HomeMy WebLinkAbout20083345.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT #4 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#4 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, 2007, and ending September 31, 2008, 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, ex-officio Board of Social Services, that Semi-Annual Progress Report #4 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 22nd day of December, A.D., 2008, nunc pro tunc October 1, 2007.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IE1L. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: gully S Ld L.
•e -- illiam H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the ��• , " ,-���
• EXCUSED
11 r ' A Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tem
BY: i“jvi vill De Jay Cle ,o the Board EXCUSED
z7') Wi • m F. Garcia
/ Q `�
A�OV D AS T `��1,
David E. Long
ou y ttorney n�/wtr
Doug s Rademach
Date of signature: 110
(
2008-3345
H R0079
MEMORANDUM
frea DATE: December 18, 2008
WIlDTO: William H. Jerke, Chair, Board of County Commissi ers
O FROM: Judy A. Griego, Director, Human Se t es e ;ftrh
COLORADO RE Building Healthy Marriages Semi-Annual Progress Report
Being Submitted to the Department of Health and Human
Services' Administration for Children and Families
Enclosed for Board approval is the Building Healthy Marriages Semi-Annual Progress
Report being submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for
Children and Families. This Report was presented at the Board's November 24,2008,Work
Session.
The Semi-Annual report is for a period beginning October 1, 2007 through September 31,
2008. This period is for the second year of a five year grant for the Building Healthy
Marriages Program. The results in the report were provided by our evaluator the University
of Northern Colorado.
The summary of their report is as follows:
Throughout all of this, couples continued to be served:
Allowable Activity Uniti Number of units per this Number of units
Area budget period since Award date
(Sept. 06)
Target" # Served"' # To Date Served'
3 (Non-married Couples 10 couples 7 couples 7 couples*
expectant couples)
4 (Pre-Marital Individuals 80 81 106 individuals
Education) individuals individuals
5 (Marriage Couples/ 60 couples 117 couples 172 couples/23
Enhancement) Married /26 married individuals
individuals individuals
7 (Marriage Couples 70 couples 33 couples 70 couples
Mentoring) 1 individual 1 individual
Total Couples/ 140 157 249 couples/
individual couples/ couples/ 130 individuals
s 80 108
individuals individuals
2008-3345
Unit—Identify who your target population to be served is per allowable activity area.
"Target per this budget period—Identify the target numbers of participants you plan to serve during this budget period
(i.e. October 2007-September 2008).
Number of units served during this budget period - Identify the number of participants who have been served
(completed a minimum of 8 hours of your marriage education program) during this budget period (i.e. October 2007 -
September 2008).
"Number to date served—Identify the number of participants that have been served by your marriage education program
since the date of grant award,which was Sept.2006. This number should be a cumulative total of the participants that have
been served by your marriage education program. 'Unit—Identify who your target population to be served is per allowable
activity area.
• In year one, this grantee did not track the data per the allowable activity areas.
Therefore, there may have been non-married expectant couples who were served in
during that year, but there is no data to support this.
Pre-and Post-test evaluation of the program shows that couples indicated positive changes in
the areas of Global Distress,Affective Communication, Problem Solving, Time Together, and
Financial Disagreement. This demonstrates the program's effectiveness in strengthening
relationships.
Per the SF269, in year two, $974,358.00 Federal Dollars were spent on this grant plus the
$110,190.00 cash match from the Weld County Colorado Works MOE Reduction Reserve
for a total of$1,084,548.00.
If you have questions, please give me a call at extension 6510.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Ant nTTTTCTR ATT(lXT Pill? CT-ITT T1RFThT AXTTl FAMIT WC
Semi-Annual Progress Report-Cover Sheet
*This cover sheet must accompany all reports submitted*
Grant Number: 90FEO 134
Budget Period October 1, 2007 to September 31, 2008
Proiect Period October 1. 2006 to September 31. 2011
Grantee Name and Address: Weld County Department of Human Services, 315 N.
11th Ave.. P.O. Box A. Greeley. Colorado 80632
Telephone Number: (970) 352— 1551
Proiect Title: Weld County Building Healthy Marriages
Period Covered by Report: October 1. 2007 thru September 31. 2008
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) 397-4629 cell phone
Date of Report: October 31. 2008
Report Number per Project Period: (Number sequentially beginning with 1) 4
Name of Federal Project Officer: Michele Walters
Comments, (if any):
William H. Jerke DEC 2 2 2008
Authorized Certifying Official
Chair, Weld County Board of Commissioners
Rev.2/3/04
Semi-Annual Report #4
OFA Healthy Marriage Demonstration Program
October 31, 2008
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): In the first six months of this grant year, the
target population included engaged and married couples whose incomes were below 200%
of the poverty level residing in Weld County. While this population continues to be a
target, the marriage seminars have been opened up to the general community. This
change occurred in June of 2008. Provisions have also been made to meet the needs of
our Latino population as well.
II. Major Activities and Accomplishments
During year 1 (January 1, 2007 —September 30, 2007) and the first seven months of
year 2 (October 1, 2007 - April 30, 2008), the BHM program was structured more
closely to the Supporting Healthy Marriage program than the Demonstration grant. The
Weld County Building Healthy Marriages Program changed focus from an intensive
service model to a community saturation based model. Therefore, after much
discussion, the BHM team decided to deliver the program in a two-fold manner. The
implementation of this new model started in May 2008. (See attachment B.)
1. Education Model:
The first part of the proposed program is called 'Public Events' and includes a
community saturation mode of delivery. The main goal of this prong is to educate the
public about marriage and relationships. Eight hours of Marriage Education in the form
of a seminar using PREP (for Individuals (I), Married couples (M), and unmarried
participants who are in a relationship (R)), 10 hours of Prepare/Enrich Curriculum
(premarital/relationship inventories (5 different versions available taking about 1 hour
to complete + 6 follow up sessions each lasting approximately 90 minutes) used for M
and R (not for I), or 8 hours of The Marriage Garden curriculum (for I, M, R). Singles
can participate in PREP and Marriage Garden. Couples (married or in a relationship)
can participate in all three events. These public seminars are presented in two
formats, two 4,hour days or four 2 hour days, depending on the needs of the
participants and educators. Participants enter the Public Events program by registering
online or calling the program number for one of the advertised events. For evaluation
purposes, participants are required to complete a mini satisfaction survey during the
last 5 minutes of the final session.
