October 2006
Volume 44 Number 5

Ideas at Work

Value of Good Foods for Good Health Community Partnership

Deborah L. Angell
Extension Educator
Family and Consumer Sciences
Norwalk, Ohio
angell.20@osu.edu
The Ohio State University

Introduction

What would it cost per person to attend a food and nutrition program that includes discussion of a current nutrition topic, food demonstrations, taste testing, and printed resources, if the agency providing the program had to rent a facility, pay an instructor, and purchase all supplies? Creative community partnerships can enable Extension to offer a program like this and keep the cost to participants reasonable. Determining the dollar value of these partnerships can provide valuable information for stakeholders.

Background

Five years ago the director of a city Parks and Recreation Department called the local Ohio State University (OSU) Extension office and asked if anyone could teach a BBQ class. It was explained that Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) programs and outreach provided by Extension need to have a nutrition and food safety emphasis, not just cover how to BBQ. The director agreed, and the class was a huge success.

Since then, the Parks and Recreation Department has occasionally asked for additional classes, and a few have been offered on an irregular schedule. The classes have been very popular, and a regular audience has been established.

In 2003, the county General Health District approached Extension about being involved with the Cardiovascular Health (CVH) Project. This program, funded through the Ohio Department of Health, addresses the high rate of heart disease. OSU Extension subcontracted with the General Health District to coordinate the project.

The idea to offer a regular monthly class was suggested after OSU Extension took over coordination of the CVH project, recognizing the opportunity to connect the food programs with prevention of heart disease. This fit well with the programming direction the Parks and Recreation Department was taking and their mission, which states: "Our mission is to improve the quality of life for all residents, providing a wide variety of enriching recreation and leisure opportunities, facilities and services." The department was trying to offer more quality of life and wellness programs.

This opportunity also fit well with the mission of Ohio State University Extension and FCS Strategic Plan. The programs allow an opportunity to offer education emphasizing nutritious food choices, healthy food preparation techniques, and safe food handling practices.

A win-win partnership was created that met the needs of OSU Extension, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the General Health District.

Program Development

An umbrella title, Good Foods for Good Health, was created for the programs. The title would be consistent and recognizable in the community. Topics are selected based on participant suggestions and feedback, seasonal foods, and current developments in nutrition and food safety.

A 6-month schedule of programs is planned and publicized in the Parks and Recreation Department program guide.

Programs include a foods demonstration related to the monthly topic along with a nutrition component and food safety component. Resource materials are developed and compiled each month related to the current topic.

The classes meet from 6:30 to 8:00 PM at the Club House owned by the Parks and Recreation Department. This facility has a kitchen, including range, refrigerator, sink, and microwave. Participants pay $6.00 for each class, which covers the cost of consumable supplies and resource materials. It does not cover the cost of facilities or the FCS educator's time and travel.

Community Partnership

The Good Foods for Good Health programs are only possible through the community partnerships OSU Extension has established with county agencies. Community partnerships have always been a strength of OSU Extension in the county, especially in the Family and Consumer Sciences program area.

Extension in Ohio has been experiencing budget cuts at both the state and local level recently. Extension professionals are being challenged to think outside the box when it comes to organizing and financing programs. Generally, we think in terms of direct dollars from grants, contracts, or other cost-recovery measures.

Just what is the value of the Good Foods for Good Health partnership to the program and agencies involved? Quantifying the contribution helps put the importance of this partnership in perspective. The structure of this partnership is illustrated in Figure 1. An explanation of what each member of the partnership brings to the table follows.

Figure 1.
Good Foods for Good Health Community Partnership

OSU Extension

• Knowledge in foods and nutrition

• Knowledge in food safety

• Resources related to nutrition and food safety

• Expertise in program development and teaching

• Expertise in organizing programs

Norwalk Parks and Recreation Department

• Advertising by publishing a Program Guide every 6 months that is distributed to thousands of people. The estimated dollar value is $415.

• Facilities, including the Club House, which is normally rented to outside groups. The estimated annual value is $1,500.

• Personnel time for those who handle registration for the classes and set up and clean up at the Club House for each class. The estimated annual value is $3,656.

• Total estimated annual dollar value of the contribution of the Parks and Recreation Department is $5,565.

Huron County General Health District

• Subcontract with OSU Extension for the CVH project.

