Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter 3: Study of Programs Serving Stepfamilies

The project team conducted a series of informal telephone interviews with 16 current marriage education programs directed at stepfamilies. The primary purpose of these interviews was to add practitioners’ perspectives on stepfamilies’ needs to the development of the conceptual framework. A second objective was to document practical lessons learned by those who have been providing marriage education programs to stepfamilies. Specifically, we sought to identify the range of approaches, methods, and content used in selected programs for stepfamily couples and to understand common program goals and challenges. We did not intend our study of selected programs for stepfamilies to provide a systematic review of current programs.

This chapter starts with a description of the approach we used to identify and review marriage education programs targeting stepfamilies. Next comes a discussion of the programs’ service delivery approaches and primary content. Then we describe programs that seek to provide information about stepfamilies to professionals who work with them. Last, we discuss how stepfamilies might be approached in healthy marriage programs directed at the general population and in organizations addressing a range of other needs of low-income families.

Program Study Approach

The goal in our search for marriage education programs for stepfamilies was to identify a range of types of programs, rather than conduct an exhaustive survey of all programs or types of programs. We looked in particular for programs whose goal is to support and improve the marriages of low-income stepfamily couples through direct education. Our primary interest was in educational, rather than therapeutic, services, and in services provided in-person or over the telephone, rather than only through written materials. Given our emphasis on services for stepcouples, we did not study programs that primarily address the needs of children in stepfamilies, although we did ask programs whether they provided special services for children. We were especially interested in identifying programs that worked with low-income stepcouples from diverse racial/ethnic communities. We expected that people with different backgrounds would have different concepts of marriage, gender roles, and the appropriate relationship of the stepfamily to the broader extended family and to the community—and that these concepts would play a part in stepfamily relationships.

Although not intended to be comprehensive, our search for stepfamily programs nonetheless was extensive. We used a variety of approaches to identify relevant programs. These included “top-down” approaches, such as contacting curriculum developers, experts in the stepfamily and general marriage education fields, and representatives of “umbrella” and membership organizations likely to know of programs for stepfamilies (e.g., Stepfamily Association of America; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services; Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples; and the Office of the Military Community and Family Policy, and individual military branch family service programs). We also used “bottom-up” approaches such as Internet searches using relevant key words, and contacting organizations that focus on the needs of low-income families (e.g., public housing authorities and community action agencies). Realizing that there were unlikely to be many programs specifically targeting low-income couples, we broadened our search to include educational programs for higher-income stepfamilies. We included faith-based and secular organizations in our search for stepcouple programs.

Locating programs targeting stepcouples was more challenging than we had expected. Despite considerable effort and over 200 telephone calls, we identified approximately 40 programs serving stepfamilies. None of these programs was targeted specifically to economically disadvantaged stepfamilies. We repeatedly found that contacts we expected to lead us to programs did not know of any programs for stepfamilies at any income level. For example, we expected to locate programs through developers of curricula for stepfamilies. Although we identified nine curricula developed specifically for stepfamilies (eight of them are reviewed in Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004), we found programs using only three of these curricula (and one is in use only in Canada). Many of the programs we contacted that focus on low-income families were not aware of any services targeting stepfamilies. Although many of our calls did not lead to stepfamily programs, they were nonetheless useful for learning more about logistical and other aspects of serving low-income and diverse families.

From the identified programs, we selected for interviewing16 that in our judgment represented well the range of implementation formats and organizational settings of the programs we had identified. Our telephone conversations with program staff typically lasted 30 to 45 minutes. The conversations were exploratory, open-ended discussions of key aspects of the programs, including program content, design and format, and outreach efforts. We also visited one program that provided a four-hour single-session workshop for stepparents. This program provided an opportunity to observe the presentation of a number of core stepfamily topics in a single session.

Although we found a small number of programs targeting stepfamilies and none specifically for economically disadvantaged stepfamilies, we did find a large amount of written material on stepfamilies, including books, pamphlets, and information on websites. Some of the websites and downloadable publications were available in simple language and easy-to-read formats. Given that low-income groups have less access to the Internet, it is unlikely that low-income stepfamilies are accessing these materials in large numbers.

Service Delivery of Marriage Education Programs for Stepfamilies

Here we describe findings on several key service delivery elements of the conceptual framework’s marriage education program. The program study was especially useful for this aspect of the conceptual framework, because the research literature provides no evaluation studies of service delivery aspects of programs. This section focuses on a number of aspects of service delivery, including format and design, outreach and recruitment, setting, and staffing, indicating some of the variety of marriage education services currently available to stepfamilies.