At the conclusion of any public event, couples (not individuals) will be invited to
contact Building Healthy Marriages to assess their eligibility to participate in the second
phase, called the 'Mentoring Program'. T uis phase supports the needs of those who
1
meet the eligibility requirements. In addition, couples can begin the Mentoring Model
after they have completed the assessment and met the eligibility criteria; they do not
have to go through the Education model
2. Mentoring Model:
Beginning with an intake to determine eligibility, the specific needs of couples are
identified. They are then assigned a mentor who assists them in signing up for
appropriate services or referrals (i.e. marriage enrichment weekends, financial
management education, conflict resolution coaching, employment services, health care,
etc.). The main goal is to have couples participate in 8 hours of education that is
separate from the education model with a different curriculum. The Prepare-Enrich
inventories are also conducted as appropriate with anyone interested in premarital or
marriage education/enhancement. The Mentoring Program is evaluated with a pre-test
(MSI-R) and post- test surveys (MSI-R, mini satisfaction surveys, S-Survey).
The following additional Education and Services are being offered in the Mentoring
Model:
• 8 hours 'The Marriage Garden' Curriculum
• 8 hours PREP Marriage Seminar
• +10 hours PREPARE/ENRICH (inventory (1 hour) + 6 follow up sessions of
each ±1 1/2 hours)
• Booster (fun event such as barbeque + 1-1 1/2 hours of education based on
PREP, it is open to anyone in the public)
• Financial Management: No set curriculum, up to 4 hours per couple
• Conflict Resolution: PREP, up to 4 hours per couple
• Enrichment Weekend: PREP curriculum will be taught during weekend
• Family Mentors: Couple is assigned a mentor who assists them in overcoming
barriers in their relationship and provides them with referrals to services
attuned with the program.
• Employment Services - offered continuously on an as needed basis.
During this time, the program launched a multi-media campaign that included
television ads on cable shows like "Discovery Chanel's" Dirty Jobs and "TLC's" Jon
and Kate Plus 8. The radio campaigns included 11 different spots to target several
age/life stations from tweeners to empty nesters and were read in Spanish as well as
English. They ran on four local radio stations, one of which is a Spanish speaking
station that boasted high listener ratings. Newspaper advertisements were placed
in several local papers, also in Spanish and English, to high light upcoming events and
were in color and used catch phrases that would be culturally diverse (including
ethnicity, age, gender, and life stations). These ads were also placed in local events
type publications throughout the county. In addition to the above, an interactive kiosk
was developed to be placed around the county that will invite people to take a
"Marriage IQ" test designed by PREP, learn about the BHM program and to leave their
contact information in order to receive more information.
Building Healthy Marriages made three of the more popular events, annual: North
County Couples Event, South County Couples Event, and Fun Run.
2
The North County Couples Event occurred on June 22 at the Rodarte Community
Center in Greeley and consisted of a BBQ lunch and a brief (90 minute) educational
presentation with recognition of attending alumni. Couples were asked to bring friends
who they thought might be interested in participating in the BHM program. There were
150 participants at this event.
The South County Couples Event was a pig roast with a 90 minute educational
presentation but was open to the public as more of a promotional event that took place
on August 3r° at the Ft. Lupton Recreational Center. Local church leaders were asked
to choose a couple from their community that best exemplified a healthy marriage.
These couples were honored with a plaque as part of the educational presentation.
There were 39 participants at this event.
The Building Healthy Marriage Fun Run took place on September 1 at the Greeley
Funplex (Recreational Center). At this event participants can walk or run a certified 5K
course. Runners were awarded first, second, and third place medals per age groups.
Walkers were awarded based on being the first to cross the line in the following
categories: longest marriage, oldest couple (combined age), first complete family, first
couple to finish together, largest family participating, and shortest combined couple
time. Presentations were made about BHM as well as other family oriented
organizations. In addition community groups were invited to set up booths such as
Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation. A total of 250 participants and volunteers
attended this event.
Building Healthy Marriages teamed up with Weld County Juvenile Assessment Center
and 3T Systems, Inc to design a custom Data Management system. This went live
June 30th for data entry. This system will allow Weld County real time reporting of
participants as it will be linked with the website so new participants registration
information will be automatically downloaded to the 3T site. Currently the design of
the canned reports is being modified to meet the needs of each group involved.
As noted above, new participants can register on-line at the Building Healthy Marriages
Website. The website is in both Spanish and English and has been re-designed to be
user friendly with direct links to the calendar and specific public events. The website is
currently being updated to incorporate the new program design.
As the focus of Allowable Activity Area #4 has shifted from strictly couples to couples
and individuals interested in marriage educators and curriculum was needed to meet
the needs of singles. After receiving Federal approval, Craig Conrad and Todd Walsh
were sent to Oklahoma City September 30th — October 3, to be trained in Within My
Reach. Craig Conrad has also begun the negotiations with the University of Northern
Colorado to start WMR classes on campus in year three.
Last but not least, in June of 2008 there was a county wide Merger between the
Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Social Services (DSS).
3
This was significant for the Building Healthy Marriages as DSS was the grantee and the
Lead Agency Family Educational Network of Weld County (FENWC) was part of DHS.
The merger made this contract obsolete and found that several administrative positions
were duplicated. The result was a more streamlined organizational chart that
improved communication between the partners. The Intake staff was consolidated
under the Program Manager and physically moved to office space in a downtown
location.
The following table demonstrates the activity/events that were accomplished in year two per
allowable activi areas.
Allowable Activity/Event Schedule of Accomplished Activities/Events
Activity Activities/Events during this Reporting Period
Area(s)
Proposed Date of Target' Number Number
completion completion/ Served' -: Completed
date status '
I(Public Developed TV ads Production Completion
Advertising) began in Apr. of TV ads for
Ads ran from year 2—
June— Sept. 30,
Sept.on cable 2008
channels.
1(Public Developed radio Production Completion
Advertising)) ads began in Apr. of radio ads
Ads ran from for year 2—
July— Sept Sept. 30,
on 4 local 2008
stations incl.
a Hispanic
radio station
1(Public Newspaper ads Running ads Completion
Advertising) in NEXT, of newspaper
entertainment ads for year 2
and flight ads —Sept. 30,
to promote 2008
specific
activities.
1(Public Fun Run Sept. 1,2008 Sept. 1,2008 250
Advertising) participants
1(Public North County Jun 22,2008 Jun 22,2008 150
Advertising) Couples Event individuals
Rodarte
Community Center,
Greeley
1(Public South County Aug. 3,2008 Aug. 3,2008 39
Advertising) Couples Event individuals
Ft. Lupton
Recreational
Center, Ft. Lupton
I(Public Manned an
Advertising) informational booth
4
at the following
community events:
Youth Net Greeley Oct. 19, 2007 Oct. 19, 2007
Exchange Club of Oct. 23,2007 Oct. 23,2007
Greeley
Youth Net, Ft Nov. 20,2007 Nov. 20,2007
Lupton
Greeley HR group Dec. 10,2007 Dec. 10,2007
Youth Net Dec. 21,2007 Dec. 21,2007
Kiwanis meeting, Jan. 28,2008 Jan. 28,2008
Greeley
Love to Learn Cnf. Feb. 23,2008 Feb. 23,2008
UNC
Student Nursing Feb. 25,2008 Feb. 25,2008
group, Gree/ey
DSS lobby, Greeley Mar. 4,2008 Mar. 4,2008
Wal-Mart, Eaton Mar. 5,2008 Mar. 5,2008
Resource Fair, Mar. 6,2008 Mar. 6,2008
Greeley
Implications of the Mar. 13,2008 Mar. 13,2008
Baby Boomer
Wal-Mart, Greeley Mar. 12,2008 Mar. 12,2008
Head Start Fair, Mar. 2Z2008 Mar. 2Z2008
Greeley
County Benefits Mar 26,2008 Mar 26,2008
Fair, Greeley
Children's Festival, Mar. 29,2008 Mar. 29,2008
Greeley
Carbon Valley Apr. 10,2008 Apr. 10,2008
Business After
Hours, Carbon
Valley
Grant Writing Apr. 17,2008 Apr 17,2008
Workshop, Greeley
Cinco De Mayo, May 3,2008 May 3,2008
Greeley
Catholic Charities, May 6,2008 May 6,2008
5
Greeley
N. Weld County May 21,2008 May 21,2008
Health Fair,
Greeley
Stampede Kick Off May 2Z 2008 May 22,2008
Greeley
S. Weld County Jun. 4,2008 Jun. 4,2008
Health Fair, Ft.
Lupton
Care Event, Jun. 13, 2008 Jun. 13, 2008
Greeley
Ft. Lupton Jul. 14,2008 Jul. 14,2008
Ministerial
Association
Mothers Class Dept Jul. 24,2008 Jul. 24,2008
of Health, Greeley
Rotary Club of Aug.17,2008 Aug.17,2008
Greeley
Bixpo, Windsor Sept 16 & Sept. 16 &
18, 2008 18, 2008
Allowable Activity/Event Date Date Target"' Number Number
Activity Activity/ Activity/ Served5 Completed
Area(s) Event Event Ended 6
Started
3 (Non-married Delivered 8— 14 Oct. 3,2007 Nov 14,2007 1 couple
expectant hours of PREP to Waypoints, (14 hrs)
couples) non-married Greeley
expectant couples
Oct.23,2007 Dec 11,2007 1 couple
New Life, (14 hrs)
Greeley
Oct. 25,2007 Dec 13,2007 1 couple
Headstart, (14 hrs)
Greeley
Jan. 26,2008 Feb 9,2008 1 couple
Highland (14 hrs)
ECEC, Ault A total of 6
couples
Feb. 13,2008 Mar 26,2008 1 couple that
Christ Comm. (14 hrs) qualified for
Greeley AA#3
attended
Mar. 29,2008 Apr 12,2008 1 couple the classes
Grover (14 hrs) from Oct. 3
Comm. —Apr. 12
6
Church,
Grover
Jul. 19,2008 Jul 19,2008 4 couples 1 couple
Waypoints, (8 hrs)
Greeley
4 (Pre-marital) Delivered 8— 14 Oct. 3,2007 Nov 14,2007
hours of PREP to Waypoints, (14 hrs)
married couples Greeley
Oct23,2007 Dec 11,2007
New Life, (14 hrs)
Greeley
Oct. 25,2007 Dec 13,2007
Headstart, (14 hrs) A total of
Greeley Targeted 20
40 individ individuals
Jan 16,2008 Feb 27,2008 for the first that
Waypoints, (14 hrs) 6 mos. qualified for
Greeley AA#4
attended
Jan. 26,2008 Feb 9,2008 the classes
Highland (14 hrs) of Oct. 3—
ECEC, Ault Mar 26.
Feb. 13,2008 Mar 26,2008
Christ Comm. (14 hrs)
Greeley
Mar. 29,2008 Apr 12,2008 5 ind 4 ind
Grover (14 hrs)
Comm.
Church,
May.14,2008 Jun 4, 2008 5 ind 3 ind
Trinity Plaza (8 hrs)
Greeley
May 15,2008 Jun 5,2008 5 ind 2 ind.
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs)
Greeley
June 4,2008 June 25,2008 5 ind 5 ind
Waypoints (8 hrs)
June 27,2008 Jun 28,2008 5 ind 7 ind
United (8 hrs)
Methodist, Ft.
