Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter 2: A Conceptual Framework for Marriage Education for Low-Income Stepfamilies

In this chapter, we present a conceptual framework to guide the development of marriage education programs for low-income stepfamilies. Our framework, shown in Figure 1, shows the linkages among the conditions affecting stepfamilies (shown at the bottom of the framework), the program services, and the intermediate and long-term outcomes.

The discussion of the conceptual model in this chapter is based on an extensive review of the research literature on stepfamilies and on the relationships of low-income and ethnic minority couples in the U.S. generally. The next chapter discusses the framework in terms of the study of programs. The literature review builds on previous stepfamily reviews (two decade reviews in Journal of Marriage and Family,1 Ganong & Coleman, 2004) and on other recent reviews of stepfamily research and the implications for marriage education (e.g., Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004), as well as recent annotated bibliographies, updated through an extensive search of major on-line bibliographic databases.2

In the next section, we provide an overview of the major components of our conceptual framework. We then discuss in some detail each of the eight principal topics in the marriage education program that forms the core of the program services, and, last, describe the conditions that may influence the effect of the marriage education program.

[D]

Overview of the Conceptual Framework

We utilize a pictorial conceptual framework to organize the research information about stepfamily marital functioning and considerations for implementing stepfamily marriage education programs. This type of conceptual framework is a heuristic and attempts have been made to be comprehensive and inclusive of information. It is not intended to be an empirical model positing testable hypotheses; although, certainly, such empirical models can be derived from this framework.

The objectives guiding our conceptual framework for stepfamily programs are to provide education intended to maintain and strengthen healthy relationships between the spouses in the stepfamily and between spouses and children, thereby promoting the long-term outcomes of marital quality, marital stability, and child well-being (shown at the far right of the framework). The definition of marital quality or healthy marriage we use includes the couple’s commitment to one another, the ability to communicate and resolve conflicts effectively, lack of domestic violence, fidelity, time together, intimacy, and social support. Our view of adult and child well-being includes health and safety, positive socioemotional functioning, and age-level cognitive and educational attainment among other characteristics (Moore et al. 2004).

At the heart of our framework are the intermediate outcomes, specific aspects of stepfamily relationships that the literature suggests are crucial to healthy marriages in stepfamilies. These relationships are viewed as being influenced by the marriage education program and, in turn, contributing to the long-term outcomes. These relationships encompass cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to distinctive challenges facing stepcouples, as well as aspects of marital relations common to all couples. The adult well-being of the stepfamily spouses, also considered an intermediate outcome, is viewed as both influencing the stepfamily relationships and being influenced by them. Conditions affecting stepfamilies at the individual, family, and community level affect multiple components of the framework and may also influence the effect of the marriage education program for specific stepcouples. Because the training and treatment services, listed as other services, will likely directly influence only individuals and not couples or families, the link between them is indicated by the broken lines.

Within this framework, we adopt a strength-based normative-adaptive perspective in developing services for stepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Early research on stepfamilies primarily used a deficit-comparison perspective and looked for ways that stepfamilies were deficient as compared to nuclear families (reviewed in Coleman et al., 2000; Ganong & Coleman, 2004). In contrast, the normative-adaptive perspective is a strength-based approach that pursues strategies that work with the unique aspects of stepfamily functioning.

Our research review suggests that comprehensive marriage education programs for stepcouples should include (a) insights and skills directly useful in addressing unique aspects of stepfamily functioning and (b) basic relationship skills that can benefit all types of couples. Our conceptual framework identifies the principal topics such programs should cover and the key issues involved in implementing strong programs.

Conditions affecting stepfamilies constitute an important component of the framework. These conditions originate in the strengths and vulnerabilities each spouse brings to the relationship and in the social and economic contexts surrounding families in general. Although the individual and community conditions may be present in any family, acknowledging these conditions is especially crucial for understanding and designing programs for low-income couples. Due to their financial circumstances, such couples typically experience more difficulties and stresses that can make it difficult to sustain healthy relationships and marriages (e.g., Ooms & Wilson, 2004).

Negative conditions affecting some stepcouples, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and low literacy skills, can be addressed by the proposed program model, whereas other conditions (e.g., ages of children, stepfamily complexity) are either unchangeable or beyond the scope of the program to address. For the former set of conditions, a comprehensive program would include the relevant services or provide referrals to them. In either case, the program may help couples to better understand and manage the effects of these factors on relationships.

As depicted in our framework, conditions enter the picture in several ways. In addition to directly influencing intermediate and long-term outcomes, the conditions are also seen as influencing how the program affects stepfamily relationships, indicated by the arrow connecting “Conditions” to the arrow linking “Marriage Education Programs” to “Stepfamily Relationships”. For example, spouses with serious mental health or substance abuse issues may not be in a position to benefit from a marriage education program without first addressing the individual problem.

In the following sections, we describe each of the eight core topic areas the research suggests should be covered in marriage education programs for stepfamilies. Next, we identify and discuss some of the principal conditions likely to affect low-income stepcouples. Aspects of the marriage education’s service delivery are discussed in the next chapter, in the context of the programs interviewed.

Core Recommended Topics in Marriage Education Programs for Couples in Stepfamilies

Based on our review of the research literature, our conceptual model includes both topics specific to stepfamilies and topics found in most marriage education programs (i.e., those related to basic marital skills). Research suggests that stepcouples will benefit from both types of content, especially the prior, since stepfamily couples experience unique issues and family development patterns (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003). Scholars concur that appropriate interventions for stepcouples should include the consideration of the impact of other family relationships (e.g., children, former partners) on marital functioning and ways to navigate complex family systems (Ganong & Coleman, 2004; Hawkins, Carroll, Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004; Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Relying solely on the general marital research to inform practice with couples in stepfamilies may result in educational experiences that are inadequate to meet stepfamilies’ unique needs (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004). In the following section, we examine each core topic suggested in the marriage education component of the framework, specify the research support for including this topic in the framework, and summarize the objectives programs may want to address.

1. Utilizing Basic Marital Skills

We expect that stepfamily couples’ interactions have the same causes and consequences as non-stepfamily couples and, thus, will benefit similarly from basic relationship insights and skills training. Although these basic skills have been summarized in a variety of ways, the core elements that appear to emerge across all summaries of research on healthy marriages are communication skills, conflict management skills, effective anger and stress management, emotion regulation, and friendship-building skills (i.e., caring, nurturing, expressing affection, showing empathy, attempts to connect) (e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Bradbury & Karney, 2004; Adler-Baeder, Higginbotham, & Lamke, 2004; Adler-Baeder & Futris, 2005; Moore et al., 2004).

It appears that learning these skills may be especially important for low-income stepfamily couples, because low-income adults are more likely to have experienced their own parents’ relationship disruption and re-partnering (Ooms & Wilson, 2004; Amato, 2000). The experience of parental marital disruption is associated with a greater likelihood of children engaging later in life in such problematic interpersonal behaviors with their own spouses as anger, jealousy, negative communication, and infidelity (Amato, 1996; Amato et al., 2003). Similarly, their own children, the next generation, also are less likely to learn effective relationship skills from their parents.

