Introduction
Relationship breakdown in heterosexual couples is prevalent in many societies across the Western world (EUROSTAT, 2012). The UK government has been considering how to encourage healthy family stability through early intervention programmes and how to remove the barriers to couple formation and marriage. There have been calls for restoring marriage at a time when citizens are experiencing multiple relationship transitions, including marriage and divorce, non-marital childbearing, cohabitation, lone parenthood and step-parenting. The cost of relationship breakdown has been calculated at approximately £43.94 billion per annum (Relationships Foundation, 2012). This incorporates direct expenditure on income support for lone parents and tax credits, housing, health and social care, civil and criminal justice and education.
This article examines couple relationship education (CRE) that endeavours to assist couples in sustaining healthy, mutually satisfying relationships, and to reduce relationship distress and separation. CRE is the provision of structured education about relationship knowledge, attitudes and skills (Halford et al., Reference Halford, Markman and Stanley2008: 497). Some people acquire these attributes through life experiences, but many people do not. These programmes can assist in preventing relationship issues from escalating into problems. Although the government tends to construct them as ‘gender neutral’, the fact is that these programmes operate within a gendered society.
My argument is that without adequate political recognition of the disadvantage relating to issues such as gender and class by the UK government, the potential to address the relationship needs and concerns of women and men in both the public and private sphere is diminished. It is thus imperative that policies addressing matters such as the struggle to balance work and family and to achieve financial security are coordinated with marriage and relationship strengthening programmes. Studies have shown that couples who attend CRE are from middle-class, highly educated backgrounds (Coleman, Reference Coleman2012: 22). Knowledge of how to promote access to services designed for disadvantaged or vulnerable couples is therefore critical (Halford and van Acker, Reference Halford, van Acker, Noller and Karantzas2012). This includes people from different ethnic backgrounds, older people, couples where one or both are entering a second marriage or couples where one or both have a disability. Advocating marriage per se is too simplistic a solution to the complex problems of couples with diverse needs or low-income earners.
Robust relationships are linked to successfully balancing work and family, which in turn requires access to decent paying jobs, adequate child care and family friendly employment policies. Ideally, if CRE was coordinated with other policies such as public health, this may help to confront the gendered public/private division and tailor services to meet the needs of women and men. Spousal contentment and relationship stability are related to factors such as realistic expectations, commitment and emotional maturity, but also to adequate income and satisfaction with work and children (Walker et al., Reference Walker, Barrett, Wilson and Chang2010). Investing in more relationship support so that couples with scarce resources can develop more satisfying relationships would require addressing associated problems such as child poverty, low education and poor housing. In this article, the first section sets the scene by covering the Coalition government and its policy environment. The second section examines the specifics of CRE and then considers its potential to address gender issues and related challenges concerning diversity.
Government policies to strengthen marriage and couple relationships
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government tends to conflate stable couple relationships with stable families when attempting to develop relationship support. The challenge is to develop and implement a marriage and relationship policy that supports healthy, functional relationships. Stable families are not necessarily the answer, as they could be dysfunctional, even if enduring. For example, a woman who is subjected to domestic violence may be too scared to leave her marriage, but it would appear to the outside world that her relationship was ‘stable’.
The Coalition government has revived policies to cultivate stable marriages and strengthen couple relationships as a legitimate area for policy intervention. Prime Minister David Cameron has supported the US's Healthy Marriage Initiative which the Bush Administration established in 2002, championing it as an important strategy for strengthening the family (Cameron, Reference Cameron2008). Mr Cameron treasures marriage and has pushed for a transferable tax allowance for married spouses (amid anger towards his proposal to abolish the child trust fund in 2010). The Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Duncan Smith, demands tax breaks to end the ‘bias’ against married couples (Porter, Reference Porter2011). Although the Liberal Democrats do not support the tax recommendation and are free to abstain from voting on the issue, the introduction of tax breaks is on the political agenda. The tax has been receiving much public attention, but there is a lack of evidence that a small tax concession would be a sufficient incentive to persuade people to get married if they would not otherwise (de Waal, Reference de Waal2008). Furthermore, any government-sanctioned tax incentives and benefits from marriage, almost by definition, impose economic penalties and reduce the welfare of families where parents are not married, have never married or are divorced. Yet, despite the disagreements surrounding the tax, the proposal sends a symbolic message highlighting the value government places on marriage.
