February 2003
Volume 41 Number 1

Research in Brief

Employees and Food Safety: Is Training Important to Food Service Managers?

Susan Hine
Assistant Professor
Internet Address: suehine@lamar.colostate.edu

Dawn Thilmany
Associate Professor
Internet Address: thilmany@lamar.colostate.edu

Pat Kendall
Professor
InternetAddress: pkendall@lamar.colostate.edu

Ken Smith
Associate Professor
Internet address: kdsmith@cahs.colostate.edu

Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado

Introduction

In 1998, Cooperative Extension specialists in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana conducted focus groups with restaurant workers and managers to help identify motivators and barriers to safe food handling practices in restaurant settings. A recurrent theme was the shortage of workers trained in safe food handling procedures and an overall high turnover rate among restaurant employees. Discussions with food service managers indicated a strong preference to hire workers with training in safe food handling procedures (Kendall, Melcher, Pelican, & Paul 1998).

The CSREES-USDA Food Safety and Quality National Initiative, which funded the study discussed in this article, seeks to target food handler education programs for high-risk and hard-to-reach clientele. One such group includes former welfare assistance recipients who are now required to seek job training and are uncertain as to what skills will improve their value to employers. The goals of the study were to assess:

• Importance managers placed on safe food handling skills
• Importance of public image for food service managers
• Interest in integrating food safety training into welfare-to-work job training programs
• Labor market implications of food safety training for these food service managers
• Extension personnel's role in this effort

Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that approximately 76 million cases of foodborne illness result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually (Mead et al., 1999). The yearly cost of lost productivity alone is estimated at between $20 and $40 billion in the U.S. (FDA, 1997).

Barriers to safe food handling practices for food service establishments are of increasing concern as Americans eat away from home more often. According to the National Restaurant Association (2000), half of all adults are restaurant patrons on a typical day. Moreover, public health officials have predicted that foodborne illness may become even more of a problem in the years to come (US-DHHS, 2000).

The FDA's report, FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors (2000), presents data to establish a national baseline of foodborne illness risk factors and for measuring the current status of occurrence of these factors. Among the establishments studied were fast food and full-service restaurants. The baseline data collected reflected the Food Code provisions on the occurrence of five risk factors:

• Food from unsafe sources
• Inadequate cooking
• Improper holding temperature
• Contaminated equipment
• Poor personal hygiene

Each of these issues is addressed in this study's survey. Further, within each of these categories, the FDA recorded "out of compliance" observations of more than 40% in both fast-food and full-service restaurants:

• Cold holding at 41 degrees F or below
• Ready-to-eat foods held cold at 41 degrees F or below
• Commercially processed foods date-marked
• Surfaces, utensils cleaned and sanitized
• Proper hand washing

These statistics pointed to a need for more employees trained in proper food handling techniques. In 1995, ServSafe Training (the National Restaurant Association's food safety training program) was adopted as a training tool for Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. It was expanded in l997 and l998 with a train the trainer program. Over the 3 years ending in 2000, over 1,157 food handlers in Colorado had participated in the program.

Labor Management Challenges: Welfare-to-Work

Labor management challenges for the restaurant industry go far beyond the need for food safety training. The Colorado Restaurant Association (CRA) reports labor shortages throughout the late 1990's were due to a 2.6% unemployment rate while restaurant sales in the state increased 6.1% annually (Husted, 2000). This led to short-staffed food service establishments, and managers suggest this is a barrier to safe food handling (Kendall et. al, 1998). The study focused on one potential pool of foodservice workers, those individuals on welfare or taking part in federal assistance programs.

The Colorado welfare-to-work program offers potential employers subsidies and tax credits, and seeks to provide training and skills that are in high demand among Colorado employers (Colorado Welfare Reform, 2000). Our Extension personnel have been active in attending sessions with the Colorado program directors to better assess the need for food safety training among this potential labor source.

One assumption motivating the study was that employers may be reluctant to hire persons on welfare because they fear:

• The person will not have the requisite skills needed to prepare and/or serve food to customers in a safe and efficient manner and
• They (the employers) will not have the time needed to adequately train the person.

Thus, it was felt to be important for Extension agents to be able to provide a food safety education certificate program for welfare-to-work participants that showed that these workers had acquired the necessary knowledge and skills. This would be of benefit both to those needing jobs and those in the food service industry needing trained workers.

Methodology

An important component of the project was to establish the potential value of food safety training for both the employer and the employee, information Extension agents would be able to use in promoting the value of food safety training and its implied benefits to food service managers. The survey was used to indirectly determine the value of food safety programs and specific skills or knowledge associated with the training.

The survey asked questions with respect to the company's operations and food safety training practices, including basic description of the type of food service, use of external and internal training programs, financial incentives to employees trained in food safety, and overall happiness with training received on several food safety issues. Kendall et al (2001) focus on the overall satisfaction with food safety training while the findings presented here focus on the following topics:

• The relative importance of food safety issues to managers
• Management's willingness to pay for safety training in the form of wages, pay raises, promotion, and actual training programs
• The level of importance placed on public image by managers

Focus groups with several food service managers were used to test the survey and increase the readability of survey question. When asked about methods to increase response rate, several participants noted that phone calls and other follow-up measures commonly used for consumer surveys may not be appropriate or effective. As an alternative, it was decided to add a one-dollar bill to the survey to show appreciation to respondents.

In early 2000, 500 surveys were mailed to restaurant managers in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. The sample was drawn from former ServSafe participants (because there was interest in how past participants rated that program), restaurant association mailing lists, and yellow pages. The resulting response rate was 28%, which is comparatively low, but as high as one can expect for a sector that has relatively significant time constraints, little office staff, and less formal organizational structure.

Results

The restaurant managers who responded to the survey were not fully representative of restaurant demographics, likely due to the fact that corporate-based restaurants were less likely to respond to surveys if most correspondence is referred to a national corporate office. Among respondents, 43% managed full-service restaurants, 33% managed limited service restaurants, and the rest worked with a variety of types of establishments, including cafeterias, catering, and bars/taverns.

On average, respondents' businesses served 408 guests per day and employed 18.8 full and 15.3 part-time employees at their locations. Approximately 45% of the meals were served at lunch, 32% at dinner, and the rest at breakfast and other times.

Food Safety Issues and Hiring Practices

Respondents were asked to rank the level of attention and time spent on the following food safety issues:

• Personal hygiene
• Avoiding cross-contamination
• Adequate cooking
• Time-temperature control
• Avoiding food from unsafe sources
• Pest control management
• Time

A ranking scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 5 representing the most attention or time spent on any one factor. As expected, food service managers ranked all food safety skills as high (See Figure 1). In particular, however, close to 60% of the managers ranked cross-contamination highest. Pest control training received the lowest ranking, with only about 31% of respondents rating this factor a 5 and 5% assigning pest control training an importance value of 1.

Figure 1.
Ranking of Food Safety Issues

Next, managers were asked how satisfied they were with the training that they received for these issues from ServSafe or other sources. Many were very satisfied, with 56% (using a Likert scale of 1-5) believing that the training had actually decreased food safety concerns for their business, 20% giving raises to workers who attended the training, and 20% promoting employees based on their participation in food safety training. See Table 1.

