October 2003
Volume 41 Number 5

Ideas at Work

Strategies for Extension Specialists with Research or Classroom Instruction Assignments

Scott Loveridge
State Extension Leader and Professor
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Internet Address: loverids@msue.msu.edu

Introduction

This article offers ideas for State Extension Specialists holding appointments in classroom teaching and research. The proportion of specialists with blended appointments varies by state, but the movement toward this kind of appointment has been going on for some time (Gerber, 1985) and seems to be accelerating. The changes are partially driven by financial considerations as departments have downsized and combined positions (McDowell, 2001; Acker, 2001; Ahearn, 2002).

Programmatic advantages of blended appointments include:

• Bringing practical experiences to research (Jones & Finley, 1997) and classrooms (Haines, 2002)
• Offering a chance to "test run" Extension programs in classrooms
• Providing a bigger pool of applicants for open faculty positions

Programmatic disadvantages of blended appointments include:

• Difficulty in balancing effort (Brittingham, 1999)
• Paucity of mentors who achieved tenure under a split appointment

The rest of this article fills the "mentor void" by focusing on strategies that Extension Specialists might employ to balance among the three functions. The article includes strategies for the classroom, research, and Extension teaching.

Classroom Strategies

To blend classroom teaching and Extension, find ways to connect students to groups who might benefit from the interaction. Some examples of how to do this follow.

• Use stakeholders to identify topics for student papers and provide critiques.
• Use industry/community contacts as guest lecturers in your course.
• Draw examples or exercises from your Extension work.
• Use student papers as a springboard for jointly authored Extension bulletins.
• Recruit passionate students for Extension-related internships, independent study, or thesis.
• Use spring break or summers to get students off-campus.

It is important to carefully negotiate your teaching assignment. Try to get a teaching assignment where the subject is closely aligned with your Extension work. Alignment will probably be best in upper-division undergraduate or intermediate graduate classes. Consider also the seasonality of demand for your Extension activities, and work towards concentrating your classroom teaching during the off-season. Team teaching with someone who doesn't have an Extension appointment can also help focus your classroom work in the Extension off-season.

Research Strategies

Extension work can greatly enhance a faculty member's research program. Academic review includes consideration of published works and the faculty member's grant writing history. Some changes are underway among the major agencies that fund basic research across the nation. Frequently cited works by Boyer (1990), Lynton (1995), Campbell (1995), Glassick, Huber, and Maerhoff (1997), and the Kellogg Commission (1999) emphasize the need for connecting university research to various constituencies. Funding agencies now place more value on whether the research results have application in society.

For example, the prestigious National Science Foundation has recently added a new criterion for proposal review: "What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?" An Extension appointment, with the close contact it brings with people who have practical needs, is an excellent way to develop research questions that have solid applications. What follows are some ways to connect research with Extension teaching.

• Use stakeholder groups to identify key, ongoing issues.
• Use your knowledge of the field to leverage non-Extension faculty involvement.
• Write post-docs or associates into your grants and ask them to assist in Extension program delivery.
• Involve Agents in managing, coordinating, or monitoring trials in their service regions.
• Use stakeholders to develop participatory research programs.
• Publish results of program evaluation in disciplinary journals.
• Look for mentors at all levels in the system as part of your evaluation work (Dann, 1999).

Extension Programming Strategies

As a Specialist with a blended appointment, you may be filling two (or more) positions held by your predecessors. It is important to first assess and prioritize the Extension demands that your position's history may place upon you (Craven, 1999). A radical shift away from the prior programs may be needed, but it can be dangerous to make changes that alienate stakeholders before you have a better program to offer! Following are some strategies to make the most effective use of your time.

• Take time to understand Agent abilities and needs (Ukaga et al., 2002).
• Use Web sites, video, and conference calls to reduce travel time.
• Summarize new lines of research based on your dissertation.
• Avoid dozens of speeches to civic groups.
• Do programs with the potential to lead to short- or medium-term behavior change.
• Use program fees, program applications processes, or pre-program "homework" to assess the commitment of the audience.
• Proactively offer a selection of talks instead of simply reacting to requests.
• Use a "train-the-trainer" approach with Agents, and be clear about how you can help after the training.
• Seek grants for outreach or applied problem-solving activities.

Get a summary of your department's overall plan for Extension. If your department doesn't have a plan for its Extension work, then you have an opportunity to initiate discussions about what the department values in an Extension program. An excellent resource for this dialog might be Lynton's (1995, p. 56) "Questions for Departmental Discussion" (available on the Web at <http://www.compact.org/advancedtoolkit/lynton.html>).

Conclusions

This article shows how Specialists with appointments blending research and classroom activities with Extension can thrive under the competing demands for their time. The strategies presented here must be evaluated in the context of your own assignment. Before using the suggestions listed above, frame them in the context of your situation, and consult with your more seasoned colleagues and your supervisor.

A good mix of research and classroom assignments can benefit an Extension program. While the appropriate mix may vary by discipline and place, it is important to keep in mind that the basic proportions in any good recipe can't change too much without ruining the flavor. Mixing research and teaching with Extension work in your appointment is a little like mixing a salad--if you put in 20 parts crouton and one part lettuce, the salad won't be very satisfying.

Similarly, a faculty appointment with only a small percentage of Extension time may not be very satisfying. It may result in a lack of focus on Extension program development, and it takes time to develop effective mechanisms for informal education. Research and classroom experiences should be viewed as seasoning for the salad--making life more interesting through combining flavors and experiences--but not the main ingredient in a Specialist's position description.

Integrating research and classroom teaching with a meaningful Extension appointment may seem daunting, but it can be done. The key to success is to creatively assess opportunities for blending the activities in a synergistic way instead of simply segmenting time across the three functions.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Vera Bitsch, Roy Black, Cheri Booth, Ted Ferris, Geoff Habron, George Morse, the MSU Extension Specialists Association, National Extension ANR Program Leaders conference participants, and three JOE reviewers for substantive comments on an earlier draft.

References

Acker, D. (2001). Budget cutbacks: Some strategies for deans, directors, and the staff they lead. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/2001april/comm1.html

Ahearn, M. (2002). Regional trends in Extension resources. Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Meetings in Orlando, FL. Summary available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/extension/

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered, Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton University Press: Lawrenceville, NJ.

Brittingham, M. C. (1999). Challenges facing today's Extension specialists: Where's the stress? In R. M. Timmand S. L. Dann (Eds.) Leading the way toward sustainability: Extension in the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference. Portland Maine.

Campbell, J. R. (1995). Reclaiming a lost heritage: Land-grant and other higher education initiatives for the twenty-first century. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.

Craven, S. R. Survival within the university system. (1999). In R. M. Timmand S. L. Dann (Eds.) Leading the way toward sustainability: Extension in the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference. Portland Maine.

Dann, S. L. (1999). Succeeding within the Extension system. In R. M. Timmand S. L. Dann (Eds.) Leading the way toward sustainability: Extension in the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference. Portland Maine.

Gerber, J. M. (1985). Extension specialists: A self-analysis. Journal of Extension [On-line], 23(4). 1985. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1985winter/a2.html

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. Y., & Maerhoff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Haines, A. L. (2002). Blended teaching: Land use planning education in Wisconsin and lessons learned. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/iw2.shtml

Jones, S. B., & Finely, J. C. (1997). Integrating Extension in natural resources graduate education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997december/a5.html

Kellogg Commission on the Future of Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [On-line]. Available at: http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/engage.pdf

Lynton, E. A. (1995). Making the case for professional service. American Association for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.

McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land grant universities and Extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames: Iowa State Press.

Ukaga, O., Reichenbach, M. R., Blinn, C. R., Zak, D. M., Hutchinson, W. D., & Hegland, N. J. (2002). Building successful campus and field faculty teams. Journal of Extension [On-line]40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/a3.html

Using Regional Economic Analysis Tools to Address Land Use Planning Issues

James R. Nelson
Extension Economist
Internet Address: jnelson@uidaho.edu

Jerold D. Neufeld
Canyon County Extension Chair
Internet Address: jerryn@uidaho.edu

Steven S. Peterson
Economic Research Technician
Internet Address: stevenp@uidaho.edu

University of Idaho

Introduction

Idaho was the fifth fastest growing state in the nation from 1990 to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Census). Many residents have concerns about negative impacts of this growth and the accompanying suburban and rural sprawl. In such situations, it makes sense for Extension professionals to respond to requests for land use planning help with objective information and non-controversial methods. An example of such an Extension response occurred in Canyon County, Idaho in the spring of 2002.

The Canyon County Idaho Situation

Canyon County is immediately adjacent to Ada County, a small county that mostly consists of the City of Boise. Boise was the seventh fastest growing metro area in the nation from 1990 to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Census). Canyon County is a major participant in the Boise metro area growth, so it is experiencing a great deal of suburban and rural sprawl.

