HomeMy WebLinkAbout20093060.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT #6 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 #6 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, Administration for Children and
Families, for a period commencing October 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2009, 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 #6 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, Administration for Children and Families, be, and
hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to
sign said report.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 23rd day of November, A.D., 2009, nunc pro tunc October 1, 2008.
Weld County Clerk to the B
,-1
BY
APPROVED?AS-T
ount orney
Date of signature (ali�ib�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD OU„ Y, COLORADO
Rademacher, Pro-Tem
EXCUSED
Sean P. Conway
Barbara Kirkmeyer
• VDavid E. Long
CC&e,tc--)
2009-3060
H R0080
131I7l O�
MEMORANDUM
a
t` DATE: November 19, 2009
wiik1'�� TO: William F. Garcia, Chair, Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Judy A. Griego, Director, Human Service e a" 4}nt
COLORADO RE:
Year -End Annual Report for the Department's Building
Healthy Marriages Program
Enclosed for Board approval is the Department's Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) Year -End
Annual Report. This Agreement was presented at the Board's November 16, 2009, Work
Session.
As Building Healthy Marriage closes out its third year there have been many successes. The
first was an increase in people served by 258% over year two's numbers. In year three, BHM
served 355 couples and 431 individuals in the various programs that we offer. This led to our
meeting or exceeding each of our target goals (see page 19) including that allowable activity
area (#3) that we had received a letter of deficiency in July '09 for being at less than 83% of
target.
Further success can be seen in the increased marketing strategy that included TV, radio, and
newspaper ads with billboards, taxi toppers, and indoor posters. And finally, per the
evaluation conducted by UNC (beginning on page 20), we can conclude that the couples who
participated in the program are more satisfied with their marriage, are more satisfied with how
they can solve problems and are more satisfied with the quality of the time they spent
together.
If you have questions, please give me a call at extension 6510.
2009-3060
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Semi -Annual Progress Report -Cover Sheet
*This cover sheet must accompany all reports submitted*
Grant Number: 90FEO134
Budget Period October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009
Project Period October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2011
Grantee Name and Address: Weld County Department of Human Services, 315 N.
nth Ave., P.O. Box A, Greeley, Colorado 80632
Telephone Number: (970) 304-6578 ext. 7905
Project Title: Weld County Building Healthy Marriages
Period Covered by Report: October 1, 2008 thru September 30, 2009
Per current budget period:
(Check One)
First Semi -Annual Progress Report
Second Semi -Annual Progress Report X Final Report
Name and Phone Number of Project Director: Ann Bruce , Program Manager,
(970) 397-4629 cell phone
Author's Name and Telephone Number: Ann Bruce , Program Manager,
(970) 673-2682 cell phone
Date of Report: October 31, 2009
Report Number per Project Period: (Number sequentially beginning with 1) 6
Name q,We er. Project Officer: Michele Walters
William Garcia
Authorized Certifying Official
Chair, Weld County Board Of Commissioners
Rev. 2/3/04
NOV 2 3 2009
BUILDING HEALTHY
enezz't ned
Semi -Annual Report #6
OFA Healthy Marriage Demonstration Program
October 31, 2009
I. Grant Information —provide the following information:
• Grantee Organization Name and Grant Number - Weld County Department of Social
Services, 90FE0134
Grantee Type - Government entity
• Priority Area — 2
• Target Population (geography, ethnicity): The residents of Weld County to include
unmarried, expectant parents, engaged couples, couples in committed relationships,
individuals interested in relationships, married couples and couple from at risk
communities.
II. Major Activities and Accomplishments
The Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Program (BHM) changed focus from an intensive
service model to a community saturation model in May, 2008. Year three marks the first full year of the
new program model for BHM and can be used as a benchmark of our success. In order to make this
transition several programmatic changes were made to align the program more clearly with the
directives of the grant. 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
services structures: Building Healthy Relationships (community saturation of relationship skills
seminars), Next Step Coaching (group and individual relationships skills coaching/mentoring), and
Building a Family (intensive relationship and supportive services for unmarried, expectant couples).
Page 1 of 29
1. Building Healthy Relationships: The first part of the program is called Building Healthy
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 relationship education using PREP (for Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and
unmarried participants who are in a relationship (R); 2) Eight hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum
(for I, M, R); 3) Eight hours of Within My Reach (WMR) for singles; and 4) Eight hours of Winning the
Workplace Challenge for employees (with an emphasis on using these same skills at home with family).
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 of TANF. 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 although it is
recommended to give the couples a foundation in communication and conflict resolution skills.
Non -Married couples who are expecting, or have, a child under 3 months of age were invited to
complete a needs assessment and then referred to particular programs in the 'Building a Family'
program'.
2. Next Step Coaching: The primary audience targeted for this eight hour program is low income
couples. Beginning with an eligibility assessment, the needs of couples are identified. Then couples are
referred to the Relationship Inventories, the Enrichment Weekend, or both. The Relationship Inventories
using the Prepare -Enrich curriculum are conducted with parties interested in premarital or marriage
education/enhancement. The Enrichment Weekend, which uses the Within Our Reach curriculum, is a
practical (group mentoring) program. Couples focus on developing problem solving skills. In addition,
there is a focus on sensuality and sexuality within the relationship. The Enrichment Weekends were
discontinued after the first one as they were difficult to fill and were very costly. The Next Step
Coaching Program is evaluated with a pre-test (MSI-R) and post-test surveys (MSI-R, mini satisfaction
surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey).
