Pilot test of JUNTOS EN PAREJA: Enhancing relationship and financial well‐being in Latine couples

Abstract

Latine couples, particularly those who are low‐income and immigrant, often face significant challenges in relationship and financial functioning, areas in which they are frequently underserved by existing programs. This article aimed to test Juntos en Pareja (JEP), a linguistic and cultural adaptation of the TOGETHER program for Latine couples. JEP is a 20‐h, evidence‐based psychoeducational curriculum integrating relationship and financial education. This study assessed its acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness. Self‐report data from 23 Latine low‐income, immigrant, heterosexual, Spanish‐speaking couples in the Washington, D.C., area were collected in 2019–2020 before (T1) and after program participation (T2) and at 3‐month follow‐up (T3). Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were used to analyze changes across time in relationship and financial functioning using self‐report instruments and observable data from three 8‐min discussions. Results indicate that the JEP program is successful in reducing Latine partners’ financial stress and emotional dysregulation and improving their financial management abilities, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic coping, but with some important gender differences. JEP is a beneficial program for Latine couples, improving relationship and financial functioning and ultimately fostering greater equity and stability in areas where this population is often underserved.

INTRODUCTION

According to the US Census Bureau (2022) Latine ¹ are the largest ethnic minority group in the nation and the population with the most rapid growth rate in the United States, containing 19% of the total US population (Funk & Lopez, 2022). Immigrant populations within the United States vary in migration and socioeconomic statuses (Noe‐Bustamante, 2019), with many Latine immigrant adults facing exploitative work conditions, long hours, and low wages due to limited cultural familiarity, English proficiency, and undocumented status (Canizales & Hondagneu‐Sotelo, 2022). These factors contribute to increased stress and health risks (Ablow Measelle et al., 2019).

Financial concerns, including the rising costs of essentials like food, education, housing, and medical care, are a significant source of stress for families in the United States (Statista Research Department, 2021). The American Psychological Association's (APA) Stress in America survey, conducted since 2007, has consistently reported high levels of financial stress, with 63% of adults citing it during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, nearing the 68% recorded during the 2007–2008 economic downturn (American Psychological Association, 2020). Immigrant and low‐income families, particularly Latine families earning less than $50,000 annually, are disproportionately impacted by financial stress (American Psychological Association, 2020; Vargas & Sanchez, 2020). This economic stress is linked to adverse physical and mental health outcomes, including sleep disturbances (Lailukka et al., 2012), smoking (Guillaumier et al., 2017), coronary heart disease (Moran et al., 2019), and mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, irritability, and substance use (Richardson et al., 2013).

Latine are particularly susceptible due to persistent income disparities and their overrepresentation in sections such as small businesses and employment in service, agriculture, and construction (Vargas & Sanchez, 2020). This leads to higher levels of economic stress relative to other demographic groups, resulting in behaviors such as reliance pay‐day loans and postponement of educational and health‐related expenses (Vargas & Sanchez, 2020). Additionally, Latine families face severe economic stress due to limited safety nets, defined as savings or financial reserves to cover unexpected expenses, and restricted access to financial assistance, which hinders their ability to navigate financial challenges (Vargas & Sanchez, 2020).

Financial stress not only affects individual health but also extends to interpersonal relationships within couples (Falconier & Jackson, 2020). Studies consistently show that financial stress has adverse effects on romantic partnerships (e.g., Falconier & Jackson, 2020; Wilmarth et al., 2014). A recent meta‐analysis (Falconier & Jackson, 2020) confirmed that financial stress increases relationship instability and dissatisfaction, leading to more negative interactions, such as conflict and psychological aggression, while reducing positive interactions like conflict resolution and support. These effects are particularly pronounced in couples with lower incomes. Studies focusing on Latine couples in the United States (e.g., Helms et al., 2014) and globally (e.g., Falconier & Epstein, 2010) also underscore how chronic financial stress diminishes relationship quality in this population.

It is also well‐known for financial counselors that individual and relationship distress impacts financial management negatively. For instance, research has shown that good relationship quality predicts enhanced financial decision‐making (Archuleta et al., 2013). The interplay among individual, relationship, and financial distress, along with the impact of the 2008 recession, led to the development of the TOGETHER program (Falconier, 2015). TOGETHER is an interdisciplinary psychoeducational program designed to address the intersection between emotional and financial functioning. This program incorporates materials and skill‐building components from both relationship and financial literacy curriculums. Its effectiveness in improving individual well‐being, promoting couple functioning, and bolstering financial management has been established in several studies (e.g., Falconier et al., 2023; Falconier, 2015; Falconier, 2022).

Compared with other couple relationship education (CRE) programs (e.g., PREP; Markman et al., 2010; PREPARE‐ENRICH; Olson & Olson, 2010), the TOGETHER curriculum is unique in its emphasis on dyadic coping, addressing couples’ stress management, and integrating both relationship and financial education and literacy (Falconier, 2022). Addressing financial stressors has been identified as a critical component to improving the lower effectiveness of CRE programs for couples from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and racial and ethnic minority groups (Arnold & Beelmann, 2019; Carlson et al., 2014; Hawkins & Erickson, 2015; Jackson et al., 2016). Nonetheless, available programs for Latine couples often do not fully address financial stressors or financial literacy, and when these stressors are addressed, they typically represent only one module in the curriculum (for a review of available CREs, see Scott & Huz, 2020).