• Cover the Extension Educator's time and travel to prepare for and teach the Good Foods for Good Health classes.

• Annual value estimated is $5,000.

Summary and Conclusions

Each member of a partnership brings individual contributions to the table. The Good Foods for Good Health programs would not be possible without the contributions of the community partners involved. With the total cost over $10,500 per year and an average of 260 people attending, OSU Extension would have to charge $40 or more per person to recover costs without this partnership. It is not likely that participants would regularly pay that amount.

Often partnerships do not involve the exchange of money, but a dollar value can be attached to the contributions. Quantifying these contributions can often reveal surprising figures. Reporting these figures to stakeholders is important in establishing support for programs. County Commissioners were surprised and impressed by the creative partnership established and the value it has for the community.

Effective Use of Community Partnerships to Maximize Impact

Elizabeth A. Greene
Associate Professor and Extension Equine Specialist
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
Betsy.Greene@uvm.edu

Introduction

Extension, long known for providing education and services that change the lives of many, has had to contend with decreasing funding support on a nationwide basis. Also, Extension often must compete for audience attention with "for profit" organizations that provide "educational clinics and seminars" that are interesting, but may not hit the target on some of the true needs of our clientele.

This is illustrated by the multitudes of equine people who are willing to pay for an "Animal Communicator" or the "newest tricks" training technique seminar, as compared to the average of 20 to 30 industry members who participate in workshops that present information directly applicable to improving their business, pastures, safety, or facilities. How can Extension attract the maximum audience, yet keep the mission of providing necessary and pertinent information to make a positive change in the business, land, and quality of life of clientele and their animals?

Background

In 1999, the University of Vermont (UVM) and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VT-AG) held a statewide Vermont Equine Industry Summit to identify goals and priorities of the Vermont equine industry. Several of the key priorities emerging from that meeting included the need to:

• Conduct an updated VT equine economic impact survey
• Address equine insurance and liability issues
• Increase industry marketing/promotion/tourism
• Address land use policies for equine
• Establish a communications network.

Every year since the original gathering, I have organized an annual Vermont Equine Industry Summit meeting (average attendance of 100 people) to address these statewide issues. I have also partnered with community and state entities to complete many projects, including the barn safety oriented Self-Guided Horse Facility Analysis booklet and the Vermont Horses Count Equine Survey (Greene & Ather, 2003).

When the Director of Special Events from the Champlain Valley Exposition (Essex Junction, VT) saw a newspaper article about the growing equine industry (my survey results), I was contacted to discuss the possibility of collaborating on a statewide equine event and consumer tradeshow. By combining strengths and resources with community and university partners, UVM Extension is now a key player in Everything Equine, the largest 2-day equine educational event in Vermont.

The Event

Everything Equine highlights the increasing strength of the equine industry in Vermont by combining an exciting blend of outreach and education offered by UVM Extension, with a top-notch equine trade show coordinated by the Champlain Valley Exposition. We have recruited a broad array of local expertise and national talent to make Everything Equine the centerpiece of Vermont's equine industry activities. The timing of the event (late April) is excellent as well. People are "stir crazy" after a long, Vermont winter, but the weather is not quite good enough to be out with their horses.

With three seminar rooms, a large demonstration arena, and a smaller demonstration pen, participants have numerous educational choices. In addition, the last two annual Summit meetings were incorporated into Everything Equine in the form of the Equine Summit room to take advantage of the exposure to a much larger audience. Summit Room speakers cover relevant topics (regardless of breed or discipline) that are important to equine industry members and their clientele. Finally, as a part of Everything Equine, UVM also hosted the university-sponsored northeast regional educational event Horses 2005 (and Horses 2004). Cornell University (2001, 2002) and Rutgers (2003) have hosted this regional event previously.

Students in my Equine Industry Issues course put classroom concepts to practice by developing a pilot computer survey to gather feedback on the event and participant demographics. We staffed a table with six computer stations (Figure 1) and offered a 45-question online survey that took approximately 8-10 minutes to complete. Of the 328 survey respondents, 95% stated that they plan on attending the event in 2006. Figure 2 shows that 78% of respondents had a good to excellent (8-10 rating) overall impression of Everything Equine/Horses 2005. Other survey data will be tabulated and used to demonstrate horse industry impact on Vermont.

