Volume 35, Number 3
|
June 1997 Volume 35, Number 3 |
|
|
Editor's PageDear Reader, While it's the time for 4-H camps, food preservation workshops, and helping farmers get ready for harvest, I hope you will also take the time to look at the articles in this issue of the Journal of Extension. How do people feel when they come into your Extension office? Are you doing something that "turns people off?" Find out what some of those things are in the article by Ken Culp. "Community needs assessment" has been an Extension buzz phrase for several years, but how about community capacity assessment? Ruben Nieto and some of his friends can explain what this is in their article. Health, specifically smoking and young people, is looked at in a timely article from Pennsylvania. Of course, people are concerned about working with culturally diverse audiences and how individuals and agencies can work together in coalitions. Gain some ideas about these topics this month as well as dealing with health issues from a community development perspective. About the time many of you are getting this, the Journal's board of directors is meeting to discuss new and exciting things for your Journal. Stay tuned for the developments. Len Calvert, editor
Extension Journal, Inc.Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers. Board of Directors:
Sorrel Brown, President, Iowa, North Central Directors Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, Arizona
Examining Community Needs Through A Capacity AssessmentRuben D. Nieto
Dona Schaffner
Janet L. Henderson
Program planning is an organized and systematic approach for moving from ideas to actions (Needs Assessment 1995). The essential steps in the program planning process include: a) identifying issues, b) determining needs, c) setting goals and objectives, d) assessing resources, e) forming a plan, f) implementing the plan, and g) evaluating results. As extensively recognized in the literature, a critical element in adult education program planning is needs assessment (Boone, 1985; Witkin, 1984). Traditional approaches to needs assessment focus on community gaps and deficiencies. People providing needs assessment information see themselves as individuals with special needs that can only be met by outsiders (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). People become consumers of services with no incentive to be producers in the deficiency-oriented needs assessment approaches. Capacity assessment is based upon the capacities, skills, and assets of community members, agencies, and organizations. The capacity assessment conducted in this study identified the emerging issues and concerns in the community rather than focusing exclusively on community deficiencies and gaps. Community members at all levels need to be involved in decisions that affect them; they should help plan programs where they are expected to be participants (Needs Assessment for, 1995).
The main purpose of the study was to determine the emerging issues and concerns in Defiance County, Ohio as perceived by community citizens. Located in Northwest Ohio on the Indiana border, the county's population is 39,350 (Crawford, 1992) with a county seat population of 16,768. Although basically a rural area with 1,050 farms, the manufacturing community produces a variety of items. The majority of production activity involves metal and machine trades with emphasis on automotive and related industries. Defiance County has numerous agencies, organizations, and individuals which provide services for people in four general service areas: a) health and emergency, b) education, c) family, and d) community. Collaborative efforts appeared to be lacking among local agencies and organizations in identifying issues and concerns of Defiance County citizens. Needs assessments conducted by community agencies/organizations tend to have a very narrow focus. A need to conduct a comprehensive and integrated assessment of the county's capacities and emerging issues was identified. The United Way Board, Defiance County Commissioners, Northwestern Ohio Community Action, and Ohio State University Extension teamed together in May, 1994 to conduct a capacity assessment of the county. Community leaders are using the findings of this study to avoid duplication of efforts among agencies and organizations and to design programs that will address the most critical issues and concerns of the community. This participatory approach to a capacity assessment resulted in a synergistic effort that provides a more accurate portrait of community issues and concerns. The specific objectives of the capacity assessment were to: a) identify the emerging issues and concerns of community members in the service areas of health and emergency, education, family, and community; b) assess the level of knowledge and frequency of use of existing agencies/organizations by community members; c) determine reasons preventing citizens from using local services, and d) describe community members participating in the study on selected demographic characteristics.
Research Design Descriptive research was the design for this capacity assessment. The project was designed to determine the perceived emerging issues and concerns of community citizens that need to be addressed by local agencies and organizations. Population and Sample A steering committee, consisting of 12 community leaders, was established during the Summer of 1994. Funding agencies for the capacity assessment identified key leaders representing the four major service areas in the community. In terms of group dynamics, the investigators believed that a group between 10 and 12 individuals would provide a setting for effective communication and decision making (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). The main purpose of the steering committee was to provide direction and support for the capacity assessment. Committee membership consisted of people throughout the county, representing various occupational (e.g., county commissioners, county school officials, social agencies, churches, higher education, and government officials) and age groups. The logo "Defiance CAN (Capacities, Assets, and Needs)" and the slogan "Building the Future for Defiance County" were created by the steering committee for the project. In addition, the steering committee assisted the principal investigators with: a) writing a questioning route for the focus group interviews, b) field testing focus groups, c) selecting focus group participants, d) identifying emerging issues and concerns from the focus groups, e) designing a county-wide survey, and f) interpreting and formulating recommendations from the capacity assessment findings. Twelve focus group interviews involving 104 people were conducted throughout the county. Three focus groups were conducted per service area with a recommended number of 7-10 participants per focus group (Krueger, 1994). Findings from this qualitative approach were used to design a county wide-survey. The target population for the study consisted of 14,070 households in Defiance County (Crawford, 1992). A stratified random sample of 380 households was drawn by geographic location (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). People receiving the survey were asked to answer the instrument from the total family/household point of view. Instrumentation A questioning route for the focus group interviews, consisting of eight questions, was developed by the researchers. The steering committee assisted in designing, refining, and sequencing focus group questions. The focus group questions were field tested with the steering committee. Additionally, the field test was used as part of the focus group training for moderators and assistant moderators. Findings from the focus group data were used in the identification of community issues and barriers preventing citizens from using existing services for the county-wide survey. The steering committee played an important role in reducing the number of issues in the final version of the instrument. The questionnaire consisted of four sections: a) Section I - areas of concern - consisted of 45 issues identified from focus group interviews; responses to the perceived importance of the issues and agencies' performance in addressing those issues were rated on a five-point Likert scale, from low (1) to high (5); b) Section II - level of knowledge and frequency of use of local agencies and organizations - listed 50 local agencies and organizations; responses to this section were rated using a four- point Likert scale, from low (1) to high (4); c) Section III - reasons preventing citizens from using existing services - provided 14 reason statements; responses to this section were rated using a four-point Likert scale, from low (1) to high (4); and d) Section IV - selected demographic characteristics - included 11 questions (i.e., age, gender, years in the community, race, educational level, marital status, hours worked as volunteer, employment status, occupation, adults and children in household, and household income). A panel of experts, Ohio State University faculty and the steering committee, established content validity of the instrument. A field test was conducted with 15 local community members to establish face validity. Test-re-test of the survey was used to establish reliability. The instrument was piloted with a convenience sample of 32 students at a local college; one week wait was the time frame between the first and second administrations of the survey. Percentages of agreement for items in Section I, II, and III of the instrument were 70% or higher. Data Collection Focus group interviews were conducted with 12 groups (three focus groups per service area) during the Fall of 1994. One- hundred forty-two individuals were invited through a telephone recruitment interview to participate in the focus groups. Seventy -four percent (104) of the invitees attended. The focus groups were conducted in strategic locations throughout the county. Focus group interviews were tape recorded and lasted approximately one hour and fifteen minutes. A mail survey was the data collection method used for the county-wide capacity assessment (380 households). People in the community were informed about the capacity assessment via local newspaper, TV, and radio programming. A postcard alerting people about the study and their selection for the research project was sent during April 1995. A mailing and two follow-ups with initial non-respondents were used to gather the data. Fifty-two percent (199) of the random sample responded to the survey with 90% (180) providing useful data, resulting in a 47% usable response rate. To control for non-response error, 10% (18 households) of the non-respondents were randomly selected to obtain their data. Telephone interviews were used to gather data on Section I, the main component of the capacity assessment, and selected demographic questions (i.e., age, gender, years in the community, educational level, employment status, occupation, and adults and children in the household). Sections II and III, and some sensitive demographic questions, were excluded from the non- response follow-up due to the time factor through a telephone interview and the uncooperative nature of the non-respondent group. No statistically significant differences were found between data from the telephone interviews and data from the mail surveys. Data from telephone interviews and mail surveys, therefore, were pooled and survey findings were generalized to the sample and target population. Data Analysis Quantitative data from the field test, pilot test, county- wide mail survey, telephone interviews, and focus groups' demographic questions were analyzed with SPSS for Windows 6.1. Descriptive statistics were used to organize and summarize the data (i.e., frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, and correlation coefficients). T-test and Chi Square were used to determine if significant differences existed between responses from the mail survey and telephone interviews. Focus group data were analyzed using a qualitative data analysis technique. First, the data were divided into manageable portions for analysis. Then, the researchers arranged the data for regularities and patterns. Two questions were kept in mind by the researchers when reading and reviewing the data: a) Which comments were occurring on a regular basis? and b) Which comments were similar to each other?