Willingness to Pay for Safety Training

How does this translate into a willingness to pay for programs and/or offer higher wage premiums, promotions, or even bonuses?  When asked what they would be willing to pay for training programs, 79% of managers said that they would be willing to pay some dollar amount ranging anywhere from $5 to $150, with the largest percentage (29%) willing to pay between $11-$25. The breakdown of premiums shows that 20% of these managers were willing to pay at least $.51 to $1.00 in additional hourly wages. See Table 2.

Managers were also asked if they were willing to pay signing bonuses to trained workers but only 14% said yes. In addition, 54% of managers say they might hire those trained in food safety at a higher level, and 72% were more likely hire those individuals with previous training. See Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Value of Training

It was thought that full-service restaurants may have more concern about image, leading to a higher willingness to pay for food safety training programs and willingness to pay a higher wage to workers trained in food safety compared to limited service restaurants. In fact, managers of full-service restaurants indicated greater willingness to pay a higher starting salary to workers with previous food safety training than did managers of limited service restaurants (75% vs. 54%).

Further, 40% of managers from full-service restaurants were willing to pay at least $0.50 more per hour, compared to only 20% of managers of limited service restaurants. Not surprisingly, 80% of managers of full-service restaurants indicated some willingness to pay for food safety training, compared to 69% of limited service restaurant managers. Similarly, 42% of full-service restaurant managers indicated willingness to pay at least $26 for food safety training, compared to 21% of limited service restaurant managers.

Although not presented here, these restaurant types were almost indistinguishable in their ratings on the importance of food safety issues and satisfaction with past food safety training. These findings would indicate that while the importance of food safety issues and satisfaction with food safety training do not vary by location and type of restaurant, willingness on the part of restaurants to pay both directly and indirectly for food safety training does vary.

It was interesting to note, however, that many managers unwilling to pay bonuses to workers with training were still willing to pay for the training sessions. See Table 3.

Importance of Public Image

We next asked managers to rate the importance of different factors that affected the public image of their business. These included:

• Health inspection scores
• Bad publicity
• Clean and sanitary image
• Customer satisfaction
• Promoting food safety record to customers
• Promoting food safety training to customers
• Word-of-mouth referrals

As shown in Figure 3, respondents ranked all factors relatively high. The highest ranked concerns across the sample were customer satisfaction, the desire to be known for a clean and sanitary image, concern about bad publicity, word-of-mouth referrals, and health inspection scores. The need to promote food safety records and training seemed the least important, which would make sense, for, if the restaurant promotes a clean image and customer satisfaction, the training and safety records would speak for themselves.

Figure 3.
Importance of Various Factors on Public Image of Business: Ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 Being the Most Important

Food Safety, Labor Market, and Extension Implications

Employers understand the positive and necessary value of safety training programs and emphasize training as important employment qualification, but few have hired trained workers. However, these same employers are at least willing to do so and would even be more willing to bring these individuals in at a higher level than pay to for training themselves. If given the choice, most managers would choose training incentives that require no ready outlays of cash payments.

The study discussed sought to better understand both potential problems by enumerating and publicizing the value of specific skills and the overall value of food safety training to the food service industry. The findings provide some support that managers do value food safety training to private managers, in addition to the public benefits defined in the introduction. Our Extension specialists developed a display and brochure with these findings for distribution at job service offices to assist in recruiting trainees. It is important that they and other Extension personnel continue to have a presence at the statewide meetings where this kind of information can be disseminated to public Workforce personnel.

Based on interviews with workforce centers around the state, however, hiring activity among food managers has been minimal, showing a discrepancy between what employers say and what they may do. This may be explained by the challenges presented by shift work in this industry. Research shows that single mothers have been most likely to take advantage of increased minimum wages and welfare reform (Turner, 2000). Yet, childcare constraints make their availability for food service shifts problematic.

Alternatively, concerns about reliability and "soft work skills" may prevent food service managers from hiring welfare recipients. A National Restaurant Association policy brief (1997) noted that state welfare-reform agencies had only begun to address such key issues as the lack of available childcare, health care, and transportation. Government agencies may be working to match welfare recipients with employers, but those who study welfare reform say government help has traditionally been in short supply once a company actually puts welfare workers on the payroll.

Of more direct relevance to this project, few welfare recipients saw food service as an attractive employment option to aspire to, as evidenced by the lack of interest in food safety training offered through Colorado workforce offices through this project. There was anecdotal evidence that training in hard skills that were perceived to have greater value in the labor market were more likely to draw trainees than food safety skills.

Indirectly, this study found that pre-employment food safety training may not be valued by labor market participants and, instead, that value will be created once a worker is on the job and managers communicate the need for stronger food handling skills. Thus, these findings should motivate Extension personnel to promote the implicit value of food safety training and to find more ways to encourage employers to directly support food safety training through training fees or the pay incentives that they say they are willing to provide.

References

Cochran-Yantis, D., Belo, P., Giampaoli, J., McProud, L., Everly, V., & Gans, J. (1996). Attitudes and knowledge of food safety among Santa Clara County, California restaurant operators. Journal of Foodservice Systems, 9, 117-28.

Colorado Welfare Reform (2000). Available at: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/cwr/

FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Retail Food Program Steering Committee (2000). Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors. Washington, D.C.: FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/retrsk.html

FDA/USDA/EPA (Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency) (1997). Food safety from farm to table: A national food safety initiative. Report to the President. Washington, DC: FDA, USDA, EPA.

Husted, B. (2000). Fat economy leaves city's eateries hungry for workers. Denver Post, April 2, A-2.

Kendall, P., Smith, K., Thilmany, D., Hine, S., Melcher, L. & Paul, L. (2001) Value of and satisfaction with food safety training in the intermountain West. Foodservice Research International, 13 (October): 1-16.

Kendall, P, Melcher, L., Pelican, S., & Paul, L. (1998). Motivators and barriers to safe food handling practices among food service workers and managers in restaurants. Society for Nutrition Education Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, July 21.

Mean, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C. Griffin, P.M., & Tauxe, R.V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging infectious disease. Journal of Food Protection, 5, 607-625.

National Restaurant Association (NRA) (2000). National restaurant fact book. Chicago, IL.

National Restaurant Association. (1997) People-to-work initiatives: Nurturing the American dream. Available at: http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=589

Turner, M.D. (2000). The effect of minimum wage on TANF caseloads. Joint Center for Poverty Research Working Paper. http://www.jcpr.org/

US-DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) (2000). Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, D.C.: DHHS, Public Health Service, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Available at: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/

Beef Quality Assurance from Farm to Fork: Development of a Pilot Program in Farm to Table Food Safety

Gregory P. Lardy
Assistant Professor and Beef Cattle Specialist
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota
Internet Address: glardy@ndsuext.nodak.edu

Julie Garden-Robinson
Extension Specialist, Food and Nutrition
Department of Food and Nutrition
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota

Charlie Stoltenow
Assistant Professor and Extension Veterinarian
Department of Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota

Martin J. Marchello
Professor, Meat Science
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota

Lisa Lee
Director, Beef Quality Assurance
NDSU Extension Service
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
Bismarck, North Dakota

Introduction

In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 76 million people become ill, 325,000 people are hospitalized, and 5,000 people die annually from foodborne illnesses in the United States (Mead, Slutsker, Dietz, McCaig, Bresee, Shapiro, Griffin, & Tauxe, 1999). The USDA's Economic Research Service in conjunction with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service estimated that foodborne illnesses caused by seven major microbial pathogens cost the United States $5.6 to $9.4 billion annually (Buzby & Crutchfield, 1997).