3. Building a Family: This program begins with a needs assessment for couples. Then a Community
Family Liaison is assigned to them. This person examines the couple's needs and then assists them in
enrolling for appropriate services or referrals (i.e. Relationship Seminars, Enrichment Weekend,
Relationship Inventories (using Prepare/Enrich), Conflict Resolution Coaching, Financial Management
Coaching, and Community Referrals).
Page 2 of 29
The following Education and Services are offered in the Building a Family program:
8 hours =Relationship Seminars using PREP or Marriage Garden
Enrichment Weekend: Within Our Reach
+8 hours 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 pre-test (MSI-R) and post-test surveys
(MSI-R, mini satisfaction surveys, Knowledge and Satisfaction Survey).
In addition to the new program structure, it made sense to develop a new marketing strategy.
Marketing now included television commercials, radio spots, billboards bus/taxi ads and public posters
in an effort to get the name and purpose of BHM out to the mass public. Of the increased
advertisements the radio was the most productive in recruiting participants with 12.5% (n= 846
participants). To continue to educate the public on the benefits of healthy relationships a County Wide
Valentine Event was planned and implemented. This included Valentine specific radio ads and
distribution of Building Healthy Marriages Love Vouchers. The Love Vouchers were booklets that
contained coupons for different acts of relationship building (i.e. control of the remote, sixty second
kiss, etc.). These vouchers were printed in both Spanish and English and in a generic (non -Valentine
motif) to use year round.
The final key component to the success of year 3 was our ability to partner with more
community groups. For example, a partnership was developed with the County Probation office. In this
agreement, they will offer to teens on probation the opportunity to take a BHM Love U2 class as part of
their community service. The participant can earn further "time off' of community service by bringing a
friend and or a parent as these classes coincide with a "Within My Reach" class. BHM has also partnered
with the Weld County Smoking Cessation Grant. BHM has added 3 simple questions to our assessments
for that grant's data collection component and they refer couples to BHM. BHM has become an
additional support to those trying to quit smoking as this can add stress to a marriage/relationship.
The following table demonstrates the activity/events that were accomplished in year two per allowable
activity areas.
Page 3 of 29
Allowable
Activity
Area(s)
Activity/Event
Schedule of Activities/Events
Accomplished Activities/Events
during this Reporting Period
Proposed
completion
date
Date of
completion/status
Target'
Number
Served"
Number
Completed °1
I (Public
Advertising)
Developed TV
ads
Production
began in Apr,
Ads ran from
June —
Sept.on cable
channels.
Completion of TV
ads for year 2 —
Sept. 30, 2008
1(Public
Advertising))
Developed
radio ads
Production
began in Apr.
Ads ran from
July— Sept on
4 local stations
ind. a
Hispanic radio
station
Completion of
radio ads for year
2 — Sept. 30, 2008
1(Public
Advertising)
Newspaper
ads
Running ads in
NEXT,
entertainment
and flight ads
to promote
specific
activities.
Completion of
newspaper ads for
year 2 — Sept. 30,
2008
1(Public
Advertising)
Fun Run
Sept. 1,2008
Sept. 1,2008
150
participan
is
1(Public
Advertising)
North County
Couples Event
Rodarte
Community
Center,
Greeley
Jun 22, 2008
Jun 22, 2008
I(Public
Advertising)
South County
Couples Event
Aug. 3,2008
Aug. 3,2008
Page 4 of 29
Ft. Lupton
Recreational
Center, Ft.
Lupton
1(Public
Advertising)
Manned an
informational
booth at the
following
community
events:
Youth Net
Oct. 19, 2007
Oct. 19, 2007
Greeley
Exchange
Club of
Greeley
Youth Net, Ft
Oct. 23,2007
Oct. 23,2007
Lupton
Greeley HR
group
Nov. 20, 2007
Nov. 20, 2007
Youth Net
Dec. 10,2007
Dec. 10,2007
Kiwanis
meeting,
Greeley
Dec. 21, 2007
Dec. 21, 2007
Love to Learn
Jan. 28,2008
Jan. 28,2008
Cnf. UNC
Student
Feb. 23, 2008
Feb. 23, 2008
Nursing group,
Greeley
DSS lobby,
Greeley
Feb. 25,2008
Feb. 25,2008
Wal-Mart,
Eaton
Mar. 4, 2008
Mar. 4, 2008
Resource Fair,
Greeley
Mar. 5,2008
Mar. 5,2008
Implications of
the Baby
Mar. 6,2008
Mar. 6,2008
Boomer
Page 5 of 29
Wal-Mart,
Mar. 13,2008
Mar 13,2008
Greeley
Head Start
Mar. 12,2008
Mar. 12,2008
Fair, Greeley
County
Mar. 22, 2008
Mar. 22, 2008
Benefits Fair,
Greeley
Children's
Mar 26,2008
Mar 26,2008
Festival,
Greeley
Carbon Valley
Mar. 29,2008
Mar. 29,2008
Business After
Hours, Carbon
Valley
Grant Writing
Apr 10,2008
Apr. 10,2008
Workshop,
Greeley
Cinco De
Apr. 17,2008
Apr. 17,2008
Mayo, Greeley
Catholic
May 3, 2008
May 3, 2008
Charities,
Greeley
N. Weld
May 6,2008
May 6,2008
County Health
Fair, Greeley
Stampede
May 21, 2008
May 21, 2008
Kick Off,
Greeley
S. Weld
May 22,2008
May 22,2008
County Health
Fair, Ft.