Focus Group Interviews Twelve focus group interviews were conducted with an average of seven people per session. Participants were between the ages of 16 and 68; the mean age was 43 with a standard deviation of 9.8. Sixty percent of the focus group attendees were female. The majority (89%) were Caucasian; five percent were Hispanic. Sixty- three percent had attended post-secondary education; three percent had completed less than high school education. Eighty-one percent were married, 10% were single, and 9% were divorced. Fifty-one percent of the participants' household reported yearly income between $30,000 and $59,999; 13% reported earning $29,999 or less, and 36% reported earning $60,000 or more per year. Almost three-fourths of the participants were employed full -time; 13% had a part-time employment status, and 5% were retired. Approximately 85% of the participants had either professional or managerial positions, while 4% had clerical or unskilled labor job occupations. Community members in the focus groups felt that local agencies and organizations networked well, but that organizations needed to have better cooperation and coordination for program development and delivery. Successful activities and programs were identified for community members of all ages. Schools serve as a focal point for the community, particularly in rural areas. Focus group attendees mentioned that the county is fortunate to have two local colleges available for citizens. The cooperation between law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services was assessed as very good. The two local hospitals serve as base for outreach emergency services. Health issues and concerns identified by focus group participants included: AIDS awareness, new state regulations affecting local hospitals and emergency services, lack of knowledge for necessary immunizations required by schools, health issues of senior citizens over 65, resources that affect Medicaid, pre-natal care, understanding of child development, and lack of preventative medicine. Lack of services and funding for youth in the community was identified as an issue. A need for youth activities (12 - 18 years old) was specifically mentioned. Other issues and concerns related to youth included: students' poor attitude, lack of motivation toward school, lack of a work ethic, deteriorated value system, and an unwillingness to participate in educational programs. Currently, schools are dealing with more violent type of behaviors. Breakdown of the family was identified as a major cause of youth-related problems. Lack of parenting skills was cited in many focus groups. Other family issues included: housing options for adults with mental disabilities, stigma of counseling, emotional abuse counseling for all ages, counseling for people in the court system, changing family structure, sex education at a young age, and child abuse. Educational issues centered around the fullest use of the local colleges, the changing technology for which the work force needs to be continually trained, and cost sharing of continuing education courses required for employment. Another issue that emerged was that children often are not ready to learn when arriving at schools. Community issues facing the residents included understanding the difference between 911 and enhanced 911; lack of housing, particularly for low income people; the changing face of community composition in terms of "ethnic" and "urban" types of problems; antiquated telephone systems; people moving from large cities to escape taxes and high costs of living; and a need for planned development of rural areas. Focus group participants mentioned that the majority of community members are not open-minded toward diversity and multi- cultural groups. As the community is changing, citizens seem to be close-minded toward diversity issues. New residents, particularly minority groups, appear to have difficulty learning about services available to meet their needs. Focus group participants indicated that the best mechanisms to inform people about services and educational programs available in the community were word of mouth, TV and radio programs, networking, directory of services, community bulletin boards, newspaper, and printed materials send home through school children. County-Wide Mail Survey Perceived priority issues were calculated through the use of the indirect approach to measure people's perceptions recommended by Borich (1980). The rankings were calculated using the Borich formula which calculates a priority rating based upon the mean importance and performance scores. The Borich model consists of determining need scores by subtracting the perceived performance score from the perceived importance score, and then multiplying the result by the perceived average importance score. The following formula represents an adaptation of the Borich model: Priority Score = (mean importance score -mean performance score)* (mean importance score). For exampe, the mean importance score for the issue "Juvenile Gangs" was 3.86 and the mean performance score for the same issue was 2.74. Then the formula will read as follows:
Juvenile Gangs Priority Score = 4.32 Table 1 exhibits the overall priority rankings for the 45 issues in all four service areas. As demonstrated in the table, the top five priority issues in the community were: a) juvenile gangs, b) water quality, c) parental involvement, d) school dropout rate, and e) parenting skills. None of the issues under the health and emergency service area was ranked among the overall top 12 issues.
The majority of the people responding to the survey seemed to have "little" to "no knowledge" about the 50 community agencies and organizations listed on the instrument. Similarly, most respondents do not use these community agencies and organizations on a regular basis. Lack of information about services available was the main reason preventing respondents from using existing services from community agencies and organizations, followed by lack of eligibility. The majority (60%) of respondents were between the ages of 37 and 66, with a mean age of 51 and a standard deviation of 17. Almost two-thirds were male. Approximately two-thirds have lived in the county between 25 and 60 years, with a mean of 37 years and a standard deviation of 19 years. The majority (97%) were Caucasian, while the remaining 3% was represented by Hispanic and other ethnic groups. Seventy-six percent indicated that the number of adults living in their household ranged between two and three. Additionally, 60% indicated no children living at the address, 32% responded with one to two children, and 8% indicated three to five children. Thirteen percent reported less than a high school education and 44% are high school graduates. Forty-three percent indicated post-high school education with or without a degree. Eighty percent were married, while 20% were widowed, single, or divorced. Eighty-two percent volunteered zero hours per week, 14% volunteered between one and six hours per week, while approximately 4% volunteered seven or more hours per week to the community. Over fifty percent of the respondents were employed full time. Five percent were in the self-employed category and another 8% were not employed out of the home; 21% were retired. The largest area of occupation for respondents was skilled labor at 27%. Eight percent of the respondents indicated service providers as their occupation. Homemakers represented 15% of the respondents' occupations. Forty-three percent of the yearly household income ranged from $25,000 to $55,000. Eight percent have less than $9,000 and 12% with household income of over $85,000.