The growing demand from the Spanish‐speaking Latine community for a program similar to TOGETHER, and the absence of a socio‐culturally attuned relationship and financial literacy program targeted to this group, led to the development of Juntos en Pareja [Together as a Couple] (JEP), a linguistic and cultural adaptation of the TOGETHER program for Latine couples. The JEP adaptation addresses the unique financial needs of Latine immigrants by incorporating topics such as managing multigenerational households, sending remittances to their country of origin, and other financial aspects specific to Latine households in its curriculum. This study sought to pilot‐test JEP by evaluating its feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and preliminary outcome effectiveness.

The TOGETHER program

The TOGETHER program is an adaptation of the Couple's Coping Enhancement Training (CCET; Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004), a psycho‐educational CRE program shown to improve relationship quality (Bodenmann, Plancherel, et al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2007). Like CCET, TOGETHER is based on the systemic‐transactional model of dyadic coping (Bodenmann, 1997) and cognitive‐behavioral couple's therapy (Epstein & Baucom, 2002), focusing on communication, coping, and problem‐solving. It also incorporates principles from the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) to enhance financial behaviors like budgeting and saving.

The TOGETHER program is unique for its emphasis on equipping couples with financial skills while enhancing communication, coping, and problem‐solving abilities. The objectives of the TOGETHER curriculum are: (1) to decrease overall stress levels among partners, particularly regarding financial matters, by imparting effective individual and dyadic stress management tools; (2) to enhance relationship dynamics and satisfaction by teaching communication skills and de‐escalation tactics, facilitating discussions on challenging subjects, including financial issues; and (3) to strengthen financial management capabilities by fostering an understanding of each partner's financial approach and promoting positive financial skills and problem‐solving strategies. The TOGETHER curriculum has the following nine modules in addition to an introductory and review module: (1) understanding financial stress, (2) improving individual coping with financial stress, (3) communicating financial stress to your partner, (4) improving dyadic coping with financial stress, (5) learning to talk about money, (6) clarifying financial roles and expectations in the couple, (7) improving financial roles and expectations in the couples, (8) credit and risk management, and (9) improving financial problem‐solving skills (for a description of each module see Falconier, 2015). It is offered in two versions: a 20‐h (eight sessions) and a 14‐h (six sessions) format, both featuring instructional elements, practical activities, and home practice.

Delivered in groups of four to 10 couples, TOGETHER is co‐facilitated by a couple expert and a financial expert, both of whom undergo thorough training. Program adherence is monitored through session surveys and observations. Evaluations of both the 20‐h and 14‐h versions have demonstrated improvements in individual, relationship, and financial well‐being. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 6‐month follow‐up showed significant reductions in stress, enhanced relationship satisfaction, and improved financial planning (Falconier et al., 2023; Falconier, 2022).

The JEP program

Similar to the TOGETHER program, the JEP adaptation includes nine modules, and it followed the design of the longer 20‐h version. However, JEP includes additional content and examples that are specific to the Latine population. Adjustments and adaptations to the content were made by the extensive experience of one of the originl developers, who has worked with Latine couples for over 25 years, the second developer's expertise in the financial context and education for Latine couples, and a review of the relevant literature on Latine couples. Modifications are consistent with some of the guidelines suggested by the Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative (National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, 2017) and the National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families (Wildsmith & Chen, 2023) to improve CREs for Latine families. Examples of content modifications include the addition of immigration‐related stressors (e.g., language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, missing family, and subemployment), collective/community strategies for coping with stress, and remittances as part of the household budget, along with considering the financial contributions of adult members beyond the couple as a part of multigenerational households. Similarly, examples and activities were adapted to be socio‐culturally attuned to the reality of Latine couples living in the United States. Once modifications were introduced, the curriculum was reviewed again by experienced therapists and financial counselors working with the Latine community and was translated by a Spanish native‐speaking therapist in the United States in consultation with a Latina immigrant financial counselor. Translations were also reviewed by one of the curriculum developers who is also a native Spanish‐speaking Latina immigrant.

The present study

The objective of this current study was to pilot test JEP to examine its acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness. Acceptability and appropriateness of the program were evaluated by examining participants’ ratings and satisfaction with the content and organization of each session and the program overall. Feasibility was evaluated through enrollment numbers, dropout rates, and availability of staff. Similar to the pilot test of the TOGETHER program (Falconier, 2015), preliminary effectiveness was assessed by comparing pre‐ and postintervention, as well as 3‐month follow‐up self‐report outcomes for men and women separately in various areas of individual and relationship functioning and financial management. Expected improvements included reductions in financial stress, difficulties in emotional regulation, and negative dyadic coping. Additionally, increases in supportive and common/conjoint dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, financial self‐efficacy, and financial management were anticipated. Unlike previous evaluation studies of the TOGETHER program, the present pilot test also included the evaluation of dyadic coping through observation data of the couple's discussions before and after participating in the program.