Format and Design

To capture the variety of types of programs offered to stepfamilies, we selected programs exemplifying several different formats. Among the 16 programs contacted, the most common format was the workshop, including both multi-session (six examples) and single-session (four examples) workshop programs. The remaining programs included four support groups with marriage education content and two examples of distance coaching (individual telephone or email sessions).

Workshops. The multi-session workshops typically offered instruction weekly in 2 to 2½-hour sessions for a 6- to 12-week period, although one program had nine monthly sessions. Single-session workshops varied from 90 minutes to 4 hours. The longer of the single-session workshops were intended as complete programs, whereas the 90-minute workshops, typically presented by a stepfamily expert visiting a community, were used to introduce stepcouples to ongoing support groups or other services in the community.

The program respondents touched on some of the considerations underlying their workshop schedules. Attendance was one important consideration. For example, a program that provides a single 4-hour session for stepcouples every other month decided on this format after finding that a multi-session format was difficult for their participants to attend regularly, due to conflicting work and family schedules.

The number and length of multi-session workshops affected program content. For programs in which building social support among the participants was a goal, 10 sessions was seen as the minimum needed to allow participants to develop sufficient trust to build supportive friendships. Longer multi-session workshops were more likely to include the teaching of basic marital skills, such as communication and conflict management, in addition to informing couples about stepfamily-specific content. Shorter and single-session workshops tended to focus only on content specifically relevant to stepfamilies, such as their unique characteristics and the challenges of stepparenting. Although our conceptual model suggests that programs should teach skills relevant to stepfamilies (e.g., stepparenting, negotiating), the programs contacted reported most often focusing only on providing information about stepfamilies.

Support groups. We spoke with two faith-based and two secular support groups. One of the faith-based groups meets once a month for 2 hours, spending the first hour presenting material about stepfamilies from a commercial stepfamily curriculum and the second hour in discussion and social support. The second faith-based support group is organized as a series of small group meetings held weekly in the families’ homes. The groups are considered part of the church’s family ministry and led by couples who are stepcouples themselves. One of the secular support groups is held monthly in a public library, organized and facilitated by a leader who was unable to find a support group when she became a stepmother. Most of the couples in this support group include stepmothers without children of their own who are having difficulties with their stepchildren, a situation which can negatively affect the marital relationship. The second secular support group is exclusively for stepmothers. It meets monthly on an on-going basis and was started years ago by a social worker who is herself a stepmother.

Coaching approaches. Coaching consists of communication between the coach and a single stepcouple or member of a stepcouple, either by telephone or email. The emphasis is on providing general information about stepfamilies and then helping couples deal with their particular challenges. In an individualized context such as coaching, it is often possible to cover more topics than in a group setting. One of the informants said she views teaching conflict resolution and communication skills as “cornerstones” to her approach with stepfamilies. One of our coaching respondents has directed an organization serving stepfamilies for over 30 years. The leaders of this organization coach stepfamilies directly and teach others to do stepfamily coaching by telephone. The telephone coaching sessions run 60 to 90 minutes, and a couple usually has from 6 to 10 coaching sessions, most often 6.

Involvement of children. Although the literature review suggested benefits from including children in programs for stepfamilies, very few of the programs we contacted included children. None of the programs included any educational content on stepfamilies for children, and very few programs provided child care during the workshop. This gap partly may reflect our sampling approach, which concentrated on marital relationships. Services for children may be found more often in stand-alone programs that specifically target children of divorce and remarriage. One of the programs we contacted only involved children by holding a quarterly social gathering for stepcouples and their children, sponsored by a church-based network of support groups and, in the case of a telephone coach, talking with stepchildren if requested by the parents.

Outreach and Recruitment

We found that recruiting stepcouple participants was a challenge for many of the programs contacted. A number of factors may have contributed to this. For example, many stepcouples may be unaware both that stepfamilies have unique characteristics and that many of the issues and challenges they face can be addressed through education. One program facilitator works in a community-based program serving families with disabled children. She said that when she made home visits to stepfamilies, she would point out to them that their being a stepfamily could be the primary reason their family dynamics felt “different” from those in other families. She said this was usually a new idea for the families.

Stepcouples may be reluctant to identify themselves as such due to a perceived cultural bias against them. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether these potential factors make recruiting couples in stepfamilies significantly more difficult than recruiting couples in nuclear families for similar services. With regard to finding ways to attract participants to marriage education for stepcouples, program providers may have to be flexible and respond to what they find works within their community, realizing there may be trade-offs between different elements of the program. For example, one-session workshops may attract more attendees but may not allow time for coverage of all the content viewed as important. Spacing multiple sessions over time may make it easier for participants to attend, but there may be concern about retention of knowledge and skills between sessions.