Canyon County is ranked second among Idaho counties in cash receipts from agriculture ($311 million in 1997) (U. S. Department of Agriculture). Some of the best farmland in Canyon County is turning into subdivisions and small acreage sites for "trophy homes." Many farmers in the county are finding it difficult to continue to farm because their farming operations create problems (dust, noise, odors, spray drift) for their residential neighbors. Also, the traffic congestion on rural roads makes it difficult and expensive for farmers to move equipment and get their products to market.

Many Canyon County farmers feel that their operations should be protected from residential development incursions. Other farmers are equally concerned that, if they cannot develop their land as residential sites or sell it to developers, their rights to use their property as they choose are being unduly constrained. Opinions of non-farm residents of Canyon County are similarly divergent. Rural zoning, transferable development rights, and "God given rights" for landowners to use their property as they see fit are "hot topics" in Canyon County.

Extension Response to the Situation

Into this emotionally charged environment stepped Extension. Following a request from the Canyon County Extension chair, Extension economists collected Canyon County data and analyzed it using economic input-output models. They found that every 100 acres of Canyon County irrigated farmland taken out of agricultural production results in annual reductions in total sales and total income in the county of about $853,400 and $137,200, respectively. About 70 jobs and $204,000 in annual property, sales, and excise tax receipts would also be lost.

This and other information about the economic structure of Canyon County was reported back to local leaders. The report also pointed out the following:

Manufacturing is the second largest basic industry in Canyon County. Agriculture is the largest. However, nearly 40 percent of the county's employment in manufacturing is in high technology, which has grown rapidly in the recent past, and is likely to experience considerably more growth in the future. How this growth occurs is important to the future of Canyon County. If new manufacturing facilities and housing tracts locate on irrigated farmland, then this growth comes with economic trade-offs (sales, income, employment and taxes lost due to reductions in county agricultural production). The benefits of new manufacturing jobs would have to be weighed against these losses. On the other hand, if new manufacturing facilities and related employee housing tracts are located on land other than irrigated farmland (on "rocky hillsides"), then the county does not have these trade-offs, or at least they are potentially much less costly. This could be a "win-win" situation. The same is true with expansion of any other industries, services or retail trade (Peterson & Nelson, 2002).

The release of the report in Canyon County generated much discussion. As soon as the report was released, the authors had phone calls from local newspapers, and stories were run in the media throughout the region. Not everyone in Canyon County liked the report, but few, if any, questioned the information it contained. Many people in Canyon County had simply not thought about the trade-offs and the fact that there might be ways to have growth without sacrificing so much of the local agricultural economy.

Some examples of how the study is currently being used to facilitate well-informed land use policy decisions in Canyon County follow.

• Canyon County Farm Bureau is using the study to educate local leaders and citizens about the economic value of agriculture to the county.
  
  
• Extension faculty have made presentations to state legislators from Canyon County, to local Chambers of Commerce, and to local service clubs.
  
  
• Local and regional media have used the study in several news stories to inform the public about agriculture's role in the Canyon County economy.
  
  
• The Canyon County Board of Commissioners and the Canyon County Development Services Department are using information from the study during deliberations on giving out conditional use permits. They are trying to determine whether uses proposed in the permitting process will contribute to the erosion of the county's economy, or to its growth. Those land uses that are not as economically productive as agriculture will receive greater scrutiny before permits are given (if they are given).
  
  
• Information from the study is being used in the process of developing the county's comprehensive plan, to help determine which land should be zoned as agricultural, and the value of that land to the economy.
  
  
• Extension faculty in Canyon County have assisted county leaders and citizens with all of these educational efforts.

The study discussed here did not solve Canyon County's land use/farmland protection problem. County citizens and policy makers are still working on that. However, the study provided those citizens and policy makers with facts to help explain the problem and put it into a context to which they could better relate.

What Can Be Learned from the Canyon County Experience?

Land use issues that must be addressed by local policy makers are becoming increasingly common in places such as Idaho, where policy makers have always thought that, "Those are not problems we will ever have to deal with." Extension will get called on to help with these situations.

Two obvious ways Extension can help (and has helped) are:

• By providing group process skills and expertise to help citizens and leaders understand and respect diverse opinions and viewpoints and search for the most widely acceptable solutions and
  
  
• By providing relevant factual information to help contextualize problems and evaluate alternative outcomes.

Extension professionals are helping with land use issues in Canyon County in both of these ways. The focus of this article is on how relevant factual information was developed, provided, received, and used.

