The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20120153 RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE FINAL REPORT FOR BUILDING HEALTHY MARRIAGES PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with the Final Report for the Building Healthy Marriages Program from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Human Services, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, for a period commencing January 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2011,with further terms and conditions being as stated in said report, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said report, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,that the Final Report for the Building Healthy Marriages Program from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,on behalf of the Department of Human Services, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said report, and that the Clerk to the Board is authorized to electronically submit said report. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 16th day of January, A.D., 2012. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: U'-'_ C Sean P. C way, Chair Weld County Clerk to the Board l( / E L /)►. illiam F. rcia, Pro em BY: Deputy CI to the Boar. �:a �pj "`'.. Kirkmeyer APP' .r D A : %C " '. r \~ •avid E. Long ttorney Dougla Rademach Date of signature: "i e \-kS fl 2012-0153 °1"I a HR0083 MEMORANDUM 86s� DATE: January 12, 2012 • TO: Sean P. Conway, Chair, Board of ounty Co iss'oners U _ CQ1JN?Y /� FROM: Judy A. Griego, Director, Hum rvices epart RE: Weld County Department of Hum Services' Building Healthy Marriages Final Report for Years 1-5, January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2011 Enclosed for Board approval is the Department's Building Healthy Marriages Final Report for Years 1-5, January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2011. This Final Report was reviewed under the Board's Pass-Around Memorandum dated January 9, 2012, and approved for placement on the Board's Agenda. Building Healthy Marriages has come to a close and a final report is required that encompasses all five years of the program with descriptions of each aspect of the program and its evaluation (over 250 pages in length). Five years ago, Building Healthy Marriages set out to assess, not even to educate, 900 couples. In the end, 1,824 couples and 1,514 individuals completed 8 hours of marriage education, and thousands more were made aware of healthy relationships through our radio talk shows, booster classes, public advertisement, and by the ripple effect of having contact with those who have taken the class or our educators. BHM collaborated with such programs as the Carbon Valley Network, Weld County Mentoring Program, Weld Faith Network, Bridges of Hope, CDHS, Fatherhood Initiative, and Weld Faith Partnership. BHM also collaborated with several agencies such as Youth and Family Connections, SB91, ICF, Youth and Adult Probation, Drug Court and Tower 21. Although the grant is over, the work continues on with Community Mediation Project taking on the classes and relationship education. If you have any questions, please give me a call at extension 6510. 2012-0153 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Grant Number: 90FEO 134 Project Period October 1, 2006_to September 31, 2011 Grantee Name and Address: Weld County Department of Human Services, 315 N. 11`" Ave., P.O. Box A, Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone Number: (970) 352 — 1551 ext. 6726 Project Title: Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Period Covered by Report: _October 1, 2006_thru_September 31, 2011 Per current budget period: (Check One) First Semi-Annual Progress Report Second Semi-Annual Progress Report Final Report X Name and Phone Number of Project Director: Ann Bruce , Program Manager, (970) 397-4629 cell phone Author's Name and Telephone Number: Ann Bruce_, Program Manager, (970) 673-2682 cell phone Date of Report: December 31, 2011 Sean P. Conway Date Authorized Certifying Official Chair, Weld County Board Of Commissioners' Rev. 2/3/04 „, Building Healthy Marriages Weld County, Colorado Final Report Years 1 — 5 (January, 2007 — September 30, 2011) 09/30/2011 Mary Sean O'Halloran, PhD Sonja Rizzolo, PhD Karina Samaniego-Munoz, BA Marsha L. Cohen, BS Sarah Breseke, MA Robbyn Wacker, PhD Produced in conjunction with UNIVERSITY 0.1 Bringing NnPTH c>?o f ni nu n nn education Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Overview of the Program 5 Introduction 5 Background Information 5 Program Description and Delivery 6 Program Models 12 Demographics Of Those Served 19 Referral Source 28 Evaluation 31 Data Collection 31 Tools and Instruments 35 Challenges/Barriers to Evaluation 37 Results 41 Results MSI-R Pretests 41 Pretest and Posttest Analyses 57 Results Mini KSS 78 Qualitative Program Evaluation 104 Overall Discussion 110 References 115 Appendix A: Instruments 119 List of Tables 1. Demographic Characteristics 20 2. Referral Base 29 3. Evaluation Individual Events in Mentoring Program 32 4. Evaluation Individual Events in Building a Family 34 5. MSI-R Statistics 46 6. Correlations 53 7. MSl-R Pretest Scores for the Grant Period 56 8. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 58 Calculations (Year 1) 9. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 59 Calculations (Year 2) 10. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 60 Calculations (Year 3) 11. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 61 Calculations (Year 4) 12. Percentage of Males and Females Perceiving High Levels of Stress on MSI-R 67 Scales 13. Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for the Male and Female Participants 69 14. Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 70 15. Participation in BHM Evens by the 154 Participants 71 Contents List of Tables (Continued) Page 16.Number of BHM Events Attended by Participants Who completed the KSS (n= 72 154) 17. Satisfaction with Education Events 72 18. Knowledge Gained 74 19. Mini KSS Data 78 20. Satisfaction with Marriage Garden Curriculum 79 21. Relationship Status Before and After Participating in the Marriage Garden 80 Curriculum 22. Location Marriage Seminar 82 23. Satisfaction with 8-Hour PREP Seminar 83 24. Satisfaction with Within Our Reach 87 25. Satisfaction with Within My Reach Seminar 90 26. Satisfaction with Love Notes 93 27. Satisfaction with Winning the Workplace Challenge 96 28. Satisfaction with Relationship Inventories 99 29. Relationship Between Content Satisfaction, Educator Satisfaction, and Meeting 103 Room 30. Interest in Follow-Up Seminars 103 31. Demographics Participants Qualitative Interviews 105 List of Figures 1. Building Healthy Marriages Model Year I and First 7 Months of Year 2 12 2. Building Healthy Marriages Model Last 5 Months of Year 2 14 3. Building Healthy Marriages Model Years 3, 4, and 5 17 4. Gender 22 5. Race/Ethnicity 23 6. Age 23 7. Number of Children 23 8. Length of Current Marriage 24 9. Number of Previous Marriages 24 10. Employment 24 11. Employment Status Couple 25 12. Occupation 25 13. Residence 25 14. Education Level 26 15. Referral Base 30 16. Year MSI-R Pretest Was Completed 42 17. Race/Ethnicity MSI-R Pretest Participants 43 18. Age MSI-R Pretest Participants 43 19. Number of Children MSI-R Pretest Participants 43 20. Length of Marriage or Years Living Together MSI-R Pretest Participants 44 21. Number of Previous Marriages MSI-R Pretest Participants 44 Contents List of Figures (Continued) Page 22. Occupation MSI-R Pretest Participants 45 23. Education Level MSI-R Pretest Participants 45 24. Percentage of Participants Who Perceived Problems 49 25. Difference Between Greeley and Other Cities on MSI-R Subscales 54 26. Differences Between Males and Females on MSI-R Subscales 55 27. Differences Between Ethnicity on MSI-R Subscales 56 28. MSI-R Pretest Scores During the Grant Period 57 29. Posttest Response Rate Year 2 59 30. Posttest Response Rate Year 3 60 31. Posttest Response Rate Year 4 61 32. Year Participant Entered the Program 63 33. Race/Ethnicity MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 63 34. Age MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 64 35. Number of Children MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 64 36. Length of Marriage or Years Living Together MSI-R Pretest and Posttest 64 Participants 37. Number of Previous Marriages MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 65 38. Occupation MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 65 39. Education Level MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 65 40. Percentage of Males and Females Perceiving High Levels of Stress on MSI-R 68 Scales 41. Mean Pre- and Post-MSI Scores for the Male and Female Participants 70 42. Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 71 43. Satisfaction with Content of Events 74 44. Knowledge Gained 75 45. Relationship Status Before and After Participating in the Marriage Garden 81 Curriculum 46. Satisfaction with PREP Seminar 84 47. Knowledge Gained During PREP Seminar 85 48. Satisfaction with WOR 88 49. Knowledge Gained During WOR 89 50. Satisfaction with WMR 91 51. Knowledge Gained During WMR 92 52. Satisfaction with Love Notes Seminar 94 53. Knowledge Gained During Love Notes 95 54. Satisfaction with Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar 97 55. Knowledge Gained During Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar 97 56. Satisfaction with Relationship Inventory 100 57. Knowledge Gained During Relationship Inventory 100 58. Comparison Satisfaction Content Programs 102 59. Comparison Satisfaction Educator Programs 102 60. Comparison Satisfaction Faculty Programs 103 61. Major Themes Educators and Participants 109 Executive Summary This report summarizes the data collected from January 1, 2007 through June 11, 2011. This includes information from all participants who initiated involvement with the Building Healthy Marriages Program during the entire grant period (January 1, 2007—June 11, 2011). In addition,this report includes a discussion of the data from participants who completed posttests in Years 2, 3, 4, and the first 9 months of Year 5. Demographic Background Two thousand nine hundred seventy-five participants participated in the program from January 1, 2007 through June 11, 2011. Of the 2975 participants, 61% (n= 1803) were White, followed by 28% (n = 829) Hispanic. The other 7%(n =212) were Asian, Black,Native American, or other/multicultural. Four percent (n= 131)did not respond to this question. The results indicate that 33%of the participants (n=991) were unemployed. Of the participants who participated together in a seminar, 773 couples (76%) indicated that either both were employed full-time or at least one partner worked full-time, 32 couples (3%) indicated that both partners were employed part-time, 66 couples (7%) indicated that only one partner was employed part- time, and 102 couples (10%) specified that neither partner was employed. Referral Source The most effective referral source was radio advertisements, referring 18.2% (n = 542) of the participant pool. The second most effective referral source was the faith-based community, which referred 18.1% of the participants (n = 538). Friends and family were the third most effective referral source (6.9%; n=206). This suggests that radio commercials and the faith- based community are significant marketing tools for the program. Brief Summary of Results Marital Satisfaction Inventory—Revised (MSI-R) Pretest Results All Five Years In summary, MSI-R results indicate that about 49%of the couples in the sample (45% men, 53% women) reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the Family History of Distress (FAM) scale, which measures the respondent's perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the family of origin. In addition, 48%of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving, and 43%of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the Global Distress (GDS) scale, a global measure of relationship distress. About one third of the participants reported significant problems in the areas of affective communication, finances, and time spent together. One-fourth of the participants indicated severe problems in the areas of childrearing, partner's aggression, and sexual relationships. The area of least concern was dissatisfaction with children. Interestingly, large differences in degree of satisfaction between males and females were found in the areas of the time the couples spent together and the family of origin history. Females showed more concern than males regarding the time the couples spent together and perceived more conflicts in their families of origin. We also investigated differences in participants' ratings on the MSI-R scales based on the year they entered the BHM program. Results indicated that there was an increase in scores for several of the scales, especially for the Global Distress Scale. Participants who entered the BHM program in Year 1 had much lower scores and were more satisfied with their marriages than participants who entered the BHM program in Year 5. Perhaps, the recent economic problems have led couples to be more dissatisfied in their marriages. If this is the case,then there is currently a high need for offering the BHM program in the community. Impact of Program: Years 1,2, 3, and 4 A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance compared the pre and posttest scores of the MSI-R to examine the impact of the program one year after the pretest took place. The most significant improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Problem Solving and Time Together. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication after completing the BHM program than prior to entering the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program were more satisfied after completion with the time they spent with their partners than before they entered the program. Furthermore, improvements were found for both males and females on the Global Distress subscale. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported less negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and less consideration of divorce. There was also a positive change between the pretest and posttest scores on the Affective Communication Scale. The results suggest that couples experienced increased satisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their partners. These findings support the conclusion that the BHM program substantially improved communication skills for participants. In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Aggression, Financial Disagreement, and Sexual Dissatisfaction. These finding suggest that couples experienced less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners than prior to entering the BHM program, had less discord in their relationships concerning finances, and experienced increased satisfaction with their sexual relationships following participation in the BHM program. There were no significant changes over time for Role Orientation, Family History of Distress, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict over Childrearing, indicating that the BHM program did not impact those areas. However, it is important to note that a small percentage of participants perceived high levels of stress in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Childrearing, making it difficult to produce significant improvements in these areas because participants were generally already satisfied The results indicated that the BHM program was equally effective for male and female participants. The changes in satisfaction scores over time did not differ significantly for males and females. However, results indicate that males and females expressed significant differences in ratings for four scales: Global Distress, Affective Communication, Sexual Dissatisfaction, and Role Orientation. Data indicate that females were less satisfied with their overall marriages and the affection and understanding expressed by their partners than males. In addition, females showed greater satisfaction than males on the Sexual Dissatisfaction Scale. Differences were also found on the Role Orientation Scale; males had more traditional views than females. Significant differences between the attitudes of the partners can impact marital satisfaction negatively. A stronger emphasis on identifying and evaluating expectations regarding roles would be helpful. One of the important research questions the evaluation team investigated concerns whether or not the BHM program was equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. The results show that the program was equally effective for Hispanic and non- Hispanic participants. The BHM program educators were aware that cultural differences may 2 impact the effectiveness of the program for Hispanic couples and thus provided workshops in Spanish by educators who were culturally sensitive and possessed some or all of the following characteristics: biculturalism, bilingualism, and speaking Spanish as a native language. Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys: Years 1, 2,3, and 4 Participants were most satisfied with the employment support training, followed by the enrichment weekend and PREP marriage seminar. Couples were the least satisfied with the conflict resolution coaching and Prepare/Enrich program. In addition, participants learned more in the area of conflict resolution than financial management. This is expected because the PREP educational program that was offered in the Seminar and Enrichment Weekend focused on increasing conflict resolution skills. Caution should be exercised when comparing satisfaction scores between the various programs, due to the low number of participants in some of the programs (e.g., employment support services). Comparison of Satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Curriculum, PREP Seminar,WOR, WMR, Love Notes, Winning the Workplace Challenge, and Prepare/Enrich Curriculum: Years 1,2, 3, 4, and 5 When comparing satisfaction with the content of the event, results indicated that participants were the most satisfied with the content of the Within My Reach Seminars, followed by the content of the PREP seminars, the Within Our Reach seminars, and the Prepare/Enrich Curriculum. The content of the Marriage Garden Curriculum, Love Notes class curriculum, and Winning the Workplace Challenge were rated the lowest. For all seven classes, participants were the most satisfied with the educator and the least satisfied with the content. The programs that were rated the highest in satisfaction in all three areas were WMR, WOR, and Prepare/Enrich. The two programs that were rated the lowest in satisfaction were Winning the Workplace Challenge and the Marriage Garden Curriculum. Overall, satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Curriculum, PREP Seminar, WOR, WMR, Love Notes, Winning the Workplace Challenge, and Prepare/Enrich Curriculum were rated very highly. It is noteworthy that the overall level of satisfaction with the educators, the content of the seminars, and the meeting spaces was extremely high. Caution should be exercised when comparing the various programs due to the small number of participants in some of the programs. Starting in January 2011, additional questions regarding participants' interest in follow-up services were added to the mini KSS for the following programs: PREP, WMR, and WOR. Two hundred thirty-three (86.0%) of the 271 participants who were asked these questions indicated that they were interested in follow-up seminars. Of the participants, 105 (45.1%) preferred a 2— 3 hour seminar, 81 (34.8%) showed an interest in a 4—6 hour seminar, and 47 (20.2%) selected the 6 or more hour seminar. Fifty-nine participants (25.3%) wanted these services to be available weekly, 41.2% (n= 96), monthly, 12.9% (n= 30), every other month, 15.5%, (n=36), twice a year, and 2.1%, (n =5) at another frequency. Experiences of Participants and Educators (Qualitative Evaluation) The themes identified provide textural, rich descriptions of the participants' and educators' experiences with the BHM programs. Overall, participants described cultivating relationship skills that had positive, long-lasting impacts on their relationship satisfaction not only with their partners, but with others, including family (especially their children), friends, and 3 coworkers. In addition, some participants described making significant personal changes as a result of the program. The program offered participants valuable skills, new information, and personal insight. From the participants' perspective, a particularly valued aspect of the program was the commitment and sincerity of the program educators. Educators echoed the sentiments of participants and emphasized a strong belief in the skills they taught and the impact the education could have on participants who engaged openly with the program. Educators reported experiencing personal benefits from their involvement, including increased confidence and understanding. They also discussed the importance of maintaining boundaries while offering additional support to couples who needed it. Couples also appreciated the "extra mile" from the educators. Overall, both educators and participants expressed satisfaction with the program and the benefits carried over into the participants' relationships and personal development. However, there was also consensus on drawbacks, which led to recommendations for future directions for the program. One general concern was the lack of adequate time during programs to practice skills and incorporate the knowledge into behavioral change. Recommendations related to this included longer program times with more time for experiential learning, follow-up programs, and counseling. Another recommendation was to increase marketing activities to particular populations, such as males, and more targeted marketing to Hispanic participants. Although services sometimes included childcare provisions, participants wanted additional service, as there was evidence that lack of child care prohibited individuals from participating. Participants and educators alike wished for additional educational programs for families. Some participants were confused about the program's affiliation with religious organizations and suggested clarifying this in the program's advertising. Some participants and educators also recommended more rigorous prescreening of participants, as those with serious issues impacted the entire group in a seminar. 4 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM Introduction The Weld County Healthy Marriage Initiative's central goal was the strengthening of families through relationship education and related support services for individuals and couples in Weld County. Services to participants were provided by trained marriage educators supervised by personnel from the Weld County Department of Health and Human Services (WDHSS). Educational programs included Relationship Education Seminars using PREP, Within My Reach, and Within Our Reach curricula; Relationship Inventories using the Prepare/Enrich program and Marriage Garden curriculum; Workplace Relationship Education Seminars using the Winning the Workplace Challenge program; Relationship Education for Teens using the Love U2 and Love Notes curriculum; Conflict Resolution Coaching; Financial Management Coaching; Marriage Boosters; Employment Support Training; Marriage Mentoring Seminars; Domestic Violence screenings; community referrals; and family mentors/liaisons. The research evaluation team from the University of Northern Colorado had several goals. These included 1) Evaluating the knowledge and satisfaction with each program in which the couples and the individuals participated. Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) were developed to gather this information; 2)Assessing marital satisfaction prior to beginning the education programs and through the posttest given on the 1 year anniversary of the eligible couples joining the Building Healthy Marriages program; 3) Examining the relationships between demographic variables and the various subscales of the MSI-R, differences in program impact between males and females and Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants, and the relationship between educator satisfaction and content satisfaction. Background Information In recent years, increased federal and state funding has resulted in the implementation of numerous marriage education and enrichment programs throughout the country. In 1996, Congress expanded attention to the importance of enhancing marriage for a better overall society (Administration for Children and Families [ACF], 2005). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 allocated $150 million annually to promoting healthy marriages and fatherhood throughout the United States (ACF, 2005). This act was based on research demonstrating that marriage has beneficial effects on children, men, women, and communities. Children raised by parents in a healthy marriage experience a number of advantages, including higher likelihood of attending college and achieving academically and better emotional and physical health (Wilcox, Doherty, Glenn, & Waite, 2005). Women in healthy marriages are emotionally and physically healthier; less likely to be victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violent crimes; and less likely to commit suicide or abuse drugs or alcohol (Wilcox et al., 2005). Men who are partners in a healthy marriage live longer, are emotionally and physically healthier, experience more stable employment and make higher wages, and have better relationships with their children (Wilcox et al., 2005). Among the benefits for the community are higher rates of physically and emotionally healthy citizens, higher rates of education, lower rates of domestic violence, lower rates of criminal activity, lower teen pregnancy rates, and a decreased need for social services (Wilcox et al., 2005). 5 The Federal Government describes a healthy marriage by the following criteria: "There are at least two characteristics that all healthy marriages have in common. First, they are mutually enriching, and second, both spouses have a deep respect for each other. • It is a mutually satisfying relationship that is beneficial to the husband, wife and children (if present). • It is a relationship that is committed to ongoing growth, the use of effective communication skills and the use of successful conflict management skills." (ACF, 2005). The goal of the 2005 Federal initiative was to increase access to marriage education resources for those who voluntarily chose to seek these services (ACF, 2005). Marriage education programs aim to prevent future distress within a marriage, as well as strengthen the marital relationship (Bowling, Hill, & Jencius, 2005). A myriad of marriage education programs exists, and an appropriate program can be chosen based on programs' strengths and the level of relevance of particular programs for the intended population. Program Description and Delivery The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages project offered the following educational programs during the 5-year grant period: PREP, Prepare/Enrich, WMR, WOR, Marriage Garden curriculum, Winning the Workplace Challenge, Love U2, and Love Notes. In addition, the project provided the following supplementary services: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, referral services, marriage boosters, employment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars. All programs and services are briefly described below. Following this, the manner in which the program was delivered to participants is described. Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) was an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP taught couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, and methods for dealing with conflict. It also aimed to enhance the commitment of the couples (Bowling et al., 2005). PREP can be presented with a facilitator in a group setting or with one couple at a time (Renick, Blumberg, & Markman, 1992). Delivery of the"PREP" marriage relationship education seminars. Couples from the general public participated in a PREP Workshop, which was provided in several formats (evening sessions or on Saturdays). These seminars focused on learning and practicing skills that improve marriages. Marriage educators and relationship coaches facilitated the workshops. In the beginning of Year 1, the workshop consisted of 12 hours of PREP. Later in Year 1, the workshop was expanded to 14 hours to include 2 hours of financial management. In May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to 8 hours. The curriculum was shortened to simplify reporting the number of people served and to maximize retention. PREP has responded to the trend by revising the original curricula to fit an 8-hour format. Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment The Prepare/Enrich curriculum was originally developed in the late 1970s to assist couples seeking premarital couple enrichment (Olson & Olson-Sigg, 1999). The original 6 curriculum was intended to facilitate a discussion between partners regarding relevant issues for married couples, such as conflict resolution, finances, communication, and goals of the couple and family. Prepare/Enrich began with the couple taking an assessment instrument to identify areas of weakness and strengths (www.prepare-enrich.com). Following the assessment, the partners met with a counselor for four to eight feedback sessions to discuss their areas of potential growth and their strengths as individuals and couples (www.prepare-enrich.com). Since its creation, the Prepare/Enrich curriculum has been revised three times (1982, 1986, and 1996). The current"Version 2000" has demonstrated strong reliability, with internal reliability coefficients for the scales of the instruments ranging from .73 to .90 (Olson &Olson-Sigg, 1999; Bowling et al.,2005). The Prepare/Enrich curriculum has demonstrated predictive validity in accurately forecasting couples who will be satisfied with their marriages 3 years after initiation of the program (Larsen & Olson, 1989). Discriminate validity has also been established by the curriculum. A study by Fowers and Olson (1989) demonstrated that Prepare/Enrich accurately discriminated between happily and unhappily married couples. There were six goals in the Prepare/Enrich Program: 1. "To explore Relationship Strengths and Growth Areas 2. To learn Assertiveness and Active Listening Skills 3. To learn how to resolve conflict using the Ten Step Model 4. To help couples discuss their Families-of-Origin 5. To help couples with financial planning and budgeting 6. To focus on personal, couple, and family goals (See http://www.prepare-enrich.com/training.cfm?id=33#What is PE) Delivery of the Prepare/Enrich program (relationship inventories). Participants in the Building Healthy Marriages program could participate in the Prepare/Enrich inventory, which indicated traits, expectations, and issues that couples may have wanted to address. The inventories included the opportunity for couples to discuss the results in as many as six follow- up sessions with educators who have been trained and certified by Life Innovations®. Within My Reach (WMR) The Within My Reach program was created by Stanley, Pearson, & Kline (2005) and is based on the PREP marriage education program. WMR was a relationship skills and decision making program. It was specifically designed for low-income individuals who were attending marriage education without a partner(Pearson, Stanley, & Kline, 2005). Central to the curriculum was the idea that the decisions individuals make in their love lives will affect many other areas of life, particularly career and child bearing/raising. The primary theme of the Within My Reach curriculum was safety in relationships (Pearson et al., 2005). The curriculum defined a healthy marriage as involving a high degree of safety. WMR included the following goals: • Enhance and stabilize current partner relationships. • Help people in damaging relationships to leave safely. • Help people to choose future partners wisely. Many of the skills taught can benefit an individual in work, social situations, and relationships with children and other family members. The curriculum took a number of characteristics of low-income populations into account and used an interactive, experiential curriculum (Pearson et al., 2005). 7 Delivery of the Within My Reach (WMR) relationship seminars. "Within My Reach" (WMR) seminars, which were delivered to individuals who were single or attending without a partner, were new to the BHM program in Year 3. Participants in Within My Reach may have attended the seminar alone and were not screened for income level or domestic violence. Within My Reach was an 8-hour curriculum, taught during a 1-day seminar to participants from the general public. Within Our Reach (WOR) Within Our Reach was a marriage education curriculum designed for low-income couples. The creators (Stanley et al., 2006) of the PREP marriage education curriculum designed this program. However,there were a number of distinct changes from the original PREP curriculum. The Within Our Reach curriculum was developed based upon research with economically disadvantaged families. This research guided the curriculum to include a different range of themes and concepts, to emphasize the needs of this community, and to revise the teaching style in the curriculum. The curriculum focused on the strengths of couples and the barriers that challenged them from meeting their relationship aspirations. Also, participants were charged with choosing the content and major themes of the sessions. The goal of the program was to facilitate a"sense of curriculum being tuned to their issues" (PREPInc, 2009, p. 2). The curriculum included global themes that were taught in every session and specific themes, such as racism, depression, or joblessness, which were covered when applicable (PREPInc, 2009). Emphasis was placed on the personal behavior of the individual and his or her responsibility for the way he or she though, acted, and responded (PREPInc, 2009). The presentation of the material and the teaching style changed from the original PREP curriculum. Within Our Reach presented smaller amounts of material, with more couple and group activities between lessons (PREPInc, 2009). This revision added energy to the curriculum, making sessions more interesting for participants. The training was expanded, and there was more in-session time to practice new skills (PREPInc, 2009). The curriculum was based on the "Safety Theory,"which included the following subtopics: • Ottta ±Safety (freedom from harm, physical aggression, and psychological abuse) • %i flhMSafety and Support Connected Support Conflict Under Control Safe to Talk • #DI I &"5[ IETOSafety and Security A Future An "Us" •Contextual Safety Crime Health Economic Racism Cultural Factors (PREPInc, 2009, p. 4). 8 Delivery of the Within Our Reach (WOR) seminar. The WOR seminars were delivered during Marriage Enrichment Weekends. Couples could participate in a weekend program that included much of the 12-hour WOR content in a weekend format. Marriage educators and coaches facilitated the weekends. To participate in a Marriage Enrichment Weekend, couples must have been referred by the Department of Human Services, qualified for the Building Healthy Marriages program, and participated in an income level and domestic violence screening. Marriage Enrichment Weekends were held at a local hotel. In addition to participating in a 12-hour Within Our Reach marriage education seminar, couples received a two-night stay at the hotel and a "date night," which included dinner at a restaurant. This format changed in Year 4. Enrichment weekends were no longer being scheduled due to the costs associated with this event. The WOR curriculum was then available to the general public but was delivered only in Spanish. "Marriage Garden" Marriage Education This educational program was created at the University of Arkansas. The Marriage Garden was based on the metaphor of partners in marriage learning the necessary tools, wisdom, and spirit to cultivate a healthy marriage,just as two people would come together to cultivate a healthy garden (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2006a). The curriculum included six lessons covering the following topics: • Commit: Make and honor promises. • Grow: Expand your strengths. • Nurture: Do the work of loving. • Understand: Cultivate compassion for your partner. • Solve: Turn differences into blessings. • Serve: Give back to your community. The Marriage Garden curriculum can be used with individuals, couples, groups, and as part of a marriage mentoring program (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2006a). Delivery of"Marriage Garden" marriage education. The Marriage Garden curriculum was offered at various Grover homes over four Saturdays from July 12—August 2, 2008. Twelve participants took part in this event. Winning the Workplace Challenge Winning the Workplace Challenge was a workplace relationship education program based on the principles of healthy relationships discussed in the PREP curriculum. This program addressed specific barriers and challenges of building healthy relationships within the workplace. Winning the Workplace Challenge was created by compiling the research-based knowledge of the PREP curriculum with the experience of individuals in the corporate world (Smart Marriages, 2009). The objectives of the program were to provide participants with the following: • Knowledge of what makes a great workplace • Understanding of the role of Relational Intelligence • Knowledge of the Amygdala Hijack • The ability to recognize Events, Issues, and Hidden Issues • The ability to demonstrate the Speaker/Listener Technique • A description of the role of expectations 9 • The ability to recognize the role of choices in relationships Several of these concepts, such as recognizing Events, Issues, Hidden Issues, and the role of expectations, were adapted for a workplace environment from the PREP marriage education curriculum. Others, including the Amygdala Hijack and the role of Relational Intelligence, were unique concepts created for the Winning the Workplace Challenge program. The Amygdala Hijack is a metaphor used to understand the brain's process of receiving and processing potentially threatening information. However, when the brain reacts defensively to information that is not threatening, subsequent reactions by people can cause damage to relationships (e.g., overly defensive reactions when in an argument). To eliminate this overreaction, participants were taught to "STOP," "Oxygenate: breathe," "Pause and Appreciate," and "Seek Information" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 11). Relational Intelligence is a term that describes people's characters, "their capacity to inspire others,their self-management, their ability to get along well with other people, how well they resolve conflict, or how they handle crises" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 19). By educating employees about healthy workplace relationships, Winning the Workplace Challenge aimed to create happier, healthier, more productive business environments. Delivery of"Winning the Workplace Challenge"work relationship education seminar. Winning The Workplace Challenge was offered in Year 3 and Year 4. Winning the Workplace Challenge was taught in a 1-day, 8-hour format. Participants included city employees and employees from different agencies within the community. Love U2 The Love U2 program was a relationship education program targeted to teens. Marline Pearson developed the Love U2 program based on the PREP curriculum created by Scott Stanley and Howard Markman (Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999). The Love U2 program went beyond traditional, fact-based sex education programs and discussed sex within the framework of relationships. The goal of the Love U2 program was to "help young people acquire practical skills and useful knowledge for forming emotionally healthy, mutually respectful, and ethically sound relationships" (The Dibble Institute, 2010, paragraph 1). The program also aimed to provide teens with a picture of healthy relationships in order to influence their decisions regarding relationships and sex as teens and into adulthood. The Love U2 program was based on research demonstrating a connection between family structure and the well-being of children (The Dibble Institute, 2009). The Love U2 curriculum taught teens the personal, economic, and social benefits of healthy relationships and a stable marriage. The lessons included in the Love U2 program were the following: • Destructive Patterns in Relationships— Four Danger Signs • Skills to Counter Negative Patterns—Time-Outs: A Path Back to Your Smart Brain • Complaints and Gripes— Being Heard, Not Ignored • Filters—I did not say that!" • Personality Style and Creative Use of Differences • Issues and Events— What Pushes Your Buttons? • Clarifying Expectations—Family, Peers, Girl/Boyfriend • Problem Solving and Taking Care of Friendship Delivery of the Love U2 student and teen relationship education seminar. The Love U2 seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 3. Love U2 was presented to 10 teenagers from the community in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2- hour per day format; and an overnight lock-in at an area church, which taught the 8-hour curriculum in one night. "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New in Year 4) The Love Notes: Making Relationships Work curriculum was a relationship education program developed to target at-risk youth, including those who were parents or currently pregnant. The program targeted strengths and goals and taught participants new strategies for decision making about life choices, such as engaging in sexual behavior and having children. Marline Pearson (2010) developed the Love Notes curriculum based on the Love U2 and the Within My Reach relationship education programs. The primary difference between the Love U2 curriculum and Love Notes was the attention paid to sexual choices, pregnancy, and parenting in the Love Notes curriculum. Topics included the following: • "Knowing Myself— Personality Style, Baggage, Expectations, Mapping My Future • Forming and Maintaining Healthy Relationships—Knowledge, Skills, Smart Steps • Frameworks for Assessing Relationships and Making Decisions • Recognizing Unhealthy Relationships and Responding to Dangerous Relationships • Effective Communication and Conflict Management • Intimacy, Sexual Values, Pacing Relationships, and Planning for Choices • Unplanned Pregnancy and Relationship Turbulence Through the Eyes of a Child • "The Success Sequence" (Pearson, 2010, paragraph 4). Delivery of the "Love Notes" student/teen relationship education groups. The Love Notes seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 4. Love Notes was presented in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2-hour per day format; and a 5- session, 1-hour-and-40-minute per day format. The following services were also offered at various times during the 5-year grant: • Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or Prepare/Enrich trainings. • Financial Management Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of financial counseling for help with managing finances. • Community Referrals (New in Year 3): This service taught couples about employment services programs that could assist them in finding jobs. In addition, it educated participants about community programs that could help them,their families, and their children. • Marriage Boosters: From January 2007 through April 2008, the marriage booster was a 6- hour educational workshop in which couples reviewed and practiced techniques learned in previous PREP training. Workshops were facilitated by marriage counselors and coaches. From May 2008 through September 2008, the Booster was a social event(e.g., a barbeque) with an educational component. Couples could enjoy the event and then participate in the 1 — 11 1 1/2-hour Booster. In Year 3 (starting October 2008), boosters were eliminated, as they were costly and ineffective for recruitment purposes. • Employment Support Training: This training provided opportunities for individuals to work with Employment Services of Weld County technicians to assist in career exploration workshops,job training opportunities,job searches, résumé development, and job placement assistance. The contract was dropped in Year 3 due to underutilization. • Marriage Mentoring Seminars: This service was delivered in the following way from the inception of the Building Healthy Marriages program until the third year of delivery. For the first 2 years,couples were matched with more experienced couples (Marriage Mentors)to develop relationship skills.This service may have also included being referred to conflict resolution or financial management services or being coached through a technique that the couple may have already learned, using the tools taught in the PREP curriculum. Beginning in the third year of the Building Healthy Marriages program, the composition of the Marriage Mentoring seminar changed and became Next Step Coaching. Next Step Coaching consisted of PREP, WOR, and the Relationship Inventories (Prepare/Enrich). Program Models Program Model Year 1 and First 7 Months of Year 2 (January 1, 2007—April 30,2008) During Year 1 (January 1, 2007—September 30, 2007) and the first 7 months of Year 2 (October 1, 2007—April 30, 2008),the BHM program was an intensive service model and structured more closely to the Supporting Healthy Marriage program than the Demonstration grant. Building Healthy Marriages program facilitators taught the PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) and Prepare/Enrich curriculum. Couples (married or in a relationship)who completed the eligibility assessment could participate in the following education events: Marriage Seminars, Marriage Mentoring Seminars, Marriage Enrichment Weekends, Marriage Boosters, Conflict Resolution Coaching, Financial Management Coaching, and Employment Support Training. (See Figure 1.)This program was evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and posttest survey (MSI-R and full KSS). Eligibility :k _ T� rs, assessment ,,Marriage Mentoring MSI-R pre-test nrichment Weekends, Marriage Boosters, Conflict Resolution oaching, Financial anagement Coaching, .and Employment Support Training, Figure 1: Building Healthy Marriages Model Year 1 and First 7 Months of Year 2 12 Program Model Last 5 Months of Year 2 (May 1, 2008—September 30, 2008) The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Program changed focus from an intensive service model to a community saturation model. The BHM team decided to deliver the program in a two-fold manner. The implementation of this new model began in May 2008. (See Figure 2.) 1. Education Model: The first part of the program was called"Public Events" and included a community saturation model of delivery. The main goal was to educate the public about marriage and relationships. Eight hours of Marriage Education in the form of PREP seminars for ((Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and unmarried participants in a relationship (R)), 10 hours of Prepare/Enrich curriculum (premarital/relationship inventories (5 different versions available taking one hour to complete+ 6 follow-up sessions each lasting 90 minutes) used for M and R, or 8 hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum (for I, M, R). Singles could participate in PREP and Marriage Garden, couples (M or R) could participate in all three events. (See Figure 2.) These public seminars were presented in two formats, two 4-hour days or four 2-hour days, depending on the needs of the participants and educators. Participants entered the Public Events program by registering online or calling the program for one of the advertised events. For evaluation purposes, participants were asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) were invited to contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second phase, called the "Mentoring Program." This phase supported the needs of those who met the eligibility requirements. In addition, couples could begin the mentoring model after they completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they did not have to go through the education model. 2. Mentoring Model: Beginning with an intake to determine eligibility, the specific needs of couples were identified. Couples were then assigned a mentor, who assisted them in signing up for appropriate services or referrals (i.e., marriage enrichment weekends, financial management education, conflict resolution coaching, employment services, health care, etc.). The main goal was to have couples participate in 8 hours of education, separate from the education model and with a different curriculum. The Prepare/Enrich inventories were also conducted, as appropriate, with anyone interested in premarital or marriage education/enhancement. The Mentoring Program was evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and posttest surveys (MSl-R, mini satisfaction surveys, KSS-Survey). The following additional education and services were offered in the mentoring model: • 8-hour"The Marriage Garden" Curriculum • 8-hour PREP Marriage Seminar • +10-hour Prepare/Enrich (1-hour inventory + 6 follow-up sessions of each+ 1 '/2 hours) • Booster(event such as barbeque: 1 — 1 '/z hours of education, open to anyone in the public) • Financial Management:No set curriculum, up to 4 hours per couple • Conflict Resolution: PREP, up to 4 hours per couple • Enrichment Weekend: PREP curriculum was taught during weekend. • Family Mentors: Couples were assigned mentors who assisted them in overcoming barriers in their relationships and provided them with referrals to services attuned with the program. • Employment Services: offered continuously on an as needed basis. 13 L ,4N eLb /a ...1 L cd fl. L O C •�• + L = 4+ •u C m v"0.0. 0 �' cLe �, a a) Ise ' `:'w. .c 0 L U O L O. o y x �, ea p" o = 0,, o b '� a) a '� i "o = W a O ces O — '0 Z .C 6) �" ci VJ o •� C7 r� a. wl E = aoi .� M0 COB x = o � 6 .0 • e ca 0. O > *' 4.) a ` c •�' a" wc � � = ,..C)4 � O CI O''' W C442 4, C O O + C C �.+ v O O L L C - - n O = y C0000 .., s .aC .ALT, � U ufz“.4 r �7 d U • • • • • • • • • 'b CD , tit a= _ 'L CC .� a) . • CC -AZ N 12 O CL = CC - C9 - 6> = OA.� C S E 4. L ea y 'C ., y 4.1 O CC v •� Cv •> C H y © *4 - C d � _ ' CD a '" L>' O. o as yCaB � Ca *no o '° i a�i • C a� U � Fes . a, E Wx -a o y . b „ a, 0 2 o .r i+ CC V ... (, -0T. .Q L -� L C y CC CU 6 y L C LT.i bA C 7 = . y y CC d y L �O+ CO L e C L co C 01).; U .0 •� CI. 6 i 4. ,w; C •L C CC CC C v O" W CC = CC uJ C CO CC C = _ 03• .L L L h y ii , el r, O ; .- _ = ,� C = Y RI C C C O.4. co) + . L '+ = CLE + CC vJ a V G .ta- � W O ,cow -Kam CC 6� C� V, �+ vi e !� ..n L CU CU L C i. C•tL.. L .= .2 d. CL0 C ¢, bA O 0 CC IT; M _ v) C O eC vl C O C C L CC y = 40 s � "`-'ut •L •E .� C" V Z C, R,4, E O, o '= O O ay r`4" Vp 00 = 'C O •IW v� C V) H = I=I y ._ _ S 6E CS 'L O ._' CC 1 t1. "Q p y p p a=+ '- p :? CO co c� 6 L L It •6 •rte"+ .0 at C" _ CSC O, C" tt 0 Ol .= CC = P D = I." CC= T. O _. • • — Gy Program Model Years 3, 4, and 5 (October 2008-September 2011) In Year 3, BHM was required to make programmatic changes,to align itself more clearly with grant directives. Primarily, the focus was shifted to the target population as outlined in the grant, and the number of participants was increased. This resulted in a new program model with three service structures: Relationship Seminars (community saturation),Next Step Coaching (intensive relationship education with mentoring for couples who qualified), and Building a Family (intensive relationship education services for non-married, expectant couples). The implementation of this new model began in October 2008 (Year 3). 