The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/oklahoma-marriage-program-has-spent-million-in-mostly-welfare-dollars/article_1ce1d3b4-1fed-5d50-8063-2bd42f07ac65.html

For the past dozen years, Oklahoma government and groups have spent more than $70 million in federal money on a marriage program originally aimed at reducing the state's high divorce rate in hopes of fighting poverty. More than four-fifths of that money for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative came from the state's pool of federal welfare funds.

During that time, however, the rates of divorce, unmarried cohabitation and single-parent families have increased in Oklahoma and the nation, while the percentage of households with married couples has declined, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Poverty rates in Oklahoma have climbed during that period, from about 13 percent to more than 17 percent, U.S. Census Bureau data shows.

The trends have helped fuel questions among some leaders about whether the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative and similar programs in other states are effective in a broad sense, and whether taxpayers should be funding such marriage-improvement programs.

The marriage initiative, launched in 1999 by Gov. Frank Keating with a goal of cutting divorce rates by a third by 2010, is led by an Oklahoma City public-relations firm that has provided workshops and outreach to several hundred thousand people. In 2002, initiative leaders abandoned the goal of reducing divorce rates by a third within a decade, saying it was unattainable. The initiative now focuses on encouraging healthy marriages and families, with many participants saying they have benefitted.

Yet the marriage and divorce trends indicate how difficult it is to quantify the success of marriage-promotion programs. "While these grants are well-intentioned, they oftentimes fail to reach measureable goals and instead send precious tax dollars to well-connected companies that thrive off of government contracts," U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said in a recent statement to Oklahoma Watch. "The best way for the federal government to promote marriage is to respect the institution and the rights of parents to care for their children."

Still, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative retains strong support among state Republican leaders. Last session, lawmakers introduced various bills aimed at promoting marriage and discouraging divorce. One, authored by House Speaker T.W. Shannon, will use discretionary welfare funds to pay for public-service announcements promoting the benefits of marriage. Those PSAs will be developed in mid to late 2014.

The marriage push may carry over into next session. In October, Shannon held an interim-study hearing at which experts and state agency officials testified about how marriage can produce economic benefits for individuals and communities. "We must change the conversation on poverty to focus on stronger families, which in turn will not only produce a more stable and healthy economy, but also improve overall well-being for all Oklahomans," Shannon said.

At an August appearance, while praising the initiative, Shannon added, "The problem is that it's been in the micro level, not the macro level. We need to take it out to the macro level because, yes, I think they have seen some successes."

In fiscal 1999, the Department of Human Services was given approval to spend $10 million in discretionary welfare funds as start-up costs for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. The program began picking up speed in 2002. From 2002 to 2013, five groups received more than $70 million in federal funds for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. That included $58 million in discretionary Temporary Assistance to Needy Families money provided by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and around $13 million in direct grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Public Strategies, the public relations and consulting firm that runs the marriage initiative, got more than 90 percent of the money to implement the programs. The firm also received $15 million in additional direct federal grants to produce materials for use by similar marriage groups nationwide.

Oklahoma's was the first marriage program in the nation to use discretionary welfare funds. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allowed some welfare funds to be spent on other social-welfare purposes. Later, under the Bush and Obama administrations, federal grants were created specifically for healthy marriage and relationship initiatives. On a per capita basis, Oklahoma has gotten more federal money than any other state since 2000 to promote healthy relationships and marriage, according to Alan J. Hawkins, a member of the initiative's research advisory group and author of the book "The Forever Initiative." Oklahoma has the third highest amount overall, behind California and Texas.

The other four organizations that received Oklahoma Marriage Initiative funds were Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Association of Youth Services and Prep Inc., which provides curriculum. Last fiscal year, the state human services department spent $8 million in welfare funds on the initiative.

Public Strategies Inc. was founded in 1990 by Mary Myrick, a political consultant for Republicans. The firm drew controversy in the early years of the initiative because it had won several sole-source contracts from the DHS and other agencies headed by then-Secretary Jerry Regier and had billed for expenses questioned by some lawmakers. No wrongdoing was found. Asked about Coburn's statement on well-connected companies, Myrick told Oklahoma Watch that most organizations that have received federal marriage grants, including hers, are not winning them based on inappropriate political influence and that strict safeguards are in place. "Most of the people who do this work or direct service work ... are just trying to serve families," she said.