This study aims to demonstrate the efficacy of the JEP program in addressing the relational and financial challenges encountered by Latine couples during their adaptation to the United States. By providing a culturally competent and free service, JEP fills a critical gap in the availability of financial literacy programs tailored specifically for Latine couples. This research underscores JEP's unique role in advancing the field's understanding and support of Latine couples’ adaptation and well‐being within the US context.

METHODS

Community Latine couples were recruited from January 2019 to October 2020 from the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area through advertisements, flyers, social media platforms, social service agencies, educational institutions, local churches, mental health providers, the program's official website, and referrals through informal networks. To be eligible, participants needed to be 18 years or older, in a committed heterosexual romantic relationship (no prerequisite regarding the duration of the relationship), without a severe psychiatric disorder necessitating hospitalization within the last 12 months, and without an untreated substance abuse problem. Couples experiencing heightened conflict, where at least one partner expressed feeling unsafe participating in the program together, were directed toward domestic violence services or counseling and were excluded from participation. Both partners in the couple were required to participate.

For the present study, 37 couples signed the consent form, 31 couples completed the first assessment (T1) before participating in the workshop, 23 couples finished the workshop and completed the second assessment (T2) immediately afterward, and 16 couples completed the third assessment 3 months (T3) after workshop completion. The dropout rate was 21.6% from enrollment to T1 assessment, 25.8% from T1 to T2 assessment/completion of workshop, and 30.4% from T2/completion of workshop to T3 assessment. The reasons for dropping out included barriers such as limited time availability due to busy schedules, lack of childcare, and lack of interest in participating.

Participants

The demographic characteristics of our sample are detailed in Table 1. The resulting sample of 23 different‐gender couples completing the workshop had an average age of 41.3 years (SD = 8.8) for men and 40.2 years (SD = 7.9) for women. Except for one participant who identified as American, all participants self‐identified as first‐generation Latino or Latina immigrants coming from Peru (26.8%), El Salvador (24.4%), Bolivia (17.1%), Mexico (14.6%), or other Central and Southern American countries (17.1%). The primary language spoken in the home was Spanish for 76.1% and both English and Spanish for 13% of the sample. There were no significant demographic differences between participants who completed the program and those who dropped out.

Table 1.

Demographic differences across gender.

	Men	Women	Gender diff. p
Age (years) Mean (SD)	41.3 (8.8)	40.2 (7.9)	0.2
Length of time in the US, Mean (SD)	15.5 (6.8)	13.7 (5.8)	0.3
Highest level of education % (n)			0.07
Elementary school	21.7% (5)	‐
Middle school	30.4% (7)	30.4% (7)
High school	17.4% (4)	21.7% (5)
Some college/technical certification	13% (3)	26.1% (6)
Doctoral degree	4.3% (1)	8.7% (2)
Employment % (n)	78.3% (18)	47.8% (11)	0.2
Annual income % (n)			0.09
Less than $9,999	13% (3)	17.4% (4)
$10,000–$19,999	4.3% (1)	8.7% (2)
$20,000–$29,999	26.1% (6)	13% (3)
$30,000–$39,999	21.7% (5)	8.7% (2)
$40,000–$49,000	13% (3)	‐
$50,000–$59,999	8.7% (2)	4.3% (1)
$60,000 or more	4.3% (1)	4.3% (1)
Amount of money sent home monthly (in Dollars) Mean (SD)	152.1 (89.5)	128.6 (96.2)	0.9

Note: The McNemar test was used for categorical variables, and the paired samples t test was used for numerical variables.

Procedure

To participate, couples were invited to an in‐person 2‐h preworkshop lab session. After being screened for domestic violence and signing a consent form (approved by the Institutional Review Board), couples participated in three video‐recorded 8‐min discussions on stressors in their daily lives and completed the T1 assessments (demographics and self‐report instruments) on separate tablets. Participants were then instructed to identify from a list of stressors which stressors they were currently experiencing in their lives that were external to their relationship and that their partners were not responsible for (e.g., occupation/education, social life/community, children/parenting, family of origin, immigration, living situation, leisure, health, daily problems, and miscellaneous). Then, participants were given another list of stressors to identify which stressors both partners experienced. The first video‐recorded discussion focused on a stressor affecting the male partner (MS = male stressor), the second discussion focused on a stressor affecting the female partner (FS = female stressors), and the third discussion focused on a stressor affecting both partners (common stressor = CS).

Before every conversation participants were shown a 4‐min relaxation video to reduce conversation‐induced stress levels and mitigate the potential for carryover stress effects and spillover from previous conversations. Couples began the JEP workshop within 1–2 weeks following their initial lab session. After completing the workshop, couples participated in a second in‐person lab session (T2) within the subsequent 2 weeks. The procedure for the second lab session (T2) was identical to that of the initial lab session. Three months after workshop completion (T3), partners were emailed separate links to complete the self‐report instruments on the Qualtrics platform.

Each partner received a total of $130 in gift cards for completion of T1 ($50), T2 ($50), and T3 ($30) assessments. Lab staff, couple, and financial facilitators were all bilingual Latine immigrants, and all assessment and workshop materials were provided in Spanish. To guarantee the fidelity of the curriculum protocols, facilitators were required to fill out surveys following each workshop session, and their performance was regularly monitored by the curriculum developers, supervisors, or independent evaluators. Compliance with the curriculum consistently exceeded 75%. Additionally, facilitators participated in bi‐weekly supervision meetings with seasoned facilitators to address any content‐related concerns or group dynamics issues.