1. Relationship Seminars The first part of the program was called "Relationship Seminars" and used a community saturation model of delivery. These programs were offered to the general public and did not require any assessment or eligibility determination. The main goal of this program was to educate the public about marriage and relationships. These programs included 1) Eight hours of education using PREP (for Individuals [I], Married couples [M], and Unmarried Participants who were in a relationship [R]; 2) Eight hours of the "Within My Reach" program (WMR) for singles; 3) Eight hours of Within Our Reach (WOR) for Spanish speaking couples; 4) Eight hours of Love Notes for teens; and 5) Eight hours of Winning the Workplace Challenge for employees. (See Figure 1.) These seminars were presented in three formats: one 8-hour day, two 4 hour days, or four 2-hour days, depending on the needs of the participants and educators. Participants entered the Relationship Seminars by registering online or calling the program. For evaluation purposes, participants were asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. The Relationship Seminars were evaluated with a post mini satisfaction survey. At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) were invited to contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second phase, called "Next Step Coaching." This phase supported the needs of those who met the eligibility requirements. (See Figure 3 and 2a.) Couples were allowed to begin with "Next Step Coaching" after they completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they did not need to attend the Relationship Seminars. Non-married couples who were expecting or had a child less than 3 months of age were invited to complete a needs assessment and then referred to particular programs in the "Building a Family" program. (See Figure 3 and 2b.) 2a. Next Step Coaching The primary audience targeted for this 8-hour program was low-income couples. In order to increase participation in the Next Step Coaching program, the income eligibility criteria was removed. This change took place in June 2010 (second part of Year 4). Beginning with an eligibility assessment, the needs of couples were identified. Couples were then referred to the Relationship Inventories, the WOR curriculum, or the PREP program. The Relationship Inventories, using the Prepare/Enrich curriculum, were conducted with parties interested in premarital or marital education/enhancement. The Within Our Reach program was a group mentoring program. Couples focused on developing problem solving skills. In addition, there was a focus on sensuality and sexuality within the relationship. PREP was an educational program that helped couples to develop strong and rewarding marriages. The Next Step 15 Coaching Program was evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and posttest surveys (MSI-R, mini satisfaction surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey). 2b. Building a Family This program began with a needs assessment for couples. A Community Family Liaison was then assigned to each couple. The liaison considered the couples' needs and then assisted the partners in enrolling in appropriate services or referrals (i.e., PREP, WOR, Relationship Inventories [using Prepare/Enrich], Conflict Resolution Coaching, Financial Management Coaching, and Community Referrals). The following education and services were offered in the "Building a Family" program: • Eight hours of"Relationship Seminars" using PREP • Eight hours of Within Our Reach (Spanish only) • Eight hours or more of the Relationship Inventories using the Prepare/Enrich (inventory for I hour+six 90-minute follow-up sessions) • Conflict Resolution Coaching: PREP, up to 4 hours per couple • Financial Management Coaching:No set curriculum, up to 4 hours per couple • Community Referrals: to employment services and/or community programs • Assigned a Community Family Liaison: This person assisted couples in overcoming relationship barriers and provided them with referrals to services. The Building a Family Program was evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and posttest surveys (MSl-R, mini satisfaction surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey). 16 N. 4..' V, V, a) a) N ' "I v 1"' V ._.. n ... a L y In v L C a a1 ayyJ w t w .y '1... 4 - a) L _, (p ` U1 VI k6 O E Osvl 0 a a- 3 E � rn � E E � o, c' EE d c d C V w ' w ' E CC D .E CC D .C__CO ° in U 4a as v ..-• in C in .L >. L L O C V) r ca O a) 0 U a — U C � E CCCE `L. it a fa Eauoaua) v c _c LL - c o 0).- u � 4n U mi7111 .� — C � 0 s rip v-i .. L .c .E 4j Cr) y4,.I aNi (n 4A 4-- VI V1 t V1 N C6 — C 4- cc C C +-� rp 0 K O O O v - O O O V E ZL c a ° v � VI `) 4-1 (0 E m L C - - t0 � � tYtYa G O jCKC6Ui- U N O W • • N L W • • • • • r.. C N. -O V) -a I 49 (f) \ — N s i a) v 0 . d f° Va �„ � L N. a1 aEi v o E E sacivuo � c E U acc cr in lam E ,� a' .. a In a) as v v C i 'D ++ czi U a_c i U A Q 4L a) y0 i C a E > i c3 v w t) a O c 0 C. co 13 E y m ate '-L. 4-' E as 00 L r rn yd.r " CD ai C a-0 C � � al E ria, " 4 _ N y VI ra 4- a c s. aEzmn ° v w c aCi ZZZOZUD aal '�M .O O1 - C L fp -_ _ 0 O O N O & c O 10 a d 'O w _ U m n v U E C N N U Tu. E C lYce y d O O U 0 VI a � 0 co 43 N v Q, V) Y r u t1.0 O d m r O. in y at CO W � � T7 a) 2 -al E20 t5 rn Ce O C a H a) i .C ,C z .C7. .C ,-'l 4+ > O1 i I-1 > C ti c al O : � aa` 33 � 3 = W • • • • • to C 'G = N m m r'1 U1 . n 1 CU I U C Y cn _ L 5 a.) 7...- 16 U G y a > .00 ti C XX O ..--, Dl a) C a.. v h • C 3 di ' Y 0 ov " = C z cd a> c=d 0 a as c0A w c ' F" rn cn E L 3 m ° b a, as o�.' E E ° E ,- — v E ; o � ' aL' > a k O O cd N S G U c� y — L Z O a) y, .0 N CA C� ° c •v o fi 'E co E g i E W ` h . u,, ._ L .- C N "0 a�i 0 y CL N ,.- 0 y O +fin. Lz. G Rd ,.... OOc C .= e� 3 : 3 3 & 0, � � 8 rov03 >, � ° cci = o Zc4a� • o ' — cn ° = L �=� cairj ,vat :13= as = s c22a. 3r� xm N 15 g4 _ = o o ° aa) O C > > O G a7vjO c� , i C O _A- =_, U 'aC.. o .tV0C.) G a� c w oA v cn .1 a •i T f1 i y L °V E O 2 - kr. CAC - - C "O .,=. x cn x>'' •+�.� C z. O s H CG c 'a m `� C s -cii .D O 5 - v c Ws 2 O w y v c 3 •N a) oil C v o .G G L ° 3. L = w " ° 0 gam • -: O.:1 -5. v �'N o tt • a a, rn v E = a _ L W ' H r_cn 9 c) O v c -a ° c7 .. > O w 3 v 0 . • as Y v on 8 Z c �n o ,• _ o 6 ai Q ° '-' ai 0 o O - c4 w a 0 at C ;V p � 5 w b Z C O U � L O U a r n a U• U fi , a,a-~ ° O. •Q' C'J 0. W) i ° O N a ��j' F+' a1)1 [ C... a a ° ,,, v O •G o ° O c, 0 ° '� y c c7 v to V1 ? Z Ci o o y p ' .O v ,X..v ° o c G a' c ,r c O Z w YO .I .� v CO 3 a. a; t '" V 4... MI 41 C C tn Y V) X a O 7.C MC; ° d cL , a Z, c w V a 3 a F . 7 .. U . U ° b ra) ,' o ,E O �, C =O a c w :'o 3 U 3 �? _ � L on3 asas, w _ b c G v c o o a. c s cg 3 ° se c v cu o ° •can •= i .≥ 3 a cA m pr x ) r °' c U H• y G U a� •v h o 3 O ., cd a' •n M.•v a 7 •c Y i° m a.. a) a> •v C C On O 0 L OO b •E C 4. b O 7 .� y OO .D � O O y cd C CO a',i C U b Q) CU N ,� .°C .D y O 'Z C V] 00 ' L '{O 'C C > y_ .0 c — y s = y v O C U 'O 0. cd w b 0 CO ••••,.. 3 O 0 e cn'= 3 G ,c o• on Y Ai c C .ecat C on > 3 cn > .c .0 `Ed 0 c C on 0 v, ,�, a>i .b •C . •-E- Mv I > a ° y o0n ° scat _ yecl 3 Y a Y ° c o • o � n E t a .c 0 .c _ "O alcn .. m 00..— ed �R. a to �a cat fa, E cn � � o as ° � ant o v :77 .cTct aKi ycv' a, b � '� a, v� -a :.: o > cUp. a••da; Eo � p., U 3 -v E � " sye a) cn � �C 4 4 'ter t ,.o a) 3 '�y a) W G E o v v a� cc > °n a' a as 8 a; a� of ° . a a) a) a> o -F.. ° e 0 w t .5 z = n o .;A •'c >, `• � 3 �, cn vi • _1° p. - O yO •v id o Y s o *2 u .c a . a c y = 8 aw ° t as w^ o ° t'^' o c 'c 3 m E E O on cn o o� � v .° - ° >, a�i ,�ae o . a 4 = � N on o Ci*1:* ; o a m a. G = ._ v a ° o = = c a o �' a o n ° ° cd CC) = ro U 'C c y O •2 'v a ayi y L > az .S as o O en v 4- 2 a � z° a ¢. 8 .r °" 333 C) a °a. 3r > °' 3 •v . H •b E .5 w a) v E a) °_' a. Demographics of Those Served Demographic Statistics Summary The Weld County Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 20106) indicates that the Hispanic population (composed primarily of Mexican-Americans) is the county's largest minority group. This group makes up 28.4% of Weld County's population, with 18%of the population speaking Spanish at home. Colorado Census information from 2010 indicates that 20.7% of the state's population is from Hispanic or Latino origin, indicating a change of 41.2%when compared with data from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). Census information from 2009 indicates that 14.8%of Weld County families live below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Table 1 illustrates the demographic profiles of all participants who participated in the BHM program. In addition, the table contains the demographic data of the participants from Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (Years 1 Through 5) Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to the fact that some participants did not respond to the demographics questions. The narrative describes the demographics of all the participants who took part in the BHM program during the last 5 years. Data collection was concluded on June 11, 2011 to allow sufficient time for data analyses and report writing. Gender • Fifty-five percent(n= 1641) of the participants were female, and 45% (n = 1334) were male. The gender distribution is not equal because individuals who are either single, in a relationship, or married may participate in seminars. Race/Ethnicity • Of the 2975 participants, 61%(n= 1803) were White, followed by 28%(n= 829) Hispanic. The other 7%(n =212)were Asian, Black,Native American, or other/multicultural. Four percent(n= 131) did not respond to this question. Age • The average age of participants was 34 years. Fourteen percent(n=408) were 19 or younger, 40% (n= 1191) were between the ages of 20 and 35, 33% (n=967)were between the ages of 36 and 55, and 7% (n= 195) were 56 or older. Seven percent (n =214) did not respond to this question. Household Characteristics • One thousand eight hundred twenty-seven participants (70%) had children, with an average of 2.5 children per household. Of the participants who had children, 481 participants (26%) had one child, 597 participants (33%) had two children,428 participants (23%) had three children, and 321 participants (18%) had four or more children. 19 Table 1: Demogra.hic Characteristics Total Years Year Year3 Year 2 Year I Years I—5 Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants (n=2975) (n=520) (n=1050) (n=926) (n=311) (n=168) n % n % n % it % ft % it % Gender Female 1641 55.2 270 51.9 564 53.7 559 60.4 164 52.7 84 50.0 Male 1334 44.8 250 48.! 486 46.3 367 39.6 147 47.3 84 50.0 Race/Ethnicity Asian 23 .8 6 1.2 7 .7 8 .9 1 .3 1 .6 Black 32 1.1 9 1.7 3 .3 13 1.4 2 .6 5 3.0 Hispanic 829 27.9 107 20.6 291 27.7 288 31.1 93 29.9 50 29.8 Native Amer. 36 1.2 5 1.0 9 .9 11 1.2 6 1.9 5 3.0 White 1803 60.6 340 65.4 637 60.7 541 58.4 192 61.7 93 55.4 Other 121 4.1 29 5.6 58 5.5 25 2.7 4 1.3 5 3.0 Did not resp. 131 4.4 24 4.6 45 4.3 40 4.3 13 4.2 9 5.4 Age(M,SD) 34.1 131 35.8 12.2 30.5 12.7 36.9 13.3 37.1 13.2 30.3 9.5 13— 19 years 408 13.7 31 6.0 267 25.4 85 9.2 15 4.8 10 6.0 20—35 years 1191 40.0 225 43.3 393 37.4 322 34.8 132 42.4 119 70.8 36—55 years 967 32.5 181 34.8 273 26.0 35 38.7 123 39.5 32 19.0 56 and over 195 6.6 30 5.8 40 3.8 8 9.9 29 9.3 4 2.4 Did not respond 214 7.2 53 10.2 77 7.3 92 7.5 12 3.9 3 1.8 69 n=2625 n=515 n=1019 n=612 n=311 n=168 Number children*(M,SD) 2.5 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.3 1.3 2.6 1.4 2.8 2.0 2.3 1.2 0 781 29.8 141 27.4 436 42.8 136 22.2 54 17.4 14 8.3 1 481 18.3 101 19.6 169 16.6 104 17.0 60 19.3 47 28.0 2 597 22.7 114 22.1 212 20.8 154 25.2 76 24.4 41 24.4 3 428 16.3 88 17.1 106 10.4 135 22.1 62 19.9 37 22.0 4 190 7.2 44 8.5 62 6.1 40 6.5 23 7.4 21 12.5 >5 131 5.0 25 4.9 32 3.1 41 6.7 29 9.3 4 2.4 Did not respond 17 .7 2 .4 2 .2 2 .3 7 2.3 4 2.4 n=2082 n=437 n=659 n=527 n=291 n=168 Length Marriage••(M, SD) 8.52 9.32 8.91 9.8 7.41 8.2 10.0 9.9 9.68 10.7 5.19 5.9 0—5 years 1050 50.4 216 49.4 377 57.2 219 41.6 147 50.5 91 54.2 6- 10 years 432 20.7 94 21.5 123 18.7 109 20.7 56 19.2 50 29.8 11 -20 years 309 14.8 70 16.0 89 13.5 107 20.3 32 11.0 11 6.5 >20 years 229 11.0 53 12.1 63 9.6 65 12.3 46 15.8 2 1.2 Did not respond 62 3.0 4 .9 7 1.1 27 5.1 10 3.4 14 8.3 n=2338 n=506 n=753 n=600 n=311 n=168 #previous marriages... 0 1601 68.5 354 70.0 499 66.3 409 68.2 208 66.9 131 78.0 1 544 23.3 105 20.8 201 26.7 137 22.8 73 23.5 28 16.7 2 142 6.1 39 7.7 36 4.8 40 6.7 22 7.1 5 3.0 3 or more 28 1.2 5 1.0 10 1.3 10 1.7 2 .6 1 .6 Did not respond 23 1.0 3 .6 7 .9 4 .7 6 1.9 3 1.8 n=2975 n=520 n=1050 n=926 n=311 n= 168 Employed(Hours M,SD) 39.21 12.7 40.1 13.1 39.0 13.7 39.4 11.6 39.0 12.66 36.7 10.5 Yes 1954 65.7 363 69.8 621 59.1 666 71.9 208 66.9 96 57.1 No 991 33.3 153 29.4 421 40.1 251 27.1 99 31.8 67 39.9 Did not Res.. 30 1.0 4 .8 1118 Alliv 9 1.0 Mi 1.3 5 3.0 Note•Question about#of children was not asked on Workplace Mini KSS.••Question regarding length of current marriage was not applicable for Singles,WMR participants,and Workplace participants....Question about previous marriage was not asked on Workplace Mini KSS. 20 Table 1 (Continued Total Year 5 VIM \'ear 3 Year 2 Year 1 Years I—5 Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants (n=2975) (n=520) In=1050) (a=926) (n=311) (a=168) n % n I % " I % " I % n I % n 1 n= 1015 n=210 n=334 n=246 n=141couples n=84 couples couples couples couples cou ales Employment Status* Both partners empl.ft 287 28.3 62 29.5 99 29.6 79 32.1 38 27.0 9 10.7 Both partners empl.pt 32 3.2 4 1.9 11 3.3 11 4.5 2 1.4 4 4.8 One partner ft,one pt 175 17.2 40 19.0 61 18.3 39 15.9 23 16.3 12 14.3 One partner empl.ft 311 30.6 63 30.0 105 31.4 66 26.8 45 31.9 32 38.1 One partner empl.pt 66 6.5 12 5.7 22 6.6 15 6.1 II 7.8 6 7.1 Both partners unempl. 102 10.0 17 8.1 27 8.1 27 11.0 17 12.1 14 16.7 Did not respond 42 4.1 12 5.7 9 2.7 9 3.7 5 3.5 7 8.3 Occupation Executive/Adv.Profess. 259 8.7 65 12.5 90 8.6 89 9.6 14 4.5 I .6 Business Mgt 261 8.8 50 9.6 76 7.2 98 10.6 26 8.4 11 6.5 Admin/Small Business 281 9.4 51 9.8 80 7.6 117 12.6 29 9.3 4 2.4 ClericaUSales/Technical 369 12.4 64 12.3 98 9.3 138 14.9 48 15.4 21 12.5 Skilled Manual 404 13.6 73 14.0 147 14.0 116 12.5 42 13.5 26 15.5 Semiskilled/Machine Op. III 3.7 24 4.6 27 2.6 26 2.8 19 6.1 15 8.9 Unskilled 103 3.5 21 4.0 21 2.0 25 2.7 20 6.4 16 9.5 Unemployed 991 33.3 153 29.4 421 40.1 25I 27.1 99 31.8 67 39.9 Did not respond 196 6.6 19 3.7 90 8.6 66 7.1 14 4.5 7 4.2 City** Brighton 4 1.3 Cheyenne I 1 1.0 Dacono 11 2.I 2 1.2 Eaton 41 1.4 11 2.1 10 1.0 10 1.1 10 3.2 Evans 243 8.2 36 6.9 91 8.7 69 7.5 33 10.6 14 8.3 Firestone 7 1.3 2 1.2 Fort Collins 203 6.8 68 13.1 102 9.7 33 3.6 Fort Lupton 7 1.3 19 6.1 Frederick 6 1.2 Galeton 2 1.2 Greeley 1717 57.7 242 46.5 584 55.6 603 65.1 174 55.9 114 67.9 Grover 16 5.1 4 2.4 Johnstown 33 1.1 17 1.6 16 1.7 Kersey 5 1.6 2 1.2 LaSalle 6 1.2 10 1.0 11 1.2 Lochbuie 4 1.3 Longmont 6 1.2 10 1.0 2 1.2 Loveland 135 4.5 29 5.6 63 6.0 40 4.3 3 1.0 Mead 2 1.2 Milliken 32 1.1 10 1.0 14 1.5 4 I.3 4 2.4 Pierce 4 1.3 Platteville 10 3.2 2 1.2 Windsor 83 2.8 20 3.8 30 2.9 22 2.4 5 1.6 6 3.6 Missing 84 2.8 21 4.0 22 2.1 29 3.1 12 7.1 Education level(M, SD) 13.1 2.8 13.58 3.1 12.84 2.50 13.2 3.0 12.92 2.6 12.69 2.7 Less than high school 589 19.8 64 12.3 296 28.2 165 17.8 41 13.2 23 13.7 High school only 852 28.6 144 27.7 263 25.0 240 25.9 123 39.5 82 48.8 More than high school 1384 46.5 283 54.4 it.14 412 461 49.8 _ 4.1 59 35.1 Did not respond 150 5.0 29 5.6 60 6.5 2 4 2.4 Note.*Some individuals participated alone;therefore these data were not collected,ft=full time,pt=part time "Only cities with percentages larger than one are displayed. 21 Marital Status • Fifty percent of the participants(n= 1050)had been married for 0 to 5 years,21%(n=432) were married between 6 and 10 years, and 26%(n=538)were married for more than 10 years. Three percent(n=62)of the participants did not answer this question. Sixty-nine percent(n= 1601) of the participants who were asked this question indicated the current marriage was their first, 23%(n=544) had one previous marriage, and 7%(n= 170) indicated having been married twice or more. Employment • Thirty-three percent(n= 991) of the participants were unemployed,and 66%(n= 1954) were employed and worked an average of 39 hours. • Of the 1015 couples who completed the employment questions, 773 couples (76%) indicated that either both were employed full-time or at least one partner worked full-time, 32 couples (3%) indicated that both partners were employed part-time, 66 couples (7%) indicated that only one partner was employed part-time, and 102 couples(10%) specified that neither partner was employed. Residence • Fifty-eight percent of the participants lived in Greeley(n= 1717);of those, 556 (32%)were Hispanic, and 1099(64%)were non-Hispanic. Thirty-nine percent(n= 1174) lived in cities surrounding Greeley; the majority was non-Hispanic (n= 879, 75%), and 20%were Hispanic (n=234). Education • Of the participants, 29% (n= 852)had a high school diploma only, and 47%(n= 1384) completed education beyond high school graduation. Twenty percent(n=589) had less than a high school diploma. Figures 4 through 14 display graphically changes over the years of this program, including the distribution of participants by gender, race/ethnicity, age,number of children, length of current marriage, number of previous marriages,employment, employment status couple,occupation, city of residence, and education level. Figure 4: Gender (1/0 70.0 60.4 60.0 50.0 52.7 53.7 51 9 55' 50.0 4.7.3 46 3 48.1 •Year 1 50.0 39 6: 44.8 •Year 2 40.0 vi Year 3 30.0 ■Year 4 20.0 Year 5 10.0 '. ■Total 0.0 Female Male 22 % Figure 5: Race/Ethnicity 70.0 -f-- 60.0 50.0 In Year 1 40.0 ■Year 2 x.Year 3 30.0 ■Year4 20.0 ' Year 5 10.0 ■Total Asian Black Hispanic Native White Other Did not American respond % Figure 6: Age 80.0 70.0 60.0 •Year 1 50.0 ■Year 2 40.0 : I- Year 3 30.0 win. ■Year 4 20.0 -- I Year 5 III 10.0 , . ii. I r _al . ■Total 0.0 13— 19 years 20—35 years 36—55 years 56 and over Did not respond Figure 7: Number of Children ono 45.0 - 40.0 35.0 si Year 1 30.0 ■ r 2 25.0 lP — YeaYear 3 20.0 15.0 — Ill ■Year 4 10.0 — Year 5 i I 5.0 — I , ■Total -0.0 -r 4 -r ' — 1 r MI 0 1 2 ; -4 >5 Did not respond 23 % Figure 8: Length of Current Marriage 70.0 60.0 - 50.0 —--_ Year 1 •Year 2 40.0 '. 30.0 Year 3 ' . ■Year 4 20.0 ' . - MI Year 5 10.0 ■Total , Ir _. 111 L._ 0_5 years 6— 10 years 11 —20 years >20 years Did not respond Figure 9: Number of Previous Marriages 90.0 80.0 — 70.0 — Year 1 60.0 — - ■Year 2 v,: 50.0 Year 3 40.0 — 4 ■Year 4 30.0 ,,, Year 5 20.0 ■Total 10.0 --Kr I'R;ii'I";1' — — F 0 I 2 3 Did not respond Figure 10: Employment pro 80.0 70.0 - 60.0 r`r7-•,' - --- Year 1 : s; 50.0 -, -- ®Year 2 40.0 'r 1,;if , - - — -- Year 3 K f:i: t 30.0 -'i ■Year 4 20.0 I -- Year ` :, N. ■Total 10.0 f z ,ikiYes No Did not respond 24 5,0 Figure 11 : Employment Status Couple 45.0 - - 40.0 35.0 Year 1 30.0 25.0 - I — ■Year 2 20.0 15.0 _ i - Year3 - 10.0 1 5.0 h I f ' I IC ■Year 4 0.0 _ Year 5 Both Both One One One Both Did not partners partners partner ft, partner partner partners respond ■Total employed employed one pt employed employed did not ft pt ft pt work Figure 12: Occupation Did not respond - i Unemployed J.. Unskilled :. I ■Total Semi-Skilled/Machine Operator Year 5 Skilled Manual ■Year 4 Clerical/Sales/Technical Administrative/Small Business Owner -I Year 3 ,-iBusiness Mgt/Lower Professional - , •Year 2 Executive/Advanced Professional ;-_____ -1 ■Year 1 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 % Figure 13: Residence 80 70 60 -1° 50 Year 1 40 ■Year 2 30 i ■Year 3 20 ■Year 4 10 0 r ' � ll, JO , r t ril l'..-en r mile' r-ti r' ..1d. Year 5 o c °c o g c e .5 2 o 1 a C N •= •q cgd b C c� ^ o C 2 n ■Total > 3 a o a�i . '6 ca U ii- o tO v. .J -a a CL V- LI- *Only cities with percentages 1 or larger are displayed in Figure 13. 25 Figure 14: Education Level 60.0 50.0 - a Year 1 40.0 ■Year 2 30.0 - — a Year 3 ■Year 4 20.0 Year 5 10.0 .•• 3T ■Total 0.0 Less than high High school More than high Did not respond school school Interesting Demographic Changes During the 5 Grant Years Gender • For all years except for Year 1,there were more females than males who participated in the program. However, all years except for Year 3, the male to female ratio was close to 1:1. In Year 3, many more females participated in the program(60%). The fact that the program recruited almost as many males as females(with males making up 45%percent of participants overall) is a strength because traditionally,males are less likely to participate in marriage counseling than females(e.g., Bringle & Byers, 1997). However, more current research suggests that men and women may equally seek help, as evidenced by research showing that the relationship between marital distress and use of mental health care is not moderated by gender(e.g., Schonbrun& Whisman, 2010). Race/Ethnicity • Over the 5 years, slightly over one-quarter of participants were Hispanic. Other minority groups made up very small percentages of participants overall and during each individual year. Over the first 3 years of the program,the percentage of Hispanic participants gradually increased. However, after Year 3,the percentage of Hispanics in the program decreased, reaching the lowest yearly percentage (21%) in Year 5. Recruitment strategies that included opening the educational programs to the general public and individuals who did not need to meet income criteria may have influenced the increase in White participants. Age • Each year of the program,the average age of participants was in the 30s,and average ages within this decade fluctuated slightly up and down with no noticeable trends over the 5 years. The percentage of participant's ages 13— 19 years was relatively low all years except Year 4, in which this age group made up 25%of participants due to the inclusion of the youth oriented programs,especially"Love Notes." In Year 4,eighteen"Love Notes" classes completed the mini Knowledge and Satisfaction(KSS) surveys. Participants who were 56 26 years old or older were a low proportion of the total participants all 5 years. All years, except for Year 1, the percentage of participants ages 20—35 years and 36— 55 years was fairly evenly balanced, with most years showing slightly higher percentages in the 20—35 year range. However, in Year 1, there were significantly more participants aged 20 —35 years (71%) than in any other age group. Household Characteristics • The average number of children participants had was similar each year of the program, ranging from 2.3 to 2.8. A notable trend is an increase in the number of participants having no children over the 5 years, with the largest percentage with no children (43%) occurring in Year 4. Over the entire course of the program, most participants had children (n= 1827, 70%), meaning this program impacted many children in Greeley and the surrounding areas. Marital Status • During the first year, the program attracted few people who had been married for 11 years or longer. However, as the program continued, more participants who had been married for greater than 10 years took part in the program. The number of participants in this group peaked in Year 3, in which 33%of participants (almost one-third of the participants) had been married for more than 10 years. However, each year, the group that had the greatest percentage of participants was the one for those married 0—5 years. This shows that overall, the program has attracted new couples. This may be because recruitment efforts were more targeted at these couples. • Over the 5 years, consistently, most participants had not been in any previous marriages. This was especially the case in Year 1. A significant minority of participants had had one previous marriage (ranging from 17%to 27%over the course of the program), and very few couples had been married 2 or more times, consistent over the 5 years. Employment • In general,the 5 years within which this program ran saw a general upward trend in the percent of participants who were employed, and over all years, there were more participants who were employed than unemployed. Also, there was a consistent decrease in the number of couples in which both partners were unemployed. While there was a drop in employment of individual participants in Year 4, it increased in Year 5, possibly indicating that the economy was starting to provide more job opportunities. According to national records, the unemployment rate peaked in 2009 but has since started to decrease (Federal Reserve Economic Data, 2011). The Gross Domestic Product also was decreasing at this time but started to increase at the end of 2009 and has been continuing this trend (Federal Reserve Economic Data, 2011). • Over the 5 years, most participants'jobs were in Clerical/Sales/Technical or Skilled Manual areas. Also, there was a general upward trend in the percentage of participants working in more lucrative fields, such as Executive/Advanced Professional and Business Management. Residence • Most of the people who participated in the program lived in Greeley, with no other cities even being a close second. Evans attracted the second biggest group of participants, who made up only 8.2%of the total participants. However, over the 5 years, a smaller percentage of participants have lived in Greeley, with slightly less than half the participants (47%) living 27 there in Year 5. It appears that recruitment efforts have become more successful at targeting those in the surrounding areas of Greeley. Specifically, Fort Collins saw a huge increase in participation over the 5 years, with those from this city making up less than one percent of all participants in Years 1 and 2 and 13%of participants by Year 5. Education • Overall, most participants were in the group that had received more than a high school education. Looking at the 5 years separately, one can see some interesting trends. The percentage of those having only a high school education generally decreased, and the percentage of those having more than a high school education generally increased. It appears that the program did a better job of attracting more educated people through targeted marketing efforts. The percentage of those with less than a high school education was about the same over the years except for in Year 4, in which a significantly higher proportion (28%) were in this group. Referral Source Table 2 provides information on the referral sources for the BHM participants during the 5 grant years. Overall, 18.2% of the participants were referred by radio advertisement (n = 542), followed by referrals from the faith-based community (n= 538; 18.1%) and friends and family (n = 206; 6.9%). Over the years, some changes occurred in the referral sources. There was a large increase in the percentage of participants recruited by the radio, with this group being less than 1%of participants in Year 1 and reaching a high of 27.9%of participants in Year 4. There was also an increase in the proportion of participants who were referred by friends and family, possibly because every year, more people had completed the program and then recommended it to others. In contrast, the percentage of those in the former participant category decreased over time (from 14.3% in Year I to 1.9% in Year 5), meaning that over time, the program attracted more new participants. The proportion referred by the Pregnancy Resource Center also decreased over time. Other notable findings are that the percentage of those recruited by the faith-based community was especially high in Year 2, and the percentage referred by the community mediation project was especially high in Year 3. 28 Table 2: Referral Base Total Year 5 Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Year I Year 1-S Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants (n=2975) (n=520) (n=1050) (n=926) (n=311) (n=168) n % n % !t % it % n % !1 % Radio 542 18.2 123 23.7 293 27.9 108 11.7 18 5.8 Faith-Based Community 538 18.1 71 13.7 198 18.9 134 14.5 103 33.1 32 19.0 Friend/Family 206 6.9 61 11.7 70 6.7 55 5.9 12 3.9 8 4.8 Community Mediation 163 5.5 29 5.6 23 2.2 102 11.0 7 2.3 2 1.2 Project City of Greeley 152 5.1 28 2.7 124 13.4 Former Participant 122 4.1 10 1.9 21 2.0 27 2.9 40 I 12.9 24 14.3 United Way 100 3.4 22 4.2 32 3.0 41 4.4 3 1.0 2 1.2 Day Spring School 99 3.3 77 7.3 22 2.4 Weld County DHS 79 2.7 8 1.5 13 1.2 79 8.5 14 4.5 6 3.6 Self-Referral 65 2.2 18 3.5 30 9.6 4 2.4 Internet 64 2.2 22 4.2 24 2.3 II 1.2 7 2.3 Pregnancy Resource 57 1.9 15 1.4 14 4.5 20 11.9 Center - Head Start 40 1.3 5 1.0 7 2.3 22 13.1 Employment Services 38 1.3 28 9.0 8 4.8 BHM 34 1.1 6 1.2 12 1.1 14 1.5 Cinco de Mayo Booth 10 6.0 Children's Festival 4 2.4 Transitional House 2 I.2 Newspaper 2 I.2 BHM presentation at job 2 1.2 Current participant 9 1.0 2 1.2 Ft.Lupton Trapper Days 2 1.2 Therapist/Counselor 5 1.6 2 1.2 Health Department 6 1.9 Fun Run 4 1.3 Frontier Academy 12 1.3 TV add 18 1.7 Billboard 8 1.5 North Ridge High School 12 1.1 Teacher 20 1.9 Did Not Respond/Missing 297 10.0 85 16.3 gaol 9.6 97 10.5 11106 14 8.3 *Includes all participants who initiated involvement with BHM,and participants are only counted once. **Only referral sources with percentages 1 or larger are displayed in Table 2. -,9 Figure 15: Referral Base Did Not Respond/Missing Children's Festival Cinco de Mayo Booth Employment Services Head Start Pregnancy Resource Center Internet MEM Self-Referral •Year 1 ■Year 2 Weld County DHS ■Year 3 Day Spring School •Year 4 Year 5 United Way ■Total Years 1 —5 Former Participant City of Greeley Community Mediation Project Friend/Family Faith Based Community Radio r i 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 *Only referral sources with percentages 2 or larger are displayed in Figure 15. 30 EVALUATION Data Collection Evaluation Program Year 1 and First 7 Months of Year 2 (Jan 1, 2007-April 30,2008) Pretests: MSI-R pretests were completed during the intake assessment (administration time approximately 20 minutes). Posttest Evaluation: KSS and MSI-R were administered 1 year after the initial assessment date (administration time of KSS + MSI-R approximately 45 minutes). Logistics and Administration Posttests (MSI-R[Posttest] + 1C8S): MSI-R posttests and KSS were administered to the couples who entered the BHM program. (The majority of these couples completed the MSI-R pretest during the assessment.) The Intake Coordinator(IC) and assessment technicians contacted the couples three times to set up appointments to complete the tests. If unsuccessful (i.e., no show, no call back, etc.), the evaluators then mailed the posttests (KSS and MSI-R). When surveys were returned, couples received a $30 Target gift card. Packets included the MSI-R, KSS, and acknowledgement of gift card. Evaluation Program Last 5 Months of Year 2 (May 1, 2008-September 30, 2008) Public Events: Education Model • Evaluation 8-hour PREP/Marriage Garden Curriculum Pretests: No Posttest Evaluation 8-hour PREP/Marriage Garden Curriculum: Mini KSS (Public Education Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey/Marriage Garden Workshop Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey), which also included several demographic questions, no MSI-R. The administration time was approximately 5 minutes. Logistics and Administration of Posttests: The Intake Coordinator sent lists of participants' names to an evaluation team member who coded the surveys and made sure that the Intake Coordinator received the surveys before the class ended. Coding was necessary in order to track the couples through the program. The Intake Coordinator and staff gave each participant a mini KSS during the last 5 minutes of the final session. Each participant completed the survey, placed it in an envelope, sealed it, and returned it to the Intake Coordinator and staff. If there were more participants than anticipated, extra, unnumbered surveys were used, and the Intake Coordinator and staff wrote the participant's name on a sticky note and placed it on the sealed envelope. All envelopes were collected, along with the sign-in sheet. Couples who did not show up for the last session of the 8-hour seminar did not receive a mini KSS. • Evaluation 10 hours Prepare/Enrich Curriculum (premarital inventory): Pretests: No Posttest Evaluation Prepare/Enrich Curriculum: Mini KSS (Prepare/Enrich Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey), which also included several demographic questions, no MSI-R. The administration time was approximately 5 minutes. Logistics and Administration of Posttests: Because this event was an individualized program (couple with educator), packages were prepared for the educators, to be used as needed. Educators gave each participant a mini KSS during the last 5 minutes of the final session. Participants who did not complete all six follow-up sessions did not receive a mini KSS (because the mini KSS was developed using the 6 goals of the curriculum). 31 Each participant was asked to fill out the survey,put it in the self-addressed stamped envelope, seal it,and return it by mail to the UNC evaluation team. Mentoring Model • Pretest(MSI-R):The MSI-R(pretest)was administered by assessment technicians at the beginning of the assessment interview. The MSI-R was given to each partner of the couple separately so that responses would not be discussed because discussion might have influenced how each partner responded. If couples met the eligibility criteria,they could participate in the mentoring program. To be accepted for participation in the mentoring phase, a couple must have: o Had an annual income of less than 200%of the Federal Poverty Guidelines o Successfully completed the intake process o Been able to demonstrate legal status o Been married, living together, or contemplating marriage o Had no drug or violence indicators • Posttest Evaluation Individual Events(Mini KSS's). Mini KSS's (completion time approximately 5 minutes)were administered after each individual event except for Family Mentors, Boosters, Financial Management, Conflict Resolution, and Employment Support Services. (See Table 3.) The same administration procedures were followed as for the Public Event programs. • Posttest Evaluation (MSI-R +KSS-Survey): The MSI-R and KSS were administered 12 months after the assessment to see if couples' marital satisfaction had increased,to assess the overall satisfaction with the program,and to measure satisfaction with the following events: Boosters, Employment Support Services, Family Mentors, Financial Management, and Conflict Resolution. This survey was administered with the MSI-R posttest 12 months after assessment. Table 3: Evaluation Individual Events in Mentoring Program Evaluated immediately after event with mini Evaluated 6 months after-NISI-R pretest KSS with 8-hour Marriage Garden Curriculum Booster 8-hour PREP Employment Services 10-hour Prepare/Enrich(premarital inventories) Family Mentors Enrichment Weekend Financial Management Conflict Resolution Reasons for not evaluating some of the programs directly after event: • Booster: This was primarily a social event(e.g., a barbeque)with an educational component. Couples could enjoy the food and have the option of participating in the 1 — 1 ''/2-hr Booster(based on PREP),provided by the head educator. • Employment Services: This referral-based program was not administered by BHM staff but by the Employment Services of Weld County. It had several components that participants could access depending upon need. These included job postings, interview skills, résumé writing,job coaching, and counseling. • Family Mentors: Mentor services were available to the couples during the entire program (for about 1 year);therefore, it was evaluated when the MSI-R posttest was administered. 32 • Financial Management and Conflict Resolution: These programs were delivered when couples needed them, were specifically tailored to each couple's needs, and were not based upon a fixed curriculum. Educators helped couples resolve conflicts and financial problems as they arose. The increase in specific areas of knowledge as a result of participation in the individual conflict resolution coaching and financial management coaching varied with each couple. For example, some learned to balance a checkbook, while others learned skills for resolving conflicts. We evaluated the couples' satisfaction with these programs with the KSS-Survey 12 months after intake assessment. Evaluation Program Year 3,Year 4, and Year 5 (October 1, 2008—June 11, 2011) Relationship Seminars • Evaluation 8-hour PREP, WOR, WMR, Winning the Workplace Challenge, and Love Notes: Pretests: No Posttest Evaluation 8-hour PREP, WOR, WMR, Winning the Workplace Challenge, Love Notes: Mini KSS (Mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey), which also included several demographic questions, but no MSI-R was administered. The administration time was approximately 5 minutes. Logistics and Administration of Posttests: The Intake Coordinator sent lists of participants' names to an evaluation team member, who coded the surveys and ensured that the Intake Coordinator received the surveys before the class ended. Coding was necessary in order to track the couples through the program. The Intake Coordinator(or intake staff) gave each participant a mini KSS during the last 5 minutes of the final session. Each participant completed the survey, placed it in an envelope, sealed it, and returned it to the Intake Coordinator. In the event that there were more participants than anticipated, extra, unnumbered surveys were available. In this case, the Intake Coordinator wrote the participant's name on a note and placed it on the sealed envelope. All envelopes were collected, along with the sign-in sheet. Couples who did not attend the last session of the 8-hour seminar did not receive a mini KSS. Next Step Coaching • Pretest (MSI-R): The MSI-R(pretest) was administered by technicians at the beginning of the assessment interview. The MSI-R was given to each member of the couple separately so that responses would not be discussed because discussion might have influenced how each partner responded. If couples met the eligibility criteria, they could participate in Next Step Coaching. To be accepted for participation, a couple must have o Had an annual income of less than 200%of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (This criterion was eliminated on June 1, 2010.) o Successfully completed the intake process o Been able to demonstrate legal status o Been married, living together, or contemplating marriage o Had no drug or violence indicators • Posttest Evaluation Individual Events (Mini KSS's): In Year 3, couples were offered the opportunity to participate in two events: the Enrichment weekend using the W0R curriculum and the Relationship Inventories using the Prepare/Enrich curriculum. Enrichment weekends were no longer offered in Year 4 and Year 5 due to the high cost of these events. All participants who were referred to the Next Step Coaching program were taking part or will take part in the Relationship Inventory. Mini KSS's (completion 33 time approximately 5 minutes)were administered after individual events. The same administration procedures were followed as for the Relationship Seminar programs. • Posttest Evaluation (MSI-R +KSS-NSC): MSI-R and Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey —Next Step Coaching(KSS-NSC; See Appendix A.)were administered 12 months after the assessment to determine if couples' marital satisfaction increased and to assess knowledge and overall satisfaction with the program. Building a Family • Pretest(MSI-R): The MSI-R(pretest)was administered by assessment technicians at the beginning of the needs assessment interview. The MSI-R was given to each partner separately so that responses would not be discussed because discussion might have influenced how each partner responded. • Posttest Evaluation Individual Events (Mini KSS's): Mini KSS's (completion time approximately 5 minutes)were administered after each individual event except for Family Liaison, Community Referrals, Financial Management Coaching, and Conflict Resolution Coaching. (See Table 3.)The same administration procedures were followed as for the Next Step Coaching and Relationship Seminars. • Posttest Evaluation (MSI-R + KSS-BAF): The MSI-R was administered 12 months after the needs assessment to determine if couples' marital satisfaction had changed. A new overall general satisfaction survey(Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey—Building A Family), which took about 5 minutes to complete,was developed to assess the overall satisfaction with the program and to measure satisfaction with the following events: Family Liaisons, Community Referrals,Conflict Resolution Coaching,and Financial Management Coaching. This survey was administered,together with the post MSI-R, 12 months after the initial assessment. Table 4: Evaluation Individual Events in Building a Family Evaluated immediately after event with mini Evaluated 12 months after MSI-R pretest KSS with KSS-BAF 8-hour PREP Family Liaisons 8-hour WOR Seminar/WOR Enrichment Community Referrals weekend (weekend not offered Oct. 30, 2009— September 30, 2010) 10-hour Prepare/Enrich (Relationship Conflict Resolution Coaching Inventory) Marriage Garden (Not offered Oct 1, 2008— Financial Management Coaching September 30, 2010) Reasons for not evaluating some of the programs directly after the event • Community Referrals: Referrals were made to the couples during the entire program (for about 1 year);therefore, it was evaluated when the MSI-R posttest was administered. • Family Liaisons: Liaison services were available to the couples during the entire program (for about 1 year);therefore,this service was evaluated when the MSI-R posttest was administered. • Financial Management and Conflict Resolution Coaching programs: These were delivered on an"as needed"basis, were specifically tailored to each couple's needs, and were not based upon a fixed curriculum. Educators helped couples resolve conflicts and 34 financial problems as they arose. Any increase in knowledge and skills varied with each couple. For example, some learned to balance a checkbook, while others learned skills for resolving conflicts. We evaluated the couples' satisfaction with these programs with the KSS-BAF 12 months after the needs assessment. Tools and Instruments Marital Satisfaction Inventory, Revised (MSI-R) The MSI-R was chosen as the evaluation instrument for measuring marital satisfaction. The primary reason for choosing this instrument was that it is widely used in research, has very good psychometric properties, has been translated into Spanish, and has been normed on different ethnic groups. The MSI-R is one of the more current marital satisfaction assessments, originally developed in 1985 and revised in the mid-1990s. Several other Building Healthy Marriage projects in the United States are also using this inventory. In addition, the MSI-R is written at the reading level appropriate for the sample under consideration (Sixth or seventh grade reading level is suggested.) and has important subscales (i.e., Global Distress; Disagreements about Finances; and subscales addressing areas of conflict or potential conflict, including Problem Solving Communication, Aggression, and Conflict over Childrearing), many of which are of particular interest for this grant. The MSI-R consists of 150 questions. With the exception of the Role Orientation Subscale, all scales are scored in the direction of dissatisfaction, indicating that high scores reflect high amounts of dissatisfaction in a specific area within the relationship (Snyder, 1997). • Affective • Family History of • Conflict over Communication Distress Childrearing • Role Orientation • Time Together • Dissatisfaction over Sex • Problem Solving • Dissatisfaction with • Global Distress Communication Children • Aggression • Disagreements About Finances Global Distress: Global Distress is the best overall measure of marital satisfaction. It also gauges negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and consideration of divorce. Affective Communication: Affective Communication evaluates dissatisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by the other partner. Problem Solving Communication: The Problem Solving Communication Scale is a measure of overt discord in the relationship. Aggression: The Aggression Scale assesses intimidation and physical aggression experienced by the partner. Time Together: The Time Together Scale evaluates the couple's companionship, as expressed in shared leisure time. Financial Disagreement: The Financial Disagreement Scale evaluates the extent to which the respondent partner experiences discord in the relationship over finances. Sexual Dissatisfaction: Sexual Dissatisfaction measures general dissatisfaction with the sexual relationship and inadequate affection during couples' interactions. Role Orientation: The Role Orientation Scale evaluates the extent to which a partner identifies with traditional versus nontraditional attitudes regarding marital and parental gender roles. 35 Family History of Distress: This scale measures the respondent's perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the partner's family of origin. Dissatisfaction with Children: This scale assesses the quality of the relationship between respondents and their children, as well as parental concern regarding the emotional and behavioral well-being of one or more of the children. Conflict over Raising Children: This scale evaluates the extent of conflict between partners regarding their approaches to raising children. Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) (See Appendix A.) Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey(full KSS): This instrument was developed by the BHM Evaluation Team from the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) and assesses the satisfaction with each of the program events (Marriage Seminar, Enrichment Weekend, Marriage Booster, Marriage Mentoring, Conflict Resolution Coaching, Financial Management Coaching, Premarital/Relationship Inventories, Employment Support Training), the family advocates, and the overall satisfaction with the BHM program. In addition, participants were asked to indicate how much knowledge they gained in the areas of conflict resolution and financial management. Due to the implementation of the Building a Family and Next Step Coaching programs, the full KSS was no longer applicable. Specific KSS's were developed to measure the satisfaction and knowledge of the BAF and NSC programs. Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey—Next Step Coaching (KSS-NSC): This instrument was developed by the UNC evaluation team to assess the satisfaction with the Next Step Coaching Program. Participants were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the Prepare/Enrich curriculum, Family Liaison, and the overall program and about how much knowledge they gained. Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey—Building a Family (KSS-BAF): This instrument was developed by the UNC evaluation team to assess the satisfaction with the Building a Family program. Participants were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the Prepare/Enrich curriculum, PREP, WOR, conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, community referrals,the Family Liaison, and the overall program and about how much knowledge they gained. Mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (Mini KSS) for five programs (PREP, Within My Reach, Winning the Workplace Challenge, Within Our Reach, Relationship Inventories [Prepare/Enrich], Love Notes, and Love U2). These instruments were developed by UNC and assess the satisfaction with these particular events, measure the satisfaction with the instructor, assess the knowledge gained from the PREP program, and ask some basic demographic questions. Several questions regarding participants' interest in follow-up seminars were added to these surveys in January 2011. Building Healthy Marriages is looking at the possibility of expanding its services to include workshops that will go into more depth on the topics learned. The responses to the added questions will be used in the development of these services. Mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey for Marriage Garden Workshop: This instrument was developed partly by UNC and partly by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (2006b) and assesses the satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Curriculum and instructor. It also assesses the knowledge gained from the program and has some basic 36 demographic questions. Permission was granted from the University of Arkansas to use sections A —D on the Marriage Garden mini KSS. Semi structured Interviews for the Qualitative Evaluation The research team conducted 45 to 60 minute semi structured interviews with participants and educators. Sample questions for the interviews included, "Please tell me about your experiences," "Suggestions for educators and program developers," and "What challenges did you face as an educator?" Researchers interviewed couples who educators believed had been strongly impacted by their experiences in the program. These couples were asked the same questions as other participants, such as "What did you find most and least useful?" Given that their experiences seemed to be especially positive (i.e., favoring the BHM program), participants were also asked to provide specific details about those impactful experiences. Interviews were also conducted with participants who had either separated or divorced after participating in relationship education programs or had prematurely dropped out of the programs. Sample questions for those who separated or divorced after completing the program included, "Do you think BHM could have done anything to change the outcome of your relationship?" and, "Is there anything BHM could have done differently to make the program more satisfying or successful for you?" For reasons beyond the researchers' control (e.g., only one party was willing to be interviewed, only one party's contact information was provided, etc.), interviews were conducted with only one of the ex-partners and never with both. Sample questions for the interviews with those who dropped out included, "Is there anything BHM could have done differently that would have impacted your ability to complete the program?" "Although you did not complete the program, how useful was this training and information for your relationship?" and "What effects has the program had on your marriage/relationship? On other relationships (children, co-workers, etc)?" Challenges/Barriers to Evaluation Challenges in Recruiting Participants for the Qualitative Study In the qualitative evaluation, we planned to interview more participants who dropped out of the educational programs for reasons other than scheduling difficulties and couples whose relationships ended after their involvement with the program. The individuals interviewed expressed satisfaction with the educational programs in which they participated. To broaden the perspectives, we would have liked to hear from individuals who experienced some dissatisfaction. Significant effort was expended to increase the sample. Many of the participants were unreachable by phone; particularly couples who divorced or split up following the program. One of the greatest obstacles to recruiting participants was that a significant number of them had either moved, disconnected or changed their phone numbers since their involvement with the program, making them untraceable. Nearly all of the participants who were reached were willing to be interviewed, but at time scheduling conflicts and challenging life events served as barriers to the completion of interviews. Only two of the individuals we were able to reach who had divorced or split up after the program, were unwilling to be interviewed. Teens Added to the Sample of Participants Several teen relationship education programs were added to the BHM curriculum during Year 3 and Year 4. Community agencies, such as the Weld County Probation Department, Youth 37 and Family Connections (YFC), faith-based agencies (churches), and schools in Weld County, contacted BHM supervisors and asked them to provide this age appropriate version of the PREP program to the students in their schools. These programs are referred to as "LoveU2" and "Love Notes." The BHM evaluation team developed its own consent form in consultation with the Internal Review Board at UNC. In accordance with IRB procedures,the teen participants needed to give their assent and have parental consent to participate. Teens were notified about this opportunity from referral sources (e.g., schools, parents, service providers,juvenile system, etc.). Teens were allowed to opt out of the program. The consent form indicated that participation in the class was voluntary. Teachers and the superintendent of the schools approved the inclusion of these programs in selected classes. However, full approval was not granted by the research board of the school district for delivery of the programs. Therefore, the project evaluation team was unable to enter or analyze any of the mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys. These changes in program delivery were reviewed by the University Internal Review Board (IRB), and despite approval, data analysis can only commence with approval from the school district's IRB. However, mini KSS's distributed at the end of the Love Notes classes that were held at WayPoints Church could be analyzed and are included in this report. North Range Behavioral Health Workshops Not Given Mini KSS Two PREP workshops were offered to mental health clients with substance abuse concerns at a community mental health center. These participants did not receive a mini KSS because they were not covered under current 1RB regulations. Response Rate Concerns Regarding Pretest MSI-R A concern encountered during Year I and the beginning of Year 2 was the small percentage of returned MSI-R pretests. While couples were asked to complete the MSI-R pretest at home and to return it to their advocates and/or the assessment technicians, most did not return it. Therefore, the program evaluation team recommended that the MSI-R pretest be administered during the same day that the intake interview occurred. It was important that the MSI-R pretest be given to each partner of the couple separately so that responses would not be discussed because discussion might have influenced how each partner responded. Response Rate Concerns Regarding Posttest for the KSS and the MSI-R At the beginning of this program, the evaluation team planned to conduct posttests of the MSI-R with participants 6 months after they initiated involvement with BHM. However, this was not feasible, as some couples had not yet participated in events, and some couples were in the midst of events. Due to the change in program delivery in Year 3, a greater number of couples were encouraged to participate in the relationship inventories, which can take up to 8 months to complete. Therefore, the shorter posttest timing was not implemented. Thus, each member of the couple was contacted 12 months after the completion of the intake assessment and asked to complete the MSl-R posttest. A $30 Target gift card was offered to each couple as an incentive for completing the posttest. The posttest data yield valuable information regarding the potential lasting effectiveness of the educational programs. Due to the fact that some of the couples moved and did not leave a forwarding address, it was impossible to administer the posttest package to every couple. As discussed previously, the posttest response rate for the participants who completed the posttest during the first 6 months of Year 4 (27%) and Year 5 (20%) was much lower than the response rate during the first 6 months of Year 3 (63%). This may be related to the change in 38 program delivery that took place about halfway though Year 2. Case management was no longer grant allowable for participants who took part in the Next Step Coaching Program and was only allowed for those participants who were unmarried and expecting a child (i.e., those in the Building a Family Program). Due to the change in program delivery, participants no longer received home visits and assistance/advocacy in obtaining services from other agencies. This decrease in contact between Family Advocate/Family Liaison and participants may have caused a decrease in involvement with the program, resulting in a lower response rate. The project manager and educators were concerned and responsive to these findings. The BHM team thus created a program to stay in contact with couples who were participating in the Next Step Coaching program. The majority of couples who completed an MSl-R pretest took part in the Next Step Coaching Program. This program offered participants the opportunity to take part in the Prepare/ Enrich Curriculum, which consists of an inventory (with up to 8 follow-up sessions) that discusses the couples' strengths and weaknesses. Due to the intensity of the sessions, some couples may have chosen not to complete the curriculum, which may have resulted in a lack of involvement in the program. This may have contributed to a lower response rate. Changes in Program Delivery Several changes have been made to the program since its inception in January 2007. Some of these changes made it difficult to accurately compare the pretest and posttest MSI-R results/statistics from year to year. In the examples described below, couples were sensitized to the subject matter of the BHM programs prior to taking the pretest. Thus, the education they received prior to taking the MSI-R pretest likely influenced their scores on this test. For some of the programs, couples took the pretest before being exposed to BHM program materials. These inconsistencies in pretesting limit the interpretation of the findings. During the first 19 months of this project, couples received an MSI-R pretest before they participated in the BHM events. However, the delivery of the program was changed during the last 5 months of Year 2, from an intensive service model to a community saturation model, in order to increase the overall number of participants. Unlike the original grant program, there was no requirement for assessment of domestic violence, child abuse, or substance/alcohol abuse in the community model. The original program was targeted at low-income couples who were not engaged in domestic violence, child abuse, or substance/alcohol abuse. Therefore, the majority of couples who participated in the BHM "Mentoring Model' received 8 hours of education prior to the administration of the MSI-R pretest. Another change in program delivery occurred at the beginning of Year 3. The majority of couples who participated in the Building a Family and Next Step Coaching programs (programs delivered in Years 3, 4, and 5) also received 8 hours of marriage education before taking the MSI-R pretest. In addition, due to small sample sizes in each subgroup, we were unable to compare different subgroups within our sample because couples had considerable flexibility in program participation. Couples could have participated in a number of different events for which they qualified; there was no set sequence of events in which couples must have participated. This created many discrete subgroups. In addition, the sequence could be quite different, and the time lapse between events varied enormously. Therefore, it was difficult to draw any conclusions regarding which sequence and combination of events was most effective. Due to the small sample size of couples who completed a pretest and posttest, there is a very small number of couples across all sampling situations. We were unable to compare each subgroup with the others, including those who were pre-sensitized to the program's educational agenda and those who were not. 39 Another change effective June 1, 2010 was that the income eligibility criterion (200% below poverty level) was eliminated for participation in the Next Step Coaching Program. This allowed a greater number of couples to take part in this specific program. Building Healthy Marriages began to offer the Winning the Workplace Challenge curriculum to businesses in Weld County in the third year of the grant cycle. This 8-hour workshop focused on communication and conflict resolution skills for coworkers. This program was offered for approximately 1 year before the Federal Program Officer revoked its approval as an allowable grant activity, due to the content not targeting families and marriages. Changes in Dosage and Content Individual Event During the third quarter of Year 1, there was a concern about the small number of couples participating in the financial education program. Changes were made to include all couples in this important program. After June 14, 2007, all 6-week PREP 12-hour seminars were extended to 7 weeks to include the financial management component. Thus, an extra 2 hours were added to the program. Regarding the other seminar formats (i.e., 2 and 3 Saturdays), the financial training was added; however, the classes were not extended. The trainers tailored their program to include the financial management component within the time allowance given. In May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to 8 hours. The curriculum was shortened to maximize retention. PREP has responded to the trend by revising the original curriculum to fit an 8-hour format. Tracking of Information An electronic tracking data management system was planned for June 2008. The goal was to facilitate efforts to collect data on program participants in a timely manner. However, the implementation of the system was delayed, and the evaluation team was unable to use it for research purposes. Therefore, we were unable to identify the exact number of events in which each individual participated, the sequence of events in which he or she took part, and the time lapse between events. 40 RESULTS Results from the data derived from the instruments administered during all five years (January 2007 through June 2011) are presented in this section. This report also includes a discussion of the data from participants who completed a posttest in Years 2, 3, 4, and 5 but who initiated involvement with the BHM program during Years 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, it presents the results of a qualitative study describing the experiences of couples who took part in the BHM program and the educators who delivered the program. Instruments include the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R) and the Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) (See Appendix A for copies.). Results MSI-R Pretests There were 457 participants who completed an MSI-R pretest during the course of the grant (January 1, 2007—June 11, 2011). Only couples who met the eligibility criteria of the program and who completed an intense assessment by BHM staff received an MSI-R pretest. Eligibility criteria included being married or in a committed relationship, being residents of the county, having no recent history of domestic violence or substance abuse, and earning an annual income less than 200%of federal Poverty Guidelines (the income eligibility criteria was removed in June 2010 in order to increase participation.). Participants (single, married, or living together) who only took part in the "Relationship Seminars"did not receive an assessment or eligibility determination and did not receive an MSI-R pretest. Due to the nature of the questions on the MSI-R pretest,the project team decided that it was only appropriate to give the instrument to couples who showed no signs of abuse during the intensive assessment. The data below describes the couples who completed the MSI-R pretest. Since the MSI-R was voluntary, not everybody who completed an assessment and took part in the BHM program completed an MSI- R pretest. Therefore, the numbers below are slightly lower than the actual numbers. • Year participant started. Of the 457 participants who completed an MSI-R pretest, 28.2% (n= 129) started the program in Year 1, 34.6% (n= 158) in Year 2, 14.4% (n = 66) in Year 3, 19.7% (n=90) in Year 4, and 3.1%(n= 14) in Year 5. (See Figure 16 below.) The reduction in participants who completed the MSI-R pretest is due to the change in program delivery. In Year 3, BHM was required to make programmatic changes to align itself more clearly with the directives of the grant. Thus, the BHM team changed the delivery of the program. Primarily, the focus was shifted to the target population as outlined in the grant, and the number of participants was increased. This resulted in a new program model with three service structures: Relationship Seminars (community saturation), Next Step Coaching (intensive relationship education with mentoring for couples who qualify), and Building a Family (intensive relationship education services for unmarried, expectant couples). Only participants who participated in the Next Step Coaching program or the Building a Family Program completed the MSI-R pretest in Years 3, 4, and 5, while in Year 1 and Year 2, everybody who entered the BHM program was asked to complete this test. • Race/Ethnicity. Of the 457 participants, 56.2% (n = 257) were White, followed by 33.5%(n = 153) Hispanic. The other 8.2%(n= 37) were Asian, Black, Native American, or other/multicultural. Two percent(n = 10) did not respond to this question. • Age. The average age of participants was 32 years. Seven percent of participants (n = 33) were 19 or younger, 58.4% (n= 267) were between the ages of 20 and 35, 29.8% (n = 136) 41 were between the ages of 36 and 55, 3.3 %(n= 15)were 56 or older,and 1.3%(n=6)did not respond to this question. • Gender. 50.1%(n=229) were females,and 49.9%(n=228)were males. The numbers for both genders are unequal because one male did not wish to complete the MS1-R pre-test. • Household Characteristics. Three hundred seventy-eight participants (82.7%) had children, with an average of 2.1 children per household. Of the participants who had children, 110 (29.1%)had one child, 116(30.7%)had two children, and 152 (40.2%)had three or more children. • Marital Status. Fifty-seven percent of the participants (n=260) had been married for 0 to 5 years,22.3%(n= 102)were married between 6 and 10 years,and 16.4%(n= 75)were married for more than 10 years. Twelve participants (2.6%) indicated that they were not living together, and eight participants (1.8%)did not respond to this question. Seventy-one percent(n=324) indicated the current marriage was their first or they had never been married, 21.0%(n=96) indicated they were previously married once, 6.2%(n=28) indicated they had been married twice, and .4%(n=2) indicated they had been married three times. Seven participants(1.5%)did not respond to this question. • Employment. Forty-two percent of participants(n= 193)were unemployed, and 56.9%(n= 260)were employed and worked an average of 36 hours per week. Figure 22 below displays the various occupations of the participants. Four participants(.9%)did not respond to the question. • City. Sixty-three percent of participants (n=289) lived in Greeley, and 35.0%(n= 160) lived in cities surrounding Greeley(such as Evans, Grover, Longmont, Platteville, Windsor, Eaton, Kersey, Loveland,etc). Eight participants(1.8%)did not respond to the question. • Education. Seventeen percent of participants (n=79)had less than a high school diploma, 42.7% (n= 195)had a high school diploma only, and 37.6%(n= 172)completed education beyond high school graduation. Eleven participants(2.4%)did not respond to the question. On average,participants completed 13 years of education. Figures 16 through 23 provide a graphic presentation of year the MSI-R pretest was completed, race/ethnicity, age distribution, number of children, length of current marriage,number of previous marriages, occupation, and education. Figure 16: Year MSI-R Pretest Was Completed 40 34.6 yy 28.2 30 1-9 7 20 14.4 10 ■ ■ 3.1 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 42 Figure 17: Race/Ethnicity MSI-R Pretest Participants 3.7 2.1 0.7 1.8 Asian 33.5 ■Black Hispanic 562 Native Amer. White ■Other 2 ■Did not respond Figure 18: Age MSI-R Pretest Participants 3.3 1.3 7.2 13— 19 years 29.8 ■20-35 years 36—55 years ■56 and over Did not respond Figure 19: Number of Children MSI-R Pretest Participants 1.3 r 16 0 ■ 1 2 25.4 ■3 or more Did not respond 43 Figure 20: Length of Marriage or Years Living Together MSI-R Pretest Participants 2.6 I.8 1‘16.4 0-5years ■6— 10 years 56.9 > 10 years N Did not live together Did not respond Figure 21: Number of Previous Marriages MSI-R Pretest Participants 6.2 0.4 1.5 0 °.s ■1 70.9 2 ■3 Did not respond 44 Figure 22: Occupation MSI-R Pretest Participants Did not respond 71 3.1 Unemployed 142.2 Unskilled 7 8 1 Semiskilled/Machine Oper. 5.5 Skilled Manual ' 13.6 Clerical/Sales/Technical �.-XJ 12.9 Admin/Small Business l 5 Business Mgt I 7. Executive/Adv.Profess. 2.2 0 10 20 30 40 50% Figure 23: Education Level MSI- R Pretest Participants __ 50 423 -3T. 40 30 20 10 Air 0 Less than High school Beyond high Did not high school diploma school respond 45 MSI-R Pretests Table 5: MSI-R Statistics Four hundred fifty-seven participants MSI-R Scales First Administration completed the MSI-R pretest during the Years 1 through 5 course of the 5 year grant. MSI-R Scale Male Norm Female Norm Participant Males Participant female. Significant MSI-R Statistics—First Administration Global Distress Each scale of the MSI-R has a cutoff Number of Responses 198 190 score that indicates whether the Mean 8.43 3.65 10.41 4.51 respondent perceives his or her problems Std. Deviation 6.17 4.61 6.77 5.74 to be significant. (See footnotes 1 and 2 Percentile Rankl 85 85 in Table 5 for these values.)Note that % perceiving problem' 43 43 Table 5 contains gender specific norms Affective that were developed for the MSI-R due Communication to differences found between men and Number of Responses 211 208 women on the older MSI-R scales. The Mean 5.27 3.23 6.47 4.11 literature supports these differences Std. Deviation 3.57 3.10 3.81 3.50 (Snyder, 1997).Also of interest, Table 5 Percentile Rank' 80 79 contains percentile scores, perhaps best % z explained by an example: A "Percentile perceiving problem 36 32 Rank"of 87 means that 13%(100—87) Problem Solving scored higher than the mean value. This, Communication of course,means that 87 percent scored Number of Responses 197 202 Mean 11.3 6.68 11.4 6.44 at or below that same value. Std. Deviation 5.33 4.94 5.18 5.10 Percentile Rank' 82 82 • Global distress (GDS) is considered z to be the best overall measure of %perceiving problem 46 49 1 Individual scores above the 8416 percentile indicate that from the partner's marital satisfaction. GDS also gauges perspective,significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder, negative expectancies regarding the 1997,p.53). relationship's future and 2 Individual scores above the 60'hpercentile(Snyder,1997,p. 19&p.95-101) consideration of divorce. indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in his or her relationship. Respondents in this sample reflect a moderate level of global distress as compared to the norm. Forty-three percent of the males and females indicated they experienced their problems as significant. • The Affective Communication Scale (AFC)evaluates dissatisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by one's partner. It is of moderate concern to couples in this group; 36%of the males and 32%of the females indicated they experienced high levels of distress in this area. • The Problem Solving Communication Scale(PSC) is a measure of overt discord in the relationship. Our sample indicates a moderate level of distress for males and females. Forty- six percent of the males and 49%of the females viewed problem solving communication as an area with extensive distress. 46 • The Aggression Scale(AGG) assesses intimidation and physical Table 5: MSI-R Statistics aggression experienced by the MSI-R Scales First Administration partner. Our group reflects a Years 1 through 5 moderate degree of distress. Twenty-ninepercent of males and MSI-R Scale Male Norm Female Norm y participant Males participant Females 23%of females indicated a problem with high levels of Aggression aggression or intimidation by their Number of Responses 217 223 partners. • The Time Together Scale (TTO) Mean 3.11 2.02 2.75 2.11 evaluates how companionship is Std. Deviation 2.63 2.23 2.33 2.38 expressed in shared leisure time. Percentile Rank' 79 75 This is of moderate concern for %perceiving problem2 29 23 males and females,as 28%of Time Together males and 37%of females Number of Responses 211 211 indicated that they did not find Mean 4.56 3.23 5.04 3.42 their time together very satisfying. Std. Deviation 2.81 2.56 3.01 2.75 • The Financial Disagreement Scale Percentile Rank' 75 76 (FIN) evaluates the extent to which % perceiving problem2 28 37 the respondent experiences discord Financial in the relationship concerning Disagreement finances. FIN scores in this group Number of Responses 206 216 are at a moderate level of concern, Mean 4.74 2.91 4.98 3.00 with 39%of the males and 32%of Std. Deviation 2.81 2.59 2.92 2.80 the females indicating significant Percentile Rank' 79 81 discord in their relationships %perceiving problem2 39 32 concerning finances. • Sexual Dissatisfaction (SEX) Sexual Dissatisfaction measures general dissatisfaction Number of Responses 205 212 with the sexual relationship and Mean 5.85 5.22 4.92 4.12 inadequate affection during Std. Deviation 4.07 3.77 3.61 3.21 couples' interactions. Sexual Percentile Rank' 61 65 dissatisfaction scores are of %perceiving problem2 25 25 moderate concern, with 25%of Role Orientation participants indicating they were Number of Responses 201 203 very dissatisfied. Mean 7.46 6.51 7.83 7.05 • The Role Orientation Scale (ROR) Std. Deviation 2.76 3.22 2.87 3.45 evaluates the extent to which a Percentile Rank' 63 58 partner identifies with traditional %perceiving problem3 n/a n/a versus nontraditional attitudes ' Individual scores above the 84th percentile indicate that from the partner's regarding marital and parental perspective significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder,1997, gender roles. This group p 53). Z Individual scores above the 60th percentile(Snyder,1997,p. 19&p.95-101) indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in his or her relationship. 3 The ROR scale is most appropriately evaluated by a comparison to each partner's score. 47 scores moderate on this scale, reflecting a greater flexibility in the sharing of traditional roles. Table 5: MSI-R Statistics ROR is most meaningful in the MSI-R Scales First Administration context of marital satisfaction Years 1 through 5 when there are significant Male Norm Female Norm MSI-R Scale panicipam Males pamcipam Females differences between the attitudes of the partners. Family History of • Family History of Distress(FAM) Distress measures the respondent's Number of Responses 202 210 perception of the dysfunction of Mean 4.82 3.65 5.37 3.69 relationships in the family of Std. Deviation 2.73 2.53 2.68 2.68 origin. Our sample indicates a Percentile Rank' 73 75 moderate level of distress. Forty- %perceiving a problem2 45 53 five percent of the males and 53% Dissatisfaction with of the females were very Children dissatisfied in this area. Number of Responses 146 147 • Dissatisfaction with Children Mean 2.79 2.47 2.35 2.30 Scale(DSC)assesses the quality Std. Deviation 2.29 2.02 1.87 1.90 of the relationship between Percentile Rank' 71 70 respondents and their children,as %perceiving problem2 21 12 well as parental concern regarding Conflict over Raising the emotional and behavioral well- Children being of one or more of the Number of Responses 157 154 children. This is of moderate Mean 2.52 1.76 3.50 2.44 concern among the participants. Std. Deviation 2.22 1.92 2.65 2.43 Twenty-one percent of the male Percentile Rank' 75 74 and 12%of the female %perceiving problem2 20 27 respondents in this sample I Individual scores above the 84th percentile indicate that from the partner's expressed high dissatisfaction perspective significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder,1997, with their children. p 53). • Conflict Over Child Rearing g Individual scores above the 60th percentile(Snyder,1997,p. 19&p.95-101) indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in his or her relationship. (CCR) evaluates the extent of conflict between partners regarding their approaches to raising children.This is of moderate concern among the participants. Twenty percent of the males and 27%of the females reported having many disagreements about raising their children. In summary, MSI-R results indicate that about 49%of the couples in the sample (45%men, 53%women) reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the FAM,which measures the respondent's perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the family of origin. In addition, 48%of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving, and 43%of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. About one third of the participants reported significant problems in the areas of affective communication, finances,and time spent together. One-fourth of the participants indicated severe problems in the areas of childrearing,partner's aggression, and sexual relationships. The area of least concern was dissatisfaction with children. 48 Interestingly, large differences in degree of satisfaction between males and females were found in the areas of the time the couples spent together and the family of origin history. Females showed more concern than males regarding the time the couples spent together and perceived more conflicts in their families of origin. (See Figure 24.) Figure 24: Percentage of Participants Who %Perceiving Problem Perceived Problems 60 50 40 30 . Males 20 � . * Females 10 0 GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX FAM DCS CCR GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Aggression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family History of Distress,DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict Over Childrearing. Relationships Between Demographics and MSI-R Scales Current literature indicates that a variety of demographic characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, partner's age, education, age of children) contribute to marital satisfaction (e.g., Orathinkal & Vansteenwegen,2007; VanLaningham,Johnson, &Amato, 2001). Therefore statistical procedures were conducted to investigate whether or not there was a relationship between the various demographic characteristics assessed(i.e., city, gender, employment, ethnicity, age, years of education, length of current marriage, number of previous marriages, number of children,age of oldest child, age of youngest child, and hours worked each week) and the scales of the MSI-R(i.e., Global Distress, Affective Communication, Problem Solving Communication, Aggression,Time Together,Financial Disagreement, Sexual Dissatisfaction, Family History of Origin, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict Over Child Rearing). Data were used from all participants who completed the MSI-R pretest during the course of the grant(January 1, 2007— June11, 2011). Table 6 and Figures 25-27 illustrate these findings and are discussed below. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between all continuous demographic variables and the scales of the MSI-R(See Table 6 for results: Green highlighted areas indicate a significant relationship between demographics and MSI-R scales). Age. There was a positive relationship between Age and Sexual Dissatisfaction. Couples who were older were more dissatisfied with the sexual relationship and affection during their interactions. In addition,the results indicate a positive relationship between Age and Global 49 Distress, indicating that older couples are less satisfied with their overall marriages. The results of the Building Healthy Marriages participants suggest that marital satisfaction decreases with age and length of marriage. A decline in the satisfaction with the sexual relationship as age increases has been confirmed in the literature, which supports the findings of this study (Orathinkal & Vansteenwegen, 2007). However, the literature looks at elderly couples, who are older than the participants in the Building Healthy Marriages Study. Despite this, research supports our findings that certain aspects of marital satisfaction decrease with age. The BHM study indicates that this dissatisfaction may be present in older couples who are not yet considered elderly. In addition,there was a positive relationship between Age and the Dissatisfaction With Children Scale, indicating that couples who were older were more dissatisfied with their children. Some literature suggests that there is a decline in marital satisfaction during the middle of parenting years, which could account for the lower satisfaction of couples in this study who have been together longer and have older children (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). In contrast, recent research also shows that age may be positively associated with marital satisfaction, meaning that as age increases, satisfaction with the marriage also increases (Weinstein, Powers, & Laverghetta, 2010). One problem with past studies is that they often fail to separate the constructs of age and length of marriage, common because the two variables often are related. Weinstein, Powers, & Laverghetta separated these two constructs and looked at how age affects marital satisfaction independent of length of marriage among a sample of college students who ranged in age from early adulthood to early middle age. They believe the positive correlation they found between age and marital satisfaction may be due to an overall increase in satisfaction with life as age increases. They also suggest the idea that as people get older, they show more agreeableness and conscientiousness and less neuroticism, a combination of personality traits that make for a more satisfying marriage. Length of current marriage. There was a positive relationship between the Length of Current Marriage and Sexual Dissatisfaction, indicating that the couples who had been married for a longer time were also more dissatisfied with their sexual relationships. The literature confirms the finding that there is a significant positive relationship between the duration of a marriage and sexual dissatisfaction (Liu, 2003). It is suggested in the literature that the decline in sexual satisfaction occurs slowly over the course of the marriage. The results also showed that Length of Marriage was positively related to Global Distress, Affective Communication, and Time Spent Together, indicating that couples who had been married for a longer period of time experienced more dissatisfaction with their overall marriage, their affective communication, and the time they spent together. There are conflicting findings in the literature regarding satisfaction over the course of a marriage. Some studies have indicated that marital satisfaction increases with the length of the marriage, whereas others have found that marital satisfaction decreases with the length of the marriage (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). It is unclear whether there is a general decline or increase in marital satisfaction of longer marriages. The U-shaped curve is also a popularly accepted model of marital satisfaction, which suggests that marital satisfaction is higher at the beginning and in the later years of a marriage but is lower in the middle years, as families are raising children (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). Number of previous marriages. There was a positive relationship between the Family History of Distress Scale and the Number of Previous Marriages, indicating that the couples 50 who had several previous marriages perceived more conflicts in their families of origin than couples who had not had as many or no previous marriages. In addition,there was a positive relationship between Dissatisfaction With Children and the Number of Previous Marriages and between Conflicts over Child Rearing and Number of Previous Marriages, indicating that the couples who had been married previously were more likely to have children from these marriages and to be blended families in their following marriages. A number of studies over the past 30 years indicate that the presence of stepchildren in a marriage can be very challenging for the married couple and can negatively impact marital satisfaction (Falke & Larson, 2007). For example, Bir-Akturk and Fisiloglu (2009)found that marital satisfaction was lower for remarried individuals with stepchildren living at home than for remarried individuals who did not have stepchildren or whose stepchildren were living away from home. It is not always the case that stepchildren cause lower marital satisfaction; however, a poor stepchild-stepparent relationship can negatively impact the marriage. Perceived stress has been found to be an important factor contributing to marital satisfaction among stepmothers. Johnson et al. (2008) found that as stepmothers' perceived stress decreased, they experienced greater marital satisfaction. They also found that women who had larger social support networks perceived lower stress and that having biological children was associated with smaller social support networks. Number of children. There were positive relationships between Number of Children and both Affective Communication and Sexual Dissatisfaction, indicating that couples who had more kids were more dissatisfied with their affective communication and sexual relationships. Research suggests that couples with more children experience lower levels of marital satisfaction, which could be exhibited by the couples in this study as lower levels of sexual satisfaction and lower levels of affection (Twenge, Campbell, & Foster, 2003; VanLaningham, Johnson, and &Amato, 2001). In addition, there was a negative relationship between the Number of Children and the Role Orientation Scale, indicating that couples who had more children had more traditional views of marital and parental roles. This is consistent with previous research, which has found that parents with more children (especially mothers) hold more traditional beliefs about gender roles (Kulik, 2002). Age of the oldest and youngest child. There was a positive relationship between Age of the Oldest Child and Dissatisfaction with Children and between Age of the Youngest Child and Dissatisfaction with Children. As children get older, it appears that couples are more dissatisfied with their relationships with their children. There was also a positive relationship between Age of the Oldest Child and Conflict over Childrearing and between Age of the Youngest Child and Conflict Over Childrearing. It appears that as children get older, there is more conflict between partners regarding their approaches to raising children. In addition, there was a positive relationship between Age of the Youngest Child and Global Distress. It appears that as the youngest child is getting older, there is greater marital dissatisfaction. Number of hours worked. There was a positive relationship between the Number of Hours Worked and Sexual Dissatisfaction, indicating that couples who worked more hours were more dissatisfied with their sexual relationships. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggest that individuals will often experience work-family conflicts when they must devote a great deal of time to work and are not able to fulfill the needs of their home lives. It is possible that these 51 individuals are devoting many hours a week to their jobs but are not giving enough attention to their marital relationships, which results in reduced sexual satisfaction. Current research indicates that when considering marital satisfaction, satisfaction with one's work is more important than the actual number of hours worked (van Steenbergen, Kluwer, & Kamey, 2011). Van Steenbergen, Kluwer, and Karney found that job satisfaction moderated the effect between workload and marital satisfaction, with a positive relationship between workload and marital satisfaction becoming stronger at times when individuals experienced the most satisfaction at work. Caution should be exercised when interpreting the results, due to the small and moderate effect sizes, indicating a weak to medium association between the variables. 52 • • �Ny n M �N • '^ n b W • .. 00 n g b •b in pN M „ °^ O O p 0 O p O a0 O i— 6- - 8S '-- — O — O3 —O p a p , N ' y'j —62 CG C- I I '0 M h •• • p•� b b �p O O O O O O o 8 `^ .. g it O M 1 0.8 c•-. • h 00 E o z X 11 0 0 o g o o g g 00. c 4 q 7 I 1 a y a�p A i0 Nh , • �, • . -a'E `° o g o 8 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 `: 1 ; E ^ ,..ti N II Ot W trl N 8 n h O 3 NO b pN p• I 3 O O O O O ; 0 Q C II• . u - u< 00 g. M : n 00�� O o O O '0 o CO O O O I N O A 8 r n � :P., b n a '^ N 18 (Y� N n h b 0 N O N I ty O O O O O � O O O O O S O Y H zvf, V •CSI .,• ',, o n .0 , e - c . II O O o O C O O O. o N ? t L to u p Y O o 06 3 --• • 00 N • N i1 P N d LLW5t��.J•— • O M N rl PI G M . a0 - • 1 .-'V W II s 11 p r- o n o o c I I- �- m uA d w w o o n 0x • • • •4.0 M N 0' o-, V' h M O 00 O O O I O O <U.c 11 II V p [�T`J7 y OC ~' O O. O O N C I a Ua C3 r e T • • • • • ;, 4:0 W • • • N • s, I O t < ✓ v M • -n ry h U II °'.3S o — o n r o e U h • 'o v v ail m y U N r V7-z u in vii o a 2.2 1 -•5 r, ,o n ... ,--1c am II o g E< v M v 1 Ep V,E() ≥A M N N ' ii o d < u c Q U'o E �wz i a y 11 II O A¢a C4UUvO XC420000 UUQa � ag • -C1 4 < c`n. ¢ u�.. vwio:dL.L. 1UQW rs. Up } = � v) , E Ecl"' O •--.. o6 -4inwCl� a00: O A C m N t•1 mi t/'i .o [� o6 O� C7 0 E • Independent sample t-tests were computed to assess if there were differences on the mean scores of the MSI-R scales between groups(Greeley and non-Greeley residents, Hispanic and non- Hispanic participants, male and female participants, and partners who did and did not work outside the home) using a significance level of.05. City.As shown in Figure 25, the participants who lived in Greeley generated lower scores on the Global Distress Scale(t(270)= -2.07;p< .05), Time Together Scale(t(413)=- 2.85;p< .05), Financial Disagreement Scale(t(412)= -2.66;p< .05), and Sexual Dissatisfaction Scale(t(408)=-3.76;p< .05), indicating that Greeley residents were more satisfied with their overall marital satisfaction and time spent with their partners, had less disagreements over finances, and were more satisfied with their sexual relationships. Perhaps, this is due to the better economic conditions prevailing in urban and suburban Greeley than in outlying areas, and those living in outlying areas experience greater relationship tension because they have lower incomes.The type of occupation of the spouses could also affect these scales. Those individuals living in a rural area tend to have different occupations,which could entail more manual labor and be more time intensive,resulting in lower levels of marital satisfaction. Research on newly remarried urban and rural couples supports the idea that rural couples have lower incomes but has found that even though rural couples feel more financially constrained, they are not any more dissatisfied with their marriages (Higginbotham& Felix,2009). Figure 25 also shows that couples living in Greeley have higher scores on the Role Orientation Scale(t(397)=2.11;p< .05)compared to couples who live in the surrounding cities. Lower scores on the Role Orientation Scale indicate a more traditional orientation toward marital and parental gender roles. Figure 25 indicates that couples living outside of Greeley have more traditional views of marital and parental views compared to couples who live in Greeley. Add literature why that is. Figure 25: Difference Between Greeley and Other Cities on MSI-R Subscales 1 . 110.26 Global Distress t 8.79 Role Orientation m, 687 6.32 ■Other Cities Sexual Dissatisfaction ..8 ®Greeley 11/11 5.t6 Financial Disagreement 4.58 Time Together 44g' 3 l -( 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Gender.As shown in Figure 26, female participants have higher scores on the Global Distress Scale of the MSI-R(t(379)_-2.99;p<.05) , indicating that they are less satisfied with their relationships than their male partners are. In addition, females scored higher on Affective Communication (t(417)=-3.32;p< .05), Family History of Distress(t(410)=-2.06;p < .05), 54 and Conflict over Childrearing (t(309)=-3.54;p< .05). This indicates that females are less satisfied with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their male partners, perceive more conflicts in their families of origin, and experience more conflicts regarding their child raising approaches than their male counterparts. Research supports these findings and has found that men tend to have more overall marital satisfaction (e.g., Whisman, Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004; Fowers, 1991)and more satisfaction with issues concerning children and parenting(Fowers, 1991). Research has also shown preliminary support that women whose husbands have better emotional communication skills have greater marital satisfaction(Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005).However, women's emotional communication skills do not affect their husbands' marital satisfaction. This research suggests that women are more concerned with affective communication,which may be why they were less satisfied with the affection and understanding their partners expressed. On the other hand, males are less satisfied with the sexual relationship than females are(t(415)=2.47;p<.05). These findings are partially consistent with other research using the MSI-R(Snyder, 1997). Snyder looked at gender differences on the MSI-R subscales using a sample of 1,020 couples and found that"men are more likely than women to have complaints regarding the frequency of sexual relations" (p.50). In addition, he found that"women are more likely than men to express dissatisfaction with the quality of relationship affect than nonsexual intimacy, and to have complaints regarding inadequate support from their partners in the responsibilities of child rearing" (p.51). However, more current research suggests that women may actually be more dissatisfied with the sexual relationship than men, especially in midlife (Carpenter,Nathanson, &Kim, 2009). Figure 26: Differences Between Males a n d Females on MSI-R Subscales 12 ter 10.41 10 1' 8.43 8 6.47 6 S3� r 92 4.82 4 illi - ' 1111 2.52 3: 2 ,�x III III � Mr Male 0 1� •Female X0 . (,.& �y� %2, oNI c..? co c.,�4. 4�,k, G CP Ethnicity.As shown in Figure 27, Hispanic participants generated higher scores on the Aggression Scale compared to non-Hispanic participants (t(429)=2.53;p<.05), indicating that Hispanic participants experienced more aggression or intimidation by their partners. Previous research supports this result(Hampton, Gelles, &Harrop, 1989;Anderson, 1997; Bureau of 55 Justice Statistics, 1998; Ellison& Anderson,2001; Ellison,Bartkowski, &Anderson, 1999; Kessler, Molnar, Feurer,& Appelbaum, 2001), and those researchers concluded that several factors, such as the relative youthfulness of the Hispanic population, the higher concentration of Hispanics in urban areas, and the lower income levels among Hispanics, account for most of the apparent ethnic differences in the rates of physical aggression in couples' relationships (Straus& Gelles, 1990). Figure 27: Differences Between Ethnicity on MSI-R Subscales 7- •Non-Hispanic 2.7 ■Hispanic Aggression 3.35 0 1 2 3 4 No significant differences were found on any of the MSI-R subscales between participants who were and were not employed. Education was not significantly related to any of the MSI-R subscales. MSI-R Pretest Scores During the Last 5 Years In addition to examining how demographic variables related to MSI-R pretest scores, we also investigated differences in participants' ratings on the MSI-R scales based on the year they entered the BHM program. Descriptive statistics were used to look at differences in MSI-R pretest scores from participants who entered the program during the various years the grant was offered and are displayed in Table 7 and Figure 28. Table 7 shows that there has been an increase in scores for several of the scales, especially for the Global Distress Scale. Table 7: MSI-R Pretest Scores for the Grant Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Global Distress 7.99 5.54 8.82 6.93 10.56 5.77 11.06 7.00 12.42 7.49 Affective 5.48 3.33 5.64 4.01 5.81 3.44 6.72 3.98 6.67 3.39 Communication Problem Solving 11.26 4.73 10.34 5.85 12.72 4.67 11.67 4.71 13.31 6.58 Aggression 2.63 2.40 2.73 2.52 3.77 2.51 2.90 2.29 4.07 3.13 Time Together 4.86 2.70 4.87 3.07 4.58 2.95 4.76 2.86 4.75 3.62 Financial Disagreement 4.99 2.79 4.44 2.84 5.32 2.84 5.12 2.86 4.79 3.64 Sexual Dissatisfaction 5.70 3.64 5.40 4.01 4.26 3.77 5.86 4.00 , 4.38 3.53 Role Orientation 7.35 2.81 7.30 2.85 7.33 3.03 8.72 2.40 8.58 2.61 Family History of 5.10 2.64 5.04 2.79 5.28 2.86 5.38 2.48 3.23 2.83 56 Distress Dissatisfaction with 2.30 2.01 2.63 2.33 3.00 2.08 2.61 1.91 2.17 1.47 Children Conflict Over 2.55 2.24 3.30 2.70 3.18 2.55 3.21 2.37 2.50 2.81 Childrearing Figure 28: MSI-R Pretest Scores During the Grant Period 14 12 10 _. 8 4 2 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 —4—Global Distress —E—Affective Communication —f—Problem Solving —X—Aggression --Time Together -Ix- Financial Disagreement --4—Sexual Dissatisfaction Role Orientation Family History of Distress Dissatisfaction with Children Conflict Over Childrearing Pretest and Posttest Analyses Pretests and Posttests Completed in Year 2, Year 3, Year 4, and Year 5 Posttests were administered 12 months after the intake assessment. As an incentive to increase the response rate, $30 Target gift cards were offered to couples who completed the MSI- R and Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS). Couples were contacted by Building Healthy Marriages staff and asked to complete the posttest surveys (MSI-R and KSS). The intake coordinator and assessment technicians contacted the couples three times to set up an appointment to complete the tests. If unsuccessful (no show, no call back, etc.), the evaluators followed up with a mailing of the posttests (KSS and MSI-R). This report includes a discussion of the data from participants who completed a posttest in Year 2, Year 3, Year 4, and Year 5 and who initiated involvement with the BHM program during Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4. 57 Response Rate Calculations Pre-and Post-MSI-R Tests—Year 1 Eighty-nine couples(n= 178) completed the intake interview during January 2007 through September 2007 and participated in the BHM program for I year. Of these 89 couples, 35 couples completed a pre- and post-MSI-R, 32 couples completed only the MSI-R pretest, and 9 completed only the MSI-R posttest. The response rate for the MSI-R pretest was 75%. Of the 89 couples asked to complete the MSI-R pretest, 67 couples completed the measure. For Year 2,this number was closer to 100%because the administration of the MSI-R pretest became part of the intake interview. The response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 63%. Of the 70 couples who were used in the posttest calculation, 44 couples completed the posttest. For details on why remaining participants were excluded from the posttest calculation, see Table 8 below. Table 8: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 1) Reason for exclusion from MSI-R posttest calculation n % couples Couple is no longer together. 6 32 Phone disconnected, no response to mail survey, or possibly moved 5 26 Wrong address 4 21 Moved out of state 3 16 Disqualified, abusive to staff 1 5 Response Rate Calculations Pre-and Post-MSI-R Tests—Year 2 Eighty-seven couples (n= 174)completed an assessment during October 1, 2007— September 30, 2008 and received a posttest 1 year later(October 1,2008—September 30, 2009). Of these 87 couples, 36 couples and 1 male (the female partner did not complete the survey) completed a pre- and post-MSI-R, 44 couples and 1 individual only completed an MSI-R pretest, and 6 couples completed an MSI-R posttest. The response rate for the MSI-R pretest was 93% (81 couples who completed MSI-R pretest/87 couples who were offered the MSI-R). Six couples (7%)who started the BHM program at the beginning of Year 2 did not complete a pretest. At the beginning of Year 2, couples were asked to complete the MSI-R at home and to return it to their advocates and/or the assessment technicians. Most did not return it. Therefore,the program evaluation team recommended that the MSI-R be administered during the intake interview. This change in administration began in November 2008; pretest MSI-R completion rate was near 100%after this change. The figure (Figure 29) below illustrates the posttest response rate. As indicated,the intake coordinator contacted 87 couples three times. After this contact, 30 couples(35%) completed the posttests and received the $30 Target gift card. One couple indicated that it was no longer together and therefore was not interested in completing a posttest, and 1 couple did not participate in any services. The remainder(57 couples—2 couples= 55 couples) was mailed a posttest package. Twelve couples and I individual completed and returned the package. Eight packages were returned because the addressees had moved without a forwarding address. Therefore,the response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 57%. (Out of the 74 couples who were included in the posttest calculation,42 couples and 1 individual completed the posttest.)A change in program delivery may account for this low response rate. In the second half of Year two,the intensive support and "wrap around"services originally provided in the BHM program 58 were considered"case management" and were no longer grant allowable unless provided to participants who were unmarried and expecting a child (Building a Family Program). Therefore, midway through Year 2, participants no longer received home visits and assistance/advocacy in obtaining services to other agencies. This decrease in contact may have contributed to a lack of involvement with the program, resulting in a lower response rate. To address this issue, BHM has now created a process to maintain contact with the couples who are participating in the Next Step Coaching Program. Table 9(below) presents the reasons for excluding participants from the posttest calculation. •Of the couples who completed a posttest.30 couples(71%) completed an MSI-R posttest at 30 couples BHM location. •55 couples(87—30—2=55) received a survey package in the mail. 87 couples were contacted 3 times by intake coordinator. •Of the couples who completed a posttest. 12 couples and I 12 couples individual(29%) completed the and 1 posttest at home. individual •Of the 55 couples who received a package in the mail. 11 (20%) listed an incorrect address. Figure 29: Posttest Response Rate Year 2 Table 9: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 2) Reason for exclusion from MSI-R posttest calculation n couples Couple is no longer together. 1 8 Couple did not participate in program. 1 8 Moved and did not leave new address 11 85 Response Rate Calculations Pre-and Post-MSI-R Tests—Year 3 Thirty-three couples (n=66) completed the intake interview from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. These couples were contacted by Building Healthy Marriages staff 1 year later and asked to complete the posttest surveys (MSI-R and KSS). All couples completed an MSI-R pretest, making the response rate for the MSI-R pretest 100%. The figure (Figure 30) below illustrates the posttest response rate.As indicated, the 59 intake coordinator contacted 33 couples three times.After this contact, 5 couples completed the posttests at the BHM office and received the $30 gift card. Two couples had separated, and 5 couples only completed an assessment and did not participate in other services. The remainder (21 couples)was mailed a posttest package. Six couples completed the package and mailed it back. Three packages were returned because the addressee had moved without a forwarding address. (See Table 10.)Therefore,the response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 48%. (Out of the 23 couples included in the posttest calculation, 11 couples completed the posttest.) .Of the couples who 5completed a posttest,5 couples(45%)completed couples MSI-R at BHM location. '21 couples received survey package in the mail. 33 couples were contacted 3 times by intake coordinator. 'Of the couples who completed a posttest,6 (55%) 6 completed MSI-R at home. 