Outreach approaches. The stepfamily programs we contacted used a variety of outreach and recruitment approaches. Programs sponsored by churches and other organizations typically advertised programs through the organization’s mailings. Church-based program leaders said that many couples did not attend church-sponsored programs because of the stigma they felt about having been divorced. These leaders also mentioned the power a pastor has in encouraging participation in stepfamily programs and in making stepfamilies feel welcome in the congregation. Several secular programs commented that most of their outreach is done through their own websites and the website of the Stepfamily Association of America. Given that many low-income families lack access to the Internet, this is not likely to be highly effective for this group. Several other means of outreach were used to target stepfamilies, including word-of-mouth, brochures, newspaper advertising, and public service announcements.

Program participants. The participants attending the programs we contacted were almost exclusively White, European-American, middle- and upper-middle-class stepcouples. One exception to this was a six-session workshop serving South American immigrant stepfamilies (primarily from Colombia, Argentina, and Venezuela) in Spanish.

All of the stepfamily programs we examined included both unmarried and married stepcouples. Program contacts did not think marital status had fundamental implications for content. They also welcomed stepcouples in varying types of relationships, dating, cohabiting, or married. Two of the programs interviewed focused on preparation for remarriage and typically included stepcouples who were already married.

Most of the participants in programs for stepfamilies were described as either being “in crisis” or at least “uncomfortable,” suggesting that attending a stepfamily program to prevent problems may be rare. An exception to this pattern was found in the faith-based programs, which estimated that some stepcouples, but still less than half, attended when not in crisis. This situation may not be unique to stepfamilies, though, because most couples and families may find it difficult to include more activities in their family schedules unless driven to do so by a crisis. This apparently high number of couples in problematic situations may not be uncommon for other preventive, voluntary programs. Even so, the observation suggests that specific marketing efforts may be needed so programs are seen as intended for stepcouples in healthy, happy marriages as well as for those seeking assistance.

Setting

Sponsoring agencies. We interviewed programs with and without sponsoring agencies. Organizational type and whether or not a program was sponsored by a parent organization is likely to have an impact on multiple aspects of the program, including the approach to outreach and recruitment, the target participants, the program leaders, and the cost to participants.

About one third of the programs we contacted were created and led by individuals without any organizational backing. They typically organized the program to provide a service that they believed was lacking when they looked for help with their own stepfamily experiences. Among the programs with organizational backing, about half were sponsored by churches, one by a large public school district, and the rest by community agencies. Of the community agencies, several provided a range of social services for economically disadvantaged families and one was formed specifically to provide educational and support services for separating and divorcing families.

Location of services. The programs we contacted that conducted marriage education face-to-face with stepcouples were held in variety of settings. These included religious institutions, libraries, schools, and space provided in public agency buildings.

Cost to participants/financial support. The costs of participation in the programs contacted varied widely. In some programs, the cost was entirely covered by the sponsoring agency. Fees in programs that did charge participants ranged from $15 for the book used in one multi-session program to $189 for a 10-session program. One coach reported charging $75 an hour for telephone coaching and $20 per month for email support. A number of programs charging fees offered financial assistance to couples that needed it.

Staffing

Program leaders. The programs we looked at tended to have two kinds of leaders. One type was the leader who created programs for stepfamilies after realizing that there were no programs available to help them with their own stepfamily challenges. Most of these program leaders started their programs within the past 10 years and most did not initially have training in social work or a related field. A second group was composed of professionals with training in social work or related fields. This second group tended to be running programs that had been in place for 16 to 30 years.

Although leaders of support groups tended not to have professional degrees, workshop leaders represented a variety of professions (e.g., licensed clinical social workers, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, personal coaches, family life ministers, and school counselors). Nearly all the leaders of programs we examined had personal experience in stepfamilies, and at least one program required stepfamily experience of its leaders. Programs contacted were split about equally in terms of whether they were led by an individual or a team of two. If led by two people, they were most often a man and a woman.

Teaching techniques. The teaching approach used in marriage education programs for stepfamilies will have a strong impact both on retention of participants in the program and on their retention of the content taught. An interactive, engaging teaching style is most likely important in order to retain couples. Program leaders mentioned a number of specific teaching techniques they found useful, including diagrams of family structure, role-plays, video clips, and readings. Informants who use structural diagrams to illustrate the complexity of stepfamily membership reported that these were effective in highlighting the ways a stepfamily’s structure differs from that of a non-stepfamily.

