The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112921 RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT #10 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 Semi-Annual Progress Report#10 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 September 30, 2010, and ending September 29, 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 Semi-Annual Progress Report #10 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 7th day of November, A.D., 2011, nunc pro tunc September 30, 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WE,LD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: :) m -- K 7-Barbara irkmeyer, hair Weld County Clerk to the Board /� • E, can P. Conway, Pro-Tem BY: c.)g Deputy rk to the Boa apt • �� !� b?= illi F.`Garcia APPROVED AS TO FORM: , t„,j David E. Long 7��/ /tip) l Coun ytAttorney l� c�r�� At---7W1 Dougla,Rademach r Date of signature: l i- I l- I I .tma.:1ed Ain /St-uli 2011-2921 //- 7-/l //-/7-1/ HR0082 MEMORANDUM 1861 - 2011 DATE: November 3, 2011 TO: Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair, Board of County Commissioners WELD�COUNTY 1 �J FR: Judy A. Griego, Director, Huma,erOde`s� (L LI t C RE: Weld County Department of Human Services' Building Healthy Marriages Semi-Annual Report#10, Corresponding SF425, and UNC Evaluation Report for Year 5 Enclosed for Board approval is the Department's Building Healthy Marriages Semi-Annual Report#10, corresponding SF425, and UNC Evaluation Report for year 5. This Semi-Annual Report was reviewed under the Board's Pass-Around Memorandum dated November 1, 2011, and approved for placement on the Board's Agenda. Building Healthy Marriages closes out its fifth and final year with the attached report. In this time period we served the following number of couples and individuals per the allowable activity areas: Service Delivery for the Budget Period and Award Date Allowable Unit Number of Participants (Units) Number'of Participants Activity Served This Budget Period (Units) Served Since Award (AA) (9/30/2010-9/29/2011) Date (9/30/2006) Target # Served #To Date Served #3 Couples 25 13 couples 55 couples #4 Couples/ 500 86 couples 322 couples Individuals 190 individuals 1022 individuals #5 Couples/ 500 215 couples 782 couples Individuals 20 individuals 281 individuals 269 couples #7 Couples 100 82 couples 1 individual Total 396 couples 1428 couples served 210 individuals 1304 individuals 2011-2921 Total cost of the program for year 5 was $ 1,011,208.00 and we served a total of 1002 individuals at a cost of$1,009.19 per person. This does not include those individuals that may have been helped at the community events and by the information given by the radio interviews. If you have questions, please give me a call at extension 6510. PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR Cover Page Page of 1 Pages 1.Federal Agency and Organization Element to 2. Federal Grant or Other Identifying 3a. DUNS Number Which Report is Submitted Number Assigned by Federal Agency 075757955 3b. EIN Dept. of Health and Human Services 90FE0134/05 1-846000813-A1 Office of Family Assistance 4. Recipient Organization (Name and complete address including zip code) 5. Recipient Identifying Number or Account Number Weld County Department of Human Services 3156 North 11th Avenue 90FE0134 Greeley, CO 80631 Barbara Kirkmeyer,Weld County Commissioner 6. Project/Grant Period 7. Reporting Period End Date 8. Final Report? El Yes x No Start Date: (Month,Day, Year) End Date: (Month, Day, Year) (Month, Day, Year) 9. Report Frequency ❑ annual x semi-annual 09/30/2006 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 O quarterly O other (If other, describe: 10. Performance Narrative (attach performance narrative as instructed by the awarding Federal Agency) Leave Blank and complete PPR-B Program Indicators and PPR-D Activity Results 11. Other Attachments (attach other documents as needed or as instructed by the awarding Federal Agency) 12. Certification: I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this report is correct and complete for performance of activities for the purposes set forth in the award documents. 12a. Typed or Printed Name and Title of Authorized Certifying Official 12c. Telephone (area code, number and Barbara Kirkmeyer extension) Chair,Weld County Board of Commissioners Phone#(970)336-7204 12d. Email Address JJ bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us 12e. Date Report Submitted (Month, Day, Y2b. Sign re of Authorized Certifying Offcial Year) October 30th,2011 SOU 0 7 2011 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR Cover Page 13 Agency use only ig It �' 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description #of people reached Northern Colorado April 9, 2011 5,400 Children's Festival Johnstown-Milliken April 30, 2011 1,200 Children's Festival Cinco de Mayo Grande May 7, 2011 1,500 Fiesta Greeley Neighborhood July 8, 2011 300 1 Nights Greeley Neighborhood July 22, 2011 500 Nights Greeley Neighborhood August 5, 2011 500 Nights Greeley Neighborhood August 12, 500 Nights 2011 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number.0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description #of people reached Mass Media Animation": 215,750 TV—Comcast— Oct. 2010 - Greeley/N.E. CO July 2011 Radio— KFKA Standard 55,350 Campaign: Feb. —Jul. 2011 Radio-KGRE (Spanish- Standard No data collected speaking) La Familia Campaign: Feb. (Spanish-speaking) Jul. 2011 1 Newspaper—Greeley 27 total 135,000 Tribune instances May - July 2011 Newspaper—Windsor Now 8 total 8,000 instances May - July 2011 Billboards throughout Weld 5 posters April 2,050,000 County - August Online— Facebook Jul. 19-31, 110,873 2011 1 Community Events April 9—Aug 9,900 12 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description #of people reachgd An ongoing challenge has been finding effective media to reach our Hispanic population. We have ❑ Complete attempted many different venues, 1 Program Challenges x Ongoing radio, tv, community events, phone ❑ Incomplete calls, that have been somewhat effective but not to the extent as the number of referrals as our English speaking community. The referral sources for the BHM participants include Twenty-four percent of the participants were Evaluation referred by radio advertisement (n 1 On going = 87), followed by referrals from the faith based community (n= 52; 14.1%) and friends and family (n= 39; 10.6%). 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators A, Allowable Activity Activity of Status, Explanation (AA) Accomplishment Description #of people reached Multiple 8 hour seminars have been held that utilized LoveNotes and PREP. These seminars were held at Waypoints Church, Zoey's Coffee Shop, Trinity Plaza, Rec. Centers throughout Weld County, and in spaces provided by the school districts. These couples were encouraged to complete a needs Implementation assessment to identify the issues 3 Activities and barriers faced by these young families. Based on the needs assessment a Family Liaison worked with the couple to access such services as TANF, YFC Teen Pregnancy Program, prenatal care, financial management, Fatherhood programs, and the BHM token store where they were able to receive such items as car seats, formula and diapers. The one challenge we have experienced in this area remains getting the dad involved and ❑ Complete keeping him there. We are X Ongoing fortunate to have several ❑ Incomplete Fatherhood programs in which we can refer the dad's to and this is 3 Program Challenges 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. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation gyp, (AA) Accomplishment 3 s : Description #of people reached See- Attachment #1:Results from Public"Love Notes" 3 Student/Teen Relationship Evaluation Education Seminars Multiple 8 hour seminars have been conducted using the following curriculums: Within My Reach, and PREP. These seminars were held throughout Weld County in Faith- based as well as Community based agencies (Waypoints Church, Rec. Centers, Christ Community Church, Trinity Plaza, Zoey's Coffee Shop, and the BHM Conference room) Our Education Management Partner (Community Mediation Project— CMP) has come along side several Implementation school districts and University of 4 Activities Northern Colorado professors to act as guest speakers in their life science programs. They have also collaborated with the Health Dept., Salude Family Clinic, Fatherhood Initiative, and North Range Behavioral Health to facilitate a Young People's Conference in which youth were introduced to such lessons on mental health hygiene and relationship skills, positive masculine and feminine socialization skills and community resources that specifically serve teens. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description #of people reached We are not experiencing any program challenges at this time in this AA 4 Program Challenges ❑ Complete ❑ Ongoing ❑ Incomplete See - Attachment #2:Results Evaluation from Public"Within My Reach" 4 Singles Relationship Seminars (WMR) Multiple 8 hour seminars have been conducted using the following curriculums: Within Our Reach, and PREP. These seminars were held Implementation throughout Weld County in Faith- 5 Activities based as well as Community based agencies(Waypoints Church, Rec. Centers, Christ Community Church, Trinity Plaza, Zoey's Coffee Shop, and the BHM Conference room) As mentioned earlier we are struggling to find a marketing media that will effectively reach our D Complete Hispanic community. This is 5 X Ongoing demonstrated in our logistical ❑ Incomplete information that shows only 21% of Program Challengesour participants are Hispanic. Per the recent census, the Hispanic community makes up approximately 35 —40% of the population. We have attempted many different techniques with varying success. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status "' :Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description # of people reached See - Attachment#3:Results Evaluation Public PREP Marriage 5 Relationship Education Seminars (Mini KSS) Couples who have self identified as wanting/needing more assistance in practicing/performing the skills taught in the Relationship Seminars may call to enroll in our Next Step Coaching. The first step is to assess the couple for emotional and physical needs. They are also screened for current domestic violence and drug addiction at this time. If either is detected, the couple is given referrals to Implementation appropriate treatment programs 7 Activities and invited back after they complete that program. If there are no factors that would disqualify them; then they complete a Marriage Satisfaction Inventory that will indicate the couples' relationship strengths and weaknesses and then assigned a mentoring couple who will coach them on communication skills to deal with those weaknesses and any other issues they may be facing. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status n Irxplanation (AAj Accomplishment Description #of people reached 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 7 information. However, most people ❑ Complete are emotionally and physically Program Challenges X Ongoing exhausted at that point so they are ❑ Incomplete 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. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Exptatatlon .. (AA) Accomplishment * , Description #of people reached .Avr1. ;>. See —Attachment#4: Results MSI Pre-Test completed in year 5. The Pre-test was not administered Evaluation in the last 6 months of the grant 7 since there would be no post-test. Also, the evaluation team had already found saturation of data in the previous MSI-Rs. Impact Story (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's 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: 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation (M) Accomplishment Description #of people reached "the lady that I married and I had many in-depth conversations before committing to marriage and I Impact story continued: don't know that I use the techniques from the seminar...but I think I took the spirit with me. If the answer tc 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." *,## Compliances and Assurances ti7 }e , r'5��.4 x• � :., Ott . Y Domestic Violence On Going This protocol continues to be a See attachment #5 living breathing document that is reviewed annually by our local domestic violence program experts to ensure that all staff receive annual training and the protocol is relevant and currant. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators . Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation_ (AA) Accomplishment Description #of people reached Voluntary Participation On Going This protocol is complete and in The means that our program ensures that use. activities are voluntary begin with the potential participant sign in at the seminar that includes their signature on a simply written consent form and outline of the participants' rights that: • Emphasizes the voluntary nature of project activities. • Is presented verbally and in writing. • Is available in English and in Spanish. The emphasis on the project activities being voluntary is echoed throughout the literature and verbal presentations given on behalf of BHM. 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators Page 1 of 13 Pages 1.Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by End Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency 075757955 (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 09FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Program Indicators Allowable Activity Activity of Status Explanation -, (AA) Accomplishment Description #of people reached Faith-Based Regulations On Going This protocol is complete and in use 1) Training a) Annual training will occur to review the Federal Guidelines for partnering with the Federal Government. b) Annually, the lead agency and each partner will sign a document stating that they have read and understood the guidelines. (1) The lead agency and its partners will have a copy of the most current version of the Federal guidelines in their possession. It will be the responsibility of the Grant Program Manager to ensure all updates are given to the lead agency and the partners with amended documentation stating that they have read and understood the updated regulations. c) Annually, the marriage educators and facilitators will sign a document stating that they have read, understood and will comply with the guidelines. (1) These guidelines will be reviewed with the Educators and Facilitators on an annual basis. (2) The CMP will maintain the most recent version of the Federal Guidelines and make them accessible to the Educators and Facilitators 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Performance Progress Report Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-B Program Indicators 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 Attachment #1: Results from Public "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars Results from Public "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New Curriculum, Added in Year 4) From October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011, 10 teens participated in two Love Notes Seminars. They completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the Seminar. The 1-day classes were offered at Waypoints Church. The average class size consisted of 5 participants. Of the young adults, 5 (50.0%) were male and 5 (50.0%) were female. Sixty percent (n= 6) were single and 40.0% (n =4) were in a relationship but not married. Thirty percent (n= 3) of the participants were White, followed by 60.0% (n = 6) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other participant (n= 1) identified as multicultural. The average age of the participants was 15 years. The participants completed on average 10 years of education. The teens completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 23 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. Ninety percent of the participants (n= 9) who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this program to other teens. Table 23: Satisfaction with Love Notes Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Love Notes Seminar Content Seminar 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 Educator Seminar 10 100.0 4.00 Meeting Room Seminar 2 20.0 8 80.0 3.80 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information learned in your relationship Love Notes 1 10.0 2 120.0 7 I 70.0 3.50 To what extent do you believe the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Love Notes program increased your knowledge to do these n % n % n % n % Mean things in your relationship? To identify my expectations for a 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0 3.40 relationship To understand the Chemistry of 1 10.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 7 70.0 3.40 Love To identify what makes a great 1 10.0 1 10.0 8 80.0 3.60 relationship How to decide, not slide when 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0 3.40 making decisions To identify my personal line 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 during physical intimacy To use skills to counter the four 1 10.0 9 90.0 3.70 communication danger signs To be a better listener during a 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 conflict To communicate safely during a 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 conflict To identify issues and hidden 1 10.0 1 10.0 8 80.0 3.50 issues To know what being a good 2 20.0 2 20.0 6 60.0 3.20 mother/father means To plan for my future success 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 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 22 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 22: Satisfaction with Love Notes Seminar 4.1 4 4 3.9 3.8 Average 3.8 Satisfaction 1=not at all, 3,7 2=a little, 3=quite a bit, 3.6 3.5 4=extremely 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content Love Notes Room Love Notes Love Notes As shown in Figure 23, 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, and how to plan for future success. Participants gained the least amount of knowledge regarding how to know what being a good mother/father means and how to identify expectations for a relationship. Figure 23: Knowledge Gained during Love Notes To use skills to counter the four communication... "h + • tm t•ttt-itacect3.7 To identify what makes a great relationship w r a� .4� "f4 3.6 ,• To plan for my future success r =t t•41 3.5 To identify issues and hidden issues r 3 T.* t, 3vm4sz: � au 3.5 To communicate safely during a conflict 1t S+ 3.5 To be a better listener during a conflict f 3.5 To identify my personal line during physical... .m tt- at WI Mt,'. 3.5 How to decide,not slide when making decisions LA ,x s',V 3.4 To understand the Chemistry of Love ',1„ ._a 3.4 To identify my expectations for a relationship m 3.4 To know what being a good mother/father means =asa :':-•., 3.2 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 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, 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 having more activities, 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. Attachment #2: Results from Public "Within My Reach" Singles Relationship Seminars (WMR) One 8-hour Public "Within My Reach" Relationship Seminar was offered on Saturday, January 22, 2011 at Waypoints in Greeley and was attended by 19 participants. The participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 22 summarizes the results. Sixteen participants (84.2%) who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this seminar to others. Of the participants, 8 (42.1%) were male, and 11 (57.9%) were female. Seventy-nine percent of the participants (n= 15) were single, 5.3% of the participants (n= 1) were in a relationship but not married, and 15.8% (n = 3) were married. Seventy-four percent (n = 14) of the participants who answered this question were White, followed by 15.8% (n =3) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The average age of the participants was 38 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 47.4% (n= 9) had a high school diploma only, and 42.1% (n = 8) completed education beyond high school graduation. Two participants (10.5%) had less than a high school diploma. Table 22: Satisfaction with Within My Reach Seminar Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied % n % n % n % ' Mean Within My Reach Content 4 22.2 14 77.8 3.78 Educator Within My Reach 3 16.7 15 83.3 3.83 Meeting Room Seminar 4 22.2 14 77.8 3.78 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 I I 19 1100 4.00 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely`A - you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n °1° Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 1 5.3 9 47.4 9 47.4 3.42 To de-escalate conflict 1 5.3 10 52.6 8 42.1 3.37 To be a better listener during 2 10.5 6 31.6 11 57.9 3.47 conflict To communicate safely during a 2 10.5 7 36.8 10 52.6 3.42 conflict To reach agreement when 4 21.1 7 36.8 8 42.1 3.21 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 1 5.3 5 26.3 13 68.4 3.63 relationship To know the communication 1 5.3 8 42.1 10 52.6 3.47 danger signs To be aware of my expectations 1 5.3 5 26.3 13 68.4 3.63 for my relationships To understand issues, events, and 1 5.3 6 31.6 12 63.2 3.58 hidden issues To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n °Vs n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To identify problem behaviors in 1 5.3 7 36.8 11 57.9 3.53 a partner To take stock of support in my 1 5.3 7 36.8 11 57.9 3.53 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. Figure 20 indicated that participants in Within My Reach were most satisfied with the seminar's educator. They were less satisfied with the content of the seminar and with the meeting room. In general, participants were very satisfied with the WMR educational program. Figure 20: Satisfaction with WMR 3.84 3.83 Average 3.83 Satisfaction 1=not at all, 3.82 2=a little, 3=quite a bit,3.81 4=extremely 3.8 3.79 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.77 3.76 3.75 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Content Satisfaction with Meeting WMR WMR Room WMR As indicated by Figure 21, participants in Within My Reach gained the most knowledge in the areas of understanding issues, events, and hidden issues; becoming aware of my expectations for my relationships; and knowing the hidden issues in my relationship. 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 a partner. Figure 21: Knowledge Gained during WMR To know the hidden issues in my relationship warwaska • wr r 3.6 To be aware of my expectations for my +r €s 3.6 To understand issues,events,and hidden issues .k .55 To identify problem behaviors in a partner * 3.5 To take stock of support 1n my life a, sa,,a oit! 3.5 To be a better listener during conflict - ' .47 To know the communication danger signs aaaL ;Jr . -• al a .47 To manage conflict . wawa. 3.42 To communicate safely during a conflict -c as s z rg 3.42 To de-escalate conflict ate+- I - .37 To reach agreement when working on a problem ,." 13.21 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 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. The following are participants' comments regarding the Within My Reach Seminar. Positive responses to the question, "What did you like the most about Within My Reach?" included, "The focus was on me and my behavior," "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." Negative comments about the program included, "Not enough time for everyone," "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." What participants liked most about the educators included their use of humor and engagement, their ability to relate, and their experience and knowledge. No negative comments were made about the educators, and the only two suggestions for improving the program were to show fewer videos that were longer and make 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," "Family class, parenting class," "Group process or group therapy," and "More single classes." Attachment #3: Results Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars (Mini KSS) Results Mini KSS's 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 only present data gathered during the first 6 months of Year 5. Percentages may not always add up to 100%due to the fact that some participants did not respond to some of the questions. Results Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars (Mini KSS) Mini KSS's from 15 eight-hour PREP seminars were received. All 15 classes were delivered in English. Mini KSS's were distributed to participants in all classes. As illustrated in Table 19, participants who took part in the 8 hour seminar were able to choose among several locations to attend the PREP class. Table 19: Location Marriage Seminar Location #of Classes #Participants % Average# of Participants per Class Waypoints Church (Greeley) 4 99 33.67 24.75 First Presbyterian Church (Greeley) 4 91 30.95 22.75 First Christian Church (Windsor) 3 60 20.41 20.00 Old Library (Frederick) 1 22 7.48 22.00 Trinity Plaza(Greeley) 2 12 4.08 6.00 Community Baptist Church (Brighton) 1 10 3.40 10.00 Total 15 294 100% 19.60 Ninety-nine participants (33.7%) went to Waypoints Church, 91 (31.0%) attended at First Presbyterian Church, 60 (20.4%) went to First Christian Church in Windsor, 22 (7.5%) went to the Old Library in Frederick, 12 (4.1%) attended at Trinity Plaza, and 10 (3.4%) went to Community Baptist Church in Brighton. The average class size consisted of 20 participants. Sixty-two percent of participants (n = 181) participated in the 1-day event, and 113 participants (38.4%) completed the PREP course in 4 weeks with four 2-hour sessions. Table 20 presents the results from the Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys based on data from the 294 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, 146 (49.7%) were male, and 148 (50.3%) were female. One percent of the participants (n = 2) were single, 27.2% (n= 80) were in a relationship but not married, and 72.1% (n= 212) were married. Seventy-five percent (n=221) of the participants who completed this question were White, followed by 10.5% (n = 31) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other 14.2% (n=42) of participants were Asian (n= 1), Black (n= 5),Native American (n=3), other/multicultural (n =20),or did not respond (n= 13). The average age of the participants was 37 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 28.6% (n= 84)had a high school diploma only, and 60.9% (n= 179) completed education beyond high school graduation. Eleven percent(n = 31) had less than a high school diploma. Two hundred ninety-two participants (99.3%)of the 294 who completed this question on the mini KSS recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 20: Satisfaction with 8-Hour PREP Seminar Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Marriage Seminar Content PREP seminar 6 2.0 94 32.0 194 66.0 3.64 Educator PREP seminar 4 1.4 39 13.3 251 85.4 3.84 Meeting Room PREP seminar 1 0.3 9 3.1 67 22.8 217 73.8 3.70 ^The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information learned in your '`k relationship at home PREP Seminar 13 I 4.4 98 133.3 183 162.2 3.58 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased - knowledgeto do these things in n % n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 1 0.3 14 4.8 152 51.7 126 42.9 3.38 To de-escalate conflict 2 0.7 11 3.7 142 48.3 138 46.9 3.42 To be a better listener during 1 0.3 13 4.4 89 30.3 190 64.6 3.60 conflict To communicate safely during 20 6.8 118 40.3 155 52.9 3.46 conflict _ _ To reach agreement when 2 0.7 20 6.8 126 42.9 145 49.3 3.41 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. As noted in Figure 16, participants in the PREP seminar were most satisfied with the educator. Participants were less satisfied with the meeting room where the seminar was held and were the least satisfied with the content of the PREP seminar. In general, participants were extremely satisfied with this educational program. Figure 16: Satisfaction with PREP Seminar 3.9 Average 3.85 3.84 Satisfaction 1=not at all, 3.8 2=a little, 3,75 3.7 3=quite a bit, 37 4=extremely 3.64 3.65 3.6 3.55 3.5 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Educator PREP Seminar Meeting Room PREP Content PREP Seminar Seminar Figure 17 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. Figure 17: Knowledge Gained during PREP Seminar To be a better listener during conflict :-Y 4 I AVAkg i° rT" 3.6 .��.. _.�'� ..-..._ ,.. ��._b.� _�eta.._�.,.,,.. ..ru To communicate safely during a conflict '`::: �i: `acv,- "4. t' 3.4 To de-escalate conflict ,. °4- ;;-r, 4.4-i , 3. 