Brown, Susan L.

Manning, Wendy D.

Payne, Krista K.

Wu, Hsueh-Sheng

English

Bowling Green State University: ScholarWorks@BGSU

Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU National Center for Family and Marriage Research Family Profiles Sociology 2014 FP-14-02 Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, a State-level Analysis Wendy D. Manning Bowling Green State University, wmannin@bgsu.edu Susan L. Brown Bowling Green State University, brownsl@bgsu.edu Krista K. Payne Bowling Green State University, kristaw@bgsu.edu Hsueh-Sheng Wu Bowling Green State University, wuh@bgsu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ncfmr_family_profiles  Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons Repository Citation Manning, Wendy D.; Brown, Susan L.; Payne, Krista K.; and Wu, Hsueh-Sheng, "FP-14-02 Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, a State-level Analysis" (2014). National Center for Family and Marriage Research Family Profiles. 88. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ncfmr_family_profiles/88 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in National Center for Family and Marriage Research Family Profiles by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. 005 Williams Hall • Bowling Green State University • Bowling Green, OH 43403http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu • 419.372.4910 • ncfmr@bgsu.eduFamily Profiles examine topics related to NCFMR’s core research themes. Data are presented at both the national and state levels using new data sources. Written for both researchers and broad communities, these profiles summarize the latest statistics on U.S. families.Wendy D. Manning, Susan L. Brown, Krista K. Payne, &  Hsueh-Sheng WuNCFMRFamily ProfilesFP-14-02Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, a State-level AnalysisFigure 1. Annual HMI Spending and Marriage & Divorce Rates, 2000 - 2010• Annual HMI spending increased by $117 million from 2000 to 2010, with the most pronounced increase between 2006 and 2007 (Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn 2013).• Spending peaked in 2009, with total year expenditures reaching nearly $142 million.• During the 2000s, the General Marriage Rate continued its precipitous decline initiated in the 1970s (see FP-13-13). In 2000, 46.1 individuals married per 1,000 eligible to marry (i.e., those 15 years and older and currently unmarried), whereas 33.9 did so in 2010, representing a 26% decrease.• The General Divorce Rate remained relatively stable, with 18.4 individuals divorcing per 1,000 at risk of divorce (i.e., those 15 years and older and currently married or separated).• A decrease in the ratio of number of marriages to divorces occurred during this ten-year time period, dropping from 1.98 to 1.84. This change is driven, in large part, by an overall reduction in the number of marriages.U.S. HMI Spending and Marriage & Divorce Rates, a Decade of ChangeSince 2001, the federal government has spent more than $600 million on its Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) designed to support the formation and maintenance of healthy marriages. This profile examines how HMI spending from 2000-2010 is related to trends in U.S. marriage and divorce. It also investigates the relationship between federally designated state-level HMI spending from 2000-2011 and state-level marriage and divorce rates in 2011.Background. Federal support for healthy marriage and relationship programs accelerated in 2001 when the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) named strengthening marriage as one of nine ACF priorities. In 2005, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, $150 million in yearly funding was set aside for the promotion of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Monies set aside for promotion of marriage could be used for marriage education, marriage skills training, public advertising campaigns, high school education on the value of marriage, and marriage mentoring programs (for more information, see the ACF Archives). These programs, which are jointly referred to as the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI), are guided by a mission “to help couples, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage.”Sources: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, 2000; Glass & Levchak, 2010, NCFMR County-Level Marriage & Divorce Data, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates, 2008 – 2010; HMI Spending data – Hawkins et al., 2013.Note: The numerators for the marriage and divorce rates for the year 2000 were derived from state-level NVS count data and the denominators were derived from 2000 Decennial Census data. Oklahoma did not report number of marriages or divorces, and California, Indiana, and Louisiana did not report number of divorces in 2000. NCFMR County-level data collected by Glass & Levchak were summed for these missing states and used in the numerators for computing the national rate.  46.133.918.4 18.4$5$122$0$20$40$60$80$100$120$140$160051015202530354045502000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Dollar Amounts in MilliomsRates per 1,000 at RiskMarriage Rate Divorce Rate HMI Spending2NCFMRFamily ProfilesFP-14-02• HMI spending varied substantially by state:○ States with the highest HMI tend to be located in the Western region of the U.S. (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, & Wyoming). ○ Among the top quarter in spending, investments ranged from $2.38 to $21.68 per person.