Food safety risks in the beef industry are large, as evidenced by the number of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks that have occurred in the last 5 to 7 years. The CDC estimates that 73,000 illnesses and 61 deaths occur annually in the U.S. due to E. coli O157:H7. Undercooked contaminated ground beef is implicated in a majority of the illnesses (CDC, 2000). Other areas of food safety concern in beef production include the proper use of antibiotics and other animal health products, proper use of implants, and proper route and location of administration of animal health products.

In the past, the majority of Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs have focused on the feedlot rather than the cow-calf producer (Cowman, 2000, personal communication). This is logical because there are smaller numbers of feedlots compared to cow-calf producers, the feedlots tend to be geographically concentrated, and feedlots (especially large feedlots) tend to have routine training programs for employees (USDA, 2000).

Beef cattle production is the number one livestock industry in North Dakota. In 1998, the beef cattle industry generated over 350 million dollars in gross receipts in North Dakota (North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999). North Dakota's beef industry is centered around cow-calf production units. There are approximately 12,700 cow-calf operations in the state (North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999).

Although the feedlot industry in North Dakota is small by national standards, it is growing. Recently, the North Dakota Legislature passed legislation to provide funding and a mechanism to start a state meat inspection program. This program will allow producers access to additional market opportunities and should heighten awareness of other aspects of the beef industry.

Federally inspected packing and processing plants are required to implement Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs as a method to ensure food safety (Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1996). These HACCP programs are not foolproof and require regular updating to remain effective at reducing risk of foodborne illness.

Foodservice establishments are linked to a majority of foodborne illness cases. Manager and employee education programs have proven successful in changing food handling behavior (Cottercio, Gunn, Coffill, Tormey, & Barry, 1998). Despite consumer education campaigns and media reports of foodborne illness outbreaks, consumers continue to practice risky food safety behaviors.

For instance, the International Food Safety Council (1999) reported that only 6% of consumers "often" or "sometimes" check hamburger temperature with a thermometer prior to eating. Surveys conducted by the National Cattleman's Beef Association (1999) indicated that 2% of consumers routinely use a meat thermometer to gauge meat doneness. According to a multi-state survey, 20% of respondents reported eating pink hamburgers and 19% failed to wash hands and cutting boards adequately after contact with raw meat (Altekruse, Yang, Timbo, & Angulo, 1999).

Methodology

The overall goal of the project described here was to develop and pilot an interdisciplinary, 3-day food safety training program for Extension agents, state health and agriculture department personnel, state meat inspection personnel, and rural veterinarians to alert them to beef safety issues from production to consumption and to enable them to deliver face-to-face food safety programs/advice to their constituents.

The North Dakota State University Extension Service divides North Dakota into 10 Multi-County Programming Units (MPU) based on location. Representatives from three MPUs were selected to participate in the pilot training session based on their location in the major beef cattle production areas in the state. One agricultural agent and one food and nutrition agent from each MPU were invited to participate. County Extension participants were selected based on their ability to attend the training session, their willingness to recruit local participants, and their willingness to complete a follow-up training session in their local community following the training session.

Each Extension agent was asked to recruit participants from their local community, basing their selections on involvement or interest in the beef industry. Participants included ranchers, small slaughter plant operators, state and federal meat inspectors, representatives from beef industry groups, officials from the state department of agriculture, state health inspectors, food service workers, representatives from regional meat wholesalers, and consumers.

Course Content

Beef Quality Assurance

Approximately 8 hours of the training session was devoted to Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) related topics. A number of activities and a wide variety of topics were covered in the BQA section of the course. A brief history of BQA on a state and national scale was covered. North Dakota's producer certification procedure was outlined.

Detailed information on the national beef quality audits (both fed and non-fed) conducted by the National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) were presented. Considerable time was spent on the non-fed (cull) quality audit because the majority of North Dakota's beef industry consists of cow-calf producers. Management practices that influenced the quality and safety of beef and beef products were discussed in relation to the beef quality audits.

Information on disease conditions in cattle and their relation to food safety was also discussed. In particular, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its possible link to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease were covered. Methods that the U.S beef industry and government took to keep BSE out of the U.S. were also covered.

Injection site location and damage were covered as well. The hidden damage caused by improper injection technique was covered by using slide sets developed by the NCBA BQA task force. In addition, a pharmaceutical company was recruited to provide an injection site demonstration. This demonstration illustrated the damage that can occur with improper injection location, amount, and route of administration. This portion of the course was conducted at a local veterinary clinic. Detailed information on the correct method to administer injections was also included.

Other topics, including instruction on how to read a drug label, the differences between prescription and non-prescription pharmaceuticals, and biological versus pharmaceutical products were also covered. Handout material included the North Dakota BQA producer manual that contained detailed information on withdrawal times of commonly used animal health products.

HACCP in the Meat Processing Industry

Approximately 6 hours of training was devoted to an overview of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) in the meat processing industry. Lecture topics included the history of meat processing, utilization of good manufacturing practices, standard sanitation operating procedures, and the seven principles of HACCP.

Flowcharts of common meat products were distributed and discussed. Videotapes were used to reinforce concepts presented in lecture. For example, a videotape, Excel Beef Plant: Slaughter, was used to illustrate how the meat industry attempts to reduce hazards at the slaughter level. This portion of the course concluded with a tour of a meat processing facility with HACCP fully implemented.

Food Handling in the Foodservice and Consumer Sectors:

About 4 hours of the workshop was devoted to food safety issues for foodservice and consumers. Lecture topics included summaries of food handling errors reported in foodservice and consumer research studies, the leading microbial causes of foodborne illness, common foods associated with foodborne illnesses, and implementation of HACCP principles in foodservice establishments and homes. A demonstration using a fluorescing lotion and black light was used to illustrate proper handwashing.

Consumer products (cleaning/sanitizing agents, antibacterial cleansers, various types of thermometers) were discussed for their role in food safety. A food safety game based on the principles (clean, separate, cook, chill) of the national Fight BAC campaign was introduced to the participants for use with food handlers and consumers. Available resources including Web sites, curricular materials, CD-ROMS, posters, and other information were displayed.

Outreach Planning Group Session

The three groups met and discussed plans for outreach as a result of this programming and submitted a plan at the end of the workshop. A laptop computer was provided for each group to use during their discussion time, and all reports were submitted on disk.

Assessment of Learning

Evaluation consisted of pre- and post-testing at the training session. Results of the pre- and post-tests are given in Figures 1-4. The exam scores are broken out by course content emphasis areas (BQA, Slaughter and Fabrication, Foodservice/consumer Food Safety, and Overall Score; Figures 1-4, respectively). The overall score increased from 62% to 87% from the pre-test to the post-test. Each course area showed similar improvements in pre- and post-test scores. Knowledge of BQA and Slaughter and Fabrication topics was slightly lower (56%) on the pre-test compared to the Consumer Food Safety section of the test (68%). This should not be unexpected, however, considering that all of our participants were consumers but only a portion were involved in the beef production, slaughter, or fabrication industries.

Figure 1.
Pre- and Post-Test Results for the Beef Quality Assurance Portion of the Assessment

Figure 2.
Pre- and Post-Test Results for the Slaughter and Fabrication Portion of the Assessment

Figure 3.
Pre- and Post-Test Results for the Consumer Food Safety Portion of the Assessment

Figure 4.
Pre- and Post-Test Results for the Entire Assessment in Farm to Table Food Safety

Outreach as a Result of the Program

Results of this program were presented at an international conference of agricultural professionals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in July 2000. Several participants in the training program have requested additional material and assistance in their outreach, including a federal meat inspector who requested additional research-based HACCP materials and Web sites to assist meat processing companies. Several Extension agent participants in the program have requested follow-up information to assist consumers and professionals.