Conclusions The scores with the highest positive value resulting from the Borich's (1980) needs assessment model represent the highest priority issues in the community. Ten of the top 12 issues fell within the community and education services areas, while the remaining two represented the family service area. None of the top 12 issues captured the health and emergency issues. Community members seem to be concerned with issues that are closely related to personal and community safety. Findings from this study revealed that the majority of community members are not fully aware of the existing agencies and organizations in the county. Moreover, people in the community do not regularly use the services offered by local agencies and organizations. These findings correspond with lack of information about services available in the community identified as the main reason preventing citizens from using local services. Some unintended outcomes of this project included: a) education and awareness - not only did community leaders participating in the steering committee learn about evaluation and research application from the needs assessment process, but also focus group participants became aware of community issues and concerns; b) networking - steering committee members and focus group participants learned from each other and built professional and personal relationships that could develop into future collaborative local programming efforts; and c) program design - as a result of focus group sessions some participants indicated that they were planning to use the information in other projects.
This capacity assessment was an example of participatory evaluation where community members, represented by the steering committee, were actively involved in the development, direction, and implementation of the capacity assessment process. The goal of participatory evaluation is to provide information for program improvement or organizational development. Participatory evaluation seeks to be practical, useful, formative, and empowering. Encouraging the steering committee group to begin addressing issues collaboratively is highly recommended. Additional information about the capacities and assets of agencies, organizations, and individuals in the community needs to be gathered in order to plan and deliver programs addressing the top 12 priority issues. Networking with other agencies, organizations, and individuals in neighboring counties with similar demographic characteristics should be considered. Determining if similar issues and concerns are being confronted by surrounding communities would be helpful in planning and implementing programming efforts. For instance, if neighboring communities are already addressing some of the identified top priority issues, Defiance County might learn and benefit from their experiences. Communicating project results to people via community forums throughout the county is suggested by the investigators. Holding community forums will assist investigators and the steering committee in confirming the capacity assessment data. In other words, the major issues and concerns of the community reflected through the capacity assessment need to be validated. Moreover, the capacity assessment information could be used to justify grants, design local programs, hire staff, promote collaboration among agencies, support different task forces, and assist community funders (i.e., county commissioners, chamber of commerce) in decision making when allocating monies. The identification of issues, concerns, needs, capacities, and assets in the community should be an on-going process. This notion of continual assessment was expressed by the steering committee throughout the planning and implementation of this project and was clearly depicted in the slogan "Building the Future for Defiance County" created for the project.
Boone, E. (1985). Developing programs in adult education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Borich, G.D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education. 31(1), 39-42. Crawford, S. (1992). Defiance county demographic profile. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30, 607-610. Kretzmann, J.P. and McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Krueger. R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Needs assessment for Extension agents and other nonformal educators. (1995). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Upshur, C.C. and Barreto-Cortez, E. (1995). What is participatory evaluation (PE)? What are its roots? The Evaluation Exchange, 1(3/4), 7,9. Witkin, B.R. (1984). Assessing needs in educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Witkin, B.R. and Altschuld, J.W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Family Life Program Accountability Norms: How Do Your Results Compare?Robert J. Fetsch
The focus today is on national initiatives and accountability (Board of Agriculture, 1996). Therefore, the need is even greater for credible, understandable answers to two questions: a) "What is it we are getting for tax dollars invested in family life programs?" and b) "Which programs work best with whom under what circumstances?" The more we can aggregate our data on program impacts, the stronger case we can make that investing in Cooperative Extension family life programs is worthwhile. For years there has been a need for a way to aggregate and compare family life program accountability impacts across state lines. Within Cooperative Extension at the national level, the focus has shifted toward national initiatives and away from base programs, where many of the Extension parenting and child development programs have been. National, state, and county stakeholders need quantifiable program impact data, especially in these budget-cutting times, which tend to make the public and their elected officials scrutinize more closely what it is they are getting for the dollars invested in preventive education programs. Family life specialists are in a better position to answer accountability questions than many competitors not associated with land-grant universities, that is, other agency professionals, private parenting educators, and commercial family life program facilitators. Many specialists already have the background and training to conduct quality program evaluation studies. Those who do not have colleagues at their own land-grant universities with whom they can work to collect aggregatable program impact data. Specialists can also collaborate with specialists at other land-grant universities, as has been done (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994, 1995). For at least 17 years, Cooperative Extension family life specialists have collaborated to develop, test, and share methods for obtaining aggregatable results of family life programs (Fetsch, 1991; Fetsch et al., 1989). This work eventually led to the development of the Cooperative Extension Program Evaluation Surveys (CEPES) (Fetsch, 1995b). The purpose of this paper is to present normative data from Cooperative Extension family life program participants in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska between 1989 and 1995. (Appreciation is expressed to Deb Gebeke, North Dakota State University; Lynette Olson, formerly with South Dakota State University; Elaine Sturges formerly with Colorado State University; Jacque Miller, Colorado State University; and Pat Steffens, University of Nebraska, for contributing CEPES data to this study.) Normative data is presented from a sample of 916 Cooperative Extension program participants in more than 24 family life programs who voluntarily responded to our surveys on indicators of program results: family strains, family coherence/coping, quality of life, self-esteem, stress and depression levels, and tax dollar support.
Cooperative Extension family life state specialists and agents from four western states used CEPES to be more accountable in assessing their preventive educational program results. They invited participants to complete voluntary and anonymous surveys. Sample More than three out of four respondents were married (77.9%, n = 714/916). We used the family life cycle stages recommended by McCubbin (1987; McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985). Regarding which family life cycle stage program respondents were in, over half reported being in the pre-school or school-age stage with their oldest child being 11 years old or older (53.5%, n = 490/916). Another 22.7% were in the adolescent or launching stage with their oldest child being 12 years of age or older, and some children/young adults still living in the home or apartment. Three out of four respondents were female (75.1%, n = 688/916). Regarding age of respondents, almost half were 31-40 years old (46.7%, n = 428/916). Another 22.4% were 21-30. Although the ethnicity question was optional, 99% of respondents answered it. Almost nine out of 10 respondents were white, not Hispanic (88.9%, n = 814/916). Regarding educational level, 94.6% of the respondents were high school graduates or higher. Almost four out of 10 were college graduates or higher (38.8%, n = 355/916), 34.6% had some college or technical school, and 21.2% had a high school diploma or Graduate Equivalency Diploma. Almost 80 percent of the respondents lived in rural settings. Almost one-third lived on a farm or ranch (31.9%, n = 292/916). Another 21.2% lived in a small town with a population under 2,500, 14.8% lived in a town (2,500-10,000), and 11.1% lived in a rural setting which was not a farm or ranch. Assessment Protocol Cooperative Extension program attendees completed self- report written pre-tests (Fetsch, 1995b) early during their participation in Cooperative Extension research-based preventive education programs. Participants voluntarily responded to questions about their family strains, family coherence/coping, quality of life, self-esteem, stress and depression levels, and tax dollar support. The Family Strains Index (McCubbin, Patterson & Wilson, 1987) is a 10-item life event and change subscale. The index includes conflict between spouses, difficulty in managing child(ren), financial hardships, and caring for an ill family member. McCubbin (1987) reported a validity coefficient of .87 and a reliability index of .69, scoring procedures, norms, and comparative data for Family Strains by life cycle stage (Fetsch, 1991; 1995a). The Family Coherence/Coping Index (McCubbin, Larsen, & Olson, 1987) is a four-item appraisal skill subscale. The index includes accepting stressful events and difficulties, appraising a family problem positively, and having faith in God. McCubbin (1987) reported a validity coefficient of .80, a reliability index of .71, norms (McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985), scoring procedures, and comparative data by life cycle stage. The Quality of Life Index (McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985) is a 10-item family adaptation subscale for measuring the family's overall feeling of life satisfaction. The index asks about satisfaction with family, relatives, religious life, schools, health care services, and the neighborhood. The authors reported a validity coefficient of .82 and a reliability index of .76. Self-Esteem levels were measured with a single-item, Likert scale question, "In the past month, how have you felt about yourself most of the time?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Very bad" and 9 = "Very good." Stress levels were measured with a single-item Likert scale question, "What has your stress level been during the past month?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Very low" and 9 = "Very high." Depression levels were assessed with a single-item, Likert scale question, "During the past month how depressed have you been?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Not depressed" and 9 = "Very depressed." When questionnaire items correlate with each other or with an instrument of known validity and reliability at approximately the .5 level, there tends to be a good deal of cross-scale validity, and the researcher tends to be more confident that the items are likely to be more sensitive to the responses of broad social strata like those who voluntarily participate in Cooperative Extension programs than to the responses of a narrow social strata like, for example clinical groups, high socioeconomic groups, etc. (Horwitz & Smith, 1962). Self-assessments of current stress level and depression level during the past year were found to have reasonable correlation levels with the Everly Stress and Symptom Inventory (ESSI) (Everly & Sherman, 1986), a standardized instrument measuring stress arousal levels. Concurrent validity correlations were found for the stress level item to be .552 (p < .001) and for the depression level item to be .501 (p < .001) with a sample of 61 farmers (stress level M = 4.506, depression level M = 3.914). Tax Dollar Support was assessed with a single-item statement and categorical question: "Your tax dollars support this Cooperative Extension Program either totally or in part. Do you want your tax dollars to continue supporting this type of effort?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled "Yes" or "No."