'Of the 21 couples who couples received a package in the mail, 3(14%)had a bad address. Figure 30: Posttest Response Rate Year 3 Table 10: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 3) Reason for exclusion from MSI-R posttest calculation n couples Moved and did not leave new address 3 30 Couples who only completed pretest, no other services 5 50 Couples who are no longer together 2 20 Response Rate Calculations Pre-and Post-MSI-R Tests—Year 4 Forty-three couples (n=86)completed the intake interview from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. Forty-three couples were contacted by Building Healthy Marriages staff 1 year later and asked to complete the posttest surveys(MSI-R and KSS). All couples completed an MSI-R pretest, so the response rate for the MSI-R pretest was 100%. The figure (Figure 31) below illustrates the posttest response rate. As indicated,the intake coordinator contacted 43 couples three times. After this contact, 2 couples and 1 individual completed the posttests at the BHM office. Three couples were excluded from the follow-up mailing due to the following: One couple moved out of the state; 1 couple was no longer together,and no valid 60 address was on file; and 1 couple had no valid phone number. The remainder(37 couples)was mailed a posttest package. Ten couples completed the package and mailed it back. Three packages were returned because the addressee had moved without a forwarding address. (See Table 11.) Therefore,the response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 34%. (Out of the 37 couples included in the posttest calculation, 12 couples and 1 individual completed the posttest.) •Two couples and 1 participant 2 couples completed an MSI-R posttest and 1 at BHM location. participant •37 couples received a survey package in the mail. 43 couples were contacted 3 times by intake coordinator. •Ten couples completed MSI-R posttest at home. 10 couples •Of the 37 couples who received a package in the a mail, 3 had a bad address. Figure 31: Posttest Response Rate Year 4 Table 11: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 4) Reason for Exclusion from MSI-R Posttest Calculations n couples Moved out of state 1 17 No valid contact information 5 83 Overall Response Rate Pretest= 89% Overall Response Rate Posttest= 54% Analyses Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores The current data were collected from January 1, 2007 through June 11, 2011. Participants in this quantitative study were couples who met the program's eligibility criteria: married or in a committed relationship, residents of the county,annual income less than 200%of Federal Poverty Guidelines(This criteria was eliminated in June 2010.), and no recent history of domestic violence or substance abuse. Once couples were identified as qualifying for BHM services by program staff, each individual was administered an MSI-R pretest assessment. To ensure that each partner's answers did not influence those of his or her partner,each individual 61 was administered the MSI-R pretest in a separate room. Once the pretest was completed,the couples were referred to a seminar/workshop. Couples were asked to complete an MSI-R posttest 12 months after MSI-R pretest completion. In order to increase the response rate, a$30 Target gift card incentive was offered. BHM staff contacted couples three times by phone. The posttests were mailed out if couples did not respond to phone calls or preferred to complete the posttests at home. At the time of this writing, 192 participants had completed MSl-R pretests and MSI-R posttests. Gender and ethnicity were both self-reported by participants. In order to increase statistical power for this analysis, ethnicity was divided into Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Asian, Black,Native American, White, and other/multicultural). Couples who were biethnic were excluded from this analysis, which reduced the sample size to 154 participants. In order to see if ethnicity (Hispanic versus Non Hispanic) had an impact on pretest and posttest scores, we could only include couples with the same ethnicity. The MSI-R prescores, postscores, and gender were treated as within-couples repeated measures factors, and ethnicity (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) was treated as a between-couples factor. This means that for the purpose of this analysis, we examined the data per couple. During data analysis, couples were considered as one unit, as opposed to as individuals, because their scores correlated. Sophisticated analyses were conducted with the existing 154 participants to obtain a more detailed understanding of the data. Demographics • Year participant started. Of the 154 participants who completed MSI-R pretests and posttests, 39.0% (n= 60) started the program in Year 1, followed by 40.3% (n=62) in Year 2, 10.4 %(n= 16) in Year 3, and 10.4% (n = 16) in Year 4. (See Figure 32 below.) • Race/Ethnicity. Of the 154 participants, 64.3% (n=99) were White, followed by 29.9% (n = 46) Hispanic. The other 5.8% (n = 9) were Asian, Black,Native American, or other/multicultural. It is noteworthy that 29.9% of the participants identified themselves as Hispanic, given the evaluators' particular interest in exploring the effectiveness of relationship education with Hispanic participants. • Age. The average age of participants was 35 years. Six percent(n = 9) were 19 or younger, 54.6% (n= 84) were between the ages of 20 and 35, 33.1 % (n=51) were between the ages of 36 and 55, and 6.5% (n= 10) were 56 or older. • Gender. Fifty percent of participants were female (n=77), and 50% (n=77) were male. Only couples in which both partners completed the pre- and post-MSI-R tests could be considered in the statistical analyses. Couples (n=3) in which one partner did not complete a pretest and/or posttest were excluded from the statistical analyses due to the fact that analyses were executed at the couple's level. • Household Characteristics. One hundred thirty-four participants (87.0%) had children, with an average of 2.5 children per household; of the participants who had children, 34 (25.4%) had one child, 38 (28.3%) had two children, and 62 (46.3%) had three or more children. • Marital Status. Almost half of the participants (47.4%, n= 73)had been married for 0 to 5 years, 27.3%(n=42) were married between 6 and 10 years, and 24.0%(n=37) were married for more than 10 years. Two participants (1.3%) indicated that they were not living together. Seventy-four percent (n = 114) indicated the current marriage was their first, or they had never been married, 18.8% (n = 29) indicated they were previously married once, 6.5%(n= 62 10) indicated they had been married twice,and .6%(n= 1) indicated they had been married three times. • Employment. Sixty-four participants (41.6%)were unemployed, and 90 participants (58.4%)were employed and worked an average of 37 hours per week. Figure x below displays the various occupations in which the participants worked. • City. One hundred participants (64.9%) lived in Greeley, and 54 participants(35.1%) lived in cities surrounding Greeley (Evans, Grover, Longmont, Mead, Platteville, Eaton, Fort Lupton, Pierce, and Loveland). • Education.Twenty-two participants (14.3%)had less than a high school diploma, 46.7%of participants(n=72) had a high school diploma only, and 39.0% (n=60)completed education beyond high school graduation. On average, participants completed 12.5 years of education. Figures 32 through 39 provide a graphic presentation of year the couple entered the BHM program,race/ethnicity, age distribution, number of children, length of current marriage, number of previous marriages,occupation,and education. Figure 32: Year Participant Entered the Program 50 ' 39 40.3 40 30 - . - 20 %! - 10.4- 10.4 10 --' 0 �J Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Figure 33: Race/Ethnicity MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 2.6 0 0.6 I.3 Asian i/ 29.9 ■Black Hispanic 64.3 •Native Amer. 1.3 White •Other 63 Figure 34: Age MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 6.5 0 5.8 13—19 years 33.1 ■20—35 years ■36—55 years ■56 and over Figure 35: Number of Children MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 0 ' ov , 13 � f ■ 1 24.7 2 ■3 or more Figure 36: Length of Marriage or Years Living Together MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 1.3 24 47.4 0—5 years ■6- 10 years s> 10 years •Did not live together 64 Figure 37: Number of Previous Marriages MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants 6.s o 0 ▪ 1 74 2 ■3 Figure 38: Occupation MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants Unemployed I 41.6 Unskilled 111 Semiskilled/Machine Oper. 9.7 Skilled Manual , 1 12.3 Clerical/Sales/Technical 1 14.9 Admin/Small Business 4.5 Business Mgt ,f, 3.9 Executive/Adv. Profess. i 1.9 { 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 39: Education Level MSI-R Pretest and Posttest Participants _67 50 1 0 Less than High school Beyond high high school diploma school 65 Program evaluators posed the following questions: 1. Does the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program impact marital satisfaction? 2. Is the BHM program equally effective for male and female participants? 3. Is the BHM program equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants? 4. With what program were participants most satisfied? 5. In what areas did participants gain the most knowledge? Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 17 was used to analyze the data. The first step involved compiling descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means, and standard deviations, from the demographics and scales. To answer the first three questions, a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was conducted using a significance level of.05. The MSI-R prescores, postscores, and gender were treated as within-couples repeated measures factors, and ethnicity (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) was treated as a between couples factor. Questions 4 and 5 were answered by comparing the mean scores of each knowledge and satisfaction question of the KSS. Results—Question 1: Did the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program impact marital satisfaction? Yes,the Building Healthy Marriages program impacted marital satisfaction. • There was a significant change in marital satisfaction scores over time for the following areas: • Problem Solving Communication, F(l, 50)= 18.158,p < .05 • Time Together, F(1, 63) = 17.446,p< .05 • Global Distress, F(1, 49)= 10.000,p < .05 • Affective Communication, F(1, 59)= 8.628,p< .05 • Aggression, F(l, 66)=7.259,p< .05 • Financial Disagreement, F(I, 60)=6.046,p< .05 • Sexual Dissatisfaction, F(l, 57)=4.176,p< .05 With the exception of the Role Orientation Subscale, all scales are scored in the direction of dissatisfaction, indicating that high scores reflect more dissatisfaction for a specific area within the relationship. The most significant improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Problem Solving and Time Together. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication after completing the BHM program than prior to entering the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program were more satisfied after completion with the time they spent with their partners than before they entered the program. Furthermore, improvements were found for both males and females on the Global Distress subscale. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported less negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and less consideration of divorce. There was also a positive change between the pretest and posttest scores on the Affective Communication Scale. The results suggest that couples experienced increased satisfaction with 66 the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their partners, indicating that the BHM program substantially improved communication skills for participants. In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Aggression, Financial Disagreement,and Sexual Dissatisfaction. These finding suggest that couples experienced less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners than prior to entering the BHM program, had less discord in their relationships concerning finances, and experienced increased satisfaction with their sexual relationships following participation in the BHM program. There were no significant changes over time for Role Orientation, Family History of Distress, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict over Childrearing, indicating that the BHM program did not impact those areas. However, it is important to note that a small percentage of participants perceived high levels of stress in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Childrearing, making it difficult to produce significant improvements in these areas because participants were generally already satisfied. In general, participants were most satisfied with solving problems,the quality of time spent together, and their marriages. However,caution should be exercised in interpreting these results, due to the small sample size. Table 12 and Figure 40 illustrate how many particpants perceived problems before and after particpation in the BHM program. There were four areas in which more than one-third of the partipants experienced high levels of stress: Family History of Distress, Problem Solving Communication, Financial Disagreement, and Global Distress. Three of these areas (Problem Solving Communication, Financial Disagreement, and Global Distress)were positively impacted after participation in BHM classes. The classes did not have an influence on scores on the Family History of Distress. Lowest levels of stress for both males and females were found in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Childrearing, indicating that this sample was overall very satisfied with their children. Both males and females evidenced the most stress in the Problem Solving Communication area, and this is also the area in which the program made the greatest positive change. After completion of the program, less than one-third of participants experienced high levels of stress in all areas except for Family History of Distress. Table 12: Percentage of Males and Females Perceiving High Levels of Stress on MSI-R Scales MSI-R Pretest Males Posttest Males Pretest Females Posttest Females Subscale % % % % perceiving perceiving perceiving perceiving high levels n high levels n high levels n high levels n of stress _ of stress of.stress _ of stress GDS 32.5 25 23.4 18 35.1 27 23.4 18 AFC 28.6 22 18.2 14 26.0 20 20.8 16 PSC 35.1 27 22.1 17 45.5 35 22.1 17 AGG 22.1 17 16.9 13 19.5 15 16.9 13 TTO 27.3 21 18.2 14 32.5 25 20.8 16 FIN 33.8 26 23.4 18 30.0 23 26.0 20 SEX 20.8 16 14.3 11 26.0 20 27.3 21 ROR 15.6 12 I 6.5 5 14.3 11 11.7 I 9 c,7 FAM 36.4 28 37.7 29 42.9 33 41.6 32 DCS 10.4 8 11.7 9 7.8 6 7.8 6 CCR 11.7 9 11.7 9 10.4 8 7.8 6 GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Aggression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family History of Distress,DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict over Childrearing. Note:Purple highlighted areas indicate significant differences in satisfaction over time. Figure 40: Percentage of Males and Females Perceiving High Levels of Stress on MSI-R Scales 50 45 40 - 35 - 30 / Pretest Males 25 V —Posttest Males 20 �� / —� —--Pretest Females 15 — —Posttest Females 10 5 0 GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX RORFAM DCS CCR Results—Question 2: Was the BHM program equally effective for male and female participants? Yes,the Building Healthy Marriages program was equally effective for male and female participants. • Results indicate that the changes in satisfaction scores over time did not differ significantly for males and females. • Gender had a significant influence on participants' ratings on the Global Distress Scale; males showed greater satisfaction than females [F(1, 49) =6.054,p< .05]. • Gender had a significant influence on participants' ratings on the Affective Communication Scale; males showed greater satisfaction than females [F(1, 59)= 11.110,p.110,p<.05]. • Gender had a significant influence on participants' ratings on the Sexual Dissatisfaction Scale; females showed greater satisfaction than males [F(1, 57)= 5.044,p< .05]. • Gender had a significant influence on participants' ratings on the Role Orientation Scale; males had more traditional views than females [F(1, 56)=5.660,p< .05]. Overall, the BHM program was equally effective for male and female participants. According to Jakubowski, Milne, Brunner, and Miller(2004), one of the four main goals of a PREP program is to aid couples in clarifying and evaluating expectations. 68 Results indicate that males and females expressed significant differences in ratings for four scales: Global Distress,Affective Communication, Sexual Dissatisfaction, and Role Orientation.Data indicate that females were less satisfied with their overall marriages and the affection and understanding expressed by their partners than males. In addition, females showed greater satisfaction than males on the Sexual Dissatisfaction Scale. Differences were also found on the Role Orientation Scale; males had more traditional views than females. Significant differences between the attitudes of the partners can impact marital satisfaction negatively. A stronger emphasis on identifying and evaluating expectations regarding roles would be helpful. See Table 13 and Figure 41 for the scores of males and females at the beginning of the BHM program with the MSI-R scores one year later. Table 13: Mean Pre-and Post-MSI-R Scores for the Male and Female Participants MSI-R Pretest Males Pretest Females Posttest Males Posttest Females Subscale _ ;11 SD .11 SD I/ SD :t9 SD 8.81 .97 10.33 1.06 6.03 .84 7.91 1.00 rv... R - - 6.43 .51 3.87 :., .54 4.57 .8 PSC 10.33 .89 11.10 .84 6.91 .87 j 6.77 .92 AGG 2.97 .37 2.61 .27 2.53 .32 2.11 .27 TTO 4.73 .35 5.10 .37 3.37 .38 3.68 .43 FIN 4.62 .39 4.61 .38 3.81 .34 4.10 .40 SEX 6.29 . 'x.69 ,_.. 0:54' '4.21 .59 ROR 6.53 .18 .44 6.45 40 7.46 .41 i FAM 5.01 .45 5.06 .39 4.86 .43 4.93 .42 DCS 2.04 .42 2.02 .27 2.17 .35 1.73 .33 CCR 1.89 .37 2.83 .39 1.79 .38 2.28 .47 GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Aggression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family History of Distress,DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict over Childrearing. Note:Purple highlighted areas indicate the significant differences in satisfaction between genders. 69 Figure 41: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI Scores for the Male and Female Participants 12 10 g Pretest Males 6 — — — Pretest Females Posttest Males 4 Posttest Females 2 0 GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DCS CCR Results—Question 3: Was the BHM program equally effective for Hispanic and non- Hispanic participants? Yes, the Building Healthy Marriages program was equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. • Analyses did not indicate that ethnicity accounted for a significant portion of the variability in test score differences, indicating that the differences in test scores between Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants were not significant. Table 14 and Figure 42 compare the MSI-R scores for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants at the beginning of the BHM program with the MSI-R scores at the end of Year 1. Table 14: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants. MSI-R Hispanic Non-Hispanic Subscale Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest M SD M SD M SD M SD GDS 10.54 1.63 8.46 1.47 8.60 .90 5.47 .81 AFC 5.78 .74 4.81 .89 5.30 .44 3.62 .53 PSC 11.00 1.36 6.92 1.47 10.44 .79 6.76 .85 AGG 3.24 .43 2.68 .39 2.34 .27 1.96 .24 TTO 4.83 .54 3.45 .63 5.00 .38 3.59 .44 FIN 4.45 .57 4.18 .57 4.78 .38 3.72 .38 70 SEX 5.23 .84 4.13 .83 5.75 .49 5.08 .48 ROR 6.47 .67 7.07 .58 7.24 .39 6.84 .34 FAM 4.75 .48 4.82 .55 5.33 .27 4.97 .30 DCS 1.56 .51 1.63 .48 2.50 .28 2.28 .26 CCR 2.22 .54 2.06 .65 2.50 .29 2.02 .35 GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Aggression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family History of Distress,DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict over Childrearing. Note:Ethnicity did not account for a significant portion of the variability in test score differences. Figure 42: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 12 10 8 Pretest Hispanic 6 Posttest Hispanic 4 — Pretest Non-Hispanic y`{ Posttest Non-Hispanic 2 0 6,95 6 4faG O O. � �S C4 Q• 5 4 4 Results—Question 4: With what program were participants most satisfied? The results from the Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys from the 154 participants included in the analyses are illustrated below(Tables 15 and 16). The majority(83%)of the couples participated in the Marriage Seminar, and 34%of the participants(52 participants took part in the Enrichment Weekend and Prepare/Enrich curriculum. (See Table 15.) About one-fourth of the participants (n= 36)took advantage of the Conflict Resolution Coaching and Financial Management Coaching(n=34). Services that were less utilized were the Booster, Marriage Mentoring, Employment Support Training, and Love Notes. Table 15: Participation in BHM Events by the 154 Participants Event Number of participants It Marriage Seminar 128 83.1 Enrichment weekend 52 33.8 Financial Management Coaching 34 22.1 Conflict Resolution Coaching 36 23.4 Prepare/Enrich 52 33.8 71 Booster 11 7.1 Marriage Mentoring 12 7.8 Employment Support Training 4 2.6 Love Notes 1 .6 As illustrated in Table 16, 55 participants (36%) engaged in one BHM event, 46 (30%) completed two events, and 37 (24%)took part in three events. Sixteen (10%) engaged in four or more BHM activities. When an uneven number is noted, this indicates that only one partner participated in an event. Table 16: Number of BHM Events Attended b Participants Who Completed the KSS (n= 154) 1 55 35.7 2 46 29.9 3 37 24.0 4 10 6.5 5 4 2.6 6 2 1.3 Table 17 displays results from the Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) from the 154 particpants who completed this survey and were used in the statistical analyses. Table 17: Satisfaction with Education Events Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Education Event satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n I % n I % nl %% n I % Marriage Seminar Content 2 1.8 6 5.5 35 31.8 67 60.9 3.52 Instructor 1 .9 3 2.7 27 24.5 79 71.8 3.67 Facility/Meeting room space 2 1.8 7 6.4 26 23.6 75 68.2 3.58 Enrichment Weekend Content 1 1.9 10 19.2 41 78.8 3.77 Instructor 3 5.8 8 15.4 41 78.8 3.73 Facility/Meeting room space 1 1.9 9 17.3 42 80.8 3.79 Conflict Resolution Coaching Content 4 12.5 5 15.6 12 37.5 11 34.4 2.94 Instructor 4 12.5 3 9.4 9 28.1 16 50.0 3.16 Facility/Meeting room space 1 3.1 2 6.3 13 40.6 16 50.0 3.38 Financial Management Content 2 6.3 3 9.4 6 18.8 21 65.6 3.44 Instructor 2 6.3 5 15.6 25 78.1 3.66 Facility/Meeting room space 1 3.1 6 18.8 25 78.1 3.72 Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Education Event satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied nj %% n I % n 1 % n I % Booster Content 1 10.0 5 50.0 4 40.0 3.30 Instructor 4 40.0 6 60.0 3.60 Facility/Meeting room space 1 10.0 4 40.0 5 50.0 3.40 Marriage Mentoring 72 Content 2 28.6 1 14.3 4 57.1 3.29 Instructor 2 28.6 5 71.4 3.43 Facility/Meeting room space 2 28.6 2 28.6 3 42.9 3.14 Prepare/Enrich Content 3 6.7 8 17.8 13 28.9 21 46.7 3.16 Instructor 5 11.1 8 17.8 7 15.6 25 55.6 3.16 Facility/Meeting room space 1 2.3 6 13.6 9 20.5 28 63.6 3.45 Employment Support Training Content 4 100.0 4.00 Instructor 4 100.0 4.00 Facility/Meeting room space 4 100.0 4.00 Family Advocate 4 4.3 11 11.7 _ 18 19.1 51 54.3 3.77 Family Liaison 1 5.9 2 11.8 7 41.2 7 41.2 3.18 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information learned in your relationship at home Seminar 4 3.7 31 28.4 42 38.5 32 29.4 2.94 Enrichment Weekend 13 25.5 18 35.3 20 39.2 3.14 Conflict Resolution 5 16.7 9 30.0 12 40.0 4 13.3 2.50 Financial Management 2 6.3 5 15.6 11 34.4 14 43.8 3.16 Booster 4 40.0 4 40.0 2 20.0 2.80 Marriage Mentoring 2 28.6 3 42.9 2 28.6 3.00 Prepare/Enrich 5 11.4 23 52.3 8 18.2 8 18.2 2.43 Employment Support Training 4 100.0 3.00 Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Mean Dissatisfied Satisfied Overall Program I 7 I 5.3 43 I 32.3 83 I 62.4 3.57 Note: n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very dissatisfied/not at all satisfied and 4 meaning extremely satisfied. As indicated in Figure 43, participants were most satisfied with the employment support training, followed by the enrichment weekend and PREP marriage seminar. Couples were the least satisfied with the conflict resolution coaching and Prepare/Enrich program. In general, participants were satisfied with all the educational programs. In addition, participants learned more in the area of conflict resolution than financial management. This is expected because the PREP educational program that is offered in the Seminar and Enrichment Weekend focuses on increasing conflict resolution skills. Caution should be exercised when comparing satisfaction scores between the various programs, due to the very low number of participants in some of the programs (e.g. employment support services). 73 Figure 43: Satisfaction with Content of Events Conflict Resolution 2.94 Prepare/Enrich 3.1 Marriage Mentoring 3 9 Booster 3 3 I I Financial Management 3.44 Seminar 3.52 Enrichment Weekend 3. 7 Employment Support Training 4 r------t------.�. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Average Satisfaction with Content of Event l =not at all satisfied,2= a little satisfied, 3 =quite a bit satisfied,4=extremely satisfied Results—Research Question 5: In what areas did participants gain the most knowledge? Table 18 and Figure 44 indicate that participants learned more in the area of conflict resolution than financial management. This is to be expected because the PREP educational program (offered in the PREP Seminar, Enrichment Weekend, and WOR) focuses on increasing conflict resolution skills. For example, couples are taught the Speaker-Listener technique to facilitate communication. Therefore, we would predict that participants would become better listeners during a conflict. Table 18: Knowledge Gained To what extent do you believe you now have Not at all A little Quite a Extremely increased knowledge to do these things in bit your relationship? n % n % n % n % Mean To manage conflict 5 3.9 3 l 24.0 56 43.4 37 28.7 2.97 To de-escalate conflict 5 3.8 31 23.7 58 44.3 37 28.2 2.97 To be a better listener during conflict 4 3.1 24 18.3 50 38.2 53 40.5 3.16 To communicate safely during a conflict 6 4.5 29 22.0 49 37.1 48 36.4 3.05 To reach agreement when working on a 6 4.6 27 20.6 62 47.3 36 27.5 2.98 problem To manage your finances 21 15.9 38 28.8 44 33.3 29 22.0 2.61 To manage a budget for your family 23 17.6 33 25.2 45 34.4 30 22.9 2.63 To save for your future 28 21.4 34 26.0 37 28.2 32 24.4 2.56 Note: n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with I meaning having not increased any knowledge and 4 meaning having extremely increased knowledge. 74 Figure 44: Knowledge Gained To save for your future 2.56 To manage your finances 2.61 To manage a budget for your family 2.63 MOM To de-escalate conflict 2.97 To manage conflict 2.97 To reach agreement when working on a problem 2.98 MIN To communicate safely during a conflict 3.05 To be a better listener during conflict 3.16 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely Results from the pretests and posttests show that overall, the Building Healthy Marriages program was successful at increasing marital satisfaction and that gender and ethnicity were not related to the program's effectiveness. In general, participants were"quite a bit satisfied"with all programs offered. They also felt they gained knowledge in various areas, especially in areas involving conflict resolution. Participants gained the most knowledge in learning how to listen better during conflict and the least knowledge in learning how to save money. Additional comments from the Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey In addition to inquiring about levels of satisfaction and knowledge gained, the KSS also allowed for individuals to make comments about their experiences. Some of the comments made by participants follow. Marriage Seminar. When the participants were asked what they liked most about the Marriage Seminar,they responded: "Instructors were friendly,""It helped me talk to my partner better,""Encouraging individuals to speak the truth in love so they can feel validated,""Getting together with other couples,""Enjoyed learning from the other couples' stories,""How to communicate without yelling,enjoying the time together,""It made us think about our own treatment of our spouse," "Learning about each other and our core issues,""Learning how to argue/disagree constructively,""Quality time with my wife,""The classes were well explained by the instructor,"and"The time to practice what the instructor taught." Many participants were unsatisfied with the length of the seminar;they felt it was too short. Other negative feedback included: "My husband was there but not present," "Not enough time to practice what we were taught,""Some of it was a little corny but it made sense,""Showing our issues in front of other couples,""That none of it really worked because it seems that my partner doesn't care,""The material seemed elementary,""The seminar was too short," and"The videos." 75 Enrichment Weekend. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the Enrichment Weekend,they indicated that it was a nice refresher and that it was nice to spend some time together with their partners. More specifically, they answered: "Being together and having fun," "Getting out of our normal routine and away from the kids," "Making our relationship come to life again," "Remembering the importance of alone time," "It was a place we could use the tools we've learned," "Learned other ways to communicate," " "Using things we learned to get through our issues," "Meeting other people," "The educators were kind, welcoming and dedicated," "The facilities were great,""The games we played to get to know one another," and "The date part of the weekend, spending a weekend alone with my partner." Many participants agreed that the weekend was not long enough. In addition, two participants commented that the time in class felt very long and that there was not enough one-on-one time with educators. Other comments included "It was helpful and I would recommend it to others," "It was wonderful and refreshing, we felt spoiled," "Thanks a lot for helping me and my family," and "It was great meeting new friends." Conflict Resolution Coaching. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the Conflict Resolution Coaching, they responded, "Ability to get input from an impartial observer," "Being heard, and my partner and I both getting some resolutions," "Educators were warm, understanding, and non-judgmental," "The conflicts became less intense,""Helped develop problem solving skills," and "The one on one speaking and non-judgmental aspect". Negative feedback included "Having to open up about hidden issues," "It didn't work for us/we didn't accomplish anything," and "Not enough meeting time allotted." Other comments included "The educators were fair and helpful," "It helped us change our problems," "More follow up was needed,"and "It was uncomfortable." Financial Management Coaching. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the Financial Management Coaching, comments included "That he sat down with our budget and helped us, then explained some things to our kids that helped bring them on board," "I have learned to manage/organize my expenses," "Budget sheets were very helpful," "The instructors were thorough, non judgmental and understanding," "The educators were informative and professional," "It was in our home," "It confirmed what we were already doing," "It helped us create changes," and "The methods to better administration." Here are some things they liked least: "Counselor did not finish helping us," "That they were very short," "The small amount of time invested in it," and "Was too pushy." Other comments included "It was encouraging," and "It helped change our thinking about spending money." Booster. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the Booster, they answered, "It keeps us reminded on a day to day basis," "It enhances open communication," "The techniques that I had not/never heard of before," "That all couples were able to share,talk and play together," and "That they teach you to listen and be patient. Suggestions for changes included a longer class and less crowded facilities. Marriage Mentoring. When participants were asked what they liked and disliked the most about the Marriage Mentoring, responses included "Individualized attention to develop new skills," "We got to pick the topic and work uninterruptedly," "Would have liked to have more 76 mentors," "some of the same info as the seminar and weekend, would like it to last longer," and "Would like to get to know other couples better." Prepare/Enrich curriculum/premarital inventories. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the Prepare/Enrich Curriculum, responses included "Being able to discuss our problems and other ways to deal with them," "The educators' honesty, straight to the point answer,""I liked how it brought us together each week to connect," "Focusing on what needed help in our relationship," "Get to know more about my partner," "Got to the real issues," "Learning differences and similarities with one another," "The educators were great," "Great atmosphere," "The teachers were friendly and non judgmental,". When participants were asked what they liked least, responses included"I wish it would have gotten deeper into the financial/budgeting part," "Sometimes I remember feeling like my spouse used this event as an opportunity to point out all my flaws and divert the attention away from himself," "It was depressing thinking about our negative aspects of the relationship,""It was not long enough," "It almost made our problems worse because we identified them but didn't learn how to get past them," "No chart copies for personal success," "Not enough meeting time allotted," "The instructor seemed impersonal," "It was difficult to look at our issues, and the results were scary", "We left without resolution", "That we never got to get over our issues talked about in the inventory." Employment support training. When participants were asked for feedback regarding the employment support training, they responded, "I am attending Aims, thanks to employment services of Weld County," "That they help find better jobs," and "I am very grateful with the person who helped me." Family advocates. When participants were asked what they liked the most about the family advocate, they responded, "Explained things that we do not understand sometimes," "Gave suggestions, point us in the right direction," "Helped us find resources to achieve our goals,""Point us to other available classes," "Helped pay the bills and provide for my children," "They listened and kept us informed," "They helped with anything we needed and looked out for the whole family," "The reminder calls," "She got to the core of our issues," "The counseling skills," "She stayed in contact," "Helped us with our issues, helped with communication,""She listened to us," "She was available by phone," "and "She sought out ways to be of assistance to us. She was encouraging and positive." Something negative that was mentioned by several participants was that the advocate could have stayed in better touch and should have given them more notice about upcoming classes. Some participants indicated that they were never assigned a family advocate. Other suggestions included, "She was too busy, and got confused about our case," and "Should know the resources more." Other comments included "She was too busy and forgetful," and "She was wonderful, caring and respectful." Family liaison. When participants were asked for feedback regarding the family liaison, they responded, "Always available," "Gave us the help we needed," "helped us out with our problems and helped us with referrals," "They were great", and "Reminder calls." Total program. When the participants were asked what changes they would like to make to the overall program, they responded, "More meetings," "Advocate needed to involve us 77 more," "I would love for it to go longer or keep going once a month or so,""A few more sessions and maybe a reunion so we can share ideas with each other," "Work with our schedules," "More one on one time with our counselor," "I wish there were a way for more people to attend the weekend program," "We would like to attend more events," "Follow up classes,""Fewer participants or more staff," "More sexual education," "There needs to be more in-depth counseling for the issues that arise during discussions. It makes the relationship worse to realize issues exist and not know how to fix them," "Stop religious part of marriage seminar. I have no religious preference and they made us do that part," "You cannot fix a lifetime of hurts with a few hours of truth—It needs to be put into practice, with a coach, over some time," "More long time counseling set up for couples...with counselors that are familiar with the material and can work with income challenges," and "More focus on the family, and the impact of children on marriage." Most helpful events in Building Healthy Marriages. When participants were asked which events were most helpful they responded, "All of them," "The 12 hour prep course," "The in home help," "Conflict Resolution," "Marriage Booster," "The weekend", "Financial management," and the "Prep class." Other comments for Building Healthy Marriages. Other comments included, "It has changed our relationship," "It was all helpful," "Thank you so much," "I hope the program continues," "Wish we could attend more classes," "We had fun," "We still use the resources and referrals we were given," "Wish there was more time for counseling and one to one time with educators," "It has restored our marriage and improved our lives," and "We have recommended it to others." Other services. When asked what type of other services would be helpful, participants responded, "Family counseling," "Parenting classes," and "A recreation center with games and classes and events." Results Mini KSS Table 19 indicates the number of participants who completed mini KSS's during the 5- year grant period. The Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars had 1588 participants, 292 people took part in the Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar, 102 took part in the Public Within My Reach Singles Relationship Seminars, 89 took advantage of the Within Our Reach Seminar, 28 completed a mini KSS after the last follow-up session of the Relationship Inventories, 14 took part in the Love Notes Relationship Seminars, and 12 participants completed the Marriage Garden Curriculum. Table 19: Mini KSS Data Service Structure Number of Participants* 1. Relationship Seminars PREP seminar 1588 Winning the Workplace Challenge 292 Within My Reach 102 Within Our Reach 89 Prepare/Enrich (Relationship Inventory) 28 Love Notes 14 78 Marriage Garden 12 Total 2125 Note:*Participants may have participated in more than one event. Mini KSS's Data The evaluation team developed mini KSS's to receive feedback about the programs offered. As described earlier,these mini surveys were administered during the last 5 minutes of the education event. Administration of the mini KSS's began in May 2008. This report will present all mini KSS data gathered during the course of the Grant(May 2008—June 2011). Percentages may not always add up to 100%due to the fact that some participants did not respond to some of the questions. Results Mini KSS 8-Hour Marriage Garden Curriculum The Marriage Garden Curriculum was offered once at rotating Grover homes over four Saturdays from July 12—August 2, 2008. Twelve individuals completed the mini KSS following the training. Tables 20 and 21 contain the results from the participants' evaluations of this program. Half of the participants, (n=6)were male, and half(n=6)were female. All 12 of the participants were married.Ninety-two percent(n= 11)of the participants were White, and one participant(8.3%)did not respond to this question. The average age of the participants was 61 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 50.0% (n=6) had a high school diploma only, and 41.7%(n= 5)completed education beyond high school graduation. One participant (8.3%)did not complete this question. Table 20: Satisfaction with Marriage Garden Curriculum Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % Marriage Seminar Content Marriage Garden 1 8.3 1 8.3 4 33.3 6 50.0 3.25 Educator Marriage Garden 1 9.1 10 90.9 3.82 Meeting Room Marriage 1 9.1 10 90.9 3.91 Garden The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information you learned in your relationship at home Marriage Garden 1 1 8.3 8 166.7 3 125.0 3.17 Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning not at all(satisfied) and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). Following the Marriage Garden seminar, 91.7%(n= 11)of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that their knowledge of healthy marriage relationships had increased; only 1 individual (8.3%) strongly disagreed. Eleven participants (91.7%)agreed or strongly agreed that their skills as a spouse/partner were likely to increase; 1 individual (8.3%)disagreed. All participants agreed(41.7%; n=5) or strongly agreed (58.3%;n= 7)with the statement, "I have a desire to be a better spouse/partner."Eleven participants(91.7%) agreed (50%; n=6)or strongly agreed(41.7%; n=5)that their relationships with their spouses/partners were likely to improve 79 following the Marriage Garden; 1 participant(8.3%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. Eleven participants(91.7%)agreed (58.3%;n= 7) or strongly agreed (33.3%; n=4) that they would change (improve on)at least one relationship strengthening behavior or practice; 1 participant(8.3%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. All but one participant agreed(50.0%; n=6)or strongly agreed (41.7%; n =5)with the statement,"I think my relationship with my spouse/partner is likely to improve." Eleven of the 12 participants(91.7%) would recommend this curriculum to family and friends. 91.7%(n= 11)were very or extremely satisfied with their"marriage"and with "their relationship with their spouse." One participant (8.3%) had mixed feelings about these two items All but one participant was very satisfied (50.0%, n=6)or extremely satisfied (41.7%, n= 5) with their"husband or wife as a spouse." One participant was somewhat satisfied with this. Two-thirds of the participants responded"yes" (66.7%, n= 8), and 4 participants (33.3%)answered"no"to the question,"Do you intend to do anything differently as a result of participating in the Marriage Garden Training?" Behaviors the participants were willing to do differently as a result of participation in the Marriage Garden Curriculum include the following: • 1 will try not to complain at bedtime when I have to help her to bed. • Be more understanding and patient with my spouse • Communicate more, be more patient • Listen more, interrupt less • Listen more,talk things over more • Try to put into action what was taught • Trying to solve more conflicts with the tools we have learned • Work on conflict resolution more and build better goals for our relationship Table 21: Relationship Status Before and After Participating in the Marriage Garden Curriculum Marriage Garden Mean Before Mean After T-test Understanding of the Following Relationship Issues: Participating Participating Commitment(making and honoring promises) 3.58 3.92 -I.48 Growth (expanding/using your strengths) 3.00 3.75 -5.75** Nurturing(doing the work of loving) 3.42 3.67 -1.92 Understanding(cultivating compassion for partner) 3.33 3.67 -1.77 Solving(turning differences into blessings) 2.83 3.58 -3.45* Serving(giving back to partner/community) 3.58 3.92 -2.35* Note. Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning having very little understanding of the issue and 4 meaning having a lot of understanding of the issue. **p<.001, *p<.05 Data from the 12 Marriage Garden participants who completed surveys indicate that participants had statistically significant increases in their levels of understanding of Growth, Solving, and Serving from Time 1 (before participation in Marriage Garden) to Time 2 (after participating in Marriage Garden). (See Table 21 and Figure 45.) This was analyzed using a posttest-then-retrospective-pretest design, meaning that before and after information were collected at the same time (Marshall,Higginbotham, Harris,& Lee, 2006). 80 Figure 45: Relationship Status Before and After Participating in the Marriage Garden Mean Curriculum x.92 3 75 3 42 4 5 y 6/ 3.67 3.585 3.5 3 3 - U � • 2.5 1.5 U • _ ■Mean before participating 1 ■ ■ _ la Mean after participating 0.5 • • 0 04' e to, G 4� Participants provided additional information regarding the Marriage Garden seminar in response to the following questions: What did you like most about the Marriage Garden seminar? o "Bringing to my attention the things I take for granted" o "Discussion—learning more about my spouse" o "It reveals the real needs of a marriage." o "The information learned" o "Meeting with likeminded people" What did you like least about the Marriage Garden seminar? o "Having to face some issues" o "Not actually given tools to use in marriage" What did you like most about the Marriage Garden seminar educator? o "Being able to get across the valuable things in marriage" o "Their knowledge and background and the ability to relate and make the curriculum relevant" o "Very Caring about group,very thorough in presentation, very professional" What could the marriage educator have done to improve the Marriage Garden? o "Have time to put things into practice.A place for references for those who uncover problems" o "More sessions" Other comments regarding the Marriage Garden? o "I love it. Looking forward to applying this to my relationship." 81 o "It was very worthwhile. Gives tools to work with." o "Outstanding—I will recommend it to others, very satisfied." o "It is too general in nature,give a book list for references." Other services participants mentioned that could be helpful to them were dealing with teenagers, conflict resolution, and financial counseling. Results Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars (Mini KSS) As illustrated in Table 22, participants who took part in the 8-hour seminar were able to choose among several locations in which to attend the PREP class. Table 22: Location Marriage Seminar Location #Participants Trinity Plaza 509 32.1 Waypoints 451 28.4 First Presbyterian Church in Greeley 129 8.1 Christ Community Church 106 6.7 First Christian Church in Windsor 60 3.8 Zoe's in Greeley 31 2.0 Glad Tidings Church, Greeley 54 3.4 New Hope Church, Greeley 24 1.5 UNC 22 1.4 Old Library in Frederick 22 1.4 Mennonite Church 21 1.3 Iglesia Tempo Bautista 17 1.1 Johnstown Community Center 17 1.1 Rodarte Center 14 .9 Lighthouse Baptist Church, Fort Lupton 11 .7 Weld Opportunity High School I I .7 Community Baptist Church 10 .6 Eaton Methodist Church 10 .6 Mountain Valley Health Care, Windsor 10 .6 First United Methodist Church 8 .5 St. Alban's Episcopal Church 8 .5 Rodgers, Loveland 8 .5 St. Mary's Church in Greeley 8 .5 Sheppherd's House in Greeley 7 .4 Templo Bethel, Greeley 7 .4 BOCES Greeley 7 .4 Kersey Community Church 4 .3 Pregnancy Resource Center 2 .1 Total 1588 100% The most popular locations were: Trinity Plaza, Waypoints Church, First Presbyterian Church, and Christ Community Church. Five hundred nine participants (32.1%)attended at 82 Trinity Plaza,451 participants(28.4%)went to Waypoints Church, 129 (8.1%)attended at First Presbyterian Church, and 106 (6.7%)went to Christ Community Church. To see the other locations, please see Table x. Sixty-six percent of participants(n= 1045) participated in the I- day event, 64 participants (4.0%)completed the class in 2 days with 4-hour sessions, and 479 participants(30.1%)completed the PREP course in 4 weeks with four 2-hour sessions. Table 23 presents the results from the Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys based on data from the 1588 participants who completed this survey. This survey was distributed to participants during the last 5 minutes of the final meeting for the 8 hour PREP Marriage Seminar. Of the participants, 757 (47.7%)were male, and 831 (52.3%)were female.Two percent of the participants(n=33)were single, 35.3% (n= 561)were in a relationship but not married, and 62.6%(n=994)were married. Sixty-seven percent(n= 1063)of the participants who completed this question were White, followed by 21.5%(n= 341)who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other 7.1%(n= 112) of participants were Asian (n= 14), Black(n= 16),Native American (n= 16), other/multicultural (n= 66). Five percent(n=72)did not respond to this question. The average age of the participants was 36 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 30.0% (n= 477) had a high school diploma only, and 56.4%(n= 895) completed education beyond high school graduation. Ten percent(n= 151)had less than a high school diploma. One thousand five hundred fifty eight participants (99.7%) of the 1563 who completed this question on the mini KSS recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 23: Satisfaction with 8-Hour PREP Seminar Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n Marriage Seminar Content 1 .1 15 .9 414 26.1 1153 72.6 3.72 Educator 1 .1 3 .2 193 12.2 1367 86.1 3.86 Meeting Room 16 1.0 93 5.9 381 24.0 1085 68.3 3.61 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information you learned in your relationship at home PREP Seminar 2 I .1 57 I 3.6 499 1 31.4 1024 164.5 3.61 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n your relationship? To manage conflict 4 0.3 87 5.5 766 48.2 706 44.5 3.39 To de-escalate conflict 9 0.6 94 6.0 672 42.3 784 49.4 3.43 To be a better listener during 7 0.4 42 2.6 517 32.6 992 64.5 3.60 conflict To communicate safely during 15 1.0 80 5.0 597 37.6 869 54.7 3.49 conflict To reach agreement when 9 0.6 81 5.1 619 39.0 853 53.7 3.48 working on a problem Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). 83 As noted in Figure 46,participants in the PREP seminar were most satisfied with the educator. Participants were less satisfied with the content of the PREP seminar and were the least satisfied with the meeting room where the seminar was held. In general, participants were extremely satisfied with this educational program. Figure 46: Satisfaction with PREP Seminar 3.9 3.86 Average 3.85 Satisfaction 1 =not at all 3.8 2=alittle 3.75 3.72 3=quite a bit 4=extremely 3.7 3.65 3.61 3.6 3.55 3.5 3.45 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Content Satisfaction with Meeting Educator PREP Seminar PREP Seminar Room PREP Seminar Figure 47 indicates that participants in the PREP seminar gained the most knowledge about how to better listen during a conflict. Participants reported that the PREP seminar taught them the least about how to manage conflict. In general, participants gained a significant amount of knowledge from this seminar. 84 Figure 47: Knowledge Gained During PREP Seminar l I I To be a better listener during conflict 3.6 To communicate safely during a conflict 3.49 1 1 [ To reach agreement when working on a problem 3 48 { To de-escalate conflict i 3 43 I To manage conflict .39 r 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely Additional Comments from the 8-Hour PREP Mini KSS In addition to inquiring about levels of satisfaction and knowledge gained, the mini KSS also encouraged individuals to make comments on their experiences. This section included a short summary of the comments made by participants. When participants were asked what they liked most about this seminar, comments included, "A chance to actually practice what was learned and discuss with partner," "Amazing tools to make my marriage better and stronger,""Common ground to be with partner to discuss relationship,""Conflict resolution skills, learning to talk about it and then solve problem," "Easy techniques to use daily,""Great place to start getting back on track," "How to talk with my wife,""I liked all the different skills that were taught to positively tackle problems and have conversations,""Watching people use the tools,"and"I liked the interactions with other adults." Other positive comments were made regarding the food,the fun/easy-going/comfortable atmosphere that seemed nonjudgmental and nonthreatening,the conflict resolution skills,the one-to-one time with educators,the hope that the program brings,the education aspect of the program, the activities, the examples used,and the workbooks. Some of the participants were unsatisfied with the length of the seminar;they felt it was too short and that some of the topics were rushed. Other participants felt it was too long. Additional negative feedback included, "Crying in public,""Discussing personal issues in a public setting," "Kept getting interrupted by instructors,""Simplicity of materials,""Little more interaction,""More one on one with couples,""No active learning segments—lot's of talking no doing," "Not enough group discussion,"and"Not being able to talk in depth about some of the true items in the workbook." In addition, negative comments were made about the age of the videos used, cool temperature of the room, uncomfortable chairs, lack of coffee,the crowded room, having to travel to the event, and no child care being offered. 