Relevant factual information of the sort discussed in this article is easier to develop now than it was even a few years ago. Economic input-output models have been around for a long time. However, data and tools (software and hardware) to facilitate use of such models have "come a long way" in the last 10 years.

There are faculty and staff affiliated with most land-grant universities (often agricultural economists working in Extension) who have the expertise to develop models such as the Canyon County, Idaho model discussed here. Using IMPLAN (Minnesota IMPLAN Group) and existing databases, such models can often be developed fairly quickly (weeks rather than months). With back-up from specialists and with relatively little training, county Extension educators and other field Extension faculty can assist local policy makers and citizens to interpret and utilize results of these models. Thus local land use decisions can be made with the benefit of better information about their complete consequences.

References

U.S. Bureau of Census. (2000). Census 2000: Household and economic topics. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html

U. S. Department of Agriculture. (1997). Census of agriculture. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/

Peterson, S,. & Nelson, J. (2002). The economy of Canyon County. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology A.E. Extension Series No. 02-09. University of Idaho.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 1725 Tower Drive West Suite 140, Stillwater, MN 55082.

Volunteers: The Key to Expanding Extension Programming for Older Adults

Claudia C. Collins
Area Aging Issues Specialist
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
Internet Address: collinsc@unce.unr.edu

Introduction

The U.S. Census (2002) estimates that one out of every five people in the United States is 55 years of age or older. With this rapid growth of the nation's aging population, Extension is trying to provide useful programming for seniors.

The Seniors CAN program was developed by the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE) to help older adults maintain their independent living status (Collins & Hernandez, 2000). The 16-week wellness program has demonstrated that community-based education can be an effective tool to improve older adults' quality of life by enhancing their knowledge of everyday issues ranging from nutrition to crime prevention (Collins, 2001).

It was determined that in order for the program to reach its largest audience both locally and nationally, a considerable expansion of instructors needed to occur. Other programs such as 4-H and Master Gardeners serve as successful growth models regarding the use of volunteers. For Seniors CAN, this has been accomplished with volunteers from two groups: peer-educators from the target audience over 55 years of age and volunteers from the staffs of agencies that already provide services to elderly clients.

By mid-2003, more than 271 older adults completed the 4-month Seniors CAN program in urban and rural Clark County. Another 150 attended from 1 to 15 sessions of the program without completing the in- and out-processing documents. Seniors CAN has been presented at 31 local sites, with one-third of the 16-week sessions taught by volunteer instructors. The "Seniors CAN Curriculum" is currently being utilized in more than 35 states and was listed on the Centers for Disease Control, Health Promotion and Education Database in 2002.

Expanding Program Delivery with Volunteer Instructors

Peer Educators

Initial attempts to expand the scope of delivery of the Seniors CAN program targeted older adult volunteer instructors. Existing research suggests that volunteering may help improve the physical and psychological well-being of seniors by maintaining self-esteem, life satisfaction, access to support systems, and activity level, (Van Willigen, 2000; Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999). The research also suggests that senior volunteers will provide their assistance to organizations that are more likely to affect their well-being. Recruitment of senior peer-educators has been helped by the program's affiliation with the University of Nevada, Reno, and they enjoy having access to the latest research provided directly by Cooperative Extension faculty and staff. Seniors CAN students who have completed the course have also been recruited as future peer-educators.

Minority Volunteers

Another program expansion issue that can be addressed with volunteers is the need for representatives from ethnic minorities as peer-educators. Community centers often serve specific ethnic groups that might not otherwise have access to extension programs. Recruiting volunteers from within these ethnic groups can help the program reach more diverse populations.

One excellent example of this is a bilingual volunteer Seniors CAN instructor who was recruited from a community center in a predominantly Spanish-speaking area of Las Vegas. Although the former engineer's background is not in teaching, he enthusiastically assumed the role of peer-instructor. At 79 years old, he volunteers for a number of organizations and travels by bus, demonstrating a practical solution to transportation issues for older adult volunteers who do not drive.

Human Service Agency Staff

As the process of recruiting volunteer instructors for Seniors CAN has evolved, another source has emerged: the paid staff of social service agencies providing services to the elderly. Many such organizations have requirements to provide health and wellness related educational programming for older adults. The Seniors CAN program is using this option through its collaboration with two such organizations: the Las Vegas Housing Authority (LVHA) and Nevada Hand.