2 To reach agreement when working on a problem ",,""'^ _ � �v S. 3.4 :...IF" :'1. F:t1': To increase knowledge to manage conflict .x. - �.,x 38 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 encourages individuals to make comments on their experiences. This section includes 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," "How to talk with my wife," "I liked all the different skills that were taught to positively tackle problems and have conversations," 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, conflict resolution skills, that the program was educational, 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 apublic setting," "Kept getting g P g> P g g 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 cool temperature of the room, having to travel to the event, and no child care being offered. When asked for feedback on the educators, positive comments included, "Kept setting light and open," "Attitude and spirit," "Competent," "Down to earth, with great concern about everyone's relationships," "Easy-going," "Personable," "Easy to understand," "Energetic," "Funny and passionate," "Positive attitudes and knowledge," "Engaging," "Capable to answer questions," "Sensitive," "Entertaining," "Enthusiastic," "Friendly," "Honesty," "Welcoming," "Nonjudgmental," "Great life stories of themselves really helped me to relate," "Added their own real life experiences, gave realness to event," 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, educators did not participate equally, that they read the slides, and that they 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," "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," 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," 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 Four 8-hour Public Spanish"Within Our Reach" Relationship Seminars were offered in the first 6 months of Year 5. Table 21 summarizes the results. Sixty-five percent of participants (n = 24)participated in the 1-day event, and 13 participants (35.1%) completed the PREP course in 4 weeks with four 2-hour sessions. Of the participants, 14 (37.8%) were male, and 23 (62.2%) were female. Three percent (n = 1) were single, 10.8% (n =4) were in a relationship but not married, and 81.1% (n = 30) were married.Ninety-seven percent(n= 36) of the participants were Hispanic, followed by 2.7% (n= 1) who did not complete the question. The average age of the participants was 37 years. The participants completed on average 11 years of education. Of the participants, 13.5% (n= 5) had a high school diploma only, and 29.7% (n = 11) completed education beyond high school graduation. Twenty-one participants (56.8%) 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 21 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. All participants (n= 37) recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 21: Satisfaction with Within Our Reach Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Within Our Reach Content WOR 1 2.7 14 37.8 20 54.1 3.54 Educator WOR 6 16.2 30 81.1 3.83 Meeting Room WOR 8 21.6 27 73.0 3.77 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information you learned m your relationship at home Within Our Reach 1 I 2.7 3 1 8.1 12 1 32.4 17 45.9 3.36 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n %= Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 5 13.5 17 45.9 14 37.8 3.25 To de-escalate conflict 1 2.7 7 18.9 16 43.2 12 32.4 3.08 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased n % n % n % knowledge to do these things in Mean your relationship? To be a better listener during 3 8.1 13 35.1 19 51.4 3.46 conflict To communicate safely during a 1 2.7 6 16.2 11 29.7 17 45.9 3.26 conflict To reach agreement when 1 2.7 5 13.5 12 32.4 16 43.2 3.26 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 1 2.7 6 16.2 16 43.2 12 32.4 3.11 relationship To know the communication 2 5.4 2 5.4 13 35.1 17 45.9 3.32 danger signs To be aware of my expectations 3 8.1 18 48.6 12 32.4 3.27 for my relationships To understand issues, events, and 4 10.8 15 40.5 15 40.5 3.32 hidden issues To take stock of support in my 6 16.2 15 40.5 14 37.8 3.23 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 267 for each question because some teens received the wrong mini KSS and therefore had no score on some of these questions. (See Special Problems Encountered or Expected sections.) Figure 18 indicates that participants who participated 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 eneral, participants were extremely satisfied with this educational program. Figure 18: Satisfaction with WOR Average 3.9 3.83 Satisfaction 3.85 1=not at all, 3.8 3.77 2=a little, 3.75 3=quite a bit, 3.7 4=extremely 3.65 3.6 3.54 3.55 3.5 3.45 3.4 3.35 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content WOR Room WOR WOR Figure 19 indicates that participants in the WOR seminar gained the most knowledge about how to be a better listener during conflict and the communication danger signs. Participants reported that the WOR seminar taught them the least about how to de-escalate conflict. In general, participants were satisfied with this educational program. Figure 19: Knowledge Gained during WOR To be a better listener during conflict e u 3 46 To know the communication danger signs geaq 3.32 To understand issues,events,and hidden issues sk. '3 b."- - •IL,'l-e1 '� f, 3.32 To be aware of my expectations for my -�-x '"t 3.27 To reach agreement when working on a problem = ,°c 3,26 To communicate safely during a conflict 1 3.26 To manage conflictCOL } 3.15 To take stock of support in my life s n9rA =t,Yro a, 3.23 To know the hidden issues in my relationship s"v "g n;a� 3.11 To de-escalate conflict 4.x" 3.08 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 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 steps for resolving problems, useful tools, the freedom to express themselves as couples, and learning and practicing how to listen and be more patient. Negative comments from the participants were minimal; most focused on the shortness of the seminar. Additionally, one participant included the following negative comment: "Waking up old problems." When participants were asked for feedback on the educators, they found the educators to be good teachers, approachable, and professional. Participants spoke of the educators' "knowledge and calmness when handling difficult conversations." The only suggestions for how educators could improve the seminar included adjusting the length of the seminar (more hours and more classes). Other services the participants suggested may be helpful included family programs and a program in which children could also attend. Attachment #4: Results MSI Pre-Test completed in year 5 Results MSI-R Pretests (Demographics) There were 20 participants (10 couples) who completed an MSI-R pretest in the first 6 months of Year 5. • Race/Ethnicity. Of the 20 participants, 75.0% (n = 15) were White, followed by 15.0% (n= 3) Hispanic. The other 2 participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. • Age. The average age of participants was 34 years. Thirty-five percent of participants (n = 7) were 29 or younger, 25.0% (n = 5) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 30.0% (n = 6) were between the ages of 40 and 59, 10.0% (n =2) did not respond to this question. • Gender. 50.0% (n = 10) were females, and 50.0% (n = 10) were males. • Marital Status. Half of the participants (50.0%, n = 10) had been married for 5 years or less, and 30% (n = 6) were married for more than 11 years. Two participants (10.0%) indicated that they were not living together, and two participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. Seventy-five percent (n= 15) indicated the current marriage was their first, 10.0% (n=2) indicated they were previously married once, and 5.0% (n= 1) indicated they had been married twice previously. Two participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. • Household Characteristics. Nine participants (45.0%) had children, with an average of 1.4 children per household; 5 (25.0%) had one child, 2 (10.0%) had two children, and 2 (10.0%) had four children. • Employment. Twenty percent of participants (n =4) were unemployed, and 70.0% (n = 14) were employed and worked an average of 37 hours per week. Two participants (10.0%) did not respond to the question. • Education. Twenty five percent (n = 5) who had less than a high school diploma, 30% of participants (n=6) had a high school diploma only, and 45.0% (n = 9) completed education beyond high school graduation. Results MSI-R Pretests All participants (n= 20; 10 couples) who began participating in the Next Step Coaching program (n= 16; 80.0%) or the Building a Family program (n=4; 20.0%) completed the MSI-R. Twelve participants (60.0%) completed the PREP marriage seminar before taking the MSI-R pretest. Significant MSI-R Statistics (First Administration) Each scale of the MSI-R has a cutoff score that indicates whether the respondent perceives his or her problems to be significant. (See footnotes 1 and 2 in Table 3 for these values.)Note that Table 3 contains gender specific norms that were developed for the MSI-R due to differences found between men and women on the older MSI-R scales. The literature supports these differences. Also of interest, Table 3 contains percentile scores, perhaps best explained by an example: A "Percentile Rank" of 87 means that 13% (100— 87) scored higher than the mean value. This, of course, means that 87 percent scored at or below that same value. • Global distress (GDS) is considered to be the best overall measure of marital satisfaction. GDS also gauges negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and consideration of divorce. Respondents in this sample reflect a high level of global distress as compared to the norm. Sixty-three percent of the males and 56% of the 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; 33% of the males and females indicated they experienced problems in this area. • The Problem Solving Communication Scale(PSC) is a measure of overt discord in the relationship. Our sample indicates a high level of distress for males and a moderate level of distress for females. Sixty-three percent of the males and 60% of the females viewed problem solving communication as a problem. • The Aggression Scale (AGG) assesses intimidation and physical aggression experienced by the partner. Our group reflects a moderate degree of distress. Forty percent of males and 30% of females indicated a problem with low levels of aggression or intimidation by their partners. • The Time Together Scale (TTO) evaluates how companionship is expressed in shared leisure time. This is of moderate concern for males and females, as 38% of males and 22% of females indicated that they did not find their time together satisfying. • The Financial Disagreement Scale(FIN) evaluates the extent to which the respondent experiences discord in the relationship concerning finances. FIN scores in this group are at a moderate level of concern, with 33% of the males and 30% of the females indicating significant discord in their relationships concerning finances. • Sexual Dissatisfaction (SEX) measures general dissatisfaction with the sexual relationship and inadequate affection during couples' interactions. Sexual dissatisfaction scores are of moderate concern, with an average of 28% of participants indicating they were dissatisfied. • The Role Orientation Scale(ROR) evaluates the extent to which a partner identifies with traditional versus nontraditional attitudes regarding marital and parental gender roles. This group scores moderate on this scale reflecting a greater flexibility in the sharing of traditional roles. ROR is most meaningful in the context of marital satisfaction when there are significant differences between the attitudes of the partners. • Family of Origin History (FAM) measures the respondent's perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the partner's family of origin. Our sample indicates a moderate level of distress. None of the males and 30% of the females were very dissatisfied in this area. • Dissatisfaction with Children Scale (DSC) 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. This is of moderate concern for men and of low concern among the female participants. None of the male and female respondents in this sample expressed high dissatisfaction with their children. • Conflict Over Child Rearing (CCR) evaluates the extent of conflict between partners regarding their approaches to raising children. This is of moderate concern among the participants. None of the males and 33% of the females reported having many disagreements about raising their children. In summary, MSI-R results indicate that about 60% of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. In addition, 62% of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving. Interestingly, large differences in degree of satisfaction between males and females were found in the areas of aggression, the time the couples spent together, family of origin, and conflicts over childrearing. Males were more dissatisfied with their partner's aggression or intimidation and showed more concern than females regarding the time the couples spent together. Females showed more concern than males regarding the family of origin and the conflicts over childrearing. Of least concern to the participants was dissatisfaction with children (See Figure 7.). Caution should be exercised when interpreting these percentages, due to the small sample size (n =20). PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (AA) Hours Target (Unit) AA #3 — Waypoints LoveNotes-8 June 25, 10 couples 1 couple 1 couple Unmarried, Faith hour seminars 2011 expectant Community, presented in 1 couples Greeley day 8 hour seminar format Trinity Plaza, PREP- 8 hour July 2, 2011 2 couples 2 couples Greeley seminars presented in either format: 2 hours/ week for 4 weeks 1 day 8 hour seminar. Comfort Inn Weekend August 7, 1 couple 1 couple & Suites retreat: PREP 2011 Frederick 12 hours seminar Waypoints PREP- 8 hour Aug. 13, 1 couple 1 couple Faith seminars 2011 Community, presented in Greeley either format: 2 hours/ week Waypoints for 4 weeks Sept. 10, 1 couple 1 couple Faith 1 day 8 hour 2011 Community, seminar. Greeley Trinity Plaza, Sept. 24, 1 couple 1 couple Greeley 2011 TOTAL c 3s, 7 couples 7 couples 3/5/2010 Page 1 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Resorting Period Allowable Event #of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (AA) Hours Target (Unit) M #4— Trinity Plaza, PREP- 8 hour April 2, 2011 250 2 couples 2 couples Premarital, Greeley seminars coupes/ couples in presented in individuals relationships First either format: April 5, 2011 1 couple 1 couple , and Presbyterian 2 hours/ week individuals Church, for 4 weeks interested in Greeley 1 day 8 hour marriage seminar. Waypoints April 16, 3 couples 3 couples Faith 2011 Community, Greeley Waypoints May 7, 2011 4 couples 4 couples Faith Community, Greeley Trinity Plaza, May 21, 2011 3 couples 3 couples Greeley, Trinity Plaza, June 4, 2011 4 couple 4 couple Greeley Waypoints June 11, 1 couple 1 couple Faith 2011 18 Ind. 18 Ind. Community, Greeley Life Song June 18, 4 couples 4 couples Church 2011 Waypoints June 25, 4 couples 4 couples Faith 2011 3 ind. 3 ind. Community, Greeley 3/5/2010 Page o of 10 OMB Appro\al Number:09'0-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (M) Hours Target (Unit) AA #4— Trinity Plaza, PREP- 8 hour July 2, 2011 2 couples 2 couples Premarital, Greeley seminars couples in presented in relationships Waypoints either format: July 23, 2011 6 couples 6 couples , and Faith 2 hours/ week 4 ind. 4 ind. individuals Community, for 4 weeks interested in Greeley 1 day 8 hour marriage seminar. Comfort Inn Weekend August 7, 2 couples 2 couples &Suites retreat: PREP 2011 Frederick 12 hours seminar Waypoints PREP- 8 hour Aug. 13, 3 couples 3 couples Faith seminars 2011 Community, presented in Greeley either format: 2 hours/ week First for 4 weeks Aug. 30, 1 couple 1 couple Presbyterian 1 day 8 hour 2011 Church, seminar. Greeley Waypoints September 3 couples 3 couples Faith 10, 2011 1 ind. 1 ind. Community, Greeley Trinity Plaza, September 1 couple 1 couple Greeley 24, 2011 3/5/2010 Page 3 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event #of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (,AA) Hours Target (Unit) M #4— Trinity Plaza, PREP May 23, 2011 1 ind. 1 individual Premarital, Greeley Monolingual couples in Spanish relationships 8 hour , and seminars individuals presented in interested in either format: marriage 2 hours/ week for 4 weeks 1 day 8 hour seminar. AA #4 — Waypoints LoveNotes-8 June 25, 14 inds. 14 individuals Premarital, Faith hour seminars 2011 couples in Community, presented in 1 relationship Greeley day 8 hour seminar format s, and individuals Waypoints July 23, 2011 7 inds. 7 individuals Faith interested Community, in marriage Greeley Waypoints Aug. 13, 10 inds. 10 individuals Faith 2011 Community, Greeley AA #4— Waypoints Within My Aug. 20, 18 inds 18 Premarital, Faith Reach 8 hour 2011 Individuals couples in Community, seminar relationships Greeley presented in 1 , and day 8 hour individuals seminar format interested in marriage 3/5/2010 Page 4 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event #of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (AA) Hours Target (Unit) TOTAL 44 #4 couples 44 couples 76 76 individuals individual 3/5/2010 Page 5 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Resorting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (M) Hours Target (Unit) AA #5 — Trinity Plaza, PREP- 8 hour April 2, 2011 250 1 couple 1 couple Married Greeley seminars couples Couples presented in AA #5 — First either format: April 5, 2011 1 couple 1 couple Married Presbyterian 2 hours/ week Couples Church, for 4 weeks Greeley 1 day 8 hour seminar. Waypoints April 16, 11 11 couples Faith 2011 couples Community, Greeley Waypoints May 7, 2011 1 couple 1 couple Faith Community, Greeley Trinity Plaza, May 21, 2011 4 couples 4 couples Greeley Waypoints June 11, 2 ind 2 ind Faith 2011 Community, Greeley Life Song June 18, 1 couple 1 couple Church 2011 find. 1 ind. Waypoints June 25, 4 couples 4 couples Faith 2011 Community, Greeley Trinity Plaza, July 2, 2011 3 couples 3 couples Greeley 3/5/2010 Page E of 10 OMB Apprm al Number:09'0-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (M) Hours Target (Unit) Waypoints July 23, 2011 2 couples 2 couples Faith 1 ind. 1 ind. Community, Greeley Comfort Inn Weekend Aug. 7, 2011 16 16 couples & Suites retreat: PREP Couples Frederick 12 hours seminar Waypoints PREP- 8 hour Aug. 13, 2 couples 2 couples Faith seminars 2011 Community, presented in Greeley either format: 2 hours/ week First for 4 weeks Aug. 30, 8 couples 8 couples Presbyterian 1 day 8 hour 2011 Church, seminar. Greeley Waypoints September 10 10 couples Faith 10, 2011 couples 1 ind. Community, 1 ind. Greeley Trinity Plaza, September 5 couples 5 couples Greeley 24, 2011 AA #5 — BOCES, Within Our April 16, 3 couples 3 couples Married Greeley Reach 2011 1 1 individuals Couples Monolingual individual Spanish - 8 Trinity Plaza, hour seminars May 23, 2011 3 couples 3 couples Greeley presented in either format: Trinity Plaza, 2 hours/ week July 7, 2011 1 couples 1 couples Greeley for 4 weeks 3/5/2010 Page 7 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (AA) Hours Target (Unit) 1 day 8 hour seminar. Comfort Inn Weekend Aug. 7, 2011 6 couples 6 couples &Suites retreat: Frederick Within Our Reach 12 hours seminar AA #5 — Waypoints Within My Aug. 20, 1 couple 1 couple Married Faith Reach - 8 hour 2011 2 ind 2 ind Couples Community, seminar Greeley presented in 1 day 8 hour seminar format TOTAL #5 83 couples 83 couples 8 8 individual individuals s AA #7 - Couples who PREPARE/ On going 50 couples 42 42 couples Mentoring have been ENRICH couples assessed as Relationship appropriate Inventory (i.e. no current DV or substance abuse issues) receive mentoring from a trained mentoring couple based on the results of the 3/5/2010 Page 8 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. UN September 29,2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Six-Month Reporting Period Allowable Event # of Date Reporting # # Activity Curriculum Completed Period Served Completed (AA) Hours Target (Unit) PREPARE/EN RICHED relationship inventory taken by the couple. TOTAL #7 42 Couples 42 coup/es Page9of10 3/5/2010 OMB Approval Number: PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Programs SF-PPR-D Table of Activity Results 1. Federal Agency and 2. Federal Grant or Other 3a. DUNS 4. Reporting Period End Organization Element to Which Identifying Number Assigned by 075757955 Date Report is Submitted Federal Agency (Month, Day, Year) Office of Family Assistance 90FE0134-05 3b. EIN September 29, 2011 84-6000813 Service Delivery for the Budget Period and Award Date Allowable Unit Number of Participants (Units) Number of Participants Activity Served This Budget Period (Units) Served Since Award (AA) (9/30/2010-9/29/2011) Date (9/30/2006) Target # Served #To Date Served #3 Couples 25 13 couples 55 coup/es #4 Couples/Individuals 500 86 couples 322 coup/es 190 individuals 1022 individuals 215 couples 782 couples #5 Couples/Individuals 500 20 individuals 281. individuals 269 couples #7 Couples 100 82 couples 1 individual 3/5/2010 Page 10 of 10 OMB Approval Number:0970-0334 FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT (Follow form instructions) 1. Federal Agency and Organizational Element to Which 2. Federal Grant or Other Identifying Number Assigned by Federal Agency(To Report is Submitted report multiple grants, use FFR Attachment) Page of Office of Family Assistance 90 FE0134-05 1 page. 3. Recipient Organization(Name and complete address including Zip code) Weld County Department of Human Services,315N. 11th Ave.,Greeley,CO 80631 4a. DUNS Number 4b. EIN 5. Recipient Account Number or Identifying 6. Report Type 7. Basis of Accounting 75757955 84-6000813 Number(To report multiple grants,use FFR ❑Quarterly ]Cash Attachment) Semi-Annual Accrual Annual Final 8.Project/Grant Period(Month, Day,Year) 9. Reporting Period End Date(Month, Day,Year) From: 9/30/2006 ITo: 9/29/2011 October 31,2011 10.Transactions I Cumulative (Use lines a-c for single or multiple grant reporting) Federal Cash(To report multiple grants,also use FFR Attachment): a. Cash Receipts $808,765.11 b. Cash Disbursements $901,018.25 c. Cash on Hand(line a minus b) -$92,253.14 (Use lines d-o for single grant reporting) Federal Expenditures and Unobligated Balance: d.Total Federal funds authorized $974,358.00 e. Federal share of expenditures $901,018.25 f. Federal share of unliquidated obligations $0.00 q.Total Federal share(sum of lines e and f) $901,018.25 h.Unobligated balance of Federal funds(line d minus g) $73,339.75 Recipient Share: i.Total recipient share required $110,190.00 j. Recipient share of expenditures $110,190.00 k. Remaining recipient share to be provided(line i minus j) $0.00 Program Income: I.Total Federal program income earned $0.00 m. Program income expended in accordance with the deduction alternative $0.00 n. Program income expended in accordance with the addition alternative $0.00 o. Unexpended program income(line I minus line m or line n) $0.00 11. a.Type b. Rate c. Period Period To d. Base e.Amount Charged f. Federal Share Indirect From Expense • ...,r£:. ;;.,,. ... g.Totals: 0 0 0 12. Remarks:Attach any explanations deemed necessary or information required by Federal sponsoring agency in compliance with governing legislation: 13.Certification: By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true,complete,and accurate,and the expenditures,disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and intent set forth in the award documents. I am aware that any false, fictitious,or fraudulent information may subject me to criminal,civil,or administrative penalties.(U.S.Code,Title 18,Section 1001) a.Typed or Printed Name and Title of Authorized Certifying Official c.Telephone(Area code, number,and extension) Barbara Kirkmyer,Chair,Weld County Board of Commissioners (970)336-7204 d. Email Address bkirkmeyer(5 co.weld.co.us b. Signature of Authorized Certifying Official e. Date Report Submitted(Month, Day,Year) October 31,2011 ( Standard Form 425-Revised 6/28/2010 OMB Approval Number:0348-0061 Expiration Date: 10/31/2011 Paperwork Burden Statement According to the Paperwork Reduction Act,as amended,no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0348-0061.Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden,to the Office of Management and Budget,Paperwork Reduction Project(0348-0061),Washington, DC 20503. nn 5 t M1. y « { : r r f , - i' £_, ces;t iHt� 5', °vr. Nl{S! ��jt ;°'tai[ `-'J!(1�&.i•�+w3'≥v"a4 "��,,._,S.. f '� '* Semi-Annual Report Year 5 (October 1, 2010 — March 31, 2011) 04/15/2011 Mary Sean O'Halloran,PhD Sonja Rizzolo, PhD Marsha L. Cohen,BS Sarah Breseke, MA Produced in conjunction with UNIVERSITY of Bringing NORTHERN COLORADO education to life. Contents Page Summary 1 Introduction 4 Background Information 4 Program Description and Delivery 5 Program Model Years 3, 4, Year 5 11 Methods 15 Instruments 15 Participants 17 Procedures 23 Results 25 Results MSI-R Pretests (Demographics) 26 Results MSI-R Pretests 27 Significant MSI-R Statistics 27 Relationships between Demographics and MSI-R Scales 30 Posttests Completed in Year 2, Year 3, Year 4, and the First 6 Months of Year 5 30 Results—Qualitative Study 45 Participation in the Three Service Structures for First 6 Months of Year 5 57 Referral Source for the Participants in the BHM Program First 6 Months of Year 5 58 Results Mini KSS's 59 Special Problems Encountered or Expected 73 Current and Future Directions 75 References 77 Appendix A: Instruments 79 List of Tables 1. Demographic Characteristics 18 — 19 2. Evaluation Individual Events in Building a Family 25 3. MSI-R Statistics 27—29 4. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 31 Calculations (Year 1) 5. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 32 Calculations (Year 2) 6. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 33 Calculations (Year 3) 7. Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate 34 Calculations (First 6 Months of year 4) 8. Mean Pre- and Post MSI-R Scores for the Male and Female Participants 37—38 9. Mean Pre- and Post MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 39 10. Participation in BHM Events by the 132 Participants 40 11. Number of BHM Events Attended by Participants who Completed the KSS 40 (n = 132) 12. Satisfaction with Education Events 40—41 13. Knowledge Gained 42 —43 14. Participants' Demographics 47 Contents List of Tables (Continued) Page 15. Educator's Themes and Supporting Quotes 50—51 16. Participant's Themes and Supporting Quotes 52 —56 17. The Three Service Structures 58 18. Referral Base 58 — 59 19. Location Marriage Seminar 59 20. Satisfaction with 8-Hour PREP Seminar 60 21. Satisfaction with Within Our Reach 63 —64 22. Satisfaction with Within My Reach Seminar 66 23. Satisfaction with Love Notes 68 —69 24. Interest in Follow-Up Seminars 72 List of Figures 1. Building Healthy Marriages Model Years 3, 4, and Year 5 13 2. Race/Ethnicity 21 3. Age 21 4. Length of Current Marriage 22 5. Occupation 22 6. Residence 22 7. Percentage of Participants who Perceived Problems 30 8. Posttest Response Rate Year 2 32 9. Posttest Response Rate Year 3 33 10. Posttest Response Rate First 6 Months of Year 4 34 11. Mean Pre- and Post-MSI Scores for the Male and Female Participants 38 12. Mean Pre- and Post MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 39 13. Satisfaction with Content of Events 42 14. Knowledge Gained 43 15. Major Themes Educators and Participants 49 16. Satisfaction with PREP Seminar 61 17. Knowledge Gained during PREP Seminar 61 18. Satisfaction with WOR 64 19. Knowledge Gained during WOR ... 65 20. Satisfaction with WMR 67 21. Knowledge Gained during WMR 67 22. Satisfaction with Love Notes Seminar 70 23. Knowledge Gained during Love Notes 70 24. Comparison Satisfaction Programs 72 SUMMARY This year's report summarizes the data collected from October I, 2010 through March 31, 2011. This includes information from all participants who initiated involvement with the Building Healthy Marriages Program in the first 6 Months of Year 5 (October 1, 2010—March 31, 2011). In addition, this report includes a discussion of the data from participants who completed posttests in Years 2, 3, and 4. Demographic Background Three hundred sixty-eight participants participated in the program in the first 6 months of Year 5 (October 1, 2010 —March 31, 2011). Of the 368 participants, 66% (n= 242) were White, followed by 21% (n=78) Hispanic. The other 8% (n= 31) were Asian, Black,Native American, or other/multicultural. Five percent(n = 17) did not respond to this question. The results indicate that 25% of the participants (n = 91) were unemployed. Of the participants who participated together in a seminar, 131 couples (84%) indicated that both were employed full-time or that at least one partner worked full-time, 4 couples (3%) indicated that both partners were employed part-time, 8 couples (5%) indicated that only one partner was employed part-time, and 7 couples (5%) specified that neither partner was employed. Referral Source The most effective referral source has been radio advertisements, referring 23.6% (n = 87) of the participant pool. The second most effective referral source has been the faith based community, which referred 14.1% of the participants (n = 52). Friends and family was the third most effective referral source (10.6%; n= 39). This suggests that radio commercials are a significant marketing tool for the program. Brief Summary of Results Marital Satisfaction Inventory—Revised (MSI-R) Pretest Results First 6 Months of Year 5 About 60% of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems as measured by the Global Distress Scale (GDS), a global measure of relationship distress. In addition, 62% of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving. Interestingly, large differences between males and females were found in satisfaction concerning aggression, the time the couples spent together, family of origin, and conflicts over childrearing. Males were more dissatisfied with their partner's aggression or intimidation and showed more concern than females regarding the time the couples spent together. Females showed more concern than males regarding the family of origin and the conflicts over childrearing. Of least concern to the participants was dissatisfaction with children. Impact of Program: Years I, 2, and 3. 