Figure 1.
Pilot Equine Survey Computer Station

Figure 2.
Overall Impression of Everything Equine/Horses 2005

Results

With over 6,000 attendees in 2005 (a 20% increase from the inaugural event in 2004), Everything Equine is the largest 2-day equine educational event in the state. This event provides an ideal example of how an Extension program can have direct and indirect impacts on a variety of stakeholders. Everything Equine now provides a venue for integration of educators, equine industry members, community partners, Vermonters, and state decision makers to recognize and promote a growing segment of animal agriculture in Vermont.

Each partner brings collaboration and expertise to the event, providing multiple "draws" for the audience. This environment brings industry members and "equine consumers" together to highlight the size and impact of their own industry within the state. In addition, the showcase of local talent (trainers, veterinarians, equine lawyers, extension personnel, etc.) provides opportunities to effectively disseminate information, as well as interact with stakeholders and promote Vermont equine businesses.

Participants had the opportunity to gain directly applicable knowledge and skills from over 75 seminars and demonstrations. In addition, Everything Equine provided a venue to bring UVM Extension resources to the forefront at the state level. Some indirect Extension-related impacts and outcomes that have come to fruition due in part to this event include:

• UVM Extension program topics publicized (biosecurity, barn safety, helmet poster, equine survey, etc.)

• Request for testimony on VT's equine industry to the Agriculture House Committee

• Consultation with VT legislators on equine related legislation language

• Creation of Vermont Equine Industry Committee co-facilitated by UVM and VT Farm Bureau

• Experiential learning opportunities for UVM students through class activities related to the event.

Conclusion

As a result of this mutually beneficial partnership, UVM Extension has been able to draw on the strengths of community partners while contributing a valuable educational piece to this event. The exposure has been invaluable for the professional reputation and credibility of our statewide equine Extension program and has had long-term benefits for other equine Extension projects. This positive exposure has continued throughout the year in the form of articles and other coverage in local, state, and regional equine and agricultural publications. The excitement generated from this event has allowed several equine Extension projects (e.g., publications, posters, etc.) to gain ground at the industry, local, and legislative levels.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge community collaborators Champlain Valley Exposition, Guys Farm and Yard, and The Horse Works. The author is extremely grateful to Fran Kinghorn for her editing help and her extensive assistance conducting the on-line survey at Everything Equine. Photo credit: (Figure 1) Jane Kennedy O'Neil.

References

Greene, B., Ather, J., & King, L. (2003). "Vermont Horses Count" 2002 Vermont Equine Survey Report. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

Practical Strategies for Extension Agents to Partner with Mental Health Professionals in Providing Family Consultation to Farm/Ranch Families

Robert J. Fetsch
Professor & Extension Specialist
Human Development & Family Studies
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
fetsch@cahs.colostate.edu

Introduction

Very few businesses have as much day-to-day family involvement as intergenerational farming and ranching. Working side-by-side provides family members with opportunities for building camaraderie, communicating openly, and achieving shared dreams. It presents threats of open conflict and daily stress, however, especially when the family's communication skills are less developed. This stress has contributed to a decline in the number of families who are staying together on U.S. farms and ranches (Fetsch & Zimmerman, 1999; Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, & Johnson, 1985; Ward, 1987; Wilson, Marotz-Baden, & Holloway, 1991; Zimmerman & Fetsch, 1994).

According to the most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture (2002):

• The number of farms has declined from 2,314,013 in 1974 to 2,128,982.

• The average principal operator's age has risen from 50.3 in 1978 to 55.3.

• The number of farmers/ranchers working off-farm 200 days or more increased from 28.4% in 1974 (657,971/2,314,013) to 39.1% (832,348/2,128,982).

Stress for ranch and farm families is at least partially due to predicaments over which they have little or no control, including:

• Weather;
• Rising costs;
• Unaffordable health care costs; and
• Low income from farm products.

Agricultural families have some of the highest stress, accident, and fatality rates (Fetsch, 2005), a problem exacerbated by a paucity of trusted, adequate mental health services available (Jurich & Russell, 1987; Weigel, 2003). Furthermore, the mental health literature provides few practical, research-based strategies for use with farm/ranch families. A literature review uncovered only three top-tier journal articles during the past 20 years (Fetsch & Zimmerman, 1999; Jurich & Russell, 1987; Zimmerman & Fetsch, 1994).

