Research In Brief

Implementation of a Web-Based, Self-Scoring Version of the Family Assessment Device (FAD) for Parent Education

Rick Peterson
Extension Specialist, Human Development
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Internet address: rpetersn@vt.edu

Janet Prillaman
Extension Agent, Family and Consumer Sciences
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Amherst, Virginia

Introduction

The use of Web-based technology to enhance educational programming is increasing. New advances in Web-based applications offer opportunities to assess client needs and track educational outcomes. Increased demand for accountability by local, state, and federal partners is requiring Extension professionals to report credible results of their educational programs. This article reports on the implementation of a Web-based, self-scoring version of the Family Assessment Device (FAD) as a part of parent education to be used for needs assessment and evaluation purposes.

Goals

The goals of the Web-based family assessment are fivefold.

• First, the Web-based family assessment provides a user-friendly needs assessment tool for agents to determine the family's level of functioning. Once established, the needs of the clients can be better understood and matched with available educational programs.

• Second, the FAD's score screens high-risk participants who may be in need of a therapeutic intervention and referral for their family issues.

• Third, the self-appraisal informs the family of area of concerns within their family. This self-appraisal or raising of awareness within the family is the initial step in the learning process.

• Fourth, it provides a baseline measure or pre-test of the family's level of functioning in order to later document changes in family functioning due to the educational intervention.

• Fifth, using the assessment tool following the educational interventions provides data to compare pre- and post-test scores for programming impact purposes.

Family Functioning

Researchers have identified several key areas or characteristics that are common to successful families. Epstein, Bishop, Ryan, Miller, and Keitner (1993) have identified the following dimensions of healthy family functioning: problem-solving, communications, family roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, and behavior control. These dimensions are consistently found by researchers, clinicians, and family life educators to be associated with healthy family relationships (Arcus, 1997; Beavers, Hampson, & Hulgus, 1985; Epstein et al., 1993; Gottman, 1994; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1989). Families that function at h


within
e key areas are more likely to have fewer problems and are able to deal more
ectively with problems once they arise.

Instrumentation

Selecting an instrument to measure these key dimensions of family functioning is criti
for needs assessment and evaluation. The instrum
chosen for this task was the Family Assessment Device (FAD) by Epst
Baldwin, & Bishop (1983). The FAD was used because it is a valid, reliable, instrument that measures overall family functioning in six key areas of family functioning:

• problem-solving,
• communication,
• affective involvement,
• affective responsiveness,
• roles, and
• behavior control.

Both the internal reliability and validity of the FAD have been demonstrated in prior research with Chronbach's alphas on the scales ranging from .74 to .92 (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983). The FAD also has adequate test-retest reliability, low correlations with social desirability, and moderate correlations with other self-report measures of family functioning, which provides evidence of concurrent validity of the scale (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985).

Discriminative validity was also demonstrated by clinical ratings. FAD scores of families were compared to clinicians' ratings, with the results indicating that families rated by the clinicians as unhealthy also had significantly higher family mean FAD scores, representing poorer functioning (Miller et al., 1985).

Implementation on the Web

The FAD can be administered by paper and pencil or on the Web. Implementation on the Web provides Extension agents with an educational and research tool for their programming. The Web version provides a self-scoring instrument that furnishes immediate feedback to the agent and client regarding the family's self-reported areas of concerns. Furthermore, a printed copy of the results can be obtained.

A paper-and-pencil version of the instrument can be given to participants, with their answers later keyed into the computer to obtain printed feedback that can be given to participants at the next meeting. The data from the FAD is self-stored in a database for future analysis.

Implementation on the Web was accomplished with the technical assistance from Virginia Extension Information Systems. Permission was granted from the instrument authors to implement the assessment via the Web for Extension agent use only.

Piloting of the Assessment Application

A pilot of the Web-based self-assessment was conducted in conjunction with parent education programming. Parents were administered the FAD at the first session of a series of Extension parent education programs.

The FAD served as a self-report measure for individual parents, a needs assessment for the educator, and a pre-test for an outcome measure. Individual results were printed and given to the participants with an explanation of the findings. Family strengths and areas of concern were noted. The educator's tracking of the results targeted the educational experience toward the identified problematic areas.

The education intervention, in this case parent education, was conducted. At the conclusion of the 4- to 7-week educational series, parents were administered the FAD again for post-test purposes.

Technique of Data Analysis

Frequencies, Chronbach's alphas, and paired-sample t-tests were used in the analysis of the data. Paired-sample t-tests were used to determine the change between pre- and post-test scores. A paired-samples test compares sample means by calculating Student's t and tests the significance of the difference between the means (Ott, 1993). In this study, participants of the Extension sponsored parent educational series completed pre- and post-test FADs. The pre- and post-test scores from the FAD's seven subscales were compared.