Family Strains levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents were significantly higher (M = 146.85, SD = 92.89, N = 909, p < .0001) than those reported by mccubbin, olson, lavee, & patterson (1985, p. 20) (m = 85.0, sd = 82.2, n = 1,000). cooperative extension sample scores ranged from 22 to 418. this statistically significant difference in group mean scores may be due to a selection bias. perhaps people with higher family strains levels seek out cooperative extension programs for information and education that can assist them in reducing their elevated family strains levels. Family Coherence/Coping levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents were within McCubbin's normal range (M = 16.0, SD = 2.0, N = 1,000). Cooperative Extension program respondents' norms were not significantly different (M = 15.26, SD = 2.48, N = 910). Scores ranged from 4 to 20. Although Quality of Life levels were somewhat higher for the Cooperative Extension sample, they were still within McCubbin's normal range (M = 36.0, SD = 4.9, N = 1,000). The Cooperative Extension sample's norms were not significantly different (M = 40.09, SD = 6.32, N = 915). Scores ranged from 13 to 50. Self-Esteem levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 6.05, SD = 1.98, N = 914). Stress levels of Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 6.31, SD = 2.26, N = 915). Depression levels of Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 4.01, SD = 2.33, N = 904). Tax Dollar Support to continue supporting this type of effort was strong (Fetsch, 1996). 91.9 percent (n = 842/916) said, "Yes." 1.7 percent (n = 16/916) said, "No." 6.3 percent (n = 58/916) did not respond. When only completed responses were considered, 98.1 percent said "Yes" (n = 842/858) and 1.9 percent said "No" (n = 16/858).
The normative data reported in this article is new and of interest to state family life specialists and family living agents in several respects. This is the first time CEPES normative data has been reported on such a large sample of program respondents. This is the first time McCubbin's norms have been compared with Cooperative Extension's norms. Evaluating the effects of family life programs with valid and reliable instruments to collect program accountability impact data that is aggregatable and comparable across state lines is a challenge that can be met. Doing so as a team can provide policy makers with data to present a strong argument for continued family living program funding. This article expands and updates the research and knowledge base for Extension professionals interested in a family life program accountability tool. Following previously published Journal of Extension articles describing the development of CEPES (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994), a pilot study (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1995), and tax dollars support (Fetsch, 1996), this article fills the need for parenting and child development program outcome benchmark norms. Family living Extension professionals can improve their effective documentation of program outcomes by using CEPES pre- tests early in their educational programs and CEPES post-tests approximately two-six months after the program is concluded. Now they can not only accurately assess their program impacts, they can also aggregate and compare their impacts to established norms with 916 program respondents from four states.
Board of Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy Press. (1996). Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: Public service and public policy. Washington, DC: Author. Everly, G. S. & Sherman, M. (1986). Everly stress and symptom inventory (ESSI), Unpublished manuscript. Fetsch, R. J. (1991, November). Preliminary Colorado results using Cooperative Extension program evaluation survey (CEPES). Paper presented at the National Meeting of Extension Specialists NCFR Pre-Conference, Denver, CO. Fetsch, R. J. (1995a, November 14). Cooperative Extension norms with 916 family life program participants. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations Cooperative Extension Pre-Conference, Portland, OR. (Available from author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.) Fetsch, R. J. (1995b). Cooperative Extension program evaluation surveys: Pretest & posttest (CEPES). (Unpublished surveys available to Extension faculty from author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.) Fetsch, R. J. (1996, April). Tax dollars support levels are strong for family living programs. Journal of Extension, 34(2), ideas 1. Fetsch, R. J., & Gebeke, D. (1994, June). A family life program accountablity tool. Journal of Extension, 32(1), Feature 6. Fetsch, R. J., & Gebeke, D. (1995, February). Colorado and North Dakota strengthening marriage and family programs increase positive family functioning levels. Journal of Extension, 33(1), feature 4. Fetsch, R. J., Lingren, H., Hansen, G., Daly, R., Jenson, G. O., Kobbe, A. M., & Olson, L. (1989, November 4). Accomplishment summary and pending impact study: Family disruption and dislocation task force. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations Cooperative Extension Pre- Conference, New Orleans, LA. Horwitz, H., & Smith, E. (1962). The interchangeability of socio-economic indices. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research (pp. 73-77). U.S.: Free Press. McCubbin, H. I. (1987). FIRA-G family index of regenerativity and adaptation--General. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 285-302). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin- Madison. McCubbin, H., Larsen, A., & Olson, D. (1987). F-COPES Family crisis oriented personal evaluation scales. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 193-207). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin -Madison. McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D. H., Lavee, Y., & Patterson, J. M. (1985). The family paradigm album: Family invulnerability test stress, strengths and adaptation. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Stress, Coping, and Health Project and Family Wellness Project. McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., & Wilson, L. (1987). Family inventory of life events and changes (FILE) Form A. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 79-98). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dealing with Tobacco Use Among Youth: What Can Extension Family and Youth Professionals Do?Rama B. Radhakrishna
B. Alan Snider
Cooperative Extension provides educational programs for healthy living. At the community level, Extension provides educational programs relative to food safety, nutrition, human development, and farm safety education. One of the goals of Extension's national health agenda, "Decisions for Health," is to expand the ability of communities to strengthen their health and health related infrastructure needs (Report of the National Extension Health Agenda Task Force, 1992 ). Under this goal, Extension programs will identify and develop strategic partnerships and coalitions at local, state, and national levels involving health providers, educators and consumers. The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) identified nine priorities for the Extension system to address in fiscal year 1994. Health was given the highest priority. ECOP urged that this issue be addressed by the agricultural sciences and education community in collaboration with other agencies through research and education programs. Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension, in collaboration with The Pennsylvania Department of Health, and Fox Chase Cancer Center developed six community coalitions to address one of the pressing health problems facing youth in our society, that is, tobacco use among our teenage population. Cigarette smoking continues to appeal to millions of teenagers despite abundance of information available regarding the negative effects of smoking and efforts to encourage smokers to quit and young people not to start. In fact teenagers are beginning to smoke at younger ages, with the age of initiation decreasing, especially among girls. According to Boyd (1993) the average age of smoking initiation has fallen over the last 25 years. While 20% begin smoking as early as 9th grade, some begin as early as 8 or 9 years of age. The age of smoking initiation is very important for two reasons: a) the younger the adolescent begins smoking, the more likely he or she will be addicted as an adult; b) the more likely he or she will become a heavy smoker and develop a smoking -related disease in later life (American Cancer Society, 1992). Daily an estimated 3,000 children between the ages of 9 and 16 in the U.S. initiate smoking. Of this, nearly 750 (25%) will eventually die from tobacco related diseases (Center for Disease Control, 1992). Over the past 25 years, cigarette smoking practices of adolescents in the United States have undergone a number of marked changes (National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 1989). In 1968, 17% of teenage boys and 10% of teenage girls reported smoking cigarettes regularly or occasionally. Six years later, in 1974, the number of teenage boys smoking remained more or less the same (16.3%). There was about a 60% increase in the proportion of teenage girls who smoked (up from 10% to 15.9%). The latest available data on adolescent smoking indicates that smoking by adolescents is on the rise (NCHS, 1992).