Lupton
Jul. 9,2008 July 30,2008 5 ind 5 ind.
Waypoints, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Jul. 9,2008 Jul 30,2008 5 ind 9 ind
Christ Comm. (8 hrs)
Greeley
7
Jul. 17,2008 Aug 7,2008 5 ind 3 ind
Trinity Plaza (8 hrs)
Jul. 19,2008 Jul 19,2008 5 ind 7 ind
Waypoints, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Aug 5,2008 Aug 26,2008 5 ind 2 ind
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Aug 7,2008 Aug 28,2008 5 ind 2 ind
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Aug 16,2008 Aug. 28,2008 5 ind 1 ind
Comm. (8 hrs)
Baptist,
Windsor
Sep. 3,2008 Sep 24,2008 5 ind 7 ind.
Waypoints, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Sep 13,2008 Sep 20,2008 5 ind 2 ind.
Highland (8 hrs)
ECEC, Ault
4 (Pre-marital) Delivered 8— 14 Jun 29,2008 Jul 20,2008 5 ind 2 ind
hrs of monolingual Cornerstone (8 hrs)
Spanish PREP to Baptist,
married couples Windsor
5 (Marriage Delivered 8— 14 Oct. 3,2007 Nov 14,2007
Enhancement) hours of PREP to Waypoints, (14 hrs)
married couples Greeley
Oct 23,2007 Dec 11,2007
New Life, (14 hrs)
Greeley
Oct. 25,2007 Dec 13,2007
Headstart, (14 hrs)
Greeley
A total of
Jan 16,2008 Feb 27,2008 Targeted 45 couples
Waypoints, (14 hrs) 30 couples that
Greeley for the first qualified for
6 mos. AA#5
Jan. 26,2008 Feb 9,2008 attended
Highland (14 hrs) the classes
ECEC, Ault from Oct. 3
—April 12.
Feb. 13,2008 Mar 26,2008
Christ Comm. (14 hrs)
8
Greeley
Mar. 29,2008 Apr 12,2008 4 couples 3 couples
Grover (12 hrs)
Comm.
Church,
Grover
May.14,2008 Jun 4, 2008 2 couples 1 ind
Trinity Plaza (8 hrs)
Greeley
May 15,2008 Jun 5,2008 4 couples 1 couple
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Jun. 4,2008 Jun 25,2008 6 couples 2 couples
Kersey (8 hrs)
Comm.
Church,
Kersey
Jun. 4,2008 Jun 25,2008 5 couples 7 couples
Waypoints, (8 hrs) 1 ind
Greeley
Jun. 6,2008 Jun 27,2008 5 couples 2 couples
Rodgers (8 hrs)
Jun. 10,2008 Jul 1,2008 5 couples 4 couples
Rodgers (8 hrs)
June 27,2008 Jun 28,2008 5 couples 3 couples
United (8 hrs) 8 ind
Methodist, Ft.
Lupton
Jul. 9,2008 July 30,2008 10 couples 3 couples
Waypoints, (8 hrs) 1 ind.
Greeley
Jul. 9,2008 Jul 30,2008 5 couples 9 couples
Christ Comm. (8 hrs) 2 ind
Greeley
Jul. 17,2008 Aug 7,2008 10 couples 2 couples
Trinity Plaza (8 hrs)
Jul. 19,2008 Jul 19,2008 5 couples 3 couples
Waypoints, (8 hrs) 1 ind
Greeley
Aug 5,2008 Aug 26,2008 5 couples 3 couples
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs) 1 ind
Greeley
Aug 7,2008 Aug 28,2008 5 couples 2 couples
Trinity Plaza, (8 hrs) 1 ind
Greeley
9
Aug 16,2008 Aug. 28,2008 5 couples 2 couples
Comm. (8 hrs) 4 ind
Baptist,
Windsor
Sep. 3,2008 Sep 24,2008 5 couples 5 couples
Waypoints, (8 hrs)
Greeley
Sep 13,2008 Sep 20,2008 5 couples 5 couples
Highland (8 hrs)
ECEC, Ault
5(Marriage Delivered 8— 14 Feb 21,2008 Apr 3,2008 10 couples 8 couples
Enhancement) hrs of monolingual Headstart, (14 hrs)
Spanish PREP to Greeley
married couples
Jun 29,2008 Jul 20,2008 7 couples 2 couple
Cornerstone (8 hrs) 5 ind
Baptist,
Windsor
5(Marriage Delivered 8 hrs of Jul 12,2008 Aug. 2,2008 6 couples 5 couples
Enhancement) Marriage Garden Rotating (8 hrs) 1 ind
to married couples homes in
Grover
7(Marriage Delivered 8- 10 hrs Feb. 8,2008 Feb 10,2008 10 couples 9 couples
Mentoring) of WOR to married Hampton Inn,
couples with 1:1 Greeley •
coaching
•
Apr 25,2008 Apr 27,2008 10 couples 6 couples
Hampton Inn, 1 ind
Greeley
Aug 8, 2008 Aug 10,2008 10 couples 10 couples
Hampton Inn,
Greeley
7(Marriage Delivered 8 hrs of Jun 20,2008 June 22,2008 10 couples 8 couples
Mentoring) monolingual Hampton Inn,
Spanish WOR to Greeley
married couples
with 1:1 coaching
III. Compliances and Assurances
• Domestic Violence —This protocol was revised in February 2008 to include training and
procedures for the educators and coaches. A local shelter for women (A Woman's Place)
was contacted and presented a two day training workshop in August of 2008. At that time,
the partners felt that domestic violence was too important an issue to leave to a stagnant
protocol. Therefore, determined a course of action that included working one on one with
10
A Woman's Place to develop and maintain the protocol to ensure current legislature and
issues are being addressed.
• Faith Based Regulations—This protocol is complete and in use. This grantee is working
with the educational coordinator to strengthen the wording in the educational staff
contracts.