The Coalition agreement promised to ‘put funding for relationship support on a stable, long-term footing’ and to encourage couples to ‘use existing relationship support’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 20). Accordingly, the Coalition government announced support of £30 million over four years, funding service providers to deliver couple relationship programmes via the Department for Education. Evaluation of the various programmes was expected by late 2013. The findings of these randomised control trials (while not conclusive) will be critical in ascertaining whether any resulting pro-marriage landscape or evidence of stronger relationships would indicate that CRE would be a valuable use of public funds. If evaluations are positive, CRE could be expanded by working with existing service providers and infrastructure and would require a modest increase in funding.
The increased political and financial support for CRE provides a good start to strengthening gender relations. However, there have been few strategic efforts to connect the programmes to a wider network of services that could address challenges such as balancing family and work. In fact, the government is attempting to discharge governmental responsibilities onto individuals, communities and, most especially, to women and families. In a climate of increased austerity measures, there have been cuts to maternity payments, pregnancy and child benefits and services to women. Further, women make up 64 per cent of low paid workers, plus women will take on more caring roles as state services are withdrawn (Fawcett Society, 2013). Despite four decades of equal pay legislation, women were paid 79 per cent of male rates in 2010 (Allen, Reference Allen2010). The number of unemployed women was at a sixteen-year high in early 2012 (Hall, Reference Hall2012).
The following section examines CRE and its history, format, coverage and the organisations that offer them.
Couple Relationship Education
Healthy gender relations are imperative for sustaining strong, stable and satisfying relationships (McLanahan and Sandefur, Reference McLanahan and Sandefur1994; Amato and Booth, Reference Amato and Booth1997; Somerville, Reference Somerville2000). CRE is an important policy consideration because it provides opportunities to advance gender equalities and lessons about how women and men can articulate their needs and talk about their respective rights, their commitment to each other, how to raise their children and how to deal with emotions. CRE can be traced back to the 1940s when political support for what was then called ‘marriage guidance’ began. In 1949, the Home Office provided minimal funding to the Catholic Church and the Family Welfare Association and over the decades the emphasis on preparing for marriage and education for personal relationships increased (van Acker, Reference van Acker2008). CRE is designed to assist couples in communicating and dealing with problems before they worsen, thereby avoiding divorce and economic difficulties (Halford et al., Reference Halford, Markman and Stanley2008). It provides opportunities for partners to discuss and adopt more flexible attitudes toward their relationship and enhance its quality.
CRE encompasses a range of different programmes and approaches: it is designed in different formats and can be delivered in a variety of settings. These include face-to-face classes which use an information-awareness approach, completing inventories which use an assessment approach with feedback or specific programmes such as Relationships Enhancement or the Premarital Relationship Enhancement programme which adopt skills training approaches (Halford and Snyder, Reference Halford and Snyder2012). Community sector organisations, such as Marriage Care, clergy, trained para-professionals, religious and lay leaders and teachers, deliver these services. Some providers charge a small fee (approximately £90) often based on an income scale. If couples do not want to participate in classes delivered via a Church, many programmes are delivered through relationship support services agencies, such as Relate or locally based community and family groups. Couples who wish to marry in the Catholic Church must undertake CRE, but otherwise the programmes are usually voluntary. Self-directed formats include books, DVDs, questionnaires, distance learning and online informational support and relationship programmes such as the range of online learning services offered by One Plus One. Research has calculated that 61 per cent of CRE is pre-marriage education and that approximately 24 per cent of all couples getting married receive some type of CRE (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Lynas and Percival2009: 51).
CRE addresses gender issues in different ways, offering strategies to tackle concerns such as the domestic labour and emotional support that women provide. It encompasses relationship knowledge by covering matters such as positive communication, managing conflict, balancing work and home and dealing with intimacy and sexuality. To improve relationship quality, programmes consider issues such as handling finances, sharing domestic chores and raising awareness about couple interactions and disagreements. CRE reflects on the role of romance and unrealistic expectations in couple relationships, offering a grounded analysis of people's experiences (van Acker, Reference van Acker2008). It is important to note that CRE is different from couple therapy, because it is intended for couples who are presently satisfied in their relationship and committed to it. It provides couples with insights about their attitudes, behaviours and expectations that can build on the strengths of their relationship and prevent the erosion of relationship satisfaction that many couples undergo (Halford and Snyder, Reference Halford and Snyder2012). Preventing relationship breakdown by strengthening a couple's relationship has profound benefits for adult and child well-being and for the parenting ability of the couple (Coleman and Glenn, Reference Coleman and Glenn2009).
Evaluations of the long-term effects of CRE are lacking, but would be extremely useful. Although there are no longitudinal studies, there is evidence of the short-term effectiveness of skills training, in particular immediately after programmes (Hahlweg and Markman, Reference Hahlweg and Markman1988), and that improvements continue over time (Halford et al., Reference Halford, Wilson, Watson, Verner, Larson, Busby and Holman2010). At present, evidence from several studies has found that programmes of a few hours duration can improve communication skills and relationship quality, thereby strengthening relationships over a period of one to five years (Carroll and Doherty, Reference Carroll and Doherty2003; Stanley et al., Reference Stanley, Amato, Johnson and Markman2006, Hawkins et al., Reference Hawkins, Stanley, Blanchard and Albright2012). Benson's survey of 733 responses to marriage preparation from ten Community Trusts throughout the UK reported high satisfaction with the program: resolving conflict, general tips and getting to know each other better. Participants tended to be religious, and well educated with a high income (cited in Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009: 37–38). Another study of marriage education delivered via the Catholic Church received positive evaluation (Coleman, Reference Coleman2012). Moreover, it has been suggested that regardless of the content of any specific curriculum, the act of participating in CRE with one's partner may in itself have a positive effect on commitment (Hawkins et al., Reference Hawkins, Stanley, Blanchard and Albright2012).
Marriage and gender inequalities
Many feminists argue that marriage is a site of gendered power relationships that entails distinct gender roles buttressed by legal rules and sanctions. From a public policy viewpoint, the state has an interest in guaranteeing that people marry, procreate and take care of one another (Tronto, Reference Tronto and Shanley2004: 38). In addition, it is in the state's interest to keep marriages intact and lessen the cost of divorce on the public purse. The state defines, confers and uses marital status as a way of protecting and supporting intimate caregivers (families) in ways which place the burden on women.
Although marriage has been a symbol of women's oppression, it is not a historically fixed institution: gender relations have changed. Couples now bring emotional expectations to marriage based on love and the ideal of lifelong monogamy and intimacy (Coontz, Reference Coontz2005). Marriage has steadily become fairer, more fulfilling and more effective in fostering the well-being of both adults and children, but it has also become more optional and more fragile (Coontz, Reference Coontz2005: 301). Many women marry for emotional reasons, based on personal choice and romantic expectations (van Acker, Reference van Acker2008). As Grymes (Reference Grymes1996) puts it,
Whatever we may have accomplished in legislation, the gap between women's and men's understanding of relationships, marriage and home life has remained wide. For many women, relationships are the centre of our universe, often to a fault. We tend to subordinate ourselves and our work to our relationships. (1996: 23)
The allure of marriage remains not only because it ‘continues to be identified with the emotional security of regular companionship’, but because marriage offers ‘promises of romance and intimacy’ (Shumway, Reference Shumway2003: 229). The emotional life of marriage is linked to the myth of ‘living happily ever after’, which is a significant factor in modern cultures and relationships for both women and men. However, the increased expectations of romantic love can lead to more vulnerable relationships and disappointment (Somerville, Reference Somerville2000). Giddens argues that marriage has become ‘just one life-style among others’ (Reference Giddens1992: 154), as more couples choose a ‘pure relationship’ which is entered into for its own sake, based on sexual and emotional equality. However, Giddens does not consider gender inequalities in relationships or within the domestic sphere. The assumption that two people in a couple are equal and autonomous, can articulate their needs and talk about their respective rights and obligations is questionable, given that an estimated 45 per cent of marriages end in divorce.
