|
June 2004
|
       |
Ideas at WorkUsing Evaluation to Guide Program Content: Diabetes EducationKaren Chapman-Novakofski Vance DeBruine Brenda Derrick Justine Karduck JoAn Todd Sara Todd University of Illinois IntroductionWhile Extension nutrition educators have the primary responsibility to provide "normal nutrition" education, changes in society have produced consumers with a wide array of diet and health questions. Extension programming has responded to these questions with programs addressing diet and heart disease, weight maintenance, and diabetes. Even 20 years ago, 93% of agents in Florida received questions concerning modified diets (Lenicheck, Anderson, & Tichenor, 1986). The incidence of diabetes continues to increase for all ages, both genders, and all races and educational levels (Mokdad et al., 2002). A critical element of diabetes care is patient education. Optimally, diabetes education begins in the clinical setting with a health care team that includes a physician, nurse, dietitian, and pharmacist. The patient is followed by this team as needed but at least twice per year to review glycemic control (American Diabetes Association, 2003). The health care of the person with diabetes is referred to as "diabetes self-management education" because the person with diabetes is taught how to manage their food, medication, and exercise as an ongoing process (Mensing et al., 2002). However, the majority of people with diabetes do not receive any formal diabetes education (Coonrod, Betschart, & Harris, 1994). Because food is an integral part of diabetes management, it is logical that Extension educators receive many requests for diabetes information. In fact, diabetes education has become widespread in Extension programming. Three years ago, Extension educators in Illinois began a program that would increase the knowledge of healthy food choices for those with diabetes. Diabetes Education in IllinoisThe "Dining with Diabetes" program originated in the West Virginia Extension Service in 1997. The program included three lessons and an optional class reunion held 6 months after the class. Each class lasted approximately 2 hours, covering desserts, main dishes, and side dishes, respectively. The program was based on the Stages of Change and the Social Cognitive Theory and included evaluation tools to demonstrate program impact. One aspect of the evaluation was food-related diabetes knowledge. Within seven knowledge questions, there were 31 items that participants could correctly or incorrectly select. Classes were held in local community sites and taught by Extension educators. Participants were given an outline of the lesson and educational handouts at the beginning of each class. At the end of the class, recipe demonstrations and taste-testing emphasized key concepts of the three lessons. Prior to Lesson One, participants completed a pre-test. Classes were usually spaced 1 to 2 weeks apart. After the third lesson, participants completed a post-test. Participants for the "Dining with Diabetes" Program were recruited from newspapers, physicians' offices, radio advertisements, and public bulletins, and through the local health departments. The program targeted those with diabetes as well as caregivers. Participants were not required to complete pre-tests/post-tests to participate in the educational program, although very few declined. The mean age of the participants was 62 + 12 years. Most were white (90%) females (83%), who rated their health as good or excellent (75%). Over half (59%) had diabetes themselves, and, of those, most had known they had diabetes for longer than 5 years. Most were high school graduates (44%). Evaluation of the Diabetes Program in IllinoisThe program in Illinois followed the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board and collected pre- and post-education information that was analyzed at a central location. The knowledge questions were scored as correct or incorrect and summed for a composite score. A paired t-test of pre- vs. post-education knowledge showed a significant improvement in knowledge (67 vs. 81% correct, p<.0001, Table 1).
Further analysis divided the knowledge questions into those addressing the carbohydrate content of foods and those addressing fats listed on the Nutrition Facts label. Both groups of questions were statistically improved by about 10% (~70 to 80% correct, p<.001). What was disturbing was that at post-education, more than half scored less than 80% correct in identifying foods that contain carbohydrates (Table 2).
This evaluation was not a "true experiment" in that participants were not randomly chosen and there was not "control" group. However, quasi-experimental designs such as this can provide important information about a program's impact, even if the results cannot be generalized to the whole population (Diem, 2002). Using Evaluation to Focus Program ContentThe results were reviewed at an Educator Team meeting where the consensus was to re-evaluate the lesson content and focus on two or three main ideas per lesson. The main ideas were identified at the meeting by brainstorming and listing all possible main ideas for each lesson and then voting on the two that seemed to be the most important. The main ideas for each of the original and new lessons are as follows (Table 3).
This process of using the evaluation of the diabetes education program to sharpen the focus of the program exemplifies how evaluation can be used in Extension programming. Optimally, the evaluation would demonstrate a change in behavior. However, although knowledge alone doesn't change behavior, without it, behavior change is unlikely. For instance, a goal of having a consistent number of carbohydrates eaten throughout the day cannot be achieved if the participant doesn't know which foods contain carbohydrates. It may seem to be a step backwards--measuring what is learned rather than how it is applied. However, knowledge is a vital step in the climb towards a healthy diet. Discussion of the ProcessCertainly the process doesn't stop here. Learning is essential but not enough. Stakeholders want documentation of behavior change as a result of Extension programs. To ensure that those changes occur, however, learning must occur. Once a good program demonstrates the level of learning that is desired by the Extension team, then the team can address attitudes and behaviors that should change as a result. The process of evaluating our diabetes program was not overtly fashioned on the logic model. However, several aspects of the Logic Model (Madison, 2001) pertain to this evaluation and may guide future evaluations of the program. Clearly, we have turned our focus onto the short-term outcomes of knowledge change. Medium-term outcomes will include behavior and practice changes, while long-term outcomes may address social or economic changes (Arnold, 2002). Currently we are testing the evaluation questions for reliability and validity with our current participants. This was omitted when we first "adopted" the "Dining with Diabetes" program because the program contained its own evaluation questions. However, as we change the program to have a different focus, the evaluation questions must also change. Having reliable and valid questions is vital to having meaningful evaluations. Using evaluation in the process of improving a program is sometimes called "formative evaluation." By looking at the results of prior programs and discussing if that is really what the intended learning was meant to be, Educators have some time for reflection on the direction of their programming efforts. Formative evaluation provides an opportunity to be critical of the program as a group. The critique is not fashioned for personnel appraisal but for program appraisal. Developing and delivering better programs is the result. ReferencesAmerican Diabetes Association. (2003). Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 26, S23-S50. Arnold, M. E. (2002). Be "logical" about program evaluation: Begin with learning assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a4.html Coonrod, B. A., Betschart, J., & Harris, M. I. (1994). Frequency and determinants of diabetes patient education among adults in the US population. Diabetes Care, 17, 852-858, 1994. Diem, K. G. (2002). Using research methods to evaluate your Extension program. Journal of Extension [on-line]. 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a1.shtml Lenicheck, J., Anderson, C. R., & Tichenor, D. (1986). The changing face of nutrition education. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 24(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1986summer/a5.html Logic model development guide. (2001). W. K. Kellog Foundation [On-line].
Available at: http://www.wkkf.org/Programming/ResourceOverview.aspx? Mensing, C., Boucher, J., Cypress, M., Weinger, K., Mulcahy, K., Barta, P., Hosey, G., Kopher, W., Lasichak, A., Lamb, B., Mangan, M., Norman, J., Tanja, J., Yauk, L., Wisdom, K., & Adams, C. (2002). National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care, 25 (suppl 1), S140-S147. Mokdad, A. H., Ford, E. S., Bowman, B. A., Dietz, W. H., Vinicor, F., Bales, V. S., & Marks, J. S. (2003). Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(1), 76-79.