Lupton
Care Event,
Jun. 13, 2008
Jun. 13, 2008
Greeley
Page 6 of 29
Ft. Lupton
Ministerial
Association
Mothers Class
Dept of
Health,
Greeley
Rotary Club of
Greeley
Bixpo,
Windsor
Jul. 14,2008
Jul. 24,2008
Aug.17, 2008
Sept. 16 & 18,
2008
Jul. 14,2008
Jul. 24,2008
Aug.17, 2008
Sept. 16 & 18,
2008
Allowable
Activity/Event
Date Activity/
Date Activity/
Target"
Number
Number
Activity
Event Started
Event Ended
Served"
Completed "
Area(s)
3 (Non-
married
expectant
Delivered 8
hours of PREP
to non -
Sep 21st
Trinity Plaza
Oct. 12th
lcpl
lcpl
couples)
married
expectant
couples
May 4th
Trinity Plaza
May 25th
1 cpl
1 cpl
May 7th
May 28th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity
May 30th
May 30th2
cpls
2 cpls
CCC
Aug 6th
Aug 27th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Aug 8th
Aug 8th
1 cpls
1 cpls
Pregnancy
Resource
Center
Aug 15th
Aug 15th
1 cpl
1 cpl
New Hope
Greeley
Aug 22nd
Aug 22nd
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Sep 9th
Sep 30th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Page 7 of 29
AA 3
Target
10
couples
Total
Served
10 couples
Total
Completed
10
couples
4 (Pre -marital)
Delivered 8
hours of
Sep 9th
St Albans
Oct. 6th
1 cpl
1 cpl
PREP, Within
Episcopal
My Reach,
Winning the
Oct. 8th
Oct. 29th
4 cpl/2 ind
4 cpl/2 ind
Workplace
Challenge,
and Love U2,
to engaged
couples,
couples in
Waypoints,
Greeley
Oct. 23ro
Trinity Plaza
Nov.13th
2 cpls/ 1 ind
2 cpls/ 1 ind
committed
relationships
and individuals
interested in
relationships
Nov 1st
Kersey
Community
Church
Nov. 8th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Nov. 8th
Nov. 8th
2 cpls/ 1 ind
2 cpls/ 1 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
Nov. 12th
Dec. 10th
2 ind
2 ind
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 20th
Dec. 18th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 22nd
Nov. 22nd
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Jan 5th
Jan 8th
13 ind
13 ind
Frontier
Academy,
Greeley
Jan 13th
Jan. 13th
7 ind
7 ind
City of Greeley
Feb. 4th
Feb. 25th
4 cpls/2 ind
4 cpls/2 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
Feb. 5th
Feb. 26th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Page 8 of 29
Feb. 17th
First Methodist
Church
Feb. 21st
Christ
Community
Church (CCC)
Mar. 10th
Feb. 21st
1 cp1
5 cpls
1 cpl
5 cpls
Feb. 21st
Univ. Northern
Feb. 21st
2 cpls/ 14
ind
2 cpls/ 14 ind
Colorado
(UNC)
Feb. 21st
Feb. 28th
3 cpls
3 cpls
Eaton
Methodist
Church
Mar. 4th
Mar. 25th
3 cpls
3 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Mar. 5th
Mar. 26th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Mar. T"
Mar.7th
10 ind
10 ind
Tower 21,
Greeley
Mar 11th
Mar 11th
8 ind
8 ind
Trinity Plaza
Mar. 14th
Mar. 14th
13 ind
13 ind
Waypoints
Geeley
Mar. 24th
Mar. 24th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Greeley
Recreation
Center
Mar. 24th
Mar. 24th
10 ind
10 ind
Human
Services
Apr. 4th
Apr. 4th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Waypoints
Page 9 of 29
Apr. 9th
Apr. 30th
1 cpl/ 1 ind
1 cpl/ 1 ind
Shepperd's
residence
Apr. 17th
Apr. 17th
13 ind
13 ind
Weld County
Training Ctr.
Apr. 21st
May 12th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Apr. 24th
Apr. 24th
11 ind
11 ind
Weld County
Training Ctr.
Apr. 28m
May 5th
8 ind
8 ind
United Way of
Weld Cty
May 6th
May 27th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
May 6th
May 27th
4 cpls
4 cpls
Waypoints,
Greeley
May 7th
May 27th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
May 16th
May 16th
10 ind
W ind
Waypoints,
Greeley(WMR)
May 16th
May 16th
11 ind
11 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
(LuvU2)
May 28th
May 28th
3 ind
3 ind
Rec Ctr,
Greeley
May 30th
May 30th
4 cpls/3 ind
4 opts/3 ind
CCC
Jun. 4th
Jun 25th
1 cpl
1 op/
Trinity Plaza
Page 10 of 29
Jun 9m
First
Presbyterian
Church
Jun 30th
2 cpl/ 1 ind
2 cpl/ 1 ind
Jun 133th
Jun. 13th
2 cpls
2 cpls
St. May's
Catholic
Church
Jun 13th
Jun 20th
1 cpl/1 ind
1 cpl/1 ind
Lighthouse
Baptist, Ft.
Lupton
Jun 24th
Jun 24th
5 ind
5 ind
Greeley City
Hall
Jul 8th
Jul 29th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Jul 18th
Jul 18th
7 cpls / 1 ind
7 cpls / 1 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
(WMR)
Jul le
Jul 18th
14 ind
14 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
(LuvU2)
Jul 28t"
Jul 28th
5 ind
5 ind
Greeley Rec.