Gender inequality continues to be one of the main barriers to satisfying heterosexual relationships. While marriage laws are gender-neutral, cultural norms and employment practices perpetuate a division of labour at work and at home that result in a system of gender hierarchy (O'Connor et al., Reference O'Connor, Orloff and Shaver1999; Shanley, Reference Shanley and Shanley2004). A well-known problem is that marriage tends to reproduce and solidify a gendered division of labour and norms of dependency. Overall, wives support their husbands in ways that offer women fewer benefits than men. Women take responsibility for their family's emotional intimacy. Consequently, the division between workers and caregivers makes it less likely that men will develop interpersonal and caregiving skills (Shanley, Reference Shanley and Shanley2004). Women's domestic labour is unpaid, unmonitored and not reciprocal (Marso, Reference Marso2010). Women still do the ‘double’ or ‘second shift’ (Hochchild and Machung, Reference Hochchild and Machung1990), performing housework and retaining primary responsibility for child care and other family members, even if they are the principal bread winner (Somerville, Reference Somerville2000; Cooke and Baxter, Reference Cooke and Baxter2010; Kan, Reference Kan and McFall2012).
The gender division of labour is very slowly breaking down: men's contribution to domestic work increased from ninety minutes per day in the 1960s to 148 minutes per day in the early 2000s (Kan et al., Reference Kan, Sullivan and Gershuny2011: 236–7). Nevertheless, 2009–10 data from Understanding Society showed that amongst married couples of working age women carry out approximately 15.4 hours of housework (excluding childcare) per week while men carry out an average of 5.8 hours (cited in Kan, Reference Kan and McFall2012). Further studies have shown that the division of labour within the home is a significant source of marital distress. Each partner's perception of fairness (rather than the actual amount of time that they contribute to household chores and childcare) is linked to marital quality (Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009).
Different wage earning capacities give men more material resources and this in turn affects dynamics within the family. In 2012, full-time earnings for men were £546 per week compared to £449 per week for women. The gender pay gap continued, but decreased slightly from 10.5 per cent in 2011 to 9.6 per cent in 2012 (ONS, 2012a). A husband's legal and economic authority over his wife has diminished, but people have ‘inherited unconscious habits and emotional expectations that perpetuate female disadvantage in marriage’ (Coontz, Reference Coontz2005: 311). Moreover, women may pay a significant ‘motherhood penalty’ for having children. An analysis of cohort studies by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that women born in 1958 who had their first child between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-two were likely to earn 12 per cent less than women without children. For women born in 1970 who had children at the same age, this difference was approximately 10 per cent. If women born in 1958 had their first child between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, they were likely to earn 17 per cent less than a woman without children. Those born in 1970 who had children at the same age were likely to earn 20 per cent less than women without children (IPPR, 2013: 15). Wives who do not participate in the paid workforce may be financially dependent on their husbands, thereby generating women's vulnerability within their marriage and reducing their ability to leave unsatisfactory relationships (Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009). Nevertheless, men may also be vulnerable. Men tend to work longer hours: 18 per cent work more than 50 hours per week, compared to six per cent of women (OECD, 2013). Consequently, many men have a poor work–life balance, which causes stress in their relationships. Because men are usually the main income earner in male/female households that are raising children, there is more pressure on them with the threat or reality of unemployment (Wilkins, Reference Wilkins2013).
It is as unreasonable to condemn matrimony as it is to suggest it as a panacea for the social ills in contemporary society (which some politicians have done, particularly in the wake of the 2011 riots). Acknowledging that wedlock does not necessarily provide solutions would move beyond allegations about the demise of personal responsibility, parental authority and family values. This is not to suggest that people want to abandon marriage. Various studies indicate that the aspiration to marry is still high among young people (North, cited in Relate, 2011) and this applies across the social and economic spectrum (Callan, Reference Callan2008). Given these aspirations, it seems sensible for policy makers to provide support to encourage satisfying couple relationships. Accordingly, it is important to increase awareness about gender issues in marriage such as romantic expectations, the emotional and domestic division of labour and financial security mentioned above. The next section demonstrates the challenges in addressing these gender concerns when considering the potential of CRE.
Challenges concerning gender and CRE
It has been difficult for governments to support CRE for a number of reasons concerning the policy constellation and dilemmas of policy that support gender relations. Intervening in the personal sphere of partner relationships, confronting the needs of low-income earners and disadvantaged couples and addressing the lack of awareness about, and participation in, CRE are just some of the obstacles that governments will encounter if they are intent on making CRE programmes as effective as possible.