This article provides practical strategies that Cooperative Extension agents can use to identify highly skilled mental health professionals who can provide effective mental health counseling/therapy to farm/ranch families. These professionals might include clergy or licensed marriage and family therapists, psychologists, clinical social workers, mental health counselors, or guidance counselors.

13 Practical Strategies

Cooperative Extension agents who collaborate with local mental health professionals increase their effectiveness in working with ranch/farm families by providing research-based information (Fetsch, 2004a, 2004b) and effective educational programs. Some Extension agents have human development training and experience, and are already collaborating with mental health practitioners. Some are considering inviting family consultants to use an Extension office one day a week to meet with ranch and farm families. Providing mental health sessions in the more neutral Cooperative Extension offices reduces the stigma for families who are leery of being seen walking into a mental health clinic.

The following questions help identify those mental health professionals with therapeutic and cultural skills that work well with farm/ranch families.

Basics

How often do you:

• Utilize a male and female co-therapy team when working with farm/ranch families, at least one of whom has an "agri-cultural" background?

• Call what you provide "family consultation," rather than "mental health counseling" or "psychology," which closes doors fast with ranch/farm families?

• Provide daylong family consultation at 6-8 week intervals? This form of family consultation is consistent with the Milan model (Palazzoli, 1980) with its session structure of monthly meetings for 6-8 hours to accommodate geographical distance. It assumes that change happens between sessions, so considerable homework is given, e.g., family meetings (Fetsch & Jacobson, 2004b).

Initial Telephone Contact

How often do you:

• Make sure that the caller invites all the major stakeholders to the family consultation? Working with whole family systems in intergenerational family consultation is preferred to one-on-one individual therapy.

Initial Face-to-Face Visit

Do you:

• Fly and/or drive to the farm/ranch for your first family meeting around the kitchen table or in the living room to build rapport and trust?

• Establish clear family rules so that family consultation sessions are safe times to communicate openly and to solve problems directly? Five popular ones are:

• I won't use what is said here against you later.
• I will listen so well that I can repeat back to the speaker's satisfaction what s/he says, feels, and wants rather than lose my temper, yell, or get violent.
• I will give no blame, no shame, and no violence.
• I will ask directly for what I want rather than force another person to accept my way.
• When we get angry, I will call for a "time out" to cool down, relax, and set a time when we can get back together to talk further
• Arrange subsequent daylong family consultations in neutral motel conference meeting rooms in towns within driving distance of the ranch/farm?

Working with the Family to Achieve Their Goals

How well do you:

• Facilitate a shared future family vision statement that is the family's goal for the next 3-5 years, e.g. "We want our family ranching to be harmonious, consensual, enjoyable, and profitable" (Fetsch & Zimmerman, 1999, p. 489)? Having a shared family vision gets "buy in" with all major stakeholders. Having it short makes it one that all can remember and work toward daily. It serves as the roadmap for follow-up family consultation sessions and may take 3-7 months to create.

• Partner with trusted Cooperative Extension farm management specialists, agricultural economists, certified financial planners, certified public accountants? Farmers and ranchers often see the presenting problem as economic rather than psychological.

Being Practical and Effective

• How flexible are you with seasonal scheduling? It may not be possible for the family to meet during harvest, calving, or planting season.

• What percentage of time do you use what is practical and effective with farm/ranch families, e.g., solution-focused therapy (Lankton, 1986; Lipchik, 2002; Nichols & Schwartz, 2001) structural techniques (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981), strategic planning (Fetsch, 1990, Fetsch & Bolen, 1989), psycho educational strategies (McFarlane, 1991), experiential therapy (Satir, 1983), feminist theory (Goldner, 1985; Taggart, 1985), decision making (Fetsch, 2004a), problem solving (Fetsch & Jacobson, 2004a), and steps to create an amicable family estate transfer plan (Fetsch, 1999)?

• How strong are your cultural competencies? Often an elder dad or grandmother is the principal autocratic decision maker. Sometimes rural values of making do and re-inventing rather than throwing away leads to marital conflicts initially.