The major purpose of this study was to determine the extent of cigarette use among 7th, 9th and 12th graders in six counties of Pennsylvania. Specific objectives of the study were to: a) determine the cigarette use patterns among 7th, 9th and 12 graders in the six counties; b) determine differences, if any, between smoking status (smokers vs. non-smokers) and selected characteristics--gender, race, after high school plans, attitude toward school, and perceived GPA, that is grades expected at the end of the school year; and c) determine differences, if any, between smoking status (smokers vs. non-smokers) and attitude/perceptions toward use of tobacco products.
In the Spring of 1995, the Pennsylvania Tobacco Survey for Students was conducted to address youth tobacco use issues in six counties (Bucks, Clarion, Columbia, Franklin, Wayne, and Westmoreland). These six counties are a part of the Community Coalitions for Tobacco-Free Youth--a joint effort by the Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension, the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and Fox Chase Cancer Center. Descriptive survey research methodology was used to collect data. The target population of the study consisted of 7th, 9th and 12th graders. This group of was selected because of a state wide study that also used 7th, 9th and 12th graders as its target population. This allows for comparison of this study sample with the state sample. In addition, this study sample is unique in the sense that community coalitions to address youth tobacco were established and impact of the coalitions on communities assessed. A random sample of 13,196 stratified by grade was selected. A survey instrument was developed to collect data. Included in the instrument were questions related to demographic characteristics, smoking status, and perceptions and attitudes toward tobacco use. Teachers were provided with guidelines and instructions to collect data. A total of 8,634 usable responses were received for a response rate of 65%. Data were analyzed using frequencies, means and percentages. In addition, t-tests were used to determine differences.
Objective 1: Cigarette Use Patterns Three questions were asked to determine the extent of cigarette use among the three groups of respondents. Overall, 45% of the responding students had smoked an entire cigarette. 31% of 7th graders, 54% of 9th graders and 65% of 12th graders had smoked an entire cigarette in their lifetime (Table 1). Thirty- five percent of the respondents had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their life time. Eleven percent of 7th graders, 29% of 9th graders and 39% of 12th graders had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Twenty-two percent of the respondents currently smoke cigarettes. Thirteen percent of 7th graders, 26% of 9th graders and 33% of 12th graders currently smoke cigarettes.
Objective 2: Demographic Differences Significant differences existed between select demographic characteristics--race, after high school plans, and smoking status. Significant differences were found between race and smoking status. Among smokers, a higher proportion students tend to be white, followed by Native Americans, Hispanic and Asian (Table 2). Smokers were more likely than non-smokers to join the military or go to work. On the other hand, non-smokers are more likely than smokers to plan to go to college (Table 2). No significant differences were found between gender and smoking status.
T-tests were used to determine differences between smoking status and attitude toward school and perceived GPA (Table 3). Smokers are more likely than non-smokers to perceive their GPA as lower or below average. Similarly, smokers are more likely than non-smokers to dislike school.
Objective 3: Differences in Attitudes/Perceptions Significant differences existed between smokers and non- smokers relative to seven questions which measured student attitudes and or perceptions (measured on a five-point Likert scale which ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) about tobacco use. Results are shown in Table 4. Smokers more likely than non-smokers to agree that: a) it is OK to sell tobacco products to minors; b) don't mind being around people who smoke; c) smoking helps people to relax; and d) they will probably smoke cigarettes when they are adults. On the other hand, non-smokers more likely than smokers agreed that: a) teachers care a lot about kids smoking; b) schools have the right not to allow smoking in school property; and c) other people's smoke is hazardous to health. No significant differences were found between smokers and non-smokers relative to the statement, smoking is a difficult habit to quit (Table 4).
Tobacco use among teenagers in the six-counties appears to be high and mirrors national averages. Overall, 22% currently smoke cigarettes. Twelfth graders are more likely than 9th and 7th graders to be current smokers. Smokers are more likely than non-smokers to dislike school and to perceive their GPA as lower or below average. Older kids, especially whites, are likely to smoke more than younger and other minority kids. Despite the consequences and health risks associated with smoking, youth are more likely to smoke cigarettes when they become adults. Kids who currently smoke cigarettes are not aware of the extent of problems and health risks associated with tobacco use. These kids have a strong opinion about tobacco use and its effect on others. There is a need to create awareness, understanding and prevention of tobacco use among youth for a better future and healthy living.
The following recommendations were made based on the findings and conclusions of the study. Although use of hard drugs is on the decline in the United States, the use of gateway drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are still significant problems among school age youth (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 1991). The health and development of students who use these drugs are affected as is their performance in the classroom, which in turn impacts education of all students. Prevention programs are essential for providing the youth of today with greater awareness and understanding of tobacco issues. The health risks and other pertinent issues relative to tobacco use need to be conveyed to youth. Extension professionals should use this opportunity to develop educational programs which create awareness, understanding, and prevention of tobacco use among youth. Educational programs highlighting the harmful effects of tobacco use should be made available ealy on so that kids are aware of the bad effects of tobacco use. Such awareness and understanding will help kids to either not use tobacco or make informed decisions about using tobacco when they become adults. Schools are often the second agency (the first being family) to see that there is a problem with the child. In many communities, schools have played an active role in addressing issues related to youth. Extension professionals should closely work with schools to identify how they can collaborate to address issues relative to youth tobacco use. It has been said time and again that tobacco is a "gateway drug." That is, starting tobacco will lead to use other drugs. Literature suggests that those who had smoked cigarettes also had used other drugs (cocaine, marijuana, pot, etc.). Further, drug prevention programs do exist in many schools, especially inner city schools. Potential exists for Extension professionals to collaborate with schools, teachers and other agencies at the local level to design after school programs relative to youth tobacco use. Extension agents should take advantage of this opportunity to work closely with schools and integrate their programs with the on going drug prevention programs in schools. Such integration will help share resources and expertise, and thereby avoid duplicating programs.