So Many Issues, So Little Time: Adapting the National Issues Forum Model for Local Public Issue ForumsKay E. Haaland So Much ControversySkagit County, Washington lies halfway between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. With strong roots in agriculture and natural resources, but only 30 miles north of an encroaching metropolis, citizens in the county faced many complex public policy choices, most related to growth. Public issue meetings and hearings were generally contentious and left both the public and city and county staff frustrated, disillusioned, or angry. Because local media had to chose from a myriad of issues to report, some policy discussions were covered in depth, some in part, and some not at all. There Had To Be a Better WayIn 1997, after attending National Issues Forum (NIF) training, the Extension educator talked to community leaders about conducting NIF-style public issue forums to provide a more effective, non-contentious approach to public issues education and community dialogue. Hearing this, an ad hoc group of five citizen-activists asked if they could work with her. They wanted the same thing:
If these citizen-activists had not come forward, the Extension educator would have recruited volunteers interested in public affairs to work with her. Making It WorkThe founders organized as a 50l(c)(3) corporation with a rotating board of eight directors. The Extension educator is an ex-officio member. Board members who represent various economic, cultural and social interests in the county are purposely recruited, and they have these characteristics:
The educator identified success strategies with the founding board and provided leadership to incorporate these strategies into the organization:
The group produces eight or nine public issue forums each year. Board members select topics and speakers by consensus at their monthly meetings. The educator initially moderated the forums, but in 2002 she trained other board members to take on the responsibility. The educator maintains the mailing list and sends out announcements. A 500-word report of each forum is written by a board member and published in the newspaper. A board member built and now maintains the Web site, http://www.skagitforum.org/. Adapting the NIF Model for Local Public Issue ForumsThe forums are modeled on National Issues Forums, but the board does not fully frame each issue or publish an issue guide. There are too many hot topics and not enough resources to frame issues on a monthly basis. A modified approach is used. At the forums, the three or four invited speakers each briefly present (10-12 minutes each) a different view of the issue. Then the public participants engage in an open but moderated dialogue with the speakers and each other. This format also differs from NIF in that the moderator does not facilitate a discussion one viewpoint at a time, but waits until all the speakers' views are presented. Deliberative dialogue is an important element of the forum. It is a dialogue structured to weigh the consequences and costs of the various options, not debate them (Mathews & McAfee, 2000). Deliberative dialogue is incorporated two ways. As part of the ground rules, the guidelines are displayed on a large poster and reviewed at the beginning of each forum by the moderator. "Weigh views of others carefully," and "Consider the pros, cons, trade-offs, costs and consequences," are explained, along with more traditional ground rules (e.g. "It's okay to disagree"). Participants are encouraged to incorporate the deliberation principles into the discourse. Near the end of the forum, NIF guidelines are used to summarize the discussion and bring closure during the last 10-15 minutes of the 90 minute forum:
ConclusionThe forum completed six seasons in May 2004. The concept of participatory public meetings where divergent points of view are discussed, without threats and name-calling, is a new norm in the county. Public issues education has increased many times over. The forum has helped citizens understand complex issues and increased the community's understanding by adding local, citizen-based knowledge to the community dialogue much more than in the past. Here is what a County Commissioner said. His views represent those of other elected officials surveyed in 2003. "I wish the county had more of it. The forum lays out the issues so everyone can understand them." As a decision-maker, he said the forum provides information in a different context than he typically gets in a written report. This was valuable to him. Forum participants also value the process. Here is a sampling of what they said in the survey.
ReferencesMathews, D. & McAfee, N. (2000). Making choices together: the power of public deliberation. Dayton: Kettering Foundation. National Issues Forums (frames national issues and publishes issue guides). Information available at: http://www.nifi.org/
A Model for Sustaining Participation with Hard-to-Serve Clients: The Learning ContinuumElizabeth B. Bolton Robert E. Burford John C. Chastain IntroductionThis article reports on a model developed by the Florida Crown Workforce Board (WFB) in cooperation with the University of Florida's Welfare to Work Project (WtW). The purpose of the model was to improve and sustain the participation of the Welfare to Work clients in the instructional programs offered by the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Welfare to Work project (UF/IFAS WtW). The goal of the project was to move this targeted group from welfare subsidies to unsubsidized employment and self-sufficiency. The Florida Department of Labor, currently the Agency for Workforce Innovation, funded the project with the stipulation that all work with the target population must be in coordination with the Regional Workforce Boards in Florida. Florida Crown Workforce Board was particularly innovative in using the curriculum and resources provided by the UF/IFAS project that dealt primarily with the delivery of instruction to the target group. The development, delivery, and evaluation of the project evolved into a process of training, education, and personal mentoring designed to reach this hard-to-serve welfare transition client that came to be known as the "Learning Continuum." The elements of the model and the benefits to the recipients are described, with suggestions for using the Learning Continuum concept with Extension audiences. The CurriculaThe course materials were developed by faculty in the Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences and the Department of Horticultural Sciences, with the exception of FastTrac First Step, a copyrighted entrepreneurship education course for starting a small business. Attention to the needs of the learner was the first priority, with attention to group participation, role-play, site visits, and other methods used to engage and stimulate the learner. Employment training and life skills preparation included six courses that comprised the initial curricula. Linear Instruction with Stand-Alone CoursesAt the beginning of the project, a linear instructional model was used in which each course was a stand-alone program with all students entering one course at the same point. The stand-alone nature of the courses allowed for small classes and individualized instruction. However, it limited the flexibility needed to work with clientele having multiple barriers to employment. As shown in Figure 1, all clients in a given linear instruction course would exit the course at the same time. They were required to complete a specific number of hours of instruction to receive a certificate of completion. This linear approach to instruction resulted in a high level of success and course completion rate by WtW students; however, many of the clients who completed a course and got a job could not maintain employment for an extended period of time. The WtW student would obtain employment, only to be out of work in 3 to 5 weeks. What was the problem? How much skill did it require to work an entry level, non-technical position? Figure 1.