Ctr
Aug. 6th
Aug 27th
2 cpls/ 1 ind
2 cpls/ 1 ind
Trinity Plaza
Aug. 11th
Aug. 14th
11 ind
11 ind
Dayspring
Christian
Academy
Aug. 22n°
Aug. 22nd
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Page 11 of 29
Aug. 27 h
Aug 27h
5 ind.
5 ind.
Greely
Funplex
Sep 1d
Sep 24th
3 cpls/ 1 ind
3 cpls/ 1 ind
Trinity Plaza
Sep 9th
Sep. 30th
2 ind
2 ind
Trinity Plaza
Sep 16th
Sep 16th
5 ind
5 ind
Greeley
Funplex
Sep 26th
Sep 26`h
13 ind
13 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
(WMR)
Sep 26th
Sep 26th
3 ind
3 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
(LuvU2)
4 (Pre -marital)
Delivered 8
hrs of
monolingual
Sep 21st
Trinity Plaza
Oct. 12th
Lind
1ind
Spanish PREP
to engaged
couples,
couples in
committed
Oct. 18th
Templo
Bautista de
Greeley
Oct. 18th
1 cpl/1 ind
1 cpl/1 ind
relationships
and individuals
interested in
relationships
Mar. 28th
Johnstown
Community
Center
Mar. 29th
1 ind
1 ind
May 25th
May 26th
1 ind
1 ind
Rodarte
Center,
Greeley
Jun 3r°
June 24th
1 ind
1 ind
Weld
Opportunity
High School
Page 12 of 29
Aug 15th
New Hope
Christian
Fellowship,
Greeley
Aug 20th
Iglesia Bethel,
Greeley
Sep 26th
Trinity Plaza
Aug 15th
Sep. 10th
Sep 26th
2 cpl/ 1 ind
1 cpl
1 cpl
2 cpl/ 1 ind
1 cpi
1 cpl
AA 4
Target
Total
Total
Served
Completed
150
individu
als
79
couples/
217individ
uals
79 couples/
217
i• ndividuals
5 (Marriage
Enhancement)
Delivered 8
hours of
Sep 15t"St.
Albans
Oct 6'"
3 cples
3 cples
PREP, to
married
Episcopal
couples
Oct.Bt"
Oct 29th
4 cpls/2 ind
4 cpls/2 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
Oct. 23id
Nov 139"
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Oct. 25th
Nov 7th
4 cpls
4 cpls
Rogers'
residence
Nov 1st
Nov. 81h
1 cpl/ 1 ind
1 cpl/ 1 ind
Kersey
Community
Church
Nov. 3rd
Nov 241h
3 cpls/ 1 ind
3 cpls/ 1 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
Page 13 of 29
Nov. 8`"
Nov 8th
8 opts
8 opts
Waypoints,
Greeley
Nov. 12th
Dec 10th
3 cpls
3 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 20th
Dec 18th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 22nd
Nov 22nd
3 opts
3 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 22nd
Dec 14th
5 cpls
5 cpls
Waypoints
Greeley
Jan 8th
Jan 29th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Jan 13th
Jan 13th
14 ind
14 ind.
City of Greeley
Feb. 4th
Feb 25th
3 cpls
3 cpls
Waypoints
Greeley
Feb. 5th
Feb 26th
4 cpls
4 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Feb. 5th
Feb 26th
6 cpls/ 1 ind
6 cpls/ 1 ind
Greeley
Mennonite
Church
Feb. 17th
Mar 10th
4 cpls
4 cpls
First Methodist
Church
Feb. 215`
Feb 218'
9 cpls
9 cpls
Christ
Community
Church (CCC)
Feb. 21st
Feb 21st
2 cpls/ 1 ind
2 opts/ 1 ind
Univ. Northern
Colorado
(UNC)
Page 14 of 29
Feb. 21st
Eaton
Methodist
Church
Feb 28th
3 opts
3 opts
Mar. 4th
Mar 25th
1 opt
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Mar. 24th
Mar. 241h
18 ind
18 ind
Human
Services
Mar. 28th
Mar 28th
3 opts
3 cpls
Greeley
Mennonite
Church
Apr. 1st
Apr 22nd
2 cp/s
2 cp/s
Trinity Plaza
Apr. 4th
Apr 4th
3 opts/ 1 ind
3 opts/ 1 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
Apr. 9th
Apr 30th
2 opts
2 opts
Shepperd's
residence
Apr. 17th
Apr 17th
29 ind
29 ind
Weld County
Training Ctr.
Apr. 21st
May 12th
4 opts
4 opts
Trinity Plaza
Apr. 24th
Apr 24th
27 ind
27 ind
Weld County
Training Ctr.
Apr. 28th
May 5th
18 ind
18 ind
United Way of
Weld Cty
May eh
May 27th
4 opts/ 1 ind
4 opts/ 1 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
Page 15 of 29
May 7`"
May 28th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
May 16th
May 16th
2 ind
2 ind
Waypoints,
Greeley
May 28th
May 28th
7 ind
7 ind
Rec Ctr,
Greeley
May 30th
May 30th
5 cpls
5 cpls
CCC
Jun. 4th
Jun 25th
1 cpl
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Jun 9th
Jun 30th
6 cpls
6 cpls
First
Presbyterian
Church
Jun i3th
Jun 13th
2 cpls
2 cpls
St. May's
Catholic
Church
Jun 13th
Jun 20th
4 cpls
4 cpls
Lighthouse
Baptist, Ft.