The LVHA requested the university provide the course for residents of their older adult subsidized housing sites. Because the scope was too large for the limited staff of the Seniors CAN program, Housing Authority employees were trained to teach the program, utilizing the train-the-trainer model. In 2002, five employees taught the Seniors CAN program at multiple sites, providing hundreds of hours of wellness instruction.

At the same time, Nevada Hand, a non-profit organization that builds and operates senior low-income complexes in Las Vegas, was searching for a way to provide wellness education for elderly residents. Seven of their residential managers were trained, and four have taught the Seniors CAN program, reaching a large audience in low-income housing.

Multiple benefits come from training paid staff of other organizations teach an extension program. These include:

• Making the program available to the numerous agencies serving senior populations,
• Broadening the teaching capacity of these instructors for other educational opportunities, and
• Providing access to underserved populations for extension programming.

Training & Supervising Volunteers

Once instructors have been recruited, adequate training and supervision of lesson delivery becomes critical in ensuring that the wellness education program continues to meet its objectives. The Seniors CAN program has two approaches to provide training and support:

1. An instructor's training class that provides program content and assistance in facilitation techniques, and
2. On-going support for the instructor.

The train-the-trainer model is used for the instructor's training class. Volunteers are given basic training in teaching skills for conducting and facilitating an interactive class. The volunteer instructors also observe a regularly scheduled class session taught by Cooperative Extension staff or another trained volunteer instructor.

On-going instructor support provides both confidence-building and assistance in dealing with the myriad questions that arise from instruction with such relevance to everyday life. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension resources, such as nutrition professionals and aging researchers, provide answers to program-related questions. The individual confidence-building is addressed by having UNCE staff attend the first few classes to provide moral support. The Seniors CAN program provides supervision, printed lesson handouts, and program-related materials.

Conclusions

Just as with other Extension programming, volunteers can help expand delivery of programs designed for the older adult population. The UNCE Seniors CAN program has successfully utilized two recruiting pools: peer-educators over the age of 55 and staff from social service organizations. Train-the-trainer instruction and continuing support with Extension resources are crucial to the retention of such instructors.

The Seniors CAN program has taken a number of critical steps in development during its first 5 years. Finding and retaining effective and reliable volunteer instructors complements the expansion of this program to provide wellness education to the large and rapidly growing older adult population.

References

Collins, C. (2001). Seniors CAN: Enhancing independence for older adults. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/iw4.html

Collins, C., & Hernandez, L. (2000). Seniors Can Curriculum. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Curriculum Materials. CM 00-05.

Musick, M. Herzog, A. R., & House, J. S. (1999). Volunteering and mortality among older adults: Findings from a national sample. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 54B,S173-S180.

Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. Journal of Gerontology: Social Science, 55B(5), S308-S318.

Parenting from Prison: What Can Extension Educators Do?

Jackie L. Reilly
Youth Development Specialist
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Reno, Nevada
Internet Address: reillyj@unce.unr.edu

Introduction

Incarcerated parents face many difficulties maintaining contact with their children. Parenting From Prison, a University of Nevada Cooperative Extension program, offers incarcerated parents the opportunity to develop parenting skills and learn ways to maintain their relationships with their children.

Need

In 1999, there were 721,500 parents of 1,498,800 minors in State and Federal prisons (Bloom, 1993; Mumola, 2000) in the United States. The number of children with incarcerated parents grew by 500,000 from 1991 to 1999 (Mumola, 2000). Eighty percent of the children were 10 years old or younger (Mumola, 2000). Many incarcerated parents reunite with their children upon release (Mumola, 2000).

Fritsch and Burkhead (1981) found children of incarcerated mothers and fathers exhibited problematic behavior, including withdrawal, a drop in school-work, use of drugs or alcohol, school truancy, and hostile behavior, following parental incarceration. Children of incarcerated parents are more likely to be incarcerated than children whose parents were never incarcerated (Bloom, 1993). Developing new parenting skills may help break this cycle.

Considerations

When developing parenting programs for incarcerated parents, there are circumstances to consider.

Income

Most incarcerated parents were poor, with incomes below the poverty line, prior to incarceration; 70% of mothers and 53% of fathers earned less than $12,000 annually (Mumola, 2000).

Education

Many incarcerated parents have little education. Forty-two percent to 70% have no high school diploma or equivalent prior to incarceration (Banauch, 1985; Mumola, 2000; Snell, 1994).

Living Arrangements

Many incarcerated mothers, 50% in federal prisons and 73% in state prisons, lived with their children prior to incarceration (Banauch, 1985; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Mumola, 2000). Fewer incarcerated fathers, 36% to 49%, lived with their children prior to incarceration (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Martin, 2001; Mumola, 2000). Separation from parents can be difficult, and negative circumstances may cause it to be more traumatic.