• Are you open to working with your Extension agent, who knows resources at the land-grant university with valid and reliable, quantitative measures of change in families over time (Fetsch, 1997; Fetsch & Zimmerman, 1999)? It is recommended that practitioners examine both statistical change and clinical improvements (Jacobson & Revenstorf, 1988; Jacobson, Roberts, Berns, & McGlinchey, 1999). There is a great need in the research literature for studies that report effective education and intervention with empirical and clinical outcomes with farm and ranch families.

Conclusion

Access to trusted, skilled mental health providers and practitioners is often quite limited in rural settings. Those of us who work in rural settings must work harder to connect professionals who are available to ranch/farm families. Extension agents and mental health practitioners can work together to address the emotional and family well being needs of farm/ranch families.

Most of these families are tough, hard working, self-sufficient, practical, and resilient. By recognizing them for their intelligence and by meeting them where they live and work with "agri-cultural" sensitivity, we can connect with them and make a dramatic difference in their quality of life.

References

Fetsch, R. J. (1990). Toward the cutting edge with strategic planning and futuring techniques. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 692-695.

Fetsch, R. J. (1997). Family life program accountability norms: How do your results compare? Journal of Extension, [On-line], 35(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/a2.html

Fetsch, R. J. (1999). Some do's and don'ts for successful farm and ranch family estate transfers. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/iw2.html

Fetsch, R. J. (2004a). Making decisions and coping well with drought (Fact Sheet no. 10.256). Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10256.html

Fetsch, R. J. (2004b). Managing stress during tough times (Fact Sheet no. 10.255). Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10255.html

Fetsch, R. J. (2005). Farming, ranching: Health hazard or opportunity? (Fact Sheet no. 10.201). Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10201.html

Fetsch, R. J., & Bolen, K. R. (1989). Successful strategic planning. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 27(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989winter/a2.html

Fetsch, R. J., & Jacobson, B. (2004a). Dealing with couples' anger (Fact Sheet no. 10.231). Colorado State University.. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10238.html

Fetsch, R. J., & Jacobson, B. (2004b). Manage anger through family meetings (Fact Sheet no. 10.249). Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10249.html

Fetsch, R. J., & Zimmerman, T. S. (1999). Marriage and family consultation with ranch and farm families: An empirical family case study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(4), 485-501.

Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24(1), 31-47.

Jacobson, N. S., & Revenstorf, D. (1988). Statistics for assessing the clinical significance of psychotherapy techniques: Issues, problems, and new developments. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 133-145.

Jacobson, N. S., Roberts, L. J., Berns, S. B., & McGlinchey, J. B. (1999). Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application, and alternatives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(3), 300-307.

Jurich, A. P., & Russell, C. S. (1987). Family therapy with rural families in a time of farm crisis. Family Relations, 36, 364-367.

Lankton, S. R. (1986). Enchantment and intervention in family therapy: Training in Ericksonian approaches. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy: Working with emotions and the therapeutic relationship. New York: Guilford Press.

McFarlane, W. R. (1991). Family psychoeducational treatment. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kiniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (Vol. II). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (2001). The essentials of family therapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Palazzoli, S. (1980). Why a long interval between sessions? The therapeutic control of the family therapist supra-system. In A. Andolfi & J. Zweryng (Eds.), Dimensions of family therapy (pp. 30-48). New York: Guilford.

Rosenblatt, P. C., deMik, I., Anderson, R. M., & Johnson, P. A. (1985). The family in business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto: Science & Behavior Books.

Taggart, M. (1985). The feminist critique in epistemological perspective: Questions of context in family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 113-126.

U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1(Part 51). (2002). Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. (Retrieved July 30, 2004 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/CenV1US1.txt ).

Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weigel, R. R. (2003, May). Why ranchers and farmers are reluctant to seek counseling and how family practitioners can help. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 8(2). Available at: www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/8(2)/weigel.html

Wilson, S. M., Marotz-Baden, R., & Holloway, D. P. (1991). Stress in two-generation farm and ranch families. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 12, 199-216.

Zimmerman, T. S., & Fetsch, R. J. (1994). A consensus management model to improve family functioning and decrease work stress. Family Relations, 43, 125-131.