Public Strategies now has a staff of about 150 and runs various relationship projects. Those include training in relationships and communication skills, couples retreats and training for couples expecting a baby, said Kendy Cox, who directs the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for the firm. All of the programs are free, with many led by volunteers. Participants include married couples, unmarried people, families with an incarcerated parent, high school and college students, parents of foster and adopted children, low-income couples, Spanish-speaking couples and African-American couples, Cox said.

Since 2000, about 350,000 people have taken Oklahoma Marriage Initiative courses or training, Cox said. Most report high rates of satisfaction, she said. Jeff and Ellen White of Oklahoma City, who have been married for nearly nine years, are among the participants.

The Whites, who are foster parents, have attended a few of the initiative's retreats and reunions in recent years and said they successfully applied its techniques to their marriage and their relationship with foster children and others. "The people were fun, the training sessions are good, and there's not a time we haven't walked out with something," Jeff White said. "I think every person who has a family should go to these retreats," Ellen said. "They give so many things to work with and they're such a great organization."

In 2002, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, working with university researchers, conducted a survey to measure various factors about marriage. The purpose was to gauge current attitudes toward marriage and set a baseline for measuring the program's effects later. The survey found high rates of marriage and divorce, as well as trends such as couples getting married at an age younger than the national average and high shares of married people who were previously divorced.

So far, no follow-up survey has been done.

"We have not had the money or the right design to do a comprehensive evaluation on the entire range of the initiative services," Cox said. A 2002 story in the Washington Times quoted an OSU researcher as saying the baseline survey cost $150,000. After the survey, the initiative's research team concluded that Keating's goal of reducing divorce by one-third in a decade was unattainable.

"That was more of a policy statement than it was an actual research-based statement to make," Cox said, adding that Keating was seeking funding. "We're not just trying to reduce divorce," Cox said. "Our mission is to provide relationship education and skills to the public." The Department of Human Services is responsible for overseeing the initiative. Public Strategies files an annual independent audit with DHS, and there are yearly meetings between the company and DHS to discuss finances and performance, Cox said.

In 1998, before the initiative began, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a report on factors that would allow the state to become more prosperous. Among those was lowering the rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births and child abuse. Gov. Keating then formed the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative with the stated goal of lowering divorce rates.

Scientific studies on the broader successes of healthy marriage initiatives have been mixed. Some found significant positive effects while others found no effect. An evaluation in 2010 found positive results from the Oklahoma initiative's Family Expectations program, which targets couples expecting a baby, although among seven sites, only Oklahoma City's results were statistically significant.

Meanwhile, divorce rates have risen and marriage rates have declined. Experts debate which cause-effect dynamic is greater: lower marriage rates worsening poverty or higher poverty lowering marriage rates. U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 to 2012 shows that while married households in Oklahoma still make up the vast majority of "coupled households," the percentage of married households has fallen, from 54 percent to 49 percent, reflecting a national trend.

The rates of people over age 15 who are divorced, of unmarried cohabitating couples and of single-mother households have increased in the state, federal data shows. In 2012, Oklahoma had the third-highest divorce rate in the country, measured by the Census Bureau as the percentage of people aged 15 and over who are currently divorced. Nevada and Maine had the highest shares, more than 14 percent; Oklahoma's was 13.5 percent.

Cox said the mission of reducing divorce is still a worthy one, but the goal has proven more difficult and complex than expected. She said the tools offered through the marriage initiative not only help strengthen marriage and families, but have positive social and economic benefits for the state.

Myrick said the initiative's programs have been proven to be effective for participants. "Everybody that comes through from all over the country talks about how it's the most promising thing happening for particularly low-income families," she said. It will take time to see the full results of the marriage initiative, Cox said, because it is confronting both large social trends and stigmas about seeking marriage help, as well as trying to change the way people think about marriage.

"I believe that will happen for us in the future and I believe we'll be shown to be effective," Cox said. "We believe all things are on trend to go onward and upward."

They claim 350,000 people have taken a course or attended a meeting.

At $70 million, that is $200 per person.

Someone explain to me the difference of giving these people millions of dollars to promote marriage is any different than giving Planned Parenthood money to promote family planning.