Lupton
June 24th
Jun 24th
13 ind
13 ind
Greeley City
Hall
Jul 6m
Jul 29th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Jul 9th
Jul 30th
4 cpls
4 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Jul 18th
Jul 18th
5 cpls/ 1 hid
5 cpls/ 1 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
Page 16 of 29
Jul28t"
Jul 28th
11 ind
11 ind
Greeley Rec.
Ctr
Aug. 6th
Aug 27th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Aug eh
Aug 8th
1 ind
1 ind
Pregnancy
Resource
Center
Aug. 11th
Aug 14th
26 ind
26 ind
Day Spring
School
Aug. 22nd
Aug 22nd
2 cpls
2 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Aug. 27th
Aug 27th
10 ind
10 ind
Greely
Funplex
Sep 3`"
Sep 24th
I op/
1 cpl
Trinity Plaza
Sep 9th
Sep 30th
3 cpls
3 cpls
Trinity Plaza
Sep 16th
Sep 16th
10 ind
10 ind
Greeley
Funplex
Sep 26th
Sep 26'h
2 ind
2 ind
Waypoints
Greeley
5 (Marriage
Enhancement)
Delivered 8
hrs of
monolingual
Sep 21st
Trinity Plaza
Oct 12th
5 cpls/ 1 ind
5 cpls/ 1 ind
Spanish PREP
to married
couples
Oct. 15th
Trinity Plaza
Nov. 5th
2 cpls
2 cpls
Oct. 18th
Oct. 18th
8 cpls
8 cpls
Templo
Bautista de
Greeley
Page 17 of 29
Feb. 210
Trinity Plaza
Mar. 281h
Johnstown
Community
Center
May 4th
Trinity Plaza
May 25th
Rodarte
Center,
Greeley
Jun 3"°
Weld
Opportunity
High School
Aug 15th
New Hope
Christian
Fellowship,
Greeley
Aug 20th
Iglesia Bethel,
Greeley
Sep 26th
Trinity Plaza
Mar. 16'"
Mar. 29th
May 25th
May 26th
June 24th
Aug 15th
Sep. 101h
Sep 26th
3 cpls
7 cpls/ 1 ind
4 cpls
4 cpls/2 ind
3 cpls/5 ind
11 cpls/ 2
ind
3 cpls/3
ind.
2 cpls/3 ind
3 cpls
7 cpls/ 1 ind
4 cpls
4 cpls/2 ind
3 cpls/5 ind
11 cpls/ 2 ind
3 cpls/3 ind.
2 cpls/3 ind
AA 5
Target
200
couples
Total
Served
181
couples/
214
individuals
Total
Completed
181
couples/
214
individuals
7 (Marriage
Mentoring)
Delivered
14hrs of WOR
to married cpls
w/ group
coaching
Feb 1e
Hampton Inn
Feb. 15th
11 cpls
11 cpls
11 cpls
Page 18 of 29
7 (Marriage
Mentoring)
Conducted
Prepare/Enrich
Inventories
with up to 8
1:1 coaching
sessions.
Continuously
throughout the
year
74 cpls
74 cpls
AA 7
Target
70
couples
Total
Served
85
couples
Total
Completed
N/A
III. Compliances and Assurances
• Domestic Violence —This protocol continues to be a living, breathing document that is reviewed
quarterly by our local Domestic Violence Program experts to ensure that all staff receive annual training
and the protocol itself reflect the most recent concepts and findings in the research on DV.
• Faith Based Regulations — This protocol is complete and in use.
• Voluntary Participation —This protocol is complete and in use.
IV. Data Collection
Allowable Activity
Area
Unit'
Number of units per this
budget period
Number of units since
Award date (Sept. 06)
Target'
# Served'
3 (Non -married
expectant couples)
Couples
10 couples
10 couples
17 couples
4 (Pre -Marital
Education)
Individuals
150
individuals
79 couples
217 individuals
101 couples
278 individuals
5 (Marriage
Enhancement)
Couples/
Married
individuals
200 couples
181 couples
214 individuals
324 couples
240 married
individuals
7 (Marriage
Mentoring)
Couples
70 couples
85 couples
133 couples
1 individual
Page 19 of 29
Evaluation
This year's report summarizes the data collected from October 1, 2008 through September
30, 2009. This includes information from all participants who initiated involvement with the
Building Healthy Marriages Program in year 3 (October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009). In
addition, this report includes a discussion of the data from participants who completed a post-test in
year 2 and 3, but who initiated involvement with the BHM program during year 1 and year 2.
Demographic Background
Eight hundred and forty-six participants participated in the program in year 3 (October 1, 2008 -
September, 30, 2009). Of the 846 participants, 59% were White (n=498), followed by 32% (n=267) who
identified themselves as Hispanic. The other 5% of participants (n=46) were Asian, Black, Native
American, or other/multicultural. Four percent (n=35) did not respond to this question.
Twenty-seven percent of the participants (n=223) were under the age of 29. This is significant
due to the recent research that indicates that nationally this age group has developed a belief that
marriage is optional in starting a family (Wilcox, Doherty, Glenn, & Waite, 2005). This may not be the
case in Weld County due to the high percentage of individuals from the Latino culture where marriage is
held in very high regard.