In the one workshop we visited, the male and female leaders effectively used scripts to illustrate key stepfamily relationships. For example, they acted out short scenes variously involving the biological parent living in the stepfamily, the stepparent, the nonresident biological parent, and the child. After each role-play, the facilitators asked participants to list some of the emotions the particular individual might feel. The emotions participants cited included feelings of powerlessness, loneliness, and frustration. The purpose of this exercise was to increase empathy for different members of a stepfamily.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, stepfamilies may feel socially isolated because of their differences from non-stepfamilies and may have limited opportunity to socialize with other stepfamilies. To address this problem, one program we contacted is structured to give couples time to get to know one another. The program leader asks couples to take turns bringing refreshments for the start of each session, and encourages them to arrive early and socialize. She also encourages them to talk with each other during a mid-session break.

Topics in Marriage Education Programs for Stepfamilies

Top-Priority Topics

The topics included in the conceptual framework are drawn from both the literature review and from what we learned from programs. We found that the top-priority topics identified by program staff were the same as several of the stepfamily-specific topics suggested by the literature review. The literature review, though, identified a number of additional topics that were not described by program staff. This suggests that current programs would need to add content in order to be as comprehensive as the program represented by the conceptual framework.

Whereas we found the programs varied widely in terms of service delivery, we found much more consistency in the topics presented to stepfamilies. Key topics included the following:

• Developing understanding of stepfamilies’ unique characteristics and how they differ from nuclear families. There was strong agreement among program contacts that an understanding of the degree to which stepfamilies differ from nuclear families could help to reduce the stress stepfamilies may experience. A key theme was that curriculum should stress that it can take a number of years to adjust to relationships in stepfamilies.

• Understanding the importance of the stepparent-stepchild relationship for the couple’s marital relationship and how to build an effective stepparent-stepchild relationship. Programs emphasized the impact the stepparent-stepchild relationship has on the stepcouple’s marital relationship; encouraged stepparents to have realistic ideas of how long it usually takes to form a bond with a stepchild; and normalized the fact that stepparent-stepchild relationships are typically not as close as parent-child relationships.

• Navigating relationships with former partners. The main emphasis here was on the fact that appropriate, civil relationships with former partners are essential for children’s well-being. It also is important to note that in some instances—such as when a prior relationship involved domestic violence—the most appropriate relationship with a former partner might be having no relationship at all.

In addition to these three topics, program contacts also identified a number of other important topics. They emphasized helping parents see their children’s and stepchildren’s points of view. Although parents may view remarriage as a positive event, often children feel more ambivalent, if not wholly negative, about it. Other program leaders stressed the importance of encouraging parents to take charge of the family early on and develop a set of family rules. Such “authoritative parenting” helps to respond to the fact that children in stepfamilies may try to manipulate their parents in various ways, frequently with negative impact on the marital relationship. Other high-priority themes included: handling family finances and overcoming guilt associated with divorce.

Although the marriage education programs we contacted presented a variety of topics, they were not as comprehensive as the program represented by the conceptual framework. It represents all the elements thought to be necessary to sustain healthy marriage among low-income stepfamilies. For example, the framework’s marriage education program includes those basic marital skills that have been shown to be associated with healthy marriage and are included in most general marriage education curricula. Foremost among these are communication and conflict management skills. A few of the programs we talked with did include a focus on good couple communication, but most often this was only found in the longer stepfamily programs.

The programs reviewed also did not mention including the treatment and training services included in the framework (e.g., employment services, treatment for substance abuse) to address the potential specific needs of some individual participants. In developing a framework for comprehensive services for low-income stepcouples, these specific services would be included as well as marriage education services. We did not hear about programs with either a formal referral system or ancillary supports for specific individual concerns.

The program described by the conceptual framework aims to provide stepcouples with both knowledge and skills to improve their relationships with each other and with other key relations in the stepfamily system. The programs contacted appeared to focus more on presenting content rather than on teaching skills that might be specifically relevant to stepcouples, such as stepparenting practices or negotiation strategies to use with former spouses/partners. It seems likely that only longer-duration programs would have sufficient time to teach these skills.

Program Resources

Program staff reported using a variety of resource materials. In many of the programs leaders developed the core content based on their own experiences and from reading and attending stepfamily workshops. Lay leaders of some faith-based support groups reported sometimes having the group read a book on a stepfamily topic and then discuss it, instead of using a formal educational curriculum. Several respondents reported using a commercial “curriculum in a box” which includes DVDs and is intended to be quite easy to use even for inexperienced facilitators.

Programs Providing Education on Stepfamilies to Professionals Working with Families

Programs seeking to teach professionals who work with families about stepfamilies seem promising for two reasons. First, many existing family programs do not currently address stepfamily issues although the participants most likely include stepfamilies. Second, as discussed in Chapter 4, incorporating more emphasis on stepfamilies in general marriage education services is likely to be a promising strategy for reaching stepfamilies.