85 When asked for feedback on the educators,positive comments included, "Kept setting light and open," "Attitude and spirit," "Informative," "Competent," "Down to earth, with great concern about everyone's relationships," "Personable," "Devoted," "Confident," "Approachable," "Easy to understand," "Energetic," "Funny and passionate," "Positive attitudes and knowledge," "Engaging," "Capable to answer questions," "Sensitive," "Entertaining," "Enthusiastic," "Friendly," "Genuine," "Honesty,""Welcoming," "Nonjudgmental," "Great life stories of themselves really helped me to relate," "Added their own real life experiences, gave realness to event," "Committed to teaching," and "Great enthusiasm and their respectful relationship modeled for us." Critical feedback was less common but included concerns with organization and feeling rushed: "It felt rushed and skipped over." Other negative comments indicated that educators interrupted during exercises, did not participate equally, read the slides, showed bias at times, had a difficult accent to understand, and skipped around and interrupted the flow. Feedback on what the educator could have done to improve the event included, "One more class," "Been more organized," "Better slideshow/more videos,""Coordinate book and slides,""Could give more time for talking skills," "Be more prepared," "Be more direct to save on time," "Bigger room and better seats," "Focus more on enhancing relationships instead of fixing them," "Facilitate more interaction," "Give more time to complete activities," "Include more activities," "Less material, more time to practice the really important stuff," "Maybe explain some activities more, a couple of times we were lost," "More sharing of personal perspectives," and "Provide more information on what to do when you do not agree on a problem or cannot solve a topic." Additional comments were both complimentary (e.g., "This is a great course that everyone should attend," "This was a great start to helping us get our marriage back on track," "People really come together with some friendships," "Keep doing it, keep offering a helping hand to those who cannot afford counseling," "It was the best class I have been to," "Believe more people should try this," "Awesome learning experience," "Excited to use the information," and "Grateful that our dollars are used for this.") and provided clear directions for future improvement(e.g., "This should be more publicized to the community, it is an awesome program for anyone," "The marketing and advertising could do a better job describing the information," "Expand it to singles and youth," and "I think it would be good to do a longer event and more practicing activities."). When asked about other services that would be helpful to participants and their families, a number of participants indicated a wish for one-on-one counseling. Participants made such remarks as, "Continued personal counseling for us as couples," "Further counseling one on one," and "Individual couples counseling." Continuing education in the following areas was mentioned: classes that focus on specific topics learned during seminar, advanced classes, refresher classes, continued personal couples counseling, family counseling, parenting, information on balancing marriage and kids, organization of home and finances,Next Step Coaching, pregnancy counseling, and blended families. Results from the Spanish "Within Our Reach" (WOR) Mini KSS Table 24 presents the results from the Spanish Within Our Reach Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys based on data from the 89 participants who completed this survey. Of the participants, 38 (42.7%) were male, and 51 (57.3%) were female. Three percent of the participants (n=3) were single, 24.7% (n=22) were in a relationship but not married, and 86 69.7%(n=62)were married.Ninety-eight percent(n= 87) of the participants who completed this question were Hispanic, followed by 1.1%(n= 1)who identified themselves as Native American. The other 1.1%(n= 1) did not respond to this question. The average age of the participants was 35 years. The participants completed on average 11 years of education. Of the participants, 25.8%(n=23)had a high school diploma only, and 19.1%(n= 17) completed education beyond high school graduation. Thirty-nine percent(n=35) had less than a high school diploma. The participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS)at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 24 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. All participants(n= 88)who completed this question recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 24: Satisfaction with Within Our Reach Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n . % Within Our Reach Content I 1.1 23 25.8 63 70.8 3.71 Educator 10 11.2 78 87.6 3.89 Meeting Room 18 20.2 69 77.5 3.79 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information you learned in your relationship at home Within Our Reach 1 I 1.1 4 I 4.5 32 136.0 45 1 50.6 3.48 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n your relationship? To manage conflict 1 1.1 6 6.7 49 55.1 30 33.7 3.26 To de-escalate conflict 1 1.1 10 11.2 42 47.2 33 37.1 3.24 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you now have increased n % n % n % n % knowledge to do these things in your relationship? To be a better listener during 4 4,5 32 36.0 49 55.1 3.53 conflict To communicate safely during a I 1.1 7 7.9 33 37.1 44 49.4 3.41 conflict To reach agreement when I 1.1 5 5.6 36 40.4 42 47.2 3.42 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 1 1.1 7 7.9 30 33.7 25 28.1 3.25 relationship To know the communication 2 2.2 4 4.5 25 28.1 32 36.0 3.38 danger signs To be aware of my expectations 6 6.7 32 36.0 23 25.8 3.28 for my relationships To understand issues, events,and 5 5.6 26 29.2 32 36.0 3.43 hidden issues 87 To take stock of support in my 7 7.9 26 29.2 31 34.8 3.38 life Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). Note:The total n does not always sum to 89 for each question because specific WOR questions were added later on and therefore some participants had no score on some of these questions and some participants did not respond. Figure 48 indicates that participants who took part in the WOR seminar were most satisfied with the educator of the Within Our Reach program. Participants were less satisfied with the meeting room where the seminar was conducted and the content of the seminar. In general,participants were extremely satisfied with this educational program. Figure 48: Satisfaction with WOR Average 3.95 -— Satisfaction 3 9 - 3.89 1 =not at all 2=a little 3.85 3=quite a bit 3.79 4=extremely 3.8 3.75 3.71 3.7 3.65 3.6 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content WOR Room WOR WOR Figure 49 indicates that participants in the WOR seminar gained the most knowledge about how to be a better listener during conflict and how to understand issues,events,and hidden issues. Participants reported that the WOR seminar taught them the least about how to de- escalate conflict. In general,participants felt they gained much knowledge from this educational program. 88 Figure 49: Knowledge Gained During WOR To be a better listener during conflict 3.53 To understand issues,events,and hidden issues .43 To reach agreement when working on a problem 3 42 To communicate safely during a conflict 3. 1 To take stock of support in my life 38 To know the communication danger signs .38 To be aware of my expectations for my relationships To manage conflict _ 3. 6 To know the hidden issues in my relationship 3.2 To de-escalate conflict 3.24 3.05 3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely Additional Comments from the WOR Mini KSS When the participants were asked what they liked most about the Within Our Reach seminar, response themes included learning a variety of skills, such as conflict resolution, listening, and communication. Participants also liked having the freedom to express themselves as couples. Additionally, participants liked the topics taught by the educators,as well as the educators' politeness and the manner in which they explained the material covered. Comments regarding the things participants liked least about the seminar were minimal. Most comments focused on the shortness of the seminar(i.e., participants wished they had had more classes), while others stated that the classes were several hours too long. Additionally,one participant included the following comment: "Waking up old problems." When participants were asked to provide feedback about the educators,they found the educators to be knowledgeable,polite, good teachers,and approachable. Participants also liked that the educators delivered the material in a manner that was easy to understand; additionally, couples liked that educators shared personal stories to illustrate points. Participants also spoke of the educators' " "knowledge and calmness when handling difficult conversations." Suggestions for educators to improve the seminar included increasing the length of the seminar(i.e., more classes)and including more interactive exercises to practice skills learned. There were mixed opinions regarding the length of each class; some participants would have preferred less time per class, while others would have preferred more time per class. By and large, participants were satisfied and grateful for the seminar: "I am very grateful, I have seen changes in my marriage. Thank you very much." Other services participants were interested in receiving included workshops focused on family(a program in which children could attend)and individual issues. Specifically, participants were interested in understanding, helping, and communicating with children and adolescents. Others were interested in personal growth and receiving counseling services. 89 Results from Public"Within My Reach" Singles Relationship Seminars (WMR) One hundred two participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS)at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 25 summarizes the results.Ninety participants (98.9%)who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this seminar to others. Of the participants,46(45.1%)were male, and 56 (54.9%) were female. Seventy-one percent of the participants(n=72)were single, 12.7%of the participants (n= 13)were in a relationship but not married, and 16.7%(n=3)were married. Sixty-three percent (n=64) of the participants who answered this question were White, followed by 19.6%(n=20)who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other 5.9% (n=6)of participants were Black(n=2),Native American(n= 1), and other/multicultural (n=3). Twelve percent(n= 12) did not respond to this question. The average age of the participants was 40 years. The participants completed on average 13 years of education. Of the participants, 39.2%(n=40) had a high school diploma only, and 43.1%(n=44)completed education beyond high school graduation. Twelve participants(11.8%)had less than a high school diploma. Table 25: Satisfaction with Within My Reach Seminar Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Within My Reach Content 2 2.0 23 22.5 76 74.5 3.73 Educator 13 12.7 87 85.3 3.87 Meeting Room 1 1.0 15 14.7 84 82.4 3.83 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information you learned in your relationship Within My Reach I 4 I 3.9 19 118.6 78 176.5 3.73 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you now have increased knowledge to do these things in 17 % 11 % n % n your relationship? To manage conflict 3 2.9 47 46.1 51 50.0 3.48 To de-escalate conflict 4 3.9 46 45.1 51 50.0 3.47 To be a better listener during 1 1.0 3 2.9 27 26.5 70 68.6 3.64 conflict To communicate safely during a 6 5.9 31 30.4 64 62.7 3.57 conflict To reach agreement when 8 7.8 36 35.3 55 53.9 3.47 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 3 2.9 31 30.4 67 65.7 3.63 relationship To know the communication 3 2.9 34 33.3 64 62.7 3.60 danger signs To be aware of my expectations 2 2.0 28 27.5 70 68.6 3.68 for my relationships To understand issues,events,and 2 2.0 31 30.4 68 66.7 3.65 90 hidden issues To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you now have increased knowledge to do these things in ,z `% n % n % n % your relationship? To identify problem behaviors in 3 2.9 29 28.4 69 67.6 3.65 a partner To take stock of support in my 3 2.9 34 33.3 64 62.7 3.60 life Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with I meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). Figure 50 indicates that participants in Within My Reach were most satisfied with the seminar's educator. They were less satisfied with the meeting room and the content of the seminar. In general, participants were very satisfied with the WMR educational program. Figure 50: Satisfaction with WMR 3.9 _. Average 3.8 7 Satisfaction I =not at all 3.85 3.83 • 2=a little 3= quite a bit 4=extremely 3.8 3.75 3.73 3.7 3.65 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content WMR Room WMR WMR As indicated by Figure 51, participants in Within My Reach gained the most knowledge in becoming aware of their expectations for their relationships; identifying problem behaviors in a partner; and understanding issues, events,and hidden issues. Participants reported gaining the least amount of knowledge in the areas of reaching an agreement when working on a problem and de-escalating conflict. Overall,the areas in which participants reported gaining the least knowledge were related to communication during a conflict. Perhaps,this is due to the fact that participants attended the seminar individually; consequently,the participants may have felt less confident in their conflict resolution skills because they were not able to practice with their partners. 91 Figure 51: Knowledge Gained During WMR To be aware of my expectations for my relationships 4 3.68 To identify problem behaviors in a partner 3.65 To understand issues,events,and hidden issues =" 3.65 To be a better listener during conflict • ~a ,° 3.64 To know the hidden issues in my relationship 3.63 To take stock of support in my life 3.6 To know the communication danger signs 3.6 To communicate safely during a conflict - - 3.57 To manage conflict 3 48 To de-escalate conflict 3.47 To reach agreement when working on a problem ° 3.47 3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 Average Knowledge Gained 1=not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely Additional Comments from the WMR Mini KSS The mini KSS also allows participants to provide comments about their experiences. Participants' comments regarding the Within My Reach Seminar follow. Positive responses to the question, "What did you like the most about Within My Reach?" included, "The focus was on me and my behavior,""Got a good look at myself and what I need to improve,""It was fun and not intimidating,""The educators were great in helping us relate to the material,"and"I liked that the advice was relevant and applicable. I also liked that there was research based data backing up claims." Specifically,participants enjoyed the workbook activities,the color wheel, listening and communication skills, and learning about forgiveness. Negative comments about the program included, "Not enough time for everyone," "The workbook activities were too fast," "Would have liked small group discussions and shorter sessions," and"One participant took the floor at the end and began to go on and on." Other negative comments related to the food, chairs, and room temperature. What participants liked most about the educators included their use of humor and engagement,their clarity and concern,their respectfulness,their ability to relate,and their experience and knowledge.No negative comments were made about the educators, and suggestions for improving the program included more comfortable chairs, fewer breaks, more group time, showing fewer long videos,and making the seminar a little bit shorter. Only positive comments were made when asked about"other comments." One participant stated,"Everyone was awesome," and another participant stated, "I can use this info in all areas of my life, very useful!" As was the case for other seminars,participants expressed a wish to have other services that would include children, for example,"A class for kids would be golden." Other services that could be helpful included,"Anything to do with counseling,""Communication, abuse, grieving, depression," "Family class, parenting class," "Group process or group therapy,""More single classes,"and"Anything that strengthens the family." 92 Results from Public"Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars Mini KSS's distributed at the end of the Love Notes classes that were held at WayPoints church were analyzed and are included in this report. From October 1,2010 through June 11, 2011, 14 teens participated in three 1-day Love Notes Seminars that took place at WayPoints Church. They completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey(mini KSS)at the end of the Seminar. Of the young adults, 5 (35.7%)were male,and 9 (64.3%)were female. Sixty-four percent (n=9)were single, and 35.7%(n=5)were in a relationship but not married. Thirty-six percent (n=5)of the participants were White, followed by 42.9%(n=6)who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other participants (n=3) identified themselves as Native American (n= 1, 7.1%) or as multicultural (n=2, 14.3%). The average age of the participants was 15 years. The participants completed on average 9 years of education. The teens completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 26 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. Ninety-three percent of the participants(n= 13)who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this program to other teens. Table 26: Satisfaction with Love Notes Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Love Notes Seminar Content 1 7.1 3 21.4 10 71.4 3.57 Educator 14 100.0 4.00 Meeting Room 3 21.4 11 78.6 3.79 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information you learned in your relationship Love Notes 1 I 7.1 1 I 7.1 2 1 14.3 10 I 71.4 3.50 To what extent do you believe the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Love Notes program increased your knowledge to do these n % n % n % n % things in your relationship? To identify my expectations for a 1 7.I 5 35.7 8 57.1 3.43 relationship To understand the Chemistry of 1 7.1 2 14.3 2 14.3 9 64.3 3.36 Love To identify what makes a great I 7.1 1 7.1 2 14.3 10 71.4 3.50 relationship How to decide,not slide when I 7.1 1 7.1 4 28.6 8 57.1 3.36 making decisions To identify my personal line 1 7.1 4 28.6 9 64.3 3.50 during physical intimacy To use skills to counter the four 1 7.1 1 7.1 1 7.1 11 78.6 3.57 communication danger signs To be a better listener during a 1 7.1 1 7.1 3 21.4 9 64.3 3.43 conflict To communicate safely during a 1 7.1 1 7.1 3 21.4 9 64.3 3.43 93 conflict To identify issues and hidden 1 7.1 2 14.3 1 7.1 10 71.4 3.43 issues To know what being a good 2 14.3 1 7.1 3 21.4 8 57.1 3.21 mother/father means To plan for my future success 1 7.1 1 7.1 2 14.3 10 71.4 3.50 Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). Figure 52 indicates that participants in the Love Notes seminar were most satisfied with the educator of the class. Participants were less satisfied with the meeting room where the seminar was held and the content of the seminar. Figure 52: Satisfaction with Love Notes Seminar 4.1 4 4 3.9 Average 3.79 Satisfaction 3.8 - 1 =not at all 2=a little 3.7 3=quite a bit 3.57 4=extremely 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content Love Notes Room Love Notes Love Notes As shown in Figure 53, participants in the Love Notes seminar gained the most knowledge in using skills to counter the four communication danger signs, how to identify what makes a great relationship, how to plan for future success, and how to identify their personal lines during physical intimacy. Participants gained the least amount of knowledge regarding how to know what being a good mother/father means, how to understand the Chemistry of Love, and how to decide and not slide when making decisions. 94 Figure 53: Knowledge Gained During Love Notes To use skills to counter the 4 communication danger signs 3. 7 To identify what makes a great relationship j 3.5 To plan for my future success 3.5 To identify my personal line during physical intimacy 3.5 To communicate safely during a conflict 3.43 To be a better listener during a conflict 3.43 To identify issues and hidden issues 3.43 To identify my expectations for a relationship 3,43 How to decide,not slide when making decision i 3.3 To understand the Chemistry of Love 3.3 To know what being a good mother/father means 3.21 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely The KSS also allowed participants to provide comments about their experiences. Following are some of the teens' comments regarding the"Love Notes" Seminar. When asked, "What did you like the most about the Love Notes program?"comments included, "I got a lot of info that will be very useful for the rest of my life,""I learned what to do during fights,""Teaches you important facts,""The educator made it fun and interesting. I learned things I can use in my relationship," "The program taught things we use in life," and "We get a chance to really understand what is really going on and how to fix a relationship or relationship to come." When asked,"What did you like the least about today's Love Notes?"comments included, "It was kind of a long day,""Not many people attending,""Taking notes,"and"The video." Teens made a number of positive comments about the educators. Primarily,they focused on how the educators tried to make the program fun, were easy to understand, had a great attitude,were easy to relate to,were"cool,"and were willing to share personal experiences. The negative comments that teens provided were that educators were boring and rushed at times. Comments for improvement included cutting the hours down, making it more fun,having more activities to move around, more interaction, and allowing teens to get to know each other better. Most of the other comments emphasized that the program was cool,that it was good and will help a lot,that it was a great experience, and that it was very educational. No comments were mentioned regarding additional services. Results Public"Winning the Workplace Challenge"Workplace Relationship Education Seminars Workplace Relationship Education Seminars were added in Year 3, and no classes were offered during the second parts of Years 4 and 5. The participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event.Table 27 summarizes the 95 results. Two hundred seventy-one(97.1%) of the 279 participants who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this seminar to others. Of the participants, 74(25.3%) were male, and 218 (74.7%)were female. Eighteen percent(n=53)were single, 10.6%(n =31) were in a relationship but not married,and 70.5%(n =206)were married. Sixty-nine percent(n=201)of the participants were White,followed by 22.3% (n=65) who identified themselves as Hispanic. Four percent(n= 13)of the participants identified themselves as Asian, Black,Native American, and multicultural, and 13 participants did not respond to this question. The average age of the participants was 44 years. The participants completed on average 15 years of education. Of the participants, 23.3.2% (n= 12) had a high school diploma only, and 66.4%(n= 194) completed education beyond high school graduation. Six participants (1.9%) had less than a high school diploma. The participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS)at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 27 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. Table 27: Satisfaction with Winning the Workplace Challenge Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar Content 14 4.8 99 33.9 179 61.3 3.57 Educator 11 3.8 57 19.5 220 75.3 3.73 Meeting Room 5 1.7 24 8.2 99 33.9 160 54.8 3.44 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information you learned at your workplace Winning the Workplace 37 12.7 138 47.3 115 39.4 3.27 Challenge To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean this seminar increased your knowledge to do these things at n % n % n % n your workplace? To know what makes a great 2 .7 42 14.4 154 52.7 87 29.8 3.14 workplace To understand the role of 1 .3 27 9.2 131 44.9 127 43.5 3.34 relational intelligence To understand the amygdala 1 .3 12 4.1 98 33.6 175 59.9 3.56 hijack To recognize events, issues,and 1 .3 31 10.6 139 47.6 115 39.4 3.29 hidden issues To apply the speaker/listener 3 1.0 35 12.0 127 43.5 121 41.4 3.28 technique To understand the role of 1 .3 26 8.9 151 51.7 110 37.7 3.28 expectations To recognize the role of choices 4 1.4 29 9.9 127 43.5 127 43.5 3.31 in relationships 96 Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). As shown in Figure 54, on average, the participants were satisfied with the Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar. Figure 54: Satisfaction with Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar 3.8 3.73 3.75 3.7 Average 3.65 satisfaction 3.6 3.57 1 =not at all 3.55 2=a little 3.5 344 3=quite a bit 3.45 4=extremely 3.4 3.35 3.3 3.25 Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content Satisfaction with Educator Room Workplace Seminar Workplace Seminar Workplace Seminar As shown in Figure 55, the participants gained the most knowledge in understanding the amygdala hijack, the role of relational intelligence,and the role of choices in relationships. They gained the least knowledge in knowing what makes a great workplace, applying the speaker/listener technique, and understanding the role of expectations. Figure 55: Knowledge Gained During Winning the Workplace Challenge Seminar To understand the amygdala hijack menemenimins 3 56 To understand the role of relational intelligence 3.3' To recognize the role of choices in relationships 3.31 To recognize events,issues,and hidden issues 3.29 To understand the role of expectations 3.28 To apply the speaker/listener technique 3.28 To know what makes a great workplace 3.14 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little 3=quite a bit,4=extremely 97 Additional Comments from the WWC Mini KSS The mini KSS also invites participants to provide comments about their experiences. Most of the positive comments about the seminar focused on the value of learning better ways to have "difficult conversations" and the techniques that facilitated the learning of these skills. Several participants felt that these techniques were applicable to all types of relationships. Participants found the XYZ technique, the color wheel, and the speaker/listener technique particularly helpful. They appreciated the practical ideas and clear, helpful suggestions. In addition, participants enjoyed the relaxed, respectful, and comfortable atmosphere and the fun and interactive way in which the seminar was delivered. They appreciated that the material was presented honestly, with personal examples by the instructor and acknowledgments of the difficulties we all face. They enjoyed the opportunity to ask questions and discuss concerns. The information about the results of negativity in relationships and the amygdala hijack were found to be useful. The event was viewed as positive and useful. Some participants felt that the seminar was too long and wished for less repetition. Others felt that it was too short, with not enough time to cover all the topics. Having to fill out workbooks and surveys was not viewed positively. Participants noted that the discussion would have been better if more people had attended. Another negative comment was room temperature. The educators were viewed very positively overall. They were seen as personable, authentic, positive, direct, knowledgeable, funny, and able to respond to comments and questions well. Participants liked that they shared personal experiences and anecdotes. Participants appreciated their honesty, commitment to the topic, and validation of participants. Participants felt that they were creative in their delivery of material and worked well in establishing trust. Participants wished the presenters had given a less dry presentation, and they suggested presenters do this through increased enthusiasm and using situational examples. Other negative comments related to difficulty hearing the presenters, reading poor handwriting, and vagueness of delivery. Another concern was a lacking familiarity with the material. When asked what the educator could have done to improve the seminar, participants suggested involving participants more, having more time for discussion, being more enthusiastic, organizing and pacing the material better, specifying examples that related to the group, shortening the workshop, dividing the workshop into two days, covering less material, and leaving out material relating to marriages/relationships. General "other" comments included beliefs that the seminar was useful and thought provoking and that much was learned. More specific comments included suggestions that whole departments should participate as a group in order to practice with one another and that youth be presented with this material. Participants recommended presenting more strategies for conflict resolution and thought a refresher course would be beneficial. Other services that employees would find helpful included health insurance, learning how stepfamilies can blend households, parenting classes, conflict resolution skills, relationship skills, counseling, listening skills, mediation services, information about facing a divorce, and more follow-up services. Results Relationship Inventories (Prepare/Enrich) Twenty-eight participants (14 couples) completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the sixth follow-up session. (See Table 28.)All 28 participants indicated that they would recommend this workshop to others. 98 Half of the participants, (n= 14) were male, and half(n= 14)were female. Eight participants (28.6%) were in a relationship but not married, and 20 (71.4%) were married. Twenty-two participants (78.6%) were White, and 6 (21.4%) identified themselves as Hispanic. The average age of the participants was 35 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 32.1%(n=9) had a high school diploma only, and 66.3% (n= 18) completed education beyond high school graduation. One participant(3.6%) had less than a high school diploma. Table 28: Satisfaction with Relationship Inventories Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Relationship Inventory Content 9 32.1 19 67.9 3.68 Educator 1 3.6 27 96.4 3.96 Meeting Room 7 25.0 21 75.0 3.75 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information you learned in your relationship at home Relationship Inventory I 4 114.3 12 142.9 12 142.9 3.29 To what extent do you believe the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean Premarital/Relationship Inventories and follow-up sessions improved these relationship skills? to explore relationship strengths 1 3.6 13 46.4 14 50.0 3.46 and growth areas to learn assertiveness and active 15 53.6 13 46.4 3.46 listening skills to learn how to resolve conflict 14 50.0 14 14.0 3.50 using the Ten Step Model to help you with discussing your 5 17.9 12 42.9 11 39.3 3.21 Family-of-Origin to help you with financial 1 3.6 4 14.3 14 50.0 9 32.1 3.11 planning and budgeting to focus on personal,couple, and 9 32.1 19 67.9 3.68 family goals Note:n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item,with 1 meaning very(dissatisfied)/not at all(satisfied)and 4 meaning extremely(satisfied). As Figure 56 illustrates, participants were extremely satisfied with the educator of the Relationship Inventory and the meeting room where the sessions took place. Participants were less satisfied with the meeting content of the Inventory. In general, participants were very satisfied with the Relationship Inventory. 99 Figure 56: Satisfaction with Relationship Inventory 4 3.96 Average 3.95 Satisfaction 1 =not at all 3.9 2=a little 3.85 3=quite a bit 3.8 s--35 4=extremely 3.75 - - 3.7 3.68 3.65 3.6 3.55 3.5 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content Educator Relationship Room Relationship Relationship Inventory Inventory Inventory Figure 57 indicates that participants in the Relationship Inventory gained the most knowledge regarding how to focus on personal, couple, and family goals and how to resolve conflicts using the Ten Step Model. Participants gained the least knowledge regarding how to make financial plans and budgets, and how to discuss their families-of-origin. Figure 57: Knowledge Gained During Relationship Inventory To focus on personal,couple and family goals 13.68 To learn how to resolve conflicts using the Ten Step Model 4. 3.5 To learn assertiveness and active listening skills 3.46 To explore relationship strengths and growth areas r .46 To help you with discussing your Family-of-Origin --. 3.2 To help you with financial planning and budgeting 3.1' 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Average Knowledge Gained 1 =not at all,2=a little, 3=quite a bit,4=extremely 100 Additional Comments from the Prepare/Enrich Mini KSS The mini KSS also allowed participants to provide comments about their experiences. The following include the comments made by the couples regarding the "Relationship Inventory." When asked, "What did you like the most about this event?" the couples indicated that they learned to identify the areas on which they needed to focus and obtained new tools to work through them, thus improving their relationships. The participants also enjoyed getting to know themselves and their partners better. Overall, couples agreed that the event was very helpful. Other comments included, "Brings us together" and"It gave me hope for our future as a married couple." Regarding negative comments about the inventories, couples wished they would have lasted longer or that there would have been more sessions. Some expressed feelings of disappointment or sadness after receiving the test results evaluating their relationships: "Sometimes I felt like the test labeled us." Other comments about what couples liked least included, "Dealing with emotions" and "Finding out that we had a lot more to work on than I thought." Generally, participants had a positive opinion of their educators and experienced them as knowledgeable, kind, and supportive. Couples also appreciated that educators appeared to genuinely care about their relationship success. Comments about what participants liked the most about the educators included, "She has a big heart and she was very thorough," "Very committed, enthusiastic, and flexible,""Very loving and knowledgeable," and "Very personable and genuine." The majority of participants had no comments regarding things they did not like about the educators. Two participants thought the meetings with the educators were too short. Comments about what they liked least about the educators included, "Needs to see both sides" and "I felt confronted and had to defend my beliefs when the spirituality topic was discussed." When participants were asked to provide suggestions for the educators to improve the event, most participants had nothing to say. Some suggested educators provide more role plays and more tips in financial planning. Other comments participants provided were, "I have confidence that we will have a stronger marriage because of this event" and "Awesome, we got to the heart of the problems." Services that participants would find helpful included couples weekend workshops, parenting classes, individual and family counseling, and financial consulting. Comparison of Satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Curriculum, PREP Seminar,WOR, WMR, Love Notes, Winning the Workplace Challenge, and Prepare/Enrich Curriculum Figures 58—60 illustrate mean satisfaction values with the content, educator, and meeting space of the different programs that were offered. Participants were the most satisfied with the content of the Within My Reach Seminars, followed by the content of the PREP seminars, the Within Our Reach seminars, and the Prepare/Enrich Curriculum. The content of the Marriage Garden Curriculum, Love Notes class curriculum, and Winning the Workplace Challenge were rated the lowest. For all seven classes, participants were the most satisfied with the educator and the least satisfied with the content. The programs that were rated the highest in satisfaction in all three areas were WMR, WOR, and Prepare/Enrich. The two programs that were rated the lowest in satisfaction were Winning the Workplace Challenge and the Marriage Garden Curriculum. Overall, satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Curriculum, PREP Seminar, WOR, WMR, Love Notes, Winning the Workplace Challenge, and Prepare/Enrich Curriculum were 101 rated very highly. It is noteworthy that the overall level of satisfaction with the educators,the content of the seminars,and the meeting spaces was extremely high. Caution should be exercised when comparing the various programs due to the small number of participants in some of the programs. Figure 58: Comparison Satisfaction Content Programs Average Satisfaction 3.8 372 3.71 3.73 3 68 1=not at all 3.7 ' --few—.. 3.57 3,5'7 2=a little 3.6 — 3=quite a bit 3.4 22.25 4=extremely 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 e' 4 4 .gs G b GZ, q�' �� a f4,' Figure 59: Comparison Satisfaction Educator Programs Average 4 Satisfaction 4 ./ 3.96 1 =not at all 3.9 3 g2 3.86 389 3.87 2=alittle 3=quite a bit 3.8 ■ ■ . ■ 3.73 4=extremely 33.6 ;• ;• ; ; ; C 3.5: 4 Capp O4- t,.4 0 4 4'4- 04 ,§e• 102 Figure 60: Comparison Satisfaction Facility Programs Average 3.91 Satisfaction 3 9 3.79 3.83 3.79 3 75— 1 =not at all 3.8 2=a little 3.7 • 3=quite a bit U 3.44 4=extremely as, e b Relationship Between Satisfaction with the Content and Satisfaction with the Educator. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between satisfaction with content, satisfaction with educator, and satisfaction with the meeting room. (See Table 29.)There was a positive relationship between the Satisfaction Content and Satisfaction Educator, indicating that participants who were more satisfied with their educator were also more satisfied with the content of the seminar/curriculum in which they took part. The effect size is large, indicating a strong association between the two variables. However, caution should be used when interpreting the findings due to the fact that the majority of the participants were satisfied (quite a bit and extremely)with the content(98%, n= 2206) and educator(99%, n=2201) Table 29: Relationship Between Content Satisfaction, Educator Satisfaction, and Meeting Room Measures 1. 2. I.Satisfaction Content - .538** 2.Satisfaction Educator - Note**p<.01 Interest in Follow-Up Services Starting in January 2011, additional questions regarding participants' interest in follow-up services were added to the mini KSS for the following programs: PREP, WMR, and WOR. The results are listed in Table 30 below. Table 30: Interest in Follow-Up Seminars PREP WMR WOR Total n I % n I % 17 0/, n %, Interested in follow-up seminars Yes 190 86.8 31 81.6 12 100 233 86.0 No 27 12.3 7 18.4 0 0 34 12.5 Did not respond 2 1.0 4 1.5 Length of seminar 103 2—3 hours 87 45.8 10 32.3 8 66.7 105 45.1 4—6 hours 69 36.3 10 32.3 2 16.7 81 34.8 6 or more hours 34 17.9 10 32.3 2 16.7 47 20.2 Did not respond 0 0 1 3.2 0 0 0 0 To be offered Weekly 44 23.2 6 19.4 9 75.0 59 25.3 Monthly 79 41.6 16 51.6 1 8.3 96 41.2 Every other month 26 13.7 4 12.9 0 0 30 12.9 Twice a year 33 17.4 2 6.5 1 8.3 36 15.5 Other 5 2.6 5 2.1 Did not respond 3 1.6 3 9.7 1 8.3 7 3.0 Two hundred thirty-three (86.0%)of the 271 participants who were asked these questions indicated that they were interested in follow-up seminars. Of the participants, 105 (45.1%) preferred a 2—3 hour seminar, 81 (34.8%) showed an interest in a 4—6 hour seminar, and 47 (20.2%) selected the 6 or more hour seminar. Fifty-nine participants(25.3%) wanted these services to be available weekly,41.2%(n= 96), monthly, 12.9%(n= 30), every other month, 15.5%, (n=36),twice a year,and 2.1%, (n=5)at another frequency. Comments about what participants would like to gain were, "A better relationship," "A refresher and to learn more tips," "Better understanding on how to implement techniques," "Continue education, regular maintenance of skills learned,""For future problems that may arise,""Getting better at the skills,""Keep this information fresh, fine tune techniques, improve relationship,""Review on how we are doing,""Better myself,""More practice communicating, personal growth seminar," "Refresh, and maintain knowledge," and "Deeper understanding." Qualitative Program Evaluation Beginning in 2010 and continuing through June 2011,the evaluation team utilized qualitative research methods to evaluate the outcomes of the Building Healthy Marriages education program. Based on survey results, it appeared that nearly all participants and educators were satisfied with the BHM education program. However, we learned from educators that some participants had prematurely terminated their involvement with the program and that some had split up or divorced. We wanted to learn more about all participants in the program, including those who were still together,those who dropped out for reasons other than scheduling difficulties, and those whose relationships ended after their involvement with the program. Qualitative interviews were conducted in order to develop a rich, descriptive understanding of the experiences of both participants and educators. Sample The purposive sample was chosen from couples who had participated in marriage education programs. The sample consisted of 23 participants(8 couples, 7 individuals); 11 were Hispanic, and 12 were non-Hispanic. Fifteen were female, and 8 were male. Participants engaged in one to three events. All participated in the initial marriage seminar, and additional services (coaching, booster sessions, etc.)were utilized by some participants. The majority (n= 15) were married for less than 5 years, 2 were married for 5 years, 2 were married for 19 years, 1 was married for 32 years, and 3 did not provide that information.Thirteen participants were in their first marriage, 4 participants had one previous marriage,4 indicated having been married twice 104 or more, and 2 participants did not provide that information. Twelve had children. The average age of the participants was 34 years. For more detailed information, please see Table 31. In addition, 7 educators were interviewed. Four were Hispanic, and 3 were non-Hispanic. Three educators were male,and 4 were female. Procedure Initial calls were made to a subset of participants who had indicated to educators that they were willing to be interviewed. The purpose of the evaluation and confidentiality were also discussed. The interviewer made follow-up calls in which she further explained the interview process, arranged to meet at the BHM offices or participants' homes, and explained that they would receive a Target department store gift card as a thank you for participating. The research team consisted of the primary investigators and research assistants,all trained in qualitative methods. In preparing to conduct interviews, the research assistants attended education programs as participants/observers to become familiar with the program, its delivery,and its participants. These experiences informed the development of the interview questions. (See Appendix A.) Furthermore,these experiences aided in rapport building with volunteer participants, in concordance with phenomenological research practices(Creswell, 2007). Members of the team conducted 45-to-80-minute semi structured interviews with participants. Couples were interviewed together. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. (Spanish interviews were transcribed in Spanish and subsequently translated.)Participants were assigned numerical identifiers to protect confidentiality. Table 31 : Demographics Participants Qualitative Interviews Numerical Year #of Events in Relationship Years in #of Age # Identifier events which Status relationship previous chil participated marriages dren Participants who completed BI-IM program and were still together at the time of the interviews n= 11 Participant 3 1 PREP Married Missing 0 40 3 100 Participants 2 3 PREP, Married 19 0 43,45 3 101 & 102 financial counseling,& booster Participants 4 1 WOR Unmarried,in 3 1,3 29,34 2,4 103& 104 relationship Participants 2 1 PREP Married I 0 27,28 0 105& 106 Participants 2 2 Weekend& Missing 4 0,2 33,38 0,3 107& 108 PREP Participants 1 3 Weekend, Missing 2 0 20,29 0 109& 110 PREP, Prepare/Enrich Participants who dropped early n=3 Participant 3 1 PREP Married 5 I 42 1 III* Participant 4 Started Signed up for 112& 113# 2 but two PREP did not finish classes; neither one 105 completed Participants who divorced/separated n=5 Participant I 1 PREP Married,now 1 0 19 0 114 * divorced due to DV Participant 4 1 PREP,was Married,now split 32 0 53 2 115 * referred to up inventories Participant 2 1 PREP&Next Were engaged but 0 1 39 116 Step Coaching no longer together Participant 2 1 PREP Married,now split 5 1 40 4 117 up Participant 5 1 PREP Married,now split 4 2 49 2 118* up Impact Stories n=4 Participants 5 2 PREP Unmarried,in 1 2,0 45,26 1,0 119& 120 relationship Participants 5 1 PREP Unmarried,in 1 0,0 18,18 0,0 121 & 122 relationship Note: *Participants completed interview over the phone #:Did not complete KSS;very little information available Data Analysis This study utilized a phenomenological methodology designed to elicit thick descriptions of the personal experiences of participants and educators who had been involved in marriage/relationship education(Creswell,2007). Phenomenological studies result in "descriptions of what people experience and how it is that they experience" (Patton, 1990,p. 71). Interviews were conducted with educators, intact couples, couples who had separated, and participants who dropped out of the program. Transcripts of interviews were analyzed according to phenomenological thematic analysis in order to identify significant statements that contributed to overall clusters of meaning,which then organized the data into themes(Creswell,2007). The authors then used these themes to create a"textural description"to describe the essence of the participants' experiences(Creswell, 2007). This description is reported in the results portion of this report,along with verbatim excerpts of the interview transcripts. The authors utilized triangulation, audit trials, and peer examination and consultation to contribute to the trustworthiness of the study (Merriam, 1998). Results Participants. Data from the seven individuals and eight couples interviewed suggest unique themes. The themes identified provide textural, rich descriptions of the participants' and educators' experiences with the BHM programs. Overall,participants described cultivating relationship skills through their involvement with the program that have had positive, long- lasting impacts on their relationship satisfaction not only with their partners, but with others, including family (especially their children),friends,and coworkers. Participants were appreciative of the program's structure and information as well as the delivery by the educators. Generally, the participants reported that the program offered a safe, structured environment for learning through skill building and sharing with others. The educational focus was appreciated as a useful and comfortable way to address personal issues. Participants found the skills taught to be a great strength of the program. Specifically, participants reported learning skills for anger management, conflict resolution,and healthy 106 communication. Through practicing these skills during the program, participants reported being able to change behaviors, view their problems differently, understand their partners better, and feel increased closeness to their partners. Specific activities and tools to use at home were also thought to be helpful. Participants appreciated the knowledge, skillful delivery, and sincerity of the educators. Other strengths of the educators included their availability, sensitivity to the needs of individual couples, and personalities. Educators were seen as role models when they shared personal information regarding their own relationships, and some participants found them to be mentors. In addition, several participants noted that the program was delivered in a way that was empowering to both individuals and couples. Both individuals who dropped out of the program before its completion and individuals whose relationship ended following the program believed that the Building Healthy Marriages Program could not have provided any additional assistance with the decisions that led to these events. Overall, participants whose relationships ended expressed satisfaction with what they learned personally from the program. They indicated that the program highlighted problems in their relationships but also taught them the skills to address these problems in current and future relationships. They reported improvement in other relationships, such as with their children, parents, and new significant others. Of particular benefit to them were conflict resolution skills, listening skills, and sharing experiences with other couples and individuals during the program. There were unique themes for those whose relationships ended in separation or divorce: a sense of hopelessness about the relationship, attending the program as a last resort, and either addiction or emotional abuse. Despite these difficulties in their former relationships, participants reported gaining a sense of personal satisfaction through completion of the program and displayed a positive attitude while attending the program. For example, one participant stated, "I felt like my marriage was...a big building and the bricks were falling one by one. When I went, I felt good, and for me it was like putting one of the bricks back and, and I thought 'MY building is going to get stronger. "' Several individuals reported that if they had learned this information sooner, they might have made different choices in regard to relationships. Those who did not complete the program believed that their relationship quality improved due to better communication and that the program was well designed and implemented. Couples who did not complete the program left due to unforeseeable circumstances such as a death in family. Educators. Educators emphasized a strong belief in the skills they taught, as well as concern for the environment and delivery of the program. Specifically, educators valued the creation of a safe environment for personal learning and reported that they felt like role models for participants. Educators enjoyed contributing and making a difference in participants' relationships. Educators reported experiencing personal benefits from their involvement, including increased confidence and understanding. They also discussed the importance of maintaining boundaries while offering additional support to couples who needed it. Couples similarly appreciated the "extra mile" from the educators. Recommendations from Participants and Educators Overall, both educators and participants expressed satisfaction with the program and the benefits that carried over into the participants' relationships. However, there was also consensus on drawbacks, which led to recommendations for future directions for the program. 107 Recommendations included a need for a more spacious environment (particularly recommended from the participants in the 8-hour workshops), clarification about the purpose of the program and its affiliation with faith-based perspectives on the brochures, more time for individualized questions and practice sessions for skill building, shorter workshops (particularly for the 8-hour workshops), quicker follow-up on offers for individual counseling, the inclusion of more realistic conversations, more fun interactions during the programming to create comfort and lessen fatigue, increasing marketing generally, targeting particular populations (i.e., males, young people, Hispanic participants) specifically, and increasing the availability of childcare services. Participants and educators alike wished for additional educational programs for families and follow-up programs, such as mentoring, retreats, or booster sessions, to help scaffold newly acquired skills once initial communication skills were learned. Others would have preferred to be involved more frequently so as to continue to build relationships with the educators and other participants. Most participants stated that they would have benefited from more one-to-one time with the educators during the program. Some participants and educators also recommended more rigorous prescreening of participants, as those with serious issues impacted the entire group in a seminar. Some participants experienced confusion about what the program had to offer and suggested clarifying the goals and content of the program in both advertising and facilitation of sessions. Specifically, some expected counseling services and were disappointed to learn that they would not receive such services. 108 O4 0 � 1-14"1 N 3 N.c ° ° VJ v ! CI "C V' C-O O d 4) i 1 C V Q l — 3 u 3 y� §b i s L ,u of12--'4g.3,..„2 `o b o er.ti al D4 e L C y C.O .C Z �` b.tt ^es rr n 8 c 0 d O c w S a V C : O U cA E '•U 808 -0 bv, o L. ` , t CJ A _,c �3 E o$ o a a S a c .cv. Eo°'g3 � 2: aj (5..98. 53 I z' ° b v c a y i O V ti c O v a ,,' O u 0 y c E v 5 > e°u v °c t E 3 9. c ?, ° a v m 0 4: an yq E ID,T 4 ` ?-� ~d i C g q 3 C p g CA N °' b a o 3 r °; V N y O ° a C 3 Eo t ES is = NC � d ap £ y, a,ET2 Oils vo E '� v O v m O c 3 E a 4-°c -..5. E -z• Cu • a 3 O °�' ia7C �ca. o•n H N 4- , -"a d m -� �,a �� . y E E y 73. E O -Ol. b 4'�0 EV 0 °a0 O c L, ° q V o y o f V N L 73 E m<o ga d >-o ao ., a . o R �• -, ao4 ° s'• Y 2,-0 o ≥O:t 5 t.1,3 c.A o , u y c o u 3 m "Q 1. 