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 results indicated that the BHM program was equally effective for male and female participants; both men and women who participated in the Building Healthy Marriages Program reported higher levels of marital satisfaction after participation. The most significant improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Time Together and Problem Solving. Couples who participated in the BHM classes were more satisfied with the time they spent with their partners 1 than before they entered the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication than prior to entering the BHM 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 pre- and post-test 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. In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Financial Disagreement, Aggression, and Sexual Dissatisfaction. These findings suggest that couples had less discord in their relationships over finances than prior to entering into the BHM program, experienced less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners, 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 of Origin History, Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Childrearing. Results of this study indicate that the Building Healthy Marriages Program is equally effective for male and female participants. The changes in satisfaction scores over time did not differ significantly for males and females. However, gender had a significant influence on the participants' ratings of the Role Orientation Scale; females scored higher, indicating more egalitarian views toward marital and parental roles. Significant differences between the partners can impact marital satisfaction negatively. In addition, gender had a significant influence on participant's ratings of the Affective Communication Scale; males showed greater satisfaction than females. One of the important research questions the evaluation team is investigating concerns whether or not the BHM program is equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. Thus far, the results show that the program is equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. 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. Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys: Years 1, 2, and 3 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 is offered in the Seminar and Enrichment Weekend focuses on increasing conflict resolution skills. Experiences of Participants and Educators (Qualitative study) Participants from the 2010 study described cultivating relationship skills that have had positive, long-lasting impacts on their relationship satisfaction not only with their partners, but with others, including family (especially their children) and friends through their involvement with the program. Educators echoed the sentiments of participants, emphasizing a strong belief in the skills they taught and the impact the education could have on participants who engaged 2 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 that have carried over into the participants' relationships. However, there was also consensus on drawbacks, which led to recommendations for future directions for the program. Recommendations include providing additional time to practice new skills and increasing marketing activities to particular populations, such as males and Hispanics. Although services sometimes include childcare provisions, participants would like more, as there is evidence that lack of child care prohibited individuals from participating. Participants and educators alike wished for additional educational programs and follow-up programs for families, such as mentoring or booster sessions, to help scaffold newly acquired skills once initial communication skills are learned. Some participants and educators also recommended more rigorous prescreening of participants, as those with serious issues impacted the entire group in a seminar. Beginning in November, 2010 we began to interview participants who had either divorced after participating in relationship education programs or had dropped out of the educational programs prematurely, for reasons other than scheduling problems. Seven interviews were completed by the time of this report. Preliminary results will be discussed further on in this report. Comparison of Satisfaction with the 8-Hour PREP Seminar, WMR, WOR, and Love Notes Seminar: First 6 Months of Year 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 and the Within Our Reach seminars. The content of the Love Notes class curriculum was rated the lowest. Participants were extremely satisfied with the educators and with the meeting room of all seminars. Overall, the PREP, WOR, WMR, and Love Notes 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. 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. One hundred seven (85.6%) of the 125 participants who completed these questions indicated that they were interested in follow-up seminars. Of the participants, 52 (41.6%) preferred a 2 —3 hour seminar, 33 (26.4%) showed an interest in a 4— 6 hour seminar, and 21 (16.8%) selected the 6 or more hour seminar. Twenty-three percent (n = 29) of participants wanted these services to be available weekly, 28% (n =35) wanted them to be offered monthly, 12% (n= 15) wanted them offered every other month, and 17% (n =25) wanted them to be available twice a year. 3 INTRODUCTION The Weld County Healthy Marriage Initiative's central goal is 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; Workplace Relationship Education Seminars using the Winning the Workplace Challenge program; Relationship Education for Teens using the Love Notes curriculum; Conflict Resolution Coaching; Relationship Inventories using the PREPARE/ENRICH program; Financial Management Coaching; Domestic Violence screenings; community referrals; and family mentors/liaisons. The research team from the University of Northern Colorado has several goals. These include: 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 one year anniversary of the eligible couples joining the Building Healthy Marriages program; 3) Examining several factors, including the relationships between demographic variables, the number and types of services in which couples participated, the level of knowledge and satisfaction, and what, if any, changes can be reflected in marital 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 of 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 a victim 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). 4 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 the programs' strengths and the level of relevance of the particular program for the intended population. Program Description and Delivery The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Project offered the following educational programs in Year 5: PREPARE/ENRICH and PREP. In addition, it provided the following supplementary services to unmarried couples who are expecting: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, and referral services. All programs and services, including the ones offered in previous years, are briefly described below. Following this, the manner in which the program was delivered to participants is described. 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 begins with the couple taking an assessment instrument to identify areas of weakness and strength (www.prepare-enrich.com). Following the assessment, the partners meet with a counselor for four to eight feedback sessions to discuss their areas of potential growth and their strengths as individuals and as a couple (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 marriage 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 discriminates between happily and unhappily married couples. There are 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 the couple discuss their Family-of-Origin 5 5. To help the couple with financial planning and budgeting 6. To focus on personal, couple and family goals" (See http://www.prepare-enrich.com/training.cfm?id=33/4What is PE) Delivery of the PREPARE/ENRICH Program (Relationship Inventories): Participants in the Building Healthy Marriages program can participate in the PREPARE/ENRICH inventory, which indicates traits, expectations, and issues that couples may want to address. The inventories include 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®. Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) is an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP teaches couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, methods for dealing with conflict. It also aims to enhance the commitment of the couple (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 may participate in a PREP Workshop, which is provided in several formats (evening sessions or on Saturdays). These seminars focus on learning and practicing skills that improve marriages. Workshops are facilitated by marriage educators and coaches. 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 the current program, which began May 2008, the PREP curriculum was reduced to eight 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 eight-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 is a relationship skills and decision making program. It is specifically designed for low-income individuals who are attending marriage education without a partner (Pearson, Stanley, & Kline, 2005). Central to the curriculum is 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 is safety in relationships (Pearson et al., 2005). The curriculum defines a healthy marriage as involving a high degree of safety. WMR includes 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 takes a number of characteristics of low-income populations into account and uses an interactive, experiential curriculum (Pearson et 6 al., 2005). Delivery of Within My Reach (WMR) Relationship Seminars: "Within My Reach" (WMR) seminars, which are delivered to individuals who are single or attending without a partner, were new to the BHM program in Year 3. Participants in Within My Reach may attend the seminar alone and have not been screened for income level or domestic violence. Within My Reach is an 8-hour curriculum, taught during a one-day seminar to participants from the general public. Within Our Reach (WOR) Within Our Reach is a marriage education curriculum designed for low-income couples. The creators (Stanley, Markman, Jenkins, Rhoades, Noll, & Ramos, 2006) of the PREP marriage education curriculum designed this program. However, there are 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 has 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 focuses on the strengths of couples and the barriers that challenge them from meeting their relationship aspirations. Also, participants are charged with choosing the content and major themes of the session. The goal of the program is to facilitate a"sense of curriculum being tuned to their issues" (PREPInc, 2009, p. 2). The curriculum includes global themes that are taught in every session and specific themes; such as racism, depression, or joblessness; that are covered when applicable (PREPInc, 2009). Emphasis is placed on the personal behavior of the individual and his or her responsibility for the way he or she thinks, acts, and responds (PREPInc, 2009). The presentation of the material and the teaching style changed from the original PREP curriculum. Within Our Reach presents smaller amounts of material, with more couple and group activities between lessons (PREPInc, 2009). This revision adds energy to the curriculum, making sessions more interesting for participants. The training has been expanded, and there is more in- session time to practice new skills (PREPInc, 2009). The curriculum is based on the "Safety theory" which includes the following subtopics: •Physical Safety (freedom from harm, physical aggression, and psychological abuse) •Emotional Safety and Support Connected Support Conflict under control Safe to talk •Commitment safety and security A future An 'us' •Contextual Safety Crime Health Economic Racism 7 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 be referred by the Department of Human Services, qualify for the Building Healthy Marriages program, and participate in an income level and domestic violence screening. Marriage Enrichment Weekends are held at a local hotel. In addition to participating in a 12-hour Within Our Reach marriage education seminar, couples receive a two- night stay at the hotel and a "date night," which includes dinner at a restaurant. This format changed in Year 4. Enrichment weekends are no longer being scheduled due to the costs associated with this event. The WOR curriculum is now available to the general public but is ONLY delivered in Spanish. "Love Notes"Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New in Year 4) The Love Notes: Making Relationships Work curriculum is a relationship education program developed to target at risk youth including those who are parents or currently pregnant. The program targets strengths and goals and teaches participants new strategies for decision making about life choices, such as engaging in sexual behavior and having children. Marline Pearson developed the Love Notes curriculum based on the Love U2: Relationship Smarts PLUS and the Within My Reach relationship education programs. The primary difference between the Love U2 curriculum and Love Notes is the attention paid to sexual choices, pregnancy, and parenting in the Love Notes curriculum. "Love Notes uses media, realistic scenarios, and lively activities that engage young males as much as females. Topics include: • 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: Love Notes student and teen relationship education seminars were new to the BHM program in Year 4. Love Notes 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 a 5-session, 1 hour and 40 minutes per day format. The following services were only offered to unmarried couples who were expecting a child: • Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples can receive up to four free hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or PREPARE/ENRICH training. 8 • Financial Management Coaching: Couples can receive up to four free hours of financial counseling for help with managing finances. • Community Referrals (New in Year 3): This program teaches couples about employment services programs that can assist them in finding a job. In addition, it educates participants about community programs that can help them, their families, and their babies. The following program was no longer offered in Year 5: Winning the Workplace Challenge Winning the Workplace Challenge is a workplace relationship education program based on the principles of healthy relationships discussed in the PREP curriculum. This program addresses 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 are to provide participants with: • 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 events, and the role of expectations, are adapted for a workplace environment from the PREP marriage education curriculum. Others, including the Amygdala Hijack and the role of Relational Intelligence, are 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 (for example, overly defensive reactions when in an argument). To eliminate this overreaction, participants are 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 aims to create happy, healthier, more productive business environments. Delivery of"Winning the Workplace Challenge" Work Relationship Education Seminar: Winning The Workplace Challenge was also new to the Building Healthy Marriages Initiative in Year 3. Winning the Workplace Challenge was taught in a one-day, 8-hour format. Participants included city employees and employees from different agencies within the community. The following programs/services were no longer offered in Years 3, 4, and 5: o "Marriage Garden"Marriage Education This educational program was created at the University of Arkansas. The Marriage Garden is based on the metaphor of partners in marriage learning the necessary tools, wisdom, and 9 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 includes 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). Marriage Garden groups were first offered in July 2008; however, no Marriage Garden groups were scheduled during Years 3 and 4. o Marriage Boosters: From January 2007 through April 2008, the marriage booster was a 6-hour 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 (for example, a barbeque) with an educational component. Couples could enjoy the event and then participate in the 1 — 1 'A hours Booster, which was an educational session based on PREP. In Year 3 (starting October 2008), boosters were eliminated, as they were too costly and ineffective for recruitment purposes. o Employment Support Training: This program provides 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 with the County Employment Services was dropped in Year 3 due to underutilization. o Marriage Mentoring Seminars: The Marriage Mentoring Seminar was delivered in the following way from the inception of the Building Healthy Marriages program until the third year of delivery. For the first two years of the BHM program, couples were matched with a more experienced couple (Marriage Mentors) to develop relationship skills. The mentoring program was not a class, but rather time spent with the Family Mentor. It also may have included being referred to conflict resolution or financial management services or being coached through a technique that the couple may have already learned. For example, if couples undertook conflict resolution training in the past and were currently experiencing difficulties with a new issue, the Family Mentor could coach them though the issue using the tools taught by 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 consists of PREP, WOR, and the Relationship Inventories (Prepare/Enrich). 10 Program Model Years 3, 4, and 5 The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Program changed focus from an intensive service model to a community saturation model in May 2008. 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 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 is called"Relationship Seminars" and includes a community saturation mode of delivery. These programs are offered to the general public and do not require any assessment or eligibility determination. The main goal of this program is to educate the public about marriage and relationships. These programs include: 1) Eight hours of education using PREP (for Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and Unmarried Participants who are in a relationship I; 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 public seminars are 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 enter the Relationship Seminars by registering online or calling the program number for one of the advertised events. For evaluation purposes, participants are asked to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the last 5 minutes of the final session. The Relationship Seminars are being evaluated with a post mini-satisfaction survey only. 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 supports the needs of those who meet the eligibility requirements (see Figure 1, 2a). In addition, couples may begin with "Next Step Coaching" after they have completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they do not need to attend the Relationship Seminars. Non-Married couples who are expecting or have 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 1, 2b). 2a. Next Step Coaching: The primary audience targeted for this eight hour program was low income couples. In order to increase participation in the Next Step Coaching Program, the income eligibility criteria were removed. This change took place in June 2010 (second part of Year 4). Beginning with an eligibility assessment, the needs of couples are identified. Then, couples are referred to the Relationship Inventories, the WOR curriculum, or PREP program. The Relationship Inventories, using the Prepare-Enrich curriculum, are conducted with parties interested in premarital or marriage education/enhancement. The Within Our Reach curriculum is a practical (group mentoring) program. Couples focus on developing problem solving skills. In addition, there is a 11 focus on sensuality and sexuality within the relationship. PREP is an educational program that helps couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. The Next Step Coaching Program is evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and posttest surveys (MSI-R, mini satisfaction surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey). 2b. Building a Family: This program begins with a needs assessment for couples. A Community Family Liaison is then assigned to the couple. The liaison considers the couple's needs and then assists 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 are currently 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 1 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 assists couples in overcoming relationship barriers and provides them with referrals to services. The Building a Family Program is evaluated with a pretest (MSI-R) and post-test surveys (MSI- R, mini satisfaction surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey). 12 M N w v CU N +� N ' v ri v U " a Q L N $- o L c v v O w tn Lr) w ro O L E cc oar ° c o- ° c a� E vw o E � a °' C rs Z E E o' r a. c WC u�i .c w 'c °' 'E c n. DL o a m E `�_ a o O _ i >' `t3( o U N Oru V C_ C •E C C C E O E > f° E > 0o)w u C L LL Ul c ro d.l � tn . U r9 O O Cd L aQ ` L aav � 4-4 y N N w c ,'v N in — C C C rp 4 Ooov = ° OoU 'OE axis a@ a ° .. in Ii._--, ra c o E Z• m � vk`, v m � WcCrrU � U .D O > � � a NSW • • • • • .�wrfiuWirtir r. C N di N 'o O ro -41 L .Q Q1_c • .Ui .�_ •\ c E 'nty cu rp U C - > z c) U N -`-' o (Q +-' ' r E C1C N t��a. (13 U y 0 C r6 U � Ci 'C �°��, C x C � y c d ro .0 a., y rp kil � C 0 CU a � C O E `" OL fa E `. < ++ O -D a) -4.9 sue' •V O U C Q i p) rnM >, d C v V) "_ v r10 t c 0 O. CV1:3 E a) Nj a L L-' >` a CO rp _C F"'I L l... , Q. — NroxE •w v t o o) 1.._ 1._ o ,� _ W O C 75 CL aEz � � � v L w C aci ZEE oz uv c v cnrc c -0 c3).-6) D cnOCrLoo a W WfUrp � avQC U y 'b Z O u 0 d r° o — L v t rY L U o by rn a v ro CI 0 �0 (Cof � fY CU Crt d L. _c al 5 `-' >. C 0 +-• —y '+- }, EEOo0, O C '. z - • 4-, > c'.EtE > c +J croo c W • • • • • bA '7:1 CO ro N 4. a) '5 o w° cr u cd . V W� >; to Q x C Mu II a!o i ,.2 as Cn V) r. cvi ° -o � � • saC � N � = z .c � � c v) 3 a ;o ° ° 7, via '" v a) v al a. b �`�, vpi A 0 Oi v � �-' C R ., a0i ,= u w 4, a •a as E a'" ^ 3 ta'w as . L 0 ,° 0 w• 6 a) 0 3 w t a .� c° °' r .9- Q 4 5 E p- v fl. n. 5O o y c � c/10 `ti ,� • c � • � obE ^ 'c .`. = a,•n e 0E tt c) va ^ V � a", o a>, ``" 'c E .o ' aA, v o V C i " E — .E ,L _ :` a �(1 .. tj .73 •� (f1 1n ` .c p r nCC rn OC• a) •-". •L '�. a) '%, C. C " a, a) .. 'r,'r, •.j V) P V g.., C vl O C C '-C .p- v .-•.. C C .D a . > s4" aJ • r � " a Y •o •- c v � 5c a0" c c. ° c , � ° ° ate E-„� F f J r a) U Q tJ 2 v " u• c u -- CJJ,« o Ci. 'a a, a., a, x a, — o L. c ° Oc �". c a ° ° ^ ' so 3O ° o r w. nn X -- C 'o a C x • a o o ro bn o a, .ca v ,� aa)i cs 2 • a) i. •. y = W O a. " w Z. G .-F., 0 �; c oo - " , ....... a, - „_ v •2 - y x W , o ci a `" o u w - a� t.) y, y 4., 0 C �. Oa 3 '��„ p./ 'R to +N-' 0 a" .c .z 0 o L Eh - - •- R Z c C cn G O 0. .• GG c,) O O a 0. O '0 a p �, c " n y P C rn t w o, 9 '" o - ° •° pew CI v., • • U 3 'G � :� � � � m 5 c o - - °a a, � an' CA 7:-.. 53arx �VI v c o --- o > > c a' v) R'- v 5 u a � � -- a, p v •: mac " cc , ,xa ° c Z v) W a, .. , ¢ ae " , ti . a , ❑ w ct C� a ,. o ix • H . 1 c., 7 • v , :t a) " C A on o w c CZ o v) 4 c E a.'. c 0;• '. ' d x ,. c� ac' c c a W H H �' = O p 'i-, "d O V) of b 5 ro aJ Olj'ti p .C " z w V) O .. C O a) •° O H ..E „, t� '.5J" a, .� ai 0 of ',5J cc) 0.p `'> on on 5 .. v, p.5 C • •O '• O y -fa bn • O C > C C S -5 CO >,C 3 eyU ► a 5 a) o N '° a as 'O vi � v) of •b > > o a) cd ur "' w .00 • .� c N. •4) •— Ecr) o on� 4- •r ?? d a o a¢i a�, ? Pe p O a, 50 o V d vi Z 5 ;,o E cg >,. n " v, v o ° G v; 'ro c a i a+ b .c as a .. a � 3 -° c .� c .a ° ° c ;, c - av ,� aa)) cy a°i 'cna�x.) c4 0 ▪ E a..° co0 ' > �_ 3 >, as ° a, > .4 .. c° U b es m a, .� Z tib [ •G '5 ol on a) E ,• O aw v) o `� '' c c", ° a�i fi a, o .�Q En o .N oA vi o � :; c 'd .� E G 5 5 .5 vs � .p � a ;•.• CM 2 .4 a �o` � 0 o i, o .� ° a, a .• �'� ' i , � •o x . o •� � a, c .- 0 a9 > 53 -00 ,V)•5 h v t o a, ' a 'Qa333 5 � • '> °1) L 5 o O a, o � •- =�, •" - 0 .d p - > � o aczx E a) ` , , • va 33 33bHb �. L.) v a� .. a METHODS 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 is 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, many of which are of particular interest for this grant (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). 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. Family of Origin History: This scale measures the respondent's perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the partner's family of origin. 15 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—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 are asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the Prepare/Enrich curriculum, Family Liaison, the overall program, and 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 are 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, the overall program, and 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, and Relationship Inventories [Prepare/Enrich]). 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 their 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. Semi-structured Interview for Qualitative Study The research team conducted 45 to 60 minute semi-structured interviews with participants and educators. Sample questions for the interviews include: "Please tell me about your experiences," "Suggestions for educators and program developers?" and "What challenges did you face as an educator?" Interviews were also conducted with participants who had either divorced after participating in relationship education programs or had prematurely dropped out of the programs. Sample questions for the interview 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)?". A sample question for those who divorced after completing the program include: "Is there anything BHM could have done differently to make the program more satisfying or successful for you?" 16 The following instruments were no longer used in Year 4 and Year 5: 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 are 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 Program and Next Step Coaching Program, the full KSS was no longer applicable. Specific KSS's were developed to measure the satisfaction and knowledge of the BAF and NSC programs. 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 assesses the knowledge gained from the program and asks some basic demographic questions. Permission was granted from the University of Arkansas to use section A-D on the Marriage Garden mini KSS. Participants Demographic Statistics Summary The Weld County Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) indicates that the County's Hispanic (composed primarily of Mexican-Americans) population is the county's largest minority group. This group makes up 27.4% 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 comparing with data from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).No 2010 county specific data is available as of yet. Census information from 2008 indicates that 10% of Weld County families live below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Table 1 illustrates the demographic profiles of those who participated in the program in the first 6 months of Year 5. In addition, the table contains the demographic data of the participants from Years 1, 2, 3, and 4. Demographic Characteristics of the Year 5 Sample (First 6 Months) Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to the fact that some participants did not respond to the demographics questions. Race/Ethnicity • Of the 368 participants, 66% (n= 242) were White, followed by 21% (n = 78) Hispanic. The other 8% (n = 31) were Asian, Black,Native American, or other/multicultural. Five percent (n = 17) did not respond to this question. It is noteworthy that 21% 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). 