Allen, K.F., Moss A.J., Govino, G.A., Shopland, D.R., and Pierce, J. P. Teenage tobacco use: Data estimates from the Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, United States, 1989. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 224. Hyattsville, Maryland; National Center for Health Statistics. 1992. Boyd, R., (November 1993). Epidemiological basis for tobacco control. Paper presented at the workshop on Tobacco Control sponsored by the Community Coalitions for Tobacco-free youth, State College, PA. Centers for Disease Control. Accessability of cigarettes to youth ages 12-17 years, United States, 1989. MMWR: Vol. 4, No. 27: 485-8. 1992 Decisions for Health-An Extension System Agenda (1992). Report of the National Extension Health Agenda Task Force. ES- USDA and the University of Wisconsin Extension under special project number 91-EXCA-2-0148. University of Wisconsin. Massey, J.T., Moore, T.F., Parsons, V.L. Tadros W. design and estimation for the National Health Interview survey, 1985-94. National Center for Health Statisics. Vital Health Stat 2(110). 1989. Moss, A.J., Allen, K.F., Govino, G.A., Mills, S.L. (1992) Recent trends in adolescent smoking, smoking-uptake correlates and expectations about the future. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 221. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (1991). National household survey on drug abuse: Main findings, 1990. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration.
Agent In-Service Alternative Provides Multiple BenefitsJoyce A. Smith
Marjorie Wolford
A commitment to agent in-service opportunities identifies Extension as an organization that supports investment in and professional development of its employees. Costs of in-service participation include agent time for attending and travel as well as direct travel costs. Traditional in-person in-service offerings require agents to be absent from county offices. To address these concerns, Extension administration encouraged state specialists to develop alternatives to traditional in-service formats. An on-going responsibility for county family and consumer science (FCS) agents is assisting consumers with textile-related concerns. Counties seldom possess current basic textile reference books addressing many of these questions. In addition, many new agents graduate from university programs without coursework in textiles and clothing. A need existed to both update agents as well as place current, high quality reference materials in county offices. A Consumer Textiles Self-Study In-Service was designed. Agents enrolled in the in-service received a college level basic textiles reference book. Funds from a grant were used to provide the text for agents completing the self-study. County budgets were charged for the cost of the book when agents enrolled did not complete the assignments. The self-study involved two separate mailings, each of which presented five consumer questions or case studies, plus an additional extra credit question for which agents would receive a "surprise premium" upon its completion. Agents were surveyed by e -mail prior to the self-study to determine recurring consumer questions. These topics were incorporated into the case studies. Questions were also designed to familiarize agents with different sections of the text. Page references accompanied each case study in the first mailing to facilitate agents' search for information related to the questions. Also, the page numbers helped acquaint agents with the text as well as factors to consider when responding to consumer questions. Agents had approximately two weeks to complete each set of case studies. When agents returned Part I, the state specialist and Extension associate reviewed the responses and provided feedback on each paper. The second mailing included each agent's responses to Part I with feedback, a prepared "answer sheet" addressing the first set of questions, plus a second set of consumer questions to which agents were directed to respond. The second set of questions, however, did not include page references. Agents were instructed to answer the questions using the textbook provided and indicate reference pages on which information for the responses was found. This approach required agents to research questions much as they would when addressing a consumer problem. After agents returned the second set of questions, each was reviewed with feedback provided. These materials were returned to agents with a prepared "answer sheet" as well as an evaluation. Agents completing the extra credit questions received their incentive or "premium" with the mailing. In-service participation and performance were documented for agent annual review and counseling. Twenty respondents completed the written evaluation. Overall, 95% of respondents rated the self-study in-service as "moderately high" or "high" on a five-point Likert Scale for knowledge gained, acceptance of self-study approach, and usefulness of format. Although the self-study was considered time -intensive by 65% of agents responding, the approach was viewed as more "resource effective" than traditional in-person formats. One respondent reported "...had [the training] been offered at a 1-day in-service, I'm sure I would not have time to attend." Case -studies were viewed as appropriate and representative of clientele questions. A new agent whose area of specialization differed from that of the in-service reported the training as very helpful and one she might not have otherwise attended. Additional benefits resulted from the in-service. The presence of a good reference in the county continues to facilitate agent response to clientele needs. Seventeen of the 20 agents completing the evaluation reported using the reference to assist consumers. Others planned to use the reference as a teaching resource or to loan out. One unexpected benefit was shared discussion and interaction by in-service registrants. One agent group scheduled conference calls to discuss how each had responded to the case studies. They found this helpful to examine different aspects of each situation and factors to consider in responses to consumers. Suggestions were given for subsequent self-study in-service formats. Respondents were complimentary of a detailed time line for the self-study that was distributed to participants. Other suggestions for improvement included allowing more time to complete assignments and establishing a "hotline" to discuss questions and concerns regarding the case-studies. Overall the self-study was an effective in-service format both in terms of agent training and resource allocation. Also, it resulted in the placement of a current reference at the county level for continued use. Although the self-study format may be limited in its applicability for certain types of agent training, it should be considered as an alternative to traditional in- service formats when appropriate.
The Decisions For Health Initiative--Successful Implementation StrategiesDoris K. Williams
The Decisions for Health (DFH) Initiative is the newest of all the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiatives. As recently as five years ago, who would ever have thought that Cooperative Extension would have been programming for the topic of health? When the DFH Initiative was first announced, many traditional Cooperative Extension System (CES) educators made comments like, "why are we programming in health?" "I'm an educator, not a health professional, so how can I conduct programs in health?" "We don't have enough personnel to carry out programming that we're already committed to do, how can we be expected to take on new responsibilities?" In reality, health education outreach perspectives are so broad and the need so great that all segments of society and all aspects of Extension programming are impacted by this initiative. While there is a natural match between health and diet and nutrition, most of the ideas that have worked best for Idaho emerged from integrating health into community development functions. CES is in a strategic position to give leadership to this task. Two factors have been instrumental in bringing successful strategies to a focus in Idaho. The first is internal: administrative support and specialist leadership. Through continued critical issues funding for the last three years and recognition of related issues (need for disease prevention education, increasing costs of health care), UI Extension administrators sent the message that the initiative is an important element in programming priorities. The specialist role has been equally important as a leader, an advocate, and watchdog, seeking programming opportunities, developing coalitions for programming, and searching for funds to support programming. The second factor is external: the changing community health landscape. Transitions to managed care, rising costs of health care, the growing population of elderly persons and concurrent need for long-term care options, and changes in federal support for health care have emerged at an astoundingly fast pace, affecting every local community and every citizen. These changes propelled Idaho's success with the initiative. Whether there is a need to identify programs that meet respective needs, or because of reduced faulty and operating dollars, there is a need for more efficient coordination of already existing resources necessary for county programming. New low cost ideas regarding DFH programming might prove useful. Programs that Idaho has found to be highly successful and "ideas that could work" for other cooperative Extension specialists and county educators include: Conducting community or area one-day conferences on health related issues. Some one-day events were planned exclusively by Extension personnel, but others were planned by community groups with encouragement from Extension. The assumption was that change or control could be developed at the "grass roots" and that the function of local coalitions would be to educate local citizens, identify resources, and otherwise advocate for resources/services. The one-day events took different directions, given the needs of the community, but the general objective was to generate discussion and identify resources. Some were workshops using local resources, some used the "health fair" approach, and one concentrated on adolescent health. Specific strategies were implemented in every situation to get the involvement of physicians, health clinic personnel, nursing home, home health, Alzheimer's program administrators, area Agency on Aging personnel, community leaders, and local politicians. This programming effort was significant because it greatly increased the awareness of both the lay public and the local agencies about services and the needs of various groups.
