Volume 22 Number 4
|
July 1984 Volume 22 Number 4 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 1. Reasons for buying a microcomputer.
|
|||
|
Use
|
Respondent's Priority
|
||
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
| Financial records |
46%
|
30%
|
13%
|
| Analysis of alternatives |
31
|
16
|
19
|
| Livestock records |
12
|
12
|
15
|
| Budgeting |
5
|
15
|
14
|
| Field records |
1
|
21
|
25
|
| Other |
5
|
6
|
14
|
The microcomputer can be an effective management tool, but it does require time and patience to become familiar with the equipment. The respondents estimated they'd spend an average of 6.9 hours a week using their computer. Of the 80% who were willing to estimate a time, 54% indicated the time spent for business purposes would be more time than they currently devote to record keeping and related functions. The remaining 46% were evenly split between expecting to spend about the same amount of time and expecting to spend less time.
Only 28% of the respondents indicated they'd previously used a microcomputer
or sat down with one at a dealer store. In addition, only 37% had ever used
the AGNET time-share computer system.
Another part of the survey asked where the participants had received information
on microcomputers before attending the workshop. Participants were asked to
identify the primary source of previous information. The responses are shown
in Table 2.
The participants were interested in more than just learning about computer technology. Nearly 40% said they were interested in buying one. This interest suggests a large number of farmers are interested in improving their management skills and looking to the computer to help them develop a management information system. Prior experience with computers isn't an indicator of interest in microcomputers. We've had systems such as AGNET available for some time, but the flexibility, accessibility, and confidentiality of a home microcomputer kindled their interest.
|
Table 2. Where respondents learned about microcomputers.
|
|
|
Source
|
Percentage
|
| Magazine Articles |
32%
|
| Friends of Family |
21
|
| Hardware Vendors |
9
|
| Advertisements |
9
|
| Extension Meetings |
7
|
| Books |
4
|
| Software Vendors |
2
|
| Other |
16
|
Most adopters of computers aren't willing to devote time to writing their own
programs. The successful software developers will market software that's easy
to use and flexible. The challenge is to maintain the functionality and validity
of analytical models, while allowing the user some adaptability. Although the
hands-on opportunity appeared to be an enticement to the workshops, it wasn't
ranked as a highly important reason for actual attendance. The hands-on experience
can be gained in a more private setting where the level of intimidation and
potential embarrassment is lower.
There are implications of the interest in computerized financial records. These
systems are, by design, more detailed than manually kept records to exploit
the capabilities of the computer. This means many operators have to learn about
record keeping and accounting at the the same time they're learning to use their
computers. Extension specialists and other educators should consider revising
farm accounting courses and offering them to a new era of farm record keepers.
The second reason for purchasing a microcomputer, "analysis of alternatives,"
indicates farmers are willing and anxious to plan and compare alternatives.
Farm management specialists must be prepared to offer help and present the appropriate
analytical tools to farmers. Also a receptive market exists for software programs
that easily and accurately compare alternatives.
A large percentage of producers apparently aren't ready to devote more time
to their computerized management system than they presently devote to management.
Software developers must be aware of this fact in developing software that's
conceptually correct, but not excessively time-consuming to use and maintain.
The printed word is still an important source of information, particularly the popular press. The information obtained from acquaintances is also important. Computers are a new technology and farmers feel most comfortable learning within the confines of their own home or within the circle of their acquaintances.
Farmers have shown interest in microcomputers, but the educational process
of helping them understand how they can effectively use them to develop a management
information system has just begun. Extension specialists and farm management
professionals must be ready to answer questions about microcomputers and their
applications to farms.
Less need exists today for farmers to write software programs than was true
in 1980. As farmers become more involved with detailed computer applications,
such as financial record programs, there will be more interest in subject-matter
topics as opposed to computer-related topics. After producers learn to operate
computers, they'll be more interested in a variety of applications to their
farm business. For example, many producers have already recognized the need
for additional training in accounting and with the priority of use on financial
records, this need will increase in the future.
Farm operators need help in integrating programs to develop an information and
management control system. A financial record system, a field record system,
and a budgeting model can all be independent models. However, the real power
of these models comes in integrating them. If data can be retrieved from a financial
base and used in a spreadsheet or other budgeting tool, the effectiveness of
the computer system is greatly enhanced. Software developers must also construct
their programs with sufficient flexibility to allow this interfacing and integration.
Most of the farm and ranch microcomputer users have little previous experience
with computers or working with the structured approach of computer models. While
they're learning about computers and how to operate them, they're also learning
about the application models. Using a spreadsheet or a similar budgeting and
analysis program before working extensively with more detailed models such as
a financial records system will greatly facilitate this learning process. This
approach has the added advantage of producing more immediate answers to the
operator. A financial record system will require at least a year before useful
and meaningful information is generated.
Finally, a continuing need exists to provide information on the evaluation of commercially available software and to facilitate the exchange of evaluation information between users. Universities don't have the resources to provide thorough evaluation of all commercial software. With the software that will be coming on the market in the next five years, there's an opportunity for an independent commercial software evaluation organization to provide a much needed service to the agriculture industry. Extension personnel, however, can help form computer-user groups. Meetings and conferences of users groups provide an excellent forum for the exchange of views on software by business operators.
Douglas C. Bachtel
Extension Rural Sociologist,
Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Georgia-Tifton.
Accepted for publication: March, 1984.
Illegal drug use is prevalent in rural areas, but little is known about the problem. The prevailing opinion in many rural areas is that drug abuse isn't nearly as extensive as it is in urban areas.' Recent research, however, has discovered a high incidence of drug abuse among rural high school students throughout the country. Although many community groups have developed drug education and prevention programs, their efforts haven't been very successful-the incidence of drug use has continued to increase. The problem isn't the lack of interest or volunteers, but poor organizational techniques and management skills. Extension can play a key role in the formation and maintenance of the drug education groups by teaching and demonstrating organizational skills to group leaders and members. A wealth of useful drug educational material already exists but, because of poor management, many drug prevention groups' efforts frequently fail. This article: (1) reports the findings of an Extension drug study, (2) illustrates the key steps in developing and/or maintaining local drug prevention groups, and (3) outlines a role for Extension agents to demonstrate and teach organizational skills necessary for successful drug program development.
In response to the need for information on rural drug abuse, Georgia's Cooperative Extension Service investigated the problem. The central concern of the project was to identify and assess the prevalence and frequency of illegal drug activity among rural junior and senior high school students. In the spring of 1981, a questionnaire was given to 8th through 12th grade students in 2 rural counties' public school systems. With the cooperation of junior and senior high school principals, a special homeroom period was designated for the survey. A total of 4,859 questionnaires was obtained.
Here are some of the findings from the drug study:
In sum, the results showed that drug abuse among young people in the study area was higher than recent national figures for rural youth. Thus, you have to conclude that the use of illegal drugs by rural youth in the study area is considerable and worthy of attention.
No one method has been found to prevent young people from abusing drugs. An increased knowledge of local patterns of drug abuse, however, can help mobilize citizen groups to develop prevention programs tailored to local conditions.
Here are some guidelines for creating and maintaining a drug prevention group. The guidelines are based on the experience gained from sharing the results of the survey with county and state Extension personnel, concerned parents, local school officials, drug counselors, and drug prevention groups in both counties. The role of Extension also is presented.
Have Community-Wide OrganizationDrug prevention programs should take place within a well-structured group. The original idea or interest to form the group may only involve a few people, but volunteer groups operate more efficiently with more members. More members translate into a greater sharing of the workload for group projects. Increased membership also allows for creative ideas and new approaches to be introduced.
Extension's role should be to demonstrate and teach basic administrative functions to the group. Group members should be taught to properly publicize meeting times and places, keep attendance records and minutes, secure publicity about group goals and activities, make committee assignments, and coordinate work flow and progress reports. Organizational training provides the vital framework necessary for sustained volunteer efforts. Without basic organizational training, many volunteer groups would never get beyond the discussion stage.
Know the Community
A major element in forming a successful drug prevention program is knowledge about the community. If drug prevention groups are seeking some type of change, they must understand what they're trying to change. For example, what's the extent of the drug problem? How many young people are involved? What is their age, sex, grade, and race? How large a geographical area is the group going to work in? Is funding available? Who's the target audience-parents. youth, or the entire community? It's also critical that the group identify local power figures from government, business, education. and religion. Power figures are fundamental to the change process.
Extension agents are in a key position to help drug prevention groups learn how to understand their community. They can lend technical expertise and logistical support to conduct surveys, help obtain and interpret existing information about the community from census and other government documents, locate funding sources, provide information about fund-raising events, and identify formal and informal leaders.
Use Reliable Sources
Many federal, state, and private agencies and foundations regularly publish attractive, useful drug prevention information, as well as provide organizational help to citizen action groups. These sources should be used so the group doesn't have to commit its own resources to time-consuming and expensive activities that have already been professionally developed and are readily available. Extension's contacts in other counties, states, land-grant institutions, and national Extension networks can help identify many sources, strategies, and creative ideas that can greatly benefit drug prevention groups.
Have a Plan
Effective groups always develop plans for what they want to accomplish. The plan should contain long-range goals, short-term objectives, and priorities among the various objectives. The plans should be reevaluated and updated regularly. Plans are important because they show organization, leadership, and commitment. These attributes are critical to achieve support from local decision makers and secure money from funding sources.
Extension's role should be to teach group members how to organize and produce a neat, well-written plan and ensure that copies are provided to key legitimizing figures.
Define Responsibilities
To carry out plans and goals, the group must have well-defined responsibilities and specific assignments for its members. Specific assignments are especially important for volunteer groups because volunteers can't be expected to commit large amounts of time to assignments. Specific assignments distribute the workload and enable members to accept responsibilities they can complete. Extension's role should be to train group members by instruction and example on how to develop leadership skills necessary for the group to meet its goals.
Work with Community Leaders
It's extremely important that drug prevention groups establish and maintain communication with existing com- munity groups and leaders. Community groups can lend support, make suggestions, and help find resources. Com- munity leaders need to be kept informed so the group's program and viewpoint will be known and respected. Extension agents' knowledge of formal and informal leadership structures and working relationships with gov- ernmental agencies can help the group legitimize its role within the existing framework of community expectations.
Extension agents have the knowledge and technical expertise that can greatly aid volunteer groups in overcoming the organizational difficulties of developing and maintaining a viable drug prevention program. By using the sources and resources of Extension agents, groups can create the organizational structure from which they can create innovative programs to reduce and prevent drug abuse among youth.
James I. Grieshop
Lecturer and Specialist,
Community Education Development
Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
University of California-Davis
Victoria Rupley
Graduate Student
Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences
University of Cal ifornia- Davis.
Accepted for publication: March, 1984.
Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. It can also be the mother of innovation within Extension. For Extension programs, one necessity has been driven by the need for relief from an ever-increasing public demand for gardening information, advice, and assistance. Since 1910, the county agents have been answering gardening questions by the hundreds. This number has mushroomed to the thousands in the recent decades, an event that has seriously overburdened Extension's resources and capacity to respond. This demand has created a need for relief which in turn has led to innovation. One of these innovations has been the Master Gardener Program.
Beginning in Washington state in 1972, the Master Gardener Program has grown to over 3 dozen nationally by 1983.1 One of the program's goals has been to provide help for professional staff by training and using qualified adult volunteers to respond to the demand for advice and help, while at the same time, extending to the public reliable and useful information on gardening and practical horticulture.
If these are valid programmatic goals, then two significant questions emerge: (1) has the Master Gardener Program relieved professional staff from many of the routine duties of answering consumers' questions and (2) does it provide an adequate flow of reliable and useful information? The study reported here, based on cases in California, provides answers to these questions. By 1983, 20 California counties had Master Gardener Programs, up from 2 in 1980. The Master Gardener Program tried to provide "relief" to overburdened Extension public service environmental horticulture advisors (through the use of volunteers), while at the same time becoming a mechanism to extend reliable and useful information and service. In 1982, an evaluation was done to assess whether these goals were being achieved. Seven counties with active (that is, operating for at least 2 years) Master Gardener Programs were selected for study. On the basis of staff size, percentage of professional staff involved in public service activities, population, and ruralness/urbanness, these seven counties were matched with seven counties not operating Master Gardener Programs. A questionnaire, first developed and field tested, was mailed to and completed by each county director, farm advisor (or agent) responsible for the public service function and/or the Master Gardener Program, and Extension secretary in the 14 counties. Among the areas surveyed and reported here are staff's time use, type of work activities performed, and the element of quality of information. Data collected via the survey were supplemented by phone calls and by reviewing other available program reports.
Twenty-eight questionnaires were mailed to master gardener (MG) county respondents and 38 to non-master gardener (NMG) county respondents. Fifty-four usable questionnaires were returned (26 MG and 28 NMG).
Sixteen of the 26 master gardener county respondents (67%) "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were able to "devote more time to other work areas" because of the Master Garden Program. Their responses also indicated that allocation of work time by farm (or public service) advisors shifted with the implementation of the Master Gardener Program (see Table 1). There was a decrease in the amount of time (from 47.4% to 25.1 %) spent by public service advisors in MG counties on the telephone responding to the individual requests.
|
Table 1. Time use for selected activities
|
||||
|
Task
|
Advisors NMG(n=10) |
Advisors MG (n=10)
|
MG Volunteers
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Program
|
After Program
|
|
| Disseminate by phone |
50.2%
|
47.4%
|
25.1%
|
46.7%
|
| Individual Personal Contacts |
19.1
|
13.9
|
7.7
|
15.7
|
| Radio/TV |
2.4
|
2.1
|
8.0
|
1.3
|
| Print Media |
7.1
|
5.6
|
4.9
|
4.7
|
| Speaking Engagements |
3.8
|
4.3
|
6.6
|
7.1
|
| Group Coordination Activities |
1.8
|
.6
|
14.4
|
7.2
|
| Administrative |
3.8
|
3.9
|
7.3
|
3.1
|
| Meetings |
6.2
|
6.7
|
6.9
|
5.8
|
| Other Tasks(misc.) |
5.6
|
15.5
|
19.1
|
8.4
|
|
*Reported by MG Advisors
|
||||
Other noted decreases in staff were: time spent on individual contact (from 13.9% to 7.7%) and writing articles for the media (from 5.6% to 4.9%). County directors and secretaries reported similar changes in time use and tasks performed. Responses by farm advisors in non-master gardener counties indicated they currently used 50% of their work time to disseminate information via the phone. This percentage is in agreement with the retrospective figure reported by the MG farm advisors. In fact, the results for NIVIG advisors and VIG advisors (pre-program) indicate no major differences between these in terms of time use/ task performed.
But, master gardener farm advisors weren't sitting around waiting for more work. They reported working the same amount of time, but in different areas. In particular, they reported using more time in radio/TV (from 2.1 % before to 8.0% after), in group coordination activities (from .6% to 14.4%), and administrative activities (from 3.9% to 7.3%) with the volunteers. Increases for dissemination of information through the media were low to begin with and any changes may not be significant. However, time spent on the coordination of activities consumed a much greater percentage of their total time.
Work performed by the master gardeners themselves must be noted. In short, volunteers picked up the "slack." By report of the advisors, 46.7% of the master gardener's time was spent answering phone calls. Thus, not only did the master gardeners pick up the "slack," but their involvement led to a net increase in the quantity of contacts via phone, thereby expanding the reach of Extension. Another study in California indicated that after a period of 2 years. master gardeners increased the number of public contacts by 50% over and above those previously handled by the farm advisor. Similar positive changes were reported for other activities. for example, individual personal contacts and print media.
Non-master gardener county personnel were asked a hypothetical question: "Had the program been operating in your counties, would it have allowed you to devote more time to other work areas?" Responses from the NMG counties were mixed. but the majority believed that if the MG program were implemented, it might increase the visibility of Extension, thereby doubling the workload of the professional staff.
In the MG counties, the opinion was that the program did increase visibility, but it did not increase personal work-loads, since volunteers assumed the added workload. The most notable change occurred in the type of work performed by the professional staff. More group educational and organizational activities were undertaken, whereas reactive, one-on-one activities (answering phones) were substantially reduced.
The second question was: "Does the Master Gardener Program provide a realistic mechanism for disseminating quality information?" A commonly heard criticism of master gardeners is: "They can't provide the high quality information and support usually provided by professional staff." Responses from the professional staff in the master gardener counties contradicted this criticism. Over two-thirds of MG county respondents (16 of 25) "agreed" that the mastergardeners provide "as accurate horticultural information as do professional staff." Results from NMG counties were diametrically opposed-only 4 of 26 respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with this statement.
Two alternative explanations of this datum are possible: (1) because they operate the program, MG county staff need or want to believe that comparable and high quality information is available or (2) that, indeed, master gardeners do provide the quality, reliable information demanded by the public. The second option is probably the case because counties usually receive repetitive and even predictable questions. A majority of situations faced by master gardeners are of this type and they're trained to respond to them. Since volunteers have access to office resources to adequately respond to requests and are monitored by professional staff through regular consultation and review, they can confidently disseminate useful information.
Through the innovative Master Gardener Program, Extension has reached out to more people and groups. At the same time, the program has significantly affected professional staff's use of time. The introduction of trained volunteers allows the professional staff to spend 50% less time answering telephone calls. Master gardeners pick up this difference, and spend more than double that amount of time answering phone requests. Obviously, a significant net gain results.
The fear that the program would increase an already overburdened professional staff's workload and would increase Extension's visibility (thereby increasing the workload) doesn't seem to be justified. The experience of the master gardener counties indicates the opposite-visibility and workload increase, but not for the professional staff.
The critical question related to the quality and accuracy of information extended by the volunteers appears more illusory than real. Although non-master gardener counties expressed the doubt that volunteers would be able to extend reliable information, the master gardener counties, after two years of experience, seemed to feel the quality of information isn't a problem.
Not every county should institute a Master Gardener Program. Other concerns besides those of time use and quality must enter into the formula. In addition to the need for further evaluation research, a need exists for the development of other organized efforts or programs aimed at serving the home and urban horticulturists and providing relief for busy staff from certain responsibilities, thereby freeing them to take on other needed work. From this perspective, change is viewed as positive-with Extension doing important and needed group educational work.
Susan B. Hester
Assistant Professor,
Design and Environmental Analysis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
Kitty G. Dickerson
Associate Professor and Chair,
Department of Clothing and Textiles,
College of Home Economics,
University of Missouri-Columbia.
Accepted for publication: March, 1984.
As the number of women entering the work force continues to rise, Extension professionals find it increasingly difficult to reach families when both spouses are employed. Some of these women are part of a relatively new lifestyle, the dual-career couple. Resulting primarily from expanded educational opportunities for women and the increasing job opportunities for these educated, aspiring women, the dual-career lifestyle has evolved during the last decade.
While the time and energy demands of dual-career couples will continue to restrict their participation in Extension programs, this new lifestyle may have, in fact, created opportunities for Extension personnel to serve a new audience. Dual-career couples have unique problems for which Extension programs may help provide solutions. Further, all indications are that the number of couples choosing this lifestyle will continue to increase. Thus, what might be perceived as a problem, can, instead, be viewed as a creative opportunity and challenge by Extension professionals who may themselves be experiencing the dual-career lifestyle.
Rapoport and Rapoport define dual-career couples as individuals who, rather than being simply employed, have "jobs which require a high degree of commitment and which have a continuous developmental character." They define a dual-career family as "one in which both heads of household pursue careers and at the same time maintain a family life together." Johnson, Kaplan, and Tusel discuss other characteristics that are implied in this lifestyle, including high levels of career responsibility, economic rewards, social prestige, and personal investment of time and energy on the part of both partners. The number of couples currently pursuing this lifestyle is difficult to determine since career involvement is a more important determinant than income. What's relatively certain, however, is that the number of couples is increasing and will continue to do so in the decade ahead. The fact that married women are going to work and working more consistently than ever before is undeniable. Extension professionals have an opportunity to help individuals meet the challenges and cope with the stress so that they can enjoy the positive aspects of the dual-career lifestyle.
The dual-career lifestyle has created a unique set of challenges, many of which relate to socialization and role expectations, work role conflicts, and family role conflicts. Many couples have difficulty resolving role expectations because the likelihood is great that the individuals involved have been socialized for roles very different from those they're apt to experience as part of this lifestyle.
A woman who tries to combine a career and a family is soon reminded that she's flaunting the socially accepted norms. She finds herself in a seemingly no-win situation. The qualities associated with the role of wife-mother (nurturance, emotionality, responsiveness to people rather than ideas) are seen to be incompatible with those qualities associated with success in the occupational sphere (independence, rationality, and assertiveness).
The man, too, is struggling with his definition of masculine and feminine roles as he has been socialized to understand them. A man grows up expecting to be the head of a household, to be the one who earns the money and has the power. For the most part, men aren't socialized or educated to fill roles calling for skills in child rearing or homemaking. Even if a man has the skills, he may perceive that devoting a great deal of time and emotional energy to domestic activities may negatively affect his career, particularly if he's competing with other men who don't have similar family roles.
Challenges arising from coping with two careers in one household are evident. The result of trying to juggle two careers may be that each individual is less competitive in terms of his or her own career advancement. Each person has to make compromises for the other's career, and the net result is often that each ends up with a little less. The home environment is a special challenge to the dual-career couple as two people try to meet the demands of careers and build a family life together. Maintaining a home and a family can tax even the most committed and energetic marriage partners.
It appears that most couples try to share the load. The standards are voluntarily lowered; some tasks may be eliminated or redistributed to domestic help, children, or spouses. Even so, the fact remains that in the majority of dual-career families, the responsibility for the domestic sphere lies with the wife. Even highly educated professional women retain that responsibility. Rapoport and Rapoport have studied this lifestyle for the last decade and report a shift in the location of the barriers to a dual-career lifestyle.
Ten years ago the barrier was in the workplace with its discriminatory employment and advancement practices; now the bottleneck is in the home, necessitating a redistribution of responsibility for domestic work.
In a study of 71 couples living and/or working in the Washington, D.C. area, coping patterns developed by dual-career families in the domestic sphere of their lives were examined. Role patterns for meeting family needs for food, clothing, household maintenance, child care, and income were studied, in addition to the perceived stress related to these tasks.
Most respondents in this study favored the choice of a dual-career lifestyle. Both spouses supported the decision and saw real benefits for the family. They also saw real problems. With few exceptions, even in families that had adopted this lifestyle from their beginning, the husband and wife hadn't worked out an equitable arrangement for sharing family roles. Undoubtedly, due to the socialization of both spouses, the wife assumed the greater burden for keeping the family unit running smoothly.
The wife, in most cases, in spite of her equally demanding job and relatively comparable salary, still carried the load at home. For many of the tasks described, the husband and wife accepted joint responsibility, but the wife usually and the husband occasionally actually performed these tasks. The husband may have supported his wife's desire for a have supported his wife's desire for a career and encouraged her to pursue one, but his behavior at home is best described as a helpful husband, not an equal partner.
When perceived stress levels were compared for matched husbands and wives, the demands of meeting child care, household maintenance, and clothing needs produced more similar levels of stress for both spouses than did meeting food and income needs. Women experienced more stress in meeting family food needs; men, income needs. It's perhaps noteworthy that these patterns of stress for meeting food and income needs appeared similar to those of traditional couples.
Since this lifestyle is expected to increase, Extension personnel face a challenge to develop creative programming for dual-career families. Couples involved in this lifestyle are presently a minority with special needs and resources. They may be searching for new ways to meet these needs and to conserve their valuable resources of time and energy. The results of this study and others have implications for professionals working with individuals who need help in dealing with the role expectations and realities they face as they juggle their roles in a dual-career lifestyle. Individuals are faced with an array of difficulties, but informed professionals can provide help to couples who are dealing with or contemplating a lifestyle that includes careers for both members.
Problems associated with the dual-career lifestyle reinforce the need for programs that examine role expectations. Roles have been examined in the past, but the reality of actually implementing equal-sharing attitudes becomes a dimension that now requires added attention. Realigning expectations and roles is a constant challenge to dual-career couples; providing the skills to do these tasks should be a priority for professionals working with them. Role playing and simulated exercises can bring new insights. These activities can help prepare individuals for the give and take, the balancing of two careers. individuals can react to hypothetical questions of when to relocate and for whose career. Even more important, couples might be encouraged to explore and discuss their priorities for family life versus career advancement. Typical problems associated with this lifestyle present educators with the opportunity to do some preventive work. Strategies can be determined in advance; ground rules unique to each relationship can be established.
Teaching/discussion groups for this audience have merit. Couples can gain from interacting with others having similar pressures; sessions can foster a sharing of coping strategies. A valuable outgrowth may be the formation of Support groups among families who understand and help with each other's problems. A team approach may be helpful for at least some of the programs for this group. Using successful dual-career role models at times can lend credibility and provide practical suggestions for coping. Depending on the special needs of the group, resource people from the community could be invited for some sessions. For example, if most families were struggling with child care problems, a representative from the local day care council might be able to discuss the various options available in that community. Programming catering to the demanding schedule of the dual-career families is imperative; these individuals are unlikely to add another layer of meetings to their already hectic lives. Thus, programs that mesh with work schedules are ideal-such as noon sessions at or near the workplace. Other sessions might be family-oriented because dualcareer couples may be reluctant to give up another evening away from the family. There is merit, too, in involving the children, regardless of their ages. Children can benefit from a better understanding of pressures their parents face and from seeing that other families have similar demands. Moreover, children might appropriately be given suggestions on how they can share the domestic workload. A series of topics could be suggested and planned for, but flexibility should be allowed to meet the needs of the individuals present. In addition, any programming session should allow ample time for group interaction. A chance to brainstorm with others of similar interests may provide these couples with the opportunity to derive their own creative solutions. Perhaps that should be the professional's goal: to provide a setting and atmosphere that supports and encourages clients to fully use their own resources. The professional's role is as facilitator; the couples design and own the solutions to their problems. Follow-up measures are desirable, but difficult to devise. Many of the hoped-for changes are attitudinal and slow to evolve, as well as hard to measure. A structured phone interview with each participant after a number of months might provide the group leader with some meaningful feedback.
The dual-career lifestyle is here to stay. Extension professionals have a choice of ignoring this new lifestyle or dealing creatively with it. We believe many opportunities exist to help individuals through innovative Extension programming. Initial efforts might establish a support system through which couples could continue to turn to Extension professionals.
This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/1984july/ent-a.html.
Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.