Lectures on "Farm to Table Food Safety Issues" were presented to 75 foodservice managers at food shows in Grand Forks and Bismarck. One of the attendees at the farm-to-table training workshop served as the facilitator. All participants received written materials and posters to display at their facility.

A lecture, "Fight BAC: Keep Food Safe," facilitated by a workshop participant who works at a foodservice brokerage company in Fargo was presented to 250 school cooks. All participants received written materials and posters to display at their schools.

One of the Extension agent participants from the farm-to-table workshop helped facilitate an educational program on food thermometer use on a reservation. Materials developed for this project included a food safety poster and two handouts based on the Fight BAC campaign targeting people receiving commodity foods. Each participant in the program received a food thermometer and a refrigerator thermometer.

Large laminated "Thermy" posters, a video, USDA Thermy and National Food Safety Month materials, along with background research and handouts, were provided to all North Dakota county Extension offices. The materials will be used for general Extension food safety programs as well as in the Family Nutrition Program and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which serve limited resource audiences.

Training workshops were held in five North Dakota sites for about 60 Family Nutrition Program (FNP) and Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) staff who serve limited resource audiences. The topics included food safety issues at the ranch, meat processing, and consumer levels. Preliminary evaluation results showed pretest scores of 46% and post-test scores of 94%. Each county Extension office received a large laminated "Thermy" poster, a video, USDA Thermy^TM and National Food Safety Month^SM materials, lesson plans, pre/post evaluations for consumer audiences and background research-based resources for outreach in every county in North Dakota.

Conclusions and Recommendations

A 3-day, multidisciplinary training session was effective at increasing knowledge about all facets of food safety in the beef industry. Participants left the training session with a greater awareness and appreciation for on-ranch food safety, aspects of food safety related to meat processing, a greater awareness of consumer attitudes, and knowledge of food safety in the home.

If others were to conduct similar programs, we suggest the following.

• Select a diverse group of participants representing all aspects of the beef industry, including ranchers, meat processors, inspectors and consumers.
• Involve Extension agents in the selection of representatives from their areas.
• Use a variety of educational techniques (lecture, videos, case studies, hands-on activities) and allow time for discussion.
• Provide educational materials and follow-up support to participants.

This program has application to other food producing industries. The entire food chain consists of a continuum of producers, food manufacturers, and consumers. While in-depth educational efforts should be aimed at specific segments along the continuum in order to solve specific food safety problems, bringing together participants from all facets of a production/consumption chain allows each segment to gain a better understanding of the role of the other segments in the production chain. Participants gain knowledge about food safety issues that may occur at various segments in each production unit.

Livestock production industries may find this approach easily adaptable to other species. Vegetable, fruit, and grain production industries may also find this approach applicable with minor modifications in delivery method.

References

Altekruse, S.F., Yang, S., Timbo, B.B., & Angulo, F.J. (1999). A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 16(3):216-221.

Buzby, J.C., & Crutchfield, S.R. (1997). USDA modernizes meat and poultry inpection. FoodReview, The Magazine of Food Economics, 20(1), 14-17.

CDC. (2000). Escherichia coli O157:H7. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm

Cottercio, M. Gunn, J., Coffill, T., Tormey, P., & Barry, M.A. (1998). Effect of manager training program on sanitary conditions in restaurants. Public Health Reports. 113:353-358.

Food Safety and Inspection Service. (1996). Pathogen reduction: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems; Final Rule. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/fr/haccp_rule.htm

International Food Safety Council. (1999). Research findings related to safe cooking. Available at: http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/f99rsrch.html

Mead, P.S, Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., & Tauxe, R.V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5), 1-37.

National Cattleman's Beef Association. (1999). America's meat temperature IQ needs improvement. Study finds consumers rely on color rather than temperature to gauge doneness.

North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. (1999). North Dakota Agricultural Statistics 1999. No. 68.

USDA. (2000). Part I: Baseline reference of feedlot management Practices, 1999, p. 54.

Dishwashing and Water Conservation: An Opportunity for Environmental Education

JoAnn M. Emmel
Assistant Professor
Internet Address: jemmel@vt.edu

Kathleen Parrott
Professor
Internet Address: homes@vt.edu

Julia Beamish
Professor
Internet Address: jbeamish@vt.edu

Department of Apparel, Housing, & Resource Management
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia

Dishwashing is a mundane but frequent household task. Automatic dishwashers do most of the work, correct? Well, maybe. New research at the Center for Real Life Kitchen Design at Virginia Tech shows that consumers are not using the available dishwashing technology effectively--and they're wasting a lot of water in the process!

Background

Generations of people struggled with the daily chore of dishwashing, a manual task until the first machine for dishwashing was patented in 1850 by Joel Houghton (Lindsay, 1980; Whirlpool Corporation, 1993). This wooden machine contained a hand-cranked wheel that splashed water on dishes. Following other hand-operated models, a gas-powered dishwasher was introduced in 1911, and a freestanding dishwasher with permanent plumbing was developed in 1920 (Whirlpool Corporation, 1993). Household dishwashers went into production in 1947, soon after World War II, and the appliance became widely available by 1950 (Lindsay, 1980).

Additional advances in technology brought solid-state controls, energy saving, features and increased convenience by the late 1970s. Today's dishwashers are designed with additional improvements in cleaning, water efficiency, and quiet operation.

Improved Water and Energy Efficiency

The implementation of energy standards for appliances by the U.S. Department of Energy established new benchmarks for energy and water efficiency. A significant proportion of the energy savings for today's automatic dishwashers comes from the reduction in hot water use. Because energy is used to heat water, less water use by a dishwasher also means reduced energy use. In 1978, 83% of a dishwasher's energy use went to heating water, with 10% used for washing and 7% for drying (Enders, 1978). By 1994, only 56% of the energy used by the dishwasher was to heat water (Whirlpool Corporation, 1993). A significant reduction in water usage resulted from designing more efficient wash systems that incorporate direct water delivery and improved soil-handling systems (Dzierwa, 1994).

The average water use per dishwasher cycle decreased from a range of 11-15 gallons per normal cycle in 1978 (Garrett, 1978) to 6-10 gallons per normal cycle in 2000 (Soap and Detergent Association [SDA], 2000). Despite the fact dishwashers are designed to be resource efficient, other significant determining factors on resource usage are the result of decisions of the consumer.

How Consumers Use Dishwashers: Recent Research

Many past studies (Enders, 1978; Garrett, 1978; Sanik, 1990; Whirlpool, 1993) have analyzed how consumers wash dishes and, in particular, how they use their dishwashers. The findings indicate that the actual water and energy usage for household dishwashing is to a large extent controlled by the consumer. Through such decisions as machine versus hand washing, the extent of pre-rinsing dishes, the selection of dishwasher cycles, and how fully and efficiently the dishwasher is loaded, consumers ultimately decide the water and energy use involved in the dishwashing process.

In 2000, the Center for Real Life Kitchen Design at Virginia Tech conducted a large study on kitchen design and use. One part of the study was consumer dishwasher usage. A personal interview of a sample of 78 adults living in an area surrounding the university community and a national random sample of 630 adults contacted by telephone were included in the study. Although Appliance (2001) indicates 59% of the U.S. households have dishwashers, this study found a saturation level of 64%. A majority of study participants (93%) operated their dishwasher only when full.