This effort grew out of multiple factors. Local organizations and civic-minded citizens identified a need to draw the community together and focus their energy on local challenges, but they lacked the time or expertise. The local hospital provided some assistance and county Extension educators provided leadership to create a strategy for a healthier community. A comprehensive survey was developed and conducted. A series of town meetings were held to disseminate the findings and to begin identifying solutions to the problems identified through the survey. The county is now evaluating these solutions. Work on this project is continuing. This programming effort represented a "grass roots" effort to solve local health and social related problems. It also illustrated that no one agency has all the answers to local problems. Rather, it takes a coalition of agencies. Minidoka County is developing an Elderly Functional Assessment Instrument. The instrument will be integrated into a local coalition attempt to identify rural elderly who might be in need of assistance, but who are not likely to call for help. It will be a tool for volunteers to use. It is important because very rural elderly citizens do have people who are concerned about them and reinforces the importance of neighbors in rural areas. Thirdly, it reinforces the need for trained volunteers. Training volunteers is a known strength of Cooperative Extension. "Bustin' The Barriers" is a barrier free environment 4-H project developed by a team of human development, 4-H, farm safety, and developmental disabilities specialists. It consists of a leaders manual and four youth project work books: Walking in Different Shoes, Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities, Home/Building Accessibility Check List, and Job Opportunities in the Disability Field. A large color poster of urban and rural disability environments is included. This project focuses on disability education from a comprehensive youth education perspective. While 4-H programming is a great strength of Cooperative Extension, this program fills a unique place in the overall programming scheme. It not only encourages youth programming in general, it is designed to educate these youth about others with disabilities, and it encourages youth with disabilities to enter 4-H. "Every Child by Two" the Idaho Child Immunization Program had an initial CES contribution from the specialist and one county joining with the Distract II Idaho Health Department and Vista volunteers. Together they promoted a state immunization logo and assisted in designing a training manual for "Baby Track," which matches a volunteer with a new mother and her baby. The intent is to follow the new mother and baby throughout the first two years, encouraging immunizations for the baby at the appropriate dates. This model has been highly successful. The Idaho Department of Health subsequently adopted the district logo for statewide use and the training manual has been modified to meet the needs of all seven health districts. These program examples show that Idaho has had successful experiences in implementing the DFH Initiative. If Idaho, with few faculty and funding resources, can do it, any state can! Opportunities are endless and implications for Extension audiences far reaching. Programs can increase awareness, identify resources, and inform citizens about health care alternatives that impact the quality of life for each person. DFH programming has the potential of reaching every individual and every family.
Major Customer Turnoffs: Implications for ExtensionKen Culp, III
Who are Extension's customers? How can Extension best serve their needs? Are we serving their needs if we're merely "open for business"? If so, what difference does Extension's presence in the community make? What is Extension doing to meet the unique needs of the community? Sanders (1995) identified twelve "Major Customer Turnoffs" as barriers to customer satisfaction. These have great implications for Extension's role in serving clientele and communities. Examining each of these "turnoffs" for business and service will determine the parallel "turnoff" and its implications for Extension. The desired products are not offered. "Products" include education, information and service. Can Extension's clientele easily receive the educational materials, information and services they request, and do we understand our clientele's greatest needs? Help is unavailable when it is needed. Are offices fully staffed during business hours? Are clientele able to visit the Extension office during business hours? If not, staying open until 8 p.m. one night a week during peak periods and having a drop box for people to leave forms and materials after hours may be a consideration. Employees who are poorly trained, uninformed, or distracted. Regardless of the job, all employees should receive training and information. In Extension, perhaps the most serious offense is disseminating incorrect information. Make sure all employees receive proper orientation. Be sure to include the mission of Extension and the Land-Grant university in the orientation. There should be regular training and in-service updates. Bureaucratic processes and red tape. Do policies and procedures make Extension "user friendly" or are policies restrictive? All organizations and businesses must have rules, policies and standards by which they operate, but some can become so cumbersome that they detract from achieving organizational mission and goals. Waiting in line, on the phone, for calls to be returned, or to see someone. No one enjoys waiting in line; although sometimes, it cannot be avoided. Do support staff feel comfortable asking an available agent to assist with walk-in traffic or answer a ringing telephone? Seeing an agent leave their desk to serve someone waiting in the front office or answering a phone when support staff are busy can go a long way toward strengthening public relations. Information that is not easily obtained. Most Extension Offices have ample information to deliver to clients. Often, the trick is not in providing the educational information, but in first determining exactly what the client's specific need is! Knowing which questions to ask is critical in order to provide the correct answers! Extension bulletins should be current and kept in adequate supply. Outdated bulletins that give application rates for DDT or recommend thge open kettle method of preserving food should be tossed. Misleading advertising. Perhaps Extension's most misleading form of advertising is "lack of advertising"! Consider contacting a reporter and photographer from the local newspaper to write regular feature articles about Extension's "success stories". (Depending on the size of the newspaper, agents may need to write the article.) Human interest stories are important components of daily newspapers; if you've done your homework and come up with a good story, a good volunteer to highlight or an interesting "hook" or angle for the story, newspapers are likely to cooperate with you. The increased visibility, public relations value, and goodwill may be rewarded next year during county budget hearings! Value is not commensurate with cost. No one ever complains when value exceeds cost, but most balk when things are not worth what they cost. Going the extra mile for a client rarely costs, and can add a great deal to the perceived value of Extension. Calling volunteers to offer encouragement and support, spending time with 4-H members or parents to give suggestions on a project and following up to see if a recommendation made last week worked for the client will communicate interest, care and compassion. Add value to your "product" whenever possible. Quality that does not live up to customer expectations. In Extension, customers seek alternatives or choose not to participate when programs do not meet expectations. Parents discourage their children from joining 4-H, volunteers terminate their service, unhappy clients seek alternative sources of information, and dissatisfied county councils and commissioners reduce funding levels in subsequent years. Failure to stand behind products or services. Failure to stand behind products or services erodes loyalty and diminishes customer support. In Extension, this turnoff can be caused by people who won't do what they say or don't deliver what they promise. For example, once a board agrees upon and publishes rules for an activity, they have an obligation to stand behind and enforce the rules fairly and consistently for everyone involved. Confidence and support is built when and groups "say what they'll do" and then "do what they say." Poor housekeeping: dirt, disorder, safety hazards, inaccessibility. Image is everything. Few people would frequent a restaurant whose chef went barefoot or which featured week-old desserts. By the same token, should clients seek educational information from an office where casually-clad Extension professionals rummage around in disorganized files and distribute old versions of bulletins and project manuals a year after the revised issues have been printed? Inconvenient: location, layout, parking, access. Is the Extension office easy to locate and access? Can clientele park right out front, or are all of the spaces taken by Extension staff? Can volunteers quickly and conveniently obtain what they need to perform their service? These "Major Customer Turnoffs", as identified by Sanders (1995), are illustrated to challenge Extension professionals to consider their role and image in the community. By understanding and considering those factors that antagonize customers and drive them away, progress can be made toward developing a stronger, more supportive and more appreciative clientele as well as fulfilling our mission.