Results

The sample consisted of 25 parents who completed the parent education training and both pre and post FADs. Six were males, and 18 were females. The average age of parents was 34 years of age, and ages ranged from 17 to 48 years of age. The average number of children in each family was 2.3, with the range being 1 to 4 children. Education attainment ranged from the 9th grade to master's level. Marital status was as follows: 3 single parents, 4 separated parents, 2 divorced parents, 4 remarried parents, and 12 parents married once.

Chronbach's alpha was used to computed the internal consistency of the FAD scales. The alpha coefficient for the seven FAD scales (problem-solving, communication, affective involvement, affective responsiveness, roles, behavior control, and general functioning) showed adequate internal consistency, with alpha's ranging from .69 to .86.

Scale	Chronbach's Alpha	Mean	Standard Deviation	Number of Items
Problem-Solving	.77	10.68	2.0	6
Communication	.69	16.84	2.98	9
Family Roles	.80	23.08	4.37	11
Affective Involvement	.79	14.25	2.95	7
Affective Responsiveness	.63	11.20	2.3	6
Behavior Control	.76	14.6	3.1	9
General Functioning	.86	20.36	4.21	12

Regarding the pilot and data analysis, participants showed improvement in each of the seven areas of family functioning. Results of the analysis of each subscale indicate that participants increased their level of family functioning with respect to problem-solving, communication, affective involvement, affective responsiveness, roles, behavior control, and general functioning.

Paired t-tests were administered to detect statistically significant differences between the pre- and post-tests on the seven subscales. The results indicated that a statistically significant change occurred at the .05 level on five out of the seven measures. More specifically, parents improved their level of family functioning in the areas of problem-solving (.001), communications (.03), family roles (.01), behavior control (.03), and the general functioning (.00). Although not statistically significant, affective involvement (p = .11) approached significance, and mean scores improved from pre- (15.75) to post-test (14.25). (Lower mean scores represent healthier functioning.) Affective responsiveness (p = .50) was not statistically significant, but a small improvement was seen on mean scores from pre- (11.52) to post-test (11.2).

Discussion and Implications

The analysis provides evidence that the parenting education intervention improved family functioning in all seven areas. In addition, the application of a Web-based self-scoring instrument for needs assessment and evaluation purposes proved to be a successful pilot. As stated earlier, a goal of a self-scoring family assessment tool implemented on the Web was to gain a better understanding of client needs and give agents and the specialist a systematic way to assess family functioning.

The Web-based environment allowed clients to receive virtually immediate feedback regarding their areas of concerns within the family. The Web-based FAD provided a needs assessment for the family and educator to use to determine which educational programs would be beneficial for the family. In addition, a group composite of the overall participants' needs can be determined to assist the educator in targeting educational experiences that would be most beneficial for the participants.

The FAD provided the educator with a valid, reliable instrument to assess programming outcomes for clients and reporting purposes. The FAD's scores screen high-risk participants who may be in need of a therapeutic intervention and referral for their family issues. Finally, for evaluation purposes, the Web-based version of the FAD proved to be an effective tool to document changes in family functioning due to the parenting educational intervention. Results indicated an improvement in all areas of family functioning and a statically significant change in five of seven measures.

References

Arcus, M.E. (1987). A framework for life-span family life education. Family Relations, 36: 5-10.

Beavers, W.R., Hampson, R.B., & Hulgus, Y.F. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24: 398-405.

Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D., Ryan, C., Miller, I.W., & Keitner, G.I. (1993). The McMaster model view of healthy family functioning. In Froma Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 138-160). New York: The Guilford Press.

Epstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., & Bishop, D.S. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9: 171-180.

Gottman, J.M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster

Miller, I.W., Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., & Keitner, G.I. (1985). The McMaster family assessment device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11: 345-356.

Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S., & Sprenkle, D.S. (1989). Circumplex model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth.

Ott, R.L. (1993). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

The Oregon Master Woodland Manager Program: Comparison of 1991 and 1998 Questionnaire Results

Steve Bowers
Lane County Forestry Extension Agent
Oregon State University Extension Service
Eugene, Oregon
Internet address: Steve.bowers@orst.edu

Background

The objectives of the Master Woodland Manager (MWM) training is to train non-industrial private woodland owners to improve the management on their properties through the development of a management plan and to have them contact and motivate non-active woodland owners. The curriculum was based on what information and skills the volunteers would need for improved management on their own properties and help motivate other woodland owners.

Curriculum development for the MWM program began in 1987. The initial program involved 85 hours of training to be "paid for" by an equal amount of time dedicated to volunteer service. To ensure that the program continued to meet the demands of the MWM volunteers and their clients, a survey was conducted in 1991. Oregon State (OSU) Forestry Extension members David Cleaves and Rick Fletcher developed the survey and mailed it to the state's 151 MWMs.

