study. It was done by Belle Sawhill and

Adam Thomas at Brookings. The thing that is so impressive about

the study, to me, is it is based on the actual characteristics of actual people based on Census Bureau surveys. So, of all the people

the Census Bureau surveys, they have a representative sample of

poor people.

So, let us look right at that sample and let us vary some of the

characteristics of the poor to see what impact that would have on

their poverty rate. That is what this analysis does. It is a simulation.

The first one, is work. The work simulation simply says, look, for

everybody that does not work full-time, let us have them work fulltime. So, everybody who is poor who does not work full-time. About

40 percent of the poor work full-time, about 80 percent of non-poor

work full-time.

So if you make them work full-time at whatever wage they make,

or whatever wage they would make under their education, just by

doing that, no additional government expenditures or anything, you

would reduce poverty by 42 percent.

Similarly, if we just achieve the marriage rate that we had in

1970—so this is not some pie-in-the-sky, you can never get there

sort of thing—this is the actual marriage rate that prevailed in the

United States in 1970.

If you select people that the Census Bureau interviewed,

matched on age, race, and on education, and married them, so

32

these are kind of like virtual marriages, that would reduce the poverty rate by 27 percent. So, that is the second most effective way

to reduce poverty without any kind of additional government expenditures.

Now, this is extremely interesting in comparison to other simulations. One, is if we increase their education, so we assume everybody had a high school degree, attribute the wages to them that

the typical high school graduate would make, that would only have

an impact on poverty of 15 percent. So, much less than work, and

about half of what marriage would do, to increase education. You

know how focused committees like this one and the Education and

Labor Committee are on increasing education. Yet, marriage, under

this simulation, is much more effective.

Similarly, if you double the cash welfare rate in the United States, which would probably cost you now about $8 billion a year,

that would have the most modest effect of all on poverty.

So, both work and marriage are much more effective tools for reducing poverty in this simulation. From that, I would conclude that

all of our policies should focus as much as possible on promoting

both work, and on marriage.

Senator SANTORUM. So the idea that we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars on remedial education, and all the

other work that we are doing on trying to focus on improving the

quality of education, and we are going to spend $150 million on the

Federal Government on marriage, and we look at those numbers,

what would you say, of the allocation of resources, based on what

these findings are in the Federal Government for all the other

things that are on that chart versus marriage?

Dr. HASKINS. Zip. We have very, very few. Now, this has changed

quite a bit. In fact, this is an amazing story that goes largely untold, is the focus that the Bush administration and HHS has put

on marriage. They really have done a lot. So, we have a lot of activity, some of it very good, random assignment evaluation studies

that are just now getting started.

But, even so, that is way more than we have ever had in the

past. I would say it is easily under 1 percent of welfare expenditures are on anything having in any way to do with marriage.

Senator SANTORUM. Ms. Ooms talked about, there still is a controversy out there (about the healthy marriage agenda). But I

think you did say the controversy was from those who did not have

all the information.

Ms. OOMS. In part.

Senator SANTORUM. In part. I mean, from the perspective of all

of you in this field, is there still a controversy out there, and what

is the basis of the controversy?

Dr. EDIN. I think the most common comment is, they think marriage will solve everything. So, the complexity of the approach the

administration is taking and the emphasis on healthy marriage is

lost in that discussion.

Dr. HASKINS. I would make two points. First of all, unfortunately, it is the old cited editorial page writers as an example of

it being controversial. Well, that is their job. Plus, they do not reflect the American public.

Senator SANTORUM. I certainly hope not. [Laughter.]

33

Dr. HASKINS. I know. I know. If you do random sample surveys

of the American public, there is overwhelming support for marriage. If you can do things like Ms. Baumgardner described in

Chattanooga, you will find throughout the community, in the

churches, YMCAs, in youth groups, in the schools, to some extent,

it is very similar to abstinence. It was huge controversial. We had

all kinds of nasty arguments here in Washington.

Now there are abstinence programs all over the country, and surveys show that 95 percent of parents—and get this—almost 95 percent of young people say the most important message they should

get is abstinence. That is what I mean by not controversial.