Pre-rinsing

One consumer decision that greatly affects water and energy usage during dishwashing is rinsing the dishes before washing them in the dishwasher. If dishes are pre-rinsed using a dishwasher pre-rinse cycle, approximately one gallon of water is used. Pre-rinsing in the sink under running water, however, uses up to 25 gallons of water for 5 minutes of pre-rinsing--a substantial difference.

In the study discussed here, 93% did some pre-rinsing of dishes in the sink, and 48% rinsed five or more times per week. Generally, the younger the respondent, the more likely they pre-rinse dishes. These results were comparable to a 1978 study where 73% of dishwasher users (Leipnitz, 1980) pre-rinsed dishes before placing them in the dishwasher.

Appliance manufacturers recommend only scraping (and not rinsing) dishes before placing them into the dishwasher, yet the pre-rinse practice continues. Independent testing labs like Consumers Union (Consumers Reports, 1993, 1995) generally obtain satisfactory results without the pre-rinsing. So why do consumers continue to include this practice in their daily dishwashing routine? When asked why, consumers in this study gave five major reasons:

• It depends on the food (20%);
• Out of habit (28%);
• From experience dishes do not get clean without rinsing (28%);
• Don't think they will become clean if not rinsed (35%); and
• Dishes will not be washed right away (39%).

The foods study participants perceived as most difficult to remove were baked-on food, eggs, starchy food, melted cheese, greasy foods, and chocolate. Such foods likely received fairly intensive pre-rinsing. In addition, consumers may be pre-rinsing dishes instead of scraping to remove leftover food.

Cycle Choice

Most dishwashers today provide a number of cycle choices so consumers can match a cycle to the type of load, increasing efficiency of both cleaning and resource use. Only 25% of the participants in this study used the water-efficient pre-rinse or rinse-only cycle on their dishwashers.

Cleaning Satisfaction

Another concern of consumers is the overall satisfaction with how well a dishwasher cleans. If satisfactory results are not received, rewashing is needed, and more water and energy are used. Experience with unsatisfactory washing results might encourage consumers to pre-rinse.

Most studies about dishwasher performance state that a majority of the dishwashers do an acceptable job of cleaning (Consumer Reports, 1993, 1995; Leipnitz, 1980; SDA, 2000). Approximately 60% of the respondents in the national survey stated they were very satisfied with the performance of their dishwasher, followed by 30% who were somewhat satisfied. However, these satisfied consumers are also consumers who frequently pre-rinse their dishes before placing them into the dishwasher.

Discussion

Pre-rinsing dishes in the sink before loading the dishwasher appears to be a common consumer practice. For half the participants in the study, this was an almost daily practice. With the estimated water use of up to 25 gallons per meal, this practice represents a substantial use of water and energy.

Reasons for the pre-rinse practice included habit, delayed wash, and anticipation of poor performance. Cleaning satisfaction is obviously an important factor in dishwasher use. However, it appears that consumers are failing to maximize use of dishwasher technology to improve performance while using water and energy resources most efficiently.

Selecting the proper dishwasher cycle to match soil on the dishes is important for both cleaning and resource use. The pre-rinse or rinse-only cycle, with or without detergent, improves cleaning for minimal water use. This cycle also prevents dried-on foods in the event of a delayed wash. In addition, choosing a heavy or "pot/pan" cycle may give more cleaning effectiveness and will use less water than pre-rinsing in the sink before loading the dishwasher.

Water temperature can affect dishwasher results. During the energy crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, consumers turned their water heater down. Unsatisfactory results may have occurred because the water was not hot enough for effective washing, and so the habit of pre-rinsing dishes began. Most dishwashers today have booster heaters to raise water temperature and increase cleaning efficiency. However, consumers may not be aware of this option.

Indeed, more research is needed. Information is limited on how important energy and water conserving dishwasher features are to consumers. It would also be of interest to know how consumers use other cycles and features that affect energy and water usage.

Implications for Extension Programming

Despite the improved energy and water efficiency of today's dishwashers, water and energy are wasted because of the poor dishwashing habits and practices of many consumers. Many consumers are still pre-rinsing their dishes in a sink before placing them into a dishwasher, despite manufacturers' instructions stating this is not needed. Such a practice uses many excess gallons of water and energy.

The challenge for Extension educators is to convince consumers that this practice of pre-rinsing is not necessary for good cleaning results. Further, consumers need to be encouraged to scrape off food leftovers from dishes, rather than pre-rinse, thus reducing water and energy use. Persuading consumers to discontinue pre-rinsing in a sink can only be accomplished if the consumer is assured their dishes will become clean.

What additional information needs to be conveyed to consumers so they can achieve satisfactory results without unnecessary pre-rinsing? Many factors impact the cleaning performance of dishwashers.

1. The dishwasher must be designed well. Many low-end models have minimal water delivery to the dishes, so a middle-to high-end machine will deliver superior results. Dishwashers with more features give the consumer a choice of cycles so that when they need extra cleaning power for heavily soiled dishes they can select the proper cycle for this.

2. Consumers need to be convinced to use the choice of cycles for effective cleaning, especially the pre-rinse or rinse only cycle.

3. Proper water temperature is critical for satisfactory cleaning results. The Soap and Detergent Association (2000) recommends a water temperature no lower than 130 degrees F, and other sources recommend temperatures of 140, 150 degrees F. To save energy as well as provide a safer water temperature for family use, many households have lowered their water heater temperature to 120 degrees F or lower. It is advised that consumers purchase dishwashers with an auxiliary or booster heater that increases the water temperature in the dishwasher to 140 to 160 degrees F. Such features may add to the cost of the dishwasher initially, but the energy savings from reducing the temperature on the home water heater will pay for the feature many times over.

4. Consumers need to follow manufacturers recommendations for effective use of dishwashers, including fresh detergent; loading dishes properly so that water can reach all of the dishes; filters, if present, kept clean; and use of a rinse agent.

Automatic dishwashers are labor saving and resource efficient. Through education, consumers can learn to use these appliances effectively, actually saving time and reducing the waste of water and energy.

Acknowledgment

Research supported by the National Kitchen and Bath Association and the Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management at Virginia Tech.

References

Dishwashers. (1993, October). Consumer Reports, 637-641. Consumers Union, New York.

Dishwashers. (1995, August). Consumer Reports, 533-537. Consumers Union, New York.

Dzierwa. R. (1994, February). The energy and the intensity. Appliance, 52-58.

Enders, B.A. (1978). Improving dishwasher efficiency and effect on consumer dishwashing habits. Proceedings of the 29^th National Home Appliance Conference, 40-42.

Garrett, B.A. (1978). Dishwasher washing vs. hand washing--Which will you choose? Proceedings of the 29^th National Home Appliance Conference, 37-40.

Leipnitz, A.W. (1980). Supplier perspective--Automatic dishwashing products. Proceedings of the Detergents in Depth '80 Symposium sponsored by the Soap and Detergent Association, 26-29.

The life expectancy/replacement picture. (2001, September). Appliance, 58 (9), 55-57.

Lindsay, F.D. (1980). Dishwashers: A look at the past while pondering the present with an eye to the future--What's new and why. Proceedings of the Detergents in Depth '80 Symposium, 23-25.

