Offering Individual-Oriented Relationship Education: Challenges and Opportunities

1. Offering Individual-Oriented Relationship Education: Challenges and Opportunities Galena K. Rhoades, Ph.D. University of Denver

2. Traditional Relationship Education • Provided to committed couples, often in healthy relationships • In the 1990s, 30% of couples received premarital education • 95% of this education was delivered through a religious organization • Components: • Relationship assessment • Communication skills • Personality differences Stanley, Amato, Markman, & Johnson, 2006

3. Effectiveness of Traditional Relationship Education • Samples: Middle-class, White • Couples who do relationship education generally: • are satisfied with the services • improve their communication • maintain improved communication over time • have a lower divorce rate Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52(2), 105-118.

4. Bumpass & Lu, 2000; CDC, 2002, 2006; Raley & Bumpass, 2003; Stanley et al., 2004; U.S. Census, 2003 Basic U.S. Relationship Statistics • Divorce rate: 36-60%, depending on education level • Children born to unmarried parents: 36.8% • Median age at first marriage: 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women • Median age at first birth: 24.6 • 60-75% of couples live together before marriage • 40-50% of women have ever cohabited

5. Gaps in Relationship Education • Services for: • Individuals (vs. couples) • Individuals not in relationships • Unhealthy or violent relationships • Couples with children by previous partners • Populations with low income levels

6. Targets for Early, Individual-Oriented Relationship Education • What is a healthy relationship? • Safety • Planning for the future • Making decisions about partners and relationships • Communication skills • Expectations for relationships • Impact of adult relationships on child well-being • Managing children and new relationships • Barriers to marriage • The positive role fathers can play • Building social support

8. Core Development Team Consultants: • Domestic violence experts, Anne Menard and Michael Johnson, Ph.D. • Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, George Young, Tony Russell, and Scott Roby • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program instructors • Women receiving TANF • Pilot classes • Sociologists, policy experts, Kristin Seefeldt, Ph.D. and Kathryn Edin, Ph.D. Authors: • Marline Pearson, M.A. • Scott Stanley, Ph.D. • Galena Rhoades, Ph.D. • PREP content and strategies (conflict and communication skills, expectations)

9. Overarching Goals • Help those in viable relationships to cultivate, protect, and stabilize their unions, and to marry if desired. • Help those in damaging relationships to leave safely, at some point. • Help those desiring a romantic relationship and/or marriage in the future to choose future partners wisely.

10. Core Philosophies “Sliding vs. Deciding” “Our love lives aren’t neutral.”

11. Initial Target Population • Women in welfare programs • Presence of children • High financial stress, chaos • Threats to personal safety (neighborhoods and partners) • Now used with other populations • E.g., Men, prisons, college students, religious organizations

12. Structure of Curriculum 15 hours of core material Three major sections: • Understanding Healthy Relationships, Risks, and Making Decisions • Sliding vs. deciding • Knowing yourself first • Building and Maintaining Healthy Relationships • Safety • Communication skills • Moving Forward toward Goals “Within My Reach” • Planning for the future • Managing children and relationships • Infidelity • Barriers to marriage

13. Safety • Messages about safety throughout • Keeping workbooks safe • Leaving safely • Help for domestic violence • Unit on domestic violence • Recognizing warning signs • Intimate terrorism vs. arguments-that-get-physical • Getting help and support

14. Instructor Materials (Spanish versions available) Participant Materials (Spanish versions available)

15. Structure of Units • Lecture • Discussion • Group activity • Workbook activity

16. “Relationships/marriages today are like…”

19. Structure of Curriculum 16 hours of core material Three major sections: • Knowing What You’re Made Of: • Sliding vs. deciding • Personality, hidden issues, family background • Being a Great Buddy • Communication skills, stress and anger management, prejudice, domestic violence, suicide prevention, alcohol • Decide, Don’t Slide into Love • Expectations in relationships, mate selection, commitment

20. Benefits of Individual-oriented Relationship Education • Access • Education on violence • Education on the transitions and decisions that come before a commitment to marry • Education on relationship choices and children’s well-being • Communication skills apply to many relationships • Gateway to other services

21. Contact Information and Additional Resources • www.relationshipeducation.info • Galena Rhoades: • grhoades@du.edu, • www.portfolio.du.edu/grhoades • PREP, Inc. • www.PREPInc.com • www.WithinMyReach.com

22. Relationship Education Across Louisville: Within My Reach Implementation and Results Becky F. Antle, PhD Eli A. Karam, PhD University of louisville Kent school of social work Marriage and family therapy program

23. Within My Reach Skills Demonstration

28. Implementation Issues Relationship Education Across Louisville Funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance

29. Relationship Education Across Louisville: Implementation • Grant will use the Within My Reach curriculum from PREP • Services are provided by through the 8 Neighborhood Place sites • Existing staff at the NP sites have been trained by national experts in Within My Reach • Each NP site will offer 2 workshops per year to clients • Approximately 850 adults will be trained over the 5 years of the grant • “Training Booster Sessions” are offered to both adults and youth to reinforce concepts from workshops, discuss issues with utilization of skills in current relationships • Facilitators and other grant/agency staff will refer clients with complex relationship needs to services in the community • Advisory Board of professionals with an interest in healthy relationships • Facilitate collaboration between these key agencies and professionals • Identify existing and develop needed relationship services for the community

30. Evaluation Results

31. Participants and Training Satisfaction • A total of 400 adults have completed the WMR program. • The majority of participants are female (80%) and African American (71%). The average age was 33.5 and number of children was 2. Approximately 33.3% were employed full-time. • Training satisfaction was very high, with a mean score of 66.2 out of a total possible score of 75 or 4.45 on a 5-point scale.

32. Learning • Learning was measured using a 25 item multiple choice knowledge test administered pre- and post-training. • There was a significant increase in participant knowledge from pre- to post-training. The average pre-test score was 32% correct, and the average post-test score was 55%.

33. Communication Skill Acquisition • There was a significant decrease in conflict engagement and the demand-withdraw dynamic. • There was a significant increase in the mutual cooperation approach for communication. • Communication and Conflict Resolution measured through standardized scales such as Communication Patterns Questionnaire (Noller & White, 1990) and ConflictResolution Styles Inventory-Partner (Kurdeck, 1994)

34. Relationship Quality • For the WMR training, there was a significant improvement in relationship dynamics (Dyadic Adjustment Scale and Relationship Dynamics Scale) at six month follow-up. • Dyadic Adjustment Scale measures positive dynamics while Relationship Dynamics Scale measured negative patterns. • Relationship Quality measured through Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976); Stanley-Markman Relationship Dynamics Scale (Renick et al, 1992).

35. Domestic Violence • There was also a significant reduction of physical violence and emotional control in relationships at six month follow-up. • Relationship violence measured through Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996); Need for Control Scale (Bledsoe & Sar, 2004); and Controlling Behaviors Scale (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003).

36. Implications for Practice • Knowledge + Skills • Cumulative Lasting Impact • Batterer Benefits • Focus on Strength and Health in Safe Group Setting • Erasing Stigma/Potential for Follow-Up • Prevention and Advocacy for Family and Friends