Found an interesting writeup at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/sep/09/familyandrelationships.family

I get the impression that its a very subjective area, hard to get a control group for research. Eg the Relate organization is being discussed in the article "a study from the Newcastle Centre for Family Studies found 58% of Relate clients felt that their relationship was better one year after counselling."

however

"US studies put the success rate for counselling at a meagre 11-18%."

An interesting point regarding the focus for marriage counselling programs being targeted "As a result, the government has shifted its funding from general marriage guidance to only supporting couple counselling for parents, with the aim of encouraging them to stay together and so reduce the disadvantages experienced by children brought up by one parent.".

The program does not look to be evidence based, it does appear to have the possibility of becoming a vehicle to channel funding back to the churches (given their existing role as marriage celebrants and sometimes pre-marriage counsellors). It does not appear to be focused on areas of greatest community benefit.

So far I'm seeing little posibility of real help to many and another little bit added to the already significant financial strains felt in many relationships from the governments ever growing drain on family income by way of tax dollars that would be better placed to stay with those who have earned the money in the first place.

R0bert

Robert,
Marriage Celebrants usually spend time with the couple intending marriage. It costs money to lodge a marriage certificate. The $200 I mention does not go to the Church it is a university program lodged online to establish comparability. However the program is led by the Celebrant over several sessions so both understand differences in behaviour and attitudes.

Regardless of religious affiliations, it is not ethical that Andrews is the one who suggested this scheme, and yet has a marriage counselling business.

He potentially stands to gain financially from such a generous scheme, even though it seems the $200 is hardly going to make any difference to anyone's relationship.

Josephus, my post was not a reference to your post, rather broader discussion of the topic.

I've outlined my concerns with yet another government handout of taxpayers money via a program that's not universally available to selected individuals. Overall I suspect that the program if expanded will just serve to make longer term counselling more costly to those who might benefit from it and add that little bit more to the financial pressures those relationships not eligible for the use of other peoples moneys. Overall net harm rather than net harm rather than net good.

Maybe a little biased against Andrews, from what I've seen and read he has no real interest in reducing the harm resulting when relationships breakdowns do happen. It's fantastic if they can find ways of helping people build healthy relationships with a spouse however that's not always going to occur. The evidence is not there to support that proposition. In the mean time there are things the government could do to reduce their role in the harm from the aftermath.

Many of those issues revolve around the financial impacts/benefits to parents of child residency and government incentives to make children something to fight over.

R0bert

As a proactive treatment, counselling could be useful as one of a number of strategies.

I have two areas of concern:

first, I agree with RObert but would go further to suggest that consultation with the public (as opposed to consultation with interest/activist groups) has not kept apace with changes in regulations and policy. There are well-tested ways to engage the public in direct consultation. It is interesting that governments, especially the 'Progressives' in Labor, have been most unwilling to allow public consultation. The 'Progressives' know best apparently;

and,

secondly, counselling will be effective only with those who are likely to seek and take notice of advice anyhow. Preaching to the choir. To be blunt, those who are problems are not usually problems through ignorance, although ignorance and lack of personal insight are part of it. They may not be not socialised for marriage for example.

My wife and I provide Pre-marriage courses, marriage courses and we assist couples who find themselves in tough times. We have done this for over 20 years.

The lack of relationship knowledge in our marriageable community is astounding!
It is critical that couples get
(i) some marriage-related information input and
(ii) that they have some one-to-one discussion time on topics they usually fail to discuss.

Couples spend tens of thousands on their wedding, which lasts for a day. Investment in their marriage, which should last for a lifetime, is a wise move.