With the increasing number of individuals involved in the program, another survey occurred in 1998. Many of the questions that appeared in the 1991 survey were included in the 1998 survey, but additions were made to the more recent document. The survey was mailed to the state's 208 MWMs, with 104 of them returned for evaluation. In this paper, we discuss comparisons between the two surveys to assist Extension in evaluating whether the program continues to meet the needs of the MWM and their clients, and whether any changes in content may be necessary for the continued success of the program.

Results

How many contacts were made by the MWMs in their volunteer service? Combined individual and group numbers in Table 1 were divided by the number of MWM responses in respective years. Results showed that in 1991 there was an average of 65 contacts/MWM, and in 1998 the average was 333 contacts/MWM, a 412% increase/MWM. Also, in 1998, 92% of MWMs said their contacts resulted as referrals by other individuals, 66% as a result of contacts initiated by the MWM, and 88% resulting through people directly contacting the MWM. There are no data available from 1991.

Approximately how many hours of MWM volunteer service were completed? A total of 85 hours are required of MWMs for "repayment" on their training, and both surveys show that the MWMs exceeded these requirements by a substantial margin. However, results of the 1998 survey show that MWMs were volunteering hours at an even greater rate than in 1991.

What questions were asked of MWMs? While information on traditional forest management issues remains important, the largest increase in questions related to public and philosophical issues, marketing, and especially multiple use and legal matters, possibly a result of more diverse demographics in woodland ownership and the accompanying sundry reasons for why people own forestland.

What were the three questions most often asked? There are no data from 1991. In 1998, the two primary questions most often asked related to reforestation and marketing. The third most often asked question related to thinning practices, and there were a substantial number of requests for information on forest diseases. Although there is an increasing percentage of questions involving non-traditional forest management topics (excluding marketing), the greatest demand for information from MWMs continued to involve the traditional areas of marketing, reforestation, and timber management.

According to Master Woodland Managers, what are the five most important barriers to woodland management? Each topic received votes ranging from the 1st to 5th most important barrier. In order to consolidate the data, each topic is listed according to the frequency with which it was listed (1st through 5th). In 1991, 80% of the respondents stated knowledge was the most important barrier to woodland management, while 92% believed knowledge was the most important barrier in 1998. 52% and 84%, in 1991 and 1998, respectively, thought time was the 2nd most important barrier to woodland management. Knowledge, time, financial capital, regulations, and professional assistance were selected 1st through 5th, respectively, in the 1991 and 1998 survey. Barriers remained in the same order of precedence in the 1991 and 1998 surveys, but respondents were more definitive in 1998 in relation to ranking those barriers.

How well did the MWM training prepare volunteers for answering questions? Respondents were asked whether their training was "very adequate," "somewhat adequate," or "not adequate" for each forestry topic. Because the main objective to the MWM training is development of a management plan, it is not surprising that the respondents felt they were best prepared for this topic. A large percentage of the respondents felt they were very adequately or somewhat adequately trained in most of the traditional forestry topics. Areas where MWMs felt they were not at least somewhat adequately trained included marketing, wildlife management, and watersheds.

Extension personnel's primary education and experience are in forestry's traditional subject areas. Thus, they have more ability to relay that information to MWMs. Wildlife issues, business-related issues, and watershed issues are topics with which Extension personnel have less education and experience, resulting in less ability to prepare MWMs for questions arising in their volunteer service.

What improvements were made to MWMs woodland property? The largest improvement was in management planning, followed by tree planting, commercial thinning, road development, wildlife habitat enhancement, timber harvesting, marketing, precommercial thinning, stream protection, and recreation development.

In 1998, numbers were generated for each area. Improvements included: 542 acres of brushfield conversion; 478,343 trees planted; 1,174 acres of precommercial thinning; 1,234 acres of commercial thinning; 5.77 million board feet, 720 tons, and 292 cords of timber harvested; 1,248 acres of wildlife habitat enhancement; 1,226 acres of stream protection; 6,813 acres of management planning; 97.5 miles of road development; 150 acres of recreation development; 13.1 million board feet of timber marketed; and 200 acres of weed control.

The largest improvements by MWMs on their property related to the fundamental forestry topics: tree planting, commercial thinning, and timber harvesting. This was probably due to woodland owners' acquired experience on their property and the expertise of Extension Foresters in these topics. However, numbers were reported for wildlife habitat enhancement, stream protection, and recreational development, even though MWMs stated their training was only somewhat adequate in these areas (see Table 5). Although training was deemed somewhat adequate, MWMs were aware of these issues and were incorporating them into the management of their property.

Was the MWM program worthwhile? Overall, respondents continued to be satisfied with the program, although there was a slight decline in those who viewed the program as very worthwhile and an increase in those viewing it as somewhat worthwhile. Two individuals in 1998 said the program was not worthwhile. When contacted by phone, both parties stated that their answer was based on the fact that they were already active in managing their woodlands and could not attribute an increase in activity on their property to the MWM training.