Soap and Detergent Association (2000). Automatic dishwashing. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.sdahq.org/dishwash/understanding_automatic_dishwashing.html

Sanik, M.M. (1990). Use of inputs in hand vs. machine dishwashing. National Technical Conference Proceedings of the Association of Home Equipment Educators, G1-G 12.

Whirlpool Corporation (1993). How to make a home run with clean-up appliances. Benton Harbor, MI: Author.

Educator Beliefs Regarding Computer-Based Instruction

D. LaDon Swann
Director
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures
Auburn University
Dauphin Island, Alabama
Internet Address: swanndl@auburn.edu

Floyd Branson, Jr.
Assistant Director
Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

B. Allen Talbert
Associate Professor
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

In-service training programs are critical to the success of educators employed by the Cooperative Extension Service. In Purdue Extension, professional development through internal training opportunities is an ongoing process where each educator is allocated 15 days per year to attend annual training events. Development of in-service training programs results from the interactions of county and campus staff in responding to the prioritized needs of stakeholders.

Content specialists use a variety of delivery methods, including face-to-face lectures, satellite video conferencing, videotapes, and the World Wide Web (WWW) (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997). More recently, computer-based instruction (CBI) has generated considerable interest among administrators, content specialists, and educators as a supplement or replacement to traditional methods of in-service training. Some of the cited benefits of CBI for adult learners include:

• Privacy,
• Achievement gains,
• Learner control,
• Cost effectiveness,
• Open entry and exit,
• Individualization of pacing and content,
• Student record keeping,
• Flexibility in scheduling,
• Consistency of content, and
• Instructional timesavings (Askov & Clark, 1991; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986).

Purpose of Study

Because of the growing interest in the use of CBI, there is a need to compare its effectiveness with typical 1-to-3-day, face-to-face lecture in-service training prior to widespread implementation. The study discussed here investigated the mode of content delivery, time to deliver the instruction, delivery cost, and educator beliefs toward CBI during an aquaculture in-service training program. This article presents qualitative results describing Purdue Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Educator beliefs regarding CBI for in-service training.

Materials and Methods

Participants

In December 1998, 34 Purdue Extension ANR educators volunteered to participate in the study. Of the 34 educators participating in the overall experiment, 17 were selected to participate in the beliefs aspect. All participants were County Extension Directors (CED) who used personal computers at least weekly. Participant's beliefs regarding CBI for in-service training were obtained using an open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interviews of six key informants from the CBI group. Stratified purposeful sampling was used to address the beliefs held by educators because it involves picking a small group of educators within the ANR program area with the purpose to describe some particular subgroup in depth. This approach was best suited for determining educator beliefs.

CBI

The CBI tutorial Getting Started in Freshwater Aquaculture (Swann, Katz, Merzdorf, Brown, Luba, & Talbert, 2000) was used. Of the five technical sections on CD-ROM, water resources and production methods were used during this experiment.

Pre-Training Questionnaire

All participants in the study completed a demographic profile questionnaire prior to the training. An open-ended questionnaire was developed to obtain pre-training beliefs on the design and delivery of in-service training, computer experience for training, beliefs regarding implementation of CBI for in-service training, and their view of the advantages and disadvantages of CBI. Questionnaire results were used to select six educators as key informants for follow-up in-depth interviews.

Post-Instruction Evaluations

The 25-item post-instruction CBI evaluation had questions pertaining to the training facilities, program content, program objectives, program functionality, and program user-friendliness. In addition, one question asked participants about their willingness to participate in independent study programs instead of face-to-face in-service training. A second question asked participants to estimate the potential of in-service timesavings through the use of CBI at their office. Evaluations were scored using a 10-point Likert-like scale and summarization of written comments.

Interview

Six participants from the CBI group were selected to be key informants for in-depth interviews following the in-service training. Participants were purposely selected to represent gender, age, and responses to the pre-training questionnaire. One of the two females in the CBI group was selected. A representation of respondents who provided either positive or negative comments toward CBI on the pre-training questionnaire was interviewed. Representation of late-career and mid-career participants was included.

After completing a 120-day delayed posttest, interview participants were asked to respond to four questions regarding their beliefs toward CBI in Purdue Extension in-service training. The questions were written to allow the educators to provide in-depth comments on any change in beliefs since participating in the CBI training, perceived time savings from CBI, potential impediments to widespread implementation of CBI, and their perception of how CBI could be integrated into existing in-service training programs.

Training Format

CBI participants were provided access to a 15-station computer laboratory at the training site. Headphones were provided to reduce distractions when multiple users were working simultaneously in the computer laboratory. Prior to the training, each educator completed the pretest. Each participant was then allocated up to 2 hours to complete the training. When each participant felt prepared or at the end of the 2-hour allocation, the posttest was administered and the post-instruction evaluation completed.

Data Analysis

Inductive analysis using sensitizing concepts was used to determine patterns, themes, and assertions from the open-ended pre-training questionnaire and post-instruction interviews (Patton, 1990). Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and assertions of analysis come from the data rather than being imposed by the researcher. Sensitizing concepts provide a basic framework highlighting the importance of certain kinds of events, activities, and behaviors. Sensitizing concepts means the researcher has conducted the required background work necessary to understand the experimental setting before entering it. These patterns, themes, and assertions helped the researcher understand the educators' beliefs regarding the appropriateness of CBI for in-service training (Patton, 1990).

Data from the pre-training questionnaires and post-instruction interviews were compiled into data matrixes for each group. These matrices were used to identify emergent patterns and themes found through analysis and to make assertions by the author (Erickson, 1986). Each data source was examined for disconfirming evidence (Erickson, 1986) in an attempt to test emerging assertions. Data clips were included for each assertion developed. Individual assertions were tested based on confirming/disconfirming evidence between the individual and evidence of the other key informants. Questionnaire and interview data were compared for congruency and triangulation across data sources for the purpose of addressing validity of participant beliefs (Patton, 1990).

Results

Pre-Training Questionnaire

When asked to describe expectations when enrolling in a training program, educators responded with a general belief that training programs should:

• Use a variety of delivery methods,
• Be applied rather than theoretical,
• Provide interactions with instructor and other participants, and
• Involve minimal travel.

Interaction was viewed as an essential part of in-service training programs. Peer interaction and interaction with instructors were viewed as a valuable way of addressing difficult concepts and as a means of placing new technical information in perspective with the daily work function of the educators. CBI was viewed as a way of decreasing travel, reducing program cost, providing timely content information, providing flexibility in scheduling, allowing self-pacing, and providing the opportunity to review technical information after the training. The educators, however, viewed computer hardware and software incompatibilities, the lack of interactions with peers and instructors, and motivation to complete the CBI training as disadvantages of CBI.

Post-Instruction Evaluation

Overall, each evaluation category received either a medium or high rating. Highest scores were in the content category, and the lowest score was the question about whether the presence of an instructor would have enhanced the quality of the training (Table 1). It was possible to determine internal validity regarding the need for an instructor or the interest in future CBI. However, there is evidence that educators were interested in participating in future CBI with a preference for CBI with some form of interaction with an instructor.

Case Studies

Case studies of six key informants were developed using the demographic data and test results.

Case CBI-1

CBI-1 was a 44-year-old female who has worked in Purdue Extension for 23.5 years and served as CED for 19.5 years. She spends 15 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-1 used 90 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 19 correct responses (35%) on the pretest, 34 correct responses (63%) on the posttest, and 33 correct responses (61%) on the delayed posttest.