In addition, for stepcouples, individuals’ own relationship history—i.e., previous break-up(s) and divorce(s)— may be due in part to poor interpersonal skills (Farrell & Markman, 1986; Bray, Berger, Silverblatt, & Hollier, 1987). These findings suggest that stepfamily couples may be more likely than other couples to have witnessed and been a part of negative models of marital functioning and may be less likely to have a clear picture of interactional patterns in a healthy marital relationship.

We do not mean to suggest that all couples in stepfamilies have poor relationship skills. Research clearly identifies stepcouples in healthy marriages, with strong communication skills, who engage in frequent, open talk, spend time together, engage in family problem-solving, and openly discuss their perceptions of problems and seek consistency in these perceptions (Anderson & White, 1986; Bray & Kelly, 1998; Golish, 2003; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

The importance of having strong conflict management skills is magnified in stepfamily situations. Stepcouples face crucial issues at the onset of their relationships (Prado & Markman, 1999), whereas for nuclear family couples, issues that create conflict are more likely to evolve over time. In addition, because of the complexity of stepfamilies, stepcouples may be faced with managing not only their own conflicts, but conflicts with and between other stepfamily members. Irrespective of the amount of conflict, it appears that it is the method of conflict management that is most important. A recent study using interviews with stepfamily couples suggests that among these couples, it is not the extent of difficulties and challenges that are predictive of marital satisfaction, but the ability to communicate using effective conflict management and caring behaviors that predict marital satisfaction (Beaudry, Boisvert, Simard, Parent, & Blais, 2004). In other research using interviews, findings indicate that in stepfamilies where wives use negative methods of conflict management (i.e., strong confrontation) their marital relationships were negatively affected, as were both their stepparent-stepchild and parent-child relationships (DeLongis & Preece, 2002).

The research on low-income couples also suggests that they may be most in need of skills associated with managing stressful situations and managing aggressive behaviors (Ooms & Wilson, 2004; Halford et al., 2003). Studies of low-income populations and parenting show that low-income adults are less likely than higher-resource adults to have learned emotion regulation techniques from their interactions with caregivers (e.g., Gottman, Fainsilber-Katz, & Hooven, 1996). Research suggests that low-income individuals also are less likely to have learned effective emotional expressivity and cognitive reappraisal strategies that assist with managing stressful situations and negative emotional arousal (e.g., Katz & Gottman, 1995; Labouvie-Viet & Medler, 2002; Shaw, Keenan, Vondra, Delliquadri, & Giovannelli, 1997). An important assumption, therefore, is that adults in low-income stepfamily couples will benefit from learning emotion regulation skills in relationships and in individual stress and anger management.

Another important general relationship emphasis is to foster skills and practices that promote friendship and intimacy in the marital relationship, such as caring, nurturing, verbalizing affection and appreciation, and disclosing intimate information (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). This is a critical buffer for couples when they face challenges (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and is particularly important for stepfamily couples, as their relationship is one of the newest and potentially the most vulnerable in the stepfamily system (Visher & Visher, 1996). It is noted that this focus on creating a strong, intimate marital bond is important to establish in the minds of the couple, as well as in the minds of the children (Cissna, Cox, & Bochner, 1990). When children view the new couple as a solidified team, they may be less likely to attempt to undermine the relationship (Cissna et al., 1990; Visher & Visher, 1996).

Summary points. Research suggests that interactive skills training approaches are effective in teaching these critical areas related to utilizing basic martial skills. Program objectives should focus on:

1. Knowledge and skills related to effective communication and conflict management strategies

2. Knowledge and skills related to effective management of individual stress responses and negative emotions (e.g., anger)

3. Knowledge and skills related to friendship building and maintenance (e.g., emotional expressivity and disclosure, expression of affection and appreciation, the use of empathy, and eliciting partner disclosure)

4. Awareness of the importance of marital intimacy and bonding as a buffer in meeting stepfamily challenges

2. Understanding Stepfamilies' Unique Characteristics and Developing a Positive View Towards Stepfamilies

It is important for stepfamily couples to recognize that stepfamilies have unique characteristics and that they differ in basic ways from nuclear families. For example, in stepfamilies, the biological parent-child bond predates the couple relationship, whereas in non-stepfamilies, the couple relationship predates the parent-child relationship. There appears to be no “honeymoon period” for new stepfamily couples, which is probably related to the presence of children from the beginning. Understanding the ways that stepfamilies are unique and having realistic expectations for stepfamily development and stepfamily relationships are critical to healthy stepfamily functioning.

A key element of appropriate expectations/beliefs is an understanding of the substantial length of time necessary to establish roles and to determine a stepfamily’s particular pattern of successful functioning (e.g., Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Visher, Visher, & Pasley, 2003). The initial stages of development in a new stepfamily are not typically smooth. There is consistent evidence from both clinical (couples in counseling) and nonclinical samples that the first several years can be turbulent for stepfamilies (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998), and remarriages are at greatest risk for divorce in the first five years (Clarke & Wilson, 1994). Research shows a general pattern of 1-2 years of disorganization and turbulence and 1-3 years of stabilization for stepfamily development (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Most scholars are in agreement that successful stepfamilies form effective/healthy relationships slowly over the course of several years. Researchers also observe that, comparatively, stepcouples with older children adjust at slower rates than stepcouples with younger children (Bray & Kelly, 1998). In addition to the unrealistic belief of quick adjustment, couples may also have unrealistic beliefs about functional equivalency to first-marriage families and instant love - “the nuclear family myth” (Visher & Visher, 1988). “Functional equivalence” refers to a stepfamily member’s expectation that stepfamily relationships will be just like nuclear family relationships.

Not only do healthy stepfamily relationships develop slowly, but it is also noted that more successful stepfamilies tend to form relationships dyadically (i.e., one-on-one) rather than as a family unit (e.g., Ganong, Coleman, Fine, & Martin, 1999). Also, it is common for some members to take longer to adjust and feel comfortable in the new family form than others. Research also suggests that striving for equally cohesive bonds and feelings of connection and love between stepfamily members may not be a realistic goal for most stepfamilies—and may not be essential for well-functioning marital and stepfamily relationships (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Ganong & Coleman, 2004; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Braithwaite, Olson, Golish, Soukop, & Turman, 2001). Rather than all family members in the stepfamily feeling equally close, it is more realistic to expect that levels of connection and attachment will vary between stepfamily members. For example, a stepparent may develop a strong and loving connection with a younger stepchild and may develop a respectful, caring relationship with his/her older stepchild. The more important dimension of healthy stepfamily functioning is the level of mutual agreement about the nature of each relationship (e.g., parent-child bond, friendship) within the stepfamily system.