4,, �.�' i f C '�'=V a3Yu ¢aAul >'4 h d V. 383'5 it6. .,__ r 11141z3 -' ae `� o � b c Q a m a. b G Z c G d I e;D il yo C d m eF +°� m=v ` vy i a O u C,C p O C X J •Q y E .V.xv,� g cam. �o T m 5 N g a N ° C a V N N c OP. n .V R c y b e E c v N us=•a L ,p �•'' O'O O c0 y .:::0,41, g -O - C C G O y L C a y . c m- w ? o o U o c a n pA. �n 2 � °u wa $. '� voo r o s � = b ar� s a oo c ^ •e v 0 O.. V 7 Nici , .. U 1y` b tl ° c 1 N 3 a ._ V b° 4 N :O "' a y, r, E• cEc - wvc0 � b.n 6,�°t rr vc - 3 — p14ti ay d '_' 3r r £ a,Y c v x�o v o°'`, t Z' c� d E P. d o e v JD_ ,o yes w v m w o o m a 3 ,1 ' a, _ a a © o f `� m03 °� =; n $� ,°, g r obi Q $ 0, o w o -- o � o °c v c b m` -O-n c —$' O y " a y i ii V IIJ s•b '° \:y$ O s h2 s s0 b > el o ° s� 'o d u l l J Overall Discussion Demographics and Referral Source The BHM program served a significant number of people from the communities where educational programs were targeted. In total, 2975 participants over the 5-year grant period received services and a good percentage of these people took part in multiple programs. Overall, 18.2%of the participants were referred by radio advertisement(n =542); 18.1%, from the faith- based community (n=538); and 6.9%, by friends and family (n=206). Over the entire course of the program, most participants had children (n= 1827, 70%), meaning this program impacted many children in Greeley and the surrounding areas. The central goal of this educational initiative was to strengthen families. Analyses of the qualitative data clearly indicate that participants saw benefits to their family and children. Comments from the Knowledge and Satisfaction surveys regularly included recommendations for further family focused services. The program was successful in developing outreach programs to culturally diverse communities. It is also noteworthy that 28% of the participants were Hispanic. The Federal government has identified Hispanics as a group who could particularly benefit from marriage education programs. Hispanics have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, as well as the greatest increase in out-of-wedlock births(ACF, 2008). They are also 200% more likely to live at or below poverty than a White family (ACF, 2008). The BHM program's success in attracting Hispanic participants may be due to the presence of seminars, workshops, and assessment instruments that are in Spanish and due to educators who are bilingual and bicultural, thus removing the language barrier. Furthermore, research indicates that minority clients, particularly Hispanic clients, seek counseling services less frequently than Caucasians and also terminate after fewer sessions, with more than half terminating after one session (Casas, McNeill, Walls, & Gomez, 2001; Echeverry, 1997; Sue, Zane, & Young, 1994). Offering services in Spanish is an effective strategy for attracting culturally diverse participants and may effectively overcome some of the barriers that exist for Hispanics seeking educational and counseling services. Finally, it is significant that 33%of the participants were unemployed. The BHM program's success in attracting unemployed participants is likely due to the fact that the seminars are offered free of charge. This may have been a group that otherwise, due to the lack of finances, would have been unable to access marriage education programs. MSI-R Pretest scores The MSI-R pretest results indicated that 48%of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving, and 43%of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. About one-third of the participants reported significant problems in the areas of affective communication, finances, and time spent together. The MSI-R pretest scores show that many couples experienced conflicts in their relationships, clearly indicating the necessity for a program like this one in the community. It was interesting to note that participants who entered the BHM program in Year I had much lower MSI-R pretest scores and were more satisfied with their marriages than participants who entered the BHM program in Year 5. Perhaps, the recent economic problems have led couples to be more dissatisfied in their marriages. If this is the case, then there is currently a high need for offering the BHM program in the community. During these challenging economic times 110 that cause added stressors to marital relationships, community programs such as this one are especially important. Quantitative Program Results of the pretest and posttest analyses showed that the most significant improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Problem Solving and Time Together. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication after completing the BHM program than prior to entering the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program were more satisfied with the time they spent with their partners after completion than before they entered the program. Furthermore, improvements were found for both males and females on the Global Distress subscale. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported less negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and less consideration of divorce. There was also a positive change between the pretest and posttest scores on the Affective Communication Scale. The results suggest that couples experienced increased satisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their partners. Reardon-Anderson, Stagner, Macomber, and Murray (2005) reviewed 13 studies investigating communication following relationship and marital programs. They found a significant positive effect of programs on communication skills. Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, and Fawcett (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of marriage and education programs, examining 117 independent studies. They found that these programs significantly improved communication skills but noted that most studies only examined improvements 3 —6 months after the programs, so research about long-term results is lacking. The current findings support the conclusion that the BHM program substantially improved communication skills for participants. In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Aggression, Financial Disagreement, and Sexual Dissatisfaction. These finding suggest that couples experienced less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners than prior to entering the BHM program, had less discord in their relationships concerning finances, and experienced increased satisfaction with their sexual relationships. There were no significant changes over time for Role Orientation, Family History of Distress, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict over Childrearing, indicating that the BHM program did not impact those areas. However, it is important to note that a small percentage of participants perceived high levels of stress in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Childrearing, making it difficult to produce significant improvements in these areas because participants were generally already satisfied. In addition, the results showed that the program was equally effective for male and female participants and for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. The data indicate that both Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants increased in marital satisfaction. These findings are congruent with findings evaluating other communication workshops that have been effective in benefiting Hispanic couples (Kotrla, Dyer, & Stelzer, 2010). The BHM program educators are aware that cultural differences may impact the effectiveness of the program for Hispanic couples and thus provide workshops in Spanish by educators who are culturally sensitive and possess some or all of the following characteristics: biculturalism, bilingualism, and speaking Spanish as a native language. The Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative also recommends other educator characteristics to ensure effective delivery of the educational materials to Hispanic couples, including supporting and believing in the program Ill objective, being reliable and trustworthy, focusing on education and training, respecting limits, and being humble (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, 2011). Participant responses indicate that BHM educators displayed all of the characteristics mentioned above. Satisfaction Events Satisfaction surveys. The content and curriculum of the program appears to have been very effective for the populations served. The vast majority of the participants were satisfied (quite a bit and extremely) with the content(98%, n=2206) and educator(99%, n=2201) of the various events being offered. In addition, they learned many skills. Clearly the educators, along with the curriculum offered did an outstanding job and were well trained to offer the program and were responsive to participants needs. Qualitative Program The qualitative data offers a unique perspective on the evaluation of the BHM program. Overall,the experiences of those interviewed were supportive of the need for continued focus and development of marriage education programs. Expressions of gratitude and appreciation were frequent, as were sentiments that BHM served a unique function in society by offering the skills and information that it did. Exploring the individual experiences of participants resulted not only in consensus on the utility of many key areas of the program, but also in highlighting unique individual experiences. Skill building and the opportunity to practice new behaviors was a strength of the program. Both participants and educators found the program to be useful in developing skills and attitudes related to not only healthy marriages, but relationships more generally. In addition, educators and participants noted positive changes in personal development, such as values, professional attitudes, maturity, ability to see another perspective, and self-esteem. Research suggests that while the skill building area of marriage education programs has been well established, other topics such as values and education about the benefits of marriage may also be beneficial (Hawkins et al., 2004). Unique themes emerged from individuals whose relationships ended following involvement in the program. Individuals in highly conflicted relationships still found the information and skills useful for understanding their current situations and often gained skills to address these situations. In some cases, the program served as a catalyst for significant individual change, with the recognition of the impact of unhealthy relating in a current relationship. A commonly stated opinion was that information about healthy relationships is not widely available in society. Participants reported several concerns and provided recommendations concerning the program's structure, design, and implementation. This may reflect the difficulty in designing and implementing programs for such a varied population and suggest a need for future research. To use just one example, some participants felt that the delivery of information was too formal, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere, while others found the educators to be very personable and sensitive to the group's needs. Current research points to the need for marriage education programs to design creative and flexible programming that addresses varying needs across such areas as marital distress level, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and educational level (Hawkins et al., 2004). A common concern was the need for follow-up services to support the I 12 learning and create lasting change. Hawkins et al. (2004) also found that maintaining educational benefits required the creation of follow-up services. Unintended outcomes could be the benefits participants experienced who were no longer together. How useful the skills were that they learned and how they can apply the skills to all different areas in life. In summary, the evaluation report demonstrated that the marriage education programs had a positive impact on the couples who participated. Significant improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Problem Solving, Time Together, Global Distress, Affective Communication, Aggression, Financial Disagreement, and Sexual Dissatisfaction. In addition, participants in all of the educational programs developed communication skills and healthy attitudes related to couple, family and other relationships more generally. The report also supported the need for these types of programs within the community. Future Directions and Recommendations It may be useful in future research to explore the impact of extended family issues on marital relationships, given that many Hispanic families place an emphasis on family relationships, a value referred to as familismo (Flores, Eyre, & Millstein, 1998, as cited in Raffaelli &Ontai, 2004). Research by Flores, Tschann, Marin, and Pantoja (2004) suggests that the acculturation level of individuals in a relationship is related to marital conflict. Their research found that less acculturated Mexican American couples may not express marital dissatisfaction as overtly as those who are more acculturated (Flores et al., 2004). This difference in the expression of marital dissatisfaction could pose a challenge when applying skills that require the open and direct expression of concerns in the relationship, such as the speaker/listener technique. Future marriage education programs should assess Hispanic participants' levels of acculturation to United States culture. Harris, Skogrand, and Hatch (2008) suggest that friendship, love, trust, and respect are values that strong Latino marriages deem as most important. The authors further suggest that marital educational programs ensure that their trainings are aimed at helping Latino couples enhance these values in their relationships (Harris, et al., 2008). Additionally, it is recommended that families be included in the educational programs, given the importance Latinos place on their families (Harris et al., 2008). We also recommend further efforts to contact and interview participants who were not satisfied with the program or who dropped out before the education programs ended. Although we did interview several participants, it was difficult to recruit people to participate in interviews. Some participants in this study separated or divorced after participating in the program. Those who were interviewed were aware that specific factors (e.g., domestic violence, anger problems, alcohol/drug use) influenced their decision to separate or divorce. Given the high alcohol consumption rates among Latinos and the fact they often use alcohol as a coping mechanism, marital educational programs could teach a variety of skills to help participants cope with their emotions (Johns, Newcomb, Johnson, & Bradbury, 2007). 113 PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS The Evaluation Team has collected data over several years and presented the outcomes of the evaluation studies at several professional conferences. August 2011 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Title—AssessingA Multi-Year Marriage Education Program: Impact, Recommendations, and Program Implications. August 2010 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Diego, California Title—Experiences of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants in Marriage Education Programs April 2010 Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado Title—Evaluating a Marriage Education Program for Low-Income Families August 2009 The Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada Title—Effects of Marriage Education on the Marital Satisfaction of Low-Income Participants OTHER VENUES WHERE BHM FINDINGS HAVE BEEN DISSEMINATED November 2010. KFKA radio interview to discuss the collaboration between the Weld County BHM program and the project evaluators at UNC specifically to highlight the results of the 2010 annual report. November 2010 Alan J. Hawkins, Ph.D. and Theodora Ooms, MSW published a report with the National Healthy Marriages Resource Center: What Works in Marriage and Relationship Education?A Review of Lessons Learned with a Focus on Low-Income Couples. The Weld County project evaluation team was asked to submit a summary of our data for consideration in this report. 114 REFERENCES Administration for Children & Families. (2005). The healthy marriage initiative (HMI). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriaee/about/mission.html Administration for Children & Families. (2008, October 13). Healthy Hispanic Marriage Initiative (HHMI). Retrieved Oct. 13, 2008, from http://wwvv.acf.hlis.gov/healthymarri a ge/about/hispanic hhmi.htm Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655 —669. Bir-Akturk, E., & Fisiloglu, H. (2009). Marital satisfaction in Turkish remarried families: Marital status, stepchildren, and contributing factors.Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 119 — 147. Bowling, T. K., Hill, C. M., & Jencius, M. (2005). An overview of marriage enrichment. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13(1). 87—94. Bringle, R. G., & Byers, D. (1997). Intentions to seek marriage counseling. Family Relations, 46, 299—304. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). Violence by intimates:Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Carpenter, L. M., Nathanson, C. A., & Kim, Y. J. (2009). Physical women, emotional men: Gender and sexual satisfaction in midlife.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 87— 107. Casas, L. R., McNeill, B. W., Walls, R. G., & Gomez, S. P. (2001). Chicanas/os and mental health services: An overview of utilization, counselor preferences, and assessment issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(1), 18— 54. Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 218—235. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry& research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Echeverry, J. (1997). Treatment barriers accessing and accepting professional help. In J. G. Garcia& M. C. Zea (Eds.), Psychological interventions and research with Latino populations (pp. 94— 107). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ellison, C. G., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). Religious involvement and domestic violence among U.S. couples.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 269—286. Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence?Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87— 113. Falke, S. 1., & Larson, J. H. (2007). Premarital predictors of remarital quality: Implications for clinicians. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 9 —23. Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigm, praxis, problems and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 156— 166. Flores, E., Tschann, J. M., Marin, B. V., & Pantoja, P. (2004). Marital conflict and acculturation among Mexican American husbands and wives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(1), 39— 52. 115 Fowers, B. J. (1991). His and her marriage: A multivariate study of gender and marital satisfaction. Sex Roles, 24, 209—221. Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: Discriminate validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15(1), 65 —79. FRED, Federal Reserve Economic Data, from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2011, June 27). National Economic Trends. Retrieved from http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20110601/net_20110627.pdf Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76— 88. Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in black families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 national survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969 —980. Harris, V. W., Skogrand, L., & Hatch, D. (2008). Role of friendship, trust, and love in strong Latino marriages. Marriage & Family Review, 44(4), 455 —488. Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2004). A comprehensive framework for marriage education. Family Relations, 53(5), 547— 558. Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723—734. Higginbotham, B. J., &Felix, D. (2009). Economic predictors of marital quality among newly remarried rural and urban couples. Family Science Review, 14, 18 —30. Jakubowski, S. F., Milne, E. P., Brunner, H., & Miller, R. B. (2004) A review of empirically supported marital enrichment programs. Family Relations, 53, 528—536. Johns, A. L., Newcomb, M. D., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Alcohol-related problems, anger, and marital satisfaction in monoethnic Latino, biethnic Latino, and European American newlywed couples.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(2), 255 —275. Johnson, A. J., Wright, K. B., Craig, E. A., Gilchrist, E. S., Lane, L. T., & Haigh, M. M. (2008). A model for predicting stress levels and marital satisfaction for stepmothers utilizing a stress and coping approach.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 1 19— 142. Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 487—508. Kotrla, K., Dyer, P., & Stelzer, K. (2010). Marriage education with Hispanic couples: Evaluation of a communication workshop. Family Science Review, 15(2), 1 — 14. Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents' versus children's attitudes.Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53—73. Larsen, A. S., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction with PREPARE: A replication.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, /5(3), 311 —322. Liu, C. (2003). Does quality of marital sex decline with duration?Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 55 —60. Marshall, J. P., Higginbotham, B. J., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (Submitted for publication January 13, 2006). Assessing program outcomes: Rationale and benefits of post-test-then- retrospective-pretest designs. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 116 Olson, D. H., & Olson-Sigg, A. K. (1999). PREPARE/ENRICH program: Version 2000. In B. Rony, & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples'therapy(pp. 196— 216). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Orathinkal, J., & Vansteenwegen,A. (2007). Do demographics affect marital satisfaction? Journal of Sex &Marital Therapy, 33, 73 — 85. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods ( 2nd ed.).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pearson, M. (2010). Love notes: Making relationships work for young adults & young parents. Retrieved from: http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/7page id=1728 Pearson, M., Stanley, S. M., & Kline G. H. (2005). Within my reach: Instructor manual. Greenwood Village, CO: PREP for Individuals. PREPInc. (2008). Winning the workplace challenge: Getting along and getting things done. Participant's Manual. Greenwood Village, CO: PREP for Individuals. PREPInc. (2009, February 20). Within our reach overview. Retrieved from http://www.prcpinc.com/main/docshvoroverview.pdf Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/a families: Results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles:A Journal of Research, 50, 287—299. Reardon-Anderson, J., Stagner, M., Macomber, J. E., & Murray, J. (2005). Systematic review of the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Renick, M. J., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1992). The prevention and relationship enhancement program (PREP): An empirically based preventative intervention program for couples. Family Relations, 41(2), 141 — 147. Schonbrun, Y. C., & Whisman, M. A. (2010). Marital distress and mental health care service utilization.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 732—736. Smart Marriages: The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couple Education. (2009, February 20). PREP: Winning the workplace challenge: The PREP approach for business. Retrieved from: http://www.smartmarriages.com/prep.workplace.html Snyder, D. K. (1997). Marital Satisfaction Inventory, Revised(MSI-R). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Helping Couples Fight for Their Marriages: The PREP Approach. In B. Rony & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples'therapy(pp. 279—303) New York NY: Brunner/Mazel. Stanley, S. M., Pearson, M., & Kline, G. H. (2005). The development of relationship education for low income individuals: Lessons from research and experience. Presented at the APPAM Conference, November 3 - 5,2005. Washington, D.C. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the family violence resurvey and other studies. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations in 8,145 families (pp. 507- 528). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Sue, S., Zane, N., & Young, K. (1994). Research on psychotherapy with culturally diverse populations. In A. Bergin & S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 783 — 817). New York, NY: John Wiley. The Dibble Institute. (2010). Love U2®, philosophy and goals. Retrieved from http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/?page_id=2937 117 Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574—583. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (2006a). Family life: The marriage garden. Retrieved from http://www.arfamilies.org/family_life/marriage/default.htm University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. (20066). Evaluation Instrument. Retrieved from http://www.arfamilies.org/family life/marriage/ United States Census Bureau. (2008). Weld County Colorado Fact Sheet(Data File). Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.eov/qfd/states/08/08I23.html United States Census Bureau. (2009). Weld County Colorado Fact Sheet(Data File). Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08123.html United States Census Bureau. (2010a). 2010 Census Data. Retrieved from http://20 I 0.census.gov/20 I 0census/data/ United States Census Bureau. (20106). Weld County Colorado Fact Sheet(Data File). Retrieved from: http://luickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08I23.html U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. (2011). Las caracteristicas de los facilitadores efectivos (HHMI TS-01-10). Retrieved from http://www.healthvmarriageinfo.org/dots/I-Caractersticas.pdf VanLaningham, J., Johnson, D. R., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 78, 1313 — 1341. van Steenbergen, E. F., Kluwer, E. S., & Karney, B. R. (2011). Workload and the trajectory of marital satisfaction in newlyweds: Job satisfaction, gender, and parental status as moderators.Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 345 — 355. Weinstein, L., Powers, J., & Laverghetta, A. (2010). College students' chronological age predicts marital happiness regardless of length of marriage. College Student Journal, 44, 413 — 416. Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., & Weinstock, L. M. (2004). Psychopathology and marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 830—838. Wilcox, W. B., Doherty, W., Glenn, N., & Waite, L. (2005). Why marriage matters (2"d ed.). New York, NY: Institute for American Values. Respectfully submitted, University of Northern Colorado BHM Evaluation Team 118 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Attachment # 2 Program Logic Model Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] GOAL 1: STRONGER MARRIAGES PROGRAM OUTPUTS PROGRAM OUTCOMES WHAT WE DO WHO IS REACHED YEAR 1 YEARS 1 - 5 END OF PROJECT Select lead nonprofit Larger community Program Manager selects agency nonprofit groups recipient and contracts for Objective 1: 40% services(Months 1-2). of the couples that Hire staff Experienced staff in enter the program northern Colorado Partner agencies hire because they are appropriate staff, (Months 2- facing the possibility 3). of divorce indicate Identify potential Weld County faith- that they have re- Coalition members established a stable partners; letter of based and community participate in project invitation; meeting organizations Partner agency organizes a relationship. activities. coalition and identifies additional partners(Month 3). Contract evaluation Select evaluator Regional research services continue organizations throughout project. Program Manager selects Hire staff recipient and contracts for Skilled staff in services(Months 2-3). northern Colorado Three hours of Partner agencies hire assessment and Assessment, Referral Family referral services 900 low-income Support staff(Month 3). Objective 2: At least couples 900 couples will Couples are assessed Create assessment receive a three-hour on services needed to materials assessment that will strengthen marriages; Weld County Referred to appropriate identify each domestic violence Assessment/Referral staff, couple's strengths, services by Contact referral experts Intake/Support Coordinator, Assessment/ Referral weaknesses, and sources and domestic violence experts staff and Family needs and provide design assessment materials referrals to 1 3 Support Coordinator. appropriate Agencies and (Months ) individuals that work services. with low-income Program Manager, and Translation used as couples partner agencies identify and needed. Select provider contact potential referral sources(Month 3). Select provider Weld County translation services Program Manager contracts for translation services (Month 3 hours of cultural 2). Program Manager sets competence training up training in Years 2, Trainers on cultural 3, 4, and 5 for new staff. competence and Program Manager contracts immigration issues for training on cultural Domestic violence competence (Months 3-4). New staff attends training domestic violence All program and Staff receives training on training. partner staff; 200 cultural competence and Provide stipends individuals immigration as they relate to Childcare, healthy marriages(Month 4). transportation, and other stipends. 10 staff Program and project staff attends domestic violence Create public training (Month 3). education plan, purchase public At least 900 low- Objective 3: A public education/marketing income couples Partner agencies and education campaign materials Assessment/Referral staff in both English and determine stipends(Months 2- Program Manager and Spanish will raise Hold special events 3) partner agencies awareness of the All County public organize special events. Healthy Marriage education; Potential Initiative and of the Decide where to direct participants, general Program Manager and Partner Selected agency benefits of healthy intake public, referral agencies implement public handles intake phone marriage, marriage sources education campaign (Month calls. education, and 4). healthy two-parent One hour of training on Potential project families. handling intake calls participants, general Partner agencies Program public, referral Manager set up community sources special events (Months 7 and 11). Nonprofit agencies Program Manager identifies that deal with public one phone number to receive over the telephone all program inquiries (Month 3). 25 staff Program Manager sets up training for those who respond to program inquiries (Month 3). GOAL 2: HEALTHIER COUPLES AND FAMILIES Select partners Partners who are Program Manager selects Objective 4: 170 PREP certified partners(Months 3-4). couples will receive 12 hours of Create marriage Program Manager drafts Assessment/Referral marriage education education criteria and Program staff; referral procedures for assessment staff directs participants using the PREP procedures sources and works with partner to marriage education curriculum. agencies to finalize procedures seminars. for marriage education (Month 4)• Program Manager updates all procedures and policies. 30 hours of marriage education 170 couples Organize 30 hours of couple Provide 12 hours of sessions for each participating marriage education; couple(Month 1). Partner agency provides ongoing assessment and 15 hours of"booster" referrals. marriage education 170 couples Organize 5 hours of couple Partner agency sessions and 10 hours of provides 15 hours of Communicate group sessions for each "booster" marriage cou le. education. Objective 5: 45 healthcare messages General public, participating p low- income couples will potential program achieve access to participants, referral Program Manager and 180 people will contact the project for health insurance or sources Assessment and Referral staff p Medicaid. Select partner(s) set procedures to identify information on couples who need healthcare insurance or Medicaid. (Month 4). Community and faith- Staff directs participants Create enrichment based organizations to enrichment weekend criteria and Partner agency selects procedures recipient(s)for marriage weekends. enrichment weekend services Program staff and (Month 1). referral sources Provide a total of 16 Program Manager drafts hours of marriage Objective 6: 210 16 hours of marriage procedures for assessment enrichment activities couples will attend enrichment activities in and referral to marriage marriage a retreat setting enrichment weekends (Months enrichment 210 couples 2-4); Partner agencies and weekends. Program Manager finalize procedures (Month 5). Staff organize weekend of research-based marriage enrichment activities for participating couples (Month 5). GOAL 3: INCREASED ABILITY TO RESOLVE CONFLICT Select partner(s) Community and faith- Partner agency selects based organizations; recipient(s) and for financial Objective 7: 180 financial training training services (Month 4). couples will partners demonstrate Create financial Partner agency staff increased services criteria and Program staff and Program Manager drafts directs participants to knowledge of procedures referral sources procedures for assessment financial services. financial and referral of couples for management. financial services(Months 1- 3); and finalizes procedures with partner agencies. (Month Provide financial Financial training and 180 couples 5). training and counseling. counseling Organize financial counseling DHS provides Create criteria and Program staff, for participating couples employment services procedures for referral Department of Human (Month 5). and training. Services (DHS), and referral sources Partner agency staff, Program Manager, and DHS create Provide employment procedures for referring and training services 350 people who do participants to not qualify under employment/training services Workforce Investment (Month 5). Objective 8: 350 eligible individuals Select provider(s) Act Weld County DHS provides will receive employment/training to eligible employment Domestic violence participants(Month 5). support/training Create service criteria Partner agency staff and procedures service providers directs some DHS selects recipient(s)and participants to domestic Program staff, referral contracts for services(Months violence services. sources, and domestic violence 2-3), experts Program Manager drafts procedures for assessment Services related to tool, checklist and procedures domestic violence for referral of individuals to Provide domestic issues domestic violence services violence-related (Months 1-3); services. Policy Specialist and partner Select partners(s) individuals agencies finalize procedures (Month 3). Objective 9: individuals who Identify married Community and faith- Provide an average of 8 hours request or require it couples to act as based organizations of services related to domestic MSP recruits mentor will receive services related to domestic mentors violence(Month 4). couples.P violence support Community and faith- Create marriage based organizations, Program Manager selects g Referral staff directs seminar criteria and coalition partners, marriage seminar partner(s) participants to marriage procedures referral sources and contracts for services seminars. (Month 6). Program staff, referral sources Marriage Seminar Partner and staff recruit mentor married Objective10: 350 Provide marriage 170 young couples couples(Months 5-8). couples will 6 three-hour seminars seminars. who are interested in demonstrate marriage; 170 married increased mentor couples Program Manager drafts knowledge of procedures for assessment collaborative Select partner(s) Community and faith- and referral to marriage problem solving based organizations seminars (Months 3-5); and cooperative Program Manager and partner conflict resolution. agencies finalize procedures (Month 5). Create conflict Program staff and Organize interactive seminars Assessment/Referral resolution training referral sources for young couples and mentor staff directs some couples(Month 5). criteria/procedures participants to conflict resolution training. Three hours of conflict Partner agency selects conflict resolution training resolution training provider(s) and contracts for services (Months 2-3). 350 couples Provide conflict resolution training. Program Manager drafts procedures for assessment and referral of individuals to conflict resolution training (Months 1-3); Program Manager, experts on domestic violence, and partner agencies, and finalize procedures (Month 4). Provide couples three hrs. of training in conflict resolution (Month 5). GOAL 4: REDUCED USE OF COUNTY SERVICES See Goals 1, 2, and 3 See Goals 1, 2, and 3 Activities under Goals 1, 2, Activities under Goals Objective 11: 40% and 3. 1, 2, and 3. of individuals who Plan for reduced use of Core Program staff seek services will County services Program Manager creates not enter the child strategies that lead to reduced protection system use of County services(Month or TANF Program 1) within one year. Implement plan Program and lead agency staff Short written reports Staff set up implementation Report to Program Lead staff (Month 3). Manager every 6 months. Report to Program Manager Evaluation staff on implementation of Report to Program strategies(Month 9). Manager. 6 hours of meetings and follow-up Program, lead Evaluation staff summarizes Program Manager calls agency, staff progress in cuffing use of meetings, as needed,to County services(Month 12). maintain progress toward Goal 4. WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE Attachment # 3 Allowable Activity #1 Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 Allowable Activity Area 1: Public Advertising Campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health. If your program aimed to promote healthy marriage through Allowable Activity 1, please provide the following information: A. Public Advertising Campaign Goals: • List specific goals, objectives, or intended outcomes of the public advertising campaign. The specific goal of the marketing strategy was two-fold. The first was to recruit potential participants to the program. In addition to marketing to the English population the effort was put forth to market to the Hispanic Community and the South County. The second was to increase the awareness of the benefits of healthy relationships with such topics as employment, co-habitation, co-parenting, youth, and family life. • Did the goals of your program change from the start of the award period? If so, why were they changed and what specific changes were made?The specific goals did not change throughout the grant life however, our approach to these goals did. Process Goals: • Who did you intend to reach? Describe the target population you aimed to reach through your public advertising campaign. The target population BHM intended to reach was initially those married couples who qualified for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The qualifications included having that a family has an income at or below 200% of the national poverty level and have children under the age of 18. During the re-organization of BHM in year 3, the target population became anyone who lived in Weld County and were 15 years of age or older. • Number of people you expected to reach through your public advertising campaign. BHM marketing campaign expected to reach all 252,825 people residing in Weld County. • How often did you expect to provide services to your target population through your public advertising campaign? (Example: once a week, monthly, annually, etc.) Newspaper, television and radio ads ran daily, radio talk shows ran monthly. Impact Goals: Describe the overall impact your public advertising campaign planned to have on organizations, individuals, and/or the community in terms of healthy marriage. (Example: Increase awareness of healthy communication skills) The overall impact the public advertisement campaign planned to have, was to increase the awareness of the impact of relationships in every aspect of life. B. Public Advertising Campaign Implementation: Provide the following in-depth information regarding your public advertising campaign activities. Description of activities: Provide a brief description of your public advertising campaign, including details of service delivery. • List and describe key activities you implemented as part of your public advertising campaign. The public advertisement campaign can be broken into two main categories: recruitment and public awareness and then into three sub-categories: 2 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 printed material, audio/visual, and public events for each main category. Many of our events however had components of both recruitment and public awareness. Recruitment: the primary focus was to attract potential participants to the seminars that were held almost weekly. Concepts that were stressed included that the seminars were educational and not counseling, the skills taught revolved around communication and conflict resolution, and that these seminars were for anyone who just wanted a healthy relationship and not necessarily just for couples in crisis. This was done through printed materials (i.e. brochures, fliers, newspaper ads, billboards and posters) and through 30 -60 second ads that were run on the local cable network and radio shows. Another medium that was used to recruit and brand the Building Healthy Marriages name and logo was to participate in local events with an informational booth. These booths gave us the opportunity to talk one on one with individuals or couples and answer their questions directly. Then finally, BHM held its own events such as the annual 5k Fun Run and walk in which we hosted a very popular type of event and as part of the "entertainment" had our educators talk a little bit about the program and what someone can expect if they attend a seminar. Public awareness: the focus shifted to why healthy relationships were import and how they impacted every aspect of a person's life from an economic stand point to family to self care. For example early radio ads included the voice of a child talking about how painful it was to hear their parents arguing and another was of an individual having trouble concentrating at work due to relationship issues at home. Several different situations were presented in the hopes of people identifying with an idea and then coming to a class to learn more. The final event was a day-long conference entitled You +. The marketing concept was as follows, You + your spouse, You + your kids, You + your BFF, You + your boss, etc. The conference included several breakout sessions that participants could attend from teen dating to parenting to co-habitating. This was followed by the marketing concept of tough conversations, how to have them well. To supplement these events, individuals from BHM were invited to be guests on several radio shows that discussed many aspects of healthy relationships and how to make yours healthier. Finally, a book was written by the Marketing Coordinator entitled 4 Organizations. 1 Community. 5,000 People: The Building Healthy Marriage Journey by BethEmily Kwast. This book includes research findings that explain the benefits of healthy relationships, impact stories, and the statistical information of the impact of BHM on Weld County gathered by our own research team. This book has been handed out to many stakeholders and community members so the work accomplished will not go in vain. I should add here, that our research team has presented their results at the American Psychological Association National Conference and International Conference for the last two years in a row. • Explain the type of media you used to disseminate messages (i.e., newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and social media). BHM employed every type of marketing mediums available to us. This included newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and social media. • Explain why you decided to utilize this type of media for your public advertising campaign. Weld County has a very diverse population that required a very diverse strategy to reach and attract as many as possible. 3 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 Program Staffing: • Provide information on staff that helped implement your program's public advertising activities during the final year of funding. You may include key staff and volunteers who were critical to the implementation of the program. Also indicate the time period in which they contributed to the program. (See table below. Add additional lines if needed) % of time Time period Staff Name Official Job Title/Position devoted to this involved activity Ann Bruce Program Manager 100% Mary Jo Family Support Coordinator 100% Vasquez Resource Investment Director Susan Van (contracted via Community Mediation 20% Deren Project) BethEmily Marketing Coordinator (contracted via 100`io Kwast Community Mediation Project) • The Marketing Coordinator position was held by three different individuals; Ron Anderson from 2006 — 2008, Tara Alexander from 2008 — 2009, and BethEmily Kwast from 2009 — 2011. Both Ron and Tara moved out of the area far enough to make commuting not an option. Partnerships: • Building Healthy Marriages was a collaborative effort between Weld County Department of Human Services (the grant recipient), United Way of Weld County (marketing and community outreach) and Community Mediation Project (managing the educational piece). Outputs: In the following chart, list public advertising activities you implemented and identify the number of times you implemented each public advertising activity (i.e., once a week, monthly, annually). See examples in chart below. Activities Implemented Since Award Allowable Activity Area Activity Date' 1 per month plus guest speakers on several radio 1 (Public Advertising Healthy Marriage Radio shows (approximately 10 Campaign) Programming shows throughout the five years) There were four design campaigns that occurred 1 (Public Advertising Print and distribute Marriage throughout the five years Campaign) pamphlet and pamphlets, posters, and fliers were designed to match the three designs. 4 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 Design and distribute Marriage There were four design give aways such as pens, mugs, campaigns that occurred 1 (Public Advertising first aid kits, water bottles, chap throughout the five years Campaign) and give away items were stick, mints, lunch coolers, love coupons, and tee shirts designed to match the three designs. 5 commercials were 1 (Public Advertising Develop Health Marriage developed both in English Campaign) Television commercial and in Spanish. These commercials were run on the local cable network. 15 radio commercials were developed both in English 1 (Public Advertising Develop Health Marriage radio and in Spanish. These Campaign) commercial commercials were run on all radio stations that broadcasted in Weld County. There were four campaigns 1 (Public Advertising Billboards and bus posters that ran 5 to 12 rotating Campaign) posters each. This occurred throughout the five years Newspaper ads were run in all the major newspapers printed and circulated in Weld County. These ads were updated and run at a There were three design 1 (Public Advertising minimum of once a quarter. These campaigns that occurred Campaign) papers include but not limited to throughout the five years the Greeley Tribune, Ft. Lupton and the ads were designed Press, La Tribuna Norte, Mirror, to match the three designs. North Weld Herald, Next NC, South Weld Sun, and Windsor Beacon. 1 (Public Advertising The ads run in the printed Campaign) newspapers were also placed in Throughout the five years the on-line version of the papers. There were four design 1 (Public Advertising Website campaigns that occurred Campaign) www.buildinghealthymarriages.org throughout the five years and the website design matched the three designs A free standing, interactive 1 (Public Advertising devise to place in different Campaign) Kiosk locations throughout Weld County developed in year two. Although there was not an 1 (Public Advertising Facebook Link official Facebook site for Campaign) Building Healthy Marriages there was a link to the BHM 5 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 website on the United Way of Weld County Facebook page in years 4 and 5. Summer in the park events every Friday night from May 1 (Public Advertising until August. Also, multiple Campaign) Informational booth at local events town festivals, 5k runs throughout the county, family and healthy fairs and the Stampede. Two half day events that brought together past participants with potential 1 (Public Advertising Boosters participants for family fun Campaign) with educational speakers and breakout sessions. These occurred in years two and three. Occurred in years 1, 2, and 1 (Public Advertising 3. Certified 5k run with Campaign) 5k Fun Run and walk speakers that spoke on the topic of healthy relationships and a resource fair. 1 (Public Advertising Multiple events that Campaign) Celebration of Love celebrated marriage and love. Occurred in years 1-4 A daylong conference with 1 (Public Advertising multiple breakout sessions Campaign) You+ Conference on anything from teen love to step parenting to caring for yourself as a parent. A book was written by 4 Organizations. 1 Community. BethEmily Kwast that 1 (Public Advertising 5,000 People.: The Building encompassed the vision and Campaign) Healthy Marriage Journey by mission of Building Healthy BethEmily Kwast Marriages and what we accomplished in the five years. 