The results indicate that 22% of the participants (n=187) were unemployed. Of the participants
who participated together in a seminar, 25 couples (10%) specified that neither partner was employed.
One hundred and eighty-one couples (75%) indicated that either both were employed full-time, or at
least one partner worked full-time, 11 couples (5%) indicated that both partners were employed part-
time, and 14 couples (6%) indicated that only one partner was employed part-time.
Referral Source
The City of Greeley recommended the most participants to the BHM program, referring 14.7%
(n=124) of the participation pool. The second most effective referral source has been the Faith Based
Community; which referred 13.7% of the participants (n=116). The Radio advertisement was third
(12.5%; n=106) and the fourth major referral source is educators of the Community Mediation Project
(11.5%; n=97). This suggests that the recruitment efforts from educators are a significant advertisement
for the program.
Brief Summary of Results: Marital Satisfaction Inventory — Revised (MSI-R) pre-test results Year 3
About 50 % of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems as
measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. In addition, 59% of the couples reported
experiencing significant problems as measured by the Problem Solving Communication scale (PSC), a
Page 20 of 29
measure of overt discord in the relationship. About 40% of the participants indicated being dissatisfied
with their partner's aggression. One third of the participants reported having conflicts over raising their
children and was dissatisfied with the time they spent together. Interestingly, large differences in
satisfaction between males and females were found in the area of strong perceptions of dysfunction in
family relationships, financial dissatisfaction, 2 and dissatisfaction with amount of affection. Males were
more dissatisfied with the family's financial situation and the amount of affection than females, and
females showed more concern than males regarding family -of -origin relationships. Of least concern to
participating couples were sexual dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with children.
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
program has had a more significant positive impact on Non -Hispanic participants; however, positive
changes were noted for both populations. Hispanic males had significantly greater satisfaction on the
Time Together scale. Non -Hispanic males were significantly more satisfied in the following areas:
Affective Communication, Problem Solving Communication, Time Together, Financial Disagreement, and
Sexual Dissatisfaction and experienced less Global Distress. Hispanic females had greater satisfaction
then Hispanic males, but still reported less satisfaction than Non -Hispanic female participants. Hispanic
women reported significantly higher satisfaction in the following areas: Problem Solving Communication
and Role Orientation and experienced less Global Distress. Non -Hispanic females reported significantly
greater satisfaction in: Affective Communication, Problem Solving Communication, Time Together, and
Financial Disagreement, as well as reported less Global Distress.
Data is still being collected and a qualitative study is under way which may help to elucidate the
factors that contributed to fewer gains in marital satisfaction for Hispanic participants.
Impact of program: Year 1 and Year 2
Statistical tests were conducted comparing the pre and post-test scores of the MSI-R to examine
the impact of the program 1 year after the pre-test took place. The results show that both men and
women who participated in the Building Healthy Marriages Program reported higher levels of marital
satisfaction. The most significant improvement in satisfaction was found in the area of problem solving,
indicating that the couples who participated in the program are more satisfied with their problem
solving skills than before entering the BHM program. In addition, improvements were found for both
males and females for the following subscales: Global Distress and Time Together. Couples who took
advantage of the BHM classes had less negative expectancies regarding the relationship's future and less
consideration of divorce, and were more satisfied with the time they spent with their partner than
before they entered the program.
For males, there was also a positive change between the pre and post test scores on the Sexual
Dissatisfaction Scale, indicating that males were more satisfied with their sexual relationship and
affection during couple's interactions after participating in the program.
Page 21 of 29
For females, there was also a positive change between the pre and post test scores on the
Affective Communication Scale and Financial Disagreement Scale, indicating that females were more
satisfied with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by the other partner, and had less
discord in their relationship over finances than before they entered into the BHM program. These last
two differences were not found among the male participants.
No differences were found on the other sub scales (Aggression, Role Orientation, Family of
Origin History, Dissatisfaction with Children, and Conflict over Child Rearing).
Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys: Year 1 and Year 2
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 skill.
Comparison of satisfaction with the 8 hour PREP Seminar, WMR, WOR, Winning the Workplace
Challenge and Relationship Inventory: Year 3 When comparing satisfaction with the content of the
event, the educator, and the meeting facilities, results indicated that participants are most satisfied with
the WOR seminar.
Comparison Pre- and Post scores MSI-R
Statistical tests were conducted comparing the pre and post-test scores of the MSI-R. In order to
calculate the t test statistic, we were only able to use the data from the 34 couples who completed both
MSI-R pre and post-test. Great caution should be exercised in interpreting the results due to the small
sample size and no conclusions can be drawn based upon these results.
Table 6 compares the MSI-R scores for individual males and females at the beginning of the
BHM program with the MSI-R scores at the end of yearl. 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 improvement in
satisfaction was found in the area of problem solving, indicating that the couples who participated in the
program are more satisfied with their problem solving skills than prior to entering the BHM program. In
addition, improvements were found for both males and females for the following subscales: Global
Distress and Time Together. Couples who took advantage of the BHM classes had less negative
expectancies regarding the relationship's future and consideration of divorce, and were more satisfied
with the time they spent with their partner than before they entered into the program.
Page 22 of 29
For females, there was also a positive change between the pre and post test scores on the
Affective Communication Scale and Financial Disagreement Scale, indicating that females were more
satisfied with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by the other partner, and had less
discord in their relationship over finances than before they entered into the BHM program. These last
two differences were not found among the male participants. No differences were found on the other
sub scales (Aggression, Sexual Dissatisfaction, Role Orientation, Family of Origin History, and
Dissatisfaction with children).