• Voluntary Participation —This protocol is complete and in use.
IV. Data Collection
Allowable Activity Unit' Number of units per Number of units
Area this budget period since Award date
(Sept. 06)
Target8 # Served9 # To Date Served1°
3(Non-married Coup/es 10 coup/es 7 couples 7 couples*
expectant couples)
4 (Pre-Marital Individuals 80 81 106 individuals
Education) individuals individuals
5(Marriage Couples/ 60 couples 117 couples 172 couples/23
Enhancement) Married /26 married individuals
individuals individuals
7(Marriage Couples 70 couples 33 couples 70 couples
Mentoring) 1 individual 1 individual
* In year one, this grantee did not track the data per the allowable activity areas. Therefore,
there may have been non-married expectant couples who were served in during that year, but
there is no data to support this.
V. Evaluation —The following is based on the analysis of the data collected from
participants involved in the Building Healthy Marriages program from January 1, 2007
through September 30, 2008. First, we describe the referral source for the participants
who are in, or are, still participating in the BHM program. Next, we will present results
from the administration of the MSI-R, which couples completed at the time of initial
assessment during the intake interview. After that, we will discuss the relationship
between demographic characteristics and the scales of the MSI-R. Next, we will
compare the pre and post MSI-R scores and present the knowledge gained and
satisfaction with the program. Last, we will discuss the findings from the mini KSS that
were distributed to participants of the 8-hour PREP Seminar, Enrichment Weekend and
Marriage Garden Curriculum. Distribution of the mini KSS started May 2008. Due to the
elimination of the tracking forms, we do not have any additional information, besides
demographics and MSI-R data, on the participants who participated in events during
October 2007-April 2007. This data will be collected with the post-test (MSI-R post +
full KSS). We do have demographic� data, referral r� info and MSI-R data of these couples.
z c 2, fokium,r; ck�n�ti = k 30 VA
H 11
Referral Source for the Participants who participated in the BHM program
Table 3 provides information on the referral sources for the participants who participated in
the BHM after being referred to the Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program. Almost one third
of the participants were referred by the Faith Based Community (n = 138; 29.7%), followed by
referrals from former participants (n = 64, 13.8%), Pregnancy Resource Center (n = 32, 6.9%),
self referral (n = 31, 6.7%), Head Start (n = 29, 6.3%), and Job Service/Employment Services (a
= 28, 6%).
Table 3: Referral base
Referred by Sample whoparticip ted in
program (n 464 participan �°
Faith Based Community
Former Participant 64=-# " 13.8'18:0;4X,t7j,
Pregnancy Resource Center 32' .z . i " ° "
Self referral
Head Start 29;` k14
Job Service/Employment Services •28
Department of Social Services 22 k-1? V
Friend/family
Radio 13 3 t '
Community Mediation Project
Cinco de Mayo
Health Department
BHM 7', 1 t{ 1.
United Way
Children's Festival 4 9•°T,o
Newspaper 3,
Transitional House 2
Current Participant
Fort Lupton Trapper Days 2 4,:°0 :
Physician 2. :`
Juvenile Assessment Center
Billboard
Spanish Outreach Manager 2. ' 4-% k {`
Therapist -2 4-i070 rck
Website 2* S . 4,°la
Love to learn conference 2 4x °Tmm
Summer youth voucher program 2; w ;'n may„ °
Fun Run 1 ' ` 2%
Did not respond/missing
12
Results MSI-R Table 4: MSI-R Statistics
MSI-R Scales 1st Administration
January 2007 through September 2008
So far, 314 participants (157 couples) who
began participating in the BHM program Male Nor Femal Nor
completed the MSI-R. Significant MSI-R MSI-R Scale Parti m e m
Statistics cipa Mal Partici Fern
(1st Administration) nt es pant ales
Each scale of the MSI-R has a cutoff score Global Distress
that indicates whether the respondent Number of Responses 109 106
perceives their problems to be significant Mean 7.47 3.65 9.39 4.51
(See footnotes 1 and 2 in Table 4 for these Std. Deviation 5.91 4.61 6.38 5.74
values). Of note, in Table 4 are gender Percentile Rank' 82 82
specific norm scores. These were % perceiving problem? 38% 38%
developed with the MSI-R due to Affective
differences found between men and Communication
women on the older MSI-R scales. These Number of Responses 112 116
differences can also be supported with Mean 4.98 3.23 6.16 4.11
literature. Also of interest, in Table 4 are Std. Deviation 3.47 3.10 3.71 3.50
percentile scores, perhaps best explained Percentile Rank' 78 77
by an example: A"Percentile Rank" of 84 0/0 perceiving problem2 31% 29%
means that 16% (100 — 84) scored higher Problem Solving
than the mean value. This, of course, Communication
means that 84 percent scored at or below Number of Responses 108 111
that same value. Mean 10.8 6.68 11.01 6.44
• Global distress (GDS) is the best overall Std. Deviation 5.43 4.94 5.09 5.10
measure of marital satisfaction. GDS Percentile Rank' 81 81
also gauges negative expectancies 0/0 perceiving problem2 46% 44%
regarding the relationship's future and ' Individual scores above 841h percentile indicate that from the
consideration of divorce. Respondents partner's perspective significant problems exist in the couple's
relationship(Snyder, 1997, p. 53).
in this sample reflect a moderate level 2 Individual scores above the 60T( Snyder, 1997, p. 19&p. 95-
of global distress at about the 82"d 101) indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in
percentile as compared to the norm. their relationship.
Thirty-eight percent of the participants
indicated their problems are significant to them. A score reaching the 82nd percentile means
that only 18% scored at a higher level.
• The Affective Communication Scale (AFC) evaluates dissatisfaction with the amount of affection
and understanding expressed by the other partner. It is of moderate concern (78`h percentile
men; 77th percentile females) to the couples in this group, as about 30% view their
communication as a significant problem (31°k men; 29% female).