With the outbreak of COVID‐19, the lab sessions and the workshops were conducted online via the Zoom platform following the same procedure, and a link was provided to complete the self‐report assessments on Qualtrics. Four workshops were conducted in person before the COVID‐19 outbreak and three workshops were conducted online during the COVID‐19 outbreak. No significant demographic distinctions were observed between participants attending in person and those engaging online (see Supporting Information S1).

Instruments

The T1, T2, and T3 self‐report assessments measure individual well‐being (emotional dysregulation, financial stress), relationship functioning (dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction), and financial management behaviors. In addition, the evaluation of dyadic coping included observational data collected in the T1 and T2 lab sessions. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of each multi‐item scale.

Financial stress

The Spanish‐language version (Lobos et al., 2021) of the Incharge Financial Distress/Financial Well‐Being Scale (IFDFW; Prawitz et al., 2006) was employed for the assessment of financial stress. Each of the eight items evaluates the respondent's perspective on their financial circumstances (e.g., “How often do you worry about being able to meet normal monthly living expenses?”) and is rated on a 10‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 = Overwhelming stress to 10 = No stress at all. Reverse coding was used so that higher scores would indicate higher levels of financial stress. Cronbach's alpha for both men and women were 0.91 and 0.80, respectively.

Financial management behaviors

Financial management behaviors were evaluated with the Financial Management Behavior Scale (FMSBS; Dew & Xiao, 2011). Back‐translation methods were employed to produce the Spanish version of the scale. First, one bilingual researcher translated the scale into English, and then a second bilingual researcher, who had not seen the original version, translated the material back into the original language to assess the quality and accuracy of the translation (Edunov et al., 2018). The 15‐item FMSBS measure asks how often respondents engage in positive financial behaviors (e.g., “Kept a written or electronic record of your monthly expenses”). Response options range from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. Higher scores indicate more frequent use of financial management behaviors. Cronbach's alpha for both men and women were 0.82 and 0.83, respectively.

Emotional dysregulation

Emotional dysregulation was assessed with the Difficulties in Emotion Dysregulation‐ Short Form (DERS‐S; Kaufman et al., 2016) with the items translated into Spanish by Gómez‐Simón et al. (2014). The 18‐item DERS‐S asks respondents to rate their experiences of emotional dysregulation (e.g., “When I'm upset, I become out of control”) on a 5‐point scale, ranging from 1 = Almost never to 5 = Almost always. Higher scores mean a higher level of emotional dysregulation. Cronbach's alpha for both men and women were 0.87 and 0.94, respectively.

Relationship satisfaction

The Spanish version (Falconier & Epstein, 2011) of the 10‐item Dyadic Satisfaction subscale from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) was employed to evaluate relationship satisfaction. Respondents rated their relationship (e.g., “How often do you or your partner leave the house after a fight”) on a 6‐point scale ranging from 1 = All the time to 6 = Never for seven items; on a 7‐point scale ranging from 1 = Extremely happy to 7 = Extremely unhappy for one item; on a 5‐point scale from 1 = Every day to 5 = Never for another item; and on a 6‐point scale ranging from 1 = I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does to 6 = My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going for the last item. Higher scores indicate higher relationship satisfaction. Cronbach's alpha for both men and women were 0.67 and 0.78, respectively.

Dyadic coping

Supportive, negative, and conjoint dyadic coping were evaluated through the five‐item Supportive Dyadic Coping (SDC), the four‐item Negative Dyadic Coping (NDC), and the five‐item Common Dyadic Coping (CDC) subscales of the Spanish version (Falconier et al., 2013) of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008). In the DCI, participants are asked to evaluate their dyadic coping (DC) behaviors toward their partner (e.g., “My partner shows empathy and understanding to me”) on a five‐point scale ranging from 1 = Very rarely to 5 = Very often. Cronbach's alpha for both men and women were 0.79 and 0.85, respectively, for the SCD; 0.70 and 0.84, respectively, for the NDC; and 0.86 and 0.85, respectively, for the CDC.

DC was evaluated through the analysis of three 8‐min recorded discussions focused on stressors identified by participants. The discussions were videotaped and independently coded every 10 s by two research assistants using the Dyadic Coping Coding System (DCCS; Bodenmann, 2008), which encompasses 16 codes representing various verbal and nonverbal expressions of stress and coping reactions within couples. This study utilized codes corresponding to three dimensions of DC: (1) Negative (including nonverbal cues, hostility, ambivalence, and superficial interactions); (2) supportive (encompassing problem‐focused and emotion‐focused support); and (3) common or conjoint (both problem‐focused and emotion‐focused support). For each dimension, the ratio of the number of 10‐s segments coded for specific categories within the total number of segments analyzed in each conversation was calculated (e.g., the number of segments coded as negative DC/total segments analyzed in the conversation).

Men's DC responses were evaluated in FS‐ and CS‐focused conversations, whereas women's DC responses were evaluated in MS‐ and CS‐focused conversations. Intercoder reliability was 0.71. Discrepancies were generally consulted with the principal investigator who trained all coders.