Enhancing Mosquito-Borne Disease Surveillance in Florida

C. Roxanne Rutledge-Connelly
Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist
Department of Entomology and Nematology
crr@ifas.ufl.edu

Jonathan F. Day
Professor
Department of Entomology and Nematology
jfday@ifas.ufl.edu

Gregory K. Ross
Senior Laboratory Technician
gkross@ifas.ufl.edu

University of Florida, IFAS
Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory
Vero Beach, Florida

Introduction

The temperate and subtropical climates and abundance of water in Florida provide ideal conditions for mosquito reproduction. In addition to their annoying pest status, mosquitoes transmit viruses that can cause disease, sometimes fatal, in humans and animals. There have been several epidemics of the mosquito-borne St. Louis encephalitis virus in Florida, the earliest documented epidemic occurring in 1959. Other mosquito-borne diseases of concern to Florida citizens include eastern equine encephalitis and West Nile.

Beginning in 1978, mosquito control districts and health departments in the state of Florida started monitoring mosquito-borne disease transmission through the use of sentinel chickens. A small blood sample provides valuable information on the abundance of infected mosquitoes in a given area. Samples are processed by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). Test results are summarized weekly and made available to participating agencies. The reports include tabular data summarizing the weekly test results.

However, no interpretation of the results is provided. Because each agency is unique geographically, climatologically, and in the layout of their sentinel field sites, improving the interpretation of test results for individual programs is critical to understanding what is occurring on the local level.

Important information to be gleaned from the surveillance program includes the observation that an increase in virus transmission to sentinel chickens can indicate an increase in the risk of mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans. This type of early warning system allows mosquito control and health department employees to make timely decisions about mosquito control, Public Service Announcements, and medical alerts.

Identifying the Problem

The Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory (FMEL) sponsored two workshops on Florida mosquito control response to West Nile virus (Rutledge, Day, Lord, O'Meara, Rey, & Tabachnick, 2003) where we identified several problems with the Florida mosquito-borne disease surveillance program in use at the time.

• The time that elapses between when blood samples are sent to the FDOH and the release of results is 2 - 3 weeks. While this does provide some early warning, the time lag should be shortened to allow more timely decisions by mosquito control personnel, allowing them to attempt focused, intense vector control in temporally and geographically focused regions.

• Results from the FDOH are provided on paper or as an email attachment containing an accompanying spreadsheet. Agencies are required to plot their own maps and graphs, and interpret individual results. This can be particularly daunting for new programs that lack experience and for programs covering large areas.

• Many small mosquito control programs have limited funding and can only do "mosquito control." They do not have enough resources to also monitor disease activity. Information from surrounding counties that have surveillance programs would still provide valuable information to help protect citizens in adjacent jurisdictions.

Workshop participants expressed a need for more meaningful surveillance tools to improve real time decision-making.

Addressing the Needs of the Mosquito Control Agencies of Florida

To address the needs of Florida mosquito control, the FMEL developed geographic information system (GIS) based maps with video animation to bring surveillance results "to life." These tools help decision makers see the real-time threats of mosquito-borne disease activity in individual counties as well as statewide. The videos provide the spatial and temporal aspects of mosquito-borne virus transmission to sentinel chickens. This format is more easily interpreted and understood when visualized using an animation video than through traditional graphical and tabular data analysis.

As soon as test results are available, data are entered into the GIS program. Video maps are updated and posted to the FMEL Web site. This results in minimal re-plotting of maps and the establishment of sites for each of the individual mosquito control and health departments in Florida. It is simple for visitors to log into the FMEL Web site to view updated videos. The results are available to personnel from any official mosquito control district or health department who wants to view the data, regardless of whether or not they operate a surveillance program.

Reaching Our Target Audience

Demonstration CDs were produced for our target audiences to allow them to see what was available and to learn the importance of providing real-time information. We later developed a Web-based video. The Web provides the best outlet for this visualization because it is easy for end users to access. Currently, the videos are updated weekly and remain on the FMEL, IFAS Mosquito Information Page at http://mosquito.ifas.ufl.edu.

A Unique Extension Product

This video is the first of its kind in mosquito-borne disease surveillance (Figure 1). The bottom of Figure 1 shows a snapshot of information from mid-July, 2004. The line graph in the lower left provides a running total of numbers of viral antibody-positive sentinels in the state compared with historical long-term number of positive sentinels maintained at the same site.

Figure 1.
A Snapshot Showing One Frame of the FMEL Online Mosquito-borne Disease Surveillance Video

The information provided by the FMEL is readily available on our Web site and provides statewide information; there are many instances when the statewide situation is critical to making mosquito control and human health decisions on the county level. The system can be used as an Extension tool to increase awareness of mosquito-borne diseases and the use of personal protection (repellents, clothing) during times of high risk.