• The Problem Solving Communication Scale (PSC), a measure of overt discord in the
relationship, ranks at the 81st percentile of the normative sample, representing a moderate
level of distress. Forty-six percent of the male and 44% of the female respondents indicated
that there they are experiencing problems in this area.
13
Table 4: MSI-R Statistics
• The Aggression Scale (AGG) assesses MSI-R Scales 1s` Administration
intimidation and physical aggression January 2007 through September 2008
experienced by the partner and Male Nor Fema Nor
reflects a moderate degree of distress parti m le m
MSI-R Scale` i Male partic Fern
in this group, which reported at the cPan
78th percentile for males and 73rd t . s ipant ales
percentile for females. Twenty Aggression
percent of the valid male responses Number of Responses 118 125
and 12% of the valid female 2 87 2 02
responses indicated a problem with Mean 2.54 2.11
low levels of aggression or Std. Deviation 2.67 2.23 2.29 2.38
intimidation by their partner. Percentile Rank' 78 73
• The Time Together Scale (TTO) 0/0 perceiving problemZ 20% 12%
evaluates their companionship as
expressed in shared leisure time. In Time Together
addition, of moderate concern to the Number of Responses 116 115
couples, 31% of male respondents Mean 4.72 3.23 5.22 3.42
and 37% of female respondents Std. Deviation 2.77 2.56 2.92 2.75
indicated that time together was not Percentile Rank' 80 76
satisfying to them. % perceiving problem2 31% 37%
• The Financial Disagreement Scale Financial
(FIN) evaluates the extent to which Disagreement
the respondent experiences discord Number of Responses 113 122
in the relationship over finances. FIN Mean 4.60 2.91 5.11 3.00
scores in this group are at a Std. Deviation 2.68 2.59 2.87 2.80
moderate level (76th percentile males; Percentile Rank' 76 81
81st percentile females) of concern, % perceiving problem2 35% 33%
with 34% of the responses indicating Sexual
significant discord in their relationship Dissatisfaction
over finances (35°k males; 33% Number of Responses 113 120
females). Mean 6.35 5.22 4.88 4.12
• Sexual Dissatisfaction (SEX) Std. Deviation 3.91 3.77 3.58 3.21
measures general dissatisfaction with Percentile Rank' 63 66
the sexual relationship and 0/0 perceiving problem2 . 27% 24%
inadequate affection during couples' Role Orientation
interactions. Sexual dissatisfaction Number of Responses 109 111
scores are of moderate concern on a Mean 7.01 6.51 7.46 7.05
percentile Std. Deviation 2.79 3.22 2.94 3.45
basis (63rd & 66th percentile), and Percentile Rank' 42 45
27% of the males and 24% of the °/0 perceiving problem' n/a n/a
females indicated that they are ' Individual scores above 64t percentile indicate that from the
dissatisfied. partner's perspective significant problems exist in the couple's
• The Role Orientation Scale (ROR) relationship (Snyder, 1997, p. 53).
2Individual scores above the 60T( Snyder, 1997, p. 19&p. 95-
evaluates the extent to which a
101) indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in
partner identifies with traditional their relationship
versus nontraditional attitudes 3 The ROR scale is most appropriately evaluated by a comparison
regarding marital and parental to each partner's score.
gender roles. This group
14
Table 4: MSI-R Statistics
MSI-R Scales 1s' Administration
(42nd & 45`" percentile) fairs about the January 2007 through September 2008
same as the norm group in this Fem
regard. ROR is most meaningful in Male Nor ale Nor
the context of marital satisfaction MSI-R Scale partici Male party Fem
when there are significant differences ant ci a
between the partners. P s nt ales
• Family of Origin History (FAM) Family of Origin
measures the respondent's perception History
of the dysfunction of relationships in Number of Responses 108 116
the partner's family of origin. Thirty- 4.73 3.65 3.6
four percent of the males and 37% of Mean 5.23 9
the females did express concern in 2.84 2.53 2.6
this area. Std. Deviation 2.52 8
• The Dissatisfaction with Children Scale Percentile Rank' 76 72
(DSC) assesses the quality of the % perceiving a problem2 34% 37%
relationship between respondents and Dissatisfaction with
their children, as well as parental Children
concern regarding the emotional and Number of Responses 88 86
behavioral well-being of one or more 2.69 2.47 2.3
of the children. Only 19% of the male Mean 2.15 0
and 11% of the female respondents in 2.39 2.02 1.9
this sample expressed dissatisfaction Std. Deviation 1.75 0
with their children. Percentile Rank' 74 66
• Conflict Over Child Rearing (CCR) % perceiving problem2 19% 11%
evaluates the extent of conflict Conflict over Raising
between partners regarding their Children
approaches to raising children. Number of Responses 96 93
Twenty percent of the males and 23% 2.49 1.76 2.4
of the females reported having Mean 3.41 4
disagreements over raising their 2.38 1.92 2.4
children. Std. Deviation 2.61 3
Percentile Rank' 75 75
% perceiving problem2 20% 23%
1 Individual scores above 84th percentile indicate that from the
partner's perspective significant problems exist in the couple's
relationship(Snyder, 1997, p. 53).
2 Individual scores above the 60T( Snyder, 1997, p. 19 &p. 95-
101) indicate that the partner perceives a significant problem in
their relationship
SUMMARY
In summary, Table 4 indicates that over 40% of the couples in the sample reported
experiencing significant problems as measured by the PSC, a measure of overt discord in the
relationship. In addition, about 40 % of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant
problems as measured by the GDS, a global measure of relationship distress. One third of the
participants who completed the MSI-R indicated that they are having unresolved problems in the
following areas: dissatisfaction with amount of affection, dissatisfaction with time spent together,
financial dissatisfaction, and strong perceptions of dysfunction in family relationships. Of least
concern to participating couples were dissatisfaction with aggression by partner, sexual
15
dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction with children, and dissatisfaction and conflict over raising children
(see Figure 7).