The personal sphere of partner relationships
Controversial debates about the ‘proper’ role of governments in managing, promoting or altering the boundaries around marriage and couples have flourished (Clulow, Reference Clulow2005; Butler and Margo, Reference Butler, Margo, Pearce and Margo2007; Morgan, Reference Morgan2007; de Waal, Reference de Waal2008, Centre for Social Justice, 2010). Couple relationships are commonly believed to be an intimate and personal matter and ‘none of the government's business’ (van Acker, Reference van Acker2008). Although the Conservative Party has consistently advocated and praised marriage, the previous Labour government retreated from strong support for marriage in the early 2000s as it became reluctant to intervene in personal relationship matters. The elimination of child poverty and not excluding or penalising single mothers were issues for the Labour Party (van Acker, Reference van Acker2008). Government support for CRE was condemned for promoting a nanny state and being paternalistic. Politicians were accused of social engineering and telling people what to do (McLanahan et al., Reference McLanahan, Donahue and Haskins2005). Governments therefore face a policy dilemma because they wish to avoid accusations that they are ‘preaching’ to their citizens, but the success or demise of people's personal relationships is related to relationship problems including low living standards, health care, unemployment and demands for welfare support.
Confronting the needs of low-income earners and disadvantaged couples
Governments may wish to increase marriage rates, however marriage has changed in terms of its trends and who gets married. First, marriage may be a consequence rather than a cause of stable relationships. Successful marriage can be partially explained by self-selection, that is men and women who choose to marry in the first place are more likely than unmarried couples to be better adapted and have better relationships (Cowan and Cowan, Reference Cowan and Cowan2005). They are also likely to have steady employment, higher education and higher wages. While marriage does not actually cause these differences, couples who are financially well-off are more likely to marry and to remain married (Smock, Reference Smock2004). Analysis of data from the Millennium Cohort Study comparing cohabitation and marriage to ascertain which led to more relationship stability found that while cohabiting parents are more likely to separate than married ones, ‘different sorts of people choose to get married and have children’ (Goodman and Greaves, Reference Goodman and Greaves2010). Moreover, children whose parents were married achieved better cognitive and social outcomes, on average, than children born into other family types. Relationship stability in this study can be explained by higher levels of education and higher socio-economic status. Other explanatory factors included some aspects of family structure, for example if the mother was young or whether her pregnancy was planned (Goodman and Greaves, Reference Goodman and Greaves2010). It may be the selection effect rather than marriage per se that has a direct bearing on relationship stability and outcomes for children.
The government wants people to get married, but couples may avoid marriage because they are fearful that they cannot meet its high expectations. Couples are unwilling to make the commitment and are not confident that marriages last forever (Walker et al., Reference Walker, Barrett, Wilson and Chang2010). Opting for cohabitation requires a private commitment that is not as difficult to break and avoids the potential distress of divorce. Furthermore, many cohabiting couples do not wish to pay for a wedding (McGinnis, Reference McGinnis2003). The cost of an average wedding in 2013 was more than £16,000 (UK Wedding and Belles, 2013).
Marriage has increasingly become a ‘luxury item’ or an indicator of prestige and status (Cherlin, Reference Cherlin2004). Before they wed, individuals wish to achieve certain life markers first, such as establishing a successful career, robust finances, travelling and experiencing different lifestyles. Couples are unlikely to choose matrimony if they are unable to afford or access the milestones such as completing their education and buying a house. Marriage therefore has become an unattainable goal for many lower-income, low-educated couples who want secure employment, good housing and future prospects before considering wedding plans (Walker et al., Reference Walker, Barrett, Wilson and Chang2010). Less educated women are more likely to cohabit, raise children out of wedlock and experience the dissolution of their relationships (Holmes and Kiernan, Reference Holmes and Kiernan2010). This is connected to wider problems such as inadequate access to health, education, employment, social support and housing (Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Joshi and Dex2010). Lower status work and lower income levels are linked to higher divorce, and divorce is more likely when the husband is unemployed or has erratic employment (Kiernan and Mueller, Reference Kiernan and Mueller1998). Financial pressures can cause stress and conflict in marriages and relationships (Glenn and Coleman, Reference Glenn and Coleman2009; Joseph and Rowlingson, Reference Joseph and Rowlingson2011). Consequently, family instability and poverty can mutually reinforce one another. If couples on low incomes do marry, this will not magically raise their family out of poverty if their circumstances are difficult, for instance when they have few skills, no jobs, and poor housing. Further, some individuals may be struggling with depression, substance abuse or domestic violence, and have inadequate resources to deal with their problems.