17 Table 1: Demogra.hic Characteristics Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Year 1 , H, ipa Particnts ; Participants Participants Participants Participants (ii=3(i8) (n=757) (n=846) (n=298) (n=166) n `/o°" n % n % n % n % Gender Female ' 191 51 400 53 512 60 157 53 83 50 Male 177 48, 357 47 334 40 141 47 83 50 Race/Ethnicity Asian 1 0" 1 0 8 1 1 0 1 1 Black ,.,-r 5 1 2 0 10 1 2 1 5 3 Hispanic i8 21 164 22 267 32 88 30 47 28 Native American 3 1 '. 9 1 11 1 5 2 5 3 White x''242 66 507 67 498 59 186 62 92 55 Other 22 6',, 34 5 17 2 4 1 5 3 Did not respond - .J7 5 40 5 35 4 12 4 11 7 Age i 29 or younger 115 31 254 33 223 27 108 37 87 52 30—39 years „ 94 26, ' 217 29 219 26 61 20 56 34 40—49 years 63 17 117 15 163 19 63 21 8 5 50-59 years 43 12 90 12 132 16 41 14 6 4 60-69 years 12 3 12 2 46 5 9 3 3 2 >70 years 1 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 Did not respond 9 11�, 66 8 63 7 12 4 6 3 Number of children. n=363 n=726 n=584 0 97 27. 178 25 122 21 48 16 14 8 1 74 20 156 21 98 17 60 20 46 28 2 85 234 199 27 152 26 75 25 41 25 3 53 15\.� 102 14 133 23 57 19 34 20 4 30 8 57 8 38 6 23 8 21 13 >5 f 2 6 an: 32 4 41 7 32 11 0 0 Did not respond 2 2 1 3 1 10 6 Length of Marriage.. n=316 ''_y n=631 n=514 n=279 0—5 years 157 50, 359 57 209 41 139 50 82 49 6-10 years 69 22 113 18 107 21 55 20 51 31 11 -20 years 46 15f 89 14 107 21 29 10 10 6 >20 years 40 13 : 63 10 62 12 46 16 2 Did not respond 4 1 7 1 29 5 10 4 21 13 #of previous marriages.- ;n=358 n=726 n=586 0 .,' 244 68 485 67 397 68 202 68 127 77 1 77 22 188 26 138 24 65 22 25 15 2 '.. 30 8 36 5 37 6 23 8 5 3 r 3 or more 4 1 ".. 10 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 Did not respond 3 I 7 1 5 1 6 2 8 5 Employed Yes 272 74 544 72 652 77 202 68 89 53 No 91 25,, 208 27 187 22 94 31 71 43 Did not Respond ''.' 5 1 5 1 7 1 2 1 6 4 Employment status••« n-_= 308 n=640 n=480 n=271 Coup. Coup. Coup. Coup. Coup. Both partners employed ft .50 32 94 29 78 32 32 24 10 12 Both partners employed pt .'4 3 r` 10 3 11 5 1 1 4 5 One partner ft, one pt '33 21` 61 19 39 16 17 12 14 17 One partner employed ft -.48 31. 100 31 64 27 52 38 26 31 One partner employed pt ,"8 5 21 7 14 6 5 4 6 7 Both partners did not work 7 5 27 8 25 10 17 13 13 16 Did not respond 7 2 9 4 23 8 10 12 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. Some participants participated alone,and therefore these data were not collected. 18 Table 1 (Continued) Year Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Year 1 Participa nts • Participants Participants Participants Participants (n=368) (ii=757) (n=846) (n=298) (n=166) n % n % n % n % n % Employment status Executive/Adv. Professional 53 14, 88 12 86 10 14 5 1 1 Business Mgt �. 31 8"` 71 9 96 11 26 9 10 6 Admin/Small Business Own 8 10. 78 10 114 14 27 9 4 2 Clerical/Sales/Technical v I 14 95 13 138 16 46 15 20 12 Skilled Manual v 3 14, 142 19 117 14 43 14 27 16 Semiskilled/Machine Oper. i4 4 .„ 24 3 26 3 18 6 10 6 Unskilled m 16 4 20 3 25 3 17 6 16 10 Unemployed 91 25 208 27 187 22 94 32 71 43 Did not respond ik 21 5. 31 4 57 7 13 4 7 4 City* Brighton 4 1 Cheyenne 4 1 11 2 Dacono -11 3 2 1 Eaton 9 2 9 1 10 I 10 3 Evans 20 6, 79 10 64 8 31 10 13 8 Firestone 5 1n 2 1 Fort Collins i 48 11 99 13 29 3 Fort Lupton 4 1 19 6 Frederick 6 2 Galeton 2 1 Greeley 17() 4 332 44 548 65 163 55 98 59 Grover p., 16 5 4 2 Johnstown 4 16 2 13 2 Kersey ' 5 2 2 1 LaSalle 4 1 8 I 10 1 Lochbuie 3 1 Longmont 6 10 1 2 1 Loveland 21 60 8 36 4 Mead 2 I Milliken 12 1 4 1 4 2 Pierce 4 1 Platteville 4 10 3 2 1 Wellington 9 1 Windsor ' 12 26 3 20 2 5 2 4 2 Missing Ailk16 4 17 2 27 3 29 17 Education level igli Less than high school 41 1 56 7 109 13 36 12 21 13 High school 99 2 252 33 233 28 118 40 33 50 More than high school 00 54 418 55 449 53 135 45 54 32 Did not respond 8 31 4 55 6 9 3 8 5 *Only cities with percentages larger than one are displayed. 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 educators who are bilingual and bicultural, thus removing the language barrier. Furthermore, research indicates that minority clients, particularly Hispanic clients, seek counseling services less 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 19 effectively overcome some of the barriers that exist for Hispanics seeking educational and counseling services. Age • The average age of participants was 36 years. Thirty-one percent (n = 115) were 29 or younger, 26% (n = 94) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 29% (n= 106) were between the ages of 40 and 59, and 4% (n = 14) were 60 or older. Household Characteristics • Two hundred sixty-four participants (72%) had children, with an average of two children per household. Of the participants who had children, 74 participants (28%) had one child, 85 participants (32%) had two children, 53 participants (20%) had three children, and 52 participants (20%) had four or more children. Gender • Fifty-two percent (n = 191) of the participants were female, and 48% (n = 177) were male. The gender distribution is not equal because individuals who are either single, in a relationship, or married may participate in seminars. Marital Status • Fifty percent of the participants (n = 157) had been married for 0 to 5 years, 22% (n = 69) were married between 6 and 10 years, and 28% (n = 86) were married for more than 10 years. Sixty-eight percent(n = 244) of the participants who were asked this question indicated the current marriage was their first, 22% (n = 77) had one previous marriage, and 9% (n = 34) indicated having been married twice or more. Employment • Twenty-five percent (n= 91) of the participants were unemployed, and 74% (n = 272) were employed and worked an average of 40 hours. It is noteworthy that 25% 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. • Of the 152 couples who completed the employment questions, 131 couples (84%) indicated that either both were employed full-time, or at least one partner worked full-time; 4 couples (3%) indicated that both partners were employed part-time; 8 couples (5%) indicated that only one partner was employed part-time; and 7 couples (5%) specified that neither partner was employed. Participant Household Location • Forty-six percent of the participants lived in Greeley (n= 170); of those, 39 (22.9%) were Hispanic, and 122 (71.8%) were non-Hispanic. Forty-nine percent (n = 182) lived in cities surrounding Greeley; the majority were non-Hispanic (n= 144, 79%), and 17%were Hispanic (n =31). 20 Education • Of the participants, 27% (n= 99) had a high school diploma only, and 54% (n =200) completed education beyond high school graduation. Eleven percent (n = 41) had less than a high school diploma. Figures 2 through 6 provide a graphic presentation of race/ethnicity, age distribution, length of current marriage, occupation, and city of residence. Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity 0% 1% •Asian 5�6 ■black iCt is Hispanic 1:V ■Native American White • ■Other { Did not respond oa Figure 3: Age 35 -31 30 20 25 20 17 15 12 11 10 4 5 29 or younger 30-39 years 4I0-49 years 50-59 years >60 years Did not respond 21 Figure 4: Length of Current Marriage 13% 0-5 years ■6-10 years 15% 50% ■ 1-20 years 11111 ■:20 years ■Did not respond Figure 5: Occupation Exeuilive/Advanced Piufessiwual •Business Mgt/Lower Professional 14% 25% I;: III Administrative/Small Business Owner •Clerical/Sales/Technical •Skilled Manual,11111111. Semi-skilled/Machine Operator 4% Unskilled 4% Unemployed ■hid not respond Figure 6: Residence 50% -Ab% ._. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% — 15% ° 150 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 0% r e o•0 �a e\ac6 6yo� `°c° �•a- °�� a`°� ec�e `°c °�� °.4cs `�� e,�� tea c, cC. o, �� Oa `tea rq, e, JQ tee' t�`' NP k°� ° Gr c,`• �i` r Q`a o�� 6c a` *Only cities with percentages 1 or larger are displayed in Figure 6 22 Procedures Evaluation of Former Program: Year 1 and Year 2 This report includes the pretest and posttest statistics from the couples who were administered a posttest in Year 2 and Year 3. These couples began the BHM program in Year 1 and Year 2. The couples who initiated the BHM program in Year 1 and Year 2 received an MSI pretest before partaking in any of the services. 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] + KSS): MSI-R posttests and KSS were administered to the couples who entered the former 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 (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 of Current Program (Year 3, Year 4, and First 6 Months of Year 5): Relationship Seminars Pretests: No Posttest Evaluation 8 hours PREP, WOR, WMR, Winning the Workplace Challenge, Love Notes: Mini KSS (Mini Knowledge & Satisfaction Survey), which also includes several demographic questions, but no MSI-R is administered. The administration time is approximately five 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 is 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. The 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. Evaluation: 10 Hours Prepare/Enrich Curriculum (Relationship Inventory) (Year 3 Year 4, and First 6 Months of Year 5): Pretests: No Posttest Evaluation Prepare/Enrich Curriculum: Mini KSS (includes the Prepare/Enrich Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey), and also includes several demographic questions, and the MSI-R is not administered. The administration time is approximately 5 minutes. Logistics and Administration of Posttests: This event is an individualized program (couple with educator), thus packages of assessment instruments were prepared for the educator to use as needed. Educators gave each participant a mini KSS during the last 5 minutes of the final (sixth session). Participants who did not complete all six sessions did not receive a mini KSS (because mini KSS was developed using the six goals of the curriculum). Participants were asked to 23 complete the survey, place it in the self-addressed stamped envelope, seal it, and return by mail to the UNC evaluation team. Evaluation Current Program (Year 3, Year 4, and First 6 Months of Year 5): Next Step Coaching Pretest (MSI-R): The MSI-R (pretest) is administered by technicians at the beginning of the assessment interview. The MSI-R is given to each member of the couple separately so that responses are not discussed because discussion might influence how each partner responds. If couples meet the eligibility criteria, they may participate in Next Step Coaching. To be accepted for participation, a couple must • Have an annual income of less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (This criterion was eliminated on June 1, 2010.) • Successfully complete the intake process • Be able to demonstrate legal status • Be married, living together, or contemplating marriage • Have 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 WOR curriculum and the Relationship Inventories using the Prepare/Enrich curriculum. Enrichment weekends were no longer being 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 are taking part, or will take part, in the Relationship Inventory. Mini KSS's (completion time approximately 5 minutes) are administered after individual events. The same administration procedures are 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) will be administered 12 months after the assessment to determine if the couple's marital satisfaction has increased and to assess knowledge and overall satisfaction with the program. Evaluation of Current Program (Year 3, Year 4, and First 6 Months of Year 5): Building a Family Pretest (MSI-R): The MSI-R(pretest) is administered by assessment technicians at the beginning of the needs assessment interview. The MSI-R is given to each partner of the couple separately so that responses are not discussed because discussion might influence how each partner responds. Posttest Evaluation Individual Events (Mini KSS's): Mini KSS's (completion time approximately 5 minutes) are administered after each individual event, except for Family Liaison, Community Referrals, Financial Management Coaching, and Conflict Resolution Coaching (see Table 2). Same administration procedures are followed as for the Next Step Coaching and Relationship Seminars. Posttest Evaluation (MSI-R + KSS-BAF): The MSI-R will be administered 12 months after the needs assessment to determine if couples' marital satisfaction has changed. A new overall general satisfaction survey (Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey—Building A Family), which will take about 5 minutes to complete, was developed to assess the overall satisfaction with the 24 program and to measure satisfaction with the following events: Family Liaisons, Community Referrals, Conflict Resolution Coaching, and Financial Management Coaching. This survey is administered, together with the post MSI-R, 12 months after the initial assessment. Table 2: Evaluation Individual Events in Buildin a Famil all Mgt+litiffitat; :not- 4 8 hours PREP Family Liaisons 8 hours WOR Seminar/WOR Enrichment Community Referrals weekend (weekend not offered Oct. 30, 2009- September 30, 2010) 10 hours 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 event • Community Referrals: Referrals will be made to the couples during the entire program (for about 1 year); therefore, it will be evaluated when the MSI-R posttest is administered. • Family Liaisons: Liaison services will be available to the couples during the entire program (for about 1 year); therefore, this service will be evaluated when the MSI-R posttest is administered. • Financial Management and Conflict Resolution Coaching programs: These are delivered on an "as needed" basis, are specifically tailored to each couple's need, and are not based upon a fixed curriculum. Educators help couples resolve conflicts and financial problems as they arise. Any increase in knowledge and skills will vary with each couple. For example, some may learn to balance a checkbook, while others may learn skills for resolving conflicts. We will evaluate the couple's satisfaction with these programs with the KSS-BAF 12 months after needs assessment. RESULTS Results from the data derived from the instruments administered during Year 5 (October 1, 2010 through March 31, 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, and 4 but who initiated involvement with the BHM program during Years 1, 2, and 3. In addition, it presents the preliminary 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 Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) (See Appendix A for copies.). It is essential to point out that great caution should be exercised in interpreting any of the following results due to the small sample size, and no conclusions should be drawn based upon these results at this time. As more data are collected, we can provide further interpretation and be more certain about the results. 25 Results MSI-R Pretests (Demographics) There were 20 participants (10 couples) who completed an MSI-R pretest in the first 6 months of Year 5. • Race/Ethnicity. Of the 20 participants, 75.0% (n = 15) were White, followed by 15.0% (n = 3) Hispanic. The other 2 participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. • Age. The average age of participants was 34 years. Thirty-five percent of participants (n = 7) were 29 or younger, 25.0% (n = 5) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 30.0% (n = 6) were between the ages of 40 and 59, 10.0% (n= 2) did not respond to this question. • Gender. 50.0% (n= 10) were females, and 50.0% (n = 10) were males. • Marital Status. Half of the participants (50.0%, n = 10) had been married for 5 years or less, and 30% (n=6) were married for more than 11 years. Two participants (10.0%) indicated that they were not living together, and two participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. Seventy-five percent (n = 15) indicated the current marriage was their first, 10.0% (n= 2) indicated they were previously married once, and 5.0% (n = 1) indicated they had been married twice previously. Two participants (10.0%) did not respond to this question. • Household Characteristics. Nine participants (45.0%) had children, with an average of 1.4 children per household; 5 (25.0%) had one child, 2 (10.0%) had two children, and 2 (10.0%) had four children. • Employment. Twenty percent of participants (n = 4) were unemployed, and 70.0% (n = 14) were employed and worked an average of 37 hours per week. Two participants (10.0%) did not respond to the question. • Education. Twenty five percent (n = 5) who had less than a high school diploma, 30% of participants (n= 6) had a high school diploma only, and 45.0% (n =9) completed education beyond high school graduation. 26 Results MSI-R Pretests Table 3: MSI-R Statistics All participants (n = 20; 10 couples) who MSI-R Scales lst Administration began participating in the Next Step First 6 Months of Year 5 Coaching program (n = 16; 80.0%) or the Building a Family program (n = 4; MSI-R Scale Male Norm Female Norm PankiMat Maki '!,;$041,1 20.0%) completed the MSI-R. Twelve participants (60.0%) completed the Global Distress PREP marriage seminar before taking Number of Responses 8 9 the MSI-R pretest. Mean 11.5 3.65 11.78 4.51 Std. Deviation 7.62 4.61 6.91 5.74 Significant MSI-R Statistics Percentile Rank 93 87 (First Administration) Each scale of the MSI-R has a cutoff %perceiving problem2 63% 56% score that indicates whether the Affective respondent perceives his or her problems Communication to be significant. (See footnotes 1 and 2 Number of Responses 9 9 in Table 3 for these values.)Note that Mean 5.22 3.23 6.67 4.11 Table 3 contains gender specific norms Std. Deviation 3.63 3.10 3.84 3.50 l that were developed for the MSI-R due Percentile Rank 2 80 80 to differences found between men and % perceiving problem 33/0 33/o women on the older MSI-R scales. The Problem Solving literature supports these differences. Communication Also of interest, Table 3 contains Number of Responses 8 10 percentile scores, perhaps best explained Mean 13.0 6.68 12.10 6.44 by an example: A "Percentile Rank" of Std. Deviation 5.78 4.94 6.21 5.10 Percentile Rank' 88 85 87 means that 13% (100 — 87) scored 2 higher than the mean value. This, of % perceiving problem 63% 60% course, means that 87 percent scored at Individual scores above 84th percentile indicate that from the partner's perspective,significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder, or below that same value. 1997,p.53). 2 Individual scores above the 607'percentile(Snyder, 1997,p. 19&p.95-101) • Global distress (GDS) is considered indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in his or her relationship. to be the best overall measure of marital satisfaction. GDS also gauges negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and consideration of divorce. Respondents in this sample reflect a high level of global distress as compared to the norm. Sixty-three percent of the males and 56% of the 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; 33% of the males and females indicated they experienced problems in this area. • The Problem Solving Communication Scale (PSC) is a measure of overt discord in the relationship. Our sample indicates a high level of distress for males and a moderate level of distress for females. Sixty-three percent of the males and 60% of the females viewed problem solving communication as a problem. 27 • The Aggression Scale(AGG) assesses intimidation and physical Table 3: MSI-R Statistics aggression experienced by the MSI-R Scales Et Administration partner. Our group reflects a First 6 Months of Year 5 moderate degree of distress. Forty percent of males and 30% of MSI-R Scale Male t nt Norm Betmpantale NormFemales females indicated a problem with low levels of aggression or Aggression intimidation by their partners. Number of Responses 10 10 • The Time Together Scale (TTO) Mean 3.90 2.02 2.80 2.11 evaluates how companionship is expressed in shared leisure time. Std. Deviation 3.11 2.23 2.70 2.38 This is of moderate concern for Percentile Rank' 85 77 males and females, as 38% of % perceiving problem2 40% 30% males and 22% of females Time Together indicated that they did not find Number of Responses 8 9 their time together satisfying. Mean 4.50 3.23 4.78 3.42 • The Financial Disagreement Scale Std. Deviation 3.55 2.56 3.03 2.75 (FIN) evaluates the extent to which Percentile Rank' 75 74 the respondent experiences discord %perceiving problem2 38% 22% in the relationship concerning Financial finances. FIN scores in this group Disagreement are at a moderate level of concern, Number of Responses 9 10 with 33% of the males and 30% of Mean p 4.11 2.91 4.10 3.00 the females indicating significant Std. Deviation 4.23 2.59 3.35 2.80 discord in their relationships Percentile Rank' 74 73 concerning finances. % perceiving problem2 33% 30% • Sexual Dissatisfaction (SEX) measures general dissatisfaction Sexual Dissatisfaction with the sexual relationship and Number of Responses 8 10 inadequate affection during Mean 6.25 5.22 6.10 4.12 couples' interactions. Sexual Std. Deviation 4.10 3.77 2.56 3.21 dissatisfaction scores are of Percentile Rank' 64 76 moderate concern, with an % perceiving problem2 25% 30% average of 28% of participants Role Orientation indicating they were dissatisfied. Number of Responses 8 9 • The Role Orientation Scale (ROR) Mean 9.13 6.51 8.11 7.05 evaluates the extent to which a Std. Deviation 2.36 3.22 2.80 3.45 partner identifies with traditional Percentile Rank' 79 60 versus nontraditional attitudes % perceiving problem3 n/a n/a regarding marital and parental Individual scores above 84'"percentile indicate that from the partner's gender roles. This group perspective significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder, 1997, 53). Individual scores above the 60th percentile(Snyder, 1997,p. 19&p.95-I0t) 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. 28 scores moderate on this scale reflecting a greater flexibility in the sharing of traditional roles. Table 3: MSI-R Statistics ROR is most meaningful in the MSI-R Scales 1st Administration context of marital satisfaction First 6 Months of Year 5 when there are significant Male Norm . Female r .Norm differences between the attitudes MSI-R Scale ` participant Males participant' Females of the partners. Family of Origin • Family of Origin History (FAM) History measures the respondent's Number of Responses 8 10 perception of the dysfunction of Mean 3.25 3.65 3.90 3.69 relationships in the partner's Std. Deviation 1.58 2.53 2.77 2.68 family of origin. Our sample Percentile Rank' 53 61 indicates a moderate level of % perceiving a problem2 0% 30% distress. None of the males and Dissatisfaction with 30% of the females were very Children dissatisfied in this area. Number of Responses 3 3 • Dissatisfaction with Children Mean 2.33 2.47 1.67 2.30 Scale (DSC) assesses the quality Std. Deviation 1.53 2.02 2.08 1.90 of the relationship between Percentile Rank' 65 57 respondents and their children, as %perceiving problem2 0% 0% well as parental concern regarding Conflict over Raising the emotional and behavioral well- Children being of one or more of the Number of Responses 3 3 children. This is of moderate Mean 2.00 1.76 4.33 2.44 concern for men and of low Std. Deviation 0.00 1.92 3.22 2.43 concern among the female Percentile Rank' 70 81 participants. None of the male and % perceiving problem2 0% 33% female respondents in this sample Individual scores above 84"percentile indicate that from the partner's expressed high dissatisfaction perspective significant problems exist in the couple's relationship(Snyder, 1997, with their children. pp 53). • Conflict Over Child Rearing 2 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. None of the males and 33% of the females reported having many disagreements about raising their children. In summary, MSI-R results indicate that about 60% of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems, as measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. In addition, 62% of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving. Interestingly, large differences in degree of satisfaction between males and females were found in the areas of aggression, the time the couples spent together, family of origin, and conflicts over childrearing. Males were more dissatisfied with their partner's aggression or intimidation and showed more concern than females regarding the time the couples spent together. Females showed more concern than males regarding the family of origin and the conflicts over childrearing. Of least concern to the participants was dissatisfaction with children 29 (See Figure 7.). Caution should be exercised when interpreting these percentages, due to the small sample size (n =20). Figure 7: Percentage of Participants who %Perceiving Problem Perceived Problems 70 t 50 } 40 30 � --- ---. --. : " . 'r----el -4 -_ ...,4 Males t Females 20 W „, 10 GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX FAM DCS CCR GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Agression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family of Origin History,DCS=Disatisfaction 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). However, due to the small number of participants who completed an MSI-R pretest in the first 6 months of Year 5, the evaluators did not conduct statistical procedures to investigate whether or not there was a relationship between the various demographic characteristics assessed (city, gender, employment, ethnicity, age, years of education, length of current marriage, number of previous marriages, number of children, and hours worked each week) and the scales of the MSI-R (Global Distress, Affective Communication, Problem Solving Communication, Aggression, Time Together, Financial Disagreement, Sexual Dissatisfaction, Family of Origin History, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict Over Child Rearing). Posttests Completed in Year 2, Year 3, Year 4, and the First 6 Months of 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 30 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 the first 6 months of Year 5 but who initiated involvement with the BHM program during Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and the first 6 months of Year 4. Response Rate Calculations Pre and Post MSI-R Tests—Year 1 Approximately 89 couples (n = 178) completed the intake interview during January 2007 through September 2007 and participated in the BHM program for 1 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 pretest MSI-R, 67 couples completed the measure.) For Year 2, this number was closer to 100% because the administration of the MSI-R pretest was part of the intake interview. The response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 63% (Out of the 70 couples who were used in the posttest calculation, 44 couples completed the posttest.). For a detailed overview of reasons why the remaining participants were excluded from the posttest calculation, see Table 4 below. Table 4: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 1) Reasons for excluding some couples from MSI-R posttest n calculation 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 participant (The female partner did not complete survey, while the male partner indicated that their marriage was questionable.) 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 8) 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 one couple did not participate in any services. The remainder (57 couples—2 couples = 55 couples) was mailed a 31 posttest package. Twelve couples and 1 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 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 two, 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 5 (below) presents the reasons for excluding participants from the posttest calculation. Figure 8: Posttest Response Rate Year 2 •Of the couples who completed a posttest.30 couples(71%) completed an NISI-tt 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. •O1 the couples who completed a VV\ 12 couples posttest. 12 couples and I p individual(29%) completed the and 1 posttest at home. individual •or the 55 couples who received a package in the mail, I I (20%) listed an incorrect address. Table 5: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 2) Reasons for excluding some couples from MSI-R,posttest n calculation couples Couple is no longer together. 1 7 Couple did not participate in program. 1 7 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). 