Case CBI-2

CBI-2 was a 43-year-old male who has worked in Purdue Extension for 16 years and served as CED for 10 years. He spends 14 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-2 used 90 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 18 correct responses (33%) on the pretest, 41 correct responses (76%) on the posttest, and 28 correct responses (52%) on the delayed posttest.

Case CBI-6

CBI-6 was a 57-year-old male who has worked in Purdue Extension for 9.5 years and served as CED for 9.5 years. He spends 15 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-6 used 105 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 30 correct responses (56%) on the pretest, 54 correct responses (100%) on the posttest, and 46 correct responses (85%) on the delayed posttest.

Case CBI-11

CBI-11 was a 48-year-old male who has worked in Purdue Extension for 20 years and served as CED for 19 years. He spends 15 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-11 used 71 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 14 correct responses (26%) on the pretest, 39 correct responses (72%) on the posttest, and 25 correct responses (46%) on the delayed posttest.

Case CBI-12

CBI-12 was a 52-year-old male who has worked in Purdue Extension for 7 years and served as CED for 2.5 years. He spends 13 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-12 used 60 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 13 correct responses (24%) on the pretest, 39 correct responses (72%) on the posttest, and 28 correct responses (52%) on the delayed posttest.

Case CBI-16

CBI-16 was a 49-year-old male who has worked in Purdue Extension for 15 years and served as CED for 9 years. He spends 6 days per year in professional development programs. CBI-16 used 94 minutes to complete the CBI training and had 30 correct responses (56%) on the pretest, 49 correct responses (91%) on the posttest, and 47 correct responses (87%) on the delayed posttest.

Assertions

The assertions made in the study discussed here suggest that, when properly integrated, CBI is an effective and efficient means of providing in-service training to Purdue Extension ANR educators.

Assertion 1: CBI Has the Potential to be Effectively Used for Extension In-Service Training

All of the interview participants had favorable comments toward the use of CBI for in-service training. The two educators with the most computer experience had the most favorable comments regarding CBI. This is demonstrated by a comment made by CBI-1.

In today's busy lifestyle, with people trying to balance work and family, as well as keep up career-wise, that it (CBI) gives them an opportunity for a flexible learning schedule.

The oldest participant was CBI-6, who had no prior experience using computers for this type of learning. Comments on the pre-training questionnaire indicated that his prior experiences using computers were less than satisfactory.

They have all been rather "bad" experiences in that I learn through repetition and with manuals to refer back to. Most Extension computer training sessions are "one shot-one time" deals with no written manuals and this for me is no good!"

After participating in the aquaculture CBI in-service, CBI-6's belief about the use of CBI for in-service appeared to have changed to a more favorable attitude.

Before the aquaculture training, I'd never had any so-called computer-based instruction and I had no opinion about. My opinion now is that I think its super. I like the idea that you can at your own pace go back and refresh yourself after a week or two months, 6 months or a year later.

Not all of the interview participants felt as strongly about CBI for in-service. CBI-12 felt that CBI had potential, but that there were also shortcomings in the use of CBI for in-service.

The one shortcoming is that if you have a hot topic that is not specifically answered through the computer you don't have anybody to go to that can answer this question.

Assertion 2: CBI Has the Positive Attribute of Decreasing the Amount of Time Out of the Office

CBI-2 recognized that CBI could reduce the amount of time he would have to spend out of the office.

I think what the educator would have to realize is that. . . hey I'm going to be able to spend another day in the office or be available for my clientele if I can dedicate this two hours or what ever it takes to complete this training. I think if you can be disciplined enough to do that, then I think that's maybe what you're going to need to do.

CBI-16 felt that a CBI training format decreases the training time by allowing self-pacing.

In the computer based format I can cut to the chase, so to speak and eliminate a lot of the information that I may feel I have a grasp on and go to the stuff that I need to bone up on a little better. If at that higher level I felt that I needed a little a more background, I could zip right back to that background information.

Assertion 3: Interaction with Participants and Instructors Is a Very Important Part of In-Service Training for Extension ANR Educators

CBI-6 felt the need for group interaction was an important part of in-service training, but not solely for the purpose of discussing content.

The (personal) interaction part to me is important because if you visualize a situation where here I am sitting in this office, in the middle of my county, and I'm the only one here that gives a hoot about agriculture, and you do that for weeks on end you start feeling just a little isolated. Interaction with participants and the instructor is important, but interaction doesn't all have to be face-to-face. . . . The interaction sometimes can be email back and forth over a computer.

CBI-2 provided evidence against the common pattern among educators that interaction is best in a face-to-face format.

I guess the positive thing that I see is that instead of having 30 educators at a training where you lecture to them for three days it's going to provide more opportunities for one-on-one interactions. I think most educators feel that's probably where more education takes place.

Assertion 4: Incompatible Computer Hardware/Software Has Been an Impediment to Wider Implementation of CBI for Purdue Extension In-Service

Comments made by CBI-6 exemplify the past frustrations educators have had with county computer systems being incompatible with most software developed.

If some of the people that were trying to be trained didn't feel comfortable sitting there using a computer it would be difficult for them. The other problem might be if the computers that are being used like many of us have here in offices now are incompatible with those on campus.

Assertion 5: Self-Discipline by Educators and Flexibility in Scheduling by Specialists Will Increase the Effectiveness of CBI

CBI-12 expressed a common concern of educators in regard to the self-discipline required to complete CBI.

Knowing whether in fact I did take the time to complete it (training) or whether it was one of those things that. . . gosh, I have three other meetings today, I'm gone on vacation at the end of the week. All of a sudden that thing has been sitting there for a couple weeks and I've forgotten about it.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

The Purdue Extension ANR educators participating in this study had favorable views toward the use of CBI for in-service training programs. Spending less time out of their county and the ability to review materials after the training were two of the key CBI benefits cited by educators.

Implication

A "one-size fits all" approach may not be the most effective way of delivering instruction to Purdue Extension educators. They prefer a variety of delivery systems when receiving in-service training. A combination of CBI, the Web, electronic mail, Internet chat software, Internet discussion groups, satellite teleconference, phone conferencing, small group interactions, hands-on activities, and face-to-face lecture would be preferred to the use of only one or two delivery methods. Based on the participants' comments from the pre-training questionnaire, pure lecture alone, without other activities such as field experiences, was the least preferred method of acquiring new technical information by educators.

Recommendation

Purdue Extension would benefit by creating an assessment team composed of educators and specialists to compile a list of in-service training programs currently conducted by Purdue Extension. A prioritized list based on audience size, frequency of occurrence, funding sources, and multi-departmental involvement will aid in concentrating efforts and resources toward the development of high-priority CBI training modules useful in conjunction with traditional lecture formats or as stand-alone training modules for educators.

Any CBI should include some form of interaction with the instructor and other participants. Ideally, the interaction would be a shortened face-to-face session to assist in processing the information from the CBI module through clarification of difficult concepts. Alternative methods of interaction between instructor and participants could include the use of conference phone calls, two-way video conferencing, and Internet chat rooms and discussion groups.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service Educators who participated in this study.

References

Askov, E. N., & Clark, C. J. (1991). Using computers in adult literacy instruction. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 434-48.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3, 119-161. New York: MacMillan.

Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J.A., & Shwalb, B.J. (1986). The effectiveness of computer-based adult education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 235-252.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative extension. Boston: Delmar.

Swann, D. LaDon, Katz, S., Merzdorf, R., Brown, J.W., Luba, T., & Talbert, B.A. (2000). Computer-based instruction: Getting started in freshwater aquaculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/tt2.html

Wolfson, J.G.E. (1986). Computer-based learning in adult education: A South African case study. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 23(1), 76-83.