Governments have not adequately coordinated the delivery of programmes that would offer low-income couples the opportunity to strengthen their personal relationships with policies that balance gender, family and work commitments. Yet couples who are poor face greater risks of relationship breakdown. If their relationship does end, they are likely to experience more poverty (Kiernan et al., Reference Kiernan, Land and Lewis2004). Exacerbated by recent policies, one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the UK is the working poor family, including one or two parents who are in the labour market, but whose wages are insufficient to raise their family above the poverty threshold. Low-income mothers are being encouraged to move into paid work, but they cannot cover the high cost of childcare (Fawcett Society, 2013). There have been discussions about tax relief for childcare costs, particularly for the working poor with young children, but they have not been finalised (Wintour, Reference Wintour2013). Greater paternity leave and support for fathers would also help (Stanley and Williams, Reference Stanley, Williams and Stanley2005).
As Hughes and Cooke succinctly express it, ‘poverty is a cause of fractured families as well as being its consequence’ (Reference Hughes, Cooke, Pearce and Margo2007: 250). In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, women in low-income work or lone mothers bore the brunt of government policies and calls for severe cuts to public spending (Institute for Public Policy Research, 2009). Of course, a range of policies and programmes target poor families. The Social Justice Outcomes Framework (HM Government, 2012) presents the government's vision where different services collaborate to tackle the cause of poverty. The goal is to shape future policy by highlighting priorities and identifying progress as well as areas where more attention is necessary. A crucial aspect is supporting families, family stability and the quality of parental relationships. The framework acknowledges the importance of ‘the presence of the same two parents in a warm, stable relationship throughout childhood’ (HM Government, 2012: 8). In its goal of delivering social justice, the framework highlights the need to support young people and the most disadvantaged adults and emphasises the value of work. But it does not include other measures such as assessing well-being outcomes for these groups or acknowledging the relevance of conflict and communication and mental health for couple relationships or children. Moreover, marriage policies such as CRE cannot work if men are chronically unemployed, in prison, on drugs, abusive or depressed (Carbone and Cahn, Reference Carbone, Cahn, Garrison and Scott2012: 25). Addressing economic hardship and improving social services is imperative, but neglecting the couple relationship which is at the heart of the family is not the answer: a multi-dimensional strategy that incorporates diverse needs, including gender, is essential to develop and implement effective programmes.
Couples who have little resilience in their personal relationship during difficult times confront many challenges. Low-income families continue to endure more than their share of inadequate access to education, health, housing, job opportunities, child support or paid parental leave, thereby feeling the strains on their relationships (Fawcett Society, 2013). If conflict occurs as a result of economic and social pressures, and partners do not support each other, this leads to weaker relationships (Glenn and Coleman, Reference Glenn and Coleman2009).
Marriage is not a remedy that can replace the government's obligations towards poor, lone mothers and fathers. However, a major repercussion of divorce or relationship breakdown is that it hits women disproportionately. The income of women with children decreases by 12 per cent, while that of their partners increases by about 30 per cent on separation (Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2008). Because society often assumes that mothers ‘should’ bear primary responsibility for the care of children, women are more likely to become the main carers when relationships break down, therefore becoming lone parents. In 2011, there were nearly 2 million lone parents with dependent children: women accounted for 92 per cent of lone parents and men for 8 per cent. These percentages have been consistent since 2001 (ONS, 2012b). Half of all lone parents live in poverty and experience declining living standards (Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2008). The median gross weekly pay for male single parents is £346, while for female single parents it is £194.40 (Fawcett Society, 2013).