What subject areas would MWMs like to see changed? Respondents were given the choice of whether they would like to see an "expanded" or "reduced" change or "no change" in each subject area of the program's curriculum. They could also record a "don't care" response. 40% of the respondents requested additional training in the area of marketing, and 7% requested a reduced subject area in watersheds. Percentages were based on total responses, and some subject areas were not completed. Thus, individual topics do not add up to 100%. No data are available for 1991.

Table 5 suggests that a large majority of MWMs felt they had been adequately trained to answer questions. However, Table 7 suggests they are requesting more information on many of the subject areas in which they believed they were already well prepared. One exception is in marketing, where they cited an inadequacy in training and a need for expanded training, reinforcing the argument that people become interested and concerned when money is involved. This supports the belief that people will put their efforts where their interests and expertise are found.

Summary

In 1991, there was an average of 65 contacts/MWM, increasing to 333 contacts/MWM in 1998. This represents an increase of 412% per MWM and a 568% increase in the total number of contacts. Volunteer service showed a very large increase in average and total hours, with a 416% (23,720 vs. 4,595) increase in total hours and a 300% (57 vs. 228) increase the average hours/MWM.

While the largest percentage of questions asked of MWMs relate to assistance, timber management, and economics, the fastest growing areas of interest were in legal issues, multiple use, and philosophical issues. The smallest increase was in questions relating to reforestation.

Barriers to woodland management changed very little from 1991 to 1998. Knowledge, time, and financial capital were the top three reasons in both surveys, with knowledge the number-one choice. A substantial number of votes went to the concern of increased government regulations, and very little interest was expressed regarding poor health or neighbor conflicts.

In 1998, rating the adequacy of training and materials for MWMs to answer questions from their clients showed them best prepared in areas including management planning, regeneration, and silviculture. The survey also revealed that they were least prepared in the areas of taxes and record-keeping, marketing, watersheds, and multiple use management.

Specifically, MWMs were most able to answer questions closely relating to management planning (68%) and least able to answer questions closely relating to taxes (28%) and watershed management (29%). Less than 50% of MWMs felt training was adequate for answering questions adequately in matters relating to marketing, forest products, logging and roads, wildlife, watershed and multiple use management, and taxes and recordkeeping. In questions asked by clients, the largest increase comes from concerns regarding legal, multiple use, philosophical and public issues, and marketing.

What subject areas should Extension Forestry be emphasizing in the future? Marketing and multiple use were the leading areas about which MWMs expressed a need for more information. Currently, there is no specific training in the MWM program for the other leading topics listed (legal, philosophical, and public issues). After marketing at 40%, forest products and silviculture received 38% and 36% votes, respectively, as areas in which expanded information should be provided.

Conclusion

One of the primary objectives of the MWM program is to enable Extension personnel to focus their energies in areas other than individual private woodland owner contacts. With MWMs assisting Extension Foresters in woodland owner questions, it is essential these volunteers receive the best training possible to enhance the credibility of the MWM program. This will result in a positive experience for the MWM volunteer and reflect positively on Extension Foresters as a whole, both to the volunteer and the woodland owners they are assisting.

It is not surprising to find that woodland owners are better prepared to manage their property and answer questions posed to them by their clients in areas of management planning, regeneration, and silviculture. The reasons for this may be twofold. First, woodland owners are "hands-on" kinds of people and already have some experience with planting and managing trees. Second, OSU Extension personnel are primarily trained in subject areas in which their clientele naturally excel. Taxes, marketing, multiple use, and watersheds are areas that require "book learning," and/or are areas where woodland owners have little experience. In addition, these subject areas have fewer Extension personnel with the education and experience to develop training materials.

Extension Foresters are providing MWM volunteers with an adequate supply of training and information as it relates to traditional forestry topics. Also, increasing diversity of woodland owner interests will require additional knowledge and training for both the MWM volunteer and the Extension Forester in other non-traditional forestry topics. Finally, MWM volunteers are given training and information on forestry subject matters, but they do not receive training in volunteer service. For example, training in presentation skills and practicing mock interviews could enhance the MWM volunteer's effectiveness as it relates to woodland owner assistance.

MWMs stated that lack of knowledge remained the primary barrier in managing private woodlands, indicating that Extension Foresters must play an even more active role in educating woodland owners and training future MWMs to assist them in this endeavor. However, with 12 Forest Extension agents serving over 80,000 woodland owners throughout Oregon, it is very difficult to provide information that meets the requirements of all these individuals. Because the MWM program plays a vital role in Extension's task of providing pertinent forestry-related information, thus enabling woodland owners to improve the management of their forests and help motivate other woodland owners to do the same, attention should be paid to find a solution this problem.