Participants’ program perceptions

The session evaluation questionnaire (SEQ) requested participants to assess the clarity, structure, relevance, appropriateness, and practicality of the content and activities following each of the six sessions and upon program completion. The homework evaluation questionnaire (HEQ) solicited feedback from participants regarding the appropriateness, utility, relevance, and time allocation for homework assignments. Response options for the evaluation of content ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree to 7 = Strongly Disagree and for the evaluation of activities, sessions, and homework ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree to 6 = Strongly Disagree. Overall satisfaction with the program was evaluated on a scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree to 4 = Strongly Disagree. Participants also rated each facilitator on a scale from 1 = Poor to 10 = Excellent.

Data analysis

Given the limited sample size, separate repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were performed for men and women for each outcome variable using the SPSS software, version 27. With the exception of the analysis of the observational data that were only collected at T1 and T2, the analysis also included pairwise comparisons between times (T1–T2; T1–T3; T2–T3) to identify significant differences in the univariate analysis. When Mauchly's test of sphericity indicated that homogeneity of variances could not be assumed, we used the Greenhouse–Geisser correction of the degrees of freedom of the F‐distribution. Examination of boxplots did not identify any outliers, and skewness and kurtosis values were lower than 1.96 for each outcome variable at different measurement times, which was within the acceptable values recommended by Kim (2013) for samples smaller than 50. Means and standard deviations for outcome variables, as well as evaluations of sessions and homework, were also computed. Paired samples t tests were conducted to assess gender differences in the outcome variables at baseline.

RESULTS

Table 2 displays the means and the standard deviations of the outcome variables for both men and women at T1, T2, and T3. At baseline, both men and women, on average, indicated relatively high levels of financial stress (Men M = 7.30, SD = 1.22; Women M = 7.42, SD = 1.50) and relationship satisfaction (Men M = 46.38, SD = 8.18; Women M = 47.62, SD = 6.04), moderate levels of financial management (Men M = 3.01, SD = 0.60; Women M = 2.70, SD = 0.70), and supportive (Men M = 3.50, SD = 0.80; Women M = 3.79, SD = 0.56) and common DC (Men M = 3.60, SD = 0.90; Women M = 3.17, SD = 0.89), and relatively low levels of emotional dysregulation (Men M = 2.60, SD = 0.60; Women M = 2.23, SD = 0.88) and negative DC (Men M = 2.41, SD = 1.13; Women M = 2.10, SD = 0.90). Paired sample t test results showed no significant gender differences at baseline in any of the outcome variables (see Supporting Information S1).

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations for men and women at pre‐ and postintervention and 3‐month follow‐up (N = 18).

		Time 1: Preintervention		Time 2: Postintervention		Time 3: 3‐month follow‐up
		Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
Variable	Scale Range	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Financial stress	1–10	7.3 (1.2)	7.3 (1.5)	5.5 (1.9)	5.5 (1.8)	5.5 (1.8)	5.7(1.8)
Financial management behaviors	1–5	3.01 (0.6)	2.7 (0.7)	3.5 (0.9)	3.4 (0.7)	3.3 (0.9)	3.04 (0.5)
Emotional dysregulation	1–5	2.6 (0.6)	2.2 (0.9)	2.2 (0.7)	2.2 (0.9)	2.2 (0.7)	1.9 (0.8)
Relationship satisfaction	10–60	46.4 (8.2)	47.6 (6.04)	49.3 (8.5)	46.5 (5.3)	48.9 (7.9)	49.8 (4.2
SDC	1–5	3.5 (0.8)	3.8 (0.6)	3.6 (0.7)	3.8 (0.7)	3.9 (0.8)	4.1 (0.7)
NDC	1–5	2.4 (1.1)	2.1 (0.9)	1.9 (0.8)	1.9 (0.7)	2.03 (1.1)	1.4 (0.4)
CDC	1–5	3.6 (0.9)	3.2 (0.9)	3.9 (0.9)	3.7 (0.7)	4 (0.8)	3.9 (0.7)
SDC in female stressor discussion	Ratio	0.13 (0.15)	‐	0.18 (0.17)	‐	‐	‐
SDC in male stressor discussion	Ratio	‐	0.15 (0.13)	‐	0.14 (0.12)	‐	‐
SDC in common stressor discussion	Ratio	0.09 (0.08)	0.12 (13)	0.11 (0.11)	0.12 (0.12)	‐	‐
NDC in Female stressor discussion	Ratio	0.19 (0.29)	‐	0.09 (0.23)	‐	‐	‐
NDC in male stressor discussion	Ratio	‐	0.13 (0.18)	‐	0.01 (0.01)	‐	‐
NDC in common stressor discussion	Ratio	0.16 (0.26)	0.16 (0.21)	0.08 (0.18)	0.06 (0.11)	‐	‐
CDC in female stressor discussion	Ratio	0.06 (0.09)	‐	0.07 (0.11)	‐	‐	‐
CDC in male stressor discussion	Ratio	‐	0.04 (0.06)	‐	0.05 (0.08)
CDC in common stressor discussion	Ratio	0.06 (0.10)	0.07 (0.09)	0.10 (0.15)	0.09 (0.15)	‐	‐

Abbreviations: CDC, Common Dyadic Coping; NDC, Negative Dyadic Coping; SDC, Supportive Dyadic Coping.