32 All couples completed an MSI-R pretest; the response rate for the MSI-R pretest was 100%. The figure (Figure 9) below illustrates the posttest response rate. As indicated, the 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 6.) Therefore, the response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 48% (Eleven couples completed the posttest out of the 23 couples included in the posttest calculation.). Figure 9: Posttest Response Rate Year 3 •Of the couples who completed a post-test,5 couples(45%) completed MSI-Rat BIIM location couples • 121 couples received survey package in the mail. 33 couples were contacted 3 times by intake coordinator. •Of'the couples who completed a post-test.6 (55%)completed 6 MSI-R at home. COupleS •Of the 21 couples who received a package in the mail, 3 (14"/x) had a bad address. Table 6: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (Year 3) Reasons for excluding some couples from MSI-R posttest n %` calculation ` couples Moved and did not leave new address (forward time expired, left no 3 30 address) 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 First 6 Months of Year 4 Eighteen couples (n = 36) completed the intake interview from October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. Nine couples were contacted by Building Healthy Marriages staff 1 year later and asked to complete the posttest surveys (MSI-R and KSS). The other nine are currently being 33 contacted. All couples completed an MSI-R pretest, so the response rate for the MSI-R pretest was 100%. The figure(Figure 10) below illustrates the posttest response rate. As indicated, the intake coordinator contacted 9 couples three times. After this contact, 0 couples completed the posttests at the BHM office. Three couples were excluded from the follow-up mailing due to the following: One couple had separated, 1 couple did not participate in the program due to domestic violence issues, and 1 couple had no valid phone number. The remainder (6 couples) was mailed a posttest package. One couple completed the package and mailed it back. One package was returned because the addressee had moved without a forwarding address (See Table 7.). Therefore, the response rate for the MSI-R posttest was 20%. (One couple completed the posttest out of the five couples included in the posttest calculation.) Figure 10: Posttest Response Rate First 6 Months of Year 4 • None of the couples completed an MSI-R posttest at BHM location. couples • Five couples received survevpackage in the mail. 9 couples IN ere contacted 3 times by intake coordinator. • One couple completed 1 MSI-R posttest at home. • Of the 5 couples who couple ieceived a package in the mail, 1 had a bad adchess. Table 7: Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest Response Rate Calculations (First 6 Months of Year 4) Reasons for Excluding Some Couples from MSI-R Posttest n Calculations couples Moved (left no address) or phone disconnected 2 50 Domestic Violence 1 25 Separated 1 25 Comparison Pre and Post MSI-R Scores (Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3) Only 1 couple completed a posttest during the first 6 months of Year 5. With such a small sample(n=2), the overall results will not change. Thus, the evaluation team decided to not add these 2 participants to the analyses until the next report. 34 While this study is ongoing, the current data were collected from January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2010. 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, 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 pretest assessment. To ensure that each partner's answers did not influence those of his or her partner, each individual was administered the MSI 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 posttest 12 months after MSI pretest completion. In order to increase 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. So far, 161 participants completed an MSI pretest and MSI posttest. Gender and ethnicity were both self-reported by participants. For purposes of this study, ethnicity was broken down into Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Asian, Black, Native American, White, and other/multicultural). Couples who were biethnic were excluded from the analyses, which reduced the sample size to 132 participants. Sophisticated analyses were conducted with the existing 132 participants to obtain a more powerful understanding of the data. Demographics • Race/Ethnicity. Of the 132 participants, 62.1% (n = 82) were White, followed by 31.8% (n = 42) Hispanic. The other 6.1 % (n= 8) participants were Asian, Black, Native American, or other/multicultural. It is noteworthy that 31.8% of the participants identified as Hispanic, given the evaluators' particular research interest in understanding the effectiveness of relationship education with Hispanic participants. • Age. The age of participants ranged from 14 years to 70 years, with a mean age of 35 years. Thirty-eight percent(n= 50) were 29 years or younger, 33.3% (n =44) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 26.5 % (n= 35) were between the ages of 40 and 59, and 2.3% (n = 3) were 60 years or older. • Gender. Fifty percent of participants were female (n =66), and 50% (n = 66) were male. • Marital Status. Nearly half the participants (46.2%, n = 61) had been married for 0 to 5 years, 30.3% (n=40) were married between 6 and 10 years, and 23.5% (n = 31) were married for more than 10 years. Seventy-four percent (n = 98) of the participants who were asked this question indicated the current marriage was their first; 18% (n =24) had one previous marriage, and 7.6% (n = 10) indicated having been married at least twice. • Household Characteristics. One hundred nineteen participants (90.2%) had children, with an average of 2.0 children per household; 28 (23.5%)had one child, 35 (29.4%) had two children, 35 (29.4%)had three children, and 21 (17.6%) had four or more children. • Employment. Forty-one percent (n = 54) of the participants were unemployed, and 59% (n = 78) were employed and worked an average of 38 hours per week. • Education. 46.2% (n = 61) had a high school diploma, and 40.2% (n= 53) completed education beyond high school graduation. Program evaluators posed the following questions: Research Questions 1. Does the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program impact marital satisfaction? 2. Is the BHM program equally effective for male and female participants? 35 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 with 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 four and five were answered by comparing the mean scores of each knowledge and satisfaction question of the KSS. Results—Research Question 1: Does the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program impact marital satisfaction? Yes, the Building Healthy Marriages program impacts marital satisfaction. • There was a significant change in marital satisfaction scores over time for the following areas: • Time Together, F(1, 54)=20.430,p < .05 • Problem Solving Communication, F(1 ,40) = 19.993,p < .05 • Global Distress, F(1, 42) = 9.553,p < .05 • Affective Communication, F(1, 50)= 8.468,p < .05 • Financial Disagreement, F(1, 51)= 5.895,p < .05 • Aggression, F(1, 56) = 5.424,p <. 05 • Sexual Dissatisfaction, F(1, 47) = 4.880,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 Time Together and Problem Solving. Couples who participated in the BHM classes were more satisfied with the time they spent with their partners than before they entered the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication than prior to entering the BHM program. 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. The current findings support the conclusion that the BHM program substantially improved communication skills for participants. 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. In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Financial Disagreement, Aggression, 36 and Sexual Dissatisfaction. These finding suggest that couples had less discord in their relationships concerning finances than prior to entering into the BHM program, experienced less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners, 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 of Origin History, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict over Childrearing. In general, participants were most satisfied with the quality of time spent together, solving problems, and their marriages. However, again, caution should be exercised in interpreting these results, due to the small sample size. Results—Research Question 2: Is the BHM program equally effective for male and female participants? Yes, the Building Healthy Marriages program is 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 Role Orientation Scale; males showed greater satisfaction than females. • Gender had a significant influence on participants' ratings on the Affective Communication Scale; males showed greater satisfaction than females. 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. Results indicate that males and females expressed significant differences in ratings for two scales. 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. Data also indicated that females were less satisfied with the affection and understanding expressed by their partners than males. Please see Table 8 and Figure 11 for the scores of males and females at the beginning of the BHM program with the MSI-scores one year later. Table 8: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for the Male and Female Participants MSI-R Sub Pretest Males Pretest Females Posttest Males Posttest Females Scale M SD M SD M SD M SD GDS 8.55 1.02 9.58 1.08 5.38 0.78 7.24 1.01 PSC 10.39 1.06 10.90 0.93 6.25 0.85 6.11 0.92 AGG 3.06 0.39 2.60 0.29 2.68 0.36 2.11 0.28 TTO 4.72 0.38 4.86 0.40 3.12 0.37 3.53 0.43 FIN 4.63 0.42 4.70 0.40 3.74 0.37 4.18 0.42 SEX 5.93 0.63 4.62 0.62 4.44 0.55 3.95 0.63 37 FAM 4.89 0.47 5.14 0.42 4.74 0.44 5.01 0.44 DCS 2.02 0.43 2.00 0.27 2.14 0.34 1.67 0.31 CCR 1.90 0.37 2.81 0.39 1.81 0.39 2.26 0.47 GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Agression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family of Origin History,DCS=Disatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict Over Childrearing. Figure 11: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI Scores for the Male and Female Participants 12 T 10 8 Pre-test Males 6 -- -- --- ---- ----- —Pre-test Females ---Post-test Males 4 --_ — —__ --__. - —Post-test Females 2 GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DCS CCR Note:Purple highlighted areas indicate the significant differences in satisfaction between genders.Gender had a significant influence on participants'ratings of the Affective Communication Scale and the Role Orientation Scale. Results—Research Question 3: Is the BHM program equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants? Yes, the Building Healthy Marriages program is equally effective for Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. • Our 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 9 and Figure 12 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. The data indicated that both Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants gained in marital satisfaction. 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. 38 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) Table 9: Mean Pre- and Post-MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants. MSI-R Hispanic Non-Hispanic Sub Pretest Posttest ' Pretest Posttest Scale M SD M SD M SD M ' 'SD GDS 10.09 1.66 7.96 1.40 8.03 0.96 4.67 0.81 AFC 5.61 0.80 4.61 0.92 5.36 0.49 3.50 0.56 PSC 10.73 1.55 6.55 1.41 10.57 0.93 5.82 0.84 AGG 3.32 0.43 2.74 0.40 2.34 0.28 2.06 0.26 TTO 4.68 0.59 3.37 0.61 4.89 0.42 3.28 0.44 FIN 4.62 0.59 4.29 0.59 4.71 0.41 3.63 0.41 SEX 5.00 0.94 3.85 0.83 5.54 0.57 4.54 0.50 ROR 6.39 0.70 7.04 0.60 6.91 0.42 6.70 0.37 FAM 4.73 0.51 4.77 0.58 5.30 0.30 4.97 0.34 DCS 1.56 0.50 1.63 0.43 2.46 0.28 2.18 0.24 CCR 2.22 0.53 2.06 0.66 2.48 0.29 2.02 0.37 GDS=Global Distress,AFC=Affective Communication,PSC=Problem Solving,AGG=Agression,TTO=Time Together,FIN=Financial Disagreement,SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction,ROR=Role Orientation,FAM=Family of Origin History,DCS=Disatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict Over Childrearing. Note: Ethnicit did not account for a si nificant ortion of the variabilit in test score differences. Figure 12: Mean Pre- and Post MSI-R Scores for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants 12 10I 8 / Pre-test Hispanic 6 —- —Post-test Hispanic 4 ✓ -. -. . ---- -_-_ Pre-test Non-Hispanic J —Post-test Non-Hispanic 2 0 , GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DCS CCR 39 Results—Research Question 4: With what program were participants most satisfied? The results from the Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys from the 132 participants are illustrated below(Tables 10 and 11). The majority of the participants (n= 118; 89%)participated in the Mentoring Program, 10 participants (8%) completed the Next Step Coaching Program, and 4 participants (3%)took part in the Building a Family Program. The majority (86%) of the couples participated in the Marriage Seminar, and 38% of the participants (25 couples) took part in the Enrichment Weekend. (See Table 10) About one third of the participants (n=40)took advantage of the Prepare/Enrich curriculum, Conflict Resolution Coaching (n=36), and Financial Management Coaching (n= 34). Services that were less utilized were the Booster, Marriage Mentoring, and Employment Support Training. Table 10: Participation in BI-IM Events by the 132 Participants Event Number of participants Marriage Seminar 114 86 Enrichment weekend 50 38 Financial Management Coaching 34 26 Conflict Resolution Coaching 36 27 Prepare/Enrich 40 30 Booster 11 8 Marriage Mentoring 8 6 Employment Support Training 4 3 As illustrated in Table 11, 42 participants (32%) engaged in one BHM event, 39 (30%) completed two events, and 35 (27%)took part in three events. Sixteen(11%) engaged in four or more BHM activities. When an uneven number is noted, this indicates that only one partner participated in an event. Table 11: Number of BHM Events Attended b Participants who Completed the KSS (n= 132) imber a 1 42 32 2 39 30 3 35 27 4 10 7 5 4 3 6 2 1 Table 12 displays results from the Knowleege and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS) from the 132 particpants who completed this survey. Table 12: Satisfaction with Education Events Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction Event satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n I % n I % n I % n I % Mean Marriage Seminar Content I 2 I 1.8 I 6 I 5.5 13 5 I 32.1 I 66 I 60.6 I 3.51 40 Instructor 1 1.0 3 2.8 27 24.8 78 71.6 3.67 Facility/Meeting room space 2 1.8 7 6.4 26 23.9 74 67.9 3.58 Enrichment Weekend Content 1 2.0 9 18.4 39 79.6 3.78 Instructor 3 6.1 8 16.3 38 77.6 3.71 Facility/Meeting room space I 2.0 8 16.3 40 81.6 3.89 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 , Satisfaction Event satisfied satisfied . satisfied >satisfied Mean n I % n ( I % n I % nI % Booster Content 1 10.0 5 50.0 4 40.0 3.30 Instructor 4 40.0 6 60.0 3.60 Facility/Meetiug room space 1 10.0 4 40.0 5 50.0 3.40 Marriage Mentoring Content 2 28.6 I 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 I 2.7 7 19.4 10 27.8 18 50.0 3.25 Instructor 4 11.1 5 13.9 7 19.4 20 55.6 3.19 Facility/Meeting room space 1 2.8 4 11.1 9 25.0 22 61.1 3.44 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 4.8 11 133 17 20.0 51 61.4 339 Family Liaison 6 75.0 2 25.0 3.25 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 30 27.8 42 38.9 32 29.6 2.94 Enrichment Weekend 12 25.0 16 33.3 20 41.7 3.17 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 2 6.1 16 48.5 7 21.2 8 24.2 2.64 Employment Support Training 4 100.0 3.00 Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Mean Dissatisfied Satisfied Overall Program ` I 6 I 5.3 33 I 28.9 75 I 65.8 3.61 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. 41 As indicated in Figure 13, 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. Figure 13: Satisfaction with Content of Events Conflict Resolution .94 Prepare/Enrich 3.25 Marriage Mentoring 3.29 Booster 3.3 Financial Management 3.44 Seminar 3.51 Enrichment Weekend 3.78 Employment Support Training 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Average Satisfaction with Content of Event 1=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 13 and Figure 14 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 13: 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 4 3.4 27 22.9 51 43.2 36 30.5 3.01 To de-escalate conflict 5 4.2 27 22.5 53 44.2 35 29.2 2.98 To be a better listener during conflict 4 3.3 22 18.3 44 36.7 50 41.7 3.17 To communicate safely during a conflict 6 5.0 24 19.8 47 38.8 44 36.4 3.07 To reach agreement when working on a 5 4.2 23 19.2 57 47.5 35 29.2 3.02 problem To manage your finances 19 15.7 34 28.1 40 33.1 28 23.1 2.64 To manage a budget for your family 21 17.5 28 23.3 42 35.0 29 24.2 2.66 42 To save for your future 125 120.8 1 31 125.8 134 128.3 130 125.0 I 2.58 Note: n=number of participants,and Mean is the average score on that item, with 1 meaning having not increased any knowledge and 4 meaning having extremely increased knowledge. Figure 14: Knowledge Gained To save for the future 2.58 To manage your finances 2.6 To manage a budget for your family 2.6 To de-escalate conflict ! 2.98 To manage conflict 3.01 To reach agreement when working on a problem 3.02 To communicate safely during a conflict 3.07 To be a better listener during conflict 3.17 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 Additional comments from the Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey In addition to inquiring about levels of satisfaction and knowledge gained, the KSS also allows 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." 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 43 having fun," "Getting out of our normal routine and away from the kids," "Making our relationship come to life again," "Other ways to communicate," "Retouching on all the tools, the break from the kids together(time alone)," "Using things we learned to get through our issues," 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. 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." 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 and helpful," "It was non judgmental and understanding," 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." 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," "Enhance/open communication," "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. What they wanted to change was "More time." 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," "Development of skills," "Would have liked to have more 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 and 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," and "The one on one with counselor." 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 44 identified them but didn't learn how to get past them," "No chart copies for personal success," "Not enough meeting time allotted," and"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," 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. Family Liaison. When participants were asked for feedback regarding the employment support training, 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 more," "I would love for it to go longer or keep going once a month or so," "Maybe a little more time, 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," and "More long time counseling set up for couples...with counselors that are familiar with the material and can work with income challenges." Results—Qualitative Study Beginning in November 2010 and continuing into the present, interviews are being conducted with individuals who dropped out of the educational programs, for reasons other than scheduling difficulties, as well as couples whose relationships ended after their involvement with the program. As data is still being collected, only a preliminary discussion of the findings to date are summarized below, followed by a thorough discussion of the qualitative research conducted thus far. The later information was presented in the last annual report. Preliminary results from the seven individuals interviewed thus far suggest unique themes. Overall participants describe a positive impact from the program on the quality of their past and 45 current relationships through an increased ability to address and resolve conflict, respect others, and use effective communication. Both individuals who dropped out of the program before its completion and individuals whose relationship ended following the program believed that Building Healthy Marriages Program could not have provided any additional assistance with the decisions that led to these events. Overall, participants who later divorced 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. Participants appreciated the skills, education and sincerity of the educators. 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. Participants expressed satisfaction with the program and the benefits that carried over into their relationships. However, there was also consensus on drawbacks that led to recommendations for future directions for the program. Recommendations include a need for a more spacious environment, clarification about the purpose of the program and its affiliation with faith based perspectives on the brochures, more time for individualized questions and skill building, shorter programs overall, quicker follow-up on offers for individual counseling, the inclusion of more realistic conversations, and more fun interactions during the programming to create comfort and lessen fatigue. The final report will more thoroughly discuss the participants, theme analysis, findings, implications and recommendations. The discussion below pertains to the qualitative data collected in 2010. This qualitative study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of the Building Healthy Marriages education program, with a rich, descriptive understanding of the experiences of participants and educators. Sample The purposive sample was chosen from couples who had participated in, and educators who taught marriage education programs. The sample consisted of 11 participants (5 couples, 1 individual); 7 were Hispanic and 4 were non-Hispanic. Six were female, and 5 were male. Participants engaged in two to five events. All participated in the initial marriage seminar, and additional services (coaching, booster sessions, etc.) were utilized by some participants. The majority (n = 8) were married for less than 5 years, 2 were married for 19 years, and 1 did not provide that information. Eight participants were in their first marriage, and 3 had been previously married. Eight had children. The average age of the participants was 31 years. For more detailed information, please see Table 14. In addition, seven educators were interviewed. Four were Hispanic, and three were non- Hispanic. Three educators were male, and four were female. Procedure The research team consisted of the primary investigators and research assistants, all trained in qualitative methods. Members of the team conducted 45 to 80 minute semi-structured 46 interviews with participants. Couples were interviewed together, including married educator participants who co-taught programs. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. (Spanish interviews were transcribed in Spanish and subsequently translated.) Participants were assigned pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. Table 14: Participants' Demographics Pseudonym Year #of Events in Relationship Years in #of Age #of events which Status relationship previous kids participated "marriages, Participants who participated in BHM program Participant 3 1 PREP Married Missing 0 40 3 LA(F) Participants 2 3 PREP, Married 19 0 43,45 3 GS&JS financial counseling,& booster Participants 4 1 WOR Unmarried, in 3 1, 3 29,34 2,4 AC&GS relationship Participants 2 1 PREP Married I 0 27,28 0 1 &2 Participants 2 2 Weekend& Missing 4 0,2 33, 38 0, 3 JR&JR PREP Participants 1 3 Weekend, Missing 2 0 20,29 0 Ws PREP, Prepare/Enrich Participants who dropped early Participant 3 1 PREP Married 5 1 42 1 PS * Participant 4 Started Signed up for YS&MS# 2 but two PREP did not finish classes; neither one completed Participants who divorced/separated Participant I 1 PREP Married,now I 0 19 0 AD * divorced due to DV Participant 4 1 PREP,was Married,now split 32 0 53 2 RC * referred to up inventories Participant 2 1 PREP&Next Were engaged but 0 1 39 1 PS Step Coaching no longer together Participant 2 1 PREP Married,now split 5 I 40 4 LH up Participant 5 1 PREP Married,now split 4 2 49 2 PM * up Note: *Participants completed interview over the phone #: Did not complete KSS;very little information available Data Analysis Fassinger (2005) notes the growing trend in counseling psychology towards alternative methodologies, such as qualitative inquiry for collection of valuable data. The underlying epistemology of the current study is constructionism, which recognizes that individuals create 47 their own interpretations of their worlds according to their past experiences and external factors concerning interaction in a social context (Crotty, 1998). The investigators used phenomenological thematic analysis to identify significant statements that contribute to overall "clusters of meaning,"which organize the data into themes (Creswell, 2007). This study utilizes a phenomenological methodology designed to elicit thick descriptions of the personal experiences of individuals who have been involved in marriage/relationship education (Creswell, 2007). 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). The authors used these themes to create a "textural description" to describe the essence of the participants' experiences (Creswell, 2007). The investigators utilized triangulation, audit trials, and peer examination and consultation to contribute to the trustworthiness of the study (Merriam, 1998). 48 Results lit "t ' w •.r,r,:7,'51',,, Common Themes F M q r Relationship concerns prior to participation N�q N/A -Poor communication, difficulty relating to each other. _ -Unspoken expectations -Conflict over finances Quote:1 would say, '1 don't know why I am fighting' Strengths `Strengths , Anything would set me off with her:my children. -Supportive partner organizations -Comfortable,safe and fun ,thing,1 was like afire. -Excellent preparation atmosphere -Good class offering frequency -Cultural responsivity Strengths -Skills and program congruent -Positive and strength based -Skilled educators, spoke with educator values (education focus-less stigma) e.g., — -Challenged and energized by �, -Caring and passionate educators Spanish conducting training -Practical and useful concepts d having couples as � educators -Educators developed self-care -Benefits carry over to other -Program is free. strategies,enhanced understanding relationships,especially children. -Valuable,practical skills and confidence. Quote:The tools are good fir all — learned,skills generalize g f -Deeper understanding of each Quote:1 feel supported by my relationships,that's what Is other and relationship director and the BHM staff amazing about this. -Couples felt empowered. } Quote:I think ifyou have couples teaching the information.then you can relate to them more. Challenges and Concerns Challenges and Concerns -Not enough marketing Challenges and Concerns -Length of classes(too short or -Not enough time to practice Needs to be more culturally -Educators need to deal with long) responsive conflictual couple issues. -Need for updated materials -Lack of child care creates - -More spiritual emphasis -Group size too big at times conflicts- -Expectations not always clear -Frustration with challenging participants Quote:Too book focused,too `Qu�ot`e:1 would like more time scripted,like for s'wdJ w-'.p nrtiL'O, Quote:!t's hard to share university...would like more fun everything in such a short activities. eriod of time. SS. J Recommendations • 1 Postseminar services (Recommendations t -Provision of childcare Recommendations -More interaction activities -Increased marketing/promotion -Referral sources ready when -Increased community contact efforts needed through events -Provide on-site childcare/ -Tailor language/materials to -Advice for sustainability: reimbursement for childcare meet the need of the class. family education,financial workshops,weekend retreats, -Post-seminar services.i.e., -Information on program and follow-ups follow-ups or boosters .,,,, structure Prefer the 12 hour format -More time to practice skills -Focus on the developmental — -Include emotional health in -Additional screening of couples stages of the couple(participant prior to participation ages and length of time the prescreening. -Increased attention to cultural together) -Provide educators with research findings. issues Quote:It's really important to Quote:h's important that talk with the couples,check in Quote:The 8-hour Omni is advertisements get across that and keep them accountable so a good but 1 wish the they can be on the right track: partc•ic•ipanfs had snore time to this isn't counseling,but skills he able to ask questions and get r•actice the tools. that anybody can use.!am notanswers even after the classes. \en•the commercials do that. f Figure 15: Major Themes Educators and Participants 49 0 op"y v r1 Q N m"'.; O O N Q PI ..Z N StiC O Si ;Q S + TS ',.:},c,-,.:s. -D S .p` 4-,‘'e a ' v v .o r S ••• 0.% C V ..- .... 'cc" -DS .--‘ t ii, 0 - v 2 c, 'tr Q v CI. ' 0 8 E s ° q ~ oo °'� o ea o f az c to pn .`..C `v-' N coo ` E 2 o v v y � p y � . n.s 3 .o yr w g y Y .� y 2 a� N N E o - U U N > 8 .. l N v' C u 'a.. ,tl V a y . « v E g Oy E ,`a v cw o cD.o vsv. °' 0 q � ' en V y G Vk 4 0.l E vi W 2 cl >,Ewa g' 5 u y C O O4. E = n, fi 's I. , r so y y .: iv z -. „ aCi vw ig a' .5 C E l ! ` y p A , g 0 0o v n 5 ^ ro ° ,n,. o Zw' ° � t ,-i 6bU -r C7 ° a ¢ cn u. .cw a3aw ro m dl U a �° � I � � pq,n O ,.c y0 R 00 V w `��.' W v y+'=y OL. 0 -O .`n.. Q s .ti + ' 'pp y �r. 