Use of Logic Models in Healthy Marriage Programs Presentation at the Entrance Conference for Healthy Marriage and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grantees December 14, 2006 Presented by: Sharon M. McGroder, PhD, MS, CFLE. The El Paso Healthy Marriage Project is funded by a five year U. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families grant awarded to Model Cities - El Paso in 2006. October of 2010 marks the. The Healthy Marriage Program helps couples achieve their goals in marriage. The Within Our Reach curriculum created by Preventive Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) builds on existing strengths of couples and adds skills. The El Paso Healthy Marriage Project is wrapping up it’s fifth and final year of providing free marriage strenghtening workshops to the El Paso community. It has been a fun and productive ride! Since 2006, we have delivered. Building Strong Families Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Building Strong Families Program (BSF) is part of the Healthy Marriage Initiative funded by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, . The intervention featured up to 4. On what theories of behavior and family well- being do the programs rest? What types of organizations are well suited to operating such programs? Operation: What are the important issues and challenges in designing, implementing, and operating programs, and what lessons can be drawn from the program experience? What services are included, and how do they complement existing programs for low- income families? Participation: Who participates and for how long? What services do they receive? How does participation differ for subgroups? Impacts: How do BSF programs affect couples? Texas Healthy Marriage Program, Marriage In. Site Map; For Couples For Providers. Partners, Programs & Services; Healthy Marriage Links; FAQ; Register as a. HEALTHY MARRIAGE LINKS. Twogether in Texas is dedicated to. The Supporting Healthy Marriage project is the first large-scale, multisite, multiyear, rigorous test of marriage education programs for low-income married couples.What effects are found on parents and their relationships with their children, and the well- being and development of children? Which program designs work best? Rationale. We are conducting studies to increase understanding about how to help low- income couples solidify their relationships, engage fathers more fully, and create the best environments in which to raise children .. The study is using a rigorous random assignment design and includes more than 5,0. A report released in May 2. BSF. At this point, 7. BSF couples were still romantically involved, compared with 7. What is the Healthy Marriage Initiative? Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families whose purpose is “to help couples, who. Special Collection: Building Collaborations Between Healthy Marriage & Relationship Education and Domestic Violence Programs. The President's Healthy Marriage Initiative has been included in the two major TANF reauthorization bills. One of these is the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003 (H.R. Similarly, BSF and control group couples were equally likely to be married to each other at that time (1. Similarly, BSF and control group couples gave very similar ratings of supportiveness and affection in their relationships, with average support and affection scale values of 3. In addition, BSF had no overall effect on how faithful couples were to each other. Couples in both research groups reported similar levels of use of constructive conflict behaviors, such as keeping a sense of humor and listening to the other partner. Similarly, there was no difference between the research groups in the avoidance of destructive conflict behaviors, such as withdrawing when there is a disagreement or allowing small disagreements to escalate. In addition, when results are averaged across all programs, BSF had no effect on how likely couples were to experience intimate partner violence. Similarly, when results are averaged across all programs, BSF did not improve co- parenting or increase father involvement. BSF and control group couples reported that their co- parenting relationships were of equally high quality. In addition, at the 1. BSF couples were less likely than control group couples to remain romantically involved, 5. Baltimore BSF couples reported being less supportive and affectionate toward each other than control group couples did. In addition, women in the Baltimore BSF program were more likely than women in the control group to report having been severely physically assaulted by a romantic partner in the past year, 1. Baltimore BSF couples also rated the quality of their co- parenting relationship lower than control group couples did and reported that BSF fathers spent less time with their children and were less likely to provide them financial support than control group fathers were. Although the BSF had little or no effect on couples. Perhaps most surprisingly, however, at the Baltimore site the BSF intervention had numerous negative effects: at the time of the 1. Baltimore couples who had been randomly assigned to participate in the BSF program were much less likely than control group couples to be romantically involved; fathers assigned to the BSF program were less likely to provide substantial financial support for their children or see them regularly; and mothers in the BSF sample were more likely to report experiencing a severe physical assault than were mothers in the control group. These programs provide 'education' and support services to unmarried, low- income, heterosexual couples with newborn babies, and are among the marriage- promotion projects which had been enthusiastically touted by the Bush administration as a magic pill for poverty and unstable families. In addition to studying many other aspects of program and delivery, BSF really became more of a study of participation rates than of the impacts of MRE and other program elements. The main reason is that, in many sites, the 'dose' of MRE that couples received was quite low. In fact, in some sites, only 4. John Gottman is world- renowned for his scientific work identifying the predictors of relationship success and failure, while Julie Gottman is a master clinician who provides advanced training in marriage education and couples therapy .. To engage and retain the interest of low- income couples, they substantially modified the presentation of the material by developing a series of video 'talk shows' in which racially and ethnically diverse low- income couples discuss relationship issues. Each of the forty- two sessions in LCLC begins with such a talk show, which leads to a lively discussion among group participants. In these unscripted shows real couples, not actors, describe the challenges they have faced in their relationship and how they overcame them. The second half of each group session is devoted to activities that teach specific skills and techniques that couples can use to address the issues raised in the video. Participants practice skills with their partners during the session, with individual attention from the male and female co- facilitators, as needed. Created by Mary Ortwein, a marriage and family therapist with experience serving low- income families, and Bernard Guerney, the original developer of RE, Love's Cradle relies on a simplified and more culturally sensitive version of Relationship Enhancement taught at the fifth- grade level, and adds content to the standard RE skills. The simplified version avoids psychological jargon and teaches skills at a slower pace, with greater access to individual skills coaching. Love's Cradle consists of twenty- one two- hour group sessions. Ten sessions, most at the beginning of the program, are devoted to the simplified RE skills. Additional sessions allow couples to use their new skills to address the issues indicated by research to be common to low- income couples, including how to build, rebuild, and maintain trust; deal with multiple- partner fertility; manage emotions; work as a team on money matters; and reframe their understanding of marriage. Love's Cradle was field- tested with low- income couples and will be part of the Building Strong Families national evaluation. Pamela Jordan, focused on three areas: (1) communication, problem- solving, friendship, and fun; (2) self- care and anger management; and (3) infant care and development. To meet BSF requirements, BPP was adapted to include material relevant for low- income families. The information on communication, problem- solving, friendship, and fun was largely drawn from the PREP curriculum. Skills included using a 'speaker. The focus on self- care and anger management included such strategies as using time- out to prevent escalation. Material was adapted from the Stop Anger and Violence Prevention program and the Domestic Conflict Containment Program. Assistant Professor at Florida Atlantic University, and others conducted several studies on the impact of brief marriage and relationship education classes for PAIRS Foundation. Findings differed significantly from those of the Building Strong Families study. Family Conflict, Emotional Security, and Child Development: Translating Research Findings into a Prevention Program for Community Families. Washington, D. C.: Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Volume 1. Evaluating Federal Social Programs: Finding Out What Works and What Does Not. Washington, D. C.: Heritage Foundation. Ron Haskins, Ron; Sawhill, Isabel V. Creating an Opportunity Society. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press. Ron Haskins, Ron; Mc. Lanahan, Sara; Donahue, Elisabeth . Marriage And Child Wellbeing; Fall 2. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.^ ab. Kennedy School of Government, May 2. Frank Fincham on the Building Strong Families Study. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.^. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.^. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.^. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.^. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families..
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |