A Cooperative Extension education program is, by definition, responsive to local needs and appropriate to the targeted audience. Cooperative Extension professionals must be flexible in responding to the situation and adapting programs in a timely fashion for maximum effectiveness. At the same time, when programs do not succeed as anticipated, the educator needs to re- examine the program plan and learn from the mistakes.

This philosophy of public education can be applied to a recent Virginia Cooperative Extension housing counseling program with low-income families. The program planning, development, delivery, and evaluation will be discussed in this article. The mixed success of the program will be analyzed and applied to future educational programming with similar audiences.

"Securing Your Future" was a housing counseling program presented to the residents of Meadowview Apartments, a privately- owned, federally-subsidized (Section 8) garden apartment community in Pulaski, a small city in the Appalachian Mountains of southwest Virginia presented by Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) in summer 1994. The program was the result of a sub-grant of a HOPE II planning grant received by the non-profit Virginia Mountain Housing, Inc. (now VMH, Inc.) from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The planning grant was to prepare for implementation of a HOPE II (Homeownership Opportunities for People Everywhere) program to enable residents in the low-income apartment community to own their homes.

The original sub-grant proposed a housing counseling and training program preparing for homeownership. The program design was intended to meet the needs of Meadowview residents and serve as a model for future programs. Program leadership would be given by the state housing specialist with shared responsibility by the local Extension agent. The on-site project manager for the Hope II program would serve as an advisor.

As part of the larger HOPE II grant, the project manager was to be an active leader and organizer within the community. A Resident Council was formed, headquartered in a vacant apartment centrally located in the community. The Resident Council was to be active in planning and supporting the housing counseling program.

Planning for the program began with an assessment of the community residents, and their economic status and potential for homeownership. Careful consideration was given to the issues of working with limited-income audiences.

Low-income households live with crises as a common occurrence (Rupered & Payne, 1993; Williams, 1993). Household members may not have had the learning and skill development opportunities to have effective personal resource management for long-term planning and crisis prevention (Williams, 1993). Low- income families may aspire to goals similar to other groups in society, but these are altered by the reality of their situations (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1988). Limited income denies these families the opportunities to enjoy contemporary lifestyles, often resulting in apathy and lack of motivation (Kutner, 1975; Williams, 1993). Many low-income families experience a sense of hopelessness about their ability to make a change in their situation (Rupered & Payne, 1993). Low-income families may tend to perceive their situation, and thus their future, as beyond their control.

A picture emerges of low-income audiences with a short-term perspective, lack of an internal sense of control, a crisis-to- crisis lifestyle, and a perception of few life choices. This description was expected to be typical of Meadowview residents and suggested that educational programming targeted to achieving a long term goal, such as home ownership, would not be perceived as useful. In addition, income statistics for Meadowview residents and a consideration of the local economy suggested that homeownership was not an affordable goal in the near future for most residents. Therefore, despite the intended direction of the grant, a re-examination of educational priorities was needed.

A housing education program for Meadowview residents needed to be relevant and useful in their immediate lives. A program focus evolved around securing and planning for the future -- a future that could include homeownership -- but in the context of their lives and present housing situation. Program content was directed to current needs and activities related to housing while laying the foundation to make the choice to achieve home ownership. A balance between the requirements of the grant and the needs of the residents was sought.

An identified education program goal was to assist residents in providing secure, stable, and quality housing for themselves and their families. Achieving self-sufficiency in housing was to be emphasized. A four-part program was proposed:

1. "Be a Better Money Manager" included budgeting, dealing with credit problems, insurance, taxes, housing expenses, and the choices in renting or owning a home.

2. "Easy Care for the Home" included economical home care, tips on time management to reduce housekeeping chores, and choice of safe and inexpensive cleaning products.

3. "The Landlord and the Tenant" included the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, being a good neighbor, choosing to rent or buy, and simple maintenance to do when the landlord is not available.

4. "Is There a House in Your Future?" included housing alternatives, the home buying process, mortgages, special mortgage programs for first-time and limited income buyers, and planning for future home ownership.

Program marketing began at the planning stage, with two purposes: "ownership" of the program by residents and maximum participation. Marketing activities included:

• About three months before the targeted program dates, the local Extension agent met with the Resident Council to seek input on design and schedule of the educational program. Educational program posters were displayed in the community.

• After the Resident Council meeting, flyers describing the program were distributed by the Community Coordinator, a resident of the apartment community hired to assist the HOPE II Project Manager. Approximately 80% of the adult residents (72 of 90) were contacted personally.

• A list of residents interested and willing to participate (32) was established. These residents were periodically contacted by the Community Coordinator to keep them up-to-date on program development.

• The 32 interested residents received a flyer a few weeks before the program, giving final details and including a registration form for child care. These potential participants were contacted the day before each session, to encourage their participation.

• A display board announcing the educational program was placed in front of the Resident Council office each day a session was held.

Marketing informed the residents about the program and encouraged their participation. At the same time, it was necessary to design the program for easy participation and to make it attractive. Several ideas were incorporated into the program design:

• Sessions were held in the Resident Council office apartment, on the first floor of a building centrally located in the community.

• Each program session was approximately two hours long. Sessions were held in the afternoon and repeated in the evening. Sessions were held on the same day, over a four- week period.

• As advertised, free child care was provided. There were refreshments and door prizes at each session.

• Participants received a large notebook of materials, organized by session topic. Additional handouts and worksheets were provided during the educational sessions. All printed materials were chosen to be attractive and of an appropriate reading level.

• An informal, interactive teaching style was used. Instructors (the housing specialist and the agent) used visuals and props and involved participants in sharing their own experiences.

• A certificate of completion was awarded to participants attending all sessions. It was emphasized that this certificate would be an asset in applying for a mortgage or seeking a lease.

Of the 32 residents who initially agreed to participate in the program, 12 (38%) actually attended the classes, with 9 (30%) completing all sessions. End of the program evaluations were very complimentary, rating the program as very successful, and offered no suggestions for improvement. Participants found the information "very useful," indicating they learned "more than expected." The session on "Easy Care for the Home" was rated as the most useful.

Participants identified a variety of concepts and facts learned at each session. The planned changes in behavior were extensive, and included: paying off bills to reduce debt; saving money; selecting effective and economical household cleaners; managing time for home care; negotiating with, instead of confronting, the landlord; and contacting agencies about qualification for a home mortgage.

The program participants were very positive about the educational sessions and felt they benefitted personally. Yet the number of participants was discouraging. Despite community-wide publicity and personal contact, only 32 residents were interested in participating, representing about 36% of the community. Despite personal and written updates, and reminders before each session, only 12 of these 32 residents (38%) actually participated.

With the help of the project manager and Resident Council, a survey was conducted of the non-participants. Responses were received from 17 (85%) of the 20 residents who registered but did not participate.

The most common reason (44%) for not attending sessions was "something personal came up." Illness in the family was the second most common reason (22%). Other reasons included not wanting to come by themselves, forgetting, and deciding the program was not of interest. Marketing of the program had apparently been successful on one level because almost all respondents were aware there was free child care, refreshments, and door prizes.

If the program was offered again, 13 of the 17 respondents (76%) said the would "probably" attend. Reasons given for probable attendance included the value of the information and what they had heard about the quality of the program. Potential barriers included program timing, and family and personal health.

"Securing Your Future" appeared to be very well-received by the program participants, yet there was low attendance from the target audience. The program succeeded in meeting the current needs of those who participated and gave them an enjoyable educational experience. People who did not participate cited primarily personal reasons, suggesting that design and marketing of the program was not the issue.

Given the opportunity to develop a similar program in the future, the authors suggest the following improvements:

• The need for the housing education program described in this paper did not arise from within the community, but rather was determined by an outside agency. Therefore, "ownership" of the program, and thus motivation for participation was tenuous. Residents should be involved in program need identification, not just design of a program that has already been predetermined.

• Despite the effort to redesign and refocus the program from the original sub-grant, the title of the program, "Securing Your Future" still suggested a long-term, goal- oriented program. A different, and more descriptive title was needed.

• The program was offered twice, at different times, but on the same day. Offering a second series of classes, a few weeks after the first, might have increased participation by building on the favorable responses of the first participants.

• Marketing materials needed to focus more specifically on the topics to be covered and the relevance to the resident. Residents who were more convinced of the value of the educational program might be less likely to have personal conflicts to participation.

Deacon, R. E., & Firebaugh, F. M. (1988). Family resource management. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kutner, N. (1975). An interethnic and place of residence examination of the "culture of poverty". (Departmental Technical Report No. 75-3,) Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Rupered, M. & Payne, D. (1993). Understanding limited resource audiences: Content or process? In V. S. Fitzsimmons (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education: Economic change: Challenges for financial counseling and planning professionals (pp. 253-261). San Antonio, TX: Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education.

Williams, F. L. (1993). Financial counseling: Low-income or limited-income families. In Fitzsimmons, V. S. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education:

Economic change: Challenges for financial counseling and planning professionals (pp. 121-145). San Antonio, TX: Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education.

"Securing Your Future" was a housing counseling program presented to the residents of a privately-owned, federally- subsidized (Section 8) garden apartment community by Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) in summer 1994. The program was part of a HOPE II (Homeownership Opportunities for People Everywhere) planning grant, from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program planning, development, delivery, and evaluation will be discussed in this article. The mixed success of the program will be analyzed and applied to future educational programming with similar audiences.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1996october/a2.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.