Table 3 illustrates that participants, on average, indicated changes in the anticipated direction following program participation. When T1 means are compared with T2 and T3 means, men and women participants, on average, decreased their levels of difficulty in emotional regulation, financial stress, and NDC and increased their levels of relationship satisfaction, SDC, CDC, and financial management behaviors. However, the repeated measures ANOVA revealed that not all of these changes achieved statistical significance at the within‐subjects level. Nonetheless, the repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant reduction in financial stress for both men and women before and after program participation (Men F (2, 16) = 11.402, p = 0.001; Women F (2, 14) = 6.081, p = 0.008), with statistically significant differences for men from T1 to T2 (p = 0.001), from T1 to T3 (p = 0.001), and from T2 to T3 (p = 0.001) and for women from T1 to T2 (p = 0.009) and from T1 to T3 (p = 0.003). Similarly, after program participation, women significantly improved their financial management behaviors (F (2, 8) = 5.158, p = 0.021) with notable significant changes from T1 to T2 (p = 0.013). While men's financial management behaviors also showed an increase as expected, this change did not reach statistical significance.

Table 3.

Repeated measures tests and pairwise comparisons in self‐report data for men and women.

			Pairwise comparisons
		Univariate tests	T1–T2	T1–T3	T2–T3
Variable	F	p	p	p	p
Men
Financial stress	11.402	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001
Financial management behaviors	2.985	0.108	0.066	0.215	0.418
Emotional dysregulation	5.005	0.014	0.009	0.020	0.801
Relationship satisfaction	2.953	0.076	0.023	0.780	0.774
Supportive Dyadic Coping	1.204	0.315	0.365	0.015	0.707
Negative Dyadic Coping	1.529	0.234	0.093	0.315	0.554
Common Dyadic Coping	1.298	0.289	0.368	0.015	0.625
Women
Financial stress	6.081	0.008	0.009	0.003	0.692
Financial management behaviors	5.158	0.021	0.013	0.157	0.156
Emotional dysregulation	1.216	0.311	0.944	0.095	0.207
Relationship satisfaction	3.056	0.067	0.395	0.085	0.064
Supportive Dyadic Coping	2.709	0.085	0.619	0.114	0.061
Negative Dyadic Coping	3.011	0.067	0.524	0.032	0.066
Common Dyadic Coping	3.416	0.049	0.141	0.025	0.390

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Results from the repeated measures ANOVA also indicate that men decreased their difficulty in emotional regulation significantly after program participation (F (2, 15) = 5.005, p = 0.014), showing notable significant changes from T1 to T2 (p = 0.009) and from T1 to T3 (p = 0.020). Women's difficulty in emotional regulation decreased after workshop participation; however, the difference did not attain statistical significance at either T2 or T3. Relationship satisfaction increased only for men from T1 to T2 (p = 0.023) but not for women (p = 0.395).

The repeated measures ANOVA also indicated that women reported a statistically significant higher use of CDC by the couple (F (2, 14) = 3.416, p = 0.049) after workshop participation and that T1–T3 positive change in CDC was statistically significant for both women (p = 0.025) and men (p = 0.015). SDC by men improved significantly from T1 to T3 (p = 0.015) but SDC by women did not (p = 0.114). The decrease in NDC from T1 to T3 was statistically significant for women (p = 0.032) but not for men (p = 0.315). Consistent with self‐report results, repeated measures ANOVA for the observational data indicated that women showed significantly lower NDC responses at T2 in MS‐focused conversations (F (1, 21) = 8.516; p < 0.01) and CS‐focused conversations (F (1, 21) = 5.374, p < 0.05), but men did not in FS (F (1, 21) = 2.722; p > 0.05) and CS (F (1, 21) = 3.470; p = > 0.05) focused conversations. Women's CDC responses were higher at T2 in MS (F (1, 21) = 0.770, p > 0.05) and CS (F (1, 21) = 0.495, p > 0.05) focused conversations, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The same was true for men's CDC in FS (F (1, 21) = 1.769, p > 0.05) and CS (F (1, 21) = 0.138, p > 0.05) focused conversations. Similarly, men's SDC was higher at T2 in FS (F (1, 21) = 1.022, p > 0.05) and CS (F (1, 21) = 0.575, p > 0.05) focused conversations, but the increase was not statistically significant. No increases between T1 and T2 were observed for SDC by women in MS (F (1, 21) = 0.015, p > 0.05) or CS (F (1, 21) = 0.004, p > 0.05) focused conversations.

Participants program perception

Participants consistently provided highly positive evaluations for the sessions, with means ranging between 5.8 and 6.6 (on a scale of 1–7) for items such as clarity, organization, and relevance of information. Additionally, their assessments ranged from 4.7 to 5.6 (on a scale of 1–6) regarding the appropriateness, usefulness, and relevance of activities, as well as satisfaction with the session, its usefulness, and relevance. Furthermore, participants reported high satisfaction with the program, with a mean of 3.9 on a scale of 1–4. They also gave a positive evaluation of both the couple facilitators and financial facilitators, with means of 9.9 and 9.8, respectively, on a scale of 1–10. Participants also positively rated the homework assignments, offering ratings between 4.5 and 5.3 on a scale of 1–6 for appropriateness, usefulness, relevance, clarity, and time needed (see Supporting Information S1 for details).