We spoke with individuals engaged in this type of educational outreach to professionals. They sought to reach the following types of individuals: pastors (especially those specializing in family ministry); lay people working with families in churches; therapists and counselors; attorneys and others working in the legal system; social service workers; family life educators; and school teachers. Our contacts stressed the importance of targeting groups like these who were in frequent contact with stepfamily couples but may be unaware of how stepfamilies differ from nuclear families.

Religious institutions or community agencies sometimes sponsored such training. An example is one program that consisted of a Friday evening workshop for community stepfamilies followed by an all-day Saturday workshop for professionals on the special needs and characteristics of stepfamilies. The visiting stepfamily expert may also advise the sponsoring organization on how to expand services for stepfamilies.

Professional training workshops stressed the same topics as curricula for stepfamilies (i.e., stepfamilies’ unique characteristics; stepparent-stepchild relationships; and navigating the relationship with the former spouse). It may be especially important in religious settings to address guilt about divorce and remarriage. One respondent who worked with clergy said that the guilt that many religious remarried couples feel about their divorces makes it difficult for them to acknowledge strains in their stepfamily and to seek help.

The providers of these services for professionals did not indicate a great deal of experience working with low-income or diverse racial/ethnic groups. However, when workshops are provided to individuals working in organizations that serve low-income families (e.g., Head Start, religious institutions), it is likely that some low-income stepfamilies will benefit from the professionals’ increased understanding of the unique needs of stepfamilies.

Organizations Serving Low-income Families

After investigating existing marriage education programs for stepfamilies, we broadened our search to include organizations whose primary mission is to provide a range of other services to low-income populations. We interviewed a variety of organizations with connections to low-income families to learn about their awareness of the needs of stepfamilies and whether they were addressing these needs. We spoke with representatives of four types of organizations:

1. Organizations whose primary mission is to serve and support low-income populations. These organizations included community action agencies, public housing authorities, and charitable foundations.

2. Organizations that serve and support families for a particular employer. We interviewed representatives from several large employee assistance programs (EAPs), as well as representatives responsible for supporting families of the U.S. Armed Forces and the U.S. Air Force.

3. Organizations that serve and support families through the transition of marriage and divorce. These organizations included faith-based institutions and the divorce court system. We interviewed directors of marriage ministries from a variety of faith-based institutions based in low-income communities. We also interviewed a leader of a state-mandated Divorce Class required of all individuals seeking a divorce who have children under the age of 18.

4. Organizations available to serve and support all families in a community. These organizations included schools/school counselors, pediatricians, and libraries. We interviewed local organizations based in low-income communities, as well as the associations that represent these organizations collectively.

We spoke with representatives of nearly 40 organizations that serve low-income families. Though a small fraction of all such organizations, these findings give a useful sense of the level of awareness, interest, and support for stepfamilies in programs serving low-income families.

The staff of these organizations are strongly interested in supporting their clients in any way possible, including addressing the needs of stepfamilies. Moreover, many of these organizations are well positioned within their communities to serve economically disadvantaged stepcouples, because they are geographically based in low-income communities and residents are familiar with and trusting of these organizations. However, although many of the organizations we interviewed appear to be aware of the challenges faced by stepcouples and are open to the idea of education and support for them, none that we contacted were providing any services to specifically address their needs. Until the recent advent of funding for marriage education programs, these organizations provided only other services, such as housing, energy assistance, job training, and remedial education. Although none of the individuals we spoke with had or were planning to apply for grants under the Healthy Marriage Initiative, some were aware of other agencies within their organizations that did plan to apply.

In contrast, employee advisory programs were more likely to offer programs that support healthy relationships and parenting. Their underlying assumption is that worker productivity is improved when employees and their families function well and have access to good support networks. Representatives from these organizations acknowledged the large number of stepfamilies in the businesses they serve, but they seem to believe that their general-population marriage education programs are adequate for stepfamilies even though they do not specifically address stepfamily concerns.

Organizations such as faith-based institutions are already working with families through their marriage preparation or counseling ministries. Our respondents from these sorts of organizations reported that they are starting to recognize that stepfamilies are different and complex and expressed a wish to offer their clients more direct services in this area. One representative reported talking briefly about the challenges faced by stepfamilies in a marriage preparation class even though that topic is not part of the curriculum.

Finally, respondents from organizations that serve or support families in communities, such as schools/school counselors, pediatricians, and libraries, often make public service information available on a variety of topics. None of the respondents from organizations we interviewed in this category currently offer information on stepfamilies, but most said they would be willing to display information if it were made available.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next