1. Program Outcomes of Financial Education for Couples Janet C. Benavente, MHR 5 th Annual Financial Literacy Leadership Conference Washington, D.C. October 15 and 16, 2012

2. Research Indicators Disagreements over money is a top reason for relationship “breakups”/ divorce. (Lawrence et.al., 1993) Financial stability (Dakin & Wampler, 2009 ) and positive child outcomes (Guzzo & Lee, 2008) are more likely in healthy relationships/marriages. Low income couples report higher psychological distress and lower marital satisfaction when compared to middle income couples. (Dakin & Wampler, 2009 ) Any opinions, findings, recommendations implied in this material are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.

3. How Colorado State University Extension Responded Sought and received external funding ( Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant # 90FE0028 = $2.3 million) Selected a theory-based delivery model using evidence- based curricula. Delivered free financial education to 350 married or engaged adults between 2006 and 2011. Offered additional relationship and parenting education to the same participants. Provided one-to one coaching for 24 months after attending classes.

4. How the Community Helped 52 local agencies referred participants. 4 local agencies embedded financial education in their model. 15 agencies served on steering committee to review progress and make suggestions for improvement. 20 agencies provided in-kind support. (e.g. bus- tokens, child-care or meeting space)

5. Program Variations to Meet Community Needs Educational classes held evenings and weekends in addition to weekday daytime hours. Delivery methods varied: – One-to-one during home visits by public health nurses – Lunch time brown-bags for county employees – At homeless shelters – As part of workforce development options – As option for individuals on probation or parole 1/3 of classes delivered in Spanish

6. Outcomes: Planned and Accomplished OutcomePlannedAccomplished Improved financial literacy ( eg. Debt reduction, credit repair, identity protection, recordkeeping) 60%79% Improved debt or credit profile (6-12 months post ) 80%82% Improved communication skills related to financial situations No goal set75% Satisfaction with the program90%98%

7. How and What Was Measured How – Participants completed a survey pre class, immediate post class, and 6,12,18 and 24 months post class. – Participants also completed an action plan and reviewed it every 6 months. What – Financial planning ( intent and behavior) – Financial management ( intent and behavior) – Perceived stress (self reported) – Psychological well-being (self reported) – Family functioning (self reported) – Mental health related quality of life (self reported)

8. Pre to 18 mo. Post-program Comparison of Financial Understanding

9. Level of Self-reported Psychological Well-being (pre to 18 months post program)

10. Pre to 18 mo. Post-program Comparison of Stress Management Capacity by Annual Income

11. Pre to 18 mo. Post-program Comparison of Family Functioning by Ethnicity

12. Qualitative Findings Educational or employment gains: – “We learned to maintain life style and finances so we will never become homeless again…no matter what happens we will be OK.” – “ I have hopes for my future …starting a long-term career to support my girls in a healthy way” Program satisfaction: – 94% “ This program was appropriate and useful for me and I would recommend it to friends.” – 99% “Overall the quality of the program was excellent.” Participation in community opportunities: – 33% of participants got connected with community resources to improve their personal situation. In the words of Maya Angelou “ You did the best you knew how. Now that you know better, you’ll do better.”

13. Lessons Learned Strong community connections contribute to recruitment, retention, and sustainability. Well designed evaluation model includes: – Valid and reliable instruments – Broad based outcome measures – Both quantitative and qualitative data collection – Follow-up period beyond 6 months – Data sharing through out program life Holistic approach addresses the interplay among multiple facets of family life ( e.g. communication and conflict, education and employability, stress and decision-making, family stress/conflict and child outcomes.)

14. Acknowledgements Special thanks to : – Sara Anne Tompkins, Ph.D – Juliana Rosa, M.S. – Stephanie Mastroantonio, B.S. – Hannah Green, B.S. – Nora Soto – Cindy Okada Any opinions, findings, recommendations implied in this material are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.