Graft.  Corruption.  Cronyism.  Patronage. 

We got it all - an all purpose, all encompassing culture.

Let's talk about the billions wasted so far on Obamacare, including the price tag for the sh!tburger website which still has major security issues.

There are retreats paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Is there a sign-up form I'm missing?

Consider all of the money spent in the state to fight marriage equality on top of this $70 million to "promote" marriage for those legally eligible, and what you have is a whole lot of money being flushed trying to change two different marriage dynamics that the state will inevitably be unable to stop and reverse.

Just know that tax and waste is worse than tax and spend.

BTW, does anyone really know what is taught at these "courses" or retreats?  I did see some references to "tools" and "skills" somewhere in that marriage PSA.

I could teach one of these classes. 

I would call it "Shut-up and do as she says, because you are wrong!"

Government has no business interjecting itself into the lives of individuals.  It exists only to protect freedoms, it is up to the individual as to how they choose to exercise those freedoms.

Dems don't like it because they think you are stupid and want you to live their way, Republicans don't like it because they think you are immoral, and want you to live their way.  Both will spend billions and leverage the power of government to get you to comply either through propaganda or direct force.  Their legacy is collapse.

Meanwhile, Libertarians are plotting to take over the world and leave you alone! ;-)
(http://rlv.zcache.com/the_libertarian_plot_sticker-r61d02bbe203143f79e2ea3e1d5bd79ba_v9i40_8byvr_512.jpg)

The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy. – Nick Nuessle

We should find out when they are and plan to attend. For $200 a person there might be snacks.

I think you've mistakenly landed in the wrong point in time on this sphere. Medieval times would have suited you well. I could see you partying with a group of Druids as well.

Good luck waiting for the Libertarian revolution ( I think the Beatles made a song about that). Meanwhile, you'll just have to make do with criticizing, sniping, hindering, and of course, fine tuning your Q and beer drinking skills. :)

Maybe he can find out how to use another color other than blue?

Yes, let's!  Then continue to the really big boondoggles - from Baby Bush.  You know the drill - perspective!  $70 million of Oklahoma dollars are relatively large compared to overall budget - a little over 1% of the $6.8 billion in actual expenditures.  As compared to $1 billion to set up the Affordable Care Act site, out of $3.8 trillion or rougly 0.026%.

Now, if we were talking the $90 billion that Dick Cheney got for Halliburton in no-bid contracts (out of the rougly $2 trillion budget that year - 2002), we are looking at 4.5% of the total.  Wow!  Makes the so-called "tax-and-spend" Democrats look like pikers...


Yeah...I guess in RWRE World, 0.026% is very much worse than 4.5%.....because it's Obama, of course!
And 0.026% is worse than 1% in Oklahoma...because it's Oklahoma!

Let's not forget about that Charlie Foxtrot that was the Medicare Plan D rollout...who was that under again?

Oh, right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701376.html

And the real, final estimates have gone closer to $1 trillion...not the 700 billion.  And will likely be more.  And the biggest dirty little secret was that after the passage of that bill in 2003, payouts to large pharma started soon after - payments that went for over 2 years before any senior could see a benefit starting 1 Jan 2006!!

We have a thread 97 pages long talking about Obamacare.

Is that going to be your argument every time someone talks about government waste? I know, I will just change the topic back to Obamacare for every topic. Why discuss anything else when we can just throw out the word "Obamacare"?

Do you think Dallas can make the playoffs with Romo as their QB? How about we talk about Obamacare? I wonder how much snow we will get? What about the billions wasted on Obamacare? I really like the new Pope and his focus on feeding the poor. But what about that Obamacare website?

I think it’s going to snow on Dallas and Romo will need Obamacare.  Do you know if he is a Catholic?

 :D Must be hard trudging through life as angry as you are.

 I thought the same thing about you. How much alike we are yet worlds apart.

Here I go waxing philosophical again. . . :D

Hopefully I never come across as angry, because I rarely am.  I simply enjoy the observation of politics. I like to point out the recurrent failures of modern liberalism over classical liberalism, with each step, and policy leading insolvency and reform.  But I suppose the most entertaining part is not the philosophy differences, but the personality characteristics that require some liberals to constantly defend, redefine and qualify each idea.

I guess the basic premise, and something that you can take comfort in, is that liberalism triumphs in the long run over free-market ideals, because it is human nature to want without effort.  The more success people have in acquiring security, health, food, shelter, and comfort in general without exchange for production, the more likely they are to put people in power who will promise them maximum comfort in exchange for minimal effort, and the more success those politicians have at getting elected the more their rhetoric turns to promises of unsustainable comfort without risk.  As production diminishes wealth in general becomes the target, and eventually the system collapses in the name of equality, as the takers overcome the makers.

We can't be angry about this.  It's simply the natural progression of politics, and a cycle we are historically predisposed to repeat.  The hope is in that we, some of us, through promoting that understanding, may be able to delay, slow or perhaps even halt that progression.  

For Hoss:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Tytler

Political leaders in capitalist countries who cheer the collapse of socialism in other countries continue to favor socialist solutions in their own. They know the words, but they have not learned the tune. – Milton Friedman

A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. – Milton Friedman

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. – Adolf Hitler

Democracy is indispensable to Socialism. – V.I. Lenin

Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx

Back to the topic...

Shouldn't we stop doing this? Is anyone out there in TulsaNow world disagree?

We are giving millions of public dollars to a partisan PR group to hold seminars about marriage. I don't know anyone who has attended one and I have never heard of them being held in Tulsa.

The results say that we are failing miserably. Why don't we stop?

I agree.  We shouldn't be giving PR groups public money to promote things related to political matters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/contractors-earn-big-for-pr-blitz-on-obamacare/?page=all

I looked up their seminars...

80% of them are in Oklahoma County. Here are some of the titles...

"Love Notes"
"Character Education"
"Walking the Line" (held at a prison)
"Hip Hop + Change Relationship"
"Heart and Soul Singles Workshop"
"Within my Reach" (for singles)

What a great use of tax dollars.

Okay, I’ll bite.  This falls into an area that government really has no business getting into and, as a social matter, really cannot affect without banning divorce outright which would be ludicrous.  The issues of teen pregnancy, out of wedlock marriages, divorce, and poor attitudes in families toward educating their young are moral issues, not failures of government.  No matter what sort of intervention you try and put into it, it’s simply not going to have an affect in people who have no self-respect, no sense of family, and no respect for others in their lives.

One of the incentives of the program was to give a discount on marriage licenses.  If two people are really committed to staying married, many churches provide pre-marital counseling to their parishioners. I took a course with my second wife at Tulsa’s Family & Children’s Services.  I’m not sure if this is the same program or not, but it qualified for the discount for our marriage license:

http://www.fcsok.org/services/tulsa-adult-family-counseling/premarital-counseling-tulsa/

The course apparently didn’t work because that marriage was an epic FAIL.

MC and I didn’t take a course and I can never envision a day without her.  She will tell you the same thing.  Both partners have to be in it for the long haul and no amount of government intervention or education on the matter can drive that.

It’s much like throwing more money at education believing that it will improve outcomes when most problems with education come from within a child’s home, not the schoolhouse.  The same holds true for marriage.  If the family isn’t strong, the government cannot do one thing to make it stronger.

So, yes, I agree this is a waste of money and needs to end.  I wasn’t aware there had been so much spent on this and somehow, I’m thinking there was a small fee to take the class so it doesn’t make sense why $70 million of federal funds would have wound up in this program.

I'm just happy that RM is becoming aware of wasteful spending.   I have some additional links I could share, but that nut-job Tom Coburn already put most of them in a book!

$120 million in retirement and disability benefits went to federal employees who died in 2011.

The Obama Administration spent $10 million in 2011 to create a Pakistani Sesame Street.
(http://www.philosufi.com/.a/6a013485bc6b83970c0147e2368108970b-pi)

. . .and $634 Million to create a non-functional website that will be rebuilt for almost as much. That's over a Trillion in federal funds!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/11211866483_7c1f3c2b5f.jpg)

Lets start cutting waste in a non-partisan manner!

How about this. . .Every year the GSA still pays $24 million on a contract for typewriters that it no longer uses or buys.   :)

I need to get in the typewriter business!

RM I have emailed our friend Jim Bridenstine and requested a statement/explanation.  I have also requested a review by Coburn.

Lets see if they listen. Cherp cherp cherp.

 ;D