'v' - 3 Q' y v 0 0 ≥ G y N G .C N A ttsV O C O O O 3 o m C C O - w a y o c C 0.b 'C a°^ o .. ba o b N ro C oil e a') to c Iwo ,-`o ooGn I ! itf!I ' a0011111 o 0 (o A cec v °a tpthh m 0 � 0. A a as d cca y o ,- o yvi '0 G vi .� r.. ; y es p s p � "3 g C V) ".' �' 5 $ m 4 e A 5 @ ' oo i Q to t) y v a E et wo ❑col ._Gel w° H �v� y t y 0 '^ O• C �. 3 440 bo 3 A p N O ' I no tit 0 y --,•,' U W ,O Y E d�O Y OF O 'CO^ tb c " N i y R' O N C w t7 " o O id C•7, ≥ O U C y N CY rCn ro N 0 id L1 > G' c„ C A .il .E S Yp "0 r0. ro x 3 •� v .c b 8 H ,d a C v 'oC y E « .y ., E v v '.. a�iF- � .5 s' 4 .2 t0 ,y n O W 4 . c,>,-., E t v .. y 0. O ,N 2 O C i0 W b 4 ., m ro g w D a y it t a ` v _ v o ff ❑ c,-..,' .v. � 0 « 0 `o •., ? E > ti ° ya1:, pud, w .., 0— Et0oV � 0 oc2nro fliHilutlil iistflh a a v a._ s. ::, zfi E. � •� a a ° a. a 4 a ac 8. 1etOe 8� I y.y ILl tHai -, 7t - 0E6 811z 08 .182 g 14 $ o 0s - - v .40 y +". p, v Q - . Z v O Q' .... ti 4. I`. a ° d Q ° s m m s t o \ -�o ,8 ' a o ° i 'ts cn a11c .01O 3 '° oC m m t d z Q o ., o Q a ° Q .s g -O ° d ° n• a `a C -' r m n ,3e z o V cooc ; y � aov o ° sQQ � raro � ds ; 4' N Q U y z a s .a, E. � .o ° o z s u i s i a ~ d 5 Id =kMY.•Y N -o •C '+.' O - ED vi C G y .. to ^ U g al •�7 a� i 4i C 2 v, �i ,°p E" ,�, c - 3 a9 o 2 'o o « ,op„ ;^F y v� 2 o ga $ 3 b 2 3 O `� v ,d „Oy, .v. c b 4 « r3 sci� m x 8 Jg3 ;2 v c d'°' o 3 " W 'y g 3 S G Y g Y c o --„ .D c a,O e on ca °Cl. cn ' t 3Q w giossisiY� ,- v _ ctil .ach o ro n 3 v O , N 0 d ty w0•,g al :? (-5 `',' c E ° E ° c o U a� o c ° ts ie a s v ° o y y I m o .. o o ic on o w Oa."Qfifth hH W.hth a � a : aI.. Ay y N . G 4.a cqcal °o � GyG v u d) 0 : g � P. °�L V u so 'Stl1 'S a lm g - 2 2 CL u .= 9 u v •vo > A w c i^ 112 v , Ft V po O p ie W is °❑❑� �a s. .�. m c -C i "'+s v 7 Q y'�S 8 O c 0 ti u C O` G = v T y ❑ c E ". V., .� wild „ ads >- o c0 o _ao °? c 3 � � �. c o ,„ G .�'`,.+��RJ °u"�3 y ��' ,c‘,,3 a`� o °• C " re: o > o 3'° .-&0= OE 1 ,� o b. W c o �',s . o 4 8 g,,. Y a V 2 rNi, c It. R V`, ' " `° E o cti -9O = - on t) y t' �}§ & Vy�$rv{;�Q 01 �+ p '�O' i o089. .880- r.: 7, 0008 -0 n L o c ro z 0 ,, y y g ❑ � l -$ • tg$C ,3�r N • T+ '� d ^Cqy ; }: 19 o O pa V a•ro •mod N 1 VI 1 N c a�i '3 .G �a 0y9 s W � C> bb" a .g. Ow � W a v c a _ s N -o v � vt v o y r� � •• m W ao a N it m $ £ d C `',8,.. 'z '-;; . - a b ti ' °4 q, O N i " Q A b x S 0 Cil oroK yv oZ � oeo o ° a..8t � ;- oO 4 O - u v d a fra R ° m d o a 4'5 2 41:- 45 ?, Y d V .S. N i ".15. It w Le, G, yTa 't7 t r 6 � O p 6 A l,- rv' 5 C O b. C I ^ 3 O got . A a' u i t . te • I .6 00 a a .,yy mL. ti y ` to a 00.• g o o c,ti 0 °) N E, 24i` O :C t ° C R. to v r [ C U `fib O q�j m +' O.' L C. C bA V O ' 'V i 410.E b2 W O O C co b y C A — CD ra .4g 1 : g d.: .a5 a o E 51.2 d 6 d' o a cfig ° '2 O 3 3 .38 « o " g .� . el etl C O iY. O .p6 N j( Yo t0 t0 c" - `. b N .L E P U°9 es .4 .4 �r a aI co 3 3 m > _c. v d o = ? -3.. 'e tt , . 2.0 v V] " w t o v v ~ o:� o °i4fr d o 44. y S o F _ J .. 0 0 1fi d U 2 N O t+ fr. Vii v L G pbdN DID tC O L L O tC . .� s > •5'ot ≥s. N L' 3 a0Ic `° o 1Pa+ 5 o ta off -j ° mw �e u � � cm " ouou op° op ° 3 $ " g ! o ' ,- is q C G O G O 7 G O N etl Si . `8 y ' 0:5E i cCU o 5 ,,. $ 8412- a82blc` •'onit 3o � yop � 0 °. 8O v 2 c- ! aC °� Y °. U N O.o N= L0a.'O�' ft 4 b O ,2 O � .- I M to A O O • a � � o o a= y :fic;:o.,1k9 � ° � A � o ',.Q [ Q C CI 3 d 'q -� 3 m O I $Q b .3. d y -C . F, b y IHJUJII1II 0 IIIIHHILUII w I a X44. III CII o b o o d Y g 0 a,AcA E a0 v, cu.a w v YAl V ''�- .t v w too s •� a .lv .e a" N g o = bNv •1 L N ' oI 3 0.0 04:40 P. 73a y b a'" d . m• o a • Qp $ „ .y. ° C p 0 Z c E y v ,o 0> d r w & g •d c °' 3 .c m •a N G ftflhliiliiik y 'N 2 0 •yi y Y J " Ebo �a �O U T ON w W >-8cp}i p v v 0.0 Z.� oo u ' > c � v -.a U °� id O `�m 'O C 0s 9 'O 7W CDN a vy7) 2y , i CO `V i i e :o - b bp M1 O ,-. p o ` 8 Cp- d v t.,- y ° m .Q .vp O ° - 0 r o v rob° 'o ?tz,.. .0- e i d o - . d o t .£ 'Q O w o 'b i v ° xz, [ ▪ a e = s 'B a n c v v 5 ° d o33 u 3 b b i'' s LC ° s o 3 a -z -tz 4D x .8 0 L 4 ..4 Ey., -0 � .. I- ~ .°c 3 a d o o ▪ v 2 ,z.. 7 O .•- T N _ .� .3 d. X X ... p N N CO .- A O N > C W Ip� CO cu L _ ° d = a g > o a 25 o 3 =- •o ro m • � = �ai a = .9 u 0 �� OA O r T O N N N O C, 0 p=ldtlldihh Uwc ° va p N F . r. 4 , t.;,-,:-..- 0,-.4 ti L • V F O CS � `r—S t3t p ^ . O h "C q 44)i y "C b t C •D „O tY -.c.-I 0 cd ;... ..9.,g .,:i 4.6. .9, 6, .. 2 „., -,.., c,3 6 I-, 0. 5 .0E . La eog3 ,2 h iii 1111 1111111 4!; lli 11111 jj;! ° 9 a , , y ,v z i t.4)-, 0 :a O ° 4. �; 0 y = oOR. ° 44 �� 0. U , o i 48Ipav 35sg 3E3 flaa w •5fl LC) d 5aq ;61 7° k. W = ,� °ci0b4 -a, au5 oo0 •8acy 3taw w a91 "a. cgga2v ,' — C7 1 e N i 1 , o ' y W CI 1 V) V) Y [ $ o i ' 5 ,,, d NO b i S . O .y A a u — a 5 y .p r v ' Fr s -- ys„ 0O 'Cf G a ' c E Z 'p Z i- b N a [ [ O 4.. a E E 'I .Z .fi i ° .. a! 4 Z y 0'0 y a V .f J 'O ° y y „� b g h v at o '".�"". C4 •0 .4 -aO LI O S S 3 N Op •O 4 O O Z -QD (10 br) alaC) C ro v O. `° V Y o v o w .v. °o_ 0 .`9 v ro '? c -.0 cd w q m «te g ro c c o ° . v c A 8 ° v v ° .D y} C ≥ 4ku. a L > U U v ° C v •E E ,A A u ti .� '.;-1 ,n H 0) Ou U u u u ..c ct 01) ° v ti r N a c d t>. 'vi G 7 c G 5- v .Q w E °' ° •° u V C A t° 3 .O .E .. L° a) T « OD C ° O S C c et v Li k° c 0 v > t L ❑ .a P.u c t°a v ti 3,0 O .O 0 av ro .o C.. en" v m v ° o 0 o y IL! ! ,E x h c Q a •= � w h E a) a Q 0 0 o f � v a o O m N - a ° b v 1-Y . Y ti h U Z Z •C ?..a p b S i S ? U O v C ' a u G .° a it E u v c E . ' ' > N .G 0 0 v, w G v d o v Z . 0. Ezz X O N 1 a E . C a o o `o ° P > d "... O a) .L' 'O "r ar W« `s E o E 'E o 0us y •.c OD, e cu 0 s -a w o a o a v e°n 3 - z' > A A t mRE3cd .Oaroa.� ._ a= F- -0EEi re, b .. " tiLn co Es ° G N `` a) N y7: ° A .5G ° d G Oca • —,° 40 bb a Y cd v w c c c -52 o f -o v . •� � ' E a � $ a °og � .O c.) a c v c c y 8 s E v o Y' ,- E .C1z1 cog o. v u `v 3 h E 3,`p a m = 0 3 u E c Ev a 3, w > .o y v o E o .. v ° .o o ro c A o o v 'E .. w 0 o ° 19 0 •> o 0 a v w 3 w° .A W ac c �E a ° W 0 � CI , 1 . i L, Pih a , VD • • b: \ 3 / - % k) \ . f r 2 •/ \ • \ • \ ° 2 k • / t .f sH ee5 al ( \ a. o 7._ - t / � \ CO 73 \ -1• 0 � 2j . . g ) & G a «1 e '\ § _ •- S 2 $ • § . \ ' \ \ « § . \ ( 7 4. $ . e ' c .�a �k • / § - 0. /-0 !�$ OJ § k ) $ t . rV - -1 Qt - , 2t § J ki k ° ± 2 . a § & 2 � = a « ■ « % « \ k \ ( o § � � u + / •' a § \ - @ _ o E - § k \ \ f ■ ° o © Z'.E * � ' o § ° ® $ © 3 9 n 0 t a 2 ■ % a u § u ■ « § % $ > ■ > a e ■ o § - ■ .4) 4> . 2 © J ■ . > 0.0.° 0 X. 3 u = & - « fok > - 1-4 c , _ ■ ' § Ak - = o & 32 _ _ m2 & 2 § a ° > .% * 8 ° © g o 2 s 10„ w ors,r E % ^ i , C 0 t 2 S 2 § § ` k \ § $ 2 � o 6 2 e « .k o.:+7; flui1I1fl1iIIF1 !! : w o A JmccaGI m . e =ua ■ %■ aoS g al 22 J $ e = - . , / . . , . . . . . . , U Discussion 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. 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 that have carried over into the participants' relationships. However, there was also consensus on drawbacks that led to recommendations for future directions for the program. Recommendations include providing additional time to practice new skills; increasing marketing activities to particular populations, such as males; and more targeted marketing to Hispanic participants. Although services sometimes include childcare provisions, participants would like more, as there is evidence that lack of child care prohibits individuals from participating. Participants and educators alike wished for additional educational programs for families and follow-up programs, such as mentoring or booster sessions, to help scaffold newly acquired skills once initial communication skills are learned. Some participants and educators also recommended more rigorous prescreening of participants, as those with serious issues impacted the entire group in a seminar. Participation in the Three Service Structures for First 6 Months of Year 5 Table 17 indicates the number of participants in each of the three service structures for the first 6 months of Year 5. In order to meet the deadline for this report, PREP, WOR, and Love Notes mini KSS's that were received during the last two weeks of March were excluded from this report (four classes). Two hundred ninety-four participants (82%) were involved in the Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars, 37 (10%) took part in the Within Our Reach Relationship Seminars, 19 (5%) took part in the Public Within My Reach Singles Relationship Seminars, and 10 (3%) took part in the Love Notes Relationship Seminars. Sixteen participants (8 couples)took part in the Next Step Coaching Program and were referred to the Relationship Inventory. Of these 8 couples, two couples (n=4, 25%) took the MSI pretest before involvement in the Next Step Coaching Program. The other 6 couples (n = 12, 75%) participated in a PREP seminar before taking the MSI pretest and starting the Next Step Coaching program. Two couples began participating in the Building a Family program in the first 6 months of Year 5. All couples are being referred to the PREP seminar. Both couples (100%) took the MSI pretest before partaking in the Building a Family program. 57 Table 17: The Three Service Structures Service Structure Number of Number of Participants % Classes Receiving Mini Aim,, KSS 1. Relationship Seminars 360 PREP seminar 15 294 82 Within My Reach 1 19 5 Winning the Workplace Challenge 0 0 0 Within Our Reach 4 37 10 Love Notes 2 10 3 Marriage Garden 0 0 0 2a. Next Step Coaching Continuously 16 Relationship Inventories (All Continuously 16 100 participants were referred to inventory.) 2b. Building a Family** 4 PREP Seminar 15 4 100 Within Our Reach Seminar 4 0 0 Relationship Inventories Continuously 0 0 Conflict Resolution Coaching Continuously 0 0 Financial Management Coaching Continuously 0 0 Case Management Continuously 0 0 Note: *Three WWC classes were offered,and two classes received mini KSS's. **Couples who will be participating in the Building a Family program may participate in the PREP and Within Our Reach seminars.These are the same classes that are being offered for the general public.In addition,they may take part in the Relationship Inventories,which is the same curriculum that is being offered for the Next Step Coaching Program. Referral Source for the Participants in the BHM Program First 6 Months of Year 5 Table 18 provides information on the referral sources for the BI-IM participants. Twenty- four percent of the participants were referred by radio advertisement(n= 87), followed by referrals from the faith based community (n= 52; 14.1%) and friends and family(n = 39; 10.6%). Table 18: Referral Base �. . �.,� Program (n =368 Participant n % Radio 87 23.6 Faith Based Community 52 14.1 Friend/Family 39 10.6 Community Mediation Project 20 5.4 Self-Referral 18 4.9 Internet 14 3.8 United Way 14 3.8 Former Participant 10 2.7 Department of Social Services 7 1.9 58 Billboard 6 r . 1.6 Head Start 5 s.'t 4 Counseling 4 1.1 TV Ad 4 11 b 1.1r Frederick's Miner's Day Event Did Not Respond/Missing 't 16.9 *Includes all participants who initiated involvement with BHM in the first 6 months of Year 5 (Relationship Seminars,Next Step Coaching, and Building a Family), and participants are only counted once. **Only referral sources with percentages 1 or larger are displayed in Table 18. Results Mini KSS's 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 only present data gathered during the first 6 months of Year 5. Percentages may not always add up to 100%due to the fact that some participants did not respond to some of the questions. Results Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars (Mini KSS) Mini KSS's from 15 eight-hour PREP seminars were received. All 15 classes were delivered in English. Mini KSS's were distributed to participants in all classes. As illustrated in Table 19, participants who took part in the 8 hour seminar were able to choose among several locations to attend the PREP class. Table 19: Location Marriage Seminar Location #of Classes #Participants % Average# of Participants per Class Waypoints Church (Greeley) 4 99 33.67 24.75 First Presbyterian Church (Greeley) 4 91 30.95 22.75 First Christian Church (Windsor) 3 60 20.41 20.00 Old Library (Frederick) 1 22 7.48 22.00 Trinity Plaza (Greeley) 2 12 4.08 6.00 Community Baptist Church (Brighton) 1 10 3.40 10.00 Total 15 294 100% 19.60 Ninety-nine participants (33.7%) went to Waypoints Church, 91 (31.0%) attended at First Presbyterian Church, 60 (20.4%) went to First Christian Church in Windsor, 22 (7.5%) went to the Old Library in Frederick, 12 (4.1%) attended at Trinity Plaza, and 10 (3.4%) went to Community Baptist Church in Brighton. The average class size consisted of 20 participants. Sixty-two percent of participants (n= 181) participated in the 1-day event, and 113 participants (38.4%) completed the PREP course in 4 weeks with four 2-hour sessions. Table 20 presents the results from the Public PREP Marriage Relationship Education Seminars Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys based on data from the 294 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, 146 (49.7%) were 59 male, and 148 (50.3%) were female. One percent of the participants (n = 2) were single, 27.2% (n = 80) were in a relationship but not married, and 72.1% (n =212) were married. Seventy-five percent (n=221) of the participants who completed this question were White, followed by 10.5% (n = 31) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other 14.2% In = 42) of participants were Asian (n= 1), Black (n= 5), Native American (n = 3), other/multicultural (n=20), or did not respond (n = 13). The average age of the participants was 37 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 28.6% (n= 84) had a high school diploma only, and 60.9% (n= 179) completed education beyond high school graduation. Eleven percent (n = 31) had less than a high school diploma. Two hundred ninety-two participants (99.3%) of the 294 who completed this question on the mini KSS recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 20: Satisfaction with 8-Hour PREP Seminar Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Marriage Seminar Content PREP seminar 6 2.0 94 32.0 194 66.0 3.64 Educator PREP seminar 4 1.4 39 13.3 251 85.4 3.84 Meeting Room PREP seminar 1 0.3 9 3.1 67 22.8 217 73.8 3.70 The extent to which you use the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean information learned in your relationship at home PREP Seminar I 13 I 4.4 98 33.3 183 162.2 3.58 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 1 0.3 14 4.8 152 51.7 126 42.9 3.38 To de-escalate conflict 2 0.7 11 3.7 142 48.3 138 46.9 3.42 To be a better listener during 1 0.3 13 4.4 89 30.3 190 64.6 3.60 conflict To communicate safely during 20 6.8 118 40.3 155 52.9 3.46 conflict To reach agreement when 2 0.7 20 6.8 126 42.9 145 49.3 3.41 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. As noted in Figure 16, participants in the PREP seminar were most satisfied with the educator. Participants were less satisfied with the meeting room where the seminar was held and were the least satisfied with the content of the PREP seminar. In general, participants were extremely satisfied with this educational program. 60 Figure 16: Satisfaction with PREP Seminar 3.9 Average 3.85 3.84 Satisfaction 1=not at all, 3.8 2-a little, 3.75 II 3.7 3=quite a bit, 3.7 4=extremely 3.64 3.65 __._. . 3.6 3.55 .. 3.5 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Educator PREP Seminar Meeting Room PREP Content PREP Seminar Seminar Figure 17 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. Figure 17: Knowledge Gained during PREP Seminar To be a better listener during conflict .„ '. , ; 3.6 To communicate safely during a conflict i 'i' ' ".:1 3.46 To de-escalate conflict x . , < , 3.42 To reach agreement when working on a problem I-... 3.471 To increase knowledge to manage conflict . 3!,38 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 61 Additional Comments from the 8 Hour PREP Mini KSS In addition to inquiring about levels of satisfaction and knowledge gained, the mini KSS also encourages individuals to make comments on their experiences. This section includes 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," "How to talk with my wife," "I liked all the different skills that were taught to positively tackle problems and have conversations," 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, conflict resolution skills, that the program was educational, 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 cool temperature of the room, having to travel to the event, and no child care being offered. When asked for feedback on the educators, positive comments included, "Kept setting light and open," "Attitude and spirit," "Competent," "Down to earth, with great concern about everyone's relationships," "Easy-going," "Personable," "Easy to understand," "Energetic," "Funny and passionate," "Positive attitudes and knowledge," "Engaging," "Capable to answer questions," "Sensitive," "Entertaining," "Enthusiastic," "Friendly," "Honesty," "Welcoming," "Nonjudgmental," "Great life stories of themselves really helped me to relate," "Added their own real life experiences, gave realness to event," 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, educators did not participate equally, that they read the slides, and that they 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," "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," 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," and "I think it would be good to do a longer event and more practicing activities."). 62 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 Four 8-hour Public Spanish "Within Our Reach" Relationship Seminars were offered in the first 6 months of Year 5. Table 21 summarizes the results. Sixty-five percent of participants (n=24) participated in the 1-day event, and 13 participants (35.1%) completed the PREP course in 4 weeks with four 2-hour sessions. Of the participants, 14 (37.8%) were male, and 23 (62.2%) were female. Three percent(n= 1) were single, 10.8% (n =4) were in a relationship but not married, and 81.1% (n= 30) were married. Ninety-seven percent(n =36) of the participants were Hispanic, followed by 2.7% (n= 1) who did not complete the question. The average age of the participants was 37 years. The participants completed on average 11 years of education. Of the participants, 13.5% (n= 5) had a high school diploma only, and 29.7% (n= 11) completed education beyond high school graduation. Twenty-one participants (56.8%) 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 21 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. All participants (n = 37) recommended the 8-hour seminar to other couples. Table 21: Satisfaction with Within Our Reach Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely, Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Within Our Reach Content WOR 1 2.7 14 37.8 20 54.1 3.54 Educator WOR 6 16.2 30 81.1 3.83 Meeting Room WOR 8 21.6 27 73.0 3.77 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 J 2.7 3 I 8.1 12 1 32.4 17 45.9 3.36 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 5 13.5 17 45.9 14 37.8 3.25 To de-escalate conflict 1 2.7 7 18.9 16 43.2 12 32.4 3.08 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased n % n % n % n % knowledge to do these things in Mean your relationship? 63 To be a better listener during 3 8.1 13 35.1 19 51.4 3.46 conflict To communicate safely during a 1 2.7 6 16.2 11 29.7 17 45.9 3.26 conflict To reach agreement when 1 2.7 5 13.5 12 32.4 16 43.2 3.26 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 1 2.7 6 16.2 16 43.2 12 32.4 3.11 relationship To know the communication 2 5.4 2 5.4 13 35.1 17 45.9 3.32 danger signs To be aware of my expectations 3 8.1 18 48.6 12 32.4 3.27 for my relationships To understand issues, events, and 4 10.8 15 40.5 15 40.5 3.32 hidden issues To take stock of support in my 6 16.2 15 40.5 14 37.8 3.23 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. Note: The total n does not always sum to 267 for each question because some teens received the wrong mini KSS and therefore had no score on some of these questions. (See Special Problems Encountered or Expected sections.) Figure 18 indicates that participants who participated 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 18: Satisfaction with WOR Average 3.9 -... -. ..-3.83 Satisfaction 3.85 --- --- -- 3,77 1= not at all, 3.8 2=a little, 3.75 -- — --- - - 3=quite a bit, 3.7 3.65 - 4=extremely 3.6 3.54 3.55 3.5 3.45 3.4 3.35 Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content WOR Room WOR WOR Figure 19 indicates that participants in the WOR seminar gained the most knowledge about how to be a better listener during conflict and the communication danger signs. Participants reported that the WOR seminar taught them the least about how to de-escalate conflict. In general, participants were satisfied with this educational program. 64 Figure 19: Knowledge Gained during WOR To be a better listener during conflict "7_,' t '="-k ' • •'{` 3 I46 To know the communication danger signs F. ' :r-t- „- tr,,itly,r 3.32 To understand issues,events,and hidden issues v. •rre'vr "es ..t lr1 3.32! To be aware of my expectations for my Ir A a 4-West E 3.27 To reach agreement when working on a problem s-s wla .='rr 3J26 To communicate safely during a conflict r trJ 3;26 To manage conflict h r+ 3.25 To take stock of support in my life h ' . u=1"-" u r: 3.23 To know the hidden issues in my relationship cr ;rsxwz,wn -4 3.11 To de-escalate conflict . srt 9141"4" . : 3.08 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 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 steps for resolving problems, useful tools, the freedom to express themselves as couples, and learning and practicing how to listen and be more patient. Negative comments from the participants were minimal; most focused on the shortness of the seminar. Additionally, one participant included the following negative comment: "Waking up old problems." When participants were asked for feedback on the educators, they found the educators to be good teachers, approachable, and professional. Participants spoke of the educators' "knowledge and calmness when handling difficult conversations." The only suggestions for how educators could improve the seminar included adjusting the length of the seminar (more hours and more classes). Other services the participants suggested may be helpful included family programs and a program in which children could also attend. Results from Public "Within My Reach" Singles Relationship Seminars (WMR) One 8-hour Public "Within My Reach" Relationship Seminar was offered on Saturday, January 22, 2011 at Waypoints in Greeley and was attended by 19 participants. The participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 22 summarizes the results. Sixteen participants (84.2%) who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this seminar to others. Of the participants, 8 (42.1%) were male, and 11 (57.9%) were female. Seventy-nine percent of the participants (n = 15) were single, 5.3% of the participants (n= 1) were in a relationship but not married, and 15.8% (n= 3) were married. Seventy-four percent (n = 14) of the participants who answered this question were White, followed by 15.8% (n = 3) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The average age of the participants was 38 years. The participants completed on average 14 years of education. Of the participants, 47.4% (n = 9) had a high school diploma only, and 42.1% (n = 8) completed education beyond high school graduation. Two participants (10.5%) had less than a high school diploma. 65 Table 22: Satisfaction with Within My Reach Seminar _ Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % - Mean Within My Reach Content 4 22.2 14 77.8 3.78 Educator Within My Reach 3 16.7 15 83.3 3.83 Meeting Room Seminar 4 22.2 14 77.8 3.78 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information you 4 learned in your relationship Within My Reach I 1 1 19 1100 4.00 To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To manage conflict 1 5.3 9 47.4 9 47.4 3.42 To de-escalate conflict 1 5.3 10 52.6 8 42.1 3.37 To be a better listener during 2 10.5 6 31.6 11 57.9 3.47 conflict To communicate safely during a 2 10.5 7 36.8 10 52.6 3.42 conflict To reach agreement when 4 21.1 7 36.8 8 42.1 3.21 working on a problem To know the hidden issues in my 1 5.3 5 26.3 13 68.4 3.63 relationship To know the communication 1 5.3 8 42.1 10 52.6 3.47 danger sins To be aware of my expectations 1 5.3 5 26.3 13 68.4 3.63 for my relationships To understand issues,events, and 1 5.3 6 31.6 12 63.2 3.58 hidden issues To what extent do you believe Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely you now have increased knowledge to do these things in n % n % n % n % Mean your relationship? To identify problem behaviors in 1 5.3 7 36.8 11 57.9 3.53 a partner To take stock of support in my 1 5.3 7 36.8 11 57.9 3.53 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. Figure 20 indicated that participants in Within My Reach were most satisfied with the seminar's educator. They were less satisfied with the content of the seminar and with the meeting room. In general,participants were very satisfied with the WMR educational program. 66 Figure 20: Satisfaction with WMR 3.84 3.83 Average 3.83 r Satisfaction 1=not at all, 3.82 2=a little, 3.81 3=quite a bit, 4=extremely 3.8 3.79 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.77 -.-------_--_ -. 3.75 ___ ----. __ --. __-,. 11- 3.76 ----. ----, Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Content Satisfaction with Meeting WMR WMR Room WMR As indicated by Figure 21, participants in Within My Reach gained the most knowledge in the areas of understanding issues, events, and hidden issues; becoming aware of my expectations for my relationships; and knowing the hidden issues in my relationship. 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 a partner. Figure 21: Knowledge Gained during WMR To know the hidden issues in my relationship t err *t..=�I^. .. I - 3.6 To be aware of my expectations for my...Liz Y," a4 ara , , 3.63 To understand issues,events, and hidden issues um a�.: r .:.r'r I - r wrp .58 To identify problem behaviors in a partner °s.tr s - s 3.53 To take stock of support in my life i L O-.. . . . u, 3.4 To be a better listener during conflict - •.nom r.? ,a .47 I To know the communication danger signs I - • "4 '-'=" t "t .47 To manage conflict l . .. , -d.I - -„.-.76 3.4 To communicate safely during a conflict r.eset, -^ S1 3.4 To de-escalate conflict .37 To reach agreement when working on a... I,^e:.v .- a 3.21 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Average Knowledge Gained 1= not at all, 2 = a little, 3=quite a bit, 4=extremely 67 Additional Comments from the WMR Mini KSS The mini KSS also allows participants to provide comments about their experiences. The following are participants' comments regarding the Within My Reach Seminar. Positive responses to the question, "What did you like the most about Within My Reach?" included, "The focus was on me and my behavior," "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."Negative comments about the program included, "Not enough time for everyone," "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." What participants liked most about the educators included their use of humor and engagement, their ability to relate, and their experience and knowledge. No negative comments were made about the educators, and the only two suggestions for improving the program were to show fewer videos that were longer and make 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," "Family class, parenting class," "Group process or group therapy," and "More single classes." Results from Public "Love Notes" Student/Teen Relationship Education Seminars (New Curriculum, Added in Year 4) From October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011, 10 teens participated in two Love Notes Seminars. They completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the Seminar. The 1-day classes were offered at Waypoints Church. The average class size consisted of 5 participants. Of the young adults, 5 (50.0%) were male and 5 (50.0%) were female. Sixty percent (n =6) were single and 40.0% (n=4) were in a relationship but not married. Thirty percent (n = 3) of the participants were White, followed by 60.0% (n = 6) who identified themselves as Hispanic. The other participant (n = 1) identified as multicultural. The average age of the participants was 15 years. The participants completed on average 10 years of education. The teens completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the 8-hour event. Table 23 contains the results from the satisfaction and knowledge portion of the mini KSS. Ninety percent of the participants (n = 9) who completed this question indicated that they would recommend this program to other teens. Table 23: Satisfaction with Love Notes Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Satisfaction with: satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied n % n % n % n % Mean Love Notes Seminar Content Seminar 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 Educator Seminar 10 100.0 4.00 Meeting Room Seminar 2 20.0 8 80.0 3.80 68 The extent to which you think Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely Mean you will use the information learned in your relationship Love Notes 1 1 10.0 I 2 120.0 7 I 70.0 3.50 To what extent do you believe the Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely,{ Love Notes program increased your knowledge to do these n % n % n % n % Mean things in your relationship? To identify my expectations fora 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0 3.40 relationship To understand the Chemistry of 1 10.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 7 70.0 3.40 Love To identify what makes a great 1 10.0 1 10.0 8 80.0 3.60 relationship How to decide, not slide when 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0 3.40 making decisions To identify my personal line 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 during physical intimacy To use skills to counter the four 1 10.0 9 90.0 3.70 communication danger signs To be a better listener during a 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 conflict To communicate safely during a 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 3.50 conflict To identify issues and hidden 1 10.0 1 10.0 8 80.0 3.50 issues To know what being a good 2 20.0 2 20.0 6 60.0 3.20 mother/father means To plan for my future success 1 10.0 2 20.0 7 70.0 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 22 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. 69 Figure 22: Satisfaction with Love Notes Seminar 4.1 4 4 3.9 Average 3.8 Satisfaction 3.8 1=not at all, 3.7 -- 2=a little, 3=quite a bit, 36 3.5 4=extremely 3.5111 3.4 — 3.3 3.2 , Satisfaction with Educator Satisfaction with Meeting Satisfaction with Content Love Notes Room Love Notes Love Notes i As shown in Figure 23, 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, and how to plan for future success. Participants gained the least amount of knowledge regarding how to know what being a good mother/father means and how to identify expectations for a relationship. Figure 23: Knowledge Gained during Love Notes To use skills to counter the four communication... n._4t,' ~" - "•A `''':t-?-:,;-1-rmisgromes 3.7 To identify what makes a great relationship F r .. s).4.;--;,‘.'" 3.6 To plan for my future success !!--)k - . 3.5 To identify issues and hidden issues !' .- - +apzet tr A " 3.5 To communicate safely during a conflict - .•-'11-,:t.:.,..-I. -•---f-r-:- ,I 3.5 To be a better listener during a conflict r . -rI 3.5 To identify my personal line during physical... 3.5 How to decide,not slide when making decisions V AIME . 3.4 To understand the Chemistry of Love a*.. :n..... 13A To identify my expectations for a relationship - 3.4 To know what being a good mother/father means - 3.2 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 The KSS also allowed participants to provide comments about their experiences. Following are some of the teens' comments regarding the 'Love Notes' Seminar. 70 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, 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 having more activities, 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. No Seminars were scheduled during the first 6 months of Year 5. Results Relationship Inventories (Prepare-Enrich). During this reporting period, no participants completed a mini Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) at the end of the sixth follow-up session. Results Mini KSS 8-Hour Marriage Garden Curriculum. No Seminars using the Marriage Garden Curriculum were scheduled during the first 6 months of Year 5. Comparison of Satisfaction with the 8-Hour PREP Seminar, WOR, WMR, and Love Notes Figure 24 illustrates mean satisfaction values with the content, educator, and meeting space of the different programs that were offered in the first 6 months of Year 5. Participants were the most satisfied with the content of the Within My Reach Seminars, followed by the content of the PREP seminars and the Within Our Reach seminars. The content of the Love Notes class curriculum was rated the lowest. For all four classes, participants were the most satisfied with the educator and the least satisfied with the content. Overall, PREP, WOR, WMR, and Love Notes 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. 71 Figure 24: Comparison Satisfaction Programs 4 Average 4 Satisfaction -4/3'9 3.84 3.83 3.83 1=not at all, .8 2=a little, 3,8 3=quite obit, 11 4=extremely 3.7 3.6. .Vi • Content 3.6 r Bp% ,�` ■Educator x" 3.5 ,. , + • Meeting Room 3.4 /* s� kti ' 3.3 r, ;.v PREP WOR WMR Love Notes 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 24 below. Table 24: Interest in Follow-Up Seminars PREP WMR WOR Total n I % n % n % n Interested in follow-up seminars Yes 82 83.7 17 89.5 8 100 107 85.6 No 16 16.3 2 10.5 0 0 18 14.4 Length of seminar 2 - 3 hour seminar 41 41.8 6 31.6 5 62.3 52 41.6 4-6 hour seminar 27 27.6 5 26.3 1 12.5 33 26.4 6 or more hours 14 14.3 5 26.3 2 25.0 21 16.8 Did not respond 16 16.3 3 15.8 0 0 19 15.2 To be offered Weekly 18 18.4 5 26.3 6 75.0 29 23.2 Monthly 30 30.6 4 21.1 1 12.5 35 28.0 Every other month 11 11.2 4 21.1 0 0 15 12.0 Twice a year 20 20.4 1 5.3 0 0 21 16.8 Did not respond 19 19.4 5 26.3 1 12.5 25 20.0 Total 98 100 19 100 8 100 125 100 One hundred seven (85.6%) of the 125 participants who completed these questions indicated that they were interested in follow-up seminars. Of the participants, 52 (41.6%) preferred a 2- 3 hour seminar, 33 (26.4%) showed an interest in a 4 -6 hour seminar, and 21 (16.8%) selected the 72 6 or more hour seminar. Twenty-three percent (n = 29) wanted these services to be available weekly, 28% (n= 35), monthly, 12% (n= 15), every other month, and 17%, (n = 25), twice a year. 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." SPECIAL PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED OR EXPECTED Challenges in Recruiting Participants for the Qualitative Study We plan to increase our sample of participants for the current qualitative evaluation that focuses on individuals who dropped out of the educational programs for reasons other than scheduling difficulties, and couples whose relationships ended after their involvement with the program. Thus far the individuals we have interviewed have expressed satisfaction with the educational programs in which they participated. To broaden the perspectives we would like to hear from individuals who experienced some dissatisfaction. Significant effort has been expended to increase the sample. One of the greatest obstacles is that a significant number of participants have moved since involvement with the program, or their telephones have been disconnected, and they are untraceable. Efforts to obtain participants will continue until the end of April and interviews will continue until mid-May. We fully expect to be able to recruit and interview another 6-7 participants. Teens Added to the Sample of Participants. Several teen relationship education programs were added to the curriculum. During the previous evaluation period, BHM began to include teenagers in their educational programs. Community agencies such as the Weld County Probation Department, Youth 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. This program is referred to as "Love Notes." The BHM project originally developed its own consent form, which did not meet the UNC IRB standards. Thus,the UNC Program Evaluation Team revised the form and asked the BHM project manager to accept suggested revisions. The teen participants needed to given their consent and have parental consent to participate. Teens were notified about this opportunity from their referral sources (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. Until full approval is granted by the research board of the school district for delivery of the programs, the project evaluation team is 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. 73 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 the 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. Currently, each member of the couple is contacted 12 months after the completion of the intake assessment and is asked to take the MSI-R posttest. A $30 Target gift card is offered to each couple as an incentive for completing the posttest MSI-R. The posttest data will yield valuable information regarding the potential lasting effectiveness of the educational programs. Due to the fact that some of the couples have moved and have not left a forwarding address, it is 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 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 (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 are participating in the Next Step Coaching program. The majority of couples who complete an MSI-R pretest will take part in the Next Step Coaching Program. This program offers participants the opportunity to take part in the Prepare/ Enrich Curriculum, which consists of an inventory (with up to 8 follow-up sessions) that will discuss the couples' strengths and weaknesses. Due to the intensity of the sessions, some couples may choose not to complete the curriculum, which may result in a lack of involvement in the program. This may contribute 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 make it difficult to accurately compare the pretest and posttest MSI 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 "pretest" will likely influence the scores on the MSI pretest. For some of the programs, couples took the pretest before being exposed to BHM program materials. These samples will need to be evaluated separately, thus reducing the overall number of results that can be compared together. During the first 19 months of this project, couples received an MSI-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 74 no requirement for assessment of domestic violence, child abuse, or substance/alcohol abuse in the community model. The original program was targeted to 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 pretest. Another change in program delivery occurred at the beginning of Year 3. The majority of couples that will and are participating in the "Building a Family" Program and "Next Step Coaching" (programs delivered in Year 3) are also receiving or received 8 hours of marriage education before taking the MSI-R pretest. In addition, it will be a challenge to compare different subgroups within our sample because couples have considerable flexibility in program participation. Couples may participate in a number of different events for which they qualify; there is no set sequence of events in which couples must participate. This creates many discrete subgroups. In addition, the sequence can be quite different, and the time lapse between events varies enormously. Therefore, at this time, it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding which sequence and combination of events is most effective. When the sample size is larger, there will be a larger number of couples across all sampling situations. We may be able to compare each subgroup with the others, including those who were pre-sensitized to the program's educational agenda and those who were not. Another change effective June 1, 2010 was that the income eligibility criteria(200% below poverty level) was eliminated for participation in the Next Step Coaching Program. This allows a greater number of couples to take part in this specific program. Building Healthy Marriages began offering Winning the Work Place Challenge curriculum to businesses in Weld County in the third year of the grant cycle. This 8-hour workshop focuses 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. CURRENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Current outcomes and highlights: The Evaluation Team has collected data over several years and presented the outcomes of the evaluation studies at several professional conferences. We will present a comprehensive review in August, 2011 at the American Psychological Association Convention in Washington, D.C. 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 April 2010 Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Annual Convention Title—Evaluating a Marriage Education Program for Low-Income Families August 2010 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Diego, California Title—Experiences of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants in Marriage Education Programs November 17, 2010. 75 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. The report is entitled: 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 were asked to submit a summary of our data for consideration in this report. August 2011 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Title—Assessing A Multi-Year Marriage Education Program: Impact, Recommendations, and Program Implications. A change was made to the project evaluation in March 2010. In addition to the original project evaluation plans, we began conducting qualitative interviews with a sample of both the participants and marriage educators. A decision to conduct a qualitative study was based upon findings from the original quantitative project evaluation that required closer examination. We are interested in learning more about the experiences of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants and educators with the Building Healthy Marriages educational workshops. Currently, interviews are being conducted with individuals who were not satisfied with the program and dropped out for this reason and couples whose relationships ended after their involvement with the program. The results of this study will be presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in August 2011. In addition, 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. 76 REFERENCES Administration for Children & Families. (2005). The healthy marriage initiative (HMI). Retrieved Sept. 27, 2008, from http://www.aclhhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html Administration for Children & Families. (2008). Healthy Hispanic Marriage Initiative (HHMI). Retrieved Oct. 13, 2008, from http://www.acf hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/hispanic_hhmi.htm. Bowling, T. K., Hill, C. M., & Jencius, M. (2005). An overview of marriage enrichment. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13O). 87— 94. 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. 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 Garcia, J. G. & Zea, M. C. (Eds.), Psychological interventions and research with Latino populations. (pp. 94— 107). Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn& Bacon. Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigm, praxis, problems and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 156— 166. Flores, E., Eyre, S., & Millstein, S. G. (1998) Sociocultural beliefs related to sex among Mexican American adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, (20), (pp. 60- 82). Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: Discriminate validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, No. 1, 65— 79. 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. Larsen, A. S., & Olsen, D. H. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction with PREPARE: A replication. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15(3), 311 —322. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Olson, D. H., & Olson-Sigg, A. K. (1999). PREPARE/ENRICH program: Version 2000. In Rony, B., & Hannah, M. T. (Eds.) Preventive approaches in couples' therapy. (Chapter 9, 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. Pearson, M. (2010). Love Notes. Making Relationships Work for Young Adults & Young Parents —Available in English and Spanish. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from: http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/?page 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). Within Our Reach Overview. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/wor overview.pdf. 77 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. Smart Marriages: The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couple Education. (2009). PREP: Winning the workplace challenge: The PREP approach for business. Retrieved February 20, 2009 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., 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. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Jenkins, N. H., Rhoades, G. K.,Noll, L., & Ramos, L. D. (2006). Within Our Reach Leader Manual. Denver: PREP Educational Products, Inc. Sue, S., Zane,N.,&Young, K. (1994). Research on psychotherapy with culturally diverse populations.In A. Bergin&S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 783-817). New York: John Wiley. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (2006a). Family life: The marriage garden. Retrieved September 27, 2008, from http://www.arfamilies.org/family_life/marriage/default.htm. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. (2006b). Evaluation Instrument. http://www.arfamilies.org/family life/marriage/ United States Census Bureau. (2008). Weld County Colorado Fact Sheet (Data File). Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08123.html. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000(Data file). Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/table/NotAvailable.jsp? lang=en& st id=not available& p anel id=p qt result& ts=304508017284 United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census Data. Retrieved from: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ 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. Wilcox, W. B., Doherty, W., Glenn, N., & Waite, L. (2005). Why marriage matters, second edition. Institute for American Values: New York. Respectfully submitted, University of Northern Colorado BHM Evaluation Team 78 APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENTS The Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI-R) cannot be reproduced here due to copyright laws. However, a hard copy is available for viewing from the Weld County, CO Building Healthy Marriages staff. - Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (KSS) - Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (KSS)—Next Step Coaching - Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (KSS)—Building a Family - PREP Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) - Within My Reach Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) - Winning the Workplace Challenge Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) - Marriage Garden Workshop Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) - Relationship Inventory Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) - Within Our Reach Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey (mini KSS) -Love Notes (mini KSS) - Semi-Structured Interview Questions 79 Participation in Building Healthy Marriages Events and Satisfaction Survey(KSS) SATISFACTION Please indicate which programs you have participated in by checking the box and answer the questions that belong to that program. A short description of each program is provided. If you attended, please check the box E Marriage Seminar: Couples participated in a I2-hour 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 coaches facilitated workshops. On a scale from 1 to 4,how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4. The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this Workshop to other couples? I 1 Yes I No 6. What did you like the most about this Workshop? 7. What did you like the least about this Workshop? 8. Please provide any other comments about this Workshop If you attended, please check the box ❑ Enrichment Weekend: Couples participated in a weekend program that included much of the 12-hour PREP content in a 2-day format. Marriage educators and coaches facilitated weekends. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at A little Quite a bit Extremely all satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4. The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this Enrichment Weekend I-1 Yes ❑ No to other couples? 6. What did you like the most about this Weekend? 7. What did you like the least about this Weekend? 8. Please provide any other comments about this Weekend. Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 80 If you attended,please check the box Li Marriage Booster: Couples participated in a 6-hour workshop reviewing and practicing the techniques they learned in previous PREP training. Marriage counselors and coaches facilitated workshops. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4.The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this Marriage Booster to I Yes E No other couples? 6. What did you like the most about this Booster? 7. What did you like the least about this Booster? 8. Do you have any other comments about this Booster? If you attended,please check the box ❑ Marriage Mentoring: Couples were matched with a more experienced couple(Marriage Mentors)to develop relationship skills. On a scale from I to 4,how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space I 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4. The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. I 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this Mentoring Seminar to I_. Yes [1 No other couples? 6. What did you like the most about this Mentoring Seminar? 7. What did you like the least about this Mentoring Seminar? 8. Do you have any other comments about this Mentoring Seminar? Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 81 If you attended,please check the box E Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples received up to 3 hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or PREPARE/ENRICH training On a scale from I to 4,how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied I. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4.The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this coaching to other I I Yes C No couples? 6, What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. Do you have any other comments about this event? If you attended, please check the box Financial Management Counseling: Couples were referred to a maximum of 6 free hours of financial counseling. On a scale from I to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied I.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor I 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4.The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. I 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this counseling to other P Yes IJ No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this counseling? 7. What did you like the least about this counseling? 8. Do you have any other comments about this counseling? Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 82 If you attended, please check the box ❑ Premarital/Relationship Inventories: Couples participated in the PREPARE/ENRICH inventories. The inventories included Opportunities to discuss the results in follow-up sessions. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Extremely 4.The extent to which you using the information all bit learned in your relationship at home. 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this event to other I Yes L No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. Do you have any other comments about this event? If you attended,please check the box [: Employment Support Training: Participants had the opportunity 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 and support. On a scale from 1 to 4,how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The content of this training 1 2 3 4 2. Your technician 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at A little Quite a Very 4.The extent to which you using or used the information all bit much learned in finding ajob 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend this training to other C Yes C No people? 6. What did you like the most about this training? 7. What did you like the least about this training? 8. Do you have any other comments about this training? Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northem Colorado 83 FAMILY ADVOCATES Couples were assigned a family advocate who assists couples throughout participation in the program and can provide families with referrals to a variety of services. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1.The family advocate? 1 2 3 4 2. Would you recommend this family advocate to ❑ Yes [I No other couples? 3. What did the family advocate do that was most helpful? 4. How could they have been more helpful? 5. Do you have any other comments about this family advocate? OVERALL PROGRAM SATISFACTION 1, How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the program(s)you have participated in(circle one)? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied 1 2 3 4 2. What changes would you like to make to this program? 3. Which of the education events that you participated in were the most helpful to you? 4. Other comments These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. KNOWLEDGE Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe you now have increased knowledge to do these things in your relationship? Not A Quite Extremely at all little a bit 1. to manage conflict 1 2 3 4 2. to de-escalate conflict 1 2 3 4 3. to be a better listener during a conflict 1 2 3 4 4. to communicate safely during a conflict 1 2 3 4 5. to reach agreement when working on a problem 1 2 3 4 6. to manage your finances I 2 3 4 7.to manage a budget for your family 1 2 3 4 8.to save for your future 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 84 Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey Next Step Coaching Prepare/Enrich Premarital and Relationship Inventories: Couples participated in the PREPARE/ENRICH inventories. The inventories included opportunities to discuss the results in follow-up sessions. How many times did you meet with the educator? On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate: Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4.The extent to which you are using the information 1 2 3 4 learned in your relationship at home. 5. Would you recommend this event to other I Yes I No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. Do you have any other comments about this event? FAMILY LIAISON The Family Liaison reminds couples of class schedule and makes reminder phone calls 1. Would you recommend this Family Liaison to ❑ Yes I No other couples? 2. Did the Family Liaison call to remind you about ❑ Yes I No the next class/meeting with an educator? 3. How was the Family Liaison most helpful? 4. Could the Family Liaison have been more helpful? If so, how? 5. Do you have any other comments about this Family Liaison? 6. On a scale from 1 to 4 how would you rate how Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied would you rate your experience with the Family 1 2 3 4 Liaison? Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado. 85 OVERALL PROGRAM SATISFACTION How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the program (s) you have participated in (circle one)? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5. What changes would you like to make to the program(s)? 6. Which of the education events that you participated in were the most helpful to you? 7. Other comments: 8. What other services would be helpful to you (and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe you now have increased Na at Quite a knowledge to do the following in your relationship? all A little b¢ Extremely 1. to manage conflict 1 2 3 4 2. to de-escalate conflict 1 2 3 4 3. to be a better listener during a conflict 1 2 3 4 4. to communicate safely during a conflict 1 2 3 4 5. to reach agreement when working on a problem 1 2 3 4 6. to manage your finances 1 2 3 4 7. to manage a budget for your family 1 2 3 4 8. to save for your future 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado. 86 Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey Building a Family Program SATISFACTION Please indicate which programs you have participated in by checking the box(es). (Mark all that apply) ❑ 8-hour PREP Seminar/Within Our Reach (WOR) Seminar ❑ Prepare/Enrich Program (if yes,please complete the questions below ❑ Conflict Resolution Training (f yes,please complete the questions on page 2) ❑ Financial Management Education (if yes,please complete the questions on page 2) If you attended, please check the box ❑ Prepare/Enrich Program: Couples participated in the PREPARE/ENRICH inventories. The inventories included Opportunities to discuss the results in follow-up sessions. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4.The extent to which you using the information 1 2 3 4 learned in your relationship at home. 5. Would you recommend this event to other ❑ Yes ❑ No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. Do you have any other comments about this event? 87 If you attended, please check the box I Conflict Resolution Coaching: Couples received up to 3 hours of personal coaching in using conflict resolution tools and techniques they learned in previous PREP or PREPARE/ENRICH training On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4.The extent to which you using the information 1 2 3 4 learned in your relationship at home. 5. Would you recommend this coaching to other ❑ Yes ❑ No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. Do you have any other comments about this event? If you attended, please check the box ❑ Financial Management Counseling: Couples were referred to a maximum of 6 free hours of financial counseling. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your instructor 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you using the information 1 2 3 4 learned in your relationship at home. 5. Would you recommend this counseling to other I Yes I No couples? 6. What did you like the most about this counseling? 7. What did you like the least about this counseling? 8. Do you have any other comments about this counseling? 88 FAMILY LIAISON Family Liaisons help couples throughout participation in the program and can provide families with referrals to a variety of services. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The Family Liaison? 1 2 3 4 2. Would you recommend this Family Liaison to I Yes I No other couples? 3. Did Family Liaison make appropriate referrals I Yes ❑ No 4. What did Family Liaison do that was most helpful? 5. How could they have been more helpful? 6. Do you have any other comments about the Family Liaison? OVERALL PROGRAM SATISFACTION 1. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the program(s) you have participated in (circle one)? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied 1 2 3 4 2. What changes would you like to make to this program? 3. Which of the education events that you participated in were the most helpful to you? 4. Other comments 89 Public Education Satisfaction and Knowledge Survey Client Id Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences today. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the envelope, seal it, and return it to your educator. Thank you! Date Who or which agency referred you to the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM)program Name of Education Event Educator(s) Format(please check one) 7 I day/8hour session ❑ 2 days/4 hour sessions ❑ 4 weeks/2 hour sessions ❑ other format, please specify Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you ❑ Single City: ❑ In a relationship but not married 7 Married Are you expecting a baby 1 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Gender: ❑ Male -1 Female Age: Education (years completed): Length of current marriage or years living together if unmarried: H N/A Number of Previous Marriages: ❑ N/A Number of children Age of oldest(or only)child: Age of youngest child Are you currently employed outside your home? 7 Yes ❑ No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? What is your present occupation? Ethnicity: El Executive/advanced professional 1 Asian ❑ Business manager/lower professional teacher -1 Black 11 Administrative personnel/small business owner 7 Hispanic ❑ Clerical/sales/technical 1 Native American ❑ Skilled manual ❑White 1 Semi-skilled/machine operator ❑ Multicultural ❑ Unskilled SATISFACTION The following questions ask about your satisfaction with the Education Event. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of the Education Event today 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you think you will use the information learned in your relationship 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 90 5. Would you recommend the Event to other couples? 7 Yes IT No 6. What did you like the most about the Education Event? 7. What did you like the least about today's Education Event? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve the Education Event? 11. Please provide any other comments about this Education Event: 12. What other services would be helpful to you (and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe this public event increased your knowledge to do these things in your relationship? Not at A little Quite a Extremely all bit 13. to manage conflict 1 2 3 4 14. to de-escalate conflict 1 2 3 4 15. to be a better listener during a conflict 1 2 3 4 16. to communicate safely during a conflict 1 2 3 4 17. to reach agreement when working on a problem 1 2 3 4 Building Healthy Marriages is looking at the possibility of expanding our services to include workshops that will go into more depth on the topics you learned about today. Your answers to the following questions will be used in the development of these services. 18. Would you be interested in attending follow-up seminar(s)to practice the skills you learned? _Yes_No 19. What would you hope to gain by participating in a follow-up seminar? 20. Check the length of seminar time that you think would be of most interest? 2-3 hour seminar 4-6 hour seminar 6 or more hours 21. Would you like these follow up seminars to be offered....(check) Weekly Monthly Every other month _Twice a year Other, please specify For more information about these services, please give us your best contact information so we can contact you. Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 91 Within My Reach Satisfaction and Knowledge Survey Client ID Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences today. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the envelope, seal it, and return it to your educator. Thank you! Date Who or which agency referred you to the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM)program Name of Within My Reach Educator(s) Format(please check one) ❑ 1 day/8hour session 7 2 days/4 hour sessions 7 4 weeks/2 hour sessions ❑ other format, please specify Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you 7 Single City: ❑ In a relationship but not married 7 Married Are you expecting a baby 7 Yes 7 No ❑ NA Gender: H Male 7 Female Age: Education(years completed): Length of current marriage or years living together if unmarried: ❑ N/A Number of Previous Marriages: ❑ N/A Number of children Age of oldest(or only)child: Age of youngest child Are you currently employed outside your home? ❑ Yes No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? What is your present occupation? Ethnicity: Check all that apply 7 Executive/advanced professional ❑ Asian 7 Business manager/lower professional teacher 7 Black 7 Administrative personnel/small business owner 7 Hispanic ❑ Clerical/sales/technical 7 Native American 7 Skilled manual ❑White ❑ Semi-skilled/machine operator ❑ Multicultural ❑ Unskilled SATISFACTION The following questions ask about your satisfaction with Within My Reach. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of Within My Reach 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you think you will use the information learned in your relationship 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend Within My Reach to other individuals? 7 Yes 7 No 6. What did you like the most about Within My Reach? Not to be reproduced in whole or to part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 92 7. What did you like the least about Within My Reach? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve Within My Reach? 11. Please provide any other comments about Within My Reach: 12. What other services would be helpful to you(and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe Within My Reach has increased your knowledge to do these things in your relationship? Not at A little Quite a Extremely all bit 13. to manage conflict 1 2 3 4 14. to de-escalate conflict 1 2 3 4 15. to be a better listener during a conflict 1 2 3 4 16. to communicate safely during a conflict 1 2 3 4 17. to reach agreement when working on a problem 1 2 3 4 18. to know the hidden issues in my relationship 1 2 3 4 19. to know the communication danger signs 1 2 3 4 20. to be aware of my expectations for my relationships 1 2 3 4 21. to understand issues, events, and hidden issues 1 2 3 4 22. to identify problem behaviors in a partner 1 2 3 4 23. to take stock of support in my life 1 2 3 4 Building Healthy Marriages is looking at the possibility of expanding our services to include workshops that will go into more depth on the topics you learned about today. Your answers to the following questions will be used in the development of these services. 18. Would you be interested in attending follow-up seminar(s)to practice the skills you learned? Yes No 19. What would you hope to gain by participating in a follow-up seminar? 20. Check the length of seminar time that you think would be of most interest? _2-3 hour seminar 4-6 hour seminar 6 or more hours 21. Would you like these follow up seminars to be offered....(check) _Weekly Monthly Every other month Twice a year Other, please specify For more information about these services, please give us your best contact information so we can contact you. Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 93 Winning the Workplace Challenge Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences today. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the envelope, seal it, and return it to your educator. Thank you! Date Who or which agency referred you to the Winning the Workplace Challenge seminar Name of seminar Educator(s) Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you 7 Single City: 7 In a relationship but not married 7 Married Gender: 7 Male 7 Female Age: Education (years completed): Are you currently employed outside your home? 7 Yes 7 No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? What is your present occupation? Ethnicity: Check all that apply 7 Executive/advanced professional 7 Asian 7 Business manager/lower professional teacher ❑ Black 7 Administrative personnel/small business owner ❑ Hispanic 7 Clerical/sales/technical 7 Native American 7 Skilled manual 7 White ❑ Semi-skilled/machine operator 7 Multicultural ❑ Unskilled SATISFACTION The following questions ask about your satisfaction with the Winning the Workplace Challenge seminar. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of the seminar today 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you think you will use the information learned at your workplace 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend the seminar to others? 7 Yes ❑ No Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 94 6. What did you like the most about the seminar? 7. What did you like the least about today's seminar? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve Winning the Workplace Challenge? 11. Please provide any other comments about Winning the Workplace Challenge: 12. What other services would be helpful to you (and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe this seminar increased your knowledge to do these things at your workplace? Not at A little Quite a Extremely all bit 13. to know what makes a great workplace 1 2 3 4 14. to understand the role of relational intelligence 1 2 3 4 15. to understand the amygdala hijack 1 2 3 4 16. to recognize events, issues, and hidden issues 1 2 3 4 17. to apply the speaker/listener technique 1 2 3 4 18. to understand the role of expectations 1 2 3 4 19. to recognize the role of choices in relationships 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 95 Marriage Garden Workshop Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences today. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the envelope, seal it, and return it to your educator. Thank you! Date Name of Marriage Garden Workshop Educator(s) Format(please check one) fl 1 day/8hour session 7 2 days/4 hour sessions ❑ 4 weeks/2 hour sessions ❑ other format, please specify Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you 7 Single Are you expecting a baby ❑ Yes ❑ No 7 In a relationship but not married 7 Married City: Gender: ❑ Male 7 Female Age: Education (years completed): Length of current marriage or years living together if unmarried: 7 not applicable Number of Previous Marriages: ❑ not applicable Number of children Age of oldest(or only)child: Age of youngest child Are you currently employed outside your home? ❑ Yes 7 No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? What is your present occupation? Ethnicity: 7 Executive/advanced professional ❑ Asian • Business manager/lower professional teacher ❑ Black ❑ Administrative personnel/small business owner 7 Hispanic 7 Clerical/sales/technical 7 Native American ❑ Skilled manual :White ❑ Semi-skilled/machine operator 7 Multicultural 7 Unskilled SATISFACTION The following questions ask about your satisfaction with the Marriage Garden Workshop. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of the Marriage Garden Workshop today 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado and University of Arkansas. 96 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you think you will use the information learned in your relationship 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend the Workshop to other couples? Cl Yes Ti No 6. What did you like the most about the Marriage Garden Workshop? 7. What did you like the least about the Marriage Garden Workshop? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve the Marriage Garden Workshop? 11. Please provide any other comments about this Marriage Garden Workshop: 12. What other services would be helpful to you (and your family)? A. Please rate your understanding of the following relationship issues both BEFORE and AFTER participating in a Marriage Garden workshop and/or reading through the Marriage Garden materials: BEFQRE participating In The AFTER participating in The Marriage Marriage Garden workshop and/or Garden workshop and/or reading the reading the materials: materials: t m .71 W Z m .O J A V J yit U d O J O 6 d O J o IS 6 > in a a Z n > N a < Z m 1. Commitment(making&honoring promises) O O O ® O O © O O O 2. Growth(expanding/using your strengths) ® O O ® © ® O 3.Nurturing(doing the work of loving) ® © © 40 © ® O © ® © 4.Understanding(cultivating compassion for partner) ® O © 000000 0 5. Solving(turning differences into blessings) ® OO O 0 © ® O © ® 6. Serving(giving back to partner/community) ® 0 O ® Os ® 20 O ® © Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado and the University of Arkansas. 97 B. As a result of participating in a Marriage Garden workshop and/or reading through the Marriage Garden materials: _` td ink NN •d OIL 01 201 N D 0 Z Q Q N Q 0 C 1. My knowledge of healthy marriage relationships has increased. 0 OO OO ® 0 2.My skills as a spouse/partner are likely to increase. O O O O O 3. I have a desire to be a better spouse/partner. Q O OO 0 4. 1 will change(improve on)at least one relationship strengthening behavior or practice. 0 O OO O 0s 5. I think my relationship with my spouse/partner is likely to improve. O OO OO 0 OO 6.I would recommend this program to family and friends. O O Os ® 0 C. How satisfied are you with... T N N N °' s .0 -0 ?`'0 d w ' L 5 V .CO) a) O aJ y +g o�' d 0 V K 0 0 0 0 y N V N > N E y rL £ t, N % N iu 0 5 y 0 fn O f A� u) V) W a) 1.your marriage? CD O O0 Q Os © O 2.your relationship with your spouse? Q 0 OO Q Qs © O 3. your husband or wife as a spouse? O O OO ® Os © O D. Do you intend to do anything differently as a result of participating in the Marriage Garden training and/or reading through the Marriage Garden materials? • Yes • No If"Yes," please describe: Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado and the University of Arkansas. 98 Relationship Inventory Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the self-addressed and stamped envelope, seal it, and return it. Thank you! Date Who or which agency referred you to the Building Healthy Marriages(BHM) program Name of educators(s) Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you 7 In a relationship but not married City: Married Gender: 7 Male 7 Female Age: Education (years completed): Length of current marriage or years living together if unmarried: ❑ N/A Number of Previous Marriages: ❑ N/A Number of children Age of oldest(or only)child: Age of youngest child Are you currently employed outside your home? 7 Yes ❑ No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? What is your present occupation? Ethnicity: 7 Executive/advanced professional H Asian 7 Business manager/lower professional teacher 7 Black H Administrative personnel/small business owner ❑ Hispanic ❑ ClericaUsales/technical 7 Native American ❑ Skilled manual 7 White 7 Semi-skilled/machine operator 7 Multicultural Unskilled SATISFACTION The following questions ask about the satisfaction with the Premarital/Relationship Inventories and follow-up sessions and the educators(s). On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of this education event 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 99 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very Much 4. The extent to which you use the information 1 2 3 4 learned in your relationship at home 5. Would you recommend this event to other couples? El Yes 1 No 6. What did you like the most about this event? 7. What did you like the least about this event? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve this event? 11. Please provide any other comments about this event. Please feel free to use the other side of this paper to write on. 12. What other services would be helpful to you(and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe the Premarital/Relationship Inventories and follow-up sessions improved these relationship skills? Not at Quite a p all A little bit Extremely 12. to explore relationship strengths and growth areas 1 2 3 4 13. to learn assertiveness and active listening skills 1 2 3 4 14. to learn how to resolve conflict using the Ten Step Model 1 2 3 4 15. to help you with discussing your Family-of-Origin 1 2 3 4 15.to help you with financial planning and budgeting 1 2 3 4 16. to focus on personal, couple and family goals 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 100 Encuesta sobre el conocimiento y satisfaccion del taller A Nuestro Alcance Id del Clieme Su opinion es importante para nosotros! Por favor hablenos de sus experiencias del dia de hoy. Sus respuestas en esta encuesta serail completamente confidenciales. La encuesta le tomara aproximadamente 5 minutos en Ilenar. Por favor Ilene esta encuesta, pongala dentro del sobre,cierre el sobre,y devuelvalo al educador. iGracias! Fecha tQuien le refirio al programa de Construyendo Matrimonios Saludables? Nombre de los Instructores de A Nuestro Alcance: Favor de decirnos uno poco acerca de quiet) es usted. tEs usted? rl En una relacion pero no casado(a) Ciudad: ❑ Casado(a) tEsta usted esperando bebe? 7 Si 7 No ❑ NA Sexo: 7 Varon 7 Hembra Edad: Education(ands completados): Duration de matrimonio actual o arms conviviendo si usted no esta casado(a): 7 N/A Numero de matrimonios previos: ❑ N/A Numero de niilos: Edad de nino mayor(o de su Calico nido): Edad de nino menor: t,Esta usted empleado actualmente fuera de su hogar? 7 Si 7 No Si la respuesta es si, tcuantas horas trabaja usted por semana generalmente? tCual es su ocupacion actual? Etnicidad: 7 Ejecutivo/Profesional avanzado ❑ Asiatico(a) 7 Patron de negocio/Profesional subordinante/Maestro 7 Negro(a) (Africano/a) 7 Empleado administrativo/Dueno de negocio pequefio ❑ Hispano(a) ❑ Trabajo de oficina/Ventas/Tecnic 7 Americano(a)Nativo(a) Indio(a) ❑ Labor manual habil 7 Blanco(a)(Caucasico(a)) ❑ Labor manual semi-habil/Operador de maquina 7 Otro(a) 7 No habil SATISFACCION Las siguientes preguntas serail sobre su satisfaccion con el el taller A Nuestro Alcance y sus Instructores. En una escala de 1 a14, indique la puntuacion que usted daria para cada pregunta: No Poco Muy Extremadamente satisfecho satisfecho satisfecho satisfecho 1. El contenido de este evento educativo 1 2 3 4 2. Su instructor(a) 1 2 3 4 3. Facilidad/el espacio en el sitio de las reunions 1 2 3 4 Nunca Un poco Bastante Mucho 4. Cantidad que usted usa lo que aprendio de los 1 2 3 4 talleres en su relacion en Casa. 5. LUsted le recomendaria este taller A Nuestro Alcance a otras ❑ Si E No parejas? 6. tQue es lo que a usted le gusto mas de A Nuestro Alcance? Esta encuesta nose debe copiar en parte o completamente sin el permiso escrito de la Universidad del Norte de Colorado. (UNC) 101 7. LQue es lo que usted le gusto menos de este A Nuestro Alcance? 8. t,Que es lo que le gusto mas de los instructores? 9. LQue es lo que usted le gusto menos de los instructores? 10. LQue mas hubieran hecho los instructores para mejorar este taller? 11. Por favor escriba cualquier otro comentario que usted tiene sobre el taller A Nuestro Alcance. 12. i,Que otros servicios le servirian a usted (y a su familia)? CONOCIMIENTO Estas preguntas son sobre el conocimiento adquirido. Por favor marque el nfinero que corresponda con su respuesta t,Hasta que grado cree usted que el taller A Nuestro Alcance ha aumentado su conocimiento en las siguientes areas: Un Nada poco Bastante Extremadamente 13. manejar/controlar el conflicto en su relaciOn? 1 2 3 4 14. desacelerar un conflicto en su relaciOn? 1 2 3 4 15. escuchar mejor durante un conflicto en su relacion? 1 2 3 4 16. comunicarse con seguridad durante un conflicto en su relacion? 1 2 3 4 17. llegar a un acuerdo cuando usted trata con un problema 1 2 3 4 en su relacion? 18. reconocer los problemas escondidos en su relacion? 1 2 3 4 19. reconocer las senas de peligro en sus relaciones? 1 2 3 4 20. reconocer mis expectativas de otras relaciones? 1 2 3 4 21. entender los problemas, eventos, y problemas escondidos? 1 2 3 4 22. hacer un balance de la ayuda en mi vida? 1 2 3 4 Los creadores del programa Construyendo Matrimonios Saludables estan viendo la posibilidad de ampliar sus servicios e incluir talleres en los cuales se puedan tratar mas a fondo los temas que usted aprendio hoy. Sus respuestas a las siguientes preguntas se usaran para desarrollar dichos servicios. 23. tLe interesaria asistir a un taller(es)para practicar las destrezas que aprendio? Si No 24. LQue le gustaria lograr/obtener al participar en un segundo taller? 25. L,Que tanto tiempo le gustaria que durara el taller? taller de 2-3 horas taller de 4-6 horas taller de 6 horas o mas 26. t,Que tan seguido le gustaria que se ofreciera el taller? una vez al mes cada dos meses dos veces por ano otro, por favor indique Para obtener mas informacion sobre estos servicios, por favor anote su informacion personal para nosotros contactarle. Esta encuesta no se debe coplar en parse o completamente sin el permiso escrito de la Universidad del Norte de Colorado. (UNC) 102 Love Notes Satisfaction and Knowledge Survey Client ID:_ Your opinion is important to us! Please let us know about your experiences today. Your responses on this survey will be kept completely confidential. The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey, place it into the envelope, seal it, and return it to your educator. Thank you! Date Who or which agency referred you to the Love Notes program? Name of Love Notes Educator(s) Format (please check one) 7 1 day/8hour session 7 2 days/4 hour sessions ❑ 4 weeks/2 hour sessions 1 other format, please specify Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you 7 Single City: 7 In a relationship Are you expecting a baby? ❑ Yes 7 No 7 NA Gender: 7 Male 7 Female Age: Education(years completed): Number of children and their ages: Are you currently employed outside your home? 7 Yes 7 No If yes, how many hours per week do you work on average? Ethnicity/Race: (check all that apply) ❑ Asian H Black 7 Hispanic 7 Native American 7 White 7 Multicultural SATISFACTION The following questions ask about your satisfaction with Love Notes program. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate Not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1. The content of the Love Notes program today 1 2 3 4 2. Your educator(s) 1 2 3 4 3. Facility/meeting room space 1 2 3 4 Not at all A little Quite a bit Very much 4. The extent to which you think you will use the information learned in your relationship 1 2 3 4 5. Would you recommend the program to other teens? ❑ Yes 7 No Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 103 6. What did you like the most about the Love Notes program? 7. What did you like the least about today's Love Notes? 8. What did you like the most about the educator(s)? 9. What did you like the least about the educator(s)? 10. What could the educator(s) have done to improve the Love Notes program? 11. Please provide any other comments about this program: 12. What other services would be helpful to you (and your family)? KNOWLEDGE These questions ask about the knowledge you gained. Please circle the number that corresponds with your answer. To what extent do you believe the Love Notes program increased your knowledge to do these things in your relationship? Not at A little Quite a Extremely all bit 13. to identify my expectations for a relationship 1 2 3 4 14. to understand the Chemistry of Love 1 2 3 4 15. to identify what makes a Great Relationship 1 2 3 4 16. how to decide, not slide when making decisions 1 2 3 4 17. to identify my personal line during physical intimacy 1 2 3 4 18. to use skills to counter the 4 communication danger signs 1 2 3 4 19. to be a better listener during a conflict 1 2 3 4 20. to communicate safely during a conflict 1 2 3 4 21. to identify issues and hidden issues 1 2 3 4 22. to know what being a good mother/father means 1 2 3 4 23. to plan for my future success 1 2 3 4 Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the University of Northern Colorado 104 Semi-Structured Interview Questions Possible Interview Questions for couples who participated in the educational events: Opening questions We are interested in learning more about your experiences with the Building Healthy Marriages educational workshops. In which did you participate?(Before asking more specific questions, we want to engage in `small talk' to help create a friendly atmosphere and encourage recollections of those experiences,thus we may ask a few questions that place them (in memory)with those experiences, perhaps asking"what do you recall most?" General Questions Please tell me about your experiences; what you found most and least useful about the training you were provided, how you used this training and information?(more elaboration here, depending on response) What did you think about the educators? Strengths and areas for growth? What did you think about the facility? Strengths and areas for growth? If you used childcare services arranged by the BHM program, please tell us about your experiences with those services. Other things about the program or training that you would change? Suggestions for educators and program developers? Would you recommend this program to others? What would you tell others about benefits to you? Possible Interview Questions for educators We are interested in learning more about your experiences with the Building Healthy Marriages educational workshops. 105 Which programs did you provide? (Before asking more specific questions, we want to engage in `small talk' to help create a friendly atmosphere and encourage recollections of those experiences,thus we may ask a few questions that place them(in memory)with those experiences, perhaps asking"what do you recall most?" General Questions: Please tell me about your experiences; what you find most and least useful about the training you provided, how you revised your approach after getting feedback from participants, etc. What were some of the highlights for you as an educator in working with this group? What were the challenges you faced as an educator? What is your opinion about the facilities?The program?The support you received from the lead agency? What would you change? Suggestions for program developers and staff? Would you recommend this program to others? What would you tell others about its benefits? 106 Esther Gesick From: Ann M. Bruce Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:35 AM To: Esther Gesick Cc: Judy Griego; John Kruse Subject: FW: Semi-Annual Report#10 With the new system we no longer get emailed confirmations from Grant Solutions when a report is successfully uploaded. So in lieu of this I asked our Federal Project Officer to check and here is her confirmation that the reports have been submitted and received. Thanks! Ann Bruce Assessment& Learning Lab Manager P.O. Box 1805 315B North 11th Ave. Greeley, Co 80632 (970) 353-3800 ext.6726 (970) 673-2682 cell brucexamfaco.weld.co.us B6 1311 WEgipD_ u Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Hays, Lonna (OFA) [mailto:Lonna.HaysCalACF.hhs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:05 AM To: Ann M. Bruce Subject: RE: Semi-Annual Report #10 All the reports were received. Thanks Lonna From:Ann M. Bruce )mailto:brucexamftco.weld.co.us] Sent:Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:14 AM To: Hays, Lonna (OFA) Subject: RE:Semi-Annual Report#10 Lonna, Is there any way to get an email confirmation that the report has been received?The Commissioners are asking for something. Thanks! Ann Bruce Assessment& Learning Lab Manager P.O. Box 1805 315B North 11th Ave. Greeley,Co 80632 (970) 353-3800 ext.6726 (970) 673-2682 cell brucexam@co.weld.co.us i 4 ' ≥aip wtt'o�u coUNYr Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Hays, Lonna (OFA) (mailto:Lonna.Hays@ACF.hhs.Rov] Sent:Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:12 AM To:Ann M. Bruce Subject: RE: Semi-Annual Report#10 Thanks! From:Ann M. Bruce [mailto:brucexam@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 6:50 PM To: Hays, Lonna (OFA) Subject:Semi-Annual Report#10 Lonna, The updated report with the AO signature was uploaded to Grants Solutions this afternoon. Thanks! Ann Bruce Assessment& Learning Lab Manager P.O. Box 1805 315B North 11th Ave. Greeley, Co 80632 (970)353-3800 ext.6726 (970)673-2682 cell brucexam@co.weld.co.us W 'CUN T Y u 2 Hello