DISCUSSION

The objective of the present pilot test was to evaluate JEP's feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and preliminary effectiveness in improving individual well‐being, relationship functioning, and financial management. This study addresses the need for couples’ relationship programs, particularly for low‐income and underrepresented couples who are often overlooked in the literature (Zhan et al., 2013). JEP is a feasible program considering that (1) Latine immigrant Spanish‐speaking couples showed interest and did enroll in the program, (2) Spanish‐speaking staff and facilitators (couple therapists and financial counselors) were available and enthusiastic about leading the workshops, and (3) the dropout rate of 25.8% after attending the first session is similar to dropout rates found in other CRE programs (e.g., Bulling et al., 2020). Participants’ high satisfaction rates with the program overall, along with the session content, activities, organization, homework, and the couple and the financial facilitators, suggest that JEP is both acceptable and appropriate for Spanish‐speaking Latine immigrant couples.

In terms of the preliminary outcome evaluation, findings suggest that this linguistic and cultural adaptation of the TOGETHER program for Latine immigrant couples could be effective in improving areas of individual and relationship functioning and financial management. To begin with, our results suggest that participation in the JEP program may contribute to a notable reduction of financial stress in both men and women. Both partners reported significantly lower levels of financial stress after program completion, with this decrease being maintained for women and even larger for men at the 3‐month follow‐up. These results align with previous findings on the effectiveness of the TOGETHER program in reducing concerns and worries about finances for English‐speaking participants (e.g., Falconier, 2015; Falconier, 2022). They also corroborate findings from evaluations on couples’ relationship programs, particularly for low‐income couples (Arnold & Beelmann, 2019; Doss et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2016), as well as financial education programs for low‐income populations (e.g., Anderson et al., 2007; Hirad & Zorn, 2001; Zhan et al., 2006), and immigrant groups (Zhan et al., 2009).

Reduction in financial stress was expected in a program that provides participants with information and practice on strategies to reduce money‐related stress individually (e.g., relaxation, problem‐solving skills) and dyadically (e.g., offer emotional assistance to a distressed partner, joint problem‐solving) and to strengthen financial management (e.g., budgeting, credit building, and use). In fact, results also suggest that JEP may help women strengthen their financial management behaviors, as significant improvements were reported after workshop completion. This was true even for couples who participated during the COVID‐19 pandemic, a time marked by fear and uncertainty due to health risks and stress from ensuing constraints that disrupted the financial, emotional, and physical well‐being of individuals (Andrade et al., 2022).

Although men's changes in financial management were in the expected direction, they were not significant. The variance observed between men and women may stem from the constrained statistical power inherent in a small sample size, but it could also be reflecting true gender differences, which have also been previously found in the effectiveness evaluation of the TOGETHER program (Falconier, 2015). Considering that in this sample, Latinas were more likely to be unemployed and have a lower income than their male partners, this gender difference could be attributed to women's larger motivation to learn effective financial management behaviors. In addition, this potential gender difference echoes longstanding cultural norms regarding gender roles. Dominant ideals often depict men as active, dominant breadwinners, contrasting with women portrayed as passive and submissive, influenced by cultural notions of machismo (Craske, 2014). Recent societal shifts, however, indicate evolving gender roles, with women gaining empowerment, awareness of their rights, and increased representation in education and the workforce (Craske, 2014). Latina women, in particular, demonstrate a significant appetite for financial education and a strong inclination toward savings, reflecting their proactive approach to financial management (Rise of the Latina, 2017).

JEP may help Latino men improve their emotional regulation. Men's difficulties in emotional regulation declined significantly after program completion and remained significantly lower 3 months later. For women, even though emotional dysregulation also declined, this reduction was not significant, which could be the result of the limited power of the sample size or of a true gender difference in JEP benefits. Men in traditional Latine relationships are often perceived as protectors of the household (Barker & Loewenstein, 1997). This role may contribute to their limited emotional engagement with women and shape their interactions, resulting in a lack of displays of affection (Barker & Loewenstein, 1997). Despite societal shifts toward greater acceptance of men expressing emotions (Schiffer & Madrigal, 2000), negotiating these traditional roles within relationships remains challenging. Given that Latinas reported better emotion regulation than their partners did before participating in the JEP program, it is also possible they may have benefited less from the program components designed to strengthen participants’ emotional regulation. Conversely, the program appears to have positively influenced men's relationship satisfaction, as evidenced by their significantly elevated levels of satisfaction postprogram. This suggests that while emotional regulation plays a crucial role, traditional gender norms and the evolving landscape of gender roles within Latina and Latino communities also influence program outcomes.

