Strengthening Couples’ Relationships With Education: Social Policy and Public Health Perspectives W. Kim Halford Griffith University Howard J. Markman and Scott Stanley Denver University There is some evidence that skill-based couples relationship education (CRE) enhances couples’ maintenance of healthy, committed relationships. This article analyzes issues in the balancing of a limited but growing knowledge base on the effects of CRE with current social policy that is creating an impetus for widespread dissemination of CRE. It is suggested that enough is known to act now, and that by doing so, the field has a unique opportunity to substantially (and rapidly) add to the existing knowledge base. Specifically, there can be expansion of knowledge of the efficacy of CRE with diverse populations and service delivery contexts, as well as the influences on the reach of CRE to populations at high risk of future relationship difficulties. While the current article focuses on CRE, the issues discussed have relevance to warrant dissemination to many areas of family psychology intervention. Keywords: marriage, couples relationship, education, social policy, public health Couples relationship education (CRE) is the provision of structured education to couples about relationship knowl- edge, attitudes, and skills (Halford, Markman, Stanley, & Kline, 2003). The goals of CRE are to assist couples to sustain healthy, mutually satisfying relationships, and to reduce the prevalence of relationship distress and separation (Halford et al., 2003). In many developed countries—such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and Norway— government and community agencies are promoting dis- semination of CRE in an attempt to reduce the negative personal, social, and economic effects associated with high rates of divorce and relationship distress (Huang, 2005; Ooms, 2005; van Acker, 2003). As described below, the evidence for the effectiveness of CRE shows promising results but clearly indicates the need for more research. Currently there is an understandable tension between (a) researchers wanting to accumulate more evidence on the efficacy of CRE and (b) social policy imperatives pushing to act now to address concerns about couples’ relationship problems. The current article analyzes this tension by examining the rationale for promoting healthy couples relationships, the evidence on the efficacy of CRE, and issues in the dissemination of CRE. We argue that researchers should be actively involved in the current dissemination of CRE for three key reasons: (a) enough is known to begin disseminating CRE; (b) dissemination of CRE is going to happen, and researchers need to be in- volved to promote evidence-based approaches to CRE and continuing research and evaluation; and (c) the process of dissemination and associated research has the potential to greatly expand the knowledge base about CRE. The Development of Couples Relationship Education CRE evolved to the present widespread use from brief premarital counseling offered by religious marriage cele- brants (Hunt, Hof, & DeMaria, 1998). By the early years of the current century, the form of CRE embodied in premar- ital education grew to where approximately 30% of marry- ing couples in Western countries (e.g., the United States, Australia) attended some form of CRE (Halford, O’Donnell, Lizzio, & Wilson, 2006; Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Mark- man, 2006). The provision of CRE has now extended well beyond couples planning marriage to include, for example (a) assistance to long-married couples seeking relationship Editor’s Note. Anne E. Kazak served as the action editor for this article.—Tamara Goldman and W. Kim Halford W. Kim Halford, School of Psychology, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia; Howard J. Markman and Scott Stanley, Depart- ment of Psychology, Denver University. W. Kim Halford is first author of the Couple CARE relationship education program. He receives royalties from the sale of the products that form the Couple CARE and associated programs. Howard J. Markman and Scott Stanley are the co-owners of several companies related to PREP and an associated program that earn income related to the sale of products and training services. Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Ref- erence 326321) to W. Kim Halford and Debra Creedy and grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- ment (R01 HD053314 and R01 HD48780) to Howard J. Markman and Scott Stanley. The authors thank Amanda Maddox for her careful proofreading and editing of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to W. Kim Halford, School of Psychology, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus M24, Nathan 4111, QLD, Australia. E-mail: k.halford@griffith.edu.au Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 22, No. 3, 497–505 0893-3200/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012789 497