MONEY 2000™: Feedback from and Impact on Participants

Barbara O'Neill
Family and Consumer Sciences Educator
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Newton, New Jersey
Internet address: oneill@aesop.rutgers.edu

Jing Xiao
Associate Professor
University of Rhode Island
Quinn-CHSS
Kingston, Rhode Island
Internet address: xiao@uri.edu

Barbara Bristow
Extension Associate
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Ithaca, New York
Internet address: bjb4@cornell.edu

Patricia Brennan
Family and Consumer Sciences Educator
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Morristown, New Jersey
Internet address: pbrennan@aesop.rutgers.edu

Claudia Kerbel
Program Development Coordinator
Center For Personal Financial Education
Warwick, Rhode Island
Internet address: cmkerbel@etal.uri.edu

MONEY 2000™ is an Extension program that encourages clientele to improve their financial wellbeing by increasing savings and/or reducing household debt. The objective of MONEY 2000™ is to encourage participants to save and/or reduce debt by a specific dollar amount (e.g., $2,000) by the end of the year 2000 or later. Developed by Rutgers Cooperative Extension in 1995 and first implemented in New Jersey and New York in 1996, MONEY 2000™ is believed to be the only savings education program ever launched in the United States to include a behavioral monitoring component over an extended period of time (O'Neill, 1997).

Participants are asked to set financial goals (i.e., a specific amount of increased savings and/or reduced debt) which, to date, have ranged from several hundred dollars to well into six figures. They are then provided educational services (e.g., quarterly newsletters, classes, state conferences, computer analyses, home study courses, and Web sites) by Extension personnel and surveyed about changes in their asset and debt level every 6 months (O'Neill, 1999). Only changes in financial status are requested, not the actual amount of participants' income, assets, or debt. All new savings dollars are counted, including automated mutual fund deposits and 401(k) plan contributions. Debt reduction includes mortgage principal prepayment and payment of unsecured debts (e.g., credit cards).

To date, the semi-annual reports have indicated significant progress by MONEY 2000™ participants. In New Jersey, where the program was initiated, 1,840 participants had enrolled by June 2000 and reported $5.8 million of aggregated savings and debt reduction. In the 32 states that reported program participation, there were 13,093 participants and a total dollar impact of $15.2 million reported in 16 states (O'Neill, 2000). This number represents a direct increase in the net worth of program participants.

Admittedly, some participants could inflate their self-reported impacts. This is a characteristic of MONEY 2000™ that must be acknowledged. However, short of actually monitoring participants' financial statements, self-reports are the only way to obtain necessary impact data. When personal behaviors, such as money management, are studied, self-reports are commonly used.

There are, however, other ways to measure the success of MONEY 2000™. One is to question participants directly about their experience with the program, including its most and least helpful features, and its impact on their life. This article reports the results of a study of New Jersey and New York MONEY 2000™ participants, including their reasons for enrollment and progress toward financial goals. Ten implications for Extension educators, based on the results of this study, are provided.

Methodology

Data were obtained from a convenience sample of New Jersey and New York MONEY 2000™ program participants who completed an eight-page mailed survey during the fall of 1998. Participants received the survey from their county Extension office as an enclosure with the fall 1998 issue of MONEY 2000™ News, the quarterly newsletter for program participants. Approximately 2 months were allowed to return the surveys, and incentives were used to encourage participation. Due to funding constraints and reliance on dozens of county Extension offices to reproduce and mail the survey, no additional attempts were made to contact the sampling frame.

Although the due date to return the surveys was December 15, 1998, responses were accepted throughout January 1999. In New Jersey, 309 surveys of the 1,268 originally sent were returned, for a response rate of 24.4%. Of these, six were unusable due to missing data or clerical errors in the administration of the survey, leaving a sample of 303 respondents for analysis. In New York, 217 surveys were returned of the 1,024 originally mailed, a 21.2% response rate. Thus, the total sample for this study consisted of 520 MONEY 2000™ participants, or an adjusted response rate of 22.7% (520/2292).

In other words, slightly more than 20% of persons enrolled in the MONEY 2000™ program in New Jersey and New York at the time that data were collected participated in the study. The questionnaire included items about financial goal attainment, motivation for enrolling in MONEY 2000™, planned and actual changes in financial practices, childhood influences on personal finance knowledge, amount of increased savings and reduced debt, financial resources and obstacles, helpful and least helpful aspects of the MONEY 2000™ program, and learning preferences (i.e., teaching methods and financial topics).

Participants were asked to indicate the length of time they had been enrolled in MONEY 2000™ by checking one of six time frames or indicating that they were unsure or couldn't remember. Almost a third (31.2%) of the sample checked the last option. Of the remainder of respondents, slightly more than a quarter (26.4%) had been enrolled in MONEY 2000™ over 18 months by the time that data were collected. Another 7.4% had participated between a year and 18 months, 17.3% between 6 months and a year, and 17.7% for 6 months or less. Table 1 presents the characteristics of those responding to the questionnaire.