'Activities Implemented Since Award Date—Identify the number of public advertising activities you were able to implement during the duration of the grant. C. Strengths: List factors that helped support the implementation of your public advertising campaign. The supporting factors must first start with the County Board of Directors who were innovative enough to implement a pilot Healthy Marriage Initiative even before the grant was applied for. The Board was also supportive of collaborative efforts between government and faith-based agencies that led to the development of the Weld Faith Partnership in which a panel of leaders from the Faith-based community have direct access to the Board of Commissioners to which express their concerns. This collaboration and the 6 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 support by administration paved the way for opportunities to serve Weld County residents that were taken on by government, faith-based, and non-profit agencies. These connections have led to the ability for the work started by BHM to continue now that the funding has been discontinued. D. Challenges/barriers: • Describe any challenges that you encountered in implementing your public advertising campaign. An ongoing challenge has been finding effective media to reach our Hispanic population. We have attempted many different venues, radio, tv, community events, phone calls, that have been somewhat effective but not to the extent as the number of referrals as our English speaking community. Another area that was difficult to reach was the southern part of Weld County. This area was unique in that it is a rural area that is being encompassed by the urban sprawl of Denver. The residents of this part of the county either wanted services in each of their small communities or they searched out services near the place of employment which was the Denver metro area. We attempted many different techniques including collaborative efforts with the grant funded programs in Denver with varying success. Finally a different challenge was with the kiosk. The idea was to develop a free standing, interactive devise to place in different locations throughout Weld County. The kiosk was developed but was originally plagued with technical difficulties. A new developer was contracted and these issues were resolved. Marketing thus far has been very successful. For the remainder of year four and year five United Way has been charged with developing an informational campaign to educate as many people as possible on the benefits of healthy relationships and marriage. They will be striving to increase the number of talk shows and creating infomercials for both the radio and television. • Were you able to overcome or adapt to these challenges? Explain why or why not. BHM was not able to overcome the challenges of attracting as many participants in the Hispanic Community or South County to equal the percentage that was representative of the population in those communities as per the census bureau. E. Contextual Events: • Identify contextual events or community changes influencing the success or challenges related to your public advertising activity. There were no events or changes that influenced the success or challenges of the public advertising campaign. • Describe how the community reacted to your public advertising campaign. Were they supportive or unsupportive? Were there any concerns? For the most part, the community was very supportive of this program and assisted us in making referrals. Initially, many people who did not identify as being married and/or had no interest in getting married were put off by the program name of Building Healthy Marriages. We found that by backing off on using the term marriage more unmarried couples attended our seminars. Interestingly enough several of these couples have professed to have changed their belief on marriage due to what they learned in the seminar and have gotten married. The only community push back 7 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 1 received was from individuals claiming to be from the faith-based community. Their objection was to our work with those couples who are co-habitating. These individuals felt that these couples were living in sin and their lifestyle should not be encouraged. This was not the feedback we got from Pastors and Church leaders who partnered with BHM to hold relationship classes. F. Lessons learned: • What did you learn about how to deal with challenges regarding these activities? We learned to be clear in with mission and values of the program and to have staff that believes in what the program was about. • What did you learn about the strengths and supports that were available to help facilitate these activities?Those resources were abundant in our community once one learned to look for them. • How successful would you say that this type of program was in educating individuals about healthy marriage in general? This was very successful 8 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Attachment # 4 Allowable Activity #3 Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 Allowable Activity Area 3: Marriage education, marriage skills, and relationship skills programs that may include parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job and career advancement for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers If your program aimed to promote healthy marriage through Allowable Activity 3, please provide the following information A. Marriage Education Program Goals: • The goal of Building Healthy Marriages (BHM), Building a Family program was to bring support services to unmarried, expectant couples in addition to the healthy relationship skills of communication and conflict resolution. The support services included access to any applicable BHM class, human service navigation, advocacy with public assistance, navigation of non-profit agencies, and token store. • The original grant program did not include Allowable Activity 3 so this was not built into the original goals. These goals were developed with the redesign of the program in year two. Process Goals: • Who did you intend to reach through your marriage education program? Describe the population your marriage education activities were aimed toward. Our intended target population was initially those couples in their late teens early twenties who lived together and were expecting a child. As the program evolved, the number of younger pregnant teens grew and became the majority of those served in this program. • Provide the number of individuals/couples you expected to reach through your marriage education program. We had expected to reach 65 couples. • How did you recruit program participants? Participants were recruited via television, radio, newspaper, public events and word of mouth. • How often did you plan on providing marriage education activities? (Example: once per month, 3 days per week, semi-annually) BHM held on average 5 classes per month. Impact Goals: The intended impact that BHM planned was to work with unmarried expectant couples to give them the tools to overcome the social and economic barriers to a healthy and successful family. This evolved to including many co-parenting skills if and when the relationship began to fail as we saw with many of our teen parents. At that point, the focus shifted to keeping bio-dad active in the lives of their child. Having an active and local Fatherhood program was essential in working with these families and strengthening them. Furthermore, by having unmarried, expectant couples in the same seminars as married couples there was an unintended consequence of the participants developing mutually supportive networks. The married couples often acted as mentors to the younger couples demonstrating the importance of marriage beyond the license. 2 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 B. Marriage Education/Training Program Implementation: Provide the following in-depth information regarding your program's marriage education activities: Education Model: The first part of the program was called "Public Events" and included a community saturation model of delivery. The main goal was to educate the public about marriage and relationships. Eight hours of Marriage Education in the form of PREP seminars for ((Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and unmarried participants in a relationship (R)), 10 hours of Prepare/Enrich curriculum (premarital/relationship inventories (5 different versions available taking one hour to complete + 6 follow-up sessions each lasting 90 minutes) used for M and R, or 8 hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum (for I, M, R). Singles could participate in PREP and Marriage Garden, couples (M or R) could participate in all three events. (See Figure 2.) These public seminars were presented in two formats, two 4-hour days or four 2-hour days, depending on the needs of the participants and educators. Participants entered the Public Events program by registering online or calling the program for one of the advertised events. For evaluation purposes, participants were asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) were invited to contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second phase, called the "Mentoring Program." This phase supported the needs of those who met the eligibility requirements. In addition, couples could begin the mentoring model after they completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they did not have to go through the education model Program Description and Delivery The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages project offered the following educational programs during the 5-year grant period: PREP, Prepare/Enrich, WMR, WOR, Marriage Garden curriculum, Love U2, and Love Notes. In addition, the project provided the following supplementary services: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, referral services, marriage boosters, employment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars. All programs and services are briefly described below. Following this, the manner in which the program was delivered to participants is described. Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) was an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP taught couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, and methods for dealing with conflict. It also aimed to enhance the commitment of the couples (Bowling et al., 2005). PREP can be presented with a facilitator in a group setting or with one couple at a time (Renick, Blumberg, & Markman, 1992). Delivery of the "PREP"marriage relationship education seminars. Couples from the general public participated in a PREP Workshop, which was provided in several formats (evening sessions or on Saturdays). These seminars focused on learning and practicing skills that improve marriages. Marriage educators and relationship coaches facilitated the workshops. In the beginning of Year 1, the workshop consisted of 12 hours of PREP. Later in Year 1, the workshop was expanded to 14 hours to include 2 hours of financial management. In May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to 8 hours. The curriculum was shortened to simplify reporting the number of people served and to maximize retention. PREP has responded to the trend by revising the original curricula to fit an 8-hour format. Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment 3 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 The Prepare/Enrich curriculum was originally developed in the late 1970s to assist couples seeking premarital couple enrichment (Olson & Olson-Sigg, 1999). The original curriculum was intended to facilitate a discussion between partners regarding relevant issues for married couples, such as conflict resolution, finances, communication, and goals of the couple and family. Prepare/Enrich began with the couple taking an assessment instrument to identify areas of weakness and strengths (www.prepare-enrich.com). Following the assessment, the partners met with a counselor for four to eight feedback sessions to discuss their areas of potential growth and their strengths as individuals and couples (www.prepare-enrich.com). Since its creation, the Prepare/Enrich curriculum has been revised three times (1982, 1986, and 1996). The current "Version 2000" has demonstrated strong reliability, with internal reliability coefficients for the scales of the instruments ranging from .73 to .90 (Olson & Olson-Sigg, 1999; Bowling et al., 2005). The Prepare/Enrich curriculum has demonstrated predictive validity in accurately forecasting couples who will be satisfied with their marriages 3 years after initiation of the program (Larsen & Olson, 1989). Discriminate validity has also been established by the curriculum. A study by Fowers and Olson (1989) demonstrated that Prepare/Enrich accurately discriminated between happily and unhappily married couples. There were six goals in the Prepare/Enrich Program: 1. "To explore Relationship Strengths and Growth Areas 2. To learn Assertiveness and Active Listening Skills 3. To learn how to resolve conflict using the Ten Step Model 4. To help couples discuss their Families-of-Origin 5. To help couples with financial planning and budgeting 6. To focus on personal, couple, and family goals (See http://www.prepare-enrich.com/trainino.cfm?id=33#What is PE) Delivery of the Prepare/Enrich program (relationship inventories). Participants in the Building Healthy Marriages program could participate in the Prepare/Enrich inventory, which indicated traits, expectations, and issues that couples may have wanted to address. The inventories included the opportunity for couples to discuss the results in as many as six follow- up sessions with educators who have been trained and certified by Life Innovations®. Within My Reach (WMR) The Within My Reach program was created by Stanley, Pearson, & Kline (2005) and is based on the PREP marriage education program. WMR was a relationship skills and decision making program. It was specifically designed for low-income individuals who were attending marriage education without a partner (Pearson, Stanley, & Kline, 2005). Central to the curriculum was the idea that the decisions individuals make in their love lives will affect many other areas of life, particularly career and child bearing/raising. The primary theme of the Within My Reach curriculum was safety in relationships (Pearson et al., 2005). The curriculum defined a healthy marriage as involving a high degree of safety. WMR included the following goals: 1. Enhance and stabilize current partner relationships. 2. Help people in damaging relationships to leave safely. 3. Help people to choose future partners wisely. Many of the skills taught can benefit an individual in work, social situations, and relationships with children and other family members. The curriculum took a number of characteristics of low-income populations into account and used an interactive, experiential curriculum (Pearson et al., 2005). Delivery of the Within My Reach (WMR) relationship seminars. "Within My Reach" (WMR) seminars, which were delivered to individuals who were single or attending without a 4 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 partner, were new to the BHM program in Year 3. Participants in Within My Reach may have attended the seminar alone and were not screened for income level or domestic violence. Within My Reach was an 8-hour curriculum, taught during a 1-day seminar to participants from the general public. Within Our Reach (WOR) Within Our Reach was a marriage education curriculum designed for low-income couples. The creators (Stanley et al., 2006) of the PREP marriage education curriculum designed this program. However, there were a number of distinct changes from the original PREP curriculum. The Within Our Reach curriculum was developed based upon research with economically disadvantaged families. This research guided the curriculum to include a different range of themes and concepts, to emphasize the needs of this community, and to revise the teaching style in the curriculum. The curriculum focused on the strengths of couples and the barriers that challenged them from meeting their relationship aspirations. Also, participants were charged with choosing the content and major themes of the sessions. The goal of the program was to facilitate a "sense of curriculum being tuned to their issues" (PREPInc, 2009, p. 2). The curriculum included global themes that were taught in every session and specific themes, such as racism, depression, or joblessness, which were covered when applicable (PREPInc, 2009). Emphasis was placed on the personal behavior of the individual and his or her responsibility for the way he or she though, acted, and responded (PREPInc, 2009). The presentation of the material and the teaching style changed from the original PREP curriculum. Within Our Reach presented smaller amounts of material, with more couple and group activities between lessons (PREPInc, 2009). This revision added energy to the curriculum, making sessions more interesting for participants. The training was expanded, and there was more in-session time to practice new skills (PREPInc, 2009). The curriculum was based on the "Safety Theory," which included the following subtopics: 1. Safety (freedom from harm, physical aggression, and psychological abuse) 2. Safety and Support 3. Connected 4. Support 5. Conflict Under Control 6. Safe to Talk 7. Safety and Security 8. A Future 9. An "Us" a. Contextual Safety 10. Crime 11. Health 12. Economic 13. Racism 14. Cultural Factors (PREPInc, 2009, p. 4). Delivery of the Within Our Reach (WOR) seminar. The WOR seminars were delivered during Marriage Enrichment Weekends. Couples could participate in a weekend program that included much of the 12-hour WOR content in a weekend format. Marriage educators and coaches facilitated the weekends. To participate in a Marriage Enrichment Weekend, couples must have been referred by the Department of Human Services, qualified for the Building Healthy Marriages program, and participated in an income level and domestic violence screening. Marriage Enrichment Weekends were held at a local hotel. In addition to participating in a 12-hour Within Our Reach marriage education seminar, couples received a 5 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 two-night stay at the hotel and a "date night," which included dinner at a restaurant. This format changed in Year 4. Enrichment weekends were no longer being scheduled due to the costs associated with this event. The WOR curriculum was then available to the general public but was delivered only in Spanish. Love U2 The Love U2 program was a relationship education program targeted to teens. Marline Pearson developed the Love U2 program based on the PREP curriculum created by Scott Stanley and Howard Markman (Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999). The Love U2 program went beyond traditional, fact-based sex education programs and discussed sex within the framework of relationships. The goal of the Love U2 program was to "help young people acquire practical skills and useful knowledge for forming emotionally healthy, mutually respectful, and ethically sound relationships" (The Dibble Institute, 2010, paragraph 1). The program also aimed to provide teens with a picture of healthy relationships in order to influence their decisions regarding relationships and sex as teens and into adulthood. The Love U2 program was based on research demonstrating a connection between family structure and the well-being of children (The Dibble Institute, 2009). The Love U2 curriculum taught teens the personal, economic, and social benefits of healthy relationships and a stable marriage. The lessons included in the Love U2 program were the following: • Destructive Patterns in Relationships — Four Danger Signs • Skills to Counter Negative Patterns—Time-Outs: A Path Back to Your Smart Brain • Complaints and Gripes — Being Heard, Not Ignored • Filters — I did not say that!" • Personality Style and Creative Use of Differences • Issues and Events—What Pushes Your Buttons? • Clarifying Expectations — Family, Peers, Girl/Boyfriend • Problem Solving and Taking Care of Friendship Delivery of the Love U2 student and teen relationship education seminar. The Love U2 seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 3. Love U2 was presented to teenagers from the community in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2- hour per day format; and an overnight lock-in at an area church, which taught the 8-hour curriculum in one night. "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New in Year 4) The Love Notes: Making Relationships Work curriculum was a relationship education program developed to target at-risk youth, including those who were parents or currently pregnant. The program targeted strengths and goals and taught participants new strategies for decision making about life choices, such as engaging in sexual behavior and having children. Marline Pearson (2010) developed the Love Notes curriculum based on the Love U2 and the Within My Reach relationship education programs. The primary difference between the Love U2 curriculum and Love Notes was the attention paid to sexual choices, pregnancy, and parenting in the Love Notes curriculum. Topics included the following: • Knowing Myself— Personality Style, Baggage, Expectations, Mapping My Future • Forming and Maintaining Healthy Relationships — Knowledge, Skills, Smart Steps • Frameworks for Assessing Relationships and Making Decisions • Recognizing Unhealthy Relationships and Responding to Dangerous Relationships • Effective Communication and Conflict Management • Intimacy, Sexual Values, Pacing Relationships, and Planning for Choices • Unplanned Pregnancy and Relationship Turbulence Through the Eyes of a Child • "The Success Sequence" (Pearson, 2010, paragraph 4). 6 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 Delivery of the "Love Notes"student/teen relationship education groups. The Love Notes seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 4. Love Notes was presented in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2-hour per day format; and a 5- session, 1-hour-and-40-minute per day format. The following services were also offered at various times during the 5-year grant: • Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or Prepare/Enrich trainings. • Financial Management Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of financial counseling for help with managing finances. • Community Referrals (New in Year 3): This service taught couples about employment services programs that could assist them in finding jobs. In addition, it educated participants about community programs that could help them, their families, and their children. • Employment Support Training: This training provided opportunities for individuals to work with Employment Services of Weld County technicians to assist in career exploration workshops, job training opportunities, job searches, resume development, and job placement assistance. The contract was dropped in Year 3 due to underutilization. Program Staffing: • Provide information on staff that helped implement your program's marriage education activities during the final year of funding. You may include key staff and volunteers who were critical to the implementation of the program. Also indicate the time period in which they contributed to the program. (See table below. Add additional lines if needed) % of time Time period Staff Name Official Job Title/Position devoted to this involved activity Ann Bruce Program Manager 100% Mary Jo Family Support Coordinator 100% Vasquez Candi De 100% Community/Family Liaison La Cruz Kim Community/Family Liaison 100% Ketchum Craig Education Managers (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Alison Education Manager (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Spanish Education Coordinator Juvenal (contracted via Community 50% Cervantes Mediation Project) Curriculum Description: • See above description of program implementation. Partnerships: • Building Healthy Marriages was a collaborative effort between Weld County Department of Human Services (the grant recipient), United Way of Weld County 7 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 (marketing and community outreach) and Community Mediation Project (managing the educational piece). Outputs: Number Number Number Number Number served in served in served in served in served in FY 2007' FY 2008' FY 2009' FY 2010' FY 2011' Number Allowable Activity Area Activity (Sept. 30, (Sept.30, (Sept.30, (Sept.30, (Sept. 30, served since 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- award date' Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept. 29, 2007) 2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) Example 1: Deliver 0 3(Education curriculum to (not 7 10 15 13 for non- 45 individuals unmarried proposed individuals individuals individuals individuals married couples in year 1) .arents 'Number served—Identify the number of people/communities you served during this budget period. "Number served since award date— Identify the number of people you served during the entire duration of the grant. C. Strengths: • The primary strength of this program was that it served both the mother and the father together. This program attracted a number of pregnant teens and we were able to work with the expectant parents and their perspective families to help them understand how crucial the bio-dad was to the child. Also, while dealing with the immediate crisis of having a child at a young age we also gave these parents the tools to look toward and plan for the future. D. Challenges/barriers: • The one challenge we have experienced in this area remains getting the dad involved and keeping him there. We are fortunate to have several Fatherhood programs in which we can refer the dad's to and this is helpful. There is still a trend especially with the teen mothers to disregard the child's dad as a viable resource and to perpetrate maternal gate keeping of the Dad and his family. • We were not able to fully overcome this issue but had made some head way in that direction. The main issue remains in public perception and reversing the ideas that Mom should always get custody and that uncles, grandfathers, and Mom's boyfriend can easily substitute for bio-dad. Or that domestic violence perpetrators are always the dad. Between the Healthy Marriage programs and the Fatherhood Initiative, some of these ideas are being challenged but more needs to be done. E. Contextual Events: • There were no contextual events or community changes that influenced the success or challenges related to our program's marriage education activities. • For the most part, the community/program participants were supportive to our Building a Family program for unmarried expectant parents. There was some resistance from some community members who objected what they saw as encouraging sexual behavior in teens and living together without being married. In attempting to partner with other teen pregnancy programs we did experience quite a bit of maternal gate- keeping from both the moms and their parents/guardians. It would have been helpful to hold classes for these moms and their parents to educate them of the importance of Dads in the child's life. 8 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 3 F. Lessons learned: • What did you learn about how to deal with challenges regarding these activities?The lesson learned as we faced this challenge was how important education is in debunking these social myths. • What did you learn about the strengths and supports that were available to help facilitate these activities?There are many supporting programs out there that serve pregnant moms and believe as we do of the importance of dad; however it is difficult to change the tides of a socially accepted construct. It's not impossible but will take longer than five years. • How successful would you say that this type of program was in educating individuals about healthy marriage in general? It would have been more successful if the core issue of supporting fathers had been identified sooner. However, it was extremely successful in getting these young families off to a better start than they otherwise could have done without the program. 9 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Attachment # 5 Allowable Activity #4 Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 Allowable Activity Area 4: Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples or persons interested in marriage If your program aimed to promote healthy marriage through Allowable Activity 4, please provide the following information A. Pre-marital Education Program Goals: • List specific goals, objectives, or intended outcomes of your pre-marital education program. The first goal of this program was to bring education to those who are engaged about conflict resolution and communication in order to strengthen their marriage. The second goal was to give tools to youth and young adults in finding and maintaining healthy relationships that may turn into marriage. The final goal was to assist those who had recently ended a long term relationship in seeing what was and what wasn't healthy in their last relationship and to create a healthy relationship with their next partner. • Did the goals of this program change from the start of the award period? If so, why were they changed and what specific changes were made? The goals were not changed so much as they were added onto. In year one, BHM maintained the first goal of enhancing and educating engaged couples. With the re-organization of the program in year two, a needs assessment was conducted. This assessment and social trends indicated a need for preventative education especially for our youth. Working with the youth and learning how they viewed relationships brought about the final goal as many of our youths came from single parent households. These single parents were struggling to have healthy relationships especially after the demise of their first marriage. Process Goals: • Who did you intend to reach through your pre-marital education program? Describe the population your pre-marital education activities were aimed toward. BHM intended to reach both engaged couples, couples in committed relationships who may or may not be co-habitating, young adults and youth prior to their first serious relationships, and adults who have been in a committed relationship that failed and are looking to overcome poor relationship habits. • Provide the number of individuals/couples you expected to reach through your pre- marital education program. BHM had set out to serve 980 individuals in this program. • How did you recruit program participants? Participants were recruited via television, radio, newspaper, public events and word of mouth. • How often did you plan on providing marriage education activities? (Example: once per month, 3 days per week, semi-annually) BHM held on average 5 classes per month. Impact Goals: BHM intended to strengthen a couple's marriage before they were even married by not only giving them the tools to effectively communicate and resolve conflicts but to also raise awareness of how relationships can become toxic with unmet expectations and the influence of family origins. We found this information and tools to be helpful to singles and single parent in learning what went wrong in their first relationship and to put closure on that ending; allowing them to go out and find healthier relationships. This will not only benefit them but also their children who will have better role models for their own future marriages. Another goal was to bring about awareness of the importance of marriage to 2 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 those couples who were cohabitating. By exposing these couples to the facts of cohabitating vs marriage we had 12 couples get married as a direct result. For a short time BHM attempted to bring these same skills to the work force to give people tools in dealing with the stress of family/work balance through a curriculum called Winning the Workplace Challenge. A final impact that BHM strived to achieve was to bring healthy relationship skills to youth in order that they may make better decisions in choosing a partner who will help them obtain their goals and not perpetrate abusive relationships. B. Pre-marital Education Program Implementation: Provide the following in-depth information regarding your program's pre-marital education activities: Education Model: The first part of the program was called "Public Events" and included a community saturation model of delivery. The main goal was to educate the public about marriage and relationships. Eight hours of Marriage Education in the form of PREP seminars for ((Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and unmarried participants in a relationship (R)), 10 hours of Prepare/Enrich curriculum (premarital/relationship inventories (5 different versions available taking one hour to complete + 6 follow-up sessions each lasting 90 minutes) used for M and R, or 8 hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum (for I, M, R). Singles could participate in PREP and Marriage Garden, couples (M or R) could participate in all three events. (See Figure 2.) These public seminars were presented in two formats, two 4-hour days or four 2-hour days, depending on the needs of the participants and educators. Participants entered the Public Events program by registering online or calling the program for one of the advertised events. For evaluation purposes, participants were asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) were invited to contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second phase, called the "Mentoring Program." This phase supported the needs of those who met the eligibility requirements. In addition, couples could begin the mentoring model after they completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they did not have to go through the education model Program Description and Delivery The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages project offered the following educational programs during the 5-year grant period: PREP, Prepare/Enrich, WMR, WOR, , Winning the Workplace Challenge, Love U2, and Love Notes. In addition, the project provided the following supplementary services: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, referral services, marriage boosters, employment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars. All programs and services are briefly described below. Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) was an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP taught couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, and methods for dealing with conflict. It also aimed to enhance the commitment of the couples (Bowling et al., 2005). PREP can be presented with a facilitator in a group setting or with one couple at a time (Renick, Blumberg, & Markman, 1992). Delivery of the "PREP"marriage relationship education seminars. Couples from the general public participated in a PREP Workshop, which was provided in several formats 3 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 (evening sessions or on Saturdays). These seminars focused on learning and practicing skills that improve marriages. Marriage educators and relationship coaches facilitated the workshops. In the beginning of Year 1, the workshop consisted of 12 hours of PREP. Later in Year 1, the workshop was expanded to 14 hours to include 2 hours of financial management. In May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to 8 hours. The curriculum was shortened to simplify reporting the number of people served and to maximize retention. PREP has responded to the trend by revising the original curricula to fit an 8-hour format. Within My Reach (WMR) The Within My Reach program was created by Stanley, Pearson, & Kline (2005) and is based on the PREP marriage education program. WMR was a relationship skills and decision making program. It was specifically designed for low-income individuals who were attending marriage education without a partner (Pearson, Stanley, & Kline, 2005). Central to the curriculum was the idea that the decisions individuals make in their love lives will affect many other areas of life, particularly career and child bearing/raising. The primary theme of the Within My Reach curriculum was safety in relationships (Pearson et al., 2005). The curriculum defined a healthy marriage as involving a high degree of safety. WMR included the following goals: 1. Enhance and stabilize current partner relationships. 2. Help people in damaging relationships to leave safely. 3. Help people to choose future partners wisely. Many of the skills taught can benefit an individual in work, social situations, and relationships with children and other family members. The curriculum took a number of characteristics of low- income populations into account and used an interactive, experiential curriculum (Pearson et al., 2005). Delivery of the Within My Reach (WMR) relationship seminars. "Within My Reach" (WMR) seminars, which were delivered to individuals who were single or attending without a partner, were new to the BHM program in Year 3. Participants in Within My Reach may have attended the seminar alone and were not screened for income level or domestic violence. Within My Reach was an 8-hour curriculum, taught during a 1-day seminar to participants from the general public. Love U2 The Love U2 program was a relationship education program targeted to teens. Marline Pearson developed the Love U2 program based on the PREP curriculum created by Scott Stanley and Howard Markman (Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999). The Love U2 program went beyond traditional, fact-based sex education programs and discussed sex within the framework of relationships. The goal of the Love U2 program was to "help young people acquire practical skills and useful knowledge for forming emotionally healthy, mutually respectful, and ethically sound relationships" (The Dibble Institute, 2010, paragraph 1). The program also aimed to provide teens with a picture of healthy relationships in order to influence their decisions regarding relationships and sex as teens and into adulthood. The Love U2 program was based on research demonstrating a connection between family structure and the well-being of children (The Dibble Institute, 2009). The Love U2 curriculum taught teens the personal, economic, and social benefits of healthy relationships and a stable marriage. The lessons included in the Love U2 program were the following: • Destructive Patterns in Relationships — Four Danger Signs • Skills to Counter Negative Patterns —Time-Outs: A Path Back to Your Smart Brain • Complaints and Gripes — Being Heard, Not Ignored 4 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 • Filters — I did not say that!" • Personality Style and Creative Use of Differences • Issues and Events —What Pushes Your Buttons? • Clarifying Expectations — Family, Peers, Girl/Boyfriend • Problem Solving and Taking Care of Friendship Delivery of the Love U2 student and teen relationship education seminar. The Love U2 seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 3. Love U2 was presented to teenagers from the community in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2- hour per day format; and an overnight lock-in at an area church, which taught the 8-hour curriculum in one night. "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New in Year 4) The Love Notes: Making Relationships Work curriculum was a relationship education program developed to target at-risk youth, including those who were parents or currently pregnant. The program targeted strengths and goals and taught participants new strategies for decision making about life choices, such as engaging in sexual behavior and having children. Marline Pearson (2010) developed the Love Notes curriculum based on the Love U2 and the Within My Reach relationship education programs. The primary difference between the Love U2 curriculum and Love Notes was the attention paid to sexual choices, pregnancy, and parenting in the Love Notes curriculum. Topics included the following: • Knowing Myself— Personality Style, Baggage, Expectations, Mapping My Future • Forming and Maintaining Healthy Relationships — Knowledge, Skills, Smart Steps • Frameworks for Assessing Relationships and Making Decisions • Recognizing Unhealthy Relationships and Responding to Dangerous Relationships • Effective Communication and Conflict Management • Intimacy, Sexual Values, Pacing Relationships, and Planning for Choices • Unplanned Pregnancy and Relationship Turbulence Through the Eyes of a Child • "The Success Sequence" (Pearson, 2010, paragraph 4). Delivery of the "Love Notes"student/teen relationship education groups. The Love Notes seminars were new to the BHM program beginning in Year 4. Love Notes was presented in three possible formats: a 1-day, 8-hour seminar; a 4-day, 2-hour per day format; and a 5- session, 1-hour-and-40-minute per day format. The following services were also offered at various times during the 5-year grant: • Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or Prepare/Enrich trainings. • Financial Management Coaching: Couples could receive up to 4 hours of financial counseling for help with managing finances. • Community Referrals (New in Year 3): This service taught couples about employment services programs that could assist them in finding jobs. In addition, it educated participants about community programs that could help them, their families, and their children. • Employment Support Training: This training provided opportunities for individuals to work with Employment Services of Weld County technicians to assist in career exploration workshops,job training opportunities, job searches, résumé development, and job placement assistance. The contract was dropped in Year 3 due to underutilization. Winning the Workplace Challenge Winning the Workplace Challenge was a workplace relationship education program 5 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 based on the principles of healthy relationships discussed in the PREP curriculum. This program addressed specific barriers and challenges of building healthy relationships within the workplace. Winning the Workplace Challenge was created by compiling the research-based knowledge of the PREP curriculum with the experience of individuals in the corporate world (Smart Marriages, 2009). The objectives of the program were to provide participants with the following: • Knowledge of what makes a great workplace • Understanding of the role of Relational Intelligence • Knowledge of the Amygdala Hijack • The ability to recognize Events, Issues, and Hidden Issues • The ability to demonstrate the Speaker/Listener Technique • A description of the role of expectations • The ability to recognize the role of choices in relationships Several of these concepts, such as recognizing Events, Issues, Hidden Issues, and the role of expectations, were adapted for a workplace environment from the PREP marriage education curriculum. Others, including the Amygdala Hijack and the role of Relational Intelligence, were unique concepts created for the Winning the Workplace Challenge program. The Amygdala Hijack is a metaphor used to understand the brain's process of receiving and processing potentially threatening information. However, when the brain reacts defensively to information that is not threatening, subsequent reactions by people can cause damage to relationships (e.g., overly defensive reactions when in an argument). To eliminate this overreaction, participants were taught to "STOP," "Oxygenate: breathe," "Pause and Appreciate," and "Seek Information" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 11). Relational Intelligence is a term that describes people's characters, "their capacity to inspire others, their self-management, their ability to get along well with other people, how well they resolve conflict, or how they handle crises" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 19). By educating employees about healthy workplace relationships, Winning the Workplace Challenge aimed to create happier, healthier, more productive business environments. Delivery of"Winning the Workplace Challenge" work relationship education seminar. Winning The Workplace Challenge was offered in Year 3 and Year 4. Winning the Workplace Challenge was taught in a 1-day, 8-hour format. Participants included city employees and employees from different agencies within the community. Federal approval was received and the program ran for approximately 8 months. Upon further investigation by the Federal Project Officer, the approval was revoked and the classes were discontinued. Program Staffing: • Provide information on staff that helped implement your program's marriage education activities during the final year of funding. You may include key staff and volunteers who were critical to the implementation of the program. Also indicate the time period in which they contributed to the program. (See table below. Add additional lines if needed) of time Time period Staff Name Official Job Title/Position devoted to this involved activity Ann Bruce Program Manager _ 100% Mary Jo Family Support Coordinator 100% Vasquez Candi De Community/Family Liaison 100% Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 La Cruz Kim Community/Family Liaison 100% Ketchum Craig Education Managers (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Alison Education Manager (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Spanish Education Coordinator Juvenal (contracted via Community 50% Cervantes Mediation Project) Curriculum Description: • See above description of program implementation. Partnerships: • Building Healthy Marriages was a collaborative effort between Weld County Department of Human Services (the grant recipient), United Way of Weld County (marketing and community outreach) and Community Mediation Project (managing the educational piece). Outputs: In the chart below, please list activities you implemented related to pre-marital education, the number of individuals your program served through each activity during each budget period, and the total number of individuals served through each activity during the entire duration of the grant. (See examples in table below) Number Number Number Number Number served in served in served in served in served in FY 2007' FY 2008' FY 2009' FY 2010' FY 2011' Number Allowable Activity Area Activity (Sept. 30, (Sept.30, (Sept. 30, (Sept. 30, (Sept. 30, served since 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- award date"' Sept. 29, Sept. 29, Sept. 29, Sept.29, Sept.29, 2007) 2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) Example 1: Deliver 11 79 132 86 322 healthy couples couples couples couples 4 (Pre- 11 couples relationship 81 217 445 190 marital couples 1022 education) education individual individual individual individual individuals curriculum s s s s 'Number served— Identify the number of people/communities you served during this budget period. "Number served since award date— Identify the number of people you served during the entire duration of the grant. C. Strengths: The primary strength of this program is that it allowed us to do preventative work with premarital couples and young adults. With the pre-marital inventories and mentoring, BHM challenged the ideas that marriage and relationships are all chemistry and should be easy. If there is hard work involved then the marriage is dispensable. BHM went further than to just bring about awareness but also gave the couples the tools to maintain the relationship in a healthy manner. This awareness was also brought to youth and young adults as well as challenge the glamorized ideal of love in the media and begin to discuss that much of that ideal is controlling and abusive. 7 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 As BHM began to identify the challenges of single parents in developing healthy relationships that do not repeat past relationship bad habits, we wanted to be a bit more holistic in our approach. In understanding that children mimic their parents' relationship habits (family of origin) and that these skills are transferable from significant others to family members we began to hold dual seminars. In one facility there would be a Love Notes or a LoveU2 class for youth and a Within My Reach for their parent in separate classrooms. We would bring them together for breaks and meals so they could talk about what they had learned. In doing so families were strengthened and Mom or Dad could go out and find a healthy partner to demonstrate healthy intimate relationships. Another strength in this program was that in any given seminar there was a mix of people at different stages of their lives. This led to the development of mini support groups and networking amongst the participants. Finally, in year 4 BHM developed a partnership with the Probation Unit in Weld County. Through this partnership, adults and youth who were on probation could earn community service hours by taking a BHM seminar and completing written assignments about what they learned in the seminars. We have several testimonies in which our classes gave individuals the tools they were looking for to turn their lives around. D. Challenges/barriers: There were not many challenges with this program with the exception of maintaining the boundaries in which this type of education could lead to. In years two and three BHM began conducting Winning the Workplace Challenge seminars for several businesses in Weld County. The thought behind this was that the skills taught in this curriculum were the same as those taught in our other relationship classes. By tapping into this new audience we were given the opportunity to relate these skills to family and significant others and bring about awareness of healthier relationships. This was actually quite successful in bringing couples from our Winning the Workplace Challenge to our PREP and Within Our Reach seminars. This was just one detour BHM embarked upon, and there were several others that we could have followed. Our FPO was instrumental in keeping BHM focused on the true intent of the grant. E. Contextual Events: There were no contextual events or community changes that impacted the success or challenges of our program's AA#4 activities. For the most part, the community was very supportive of this program and assisted us in making referrals. Initially, many people who did not identify as being married and/or had no interest in getting married were put off by the program name of Building Healthy Marriages. We found that by backing off on using the term marriage more unmarried couples attended our seminars. Interestingly enough several of these couples have professed to have changed their belief on marriage due to what they learned in the seminar and have gotten married. The only community push back received was from individuals claiming to be from the faith-based community. Their objection was to our work with those couples who are co- habitating. These individuals felt that these couples were living in sin and their lifestyle should not be encouraged. This was not the feedback we got from Pastors and Church leaders who partnered with BHM to hold relationship classes. F. Lessons learned: • What did you learn about how to deal with challenges regarding these activities?The primary lesson learned was how to run a program that was true to its original vision and mission. • What did you learn about the strengths and supports that were available to help facilitate these activities? We learned that there were many programs that assist with the tangible needs of the community quite successfully but they all seemed to be 8 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 4 missing a component. If we got someone a job, why couldn't they keep it? It was found that by adding relationship classes to the tangibles the clients were more successful in becoming more self sustainable. • How successful would you say that this type of program was in educating individuals about healthy marriage in general?This program was hugely successful especially with those who had been referred by the courts. In fact, even though the program has been removed from the County auspices it is being continued by a collaborative effort between probation, drug court and faith based organizations that are ministering to those recently incarcerated or on probation. 9 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Attachment # 6 Allowable Activity #5 Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 Allowable Activity Area 5: Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples If your program aimed to promote healthy marriage through Allowable Activity 5, please provide the following information A. Marriage Enhancement Program Goals: • The main goal of this program was to educate married couples about marriage and relationships. • The original goal of the program was to provide relationship education to TANF eligible married couples. This changed to include any married couple from all economic levels. Process Goals: • Who did you intend to reach through your marriage enhancement program? Describe the population your marriage enhancement activities were aimed toward. In this Allowable Activity area, BHM recruited and used curricula targeted for married couples. • Provide the number of individuals/couples you expected to reach through your marriage enhancement program. BHM expected to reach 1080 couples in the five year program. • How did you recruit program participants? Participants were recruited via television, radio, newspaper, public events and word of mouth. • How often did you plan on providing marriage education activities? (Example: once per month, 3 days per week, semi-annually) BHM held on average 5 classes per month. Impact Goals: BHM expected to improve marriages with our education programs which in turn would strengthen families. Emotionally healthy parents are motivated to provide for their families so this would in turn strengthen our economy and decrease the need for public assistance. B. Marriage Enhancement Program Implementation: Provide the following in-depth information regarding your program's marriage enhancement activities: Education Model: The first part of the program was called "Public Events" and included a community saturation model of delivery. The main goal was to educate the public about marriage and relationships. Eight hours of Marriage Education in the form of PREP seminars for ((Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and unmarried participants in a relationship (R)), 10 hours of Prepare/Enrich curriculum (premarital/relationship inventories (5 different versions available taking one hour to complete + 6 follow-up sessions each lasting 90 minutes) used for M and R, or 8 hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum (for I, M, R). Singles could participate in PREP and Marriage Garden, couples (M or R) could participate in all three events. (See Figure 2.) These public seminars were presented in two formats, two 4-hour days or four 2-hour days, 2 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 depending on the needs of the participants and educators. Participants entered the Public Events program by registering online or calling the program for one of the advertised events. For evaluation purposes, participants were asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) were invited to contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second phase, called the "Mentoring Program." This phase supported the needs of those who met the eligibility requirements. In addition, couples could begin the mentoring model after they completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they did not have to go through the education model Program Description and Delivery The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages project offered the following educational programs during the 5-year grant period: PREP, Prepare/Enrich, WMR, WOR, Marriage Garden curriculum, Winning the Workplace Challenge, Love U2, and Love Notes. In addition, the project provided the following supplementary services: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, referral services, marriage boosters, employment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars, All programs and services are briefly described below. Following this, the manner in which the program was delivered to participants is described. Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) was an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP taught couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, and methods for dealing with conflict. It also aimed to enhance the commitment of the couples (Bowling et al., 2005). PREP can be presented with a facilitator in a group setting or with one couple at a time (Renick, Blumberg, & Markman, 1992). Delivery of the "PREP"marriage relationship education seminars. Couples from the general public participated in a PREP Workshop, which was provided in several formats (evening sessions or on Saturdays). These seminars focused on learning and practicing skills that improve marriages. Marriage educators and relationship coaches facilitated the workshops. In the beginning of Year 1, the workshop consisted of 12 hours of PREP. Later in Year 1, the workshop was expanded to 14 hours to include 2 hours of financial management. In May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to 8 hours. The curriculum was shortened to simplify reporting the number of people served and to maximize retention. PREP has responded to the trend by revising the original curricula to fit an 8-hour format. Marriage Garden" Marriage Education This educational program was created at the University of Arkansas. The Marriage Garden was based on the metaphor of partners in marriage learning the necessary tools, wisdom, and spirit to cultivate a healthy marriage, just as two people would come together to cultivate a healthy garden (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2006a). The curriculum included six lessons covering the following topics: • Commit: Make and honor promises. • Grow: Expand your strengths. • Nurture: Do the work of loving. • Understand: Cultivate compassion for your partner. • Solve: Turn differences into blessings. • Serve: Give back to your community. The Marriage Garden curriculum can be used with individuals, couples, groups, 3 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 and as part of a marriage mentoring program (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2006a). Delivery of"Marriage Garden"marriage education. The Marriage Garden curriculum was offered at various Grover homes over four Saturdays from July 12 —August 2, 2008. Twelve participants took part in this event. Within Our Reach (WOR) Within Our Reach was a marriage education curriculum designed for low-income couples. The creators (Stanley et al., 2006) of the PREP marriage education curriculum designed this program. However, there were a number of distinct changes from the original PREP curriculum. The Within Our Reach curriculum was developed based upon research with economically disadvantaged families. This research guided the curriculum to include a different range of themes and concepts, to emphasize the needs of this community, and to revise the teaching style in the curriculum. The curriculum focused on the strengths of couples and the barriers that challenged them from meeting their relationship aspirations. Also, participants were charged with choosing the content and major themes of the sessions. The goal of the program was to facilitate a "sense of curriculum being tuned to their issues" (PREPInc, 2009, p. 2). The curriculum included global themes that were taught in every session and specific themes, such as racism, depression, or joblessness, which were covered when applicable (PREPInc, 2009). Emphasis was placed on the personal behavior of the individual and his or her responsibility for the way he or she though, acted, and responded (PREPInc, 2009). The presentation of the material and the teaching style changed from the original PREP curriculum. Within Our Reach presented smaller amounts of material, with more couple and group activities between lessons (PREPInc, 2009). This revision added energy to the curriculum, making sessions more interesting for participants. The training was expanded, and there was more in-session time to practice new skills (PREPInc, 2009). The curriculum was based on the "Safety Theory," which included the following subtopics: 1. Safety (freedom from harm, physical aggression, and psychological abuse) 2. Safety and Support 3. Connected 4. Support 5. Conflict Under Control 6. Safe to Talk 7. Safety and Security 8. A Future 9. An "Us" a. Contextual Safety 10. Crime 11. Health 12. Economic 13. Racism 14. Cultural Factors (PREPInc, 2009, p. 4). Delivery of the Within Our Reach (WOR) seminar. The WOR seminars were delivered during Marriage Enrichment Weekends. Couples could participate in a weekend program that included much of the 12-hour WOR content in a weekend format. Marriage educators and coaches facilitated the weekends. To participate in a Marriage Enrichment Weekend, couples must have been referred by the Department of Human Services, qualified for 4 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 the Building Healthy Marriages program, and participated in an income level and domestic violence screening. Marriage Enrichment Weekends were held at a local hotel. In addition to participating in a 12-hour Within Our Reach marriage education seminar, couples received a two-night stay at the hotel and a "date night," which included dinner at a restaurant. This format changed in Year 4. Enrichment weekends were no longer being scheduled due to the costs associated with this event. The WOR curriculum was then available to the general public but was delivered only in Spanish. Winning the Workplace Challenge Winning the Workplace Challenge was a workplace relationship education program based on the principles of healthy relationships discussed in the PREP curriculum. This program addressed specific barriers and challenges of building healthy relationships within the workplace. Winning the Workplace Challenge was created by compiling the research-based knowledge of the PREP curriculum with the experience of individuals in the corporate world (Smart Marriages, 2009). The objectives of the program were to provide participants with the following: • Knowledge of what makes a great workplace • Understanding of the role of Relational Intelligence • Knowledge of the Amygdala Hijack • The ability to recognize Events, Issues, and Hidden Issues • The ability to demonstrate the Speaker/Listener Technique • A description of the role of expectations • The ability to recognize the role of choices in relationships Several of these concepts, such as recognizing Events, Issues, Hidden Issues, and the role of expectations, were adapted for a workplace environment from the PREP marriage education curriculum. Others, including the Amygdala Hijack and the role of Relational Intelligence, were unique concepts created for the Winning the Workplace Challenge program. The Amygdala Hijack is a metaphor used to understand the brain's process of receiving and processing potentially threatening information. However, when the brain reacts defensively to information that is not threatening, subsequent reactions by people can cause damage to relationships (e.g., overly defensive reactions when in an argument). To eliminate this overreaction, participants were taught to "STOP," "Oxygenate: breathe," "Pause and Appreciate," and "Seek Information" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 11). Relational Intelligence is a term that describes people's characters, "their capacity to inspire others, their self-management, their ability to get along well with other people, how well they resolve conflict, or how they handle crises" (PREPInc, 2008, p. 19). By educating employees about healthy workplace relationships, Winning the Workplace Challenge aimed to create happier, healthier, more productive business environments. Delivery of"Winning the Workplace Challenge" work relationship education seminar. Winning The Workplace Challenge was offered in Year 3 and Year 4. Winning the Workplace Challenge was taught in a 1-day, 8-hour format. Participants included city employees and employees from different agencies within the community. Federal approval was received and the program ran for approximately 8 months. Upon further investigation by the Federal Project Officer, the approval was revoked and the classes were discontinued. Marriage Boosters: From January 2007 through April 2008, the marriage booster was a 6- hour educational workshop in which couples reviewed and practiced techniques learned in previous PREP training. Workshops were facilitated by marriage counselors and coaches. 5 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 From May 2008 through September 2008, the Booster was a social event (e.g., a barbeque) with an educational component. Couples could enjoy the event and then participate in the 1 — 1 1/2-hour Booster. In Year 3 (starting October 2008), boosters were eliminated, as they were costly and ineffective for recruitment purposes. Program Staffing: • Provide information on staff that helped implement your program's marriage education activities during the final year of funding. You may include key staff and volunteers who were critical to the implementation of the program. Also indicate the time period in which they contributed to the program. (See table below. Add additional lines if needed) % of time Time period Staff Name Official Job Title/Position devoted to this involved activity Ann Bruce Program Manager 100% Mary Jo Family Support Coordinator 100% Vasquez Candi De 100% Community/Family Liaison La Cruz Kim Community/Family Liaison 100% Ketchum Community/Family Liaison Lisa (contracted via Community 50% Osgood Mediation Project) Craig Education Managers (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Alison Education Manager (contracted via 100% Conrad Community Mediation Project) Spanish Education Coordinator Juvenal (contracted via Community 50% Cervantes Mediation Project) • There was no actual staff turnover in this area, however, there were reductions in staffing that occurred. From 2006 to 2009 there were six Community/Family Liaisons: Arlene Rivera, Dolly Zamora, Nichole Seward, Rebecca Jurado, Kim Ketchum, and Candi DeLaCruz. In 2009 due to the re-organization of Human Services, a reduction in force (RIF) was required to maintain the budget. At that time Arlene Rivera and Dolly Zamora were re-assigned to the Parenting Education Department. A year later, Nichole Seward and Rebecca Jurado applied for a transfer to Assistance Payments Unit as technicians and were accepted. To handle the work load left by Nichole and Rebecca Community Mediation Project increased Alison Conrad's hours and hired a part time person, Lisa Osgood. Curriculum Description: • See above description of program implementation. 6 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 Partnerships: • Building Healthy Marriages was a collaborative effort between Weld County Department of Human Services (the grant recipient), United Way of Weld County (marketing and community outreach) and Community Mediation Project (managing the educational piece). Out•uts: Number Number Number Number Number served in served in served in served in served in FY 2007' FY 2008' FY 2009' FY 2010' FY 2011' Number Allowable Activity Area Activity (Sept 30, (Sept.30, (Sept. 30, (Sept. 30, (Sept. 30, served since 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- award date' Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, 2007) 2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) 181 Example 1: 116 couples 210 215 782 couples Marriage couples couples couples 5(Married 281 married Education 51 couples 26 married 214 19 married 20 married couples) individuals married individuals individuals individuals individuals Number served—Identify the number of people/communities you served during this budget period. "Number served since award date— Identify the number of people you served during the entire duration of the grant. C. Strengths: The supporting factors must first start with the County Board of Directors who were innovative enough to implement a pilot Healthy Marriage Initiative even before the grant was applied for. The Board was also supportive of collaborative efforts between government and faith-based agencies that led to the development of the Weld Faith Partnership in which a panel of leaders from the Faith-based community have direct access to the Board of Commissioners to which express their concerns. This collaboration and the support by administration paved the way for opportunities to serve Weld County residents that were taken on by government, faith-based, and non-profit agencies. These connections have led to the ability for the work started by BHM to continue now that the funding has been discontinued. D. Challenges/barriers: • List challenges that you encountered in implementing your program's marriage mentoring activities. BHM struggled to find a marketing media that would effectively reach our Hispanic community. This was demonstrated in our logistical information that shows only 21% of our participants are Hispanic. Per the recent census, the Hispanic community makes up approximately 35 — 40% of the population. Another area that was difficult to reach was the southern part of Weld County. This area was unique in that it is a rural area that is being encompassed by the urban sprawl of Denver. The residents of this part of the county either wanted services in each of their small communities or they searched out services near the place of employment which was the Denver metro area. We attempted many different techniques including collaborative efforts with the grant funded programs in Denver with varying success. • Were you able to overcome or adapt to these challenges? Explain why or why not. To some extent we were able to overcome some of this challenge but more work was needed to totally overcome them. For both the Hispanic communities and those from rural areas, trust and word of mouth are extremely powerful marketing tools but are hard to earn. BHM was making strides to that end. For those residents that sought 7 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 5 out services in the Denver Metro area, more collaboration with our sibling programs would have helped us to serve our clients in a more holistic manner. E. Contextual Events: • Contextual events or community changes influencing the success or challenges related to your program's marriage enhancement activities. One community change that influenced the success of our program was the embracing of the idea of the benefits of collaboration between government, non-profit, and faith-based programs. That together, more people can be served in a holistic and sustainable manner than by ourselves. • Describe how the community/program participants reacted to your marriage enhancement program. Were they supportive or unsupportive? Were there any concerns? Was there any resistance or reluctance to participate?Weld County Community was very supportive to strengthening families by teaching relationship skills. F. Lessons learned: • What did you learn about how to deal with challenges regarding these activities? We learned that collaboration isn't always about money; it's about sharing whatever resources you may have. Also when the focus is shifted from the program and its own accolades to the people for which it is designed to serve, one becomes more receptive to the idea of collaborating with other groups that may not have been considered as obvious partners. • What did you learn about the strengths and supports that were available to help facilitate these activities?That resources were abundant in our community once one learned to look for them. • How successful would you say that this type of program was in educating individuals about healthy marriage in general?This was very successful. 8 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Attachment # 7 Allowable Activity Area 7 Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 7 Allowable Activity Area 7: Marriage mentoring programs, which use married couples as role models and mentors at-risk communities If your program aimed to promote healthy marriage through Allowable Activity 7, please provide the following information A. Marriage Mentoring Program Goals: • List specific goals, objectives, or intended outcomes of your marriage mentoring program. BHM designed a program called "Next Step Coaching"in which any couple, could access. In this program, a couple in crises was coached through the difficult conversations by a mentoring couple. The objective was to give more support to these couples in a one on one setting. • Did the goals of this program change from the start of the award period? If so, why were they changed and what specific changes were made?The goals for this program remained constant throughout the award period. Process Goals: • Who did you intend to reach through your marriage mentoring program? Describe the population your marriage mentoring activities were aimed toward. Couples who have self identified as wanting/needing more assistance in practicing/performing the skills taught in the Relationship Seminars • List the number of individuals/couples you expected to reach through your marriage mentoring program. BHM set out to serve 360 couples in this allowable activity area. • How did you recruit program participants? Participants were recruited via television, radio, newspaper, public events and word of mouth. Incentives were given in the first two years but were stopped early in year three. • How often did you plan on providing mentoring activities to help reduce divorce? (Example: Group discussion once per month, workshops held semi-annually)As soon as a couple identified themselves as wanting more intensive help an assessment was scheduled. These were done 2-5 times a week. If the couple passed the assessment (i.e. did not have any current drug, alcohol, or domestic violence issues), they were then set up for an inventory and matched up with their coaching couple. The follow up sessions were scheduled between the coaches and the couple. Impact Goals: • Describe the overall impact your marriage mentoring program planned to have on organizations, individuals, and/or the community in terms of healthy marriage. (Example: Increase awareness of healthy communication skills) The overall impact intended was to assist couples in crisis find resolution to their conflicts and strengthen their relationships. B. Marriage Mentoring Program Implementation: Provide the following in-depth information regarding your program's marriage mentoring activities: 2 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 7 Description of activities: Beginning with an intake to determine eligibility, the specific needs of couples are identified. They are then assigned a mentor who assists them in signing up for appropriate services or referrals (i.e. marriage enrichment weekends, financial management education, conflict resolution coaching, employment services, health care, etc.). The main goal is to have couples participate in 8 hours of education that is separate from the education model with a different curriculum. The Prepare-Enrich inventories are also conducted as appropriate with anyone interested in premarital or marriage education/enhancement. The Mentoring Program is evaluated with a pre- test (MSI-R) and post- test surveys (MSI-R, mini satisfaction surveys, S-Survey). The following additional Education and Services are being offered in the Mentoring Model: • 8 hours 'The Marriage Garden' Curriculum • 8 hours PREP Marriage Seminar • +10 hours PREPARE/ENRICH (inventory (1 hour) + 6 follow up sessions of each ±1 1/2 hours) • Financial Management: No set curriculum, up to 4 hours per couple • Conflict Resolution: PREP, up to 4 hours per couple • Enrichment Weekend: PREP curriculum will be taught during weekend • Family Mentors: Couple is assigned a mentor who assists them in overcoming barriers in their relationship and provides them with referrals to services attuned with the program. • Employment Services - offered continuously on an as needed basis. Delivery of the Prepare/Enrich program (relationship inventories). Participants in the Building Healthy Marriages program could participate in the Prepare/Enrich inventory, which indicated traits, expectations, and issues that couples may have wanted to address. The inventories included the opportunity for couples to discuss the results in as many as six follow up sessions with educators who have been trained and certified by Life Innovations®. Program Staffing: • Provide information on staff that helped implement your program's marriage mentoring activities during the final year of funding. You may include key staff and volunteers who were critical to the implementation of the program. Also indicate the time period in which they contributed to the program. (See table below. Add additional lines if needed) of time Time period Staff Name Official Job Title/Position devoted to involved this activity Ann Program Manager 100°/0 /0 Mary Jo Family Support Coordinator 100% Vasquez Candi De 100% Community/Family Liaison La Cruz Kim Community/Family Liaison 100% Ketchum 3 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 7 Education Managers Craig (contracted via Community 100% Conrad Mediation Project) Education Manager (contracted Alison Conrad via Community Mediation 100% Project) Spanish Education Coordinator Juvenal (contracted via Community 50% Cervantes Mediation Project) • List key staff positions that experienced turnover during the 5-year funding period. Provide reasons for turnover (if applicable). Curriculum Description: Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment The Prepare/Enrich curriculum was originally developed in the late 1970s to assist couples seeking premarital couple enrichment (Olson & Olson-Sigg, 1999). The original curriculum was intended to facilitate a discussion between partners regarding relevant issues for married couples, such as conflict resolution, finances, communication, and goals of the couple and family. Prepare/Enrich began with the couple taking an assessment instrument to identify areas of weakness and strengths (www.prepare- enrich.com). Following the assessment, the partners met with a counselor for four to eight feedback sessions to discuss their areas of potential growth and their strengths as individuals and couples (www.prepare-enrich.com). Since its creation, the Prepare/Enrich curriculum has been revised three times (1982, 1986, and 1996). The current "Version 2000" has demonstrated strong reliability, with internal reliability coefficients for the scales of the instruments ranging from .73 to .90 (Olson & Olson-Sigg, 1999; Bowling et al., 2005). The Prepare/Enrich curriculum has demonstrated predictive validity in accurately forecasting couples who will be satisfied with their marriages 3 years after initiation of the program (Larsen & Olson, 1989). Discriminate validity has also been established by the curriculum. A study by Fowers and Olson (1989) demonstrated that Prepare/Enrich accurately discriminated between happily and unhappily married couples. There were six goals in the Prepare/Enrich Program: 1. "To explore Relationship Strengths and Growth Areas 2. To learn Assertiveness and Active Listening Skills 3. To learn how to resolve conflict using the Ten Step Model 4. To help couples discuss their Families-of-Origin 5. To help couples with financial planning and budgeting 6. To focus on personal, couple, and family goals (See http://www.prepare-enrich.com/traininci.cfm?id=33#What is PE) Partnerships: • Building Healthy Marriages was a collaborative effort between Weld County Department of Human Services (the grant recipient), United Way of Weld County (marketing and community outreach) and Community Mediation Project (managing the educational piece). 4 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 7 Outputs: In the chart below, please list activities you implemented related to marriage mentoring, the number of individuals your program served through each activity during each budget period, and the total number of individuals served through each activity during the entire duration of the grant. (See examples in table below) Number Number Number Number Number served in served in served in served in served in FY 2007' FY 2008' FY 2009' FY 2010' FY 2011' Number Allowable Activity (Sept.30, (Sept. 30, (Sept 30, (Sept.30, (Sept. 30, served since Activity Area 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- award date"' Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept.29, Sept. 29, 2007) 2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) Example 1: Mentoring 29 7(Marriage program for Couples 33 couples 85 couples 72 couples 82 couples 301 couples Mentorin. couples 'Number served—Identify the number of people/communities you served during this budget period. "Number served since award date—Identify the number of people you served during the entire duration of the grant. C. Strengths: The primary factor that supported the mentoring factor was the trust earned by the coaches that made it safe for the participants to do the work that needed to be done. That being said, the secondary strength was the unique format of the program. The couples talked to each other using the techniques taught them in the public seminars rather than talking to a counselor. However, the mentors were able to give different perspectives as they too were married couples having faced many of the same hardships. D. Challenges/barriers: • List challenges that you encountered in implementing your program's marriage mentoring activities. Recruiting couples for our "Next Step Coaching" program has been challenging since we changed the format of our program in year 2. One reason is the increased popularity of our one day 8 hour seminars. We do a brief presentation at the end of the seminar about our mentoring program and send around a signup sheet for participants who would be interested in getting more information. However, most people are emotionally and physically exhausted at that point so they are unable to process the information given. To address this we do send out cards about a week later with similar information on it. This brings up another issue of not having a stronger relationship with the couples in the one day seminar that we do in the 4 nights of program. When we have a stronger relationship with the couple they will sign up for the intensive coaching more readily. • Were you able to overcome or adapt to these challenges? Explain why or why not. E. Contextual Events: Discuss contextual events or community changes influencing the success or challenges related to implementing your program's marriage mentoring activities • Contextual events or community changes influencing the success or challenges related to your program's marriage enhancement activities. One community change that influenced the success of our program was the embracing of the idea of the benefits of collaboration between government, non-profit, and faith-based programs. That together, more people can be served in a holistic and sustainable manner than by ourselves. • Describe how the community/program participants reacted to your marriage enhancement program. Were they supportive or unsupportive? Were there any concerns? Was there any resistance or reluctance to participate?Weld County 5 Healthy Marriage Attachment- Allowable Activity 7 Community was very supportive to strengthening families by teaching relationship skills. F. Lessons learned: • What did you learn about how to deal with challenges regarding these activities? We learned that collaboration isn't always about money; it's about sharing whatever resources you may have. Also when the focus is shifted from the program and its own accolades to the people for which it is designed to serve, one becomes more receptive to the idea of collaborating with other groups that may not have been considered as obvious partners. • What did you learn about the strengths and supports that were available to help facilitate these activities?That resources were abundant in our community once one learned to look for them. • How successful would you say that this type of program was in educating individuals about healthy marriage in general?This was very successful. 6 C o .� (n Ca D (a as a) (a Sc c a) a) N ca• .w o o °L N >., (1) MCD U C +J 4# (a c =.....45 o <4 a) O N (a ca cn '. c U u- a) 2 c E i ` COt_ 0 ° L av, < ° 4°' < E o = 5 E -0 L° arc Q- c c tY o a — a) c co o F c (3 Cl)te 2 4' • as -22 c oo > (D o '5 : a) is : v c 0 c 4- E w m - > ti '5 E Q 0 a) c ca O (a W ( c u) o W a LE 03 a) 0 c - Ep z c o co Eo 72 a) c I a) a) E as (a it E U i� U -E . O -0 (cam U co 1 I I I c) co ca V cr5— 73 IV 0- (15 1l w � ,EEcacia) LL M V n, s C �= ,thy N v C O O LL ti E It (a O ' (� r E • as o co-0 D -,, L• a O E O c O ra W u? ° m Y "� U L Q) I. _ a) - fat) c CL LLI • O :,_ K > < N (�. a) C tY .72 ('4 `S O ' ' Z a) 0 C f 7. C S2 a) tJ O C W h Q_ c T S — (a (a LLI CZ • G , W . O U) Ici Y Cl) a.)O1 a) Cl) a) O co a N C O) 'C C Y O (a (a a) ca O co .2 (a O ca _Co U E 'a a) a) 0 C L f/) a) <Y (a ` 'c Q E t4 (Cl a a) >, Cl m ca O .E E t 0) a 2 Y u._ ` O d O O N E 72 C �' .«- C O z, co u) a) O ca 0 O O .' C o) N c ca a) N CO V a) c 0) tY (n tl .cB D c o 'a L u a) o (a L1.1 it Cl) 'E E iz o c J) f _o tY ca > c c• c`a 0) ° s . 0_ 2 3 E 0 —¢' 0- 8 Q WELD COUNTY GOVERNMENT Attachment # 8 Domestic Violence Protocol Ann Bruce 12/1/2011 [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.Type the abstract of the document here.The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] Weld County Building Healthy Marriage Project: Domestic Violence Protocol Scope and Purpose of Protocol: This protocol is designed to ensure that domestic violence issues for couples who receive services from Weld County Building Healthy Marriage Project (BHM) are safely, routinely, and consistently identified. BHM Project staff will make every effort to ensure that domestic violence issues are appropriately addressed including, but not limited to, screening and referrals to other community resources. Definition of Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior used to control, coerce, intimidate, threaten, manipulate, and/or exert power over a current or past partner. Domestic violence may be physical, emotional, sexual, and economic. Screening for Domestic Violence: A key aspect of this successful marriage education program is the safety of its participants. The creators of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) curriculum emphasize that it is not designed as treatment for domestic violence. To insure that individuals are not further victimized through involvement or attempted involvement with this project, strategies include: • All BHM Project potential participants will be subjected to a formalized intake and assessment procedure, including a screening for domestic violence. This intake and screening procedure will be completed by trained staff. This process ensures that all potential participants are receiving the same screening procedure upon intake. CHSA will work with CDHS, and local domestic violence resource agencies to receive proper training on domestic violence issues and screening techniques and will seek further assistance as needed. • Intake meeting will include completion of a simply-written consent form that: o emphasizes the voluntary nature of project activities o is presented verbally and in writing o is available in English and Spanish ( The informed consent is signed at the first class, or the first meeting the family has with their advocate. We do not have them sign the informed consent until after they have completed the assessment as well as been staffed with my by the assessment technicians.) • BHM Project staff will conduct effective screening and assessment for domestic violence, in which domestic violence experts were involved in its design, in a consistent and diligent manner, assuring that both screening and assessment are implemented by staff that have been well trained. • Portions of the assessment is done individually, so that each person in a relationship has the opportunity to express themselves without direct input from the other person • Each assessment uses the same questions, so an abuser is not alerted by variations (The assessment has the same questions unless she discloses that there is domestic violence in the relationship, then we will move into our questions about her personal safety. This is when the domestic violence protocol is done only on the female for the following reasons; the assessment is done separately so not to alert the abuser if there is a discloser of domestic violence occurring in the relationship, as well as if there is domestic violence occurring in the relationship and he knows we are asking him the same questions, when it comes to safety then, he will be alerted to that and it will not be safe for her at that point. I do not at all wish to minimize the fad that men are also victims of intimate partner violence, however statistically we know that females are 84% of spousal abuse victims and 86% of abuse victims in dating realtionships. Because of this we do only the female side of the protocol. We have had men disclose that they are in an abusive relationship and as such we have given them the same level of support that we have women that have disclosed. I have the sources for these statistics; I also consulted with a Woman's Place when I first started as well as talking with the folks in Ok. I used their assessments as well as their protocols. I just added a few things to it. I also contacted the National Domestic Violence Coalition to get their thoughts as well. • Staff will receive training on domestic abuse annually 4/27/07 • Recruitment coordination partners have received similar information to assist them in their roles. • BHM Project staff recognizes the diversity of our State and the importance of providing culturally appropriate approaches to supporting healthy marriages, and will respect unique cultural identities, experiences, and circumstances of individuals, couples, and families. ( received training on 1/29/07, 1/29/07 • Marriage education curriculum covers appropriate personal boundaries ( This is a Craig question), however the family services team received training on boundaries from Sharon on 2/23/07 • Intake and assessment sites include handouts on domestic violence, which will be displayed with other materials. (we have those set up here, not sure about other programs; UW, CMP, UNC) • Collaborative efforts have been initiated with Women's Place, an agency that focuses on domestic violence issues. ( They are our referral for any domestic violence services they we need) Responding to Disclosures of Abuse: Applicant couples may not participate in the BHM Project due to one of the following circumstances: • A current order of protection against the participant exists, • A pending criminal court case related to domestic violence exits, • There is a pending court case related to child custody where domestic violence is alleged, • Fear is an element of the participant's current relationship • Indicators of domestic violence are present. • If the offender has just started attending a court ordered domestic violence class. (child protection referrals are on a one on one bases, it depend on the case.) Attachment #9 Stories of Impact—Provide any significant stories or insights during this reporting period concerning the impact of your program to provide Healthy Marriage education services. Participants in the Project have consistently provided positive reports about the impact the activities and service providers have made on their lives. On a satisfaction survey administered at the end of Marriage Seminars, participants rated the Project on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the highest rating. Thirty-five couples rated the activities at a 10; 4 at a 9; 3 rated the activities at an 8; 2 at a 7 and 1 at a 5. Testimony from participants was positive. "I just want to say thank you! We have learned so much and we are so much closer. Almost like when we were first married. Our communication is much better. We are climbing out of our daily routine and realize how important it is to have time together as a couple. Thank you so much and please continue the work you are doing. You are truly saving marriages one at a time." PC —wife. "I went in thinking I was going to do things because that's what my wife wanted and the class really changed my whole life. I think couples as a whole can benefit from learning how to talk to one another. I think that's why couples don't last is they don't know haw to address each other's wants and needs." Husband. Recruitment is the first part of a successful program. The Building Healthy Marriage Project Coordinator began each recruitment session by emphasizing the importance of the program to the children of the family. He indicates that not only do Mom and Dad strengthen their relationship, but the kids begin to view the family differently making the family unit much more successful. One father even stated how proud he was that his children, especially his sons, were witness to his participation in this program. The most significant finding with recruitment was the best practices to recruit the male participants. The Marriage Project Coordinator brought to the position the unique perspective of a male that when they enter programs such as this; they come thinking that they will be blamed for any problems with the relationship. However, as the men found that the program was not about therapy, blaming or embarrassing, but discovering and building on strengths, they got excited. They got so excited that they started inviting their friends, workmates, and family members. Word of mouth has therefore become a major marketing and motivational factor for the men. Once recruited, the next step in a successful project is retention and that was achieved by building a sense of community in which couples feel that they are respected for who they are and engaged as in an accepting, interactive learning environment. Quite often the participants list the attention and support of the family advocates as well as the actual curriculum contents as strengths of the program. An email recently received from a participant stated "I just wanted to tell you how much my husband and I enjoyed Session One of the seminar last night. Even after being married 25 years, we found really good information in the materials and presentation." Another couple came to BHM married for 46 years, but had been separated for the past 6 months and seriously talking about divorce. However, after completing the marriage education seminar and weekend enrichment they commented on the fact that they were treated with such respect honored for their experiences and were supported in their efforts to be a strong couple again. Because of their experience with BHM they have decided to move back and have started planning a second life together. There has been an unexpected but positive outcome noted in year one. Due to the improved communication skills learned at the Marriage Education Seminars, some of the women have been able to express to their husbands how important going to college was to them. At this point we have had several women enroll in the local community college. Attachment #10 4/16/08 Javier and Elizabeth We created our Healthy Marriage: Thanks to the Building Healthy Marriages program that we found in our community, we now look at the life of our marriage very differently. Before we entered this program, we thought that the life and routine of our marriage was normal and that what we had done before to better it was the best that we could do. In earlier years we each tried changing and bettering some things for the health of our marriage; thinking that a hard and unsettled marriage was not healthy for either one of us and it wouldn't help us accomplish the goals and wishes that we had when we got married. Before this program, our marriage was repetitive and a routine, for example, we live each day guarding our feelings and emotions so that we wouldn't argue with our spouse. We would quiet our loving words for each other because we would hurt each other without noticing it. We left the problems under the table without resolution so that we wouldn't get into an argument with bad consequences. Luckily we found Building Healthy Marriages; here we learned to see our marriage as a valuable diamond that only needed to be polished so that it could shine more and more. This program gave us the necessary tools to polish it. We learned that the most essential and indispensible thing in a marriage is Communication. Here is where we learned how to communicate with each other and how to wake up the dreams and goals that we forged at the beginning of our marriage. We also learned how to understand ourselves, recognize our virtues and defects. We learned how to work so that our defects are not so harsh and wont damage our relationship. We were taught how to trust and befriend each other. The result of this is valuing what God has given us as a couple. Now I can say that my marriage is healthy and by being this way we will be able to form a family full of quality and virtues. We can finally say "We are winners, we accomplished our goal". Attachment #11 Impact Story year 3 When I think of the saying; "You never forget your first love" I never thought that I would in fact meet a couple who were just beginning that journey. Let me introduce you to Jessica and Matt who enrolled in the Building Healthy Marriages Program in hopes of making their relationship stronger, especially considering that they were also expecting their first child. I am sure you may be thinking; "yeah, so young expectant couples prepare everyday for their child. But are they 14 years old! Juan the second child of three children; was born into the world of gangs, drugs, and violence. This was and in many ways still remains his reality. He fights to take on his new role as an expectant father and to also be a supportive boyfriend to his girlfriend against his ties to the only family he has ever known, his gang. Although Jessica was not witness to gang violence or drug and alcohol abuse she has had a difficult life as a teenager. She was a victim of a violent crime that changed her young life; this caused her to make some unhealthy choices and subsequently caused some life changing events to happen. This is what brought this young couple to the BHM program. They were referred by her probation officer and were also encouraged to participate in the Building a Family program. Prior to enrolling in the program they were participating in parenting classes and were also involved in birthing classes through the Health Department. Matt and Jessica were very committed to learning new ways of communicating, resolving conflict and sharing expectations with one another. They enrolled and successfully completed a relationship seminar; they were then placed in the one to one coaching through the relationship inventories. They have met with the Community/Family Liaison weekly and have also been very proactive in utilizing the skills learned to communicate in a more effective way. They are very well connected to support services in the community that their Liaison has referred them to. Matt and Jessica have shown a deep commitment, although difficult at times to the success of not only their relationship, but an even greater commitment to the emotional well being of the child they are expecting. They have expressed much appreciation to the BHM program and feel very strongly that had they not been involved in the program they would still be struggling with the way in which they communicate as a couple, and know that they are well on their way to becoming the kind of parents that will give their child the most successful start in life. Attachment #12 TESTIMONY Healthy Marriage, Stronger Family Thanks to the Building Healthy Marriages relationship seminar in our community, we now view our marital life in a much different way. Before participating in this workshop we believed the current state of our relationship, and the mundane nature of our marriage, was optimal. We thought the work we had done before to strengthen our relationship was sufficient. In our first years of marriage we made an effort to change in order to have a healthier marriage. We made changes because we thought that a challenging and unstable marriage was not the best and neither would it help us reach our goals and our desires we had when we got married. Prior to our participation in the Building Healthy Marriages seminar our marital relationship was a routine that included living each day protecting our feelings and our emotions so we would not fight with each other. We used tender words so we would not hurt each other. We buried our problems and we did not resolve them; we avoided arguing because we did not want to face unpleasant consequences. Fortunately, the Building Healthy Marriages workshop helped us to see that our marriage was like a diamond in the rough that needed to be polished so that it could shine brighter and brighter. We learned that the most essential and indispensable thing in our marriage was a healthy communication. It was then that we learned how to effectively communicate with each other and how to pursue the dreams and the goals we had when we first got married. Additionally, we learned how to understand each other and how to recognize our strengths and our weaknesses and how to keep our weaknesses from negatively impacting our relationship. We were taught how to trust in each other and how to strengthen our friendship. Consequently we've learned to appreciate the wonderful gift that we are to each other. We are convinced our marriage is much healthier, and therefore, we have the foundation for a stronger family. We can finally say that we are conquerors, that we have reached our goal: acquiring the tools and the skill-set to build a healthy marriage and a strong family. Javier and Elizabeth, Participants Building Healthy Marriages relationship workshop 2 Attachment #13 (Male) Divorced after the training. This male interview participant attended with his now ex-wife, at the suggestion of his adult daughter. Throughout the interview he discussed how much he learned personally during BHM about his own style of communication and interpersonal skills, and how this knowledge affected his understanding of his current relationship, his ability to address its problems, although eventually he left the relationship. For example, he stated : "I learned that when a problem comes up, I have to deal with it. I can't just stuff it. I have got to confront the person no matter how much it hurts. I hate confrontation. I would rather run than face it but that's not always life. And so that part of what I find useful from the program." He later stated that he was married for thirty years to someone he did not want to be with. "BHM was probably the first step in helping me realize that I had a marriage that was going nowhere and wouldn't be able to recover... I am sorry that it sounds mean and harsh, but it really forced me to look at my ex-wife in a different light. It began the process of knowing how much more abuse I am going to take." Conflict resolution skills were a key component to his learning. He stated that he learned: "how to fight and why it's important to stand your ground. Okay, I don't mean when I say stand your ground that my way is right and that I have got to win and I'm going to hold on until you give in. If there is a disagreement, you stand there or sit there until, you stay actively involved with the other person until a common line can be reached. Or and I know this is not always the way people look at things but the seminar, if you cannot come to an agreement on something and temperatures are starting to flare, or it is getting out of control, take a break. Agree to shelf it for a while. Set a time to continue it later so that it doesn't get swept away. A definite time so that you don't have a chance to just blow it off and let it go." He also discussed how the program helped him, and continues to be of benefit in his current marriage: "the lady that I married and I had many in-depth conversations before committing to marriage and I'm, I don't know that I use the techniques from the seminar...but I think I took the spirit with me. If the answer to the question wasn't quite what I expected, or didn't answer the questions fully I was willing to ask again, and maybe phrase it differently. Usually phrase it differently, until I got the answer. Even if I didn't like the answer. But I would ask until I finally got what was a full answer. I wouldn't give up." This participants experience with BHM was very personal and he expressed gratitude as exemplified by the following statements: "I have one comment I would like to make. This program is worth fighting for. It is really good. The information is really, really good! It needs to be pushed, shoved,jammed, up the hill, Whatever it takes. It needs to grow and keep going. It is good stuff that is not being taught to people anymore. Maybe it never was; but it is available now nd needs to be spread wider because it is so good. I don't like divorce and I wish it had not happened to me. I think this will save a lot of marriages. So that's my vote for it." GrantSolutions cw AZALnidtki O1AonnImo. l/. //3/420'a Page 1 of 1 11: 1,trinrl I cantsoi0000s-3.2001/09/2012 I Los 0u CD GrantSolutions.gov '----- -"" apmenrameeserger Account Management w Funding Opportunity Applications Grants w Reports w Help/Support Amendment Status Confirmation Grants has marked the following application as submitted.... 'Please submit signed copies of forms if you have been instructed by your program or grant office. ACF/OFA-Family Assistance Discretionary Grant Office 370 LEnfant Promenade,S.W District of Columbia,DC 20447 Applicant: Weld County Grant Number: 90F E0134 Project Title: Healthy Marriage Demonstration,Priority Area 2 Acton: Grant Closeout Request Submitted Date: 01/31/2012 04:32 PM Eastern Time Application Details Items Item Attachments Date Type Expected Date Received SF-425 Upload SF425 Upload N/A 01/31/2012 Final Project Report Final Report Upload N/A 01/31/2012 Property Inventory Statement- Upload Property Inventory Statement Upload N/A 01/31/2012 Application Control Checklist 1 GrantSolueons User Support (202)401-5282 or(866)577-0771 I hei00orentsoluiions 00v P/C-00 Contact Us I Web Accessibility I Privacy and Seventy Notice I Freedom of InfonnasonAgt I Disclaimers D/a—v 153 https://www.grantsolutions.gov/gs/servlet/eacc.post.EACCSubmissionConfirmServlet 1/31/2012 GrantSolutions //Li O / Page 1 of 1 tollademxMrl Grantsolutions-3.2o 01/09/2012 I Inv Out Q GrantSolutions.gov Account Management v Funding Opportunity Applications Grants v Reports v Help/Support Amendment Status Confirmation Grants has marked the following application as submitted.... 'Please submit signed copies of forms If you have been instructed by your program or grant office. ACF/OFA-Family Assistance Discretionary Grant Office 370 LEnfant Promenade,S.W District of Columbia,DC 20447 Applicant: Weld County Grant Number: 90FE0134 Project Title: Healthy Marriage Demonstration,Priority Area 2 Action. Grant Closeout Request Submitted Date: 01/20/2012 11:31 AM Eastern Time Application Details Items Item Attachments Type Date Date Received Expected SF-425 Upload SF425 Mail-in 01/27/2012 Not Received Final Project Report SF425 Mail-in 01/27/2012 Not Received Final Grant Report Upload N/A 01/20/2012 Cover Letter Mail-in 01/27/2012 Not Received Property Inventory Statement- Upload Properly Inventory Statement Mail-in 01/27/2012 Not Received 1 Application Control Checklist GrantSolutions User Support 1(202)401-5282 or(888)577-0771 I gelocoranteolutons.eev Contact Us I W k Acre idoi I Privacy and Security Notice I Freedom of Information Pa I Disclaimers https://www.grantsolutions.gov/gs/servlet/eacc.post.EACCSubmissionConfirmServlet 1/20/2012 Hello