Figure 7 provides a graphical presentation of problem areas in marital satisfaction from the
male and female respondents who completed the MSI-R.
%Perceiving Figure7: Scales MSI -R
Problem
50
40 I
30
20
10 —W—Females
0
PSC GOS FAM TTO FIN AFC SEX CCR AGG OCS
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.
Results Year One
Post-tests were administered 1 year after the intake assessment. In order to enhance the
response rate, thirty dollar ($30) Target gift cards were offered to couples who completed the
MSI-R and Knowledge and Satisfaction Surveys (KSS).
To date, approximately 89 couples (n=178) completed the intake interview during January
2007 through September 2007 and participated in the BI-IM program for 1 year. These couples
were contacted by Building Healthy Marriages staff and asked to complete the post-test surveys
(MSI-R and KSS). The Intake Coordinator and Assessment technicians contacted the couples three
times to set up an appointment to complete the tests. If unsuccessful (no show, no call back, etc),
the evaluators followed up with a mailing of the post-tests (KSS and MSI-R).
Of the 89 couples who participated in the BHM program in year 1, 35 couples completed a pre
and post MSI-R, 32 couples only completed a MSI-R pre-test, and 9 only completed a MSI-R post-
test. Thus far, we have received 86 Knowledge and Satisfaction surveys (KSS) (2 participants did
not fill out the KSS, but did complete the MSI-R). The response rate for the MSI-R pre-test was
75% (67 who completed MSI-R/89 who were offered the MSI-R). For year 2, this number will be
closer to a 100% because the administration of the MSI-R pre-test is part of the intake interview,
couples are asked to complete the MSI-R before intake interview starts.
The response rate for the MSI-R post-test was 63% (44 couples completed MSI-R post-
test/89 couples who participated in the BHM program, 19 couples who moved, wrong address,
were no longer together, etc). For a more detailed overview of reasons why some participants
were excluded from the pos-test calculation see Table 5 below. It is interesting to note that 6
16
couples (7%) of the 89 couples who participated in BHM were no longer together. In order to
increase the response rate, we will administer the MSI-R post-test 6 months after the intake
interview for couples from the current program.
Table 5: Reasons for excluding some couples from MSI-R post-test response rate calculations
Reasons for excluding some:couples from MSI-R post-test n
calculation C
Couple is not longer together 6 32
phone disconnected, no response to mail survey, or possibly 5 26
moved
Wrong address 4 21
Moved out of state 3 16
Disqualified, being abusive to staff 1 5
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 ttest 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.
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. For a graphical presentation, see Figure 11 and 12.
17
Table 6: Mean Pre- and Post MSI-R Scores for the Male and Female Participants of Year 1
. :>_': Male Participants
MSI-R Sub Scale , 1 Mean MSI-R Mean MSI-R T-test
' Pre-test Post-test
Global Distress 8.07 6.07 2.05*
Affective Communication 5.03 3.91 2.00
Problem Solving Communication 11.53 6.93 4.34**
Aggression 3.09 3.33 -.73
Time Together 4:81 3.39 3.14*
Financial Disagreement 5.03 4.58 .87
Sexual Dissatisfaction 6.86 5.48 2.04
Role Orientation 7.48 6.79 1.47
Family of Origin History 5.10 4.97 .47
Dissatisfaction with Children 3.08 2.75 .69
Conflict over Child Rearing 2.08 2.04 .09
Female Participants
MSI-R Sub Scale w Mean'MSI-R Mean MSI-R T-test
Pre-test Post-test
Global Distress! 8.77 5.54 2.61*
Affective Communication 5.39 3.39 2.45*
Problem Solving Communication 12.40 5.56 5.81**`:
Aggression 2.24 2.09 .47
Time Together 4.88 3.59 2.47*
Financial Disagreement 5.29 4.29 2.35*
Sexual Dissatisfaction 5.31 4.66 .87
Role Orientation 7.59 7.72 -.48
Family of Origin History 5.62 5.10 1.80
Dissatisfaction with Children 2.32 1.96 1.12
Conflict over Child Rearing 2.83 2.21 1.30
Note: Highlighted sub scales indicate a positive change, more satisfaction in that area.
**p<.001, *p<.05
18
Figure 11: MSI Pre and post-test scores for the
Male Participants
I sM 1,
14 r ,- ........_....._
12 I.. . ......
10 I-
8
--M—MSI pre-test
—IN—MSI post-test
GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX FOR 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.
Figure 12: MSI Pre and post-test scores for the
Female Participants
14
12 •
10
s
G --o—MSI pre-test
4 . . —411--MSI post-test
2
0
GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR 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.
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 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
19
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.
VI. Stories of Impact— Provide any significant stories or insights during this reporting period
concerning the impact of your program on participants to provide Healthy Marriage education
services.
When Irene and Victor entered into the Building Healthy Marriages program they figured
they would be getting some information about their relationship, little did they know it would make
their relationship stronger than they ever thought possible.
This couple has been together for 4 years each brining in their own children to the
relationship and having two together. As which is normal with many young families that are
parenting blended families many issues came up in reference to the expectations each partner had
in parenting styles. Issues that before attending the seminars they could not resolve or even
discuss without getting into arguments that were never resolved. After learning the
"speaker/listener"technique they were able to sit with the support of a coach and discuss these
issues in way that they both felt heard, respected and honored.
When this couple entered the program, Irene was the only one working, which put added
stress on the relationship. In the process of participating in the program, Victor was given a
referral to Employment Services as well as a referral to a truck driving school that he attended. He
subsequently was able to complete the required training and as a result was hired to drive for the
company. This added much more financial security to the family as this resulted in Victor making
$10,000 more per year.
This couple was also able to finish their participation within the Building Healthy Marriages
program by attending the Marriage Enrichment Weekend. This was especially important to them
because they had not been alone, without the kids since their relationship began. The experience
reminded them at how far they had come and how important the relationship was to each of
them.
Because of Irene's experience in working with Head Start as a bus monitor/bus aide. She
was able to assist the Building Healthy Marriages program with childcare. Irene continues to assist
the program when applicable.