Without an understanding of the ways that stepfamilies differ from nuclear families and appropriate skills to develop and maintain healthy marriages, stepcouples may be overly influenced by negative images of stepfamilies in society. Individuals who divorce are often represented as failed, and those that form stepfamilies are thought to be entering a deficient family form (Coontz, 1997; Giles-Sims & Crosbie-Burnett, 1989). Media (from fairy tales to college textbooks to motion pictures) reinforce negative portrayals of stepfamilies (e.g., Claxton-Oldfield, 2000; Coleman, Ganong, & Gingrich, 1985; Coleman, Ganong, & Goodwin, 1994; Leon & Angst, 2005). Even the language in our culture implicitly conveys the message that stepfamily members are unnatural, abnormal, or irregular, because nuclear family members/parents are often described as natural, normal, real, or regular (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). It is important for marriage education programs to address norms about stepfamilies in the wider culture, because they play a large role in determining the cognitive context in which individuals evaluate their situation, conduct themselves, and expect to be regarded by others (for a detailed discussion on this topic see Dallos, 1991).

A number of factors may contribute to the generalized negative view of remarriage and stepfamilies. The early research on stepfamilies (i.e., 1980s and early 1990s) may have inadvertently contributed to this cultural context by focusing primarily on clinical stepfamilies who had sought counseling and by highlighting problems, dysfunctions, and the ways in which stepfamilies differed from nuclear families (i.e., deficit comparisons). Presenting information from only studies of stepfamilies having problems can lead to the assumption that all stepfamilies are substantially problem-laden. Another source of negative views about stepfamilies may come from the individual’s family of origin if parents or others instilled beliefs that divorce constitutes a failure and remarriage is undesirable (Epstein, Schlesinger, & Dryden, 1988). The experience of living in a stepfamily can create, affirm, or dissuade negative views about stepfamilies. Beliefs and views can be informed and altered in response to positive or negative interactions in the stepfamily.

Prevailing cultural beliefs about stepfamilies can often influence the ways that stepcouples perceive themselves and expect to be perceived (Ganong & Coleman, 1997; Malia, 2005). Over several decades, family scholars have identified at least two primary perspectives concerning how societies have come to view stepfamilies: as the “incomplete institution” that lacks clear norms and institutional supports (Cherlin, 1978) and as stereotyped and stigmatized groups that are less adequate compared to nuclear-marriage families (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Multiple studies have documented both stepfamily members’ and non-stepfamily members’ negative views of stepfamilies as compared to nuclear families (e.g., Coleman & Ganong, 1997; Ganong & Coleman, 1995; Ganong, Coleman, & Kennedy, 1990). This generalized negative cultural context can contribute to an individual’s belief that stepfamilies are doomed to failure—and that all stepfamily relationships will be unfulfilling. And these kinds of negative beliefs and expectations can have a negative impact on actual behaviors in relationships.

In addition to the potential negative impact of unrealistic expectations on marital quality, incongruent beliefs between partners may put a marriage at risk (e.g., Ahrons & Rogers, 1987; Kaplan & Hennon, 1992). “Regardless of whether each family member holds unrealistic beliefs about remarried family life, conflict may occur when there is incompatibility among members’ beliefs” (Leslie & Epstein, 1988, p. 159). Expectations among stepfamily members should be actively discussed and negotiated and should become more congruent over time. Dysfunctional stepcouples have changes in the opposite direction (i.e., less congruence) (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Researchers also note that couples forming stepfamilies with nonresident children (i.e., the child(ren) of one or both spouses live with the other parent) should anticipate that these arrangements may shift over time (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Quite often, pre-adolescents and adolescents, particularly boys, request to change residence and live with their other parent (usually the father; rarely occurs in stepfather families) (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Therefore, a stepmother who never expects to be a residential stepparent may find herself in a new role, and this can lead to conflict in the marriage. Understanding the potential for this situation at the onset of marriage could assist with the adjustment if this transition occurs in later years.

Summary points. Programs should seek to promote both realistic expectations and positive views of stepfamilies. Program objectives should focus on the provision of information to:

1. Increase knowledge of how stepfamily experiences and development are different from nuclear family experiences

2. Increase knowledge of sources of views and expectations

3. Increase ability to recognize common “myths” or unrealistic expectations for stepfamily living and common realities of stepfamily living

4. Develop positive expectations for the possibility of healthy stepfamily functioning

5. Increase ability to articulate marital consensus regarding their views and expectations for their family

We recognize that these program content suggestions center on cognitions—expectations, attitudes, knowledge—rather than behavioral skills. While, typically, marriage education programs that are skill-based tend to demonstrate desirable outcomes among participants (Carroll & Doherty, 2003), it is also clear from research on marital quality that several dimensions of individuals’ “thinking” are important predictors of actual behaviors in relationships and powerful predictors of marital quality (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Scholars working with the HMI have emphasized the critical need to provide opportunities for participants in marriage education programs to assess and discuss cognitions related to healthy marriages (e.g., Bradbury, personal communication, 2005).

3. Utilizing Effective Stepparenting Practices

Bringing children into a new marital relationship can influence several dynamics of the relationship and overall family functioning. Some studies have indicated that remarriages are more unstable mostly due to conflicts revolving around stepparenting and stepchildren (Booth & Edwards, 1992; Knox & Zusman, 2001; Pasley, Koch, & Ihinger-Tallman, 1993). This is an area of conflict unique to stepfamilies and can pose challenges for many stepcouples that must be managed in an effective manner, if strong stepfamily and marital relationships are to be forged.

A critical and consistent pattern observed in research on couples in stepfamilies is the spillover of negative stepparent-stepchild relationships onto the quality and stability of the marital relationship (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998; Crosbie-Burnett, 1984).

Hetherington and Kelly (2002) explain:

In first marriages, a satisfying marital relationship is the cornerstone of happy family life, leading to more effective parent-child relationships and more congenial sibling relationships. In many stepfamilies, the sequence is reversed. Establishing some kind of workable relationship between stepparents and stepchildren...may be the key to a happy second marriage and to successful functioning in stepfamilies. (p. 181)

Therefore, it follows that factors related to stepparent-stepchild quality are indirectly related to the enhancement of marital functioning. The research consistently finds that stepparents who serve as secondary or supportive parents initially (i.e., they do not immediately assume a disciplinarian role, but are warm and supportive with their stepchild and support their spouse in their discipline role) are more satisfied in their stepparent-stepchild relationships (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). This research suggests this is a particularly important approach when adolescent stepchildren are involved. The new couple can work together to establish agreed-upon rules and parenting approaches; however, the parent should serve in the primary disciplinarian role, and stepparents can adopt an authority position as a neutral “enforcer of the rules,” particularly in the early years. For example, a stepparent can remind children of the house rule for bedtime and initiate the “getting ready for bed” routine at a given time. In the case of misbehavior or infraction of the rules, if there are no established consequences, then it is best for the biological parent to take the lead in responding with disciplinary consequences. Parents should be careful if initiating new rules and altering discipline strategies immediately following stepfamily formation. Although the biological parent may present the new house rules and regulations, children, particularly adolescents, may interpret that the stepparent has initiated the changes. They will be as resentful as if the stepparent were the person presenting them (Coleman & Ganong, 2004).