Upon reviewing the WtW student employment patterns, it was determined that the curriculum provided the student with sufficient entry level skills to obtain and maintain employment under normal conditions. Additionally, Regional Workforce Board (RWB) OneStop career managers worked closely with the client to eliminate recognizable barriers to employment (child care, transportation issues, etc). What was not being addressed was basic education, a high school diploma or GED, required for many good jobs, and the individual's perception of self-worth. The client group being taught was predominately women who had dropped out of school around the age of 16 due to a pregnancy and who had a poor work history. They did not exhibit perceptions of positive self worth. A new approach was needed that would enhance the clients' chances for employment and self-sufficiency. The educational delivery would be modified to include basic education and GED preparation, job skills courses with emphasis on personal aspects of employment, and a more intensive and lengthy educational activity than provided for in the linear approach. The result, a continuum of learning, is described below. A Learning ContinuumA continuum of learning activities replaced the linear nature of the stand-alone classes. This is shown in Figure 2 with a circular approach that came to be known to the WtW client as "The Wheel to Success." Using the learning continuum concept, the focus of the program and the hub of the wheel is the completion of the GED rather that the completion of individual courses. As implied in the continuum concept, the UF/IFAS courses were offered on a continuous basis. Rather than each course being an end in itself, the courses become the core of a larger continuous program that ultimately leads to a GED, promotes greater self-esteem, and improves work ethic. Figure 2.
The continuum concept offered open entry at the beginning of any course offering or activity in the continuum. However, entry was not allowed during a course in progress. Each course was an integral part of a total learning continuum that focused on the particular needs of the WtW client. The UF/IFAS courses were set up on a rotating basis, and a different course was scheduled every other week. This ensured that the client attended classes on a regular basis. The focus was no longer on a course or courses. Rather the focus was on the WtW client developing a set of career and life skills and the requisite GED. Implications for Extension ProgramsThe best part of the Learning Continuum is the flexibility it provided to meet the needs of the learner, in this case the WtW client. Although most Extension learners would not need the counseling, remediation, GED instruction, and testing provided by the RWB, the concept of a continuum is still viable, given the notion that the client group might need some core of education. An additional aspect of the continuum appropriate for Extension is the level of learning, or a hierarchical approach implied in the continuum concept. It should be noted that when implementing the continuum concept, the needs of the learner were the major factor determining the elements to be included. This is not a new idea to Extension educators, but the continuum of learning gives emphasis to combining multiple learning goals into one educational experience. Florida Crown Workforce Board, the early innovator and adopter of the Learning Continuum, indicates a great potential for the WtW client. The students who have completed the cycle have walked away with a sense of accomplishment and a new view of themselves. They have gained success, value, and self-esteem. They have been more diligent in seeking permanent employment. And once employment is found, the WtW student has exhibited outstanding work ethics. Cooperative Extension can use the continuum concept in working with Regional Workforce Boards to offer courses that fit the needs of the area, either in building vocational skills or the attitudes of self confidence and self worth. County offices can expand their accountability base in terms of reaching clients, not otherwise served, through working with the Workforce Boards on mutually beneficial educational programs.