Increasing awareness of and participation in CRE
Apart from the above economic problems, a service delivery challenge related to the government's current CRE measures is the lack of public awareness about the programmes. There is little knowledge and insufficient funding for advertising and publicising the available services. People who could benefit from the programmes may be unaware that they exist or that they would be useful. At a broader level, there are gaps in the delivery of CRE: programmes are not easy to find, access or understand and are offered by organisations that do not have secure funding to be able to monitor the services that they provide (Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009: 97). A Department of Children, Schools and Families study noted that couples spoke very positively about the value of CRE because it encouraged them to think and discuss issues which they may not have otherwise considered (Walker et al., Reference Walker, Barrett, Wilson and Chang2010: 70). This finding reinforces the various evaluative studies mentioned above which demonstrate the soundness of CRE. Programmes could be advertised at health clinics, Sure Start centres, women's centres, men's groups and register offices to raise awareness and to encourage more participation. By normalising CRE, it could become as acceptable to attend as it is to attend antenatal or parenting classes.
A related policy challenge in implementing CRE is changing people's attitudes so that it becomes more acceptable to participate in the programmes. Attitudinal barriers to attending relationship programmes include the belief that adults ‘naturally’ know how to be good partners and do not need any measures such as relationship teaching to develop skills (Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009: 44). Men in particular appear reluctant to seek and participate in relationship support programmes, and have little understanding about what support is available (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Brownlie and Given2009; Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009; Gelatt et al., Reference Gelatt, Adler-Baeder and Seeley2010). Men are more likely than women to regard these services as for people with very serious problems and are less likely to feel comfortable talking to any therapist or counsellor (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Brownlie and Given2009). Women are more willing to discuss their personal relationships and accept that they might benefit from support (Chang and Barrett, Reference Chang and Barrett2009). A recent report by the Men's Health Forum in conjunction with Relate recommends that the Department for Education should pilot a campaign to encourage men to engage in relationship support and to improve and increase the access points to these services (Wilkins, Reference Wilkins2013). If the government is to spend its investment effectively, it needs to address the resistance or stigma attached to participating in programmes such as CRE.
Conclusions
The current UK government values marriage. It has not, however, acknowledged that marriage continues to be a gendered institution and confronts numerous obstacles, tensions and contradictions. In response to the growing political concern about strengthening marriage and couple relationships, the government has endorsed programmes such as CRE. These programmes, while not a panacea for gender inequalities, offer potential to address gender concerns so that men and women can improve communication, learn problem-solving skills and manage conflicts and enhance the quality of their relationships. This article, however, has demonstrated that CRE for the ‘well-to-do’ is not enough and that it should be more easily available for those on low incomes: flourishing relationships do not develop in a policy vacuum. It has argued that public investment is required not only in adult education programmes that provide relationship knowledge and skills, but in recognising disadvantage for diverse groups and alleviating stressful areas of daily life such as juggling work and family, employment opportunities and family friendly work environments. Government contributions at the macro level can assist with addressing the problems and pressures confronted by families and which affect their marital relationships, while CRE can help with relationship knowledge and quality at the micro level.
Although these programmes offer couples assistance with developing their personal skills, in isolation CRE is unlikely to appreciably affect the well-being of disadvantaged women and men and their children. The decline in policy support for women demonstrates the low priority given to gender concerns and needs, even though this support could actually contribute to stronger couple relationships. Government cutbacks, as well as low pay and high unemployment, will add to financial anxiety and relationship pressures, thereby detracting from any benefits from CRE. Assuming a neutral role for the individuals within marriage will do little to heed women's demands for domestic and economic equality. Policies have not explicitly acknowledged the implications of couples’ high expectations of relationships or that domestic labour persists as a burden for women.
While it is crucial to acknowledge the financial constraints that the UK government is facing, expanding the availability of CRE does not have to be an expensive investment. Programmes can be delivered with a small increase in funding for service providers. The success of CRE depends on increasing people's accessibility to services, raising awareness and motivating couples, especially men, to participate. Evaluations of the effectiveness of the programmes, not just in the short-term, would also be useful.
Overall, programmes to strengthen relationships should be positioned within a gendered context that considers both the public and the private spheres. A clear, coherent strategy combining couple relationship support and ‘gender-friendly’ policies is surely feasible and desirable for strengthening all families, not just the wealthy.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University for its ongoing support.