Characteristic	n	%
Age
18-24	6	1.2
25-34	76	14.8
35-44	152	29.6
45-54	139	27.1
55-64	85	16.6
65 and over	55	10.7
Education
Less than high school	2	0.4
Completed high school	59	11.5
Some college	102	19.8
2-year degree	75	14.6
4-year degree	163	31.7
Advanced degree	113	22.0
Marital Status
Single without dependent child(ren)	171	33.2
Single with dependent child(ren)	61	11.8
Married without dependent child(ren)	126	24.5
Married with dependent child(ren)	157	30.5
Gender
Male	118	23.4
Female	387	76.6
Ethnicity (multiple responses)
White	425	83.5
Native American	9	1.8
Black/African-American	57	11.2
Asian	9	1.8
Hispanic	17	3.3
Other	8	1.6
Household Income
Under $15,000	24	4.8
$ 15,000- $ 30,000	91	18.1
$ 30,001-$ 45,000	112	22.3
$ 45,001- $ 65,000	122	24.3
$ 65,001- $ 100,000	106	21.1
Over $100,000	47	9.4
State of Residence
New Jersey	303	58.3
New York	217	41.7
* Frequencies and percentages are reported exclusive of missing values.

The sample is more affluent and highly educated than Americans on average, with 54.8% reporting a household income over $45,000, compared to a 1997 U.S. median income of $37,005. The 1997 New Jersey and New York median incomes were $48,021 and $35,798, respectively ("Statistical Abstract," 1999). Three of every 10 respondents earned over $65,000, and almost 1 in 10 earned over $100,000, respectively. Over half (53.7%) of all respondents had a 4-year college education or higher, compared to 24.4% of citizens nationwide ("Statistical Abstract,"1999). Disproportionately more females than males completed the survey, as well as a high percentage of baby boomers age 35 to 54 (56.7% of the sample versus 42.6% of the U.S. population). Ethnicity (respondents could check more than one) and marital status more closely track national trends, however, e.g., 83.5% white versus 84% of the U.S. population and 55% married versus 53% of the U.S. population ("Statistical Abstract," 1999).

Reactions to MONEY 2000™

Respondents were asked to indicate the main reason why they enrolled in MONEY 2000™. Over a fifth of the sample checked more than one answer. Thus, the percentages listed below exceed 100%. More than 4 of every 10 (41.7%) checked "to reduce debt," followed by "to increase financial knowledge" (37.6%), "to increase savings" (32.1%), "to increase net worth" (10.0%), and "other" (4.9%).

A large majority of the sample strongly agreed (45.2%) or agreed (42.3%) that the MONEY 2000™ program made them aware of a debt problem. Similarly, over half (57.2%) of respondents strongly agreed, and 38.7% agreed, that it increased awareness of the need to save. MONEY 2000™ also helped to provide motivation to participants to improve their financial situation. Almost half, 45.3% and 49.0%, strongly agreed, and 40.8% and 42.7%, agreed, that the program provided motivation to reduce debt and to save money, respectively. Fewer participants, but still about three-quarters of the sample, indicated happiness with personal progress as a result of MONEY 2000™ enrollment. About a third, 33.3% and 34.6%, strongly agreed, and 39.4% and 43.2%, agreed, that they were happy because MONEY 2000™ helped them to, respectively, reduce their debt and inc
e their savings.

Three of every four respondents (75.2%) indicated that they set a personal savings goal when they joined MONEY 2000™. The dollar amount of these savings goals ranged from $20 to $100,000, with the modal, or most frequent (49.8%), response being $2,000, followed by $5,000 (12.5%), $1,000 (7.8%), and $10,000 (5.7%). The mean and median savings goals were $4,499 and $2,000, respectively. Progress toward savings goals was reported as follows: "no progress" (13.9%), "a little" (30.5%), "fair amount of progress" (24.5%), and "much progress" (31.1%). Thus, more than half of the sample perceived their personal savings as having improved since their MONEY 2000™ enrollment.

Slightly less than two-thirds (62.6%) of respondents set a MONEY 2000™ debt reduction goal. The dollar amounts of debt reduction goals ranged from $50 to $53,000, with a modal response of $2,000 (25.5%), followed by $5,000 (12.7%), $10,000 (10.8%), and $1,000 (7.8%). The mean and median debt reduction goals were $7,759 and $4,000, respectively. Progress toward debt reduction goals was reported as follows: "no progress" (10.2%), "a little progress" (33.3%), "fair amount of progress" (29.7%), and "much progress" (26.8%). Again, more than half the sample perceived a measure of improvement in their quest to reduce household debt.