There certainly are groups out there that are griping and complaining. I think, in many respects, it is because of what Kathy

said, and they are right about this. This is going to be a very difficult thing. We have clue one-half about how to promote marriage,

and it is sitting right down at that end of the table.

But there are 20 other things that we should be doing and we

do not know what those are yet. That is why we have to put this

money out there, to get communities going, to get the leaders in

the communities going, and to carefully study what they do, and

in, Senator, 10 years, or 15, or 20, we will know something.

Ms. OOMS. Can I expand a tiny bit on the controversies?

Senator SANTORUM. Sure.

Ms. OOMS. I cited the editorial criticisms of the marriage agenda

and, I agree with you they were not well informed. But that is

what people read, and they are influential. I have been talking

with a lot of people in States, and particularly in the public agencies where they are trying to think about doing a marriage initiative, and they work with low-income families.

Their first reaction is that they are very concerned and troubled

because they are afraid of stigmatizing the single parents. Indeed

they, themselves, might be a single parent.

They ask if you hold up marriage as an ideal, does that not mean

that you are somehow blaming people who are single parents? I

mean, these are thoughtful people. These are not knee-jerk people.

But they are worried about this. They are also worried about the

domestic violence issue. They are worried about this phrase, ‘promoting marriage’ because of who the messenger is. They think this

may be a message coming from the religious right wing who want

to put women back in the kitchen, and quite honestly, who often

believe in patriarchy. I mean, they do not understand what this

project is about and what marriage education programs are about.

Once you get into extended conversations attitudes change. It

took us, in Oklahoma, a couple of years before, really, a lot of people there started saying, ‘‘we can do this. We think this makes

sense for our clients, and let us plan it together.’’ So what I am

saying is, when people first hear about it, the marriage agenda is

controversial, there is no doubt about it.

Senator SANTORUM. Can we address the issue of domestic violence? That has been brought up a few times. Do we have any research on marriage and domestic violence versus unmarried? What

are the facts surrounding domestic violence and marriage, and

marriage programs? Do we have any information?

34

Dr. EDIN. I do not know about marriage, but in our study of the

Philadelphia women, when we calculated causes of relationship

breakup, domestic violence was spontaneously talked about as a

major cause of breakup in 45 percent of the cases. It is a very big

problem. It is oftentimes combined with drug or alcohol abuse,

however. So, drug and alcohol treatments can also be helpful.

Senator SANTORUM. And how many of those couples were married?

Dr. EDIN. None of those couples were married.

Senator SANTORUM. None of them.

Dr. STANLEY. In general, the research shows that marriage is

less associated with domestic violence than in cohabiting relationships, dating relationships, other kinds of relationships.

Dr. HASKINS. And could I add, especially for the children.

Dr. STANLEY. Yes. I mean, those data are pretty clear. But as

Theo would say, and say rapidly, these dimensions are very complex. But, nevertheless, one of the things that I think is a very exciting opportunity about marriage education, broadly defined—and

this comes out of the work we are doing in Oklahoma—is you have

an opportunity for all kinds of important messages when you can

get in front of people, or when people can get into the door and

have these discussions. So, you can have people learn more about

what is acceptable behavior and what is not in relationships. Some

of that behavior, for some people, is changeable.

For other people, it is not changeable. In those situations, you

would really want, especially the women and the women with children, to learn about the factors that make it more likely that it is

not changeable and when you should move on, and when you really

need to seek safety in a whole different way and a whole different

level.

So, I think it is very reasonable to believe that that is one of the

probable outcomes. In some research, even in couples where there

is domestic violence, some of the latest research on couple approaches, with couples where one or both members have difficulties

with substance abuse, working within the couple in a marriagebased, couple-based strategy is being shown now to be by far the

most effective treatment in reducing the ongoing substance abuse

and the likelihood of future domestic violence.

That research has become so compelling recently that NIDA is

actually now generally rejecting proposals that do not have a couple component in the treatment that people are proposing to study.

I think this is a general theme. I will make this point and then

be quiet for a little bit. But a lot of times, things do not work the

way people think they are going to work when you really dig in and

look at what is going on. You are hearing a lot of that among various panel members today.