Sanders, B. (1995) Fabled service: Ordinary acts, extraordinary outcomes. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Co. The Challenge of Reaching a Culturally Diverse AudienceJoyce M. Woodson
Leslie C. Sgamma
Nevada's tremendous population growth has dramatically changed the state's racial and ethnic picture. The Hispanic population grew 131% between l980 and 1990. Of the 124,000 Hispanics in Nevada in 1990, nearly 70 percent were from Mexico. Additional immigrants came from other Central and South American countries as well as Puerto Rico and Cuba. The booming job market in Nevada offered primarily poverty level or near- poverty level wages to many of these non-English speaking and unskilled workers. Southern Nevada nutrition specialists conducted a needs assessment in 1992. During this process local agencies expressed concern regarding the lack of educational programs for Hispanic families. Coordinators for WIC (a supplemental, nutritional program for Women, Infants and Children) reported that there were 5,223 Hispanic participants (35% of total) in the WIC program in Clark County. Difficulties were identified in meeting the needs of these clients since many did not speak English and needed more intensive nutrition education than WIC was able to provide. Initial screenings indicated a growing number of Hispanics at a high nutritional risk. In a recent study, Eliades and Suitor (1994) document food- related problems that immigrants experience in their new environment. Some of these problems are: a) difficulty in obtaining familiar foods and spices; b) when obtained, the cost of these foods is high; c) inability to locate acceptable substitutes for familiar food items; and d) inability to read labels and information on food packages. The desire of Cooperative Extension to collaborate with WIC resulted in the development of Extension Service/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative, Project Number 93-ENED-1-7510. Nevada was one of 17 states that received funding through the competitive grant program. Nevada seized this opportunity to address an identified need. Culturally sensitive and appropriate Spanish language nutrition education materials for this diverse population were not readily available. After a thorough review of materials, the decision was made to adapt an existing curriculum from California's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). A bilingual registered dietitian with experience in community-based education was hired as project coordinator. Although the coordinator was Hispanic, her cultural background was different from the population to be served. Prior to hiring staff, she visited Hispanic neighborhoods and familiarized herself with local supermarkets and bakeries and the food products available. An important factor considered in the hiring of paraprofessional staff was to recruit Hispanic individuals knowledgeable about cultural beliefs and dietary norms and practices. Applicants were recruited through advertisements in local media targeting the Hispanic population. The staff hired represented several cultures including Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Venezuelan and were indigenous to the neighborhoods to be served. Two were familiar with the home visitor teaching model because of their participation in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. The paraprofessional staff was trained using a home visitor model. Training focused on teaching the curriculum including experiential activities, and interviewing techniques for using food recalls and surveys. Representatives from agencies serving low-income families provided information on program services and how to access services. Intensive nutrition education lessons over a six-week period prepared the staff for their home visiting experiences. The varied backgrounds of the paraprofessionals encouraged an exchange of information that facilitated the learning process. As Mexican eating habits were discussed, it became apparent that there were many variations in food preparation throughout Mexico. Joint training sessions between Cooperative Extension and WIC staff were held periodically. The two agencies gave a thorough orientation of their program, delivery method, and procedures. This allowed an understanding of how each achieved their common goal of providing nutrition education to low income families. An intensive nutrition education program was presented to participants in a series of 12-16 lessons taught weekly in the home. Supermarket tours, food preparation experiences, and other exercises which required interaction between the paraprofessional and client were included. Traditional food practices were supported and ideas offered to modify unhealthy food preparation methods. The project is completing its third and final year. During this time, 695 families were enrolled and 440 families were graduated. Significant improvement in nutrition, food safety, and resource management practices was demonstrated among participants receiving the educational program as compared to a control group. The paraprofessional staff reported that one of the most satisfying aspects of using the home visitor model was the opportunity provided for continual learning and exchange of information between "the teacher" and "the student."
Eliades, D. C., & Suitor, C. W. (1994). Celebrating Diversity_Approaching Families Through Their Food. Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health. Coalition IntelligenceRuth M. Conone
Penne L. Smith
Why do some coalitions succeed and others fail? Why do some coalitions achieve significant impact and others achieve existence only on paper? What are the characteristics of members of coalitions which achieve significant impact? Howard Gardner's conceptualization of seven distinct types of intelligence describes the capacity to work effectively with others as interpersonal intelligence. (Armstrong, 1994) This intelligence is distinct from linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical and intrapersonal intelligence. Coalesce means "to grow together, to unite into a whole, to unite for a common end; join forces with people holding different points of view."(Webster's, 1993) Coalescence is a critical function for agency representatives as they work together to address complex societal issues such as teen pregnancy. Programs which are successful in helping children and families offer a broad spectrum of services and regularly cross traditional professional and bureaucratic boundaries.(Schorr & Schorr, 1988) People from diverse backgrounds need to be able to work together effectively to achieve coalition objectives. This ability to work together is interpersonal intelligence. Professional groups and agencies each have "cultures" that identify expectations for working with people within and outside the group or agency. When individuals from various professions and agencies work together to address a problem such as teen pregnancy, they need to find ways to work with people with points of view different from their own. Agency representatives often have distinct ways of describing the problem, different information about the problem, and diverse ideas about how to solve or mediate the problem. As they come together to "unite into a whole to reach a common end" they use interpersonal intelligence. Individuals with interpersonal intelligence are described by Gardner as "people smart." Their learning style is to lead, organize, relate, manipulate, mediate, and socialize. These individuals are able to lead or support the leadership of someone else by organizing, relating or mediating. Each of these skills is needed in effective coalition functioning. Interpersonal intelligence is expressed as cooperative group work, interpersonal interaction, conflict mediation, peer teaching and sharing, mentor ship, group brainstorming, community involvement, and use of social gatherings as a context for learning. Individuals with this capacity are oriented toward group problem solving rather than individual efforts. They are effective in coalescing because their skills enable them to come together to work on the coalition purpose. Gardner provides a conceptualization of interpersonal skills as specific intelligence that needs to be valued and developed just as basic math and reading skills, which he refers to as logical-mathematical intelligence and linguistic intelligence. Educators who understand and value distinct forms of intelligence are able to support individuals in developing and using these distinct capacities. A component of many personnel evaluation processes is "works well with people." Rather than regarding this just as a useful trait, perhaps the ability to work well with people ought to be given as much importance as the intelligences illustrated by mastery of knowledge or ability to follow organizational guidelines. The ability to work well with people is not just a useful characteristic but an essential quality.
Armstrong, Thomas. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(10th ed.).(1993). Springfield, MA:Mirriam-Webster. Schorr, Lisbeth, Daniel Schorr. (1988). Within Our Reach:Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. New York:Doubleday.
This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/ent.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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