Respondents were asked to rate their financial situation at the time they completed the survey to the way it was prior to joining MONEY 2000™ on a scale with five response options. Their feedback was as follows: "much better now" (24.7%), "somewhat better now" (55.8%), "neither better nor worse now" (14.5%), "somewhat worse now" (3.8%), and "much worse now" (1.2%). Thus, fully 8 of every 10 respondents perceived some improvement in their financial situation. Respondents were also asked if MONEY 2000™ had an effect on their financial situation. Again, 8 of every 10 respondents (80.4%) replied in the affirmative. Those who answered yes were asked to explain how the program had affected them. The question was open-ended, and two independent data coders summarized the responses. Table 2 presents the perceived effects of MONEY 2000™.

Effect	n	%*
Awareness/knowledge (of personal finances or money topics)	86	16.6
Increased saving/investing	79	15.2
Provided motivation/reinforcement/structure/support/focus	71	13.7
Reduced debt	61	11.8
Developed/followed a plan or set/acted upon financial goals	33	6.4
Specific financial actions taken by respondents	24	4.6
Provided useful/understandable information/tips/ideas	22	4.2
More control of finances/improved money management practices	19	3.7
Decreased expenses/spending or improved shopping skills	12	2.3
Helpful publications (including quarterly newsletters)	12	2.3
Helped make choices or improved financial decision-making	3	.6
Other responses	23	4.4
No response	152	29.3
* Percentages exceed 100% because multiple responses were provided.

Respondents were asked directly if they had increased their savings since participating in MONEY 2000™. Just under three-quarters (74.3%) said yes. Those who replied yes were asked to list a specific dollar amount. Savings progress ranged from $25 to $120,000, with a modal response of $2,000 (12.7%), followed by $1,000 (11.3%), $1,500 (5.9%), $5,000 (5.9%), $500 (5.4%), and $3,000 (4.5%). The mean and median amounts of reported savings progress were $4,826 and $1,500, respectively.

A similar question was asked about debt reduction, and just over three-quarters (76.2%) of respondents indicated that they had reduced their debt since participating in MONEY 2000™. Here, too, those who replied in the affirmative were asked to list a specific dollar amount. Debt reduction progress ranged from $20 to $121,000, with a modal response of $1,000 (13 %), followed by $2,000 (11.2%), $3,000 (6.7%), and $10,000 (6.7%). The mean and median amounts of reported debt reduction progress were $5,680 and $2,000, respectively.

Respondents were also queried regarding their perception of the most helpful and least helpful aspects of MONEY 2000™. Again, these questions were open-ended, and two independent data coders summarized and categorized the responses. Up to three responses per survey were recorded. Interestingly, some of the responses pertained to aspects of MONEY 2000™ itself (e.g., publications), while others pertained to actions taken by, or effects of the program upon, participants. Table 3 presents the most helpful aspects of MONEY 2000™ in descending order. Responses that garnered the highest response include the quarterly newsletter, MONEY 2000 News (22.5%), followed by tips/ideas/information (15.4%), Extension publications (9.6%), and workshops/classes/conferences (9.6%).

Characteristic	n	%*
MONEY 2000™ News newsletter	117	22.5
Tips/ideas/advice/hints/information for improving finances	80	15.4
Extension publications (various)	50	9.6
Workshops/classes/conferences/seminars	50	9.6
Direction/focus/structure/motivation/accountability	47	9.1
Increased awareness of personal finances or financial topics	41	7.9
Setting/working toward/clarifying financial goals and plans	32	6.2
Extension support services (e.g., answered questions, counseling)	29	5.6
Specific behavioral changes (e.g., started budget, reduced debt)	28	5.4
Increased/reinforced knowledge of financial topics	27	5.2
Reminders and periodic contact/mailings/updates	26	5.0
Nothing helpful or just enrolled	17	3.3
Reports and paperwork/record-keeping/tracking	6	1.2
PowerPay debt reduction analysis/computer printouts	5	1.0
Organized/simplified finances and better record-keeping	2	.4
Other responses	17	3.3
No response	69	13.3
* Percentages exceed 100% because multiple responses were provided.

As for the least helpful aspects of MONEY 2000™, the most frequent response (12.7%) was none/nothing. In addition, almost half (44.5%) of respondents left the item blank. Both responses indicate a high level of satisfaction with the program. The second most frequently mentioned issue (9.1%) was workshops/classes/conferences. Participant comments indicated that it was generally not the quality of these programs that was at fault, but, rather, where and when they were held (i.e., convenience issues). Service-delivery issues (e.g., late mailings, unreturned phone calls), paperwork/reports, and insufficient personal contact were mentioned by 4.8%, 4.6%, and 4.2% of respondents, respectively.