I will go back to what I said, and I think has been said by virtually everybody today. One of the most exciting things going on

is the quality of the discussion between people from very, very different backgrounds.

As Theo mentioned, I think very clearly, back to your other question, a lot of times people who have the most difficulty with the

possibilities are people that are new to the discussions.

35

Senator SANTORUM. I assume all of you agree that the initiative

that is in the welfare bill is appropriate and we should follow

through and pass that?

Dr. EDIN. I think the only caution I would have, is that there is

no attention paid to sort of the economic part of the picture. I think

a lot of us believe that the two-tiered strategy of economic support

and relationship skills is really going to be the most successful one.

Dr. HASKINS. On the other hand, the model that HHS has developed with Mathematica for the programs that they are going to

evaluate, the second component of that model clearly includes everything that Kathy is worried about in her testimony, the domestic violence, the alcoholism, drug treatment, employment and training programs.

So, I do not think it is the case that the administration ignores

this problem or this set of problems and that they think that you

are going to put someone in a classroom with Scott Stanley and everybody is going to live happily ever after.

There are serious problems here that have to be solved. As long

as I am on this point, I would add, our interventions for solving

these problems are not all that great.

So the idea that we can stick in a domestic violence component

and put in an alcoholism component, and everything is going to be

fine, those programs also are not overly successful.

Senator SANTORUM. And we have a lot more experience with

those programs, I assume, than we do with marriage programs.

Dr. HASKINS. A lot more.

Ms. OOMS. Can I answer the question?

Senator SANTORUM. Go ahead.

Ms. OOMS. As I suggested, I think the answer is going to be a

lot in how the program, the grants programs, are administered and

implemented. But I do have to say that there are some of us, in

my organization in particular, that thought it was too much money

to put into these marriage programs.

I would just say a couple of words about this issue. But note I

am not saying marriage is not very important. I totally agree with

the goals here. It is a question of, are we ready to use that amount

of money at this stage now? It is a question of whether we can use

that money wisely before we really know what works.

In a time when a lot of state programs are being cut that people

really value because States are in such a fiscal crisis, a lot of people are having trouble accepting this amount of money (dedicated

to healthy marriage programs) at this time.

Once we know what works and once we have people geared up

to run these programs, it is a bit like the Welfare to Work demonstrations where it may take us 15, 20 years, and then maybe we

can put a lot of money into it. So, that is the way I think about

the money issue. But what you are trying to do, my sense is, it is

in the right direction.

Dr. STANLEY. And I would like to address the money issue in a

different kind of way. This is something I think that is very hard

to know the actual answer to, this point that I will make.

But I think one of the difficulties that is linked with the money

issue, and I think Ron and Theo have both alluded to this and it

has come up several times today, it is very hard to evaluate things

36

at a sufficient level until there is a lot of infrastructure in terms

of programmatic changes, getting all the right people trained, getting a lot of capacity in the community.

The other side of the coin that Theo is raising there is that, while

you always like to know more about just how best to spend a certain amount of money, this is an area, like many areas of social

intervention, where you are not going to have really good answers

until you have spent enough money to get a lot of infrastructure

going. You do not get a lot of answers without getting big numbers,

and you do not get big numbers without infrastructure.

Despite the trends and the quality of the discussion and a lot of

movement toward marriage and about marriage in this country at

this time, there is very little solid infrastructure going around the

country at this point.

Senator SANTORUM. Because there is very little money.

Dr. STANLEY. There is very little money. So, infrastructure is

linked to money, and good evaluations, I think, are linked to infrastructure.

Senator SANTORUM. All right. I am out of time. I would love to

continue the discussion. I have three articles I would like to put in

the record.

[The articles appear in the appendix.]

Senator SANTORUM. Let me thank you all very, very much for

your excellent testimony. If there is anything else that you would

like to submit for the record, the record will be open for another

2 weeks. We would certainly appreciate any additional information.

We are adjourned. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix.]

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

(37)

A P P E N D I X

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIE BAUMGARDNER

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

(193)

COMMUNICATIONS

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

Æ