It was especially meaningful to the program to be able to witness this couple shift through
the stressful situation and watch them work through the process of utilizing the skills they were
taught to make their relationship stronger.
Paulina and Andres have been together for 5 years and just recently celebrated their 5th
wedding anniversary. They have three grown children and four grandchildren.
They participated in the Spanish Speaking program and have accessed many of the extended
events that have been offered to them. They came to the program in hope of learning how to
communicate better and differently. Paulina came from a family of origin where things were not
discussed the father who was the patriarch made all the decisions and women opinions were really
never honored. Andres came from a family that agreed, things were not discussed as a result his
family never had conflict, so he thought.. Subsequently when this couple tried to communicate
even basic needs to one another, Paulina would shut down and feel that her opinion didn't matter
20
and Andres to avoid any conflict would just agree. This lead to some difficult times for the couple,
they had expectations that were not being met, simply because neither knew how to communicate
that to each other. After attending the marriage seminars they began to understand that each of
them had different ways of communicating and that through specific skills they learned, they
began to use the speaker/listener technique as well as understanding barriers to communicating
that they had because of their individual family of origin experiences. They now had a name for
what they were experiencing; they now had a way to resolve these small conflicts. They began to
feel a sense of hope and normalness to what they were experiencing. They enlisted the support of
a Building Healthy Marriages coach to help them explore that their differences could be addressed
without fear of the relationship ending. They learned how to honor the relationship by setting
aside time to spend with each other, with out their families, or coworkers, or friends. They learned
how important it was to build on their relationship, without feeling guilty for focusing on them.
They learned how to budget their money better, which subsequently allowed for them to start a
savings account. They shared with one another their individual goals were. Paulina shared that
she wanted to move up in her company, perhaps return to school, Andres supported this and she
is currently taking a managerial course through her company. Andres shared that he wanted to
learn o read and write in both English and Spanish. Paulina supported him by encouraging him to
study everyday, giving him the space necessary to do so. He has begun studying and is currently
working on notebooks he acquired from Mexico.
They have shifted from not communicating to communicating about everything from the budget to
their date night. They feel more like a team, and feel confident they will continue to utilize the
skills learned in all the events they participated in through the Building Healthy Marriages program.
VII. Implementation Issues and Concerns — Year two ended looking very different than it
started. As described in the first section of this report Weld County Building Healthy Marriages
program was more closely aligned with the Supporting Healthy Marriage grant rather than the
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant that was actually awarded. With the confusion over
program constructs there was also confusion with how to count participants. That is to say,
participants were counted by what class they attended versus what target population they fell
under or how many hours of education they received. Clarification came with the Federal site visit
and the Technical Assistance site visit in February and March respectively. The corrections made
were reflected in the semi-annual report submitted in April 2008.
The original Allowable Activity Areas were also reviewed and it was found that one AAA was not
being met per the description. In the grant proposal, Weld County stated that they would meet
AAA# 6 (disincentives to divorce) and attempted to do so by offering an intensive wrap-around
program that included conflict resolution and financial management classes. This program meets
the requirements of.AAA#3 (non-married, expectant couples) and is not allowable under AAA#6.
Since the program for #3 was already in place and just needed to be focused on the correct target
population, it was decided to switch AAA#6 for AAA#3.
To summarize the changes, BHM went from a highly intensive program that focused only on low
income couples to three programs that include public events (community saturation relationship
education), mentoring (weekend enrichment/relationship inventory), and an intensive wrap-around
program for non-married expectant couples (conflict resolution and financial management).
21
Included in the infrastructural changes, the administration of the grant was streamed lined by
eliminating duplicate administrative support.
Changes to this degree could have resulted in the demise of this program. However, in this case,
the program has developed a clearer sense of purpose, better lines of communication, and an
overall stronger program.
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:
htto://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants resources.html
22
Please submit one hard copy of your semi-annual report to your assigned Grants Management
Specialist:
To send by U.S. Postal Service:
Ms. Carla Stuckey
Grants Management Specialist
Office of Grants Management
370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW
6th Floor East
Washington, DC 20447
Phone: (202) 401-4965
As a courtesy to the Office of Grants Management, please do not send binders, as there
is limited storage space.
Please provide an electronic copy to your assigned Federal Project Officer at the OFA Office:
Priority Area 1 Grantees: Priority Areas 6& 7 Grantees:
Ms. Michelle Clune Ms. Rosalind Ginyard
Phone: (202) 401 — 5467 Phone: (202) 401 - 4989
Email: michelle.clune@acf.hhs.gov Email: rosalind.ginyard@acf.hhs.gov
Priority Areas 2&3 Grantees: Priority Area 8 Grantees:
Ms. Michele Walters Ms. Doresa Payton
Phone: (202) 401 — 5726 Phone: (202) 401 - 4639
Email: michele.walters@acf.hhs.gov Email: doresa.payton@acf.hhs.gov
Priority Areas 4& 5 Grantees: Priority Area 8 Grantees:
Ms. Karal Busch Mr. Nathaniel Johnson
Phone: (202) 205 — 5924 Phone: (202) 690 - 5800
Email: karal.busch@acf.hhs.gov Email: nathaniel.johnson@acf.hhs.gov
23
Glossary for terminology in these instructions:
' 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.
2 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.
3 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.
5 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.
6 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.
' Unit— Identify who your target population to be served is per allowable activity area.
8 Target per this budget period — Identify the target numbers of participants you plan to serve
during this budget period (i.e. October 2007 — September 2008).
9 Number of units served during this budget period - Identify the number of participants
who have been served (completed a minimum of 8 hours of your marriage education program)
during this budget period (i.e. October 2007 — September 2008).
1° Number to date served — Identify the number of participants that have been served by your
marriage education program since the date of grant award, which was Sept. 2006. This number
should be a cumulative total of the participants that have been served by your marriage education
program.
24
Hello