The Union County 4-H Summer Science Program: An Effective Method for Increasing Low-Income Youth's Interest in ScienceJames Nichnadowicz IntroductionEach summer in New Jersey's Union County, science activities are being performed in unusual places. While you might expect science experiments to be taking place in the county's large research laboratories, such as Schering-Plough Corporation or Exxon Chemical, you might be surprised to find them happening in some of the county's poor and run-down neighborhoods. In a dimly lit, crowded room of an old house, Patrick, a talkative and friendly fifth grade student, is listening to Miss Nora. Miss Nora is his 4-H Summer Science Program Instructor, showing Patrick and seven other students how to make a miniature catapult out of pencils and a soda bottle. They are watching half-heartedly until Miss Nora announces that there will be a contest to see whose catapult can fling a marshmallow the farthest. The idea of a contest has caught their attention. Once the catapults are finished, the contest begins. As the four boys and four girls in the room observe each other's apparatus in action, they learn what makes the marshmallow go farther. These observations eventually lead to marshmallows going twice as far as their first attempts. This is science in action--using observations to improve an idea. Miss Nora has used a medieval weapon to teach the value of experimentation. History of the 4-H Summer Science ProgramFor 7 weeks during the hot and humid New Jersey months of July and August, 4-H in Union County employs two adults: a college senior and a grammar school teacher. Their jobs are to drive to some of the more run-down sections of the county--the kind of places that most people don't intentionally visit--and bring the fun and wonder of science to the first to sixth grade children who are attending day camps in these neighborhoods. Throughout densely populated Union County there are many summer day camps. 4-H chose to focus on camps in the low-income areas because these areas have the greatest need for science education. Children living in these neighborhoods rarely meet someone who works in the field of science. Most of the adults in their lives do not work in science-related professions. Additionally, the schools they attend are scoring significantly lower in science. 4-H could have never reached into these neighborhoods without the organized day camp facilities in these areas. To get the 4-H Summer Science Program started, we needed the facilities of these day camps and we needed a grant. In 1992, Rutgers Cooperative Extension 4-H Program of Union County, New Jersey, received a grant of $3000. The money was for hiring a science teacher to do science activities with low-income youth. While 4-H had no facilities, buildings, or offices in the low-income parts of Union County, we did have a good reputation. Thus, a summer day camp for children in Elizabeth, New Jersey, the county's seat and poorest city, agreed to host our teacher for the summer. For 7 hot weeks our teacher worked with the children of the P.R.O.C.E.E.D. summer day camp. In a large room with no air conditioning above a defunct bakery, Miss Dunton taught the children about electricity and the solar system. Unfortunately, the program's first year was nearly its last. The funder could not renew our grant for another year. Fortunately, in 1993 we found financial support for the 4-H Summer Science Program from the pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough. Schering-Plough has two large facilities in Union County and is very interested in educating children about what science is and what scientists do (Figure 1). The needs of 4-H and Schering-Plough have meshed so well that they have been funding our program for the past 10 years. Figure 1.
Program EvaluationEvaluations of the Union County 4-H Summer Science Program attest to its effectiveness. A pre-test and post-test questionnaire revealed that the program:
Additionally, a separate post-program evaluation revealed that:
Quotes from the children such as, "I can do an experiment"; "I can be my family's scientist"; and "This is something I could do for my school science program" further attest to the program's usefulness. Unique Elements of ProgramThe program achieves gains in science understanding and interest because we create an ideal situation for learning.
Replicating the Summer Science ProgramNo Extension program can begin without a documented need for it. One way to document a need for a Summer Science Program is by reviewing your school districts' scores on state tests. Most state Departments of Education administer a standardized test to each school district. The scores of these tests can be used to provide statistical proof for focusing on certain parts of your county. Once you have established the need, your next step should be to contact me. I will provide you with a handbook that gives you complete directions on implementing the program and numerous letters, documents, and a grant proposal that you can use to solicit funds. ConclusionWhile getting a summer science program started will take 10 to 15 days of work, the other resources needed are widely available. The funds needed to hire teachers are available from local foundations and companies. Children can be recruited though local day camps. The staff can be college students or teachers who are off for the summer. Getting a summer science program started is easier than you think and well worth your effort.