Stepparents who continually use caring behaviors in an attempt to acquire a stepchild’s love tend to develop more effective relationships with their stepchildren (Ganong et al., 1999). When stepparents disengage and interact very little with their stepchildren or when they use coercive, punitive disciplinary behaviors, the stepparent-stepchild relationship is negatively affected (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998; Cohen & Fowers, 2004; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Research also suggests that the biological parent and children play a key role in the quality of the stepparent-stepchild relationship (e.g., O’Connor, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1997; Weaver & Coleman, 2005). The biological mother, often feeling caught in the middle, is the one who ultimately has the power to support or not support the creation of bonds between the child(ren) and stepfather. For example, a formerly single mother, accustomed to being protective of her child, may hesitate to trust a new husband to establish a bond with “her” child.

On the other hand, children, particularly preadolescents and adolescents (ages 10–15), often are the initiators of conflict with stepparents or are not responsive to stepparents’ steps towards closeness (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002), even when stepparents use recommended stepparenting strategies. These behaviors may be the result of negative views of stepparents and stepfamilies, lack of negotiated consensus in the stepfamily on the stepparent role, loyalty conflicts with the “parallel” nonresident parent (e.g., “If I get along with my stepfather, I’ll be disloyal to my dad.”) (Crosbie-Burnett, 1992), or simply resistance to changes inherent in adjusting to stepfamily life. It can be helpful for the stepparent to use empathy and constructive conflict management skills with stepchildren. It can also be helpful if older children learn skills in empathy and conflict management as well. It is also vitally important to use good parental monitoring, particularly with older children and adolescents. This aspect of parenting is strongly associated with better child adjustment and behavior.

Because the likelihood is high that adults in stepcouple relationships were themselves stepchildren, their own experiences as stepchildren are likely to provide a natural “knowledge base” on which programs can profitably build. This empathy for children’s experiences should be affirmed by program workers and used in discussions of establishing positive stepparent practices and building healthy stepparent-stepchild relationships.

Research suggests that useful program content would include information and practice in strategies to build effective stepparent-stepchild relationships, such as having the original parent remain the primary disciplinarian for a substantial amount of time (longer than the parent is likely to expect), with the stepparent easing into a parenting role over time. Information on child development and behavior management techniques may be especially helpful for stepparents who are not also biological parents. Information on the developmental differences found among stepchildren (e.g., adolescent stepchildren and younger stepchildren) and their impact on stepparent-stepchild relationships and the potential for bonding should be included. Raising awareness of the potential difficulties with older stepchildren may promote proactive steps on the part of both the biological parent and stepparent to lessen the intensity of the potential conflict. Normalizing the likelihood of developing less of a bond between stepparent and older stepchildren is suggested. It may also be important for stepparents to anticipate that there may be a delay over time before stepchildren acknowledge their stepparent’s positive efforts. Program content may also include information for children on healthy stepparent-stepchild interactions, stepfamily development, and conflict and anger management strategies.

Summary points. Program objectives for utilizing effective stepparenting practices should focus on:

1. Knowledge of the importance to marital relationship of working on and facilitating effective stepparent-stepchild relationships

2. Knowledge of how the age of the child impacts the recommended processes and goals for the stepparent-stepchild relationship

3. Development of the parenting skills and use of recommended strategies that build effective stepparent-stepchild relationship (e.g., kind behaviors to gain stepchild’s love; monitoring child’s behavior) and that promote positive child outcomes

4. Knowledge of normative child/adolescent development

4. Navigating Relationships with Former Partners

Because the majority of stepfamilies are formed after separation or divorce from a partner rather than death, we can assume that co-parenting relationships with former partners exist. (In this report we define “co-parenting” as joint parenting between one of the spouses in the stepcouple and his or her former spouse/partner who is the parent of one or more of his/her children.) In some cases, this may include multiple co-parenting relationships (Ooms & Wilson, 2004). The quality of co-parenting relationships among former partners/spouses has been shown to impact the relationship quality of the new marriage (e.g., Buunk & Matsaers, 1999; Knox & Zusman, 2001). Thus, another critical element in marriage education with stepcouples is the inclusion of skill-building on successful co-parenting strategies for use with former partners/spouses.

Substantial empirical evidence shows that both a highly negative and a highly involved relationship with a former spouse negatively affect the new marital relationship quality (e.g. Buunk & Matsaers, 1999; Knox & Zusman, 2001). Emotionally divorcing and establishing appropriate boundaries and relationships with a former spouse or partner are essential for healthy remarriages (Cissna et al., 1990; Weston & Macklin, 1990). Former partners should be cooperative in their co-parenting, but if they are too close and friendly, this can be detrimental to the new marital relationship and be confusing for the children (Ahrons, 1994). The “psychological presence” of a former partner can be intrusive in a new marital relationship (Boss, 1980).

Research on co-parenting relationships indicates that the quality of the relationship is enhanced when individuals communicate unemotionally (i.e., in a “business-like” manner); use supportive language; honor agreements; use written communication; maintain privacy regarding other aspects of their lives; and actively support their child’s connection to the other parent (e.g., Ahrons, 1994; Golish, 2003). In addition, it appears that co-parenting relationships are best managed directly or with a neutral person, rather than through the child or through communication between the former partner and the current partner. Research also indicates that when a stepfamily uses a “multi-parental model,” tensions between parents are lessened (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). That is, accepting that a new partner can serve as another parent or caring adult in the child’s life, rather than as a replacement for the other parent, is helpful for the overall functioning of the family and for the well-being of the child.

A poor co-parenting relationship is related to less involvement of nonresident parents with their children, in part due to the resident parent’s active interference in the nonresident parent-child relationship (Braver & Griffin, 2000). High-conflict co-parenting relationships negatively affect children and may result in children’s negative behaviors (Amato, 2000). Children’s negative behaviors, often ascribed to stepfamily adjustment issues, may be more a result of post-separation/divorce adjustment issues and conflict between parents (Clingempeel & Brand-Clingempeel, 2004).

In low-income families, nonresident parents (primarily fathers) tend to be less involved with their children compared to nonresident parents in higher-income families (e.g., Cooksey & Craig, 1998). Among low-income nonresident fathers, African-American fathers are comparatively more involved with their children (Mincy, Garfinkel, & Nepomnyaschy, 2005). Prior research has shown that the level of parental conflict influences the involvement of low-income fathers in their children’s lives and the payment of child support. Mothers at all income levels occasionally restrict the contact between fathers and their children if fathers are unable to provide child support payments (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999; Coley & Morris, 2002; Nelson, Edin, & Clampet-Lundquist, 1999). Non-payment of child support can also be a point of conflict for the marital couple because of the added financial strain to the household. Facilitating the child’s connection to the other parent (except in cases of domestic violence and abuse) can positively impact the co-parenting relationship, child support compliance and the well-being of the child.

Conflict between co-parents is shown to impact negatively the development of stepfamily relationships. Using NSFH (1987-88 data), MacDonald and DeMaris (2002) found that high levels of conflict between the stepchild’s biological parents hindered the quality of the stepchild-stepfather relationship.