We can conclude that the couples who participated in the program are more satisfied with their
marriage (Global Distress), are more satisfied with how they can solve problems (Problem Solving
Communication Scale) and are more satisfied with the quality of the time they spent together (Time
Together Scale). In addition, females are more pleased with their partner's affection (Affective
Communication Scale) and experienced fewer disagreements about their finances (Financial
Disagreement). Findings thus far do not indicate changes in other areas assessed by the MSI-R.
However, again, caution should be exercised in interpreting these results, due to the small sample size.
Table 6
Male Participants
MSI-R Sub Scale
Mean MSI-R
Pre-test
Mean MSI-R
Post-test
M
SD
Perceiving
problem
M
SD
Perceiving
problem
T -test
Global Distress
7.33
5.75
34%
5.57
5.37
25%
2.74*
Affective Communication
4.56
3.33
30%
3.75
3.84
25%
1.91
Problem Solving
Communication
10.24
5.39
39%
6.97
5.24
24%
4.21**
Aggression
2.75
2.69
22%
2.67
2.54
20%
.28
Time Together
4.94
2.60
32%
3.57
2.83
20%
3.96**
Financial Disagreement
4.48
2.57
36%
3.89
2.55
26%
1.92
Sexual Dissatisfaction
6.65
3.77
27%
5.40
3.84
19%
2.89*
Role Orientation
6.77
2.84
14%
6.57
2.54
5%
.60
Family of Origin History
4.98
3.01
49%
4.89
2.85
44%
.49
Dissatisfaction with Children
2.58
2.29
14%
2.42
2.00
15%
.60
Page 23 of 29
Conflict over Child Rearing
2.06
1.85
12%
1.90
2.02
15%
.49
Female Participants
MSI-R Sub Scale
Mean MSI-R
Pre-test
Mean MSI-R
Post-test
M
SD
Perceiving
problem
M
SD
Perceiving
problem
T -test
Global Distress
9.08
6.30
41%
6.14
6.45
21%
3.38*
Affective Communication
5.61
3.67
27%
4.08
4.18
21%
2.77*
Problem Solving
Communication
10.83
5.40
47%
5.87
5.24
17%
6.18**
Aggression
2.36
2.07
17%
2.26
2.38
19%
.48
Time Together
4.94
2.82
33%
3.54
3.14
23%
4.12**
Financial Disagreement
4.74
2.69
29%
3.97
2.96
19%
2.90*
Sexual Dissatisfaction
5.02
3.52
26%
4.78
3.67
29%
.50
Role Orientation
7.51
2.85
18%
7.70
2.58
20%
-.68
Family of Origin History
5.25
2.72
46%
5.03
2.79
489/0
1.20
Dissatisfaction with Children
2.04
1.58
8%
1.85
1.66
11%
.84
Conflict over Child Rearing
2.77
2.08
11%
2.31
2.60
13%
1.41
Note: Highlighted sub scales indicate a positive change, more satisfaction in that area. **p<.001, *p<.05
Page 24 of 29
GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DCS CCR
yes
GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DCS CCR
Figure 11: MSI Pre and post-test scores for the
Male Participants
-4—MSI pre-test
-�-MSI post-test
GDS=Global Distress, AFC=Affective Communication, PSC=Problem Solving, AGG=Aggression, TTO=Time
Together, FIN=Financial Disagreement, SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction, ROR=Role Orientation, FAM=Family
of Origin History, DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict Over Childrearing.
Figure 12: MSI Pre and post-test scores for the
Female Participants
—0—MSI pre-test
—f—MSI post-test
GDS=Global Distress, AFC=Affective Communication, PSC=Problem Solving, AGG=Aggression, TTO=Time
Together, FIN=Financial Disagreement, SEX=Sexual Dissatisfaction, ROR=Role Orientation, FAM=Family
of Origin History, DCS=Dissatisfaction with Children, and CCR=Conflict Over Childrearing.
A meta -analysis of 28 studies that investigated marital satisfaction before and after marriage
and relationship programs found an average effect size of .68 (Reardon -Anderson, Stagner, Macomber,
& Murray, 2005). This is a significant medium effect size, indicating that the treatment groups showed
Page 25 of 29
significantly higher rates of marital satisfaction than the control groups in these studies. These results
support our findings that both men and women in the Building Healthy Marriages program reported
higher levels of marital satisfaction after participation.
After the program, participants in BHM reported significantly higher levels of effective
communication skills in the areas of Problem Solving Communication for women and men as well as
Affective Communication for women. Reardon -Anderson et al. (2005) found that 13 studies
investigating communication following marriage and relationship programs showed a significant average
effect size of .26. These studies as well as the BHM program show significantly improved
communication skills for participants in marriage education programs.
Stories of Impact
When I think of the saying; "You never forget your first love" I never thought that I would in fact meet a
couple who were just beginning that journey. Let me introduce you to Jessica and Matt who enrolled in
the Building Healthy Marriages Program in hopes of making their relationship stronger, especially
considering that they were also expecting their first child. I am sure you may be thinking; "yeah,
so young expectant couples prepare everyday for the arrival of their first child. But are they 14 years
old!
Matt the second child of three children; was born into the world of gangs, drugs, and violence. This was
and in many ways still remains his reality. He fights to take on his new role as an expectant father and to
also be a supportive boyfriend to his girlfriend against his ties to the only family he has ever known, his
gang.