Family Contact

Incarcerated parents may have little or no contact with their children due to numerous barriers (Bloom, 1993; Blinn, 1997). Most incarcerated parents (over 60%) are in prison more than 100 miles from their most recent residence (Bloom, 1993; Mumola, 2000). Parents may not want their children to see them in prison or be exposed to the prison environment (Baunach, 1985; Bloom, 1993; Coll, Surrey, Buccio-Notaro, & Molla, 1998). Children may be in foster care or with family members who believe incarcerated parents are bad parents (Blinn, 1997; Bloom, 1993; Coll, Surrey, Buccio-Notaro, & Molla, 1998).

Facilitator

Incarcerated parents can be a difficult and rewarding audience. There may be issues affecting parenting, such as addictions or mental illness. Extension professionals need to educate themselves about this audience before working with them. They may want to get training from prison personnel or partner with prison staff to present classes.

Curricula Activities

Parenting From Prison participants ask how to be a better parent. Classes focus on building positive relationships with children, age-appropriate expectations, guidance, and communication. Following are ways for parents to connect with their children.

• Make-a-hug: Parents trace their hand and arm on an 11" x 17" paper. Parents cut out the traced arms and glue them together. Parents can write a special message on the hug and mail it to their child. The paper hug is a tangible way to show their love. For prison settings that do not allow scissors, the parent educator may need to pre-cut the traced arms.
  
  
• Bookmarks: In class we talk about the importance of reading with children. A bookmark is one way to remind children to read and let children know the parent values reading. Parents decorate a strip of 3" by 8" paper. We provide stencils, stickers, markers, and colored pencils. We laminate the bookmarks.
  
  
• Place mats: Parents put a positive message and pictures on an 11" x 17" colored paper. We laminate the place mat so that it can be cleaned with a damp cloth.
  
  
• Name Poem: Parents can write a poem about their child using the letters of their child's name. For example: "I love you Derek, because you are Delightful, Energetic, Rambunctious, Entertaining and Knowledgeable". The poem could be put on a card or poster for the child.

Additional ideas can be found in a fact sheet available from our Web site at <http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/child.htm>. Scroll to "Children, Youth and Families: Parenting," and click on Parenting From Prison.

Summary

Participants rate the class using a scale of 1 to5 (1 being "not very useful" to 5 being "very useful). Analyses indicated participants felt the class was very helpful, 97% of fathers (N=33) and 95% of mothers (N=22) rated the class as very useful. Parents were asked to list four things that they learned in class; 72% (N=105) were able to list three or more things that they had learned in the class. The majority of participants indicated the best thing about class was time to talk and listen, ideas for parenting from prison, and making things for their children.

Incarcerated parents have time to think about their children and choices they have made (Baunach, 1985; Boudouris, 1996). Many want to learn to be better parents and how to deal with the impact of incarceration on their children (Carp & Schade, 1993; Coll et al., 1998). Extension professionals are uniquely posed to offer parenting classes to this growing population. Modifications of our current, research-based parenting curricula can provide the basis for helping incarcerated parents learn new parenting skills. Learning parenting skills can help parents and their children succeed.

References

Baunach, P. J. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc.

Blinn, C. L. (Ed.) (1997). Maternal ties: A selection of programs for women offenders. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Bloom, B. (1993). Incarcerated mothers and their children: Maintaining family ties. In Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population. Lanham, MD. American Correctional Association. pp.60-68.

Boudouris, J. (1996). Parents in prison: Addressing the needs of families. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Carp, S. V., & Schade, L. S. (1993). Tailoring facility programming to suit female offender needs. In Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Coll, C. G., Surrey, J. L., Buccio-Notaro, P., & Molla, B. (1998). Incarcerated mothers: Crimes and punishments. (pp. 255-274).In Coll, C. G.; Surrey, J. L. & Weingarten, K. (Eds.) Mothering against the odds: Diverse voices of contemporary mothers. NY: The Guilford Press.

Fritsch. T. A., & Burkhead, J. D. (1981). Behavioral reactions of children to parental absence due to imprisonment. Family Relations, 30, 83-88.

Greenfeld, L., & Snell, T. C. (1999). Women offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Martin, J. S. (2001). Inside looking out: Jailed fathers' perceptions about separation from their children. NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Mumola, C. J. (August, 2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Snell, T. L. (1994). Women in prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

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.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.