Importantly, repartnering and remarrying appear to trigger conflict and negatively affect the relationships children have with their nonresident parent. Manning and Smock (2000) found that when nonresident fathers remarry, they tend to disengage from their nonresident children and transfer paternal attention to new stepchildren and children born to the new marriage. Nonresident fathers also tend to disengage from their nonresident children when the mother remarries. Some fathers express that they do not want to interfere in the new family (Dudley, 1991). Co-parenting conflict tends to peak in the first two years post remarriage, but such conflict appears to decline over time either because of disengagement or management of the conflict (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Although disengagement by the nonresident parent might feel preferable to some new stepfamily couples, the potential for negative impact on the children who experience loss in their relationship with their nonresident parents is an important factor to consider. Depending on how children respond to the loss (usually internalizing and or externalizing behaviors), the new stepfamily relationships can be negatively affected (e.g., Visher & Visher, 1996; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Therefore, efforts to build appropriately engaged relationships with co-parents are recommended for children’s well-being and for healthy marital and parenting relationships in stepfamilies, except in cases where former partners are highly conflictual and abusive with each other and/or the children.

Summary points. Program objectives for navigating relationships with former spouses/ partners should focus on:

1. Knowledge of the importance of appropriate co-parenting relationships for the stepcouple relationship and the well-being of children

2. Development and use of co-parenting skills that maintain privacy between households; support a non-emotional, “business-like” connection between co-parents; enhance nonconflictual communication; and support the child’s relationship with each parent

5. Negotiating Stepfamily Roles and Rules

Despite the prevalence of stepfamilies and the fact that stepfamilies have been a focus for researchers and clinicians for at least two decades, clear societal norms about roles and relationships (i.e., positive patterns of functioning) have not yet developed. Cherlin first described the “incomplete institution” of stepfamilies in 1978, pointing to the lack of societal prescriptions for how stepfamilies should operate, and the situation does not seem to have changed substantially. For example, stepparents do not automatically have a legal parental relationship3 with stepchildren, which likely impacts a stepparent’s perception of his or her relationship to the stepchildren (Mason, 1994), nor are there norms for what stepchildren call stepparents. Some relationships in stepfamilies are named (e.g., stepsiblings, co-parents, stepparent/stepchild, stepgrandparent/stepgrandchild), and some are unnamed (e.g., former spouse/current spouse, former spouse/former spouse, former spouse/new child). Although there are no agreed-upon names for stepfamily members to call each other, perhaps the best solution is for each stepfamily to decide on the names, roles, and rules that serve their family best.

In general, strong stepfamily couples recognize that accepted norms for roles and stepfamily functioning are nearly nonexistent. They proactively work to negotiate mutually acceptable roles and rules within the stepfamily and with those connected to the stepfamily. They determine together the best ways to manage the unique financial issues inherent in stepfamilies, and they exhibit an understanding of the importance of being flexible and patient with the dynamic process of these negotiations (e.g., Golish, 2003; Ganong & Coleman, 2004; Visher & Visher, 1996). Bray and Kelly (1998) and Hetherington and Kelly (2002) both observed that well-functioning stepfamilies and couples in their longitudinal studies actively negotiated roles and rules and worked towards consensus. Similarly, clinical observation supports these skills as helpful and related to better marital functioning (Visher & Visher, 1996).

Because there are so few prescriptions for how individual roles and relationships should be defined or for what the rules that govern stepfamily households should be, it is imperative that stepfamily members be open to change and new ideas and concepts. In other words, it is important for stepfamily members to be flexible as individuals and as a family. It is also important for stepfamily members to be patient in the context of these developmental negotiations (e.g., Visher & Visher, 1996; Cissna et al., 1990).

We note that there are implications for gender roles in stepcouple relationships that may differ from first marital relationships (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). For women who move into subsequent unions, there is a pattern of seeking more power and control than they had in first marriages. Consequently, low-conflict remarriages are more likely to be those in which more egalitarian relationships are established across gender lines.

It is suggested that marriage education programs for stepcouples include explicit discussions of stepfamilies’ “non-normed” existence. Messages would center on negotiating skills for establishing their family-specific roles and rules. Topics to include could be names they will use for each other (in the household and across households), financial management practices, parenting strategies, and individual roles (including gender roles) in the family and within each dyad. Programs can also emphasize the dynamic nature of these processes. That is, negotiating roles and rules is not a one-time event, but rather it is a continuing, evolving process that incorporates family experiences and developmental changes.

Summary points. Program objectives for helping couples to successfully negotiate stepfamily roles and rules should focus on:

1. Knowledge of the importance of reaching consensus on family roles and rules (i.e., understand that there is no “prescription”)

2. The use of negotiating skills for reaching marital consensus in several important areas of family functioning (e.g., balance of family responsibilities, financial management practices, etc.)

6. Utilizing Financial Management Skills

Especially relevant for stepcouples is the lack of norms about financial management in stepfamilies and the influential role money plays in stepfamilies. Unpublished research suggests that financial issues should be emphasized and financial management skills should be included in programs for stepfamilies. The subject of money seems to be toxic for stepfamilies regardless of family income and may be especially contentious for stepfamilies with limited resources (Coleman, personal communication, 2006). For many women, financial stability is an important motivation for remarrying, but in one study this researcher found that few women had discussed finances in much detail with their partner before remarrying.

Instead of a prescription for managing complex financial relationships between biologically related and unrelated persons in the family system, it appears that most important for healthy stepcouple functioning is agreement about the level of support provided to resident and nonresident children and stepchildren (e.g., Ganong, Coleman, & Weaver, 2001; Engel, 1999; Lown, McFadden, & Crossman, 1989). Although it has been observed that, over time, most stepcouples adopt a “one pot” style of financial organization, research also indicates that it is agreement about the way that a couple organizes their money (e.g., separate accounts; one “pot”) that is most important rather than the actual organizational style (Bray & Kelly, 1998).

Summary points. Program objectives for helping couples to utilize financial management skills should focus on:

1. Encouraging stepcouples to discuss financial management practices, financial responsibilities to children and stepchildren, attitudes towards money

2. Financial management skills (e.g., budgeting, saving, etc.)

7. Utilizing Effective Parenting Practices

In stepfamily research, and subsequently in program content focused on stepfamilies, typically more attention is given to the stepparent-stepchild relationship(s) and the impact on marital functioning than to the relationship between original parents and their children. There is, however, research that indicates that parents and biological/adopted children also face unique relationship challenges in stepfamilies.

Resident parent-child relationships (typically, mother-child) frequently change during single-parent living and after remarriage. Some studies find that post-divorce mothers become more authoritarian (i.e., punitive, controlling) (Bray & Kelly, 1998), and some find post-divorce mothers become more disengaged and permissive (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Thomson et al., 2001). These parents then tend to again alter their parenting style after remarriage (e.g., a more permissive mother may become more strict following remarriage), creating difficulties in the parent-child relationship, particularly in the first few years (Bray & Berger, 1993; Hetherington & Jodl, 1994; O’Connor & Insabella, 1999).