Although Jessica was not witness to gang violence or drug and alcohol abuse she has had a difficult life
as a teenager. She was a victim of a violent crime that changed her young life; this caused her to make
some unhealthy choices and subsequently caused some life changing events to happen.
This is what brought this young couple to the BHM program. They were referred by her probation officer
and were also encouraged to participate in the Building a Family program. Prior to enrolling in the
program they were participating in parenting classes and were also involved in birthing classes through
the Health Department.
Matt and Jessica were very committed to learning new ways of communicating, resolving conflict and
sharing expectations with one another. They enrolled and successfully completed a relationship
seminar; they were then placed in the one to one coaching through the relationship inventories. They
have met with the Community/Family Liaison weekly and have also been very proactive in utilizing the
skills learned to communicate in a more effective way. They are very well connected to support services
in the community that their Liaison has referred them to.
Page 26 of 29
Matt and Jessica have shown a deep commitment, although difficult at times to the success of not only
their relationship, but an even greater commitment to the emotional well being of the child they are
expecting.
They have expressed much appreciation to the BHM program and feel very strongly that had they not
been involved in the program they would still be struggling with the way in which they communicate as
a couple, and know that they are well on their way to becoming the kind of parents that will give their
child the most successful start in life.
Implementation Issues and Concerns:
Different strategy to deliver MSI-R: A concern encountered during the beginning of year
two was the small percentage of returned MSI-R's. While 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
at the same time as the in -person intake interview. The assessment team agreed to do this. It is
very important that the MSI-R be given to each partner of the couple separately to ensure that
responses are not discussed as that may influence how each partner responds. The new
procedure for administering the MSI-R helps ensure independent responses.
Response rate concerns regarding post-test for the KSS and the MSI-R: At the
beginning of this program, the evaluation team planned to conduct post-tests with the MSI-R
with the participants six 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 are
being encouraged to participate in the relationship inventories, which can take up to 8 months to
complete. Therefore the shorter post-test timing was not implemented.
Currently, each member of the couple is contacted twelve months after the completion of the
intake assessment and requested to take the MSI-R post-test. A $30 Target gift card is offered as an
incentive to each couple to complete the post-test MSI-R. The post-test 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 post-test package to every couple.
As discussed previously, the response rate for the participants who initiated the BHM
program during the last six months of year 2 (38%) was much lower than the response rate
during the first six months of year 2 (63%). This may be related to the change in program
delivery that took place about half way though year two. 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 are 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 to 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
Page 27 of 29
educators were concerned and responsive to these findings. The BHM team has now created a
program to stay in contact with couples who are participating in the Next Step Coaching
Program.
Changes in Program Delivery: Several changes were made to the program since it's
inception in January 2007. Some of these changes make it difficult to accurately compare the
pre -and post-test 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 pre-test.
Thus, the education they received prior to taking the _pre-test' will likely influence the scores on
the MSI pre-test. For some of the programs, couples took the pre-test before being exposed to
BHM program materials. These samples will need to be evaluated separately, thus reducing the
overall number in the total sample that can be compared together.
During the first 19 months of this project, couples received an MSI-pre-test before they
participated in the BHM events. However, the delivery of the program was changed during the
last five months of year 2, from an intensive service model to a community saturation model, in
order to increase the overall number of participants. There was no requirement for assessment of
domestic violence, child abuse, or substance /alcohol abuse in the community model as there had
been in the original grant program. 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 pre-test.
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 Familyll Program and —Next Step
Coachingll (programs delivered in year 3) are also receiving or received 8 hours of marriage
education before taking the MSI-R pre-test. 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 that they qualify for; 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 each other, including those who were pre -sensitized to the programs educational
agenda and those who were not.
VIII. Financial Status— SF 269 (Long Form): You are required to submit this standard form to report
the financial status of your project to the ACF Office of Grants Management. Click here to access a blank
SF 269 Long Form, or it can also be accessed here:
http://www.act hhs.gov/grants/grants_resources.html
Page 28 of 29
' Target - A numerical objective indicating a project's desired level of achievement during the
reporting period (this is 6 -month total). Refer to your approved grant application when
possible.
" Number during this reporting period served - Identify the number of participants that
have received a minimum of eight hours of marriage education during this reporting period.
Number completed - Identify the number of participants that have finished your marriage
education program during this reporting period. If your program is more than eight hours,
"completed" should be counted as receiving at least 75% of the curriculum. For example, if you
are providing a marriage education class that is 12 hours in length and a participant attends 8
hours of this class, you can count that participant as served. If that same participant completes
9 hours of your class, they can be counted as served and completed because they have
received at least 75% of your 12 hour class.
'" Target - A numerical objective indicating a project's desired level of achievement during the
reporting period (this is 6 -month total). Refer to your approved grant application when
possible.
Number during this reporting period served - Identify the number of participants that
have received a minimum of eight hours of marriage education during this reporting period.
V' Number completed - Identify the number of participants that have finished your marriage
education program during this reporting period. If your program is more than eight hours,
"completed" should be counted as receiving at least 75% of the curriculum. For example, if you
are providing a marriage education class that is 12 hours in length and a participant attends 8
hours of this class, you can count that participant as served. If that same participant completes
9 hours of your class, they can be counted as served and completed because they have
received at least 75% of your 12 hour class.
Page 29 of 29
Hello