Improvements in relationship satisfaction were expected considering the modules addressing various aspects of relationship dynamics encompassing communication, conflict resolution, and DC. Increased satisfaction with the couple relationship has been a frequent outcome in previous evaluations of the TOGETHER program (Falconier et al., 2023; Falconier, 2015; Falconier, 2022). Regarding gender differences, it is possible that, because women reported higher relationship satisfaction than men before the program, with satisfaction levels already quite elevated, the program had limited potential to further enhance their relationship satisfaction. These results are even more relevant considering that some couples participated during the COVID‐19 pandemic and still showed an improvement in relationship satisfaction, despite being forced to stay at home during quarantine.

An important aspect of relationship functioning that this program focuses heavily on is DC, with an entire module dedicated to it. The RCT of the TOGETHER program actually indicated improvement in DC in English‐speaking populations after program participation (Falconier, 2022). The present evaluation of DC of JEP was actually more complete than past evaluations of the TOGETHER program (Falconier, 2022) and even other relationship education programs (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2016) as it entailed a dual‐method approach, both with self‐reported and observational data. Analysis of both types of data suggest that after completing the JEP program participants improve their CDC but that there are consistent gender differences regarding SDC and NDC. Both self‐report and observational data suggest that JEP may help Latina women reduce their NDC toward their partner but not their SDC while the opposite is true for their male partners. As noted earlier, it is possible that these results could be an artifact of the limited power of a small sample size and there are not true gender differences in the population. However, it is possible that the JEP program differentially benefits men and women by helping Latino partners provide more emotional and problem‐focused support during times of stress and by encouraging Latina women to be less critical and hostile toward their partners.

In brief, results from this initial pilot test indicate that the JEP program shows promise in alleviating financial stress and emotional instability, as well as enhancing financial management abilities, relationship satisfaction, and collaborative stress coping strategies, even during the challenging conditions of the COVID‐19 pandemic quarantine. The noteworthy changes identified in this pilot study align with the participants’ high satisfaction ratings regarding session content, activities, home practices, and facilitators’ performance.

Limitations and future research

The major limitation in this pilot test is the limited sample size, which limited the analytic strategies used to analyze the data (e.g., not controlling for demographic variables) and reduced the statistical power to identify changes. Future research should aim to replicate this study using larger samples to allow for more sophisticated statistical analyses. The second limitation pertains to resilience on self‐reported data to measure several of the outcome variables, which inevitably introduced a social desirability bias. Future studies should incorporate a mix of measures, such as more observational assessments, partner reports, and physiological measures. Finally, the follow‐up assessment took place only 3 months after program completion, which can limit its ability to capture the stability of changes over time or later changes as some of the skills learned in the program may take time to show results (e.g., better conflict management may lead to higher relationship satisfaction over time). Future research could include multiple follow‐up assessments over a more extended period to evaluate the long‐term effectiveness of the skills learned in the program. Another important direction is to examine the effectiveness of the JEP workshop among same‐sex Latine couples. Understanding the program's impact in this context can inform culturally and contextually relevant adaptations that ensure the intervention's inclusivity and applicability across diverse groups.

Implications and conclusion

JEP is the first Spanish‐speaking, culturally adapted CRE program for Latine couples that merges relationship and financial management with a notable focus on individual and couples’ stress management. Even though the efficacy of the program should be further assessed through a randomized control trial that includes a larger sample size, both self‐report instruments and observational data, and at least 1‐ or 2‐ year follow‐up assessments, results from the present study are encouraging.

Findings from this pilot test indicate that the JEP program is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible and suggest that it may decrease Latine partners’ financial stress and emotional dysregulation and improve their financial management, DC, and relationship satisfaction. These findings make JEP a promising psycho‐educational financial and relationship intervention for the Spanish‐speaking Latine community, who are typically underserved due to the unavailability of linguistic and/or culturally appropriate and sensitive mental health and financial services. Additionally, the group format of this program is particularly advantageous, as it is more economical compared with individual financial couple therapy sessions, which serve only one couple at a time. This approach aligns well with the collective orientation often found within Latin American immigrant communities. For low‐income Latine immigrant communities struggling with financial issues, the program offers critical education on managing finances in the United States. By focusing on practical financial management skills, the program equips Latine immigrants with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate their financial landscape effectively.

Furthermore, the findings of this pilot study have significant practical implications for clinicians, policymakers, and community organizations involved in relationship counseling and support programs for the Latine community. Clinicians can use the insights from this study to incorporate elements of the workshop into their practice, such as communication skill‐building, conflict resolution strategies, and DC. Specifically, women benefit from reducing their negative DC, while men benefit from increasing their supportive DC (Rise of the Latina, 2017). Furthermore, clinicians can utilize these results to emphasize the importance of both partners working together when Latine heterosexual couples face financial problems. Recognizing and fostering the increased involvement of women in financial matters can further strengthen the couple's financial management and relationship quality. Policymakers can leverage these findings to inform the development and funding of relationship education programs that promote accessible relationship and financial education to reduce relationship distress. Community organizations can disseminate and implement relationship and financial education programs based on this study's findings. Finally, organizations can also offer workshops tailored to the needs of their communities using culturally relevant materials and examples that resonate with diverse groups.

Supporting information

Supporting information

Yumiseva, M. , Falconier, M. , & Azizi, Z. (2025). Pilot test of JUNTOS EN PAREJA: Enhancing relationship and financial well‐being in Latine couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51, e12752. 10.1111/jmft.12752