Newsletters: Treasures or Trash? Parenting Newsletter Series Results in Positive Behavior Changes

Martha Garton
Extension Associate Professor
Petersburg, West Virginia
Internet Address: mgarton2@wvu.edu

Kelly Hicks
Extension Instructor
Romney, West Virginia
Internet Address: hicksk@wvu.edu

Miriam Leatherman
Extension Associate Professor
Moorefield, West Virginia
Internet Address: mleather@wvu.edu

Margaret Miltenberger
Extension Instructor
Keyser, West Virginia
Internet Address: mmiltenb@wvu.edu

Patricia Mulkeen
Extension Specialist and Extension Assistant Professor
Morgantown, West Virginia
Internet Address: pmulkeen@wvu.edu

Lorella Nelson-Mitchell
Extension Assistant Professor
Franklin, West Virginia
Internet Address: lnelsonm@wvu.edu

Carol Winland
Extension Assistant Professor
Morgantown, West Virginia
Internet Address: cwinland@wvu.edu

West Virginia University Extension Service

Introduction

Parenting has become more challenging today, yet time and distance prevent parents' participation in useful programs. To meet parenting education needs while overcoming barriers to participation in a rural eastern section of West Virginia, Extension agents designed and wrote newsletters for the parents of kindergarten-age students. A cooperative arrangement with the area school system allowed the newsletters to be distributed to kindergarten parents via their children.

The use of newsletters had proven effective in similar situations. The research described here supports the existing literature on the effectiveness of newsletters as a parent education tool (Dickinson & Cudaback, 1992; Riley, Meinhardt, Nelson, Sallsbury & Winnett, 1991; Zimmer, Scheer, & Shriner, 1999; and Bogenschneider & Stone, 1997). An article in the Journal of Extension about newsletter research was similar in targeting kindergarten parents, using a brief format, and learning the newsletter was useful (Merkowitz, Jelly, Collins, & Arkin, 1997). However, the study discussed here identified (1) the extent to which parents read the newsletters and (2) the changes in behaviors as a result of reading the newsletters.

Purpose of the Study

The newsletter series Family Times applied a methodology of parent education to a new set of topics for a new group of parents. Evaluation of this series contributed to the knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of newsletters for parent education. The purpose of the study was to determine parents' knowledge gain and behavior change after reading the newsletters.

Research Questions

1. Will parents read the newsletters?
2. Can newsletters increase parents' reported use of the parenting techniques described in the newsletters?

Target Audience

The Family Times newsletter series was designed to reach parents of kindergarten-age students because they are often more receptive and open to parenting suggestions at this stage in their child's development (Bingner, 1979; Reynolds, 1989). The evaluation survey was conducted in the five rural counties (average population 15,531) within the Potomac Highland region of West Virginia.

Newsletter Topics

Topics for the newsletters were chosen based on the literature regarding the needs of parents of children 5-8 years old (Merkowitz et. al., 1997), or were suggested by authors of the National Network for Family Resiliency (DeBord, Kirby, & Meade, 1999). The topics selected were:

• Dear Parent - Introduction Letter
• Becoming Your Child's Reading Partner
• Developing Responsibility
• Friends
• Dealing with Anger
• Children and Small Screens--TV, Video, Games and Computers
• Setting Limits
• Taking Time to Listen
• Honesty is the Best Policy
• Fears and Feelings

Choice of Delivery Method

The delivery of parent education in a rural community presented several problems. Travel to meetings was often difficult because of distances, weather, and lack of adequate public transportation. Busy parents could not always attend meetings and classes (DeBord, Kirby, & Meade, 1999) and indeed preferred learn-at-home training (Zimmer, Scheer, & Shriner, 1999).

The newsletter could be distributed to a large number of people, could be age-paced to meet the needs of parents, and would be cost effective. Newsletters have been found an effective parent education tool with a variety of other audiences:

• Teen parents (Dickinson & Cudaback, 1992);
• Single parents (Nelson, 1986);
• New parents (Riley, et. al., 1991);
• Volunteers working with five to eight year-olds (Zimmer et al., 1999); and
• Low- and high-risk parents of adolescents, (Bogenschneider & Stone, 1997).

Mailing the newsletter was cost prohibitive, so distribution through the schools was chosen. This method strengthened partnerships with the schools and reinforced work that the schools were already doing (Lerner, 1995). Collaboration with the schools brought the program to parents through an institution that was a routine part of their lives (Merkowitz et al., 1997).

Instrument

The instrument used was a post-then-pre questionnaire design. The post-then-pre method reduces distortion in evaluation findings due to respondents' exaggerated ratings of knowledge or skill prior to a training session (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). The two-page questionnaire distributed to parents included four general questions about the newsletters, a series of post-then-pre questions assessing parenting behavior before and after reading the newsletters, and demographic questions. A pilot test of the survey, using parents not part of the test population, revealed that the parents could understand and successfully complete the survey tool.

Methodology

Cluster sampling was used to select two schools in each of the five counties to receive the survey forms. Cluster sampling was chosen due to the practical advantages that it afforded for data collection purposes (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

The survey was divided into two phases. This was done to shorten the survey and to lessen the length of time between when the respondents received the newsletters and when they were asked to respond about their behavior related to the content of the newsletters. Phase 1 dealt with the first five newsletters, and Phase 2 dealt with the remaining four newsletters.

The same demographic information was requested in each phase. Different schools were used in each phase to reach a broader population. Extension agents in each county developed school contacts, distributed questionnaires to the teachers, collected the returned questionnaires, and forwarded them to one location for collective data entry.

A total of 1,044 kindergarten students received the newsletters in the five-county area. Eight hundred and twenty-eight families were surveyed (369 in Phase 1 and 459 in Phase 2). There was a 42.82% response in Phase 1 and a 33.33% response rate in Phase 2.

Analysis

A series of paired-samples t-Tests were conducted to determine whether differences between respondents' ratings of knowledge before and after the newsletter were statistically significant. The paired samples t-Test accounts for the covariance between before and after responses being greater than zero. This positive difference would be expected in two responses from the same person (Hays, 1988).

Major Findings

A majority of the respondents did read most of the Family Times newsletters. Approximately 75% of respondents read three or more of the five Family Times newsletters surveyed with the Phase 1 questionnaire. Among the respondents to the Phase 2 questionnaire, 75% read three or more of the four newsletters.

An overwhelming number of respondents (between 60-75% in Phase 1 and 75-85% in Phase 2) did learn something new from the newsletters. Respondents demonstrated the greatest increase in new information from the reading, responsibility, and the "Taking Time to Listen" topic.

Respondents reported positive changes in their parenting behavior. Areas of positive change are arrayed in Tables 1 and 2. The paired sample t-Tests reveal that the bold items in Table 1 are significant. For example, under reading items, there is a significant positive gain among respondents in using the shared reading tips. However, there were not significant gains in reading with children.

Table 2 reveals that the mean for reading with children before reading the newsletter was high, which indicates that most respondents were already reading to their children. Under responsibility, there were four areas of significant gains:

1. Positive gains in parenting behavior,
2. Setting reasonable limits and rules,
3. Involving the child in setting the rules, and
4. Helping the child learn from mistakes.

Results of the paired sample t-Tests reveal that all of the items in Table 3 are significant with regard to positive changes in parenting practices.