Building Basic Living Skills in Youth--Kid's Chef SchoolLois Clark Ruth Anne Foote Ohio State University Extension IntroductionChildren living in single-parent households or two-working-parent households often find themselves in latchkey situations. Everyday in America thirteen million preschool children are left in child care arrangements, twenty-four million school-age youth are in need of programs (Valentine, 1998), and about seven million children 5 to 14 years old are regularly left unsupervised while their parents are at work or away for other reasons (Smith, 2000). In Auglaize and Mercer Counties, 72% (Children's Defense Fund-Ohio, 1998) and 74% (Children's Defense Fund-Ohio, 1998), respectively, of all children live in homes headed by either a single parent or two working parents. By necessity, these children need basic knowledge and skills in food preparation, sanitation, kitchen safety, and nutrition. It is important to make these messages developmentally appropriate. Specific behavioral messages should be delivered to help children make informed food choices (American Dietetic Association, 1999). Kid's Chef School was developed to reflect unique and special needs in Auglaize and Mercer Counties based on program review results, needs assessment, and advisory committee findings. The objectives of Kid's Chef School are to:
Kid's Chef School addresses these needs by giving children opportunities to practice skills as they learn. Children have fun while developing basic life skills through experiential learning. Kid's Chef School Program ContentLearning is accomplished through activities and simulations to teach nutrition, manners, table setting, food safety, hand washing, food preparation skills, and kitchen safety. Kid's Chef School includes the following activities and simulations. Nutrition and Food Guide Pyramid activities include classification of foods, identification of food groups, and number of servings by playing Nutrition Bingo and Food Pyramid Fun, an easily created game using masking tape and food models. Children practice good manners and etiquette as they make introductions, talk to people they are meeting for the first time, and practice using please, thank you, and excuse me. They learn correct table setting by playing Table Setting Relay. Food safety activities include hand washing and sanitation using "Glo-Germ" supplies. They also find hidden germs illustrated on an overhead transparency. Other activities and games used to teach food safety include Food Safety Balloon Relay or Frisbee Toss. Children also practice safe food storage by discussing proper handling of leftover food. Food preparation skills include measuring dry and liquid ingredients, preparing foods, and demonstrating knowledge of food preparation terminology. Children learn to safely use mixers, blenders, electric skillets, woks, knives, and the range, depending on the focus of each school. Foods are chosen based on the season, availability of equipment, and children's skill level. Youth have an opportunity to see, prepare, and taste unfamiliar foods. Extension agents use creative thinking and knowledge of cognitive and developmental abilities of second and third grade youth to make learning meaningful and fun (Figure 1). Innovative simulations and games developed include:
ImplementationEach Kid's Chef School is conducted as a one-time, 1 1/2- to 2-hour session at schools, churches, community parks, or county Extension offices. Individual schools are based on a variety of themes: holiday, seasonal, international, inter-generational (with invited guests), picnic, fall, and after school. Kid's Chef School is designed for 20 second and third grade youth. Children are divided into small groups of four to six children. Each group is assisted by a teen leader(s) or adult volunteer. Volunteers, adults, parents, and colleagues provide leadership by assisting with activities and teaching as needed. Kid's Chef School has been conducted twice a year in two adjacent rural counties for 8 years. Participants learn about upcoming Kid's Chef Schools through promotional flyers distributed in schools or news releases. Kid's Chef School continues to be implemented annually with minor adaptations based on audience, ages and needs. Originally, Kid's Chef Schools were funded by a commodity seed grant and university innovative funds. Subsequently, local endowment funds and registration fees have provided necessary resources. EvaluationThree evaluation methods are used. Evaluations are completed by children following each session. Several weeks after the Kid's Chef School, parents are asked to complete an evaluation. Teen leaders are asked to share suggestions for improving Kid's Chef School based on their observations and participation. The participant evaluation asks six questions:
Children's evaluations report a 62% increase in food preparation knowledge, a 26% increase in food safety knowledge, a 25% increase in understanding manners, and a 13% increase in nutrition knowledge. Parents report knowledge gain in the same areas but also indicate growth in self-esteem and development of self-direction. The most enjoyed aspects of the program are preparing food and gaming activities. Activities least enjoyed are the pencil/paper games. Teenage youth assisting with Kid's Chef School gain leadership skills and knowledge of child development. ImplicationsExtension professionals can easily adapt the Kid's Chef School program model to meet identified local community needs to develop living skills and self-confidence in youth. The program model is easily replicated for use with other youth groups and organizations that may not be familiar with Extension's educational focus. Registration fees may be a source of revenue generation dollars for local extension offices. ReferencesAmerican Dietetic Association (1999). Position of the American Dietetic Association: dietary guidelines for healthy children 2 to 11 years. J of Am Diet Assoc., 99, 93-101. Children's Defense Fund--Ohio. (1998). For children for Ohio's future: Child care Auglaize County. Child care facts, 31. Children's Defense Fund-Ohio. (1998). For children for Ohio's future: Child care Mercer County. Child care facts, 127. Smith K. (2000, October). Census bureau says 7 million grade-school children left home alone. United States Department of Commerce News. Valentine, N. (1998). Child care initiative concept paper. Washington, D.C. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. 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. |