Chi-square tests were conducted between these three variables and respondents' state of residence. New York MONEY 2000™ participants were more likely than New Jerseyans to cite insufficient contact (c2= 4.533, df=1, p=.033) and service-delivery issues (c2= 5.356, df=1, p=.021). Perhaps this is because they paid a $10 fee to enroll and expected more of the program, while New Jersey MONEY 2000™ enrollment was free. Table 4 presents the least helpful aspects of MONEY 2000™ in descending order.

Characteristic	n	%*
None/nothing/NA or indication that everything was helpful	66	12.7
Workshops/classes/conferences/seminars	47	9.1
Service delivery issues (e.g., mailings, returned calls)	25	4.8
Paperwork/periodic reports/record-keeping/research surveys	24	4.6
No or insufficient personal contact or support from Extension	22	4.2
Wanted more information on a specific topic (e.g., taxes)	18	3.5
Personal failure to get involved, change or take action on goals	13	2.5
Personal limitations/difficulties/actions	13	2.5
Debt information/focus/emphasis	11	2.1
MONEY 2000™ /Cooperative Extension publications	7	1.3
Investment information/focus/emphasis	6	1.2
Too basic	6	1.2
Didn't understand information	4	.8
Other responses	37	7.1
No response	231	44.5
* Percentages exceed 100% because multiple responses were provided.

Implications

This article reports results of the first comprehensive study of MONEY 2000™ participants. Following are 10 implications for Extension educators.

1. Helping Clientele Deal with Debt Is Important: Concern about reducing debt was the primary reason for MONEY 2000™ enrollment, and debt reduction goals exceeded savings goals. Services, such as financial counseling and computerized PowerPay debt reduction analyses, should be widely marketed as an incentive to interest new and existing program participants.

2. Additional Awareness Activities Should Be Developed: Increased awareness of personal finances or money topics was reported frequently. This suggests that worksheets and checklists and other self-assessment-type tools should continue to be developed so that participants can "check how they're doing."

3. Goal Setting Is a Helpful Program Feature: MONEY 2000™ encourages participants to set and report progress toward a personal goal. This methodology appears to be successful. Numerous positive comments were made about the structure, motivation, and accountability that it provided.

4. Written Materials Get Noticed: Newsletters and other publications were cited as the most helpful program feature. What people see, they obviously remember. Therefore, it behooves Extension educators to make their printed materials as useful and visually attractive as possible. Web sites, on the other hand, were barely mentioned, even though both states offer comprehensive Web sites.

5. Class Information Should Be Shared via Other Methods: Respondents who attended classes and conferences found them helpful, while those who felt they were offered at an inconvenient time or location did not. For the latter group, the content of public meetings can be shared via newsletter articles and Web sites so that participants a) don't feel "forgotten" and b) still benefit from the information that is provided.

6. Paperwork Should Be Reduced: Some participants expressed dissatisfaction with having to complete semi-annual progress reports. Perhaps other methodologies can be used to obtain needed impact data in future "campaign" style programs. One example is surveying a random sample of program participants. This methodology has been used several times in South Carolina to measure the progress of MONEY 2000™ participants (Porter & Christenbury, 1999).

7. Personal Contact Should Be Increased: Almost 5% of respondents were disappointed with the amount of personal contact that they received. This suggests a need for "personalized" outreach methods, including periodic "support group" meetings, 1:1 financial counseling, and on-line financial advice.

8. Service Delivery Should Be Improved: Some respondents reported unhappiness with the frequency or timeliness of Extension services. The majority of these comments came from New Yorkers, who were charged an enrollment fee. Whenever a program is marketed statewide or nationally, attention must be paid up-front to service-delivery issues (e.g., "covering" the program where there is an agent or specialist vacancy). This appears to be especially true when a fee is charged for services.

9. MONEY 2000™ Motivates as Well as Educates: It is clear from survey results that MONEY 2000™ provides motivation as well as education. The structure of the program itself (e.g., goal setting followed by semi-annual progress reports) kept participants focused on their individual financial situation, which, in turn, acted as an incentive to prompt behavioral change.

10. The MONEY 2000™ Model Can Be Replicated: Other subject matter areas in which Extension delivers programs could replicate the MONEY 2000™ methodology. For example, agricultural agents could assist farmers with developing and monitoring farm business management goals, and nutrition educators could develop appropriate benchmarks (e.g., weight, cholesterol readings) where impact data can be collected and aggregated.

References

O'Neill, B. (2000, July 13). Updated MONEY 2000 impact data. Message to MONEY 2000™ electronic mail group (MONEY2000-NATIONAL-L@cce.cornell.edu).

O'Neill, B. (1999). MONEY 2000: Lessons learned for improved program design. Journal of Consumer Education, 17: 14-19.

O'Neill, B. (1997). MONEY 2000: A model for personal finance employee education. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 1(1): 76-80.

Porter, N., & Christenbury, J. (1999). Money 2000: A model Extension program. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 37(1). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a1.html

Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998 (1999). Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000december/ent-rb.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.