There is also evidence that children may perceive a shift in their family roles and access to their resident parent after remarriage, and this can result in conflict and negative family relationships (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Children may feel displaced or replaced by the new spouse (Visher & Visher, 1996).

Empathizing with a child’s experience during a parent’s partner transitions can be helpful. In addition, attention to providing a consistent, predictable parenting environment is critical for children’s well-being and ultimately for family functioning. When parents actively monitor their child’s behaviors and display warmth and support for their child, over time well-being is enhanced (e.g., Baumrind, 1989).

Summary points. Programs should be prepared to address utilizing effective parenting practices in the stepfamily system. Program objectives should focus on:

1. Knowledge of and empathy for children’s experiences with potential shifts in family roles and perceived connection to parents

2. Positive parenting skills that incorporate a balance of consistent and appropriate monitoring and nurturance

8. Building Other Supportive Connections Inside and Outside Stepfamilies

There has been little research on sibling relationships in stepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Older statistics suggest that a high fraction of children in stepfamilies have biological siblings and stepsiblings. For example, Bumpass (1984) found that in the early 1980s one-third of children living in a stepfamily had a half sibling and two-thirds of children in stepfamilies had stepsiblings either in the home or in the home of their other parent. Sweet (1991) reported that one in 15 stepfamily households were complex stepfamilies in which stepsiblings resided together.

Research on relationships among children in stepfamilies for some time has recognized that difficulties in these relationships can “bubble up” and create stresses between stepparents, a phenomenon that has been called the “percolator effect” (Rosenberg & Hajfal, 1985, in Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Clinical studies indicate that biological/adopted children are especially reactive to perceived inequities in how parents treat them compared to stepsiblings and half-siblings. Implications for practice are that helping stepparents to treat children in the household consistently can enhance family functioning. Research also indicates that stepsiblings can have good relationships without high levels of emotional attachment (Anderson, 1999). Therefore, another implication for practice is to help parents to foster realistic expectations among stepsiblings for the quality of their relationships. For example, as in relationships between stepparents and stepchildren, parents can help stepsiblings negotiate levels of emotional closeness that are comfortable for them and provide assurances that feeling closer to one stepsibling in comparison to another is not a problem.

Beyond immediate family members, there is evidence that fostering stronger relationships with wider family and non-family networks can be beneficial, and that compared with nuclear families, stepfamilies tend to have weaker external family linkages (DeLongis, Capreol, Holtzman, O'Brien, & Campbell, 2004) and weaker ties to community institutions such as schools and churches (Deal, 2002; Visher et al., 2003). A perceived lack of social support is thought to impact negatively the marriage and stepfamily members (Dainton, 1993; Ganong & Coleman, 1997). Community institutions, however, often do not support and may inadvertently undermine stepfamilies. For example, schools routinely send report cards and other information home to only one parent’s household, make room for information on only two parents on forms, and omit stepmothers and stepfathers from cards and gifts made at school for holidays. Although some experts believe the situation gradually is improving (Bainbridge, personal communication, 2006), institutional accommodations for stepfamilies and the practice of providing specific resources for stepfamilies among community organizations and faith-based organizations is not considered widespread (Deal, 2002).

Discussions of proactive support-seeking should be part of program content in marriage education for stepfamily couples. Feeling supported and validated can have a positive impact on marital and family functioning (Visher, 2001). Research on low-income families suggests that, comparatively, low-income families both provide and receive outside support in many forms more so than do high-resource families (Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Because research on stepfamilies indicates that stepfamilies are comparatively less likely to receive external family support than nuclear families, the tendency for help-seeking and offering among low-income families could be viewed as a strength among low-income stepfamilies.

Marriage education programs for low-income couples that help couples understand the importance of and acquire skills to strengthen their social support networks are important. The foregoing suggests that such skills may be especially valuable for stepfamilies, and that programs should include material focused on strategies appropriate to the issues facing such families. For example, couples could learn to form support groups and advocate for school policies and practices and religious institution and community programs that recognize stepfamilies (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Crosbie-Burnett, 1995). In addition, approaches aimed at strengthening supports from extended family networks also would be helpful.

Summary points. Program objectives for building other supportive connections inside and outside the family should focus on:

1. Knowledge of children's tendencies to notice any parental favoritism in stepfamilies

2. Skills in negotiating equitable treatment and similarity of developmentally appropriate parenting styles used with children in the stepfamily

3. Knowledge of realistic expectations for stepsibling relationships (e.g., may be less emotionally close, but still positive)

4. Skills in seeking support from extra-familial sources (both community and extended family)

Conditions Affecting Stepfamilies

It is important that programs for low-income stepfamilies recognize and respond to the significant individual, family, and community characteristics that can affect stepcouple relationships. This special need arises in part because stepfamilies face a series of unique challenges, and because low-income stepfamilies face additional stressors arising from their financial situations.

In general, programs can address these conditions in two ways: (a) by providing or referring couples for services and (b) by teaching skills that help couples respond to challenges presented by these factors and make use of available resources. If programs are not able to provide services directly, they may make referrals to appropriate sources that will be able to provide the additional services stepcouples may need. With regard to coping skills, programs may choose to focus on specific issues (e.g., the way schools communicate with stepfamilies), or they may impart insights and skills relevant to broader classes of concerns (e.g., situations that cause stress).

In this section, we describe and note implications for programs for three categories of conditions that may affect stepfamilies:

1. Individual characteristics (e.g., mental health issues, substance abuse issues, lack of job skills)

2. Stepfamily characteristics (stage of development, age of children, complexity of stepfamily membership)

3. Community characteristics (cultural norms and assumptions, economic hardship, and high unemployment)

As is indicated in the conceptual model (Figure 1), the conditions can affect outcomes either directly or by influencing the impact of the marriage education program that is indicated by the arrow connecting "Conditions" to the arrow linking "Marriage Education Programs" to "Stepfamily Relationships."

Individual Characteristics

In a decade review of the research literature related to families in poverty, Seccombe (2000) reviewed numerous studies that point to higher levels of mental health and substance abuse issues and lower levels of education among those who live in poverty. Although the target population for this project is married stepfamilies with limited resources, not specifically impoverished stepfamilies, the research on families in poverty has some relevance. Other studies indicate that women who receive public assistance experience higher rates of partner violence (see Tolman & Raphael, 2000, for a review). In their longitudinal work with rural families, Conger and Elder (1994) also found that decreases in family income led to feelings of financial pressure, anxiety, and depression among both spouses. This feeling of financial pressure, in turn, increased the number of hostile exchanges between husbands and wives, which led to declines in marital satisfaction for both spouses over time. Ooms and Wilson (2004) also write, “Regardless of race or cultural background, being poor or near poor brings with it a host of factors—chronic shortage of money; accumulating debts; low levels of literacy; high rates of unemployment, incarceration, substance abuse, depression, and domestic violence; poor housing, unsafe neighborhoods, multiple-partner fertility —that place enormous stress on relationships in ways that scholars are only beginning to explore” (p. 441).