○ States with the lowest HMI spending are primarily located in the Southern region of the U.S. (Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, & West Virginia).○ Among the bottom quarter in spending, investments ranged from $0.00 to $0.89 per person.Geographic Variation in Cumulative State per Capita HMI SpendingFigure 2. Geographic Variation of State per Capita HMI SpendingFigure 3. Predicted Marriage & Divorce RatesWith Respected Upper Bounds (UB) & Lower Bounds (LB)Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010; HMI Spending data– Hawkins et al., 2013.The Relationship Between State-Level HMI Spending and State-Level Marriage & Divorce Rates• Figure 3 illustrates the bounded predicted marriage and divorce rates given actual federally designated state-level spending on HMIs. The predicted General Marriage and Divorce Rates are based on a fixed-effect model estimating the average relationship between cumulative (2000-2011) HMI spending and marriage/divorce rates (2008-2011), controlling for state and time period variations.¹○ State-level spending on HMIs did not have a significant association with state marriage rates. ○ State-level spending on HMIs did have a significant positive association with state divorce rates.Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2011; HMI spending data– Hawkins et al., 2013.$2.38 - $21.68$1.68- $2.37$0.90 - $1.67$0.00 - $0.89Quartiles05101520253035404550$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00Rates per 1,000 at Risk PopulationHMI Spending Per Population at Risk of Marriage or DivorceUB Mar Rt LB UB Div Rt LB  ¹Full models are available upon request.$0$2$4$6$8$10$12$14$16$18$20$22$24$26$28$30020406080100120140160180200220240260280300RI WV NV VA ID US SD WY AK OK DCFigure 4b. Divorce Rate2000 2010 Spending$0$2$4$6$8$10$12$14$16$18$20$22$24$26$28$30020406080100120140160180200220240260280300RI WV NV VA ID US SD WY AK OK DCFigure 4a. Marriage Rate2000 2010 Spending3NCFMRFamily ProfilesFP-14-02• The five states with the smallest per capita cumulative HMI investments all experienced declines in their GMR from 2000 to 2010, but so did 4 out of the 5 states with the largest HMI spending. • Washington, D.C. had the highest cumulative per capita investment ($21.68) and experienced a 35% increase in their GMR, from 17.6 to 23.8 marriages per 1,000 unmarried individuals ages 15 and older.• Although there is a positive association between state spending and divorce rates, the top and bottom spenders share similar divorce trends.○ For both the bottom and top cumulative HMI spenders, 3 states experienced increases in their GDRs and 2 experienced decreases (as well as an overall U.S. decrease). These decreases are all quite small (all at or less than 7% drop, or in other words, a drop of less than 2 people per 1,000 at risk) with the exception of Nevada (33% decrease, or in other words, a drop of 14 people per 1,000 at risk). ○ For GMRs & GDRs with cumulative per capita HMI spending for all 50 states and Washington, D.C., please click the following links:▪  General Marriage Rates▪  General Divorce RatesBottom & Top States in Cumulative per Capita HMI Spending and Marriage & Divorce RatesFigures 4a & 4b. Bottom and Top Five States in 2000-2010 Cumulative per Capita HMI Spending with NVS Marriage & Divorce Rates, 2000 & 2010Sources: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System; Glass & Levchak, 2010, NCFMR County-Level Marriage & Divorce Data, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 2010; HMI Spending data– Hawkins et al. 2013.Note: The denominator for the GMR is comprised of individuals who are currently unmarried (never-married, divorced or widowed) and those who married in that given year and the denominator for the  GDR is comprised of individuals who are currently married or separated and those who divorced in that given year.Note: The numerators for the marriage and divorce rates were derived from state-level NVS count data (when available) and the denominators were derived from 2000 Decennial Census and 2010 ACS 1-year estimates. When NVS data were unavailable for the year 2000, NCFMR County-level data collected by Glass & Levchak were summed and used for the missing states. When 2010 data were unavailable, individual state reporting was utilized. If unreported, NCFMR staff contacted the states directly.References1. Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn (2013). Are Government-Supported Healthy Marriage Initiatives Affecting Family Demographics? A State-Level Analysis. Family Relations. 62, 501-513. doi: 10.11/fare.12009Suggested Citation:Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L.,   Payne, K. K.,  & Wu, H. S. (2014).  Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, A State-level Analysis (FP-14-02).  National Center for Family & Marriage Research.   Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/ BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-14-02_HMIInitiative.pdfThis project is supported with assistance from Bowling Green State University. From 2007 to 2013, support was also provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s) and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any agency of the state or federal government.

FP-14-02 Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, a State-level Analysis

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&amp;context=ncfmr_family_profiles

FP-14-02 Healthy Marriage Initiative Spending and U.S. Marriage & Divorce Rates, a State-level Analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bowling Green State University: ScholarWorks@BGSU