Because the prevalence of a variety of challenges or risk factors has been shown to be higher among low-income adults, programs for low-income families and stepfamilies should be prepared to respond to problems such as:

• mental health issues;

• substance abuse issues;

• exposure to domestic violence and/or physical aggression in past/current relationships;

• lack of job skills; and

• low levels of literacy/education.

A number of leading educators and scholars have argued that marriage education programs for low-income couples should provide assistance for those individuals who face the challenges listed above and related issues (e.g., Coatsworth et al., 2006; Halford et al., 2004; Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Screening and services can be provided up-front, as well as at various points in the program. Marriage education content also can deal with these issues by helping couples to recognize how personal challenges can affect their interaction, and, for some problems, by teaching skills for coping as individuals and couples. It is also suggested that these special issues be addressed in the program as a primary need—particularly in the case of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues (Ooms & Wilson, 2004). The more serious of these issues will most likely need to be addressed before the individual or couple will be able to benefit from a marriage education program. Regarding domestic violence, it is the ACF HMI's policy that marriage education programs screen for domestic violence and take steps to ensure the safety of persons participating in programs.

Stepfamily Characteristics

Stage of stepfamily development. Turning to characteristics of the stepfamily unit itself, one important factor is how long couples have been together at the point they participate in a marriage education program.4 New couples are likely to need the most help in adjusting to realities of stepfamily life that differ from their initial expectations (some of the key issues in expectations concerning marital and parenting relationships were discussed earlier in the chapter). The early stages of the relationship also are important as a time when commitment has not solidified, and material exploring long-term views of relationships may be especially helpful.

More specifically, program content for new stepfamily couples should cover information on the unique characteristics of stepfamilies and the skills needed to discuss and negotiate family roles and rules, resulting in a clearer shared view of the family and smoother transitions into the new family structure (e.g., Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Another important topic is co-parenting relationships with former partners/spouses, helping couples to develop a positive, low-conflict co-parenting relationship and support each other’s role as parent or stepparent. These are keys to how children fare in the transition.

At later stages of stepfamily development, programs are likely to encounter with some stepcouples some of the longer-term consequences of poor stepparent-stepchild relationships and marital dissatisfaction arising from these and other adjustment problems (Visher & Visher, 1996). If problems exist, they have had longer to develop, they may have become more serious and more challenging to resolve. Thus, marriage educators should be alert to couples who may need counseling or therapy, either as an alternative to or in conjunction with educational services. If possible, programs should identify and maintain a referral list of therapists who are skillful at working with stepfamilies (Browning, 1994).

Age of children. Couples who start stepfamilies may have children of varying ages at the start of the relationship, and children’s ages can have a profound effect on the development of the stepparent-stepchild relationship and, in turn, the stepcouple’s relationship. When children are younger, there is a greater likelihood that new stepparents will “claim” the stepchild and that the stepchild will accept the stepparent (Fine, Coleman, & Ganong, 1998; Marsiglio, 2004). Adolescents tend to have the most difficulty adjusting to their parents’ remarriage and new relationships with stepparents (Bray & Berger, 1993). Part of this problem may stem from difficulties many teens have in coming to terms with their parents’ divorce, an adjustment that may be even more difficult due to the independence granted during single parenting and the normal challenges characteristic of adolescence.

In light of these challenges, one way in which education programs may be able to help is by helping couples with adolescents to develop and impart to their children realistic expectations for stepparent-stepchild relationships. In addition, curricula should stress that the stepparent need not achieve the same level of a parent-child bond as a biological parent to be successful as a stepparent (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Another strategy is to offer special sessions for adolescents as part of marriage education programs. Such sessions might involve both adolescents and adults, or be designed for adolescents alone. Material would provide insights into stepfamily dynamics and teach skills related to empathy, anger, and conflict management.

Even for children who joined a stepfamily at a young age, the pre-adolescent and adolescent years can cause changes and difficulties. It is not unusual for adolescents who have had no contact with their absent parent to want to contact him/her and to fantasize about how wonderful living with him/her might be (Coleman & Ganong, 2004; Visher & Visher, 1997). The adolescent’s questions and new ways of looking at the stepfamily situation may throw the family into an unexpected crisis. Therefore, a focus on stepparent-stepchild relationships is likely to be beneficial for all stepfamily couples regardless of the ages of the children or the stage of stepfamily development.

Stepfamily complexity. Stepfamily relationships grow more complicated as consideration moves from families where only one spouse has children from a previous relationship (i.e., a “simple” stepfamily) to those where both spouses have children from a previous relationship (i.e., a “complex” stepfamily). Further complexity arises when the children of one or both spouses are from more than one previous relationship. What makes such situations more complex is the existence of multiple co-parenting relationships and a variety of stepsibling and half-sibling relationships within households and across households. Stepfamily complexity is increased in situations that include grandparents who have also played parental roles with their grandchildren.

In simple stepfamilies, in addition to establishing a healthy couple relationship, the main needs are for information on building healthy stepparent-stepchild relationships and on normative child development and positive parenting strategies. Although couples may have had a biological child together, the stepchild(ren) often will be older—hence, information on a variety of stages of child development can help stepparents to relate better to behaviors they may not have encountered yet in their own biological children. For couples in complex stepfamilies, more emphasis on building positive relationships among stepsiblings is likely to be helpful. Finally, general material on co-parenting skills is likely to be relevant regardless of whether couples are navigating one or multiple co-parenting relationships.

Community Characteristics

Community factors can both strengthen and cause difficulties in maintaining positive relationships in families, including stepfamilies. We did not identify any studies specifically focusing on these factors for stepfamilies. Research on community, culture and family relationships more generally allows us to offer some suggestions for working with stepfamilies from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Clinicians have noted that immigrants from countries with more traditional cultures may have negative views of stepfamilies. When they form stepfamilies themselves, they may be more likely to disguise their stepfamily status and impose nuclear family roles on stepfamily members (Berger, 1998).

For their part, marriage education programs need to be sensitive to existing values and not pressure couples into accepting new images of stepfamilies too quickly. Furthermore, as Halford (2000) noted, some cultures may have different norms about relationships that are functional. He stressed that the communication that is culturally appropriate between partners varies greatly by culture. For example, eye contact that is seen as active engagement in one culture can be felt as rude and aggressive in another culture. One way program staff can be sensitive to these cultural norms is to acknowledge that there are many different ideas about families (including stepfamilies); welcome discussion of these differences; explain the research and reasoning underlying the approach in their curriculum; and openly acknowledge that the research-based information presented may be counter to established norms for stepcouples in other cultures.

Although some cultures may be resistant to characteristics of stepfamilies, they may seem more familiar in other cultures. There is some evidence that African Americans, by virtue of their unique legacy—of a communal-oriented philosophy, permeability of external family boundaries, informal adoption, and role flexibility—have such a culture (Boyd-Franklin, 1989; Skolnick & Skolnick, 1992). However, assumptions that stepfamily adjustment may be comparatively easier among African Americans remains speculation. There are no empirical studies that have ascertained even indications of this potential difference.

Marriage education curricula should recognize and simply allow room for discussion of potential variation in norms about stepfamilies and acceptance of stepparents. The focus would be on affirming and/or enhancing strategies for effective co-parenting among multiple parents, involvement in parenting nonresident children, and reinforcing positive views of complex families.

In an earlier section, we emphasized the potential benefits of helping stepfamily couples to strengthen social support networks, noting that stepfamilies tend to have weaker networks than nuclear families (Curran, McLanahan, & Knab, 2003). As we speculated is the case for low-resource stepfamilies, it also may be that relatively stronger extended family ties among some ethnic groups may compensate somewhat for greater social isolation generally. Empirical research shows that extended family members are more likely to be involved in the daily lives of African American and Latino/Hispanic families, and that instrumental and emotional support is an important component of these relationships (Murry et al., 2004; Umana-Taylor, Bhanot, & Shin, 2006). On the other hand, special circumstances may interrupt otherwise strong family networks, as has been observed for first-generation immigrants from Latin America (Umana-Taylor et al., 2006). It is important that marriage education programs for stepfamilies recognize and build on strengths and address the problems of the specific couples with whom they are working, rather than simply assume uniform deficiencies across groups.

Program Service Delivery

Although our literature review did not identify evaluation studies of aspects of service delivery in the context of marriage education programs for low-income stepfamilies, we did find studies relevant to our work that examine implementation of programs for low-income populations generally or for marriage education generally. Here we review research relevant to recruiting and retaining low-income stepcouples in marriage education programs. Specifically, we discuss issues related to mixing economically and culturally diverse participants in a program, the need to have materials suitable for participants with low literacy skills, potential barriers to recruitment, and the involvement of children in marriage education services. Additional aspects of program implementation specific to our conceptual framework for marriage education for low-income stepcouples will be presented in the next chapter in the context of the study of programs.

Providing Services to Economically and Culturally Diverse Participants

Marriage educators will want to be sensitive to participants’ level of comfort in group settings with couples from diverse backgrounds. Low-income couples may be uncomfortable discussing financial stresses they are facing together in a group that also contains non-disadvantaged couples. Coatsworth et al. (2006) stressed the importance of promoting positive relationships within groups of low-income participants: “[Social] networks [for] low-income families are often built on trust, on the understanding and sympathy regarding daily needs, and on clear expectations of reciprocity. If low-SES participants [feel] that their new relationships with other members of the group do not contain these elements, they may [be] less willing to continue attending (p. 249).”

Also, low-income participants are less likely to have had positive experiences in previous educational settings. Recruitment materials can address some related concerns by explaining clearly how programs differ from traditional school approaches and provide “accurate, advance information about what [the program] will require from them and what they can expect to gain from it” (Duncan & Brown, 1992, p.157). Use of “motivational interviewing” during pre-program screenings to explain the program’s methods and benefits has been suggested to be especially helpful in promoting participation of low-income ethnic minority groups in family life programs (Coatsworth et al., 2006).

Scholars note that cultural influences may contribute to participants’ discomfort with participating in a community education group. In many cultures, marriage and relationships are seen as private, and attending group programs may be viewed as intrusive on family privacy (Halford, 2000). For many individuals, attending relationship education is not viewed as socially normative, but for some indigenous and culturally diverse ethnic groups the idea of attending relationship education programs is particularly “alien.” In some cultures, the extended family would expect to be involved in the education process for young couples, and the notion that “outsiders” are providing education on marital relationships may be viewed as inappropriate. Recruiting from these populations will be especially challenging, and care should be taken not to impose other cultural values even in a well-meaning effort to provide education. Scholars studying ethnic minority populations suggest “do no harm” implementation policies for programs, and expand the concept of “doing no harm” to cultural beliefs (Skogrand, Hatch, & Singh, 2005; Skogrand, personal communication, 2006).

There is also some suggestion from clinicians and practitioners (e.g., Bray, personal communication, 2006) who work with low-income, ethnic minority couples in stepfamilies that they may not identify with the term “stepfamily.” This may be considered a White, middle-class term. Program planners can assess through needs assessments or focus groups whether there exists a term that may be more culturally appropriate and may help with recruitment.

An additional concern noted by Coatsworth and colleagues (2006) is the importance of ensuring that materials and lectures be conveyed at reading and vocabulary levels that are comfortable for all members of the group. They recommended also that, where possible, program materials be provided in participants’ preferred language and that programs limit the use of written materials and assignments in and between classes. They also suggested that programs consider giving participants some choice in the topics covered in the program and the order in which topics are addressed.

Outreach and Recruitment

A number of key challenges may arise in recruiting low-income couples, whether stepcouples or not, for marriage education programs. In this section we discuss the potential barriers to involvement in marriage education posed by low-income couples’ limited flexibility in their schedules and stepfamilies’ reluctance to identify themselves as stepfamilies.

Low-income couples may find it more difficult than more advantaged families to make time for both partners to attend relationship education classes. Many low-income couples work two jobs, are less likely to have discretion concerning when and how much they work, often work long hours, and are more likely to work nonstandard shifts (evenings, nights, rotating, and weekends). Thus, they may have less overlapping time to spend together as a couple (Shipler, 2004). In addition to making it more difficult to attend relationship education classes, time pressures may make it more difficult for couples to apply what they learn at home and otherwise focus on building and maintaining their relationship. As a result, many emerging HMI programs are using formats that adapt to these constraints, such as offering programs at times participants identify as most convenient, offering repeat sessions, and having program staff make home visits.

As mentioned earlier, some stepfamily couples may feel a stigma attached to their stepfamily status and “disguise” their stepfamily status. One response is for marriage education programs to work with community leaders to promote a positive image of stepfamilies and encourage them to participate in programs. For example, programs may work with religious leaders to speak about the fact that many families in a congregation are stepfamilies, and offer information about a helpful educational resource that is available to build strengths in these couples’ relationships. Such support can help to persuade “invisible” stepfamily couples to volunteer in educational programs (Deal, 2002; Deal, personal communication, 2006). Another approach is to add stepfamily content to general marriage education programs since the participants are likely to include a number of stepfamilies already.

Involving Children in Marriage Education Programs

Marriage educators may consider adding sessions that include children, especially adolescents and pre-adolescents. Such formats may be especially helpful in programs for stepfamilies, because children’s behaviors have such an important influence on the marital relationship in these families (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; O’Connor et al., 1997). Material appropriate for adolescents and pre-adolescents includes basic insights into aspects of, and common problems in, stepfamily development, and skill-building in the areas of communication, anger management, and conflict de-escalation and management. Such recommendations fit within a tradition of family systems approaches often used in family therapy (see Nichols & Schwartz, 2001). A variety of formats are possible, including parallel classes just for children, classes including children and parents, and providing parents materials and exercises to share with their children. Marriage educators should consider partnering with experienced youth development leaders in implementing such approaches.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next