Impacts for Florida and Other States

This project enables more accurate predictions of mosquito-borne disease epidemics in Florida. We plan to add data layers, including city boundaries, at-risk populations, and areas with historically high positive sentinel rates to refine the predictions for more focal mosquito-borne disease outbreaks.

By providing the tools to better understand surveillance results, mosquito control districts can optimize their own surveillance programs. Extension personnel can use the system for educating the public and potentially save human lives.

Conclusion

This project was supported with funding from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The decision to provide FDACS funding for this project was due in part to the support from Florida mosquito control districts that clearly saw the value of the new system. We plan to continue this project and have begun further refining the system at the county level.

References

Rutledge, C. R., Day, J. F., Lord, C. C., O'Meara, G. F., Rey, J. R., & Tabachnick, W. J. (2003). Florida mosquito control response to West Nile virus workshop. Technical Bulletin of the Florida Mosquito Control Association. Florida: Florida Mosquito Control Association.

Using Updates to Educate Policy Makers About Water Programs at Land-Grant Institutions

Robert L. Mahler
Water Quality Coordinator
University of Idaho
bmahler@uidaho.edu

Robert Simmons
Water Quality Coordinator
Washington State University
simmons@wsu.edu

Fred Sorensen
Water Quality Coordinator
University of Alaska
dffes@uaa.alaska.edu

Michael Cochrane
Water Quality Coordinator
Northwest Indian College
mcochrane@nwic.edu

Gail Glick Andrews
Water Quality Coordinator
Oregon State University
gail.glick.andrews@oregonstate.edu

The five land-grant institutions (LGIs) in the Pacific Northwest (Northwest Indian College, Oregon State University, University of Alaska, University of Idaho, Washington State University) have a long tradition of conducting research, education, and Extension programs in water resource sciences. On an annual basis, resources devoted to water programs at these institutions collectively exceed $25,000,000. These dollars devoted to water programs: (1) produce undergraduate and graduate degrees, (2) result in research being undertaken and consequent results published in prestigious journals, and (3) enhance the quality of life for many of the region�s residents. However, the collective impact of these water-related activities has not been effectively or adequately conveyed to the appropriate policy and traditional stakeholder groups in the region.

As a consequence of this perceived disconnect, we developed a regularly issued two-page newsletter that focuses on a specific water resource topic each issue. This newsletter is named PNWWATER UPDATE and is designed to be issued twice a month. The format of the newsletter calls for a 500- to 700-word article with appropriate illustrations. The newsletter is designed to be produced in color (Figure 1). In addition to the article and illustrations, each PNWWATER UPDATE contains appropriate contact information and a list of the eight national water quality themes developed jointly by USDA-CSREES and the land-grant institutions (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
Examples of Five PNWWATER UPDATES Developed During the Past 30 Months

Figure 2.
Consistent Formatting Items Found on all PNWWATER UPDATE Issues

The PNWWATER UPDATE newsletter has the following goals: (1) to provide timely information about water resource programs at LGIs), (2) show the linkages between the research and Extension mission activities of LGIs, (3) indicate potential regionally based solutions to water resource problems, (4) transfer appropriate water resources technology to stakeholders, and (5) publicize regionally based forums that target specific water resource issues. The PNWWATER UPDATES focus on regional water projects; however, projects specific to a particular state are highlighted when they can be used as models for programs in other states of the region.

The actual topics for each issue of PNWWATER UPDATE are determined collectively by the water quality coordinators from each of the land-grant institutions on a quarterly basis. Once the topic is determined, a writing assignment is made, and a deadline is set. The types of water-related topics covered in the PNWWATER UPDATES are shown by category in Table 1. After each article is written, it is forwarded to the University of Idaho for editing, layout, and printing. A pdf file of each issue is made, and color copies are produced on a laserjet color printer.

We developed an initial mailing list of 350 key individuals in the Pacific Northwest to receive the bi-monthly update. The types of individuals placed on this list represent the following groups of stakeholders: (1) congressional delegation from the four Pacific Northwest states, (2) all state legislators serving on education, environment, or agricultural committees, (3) land grant institution administrators, (4) members of the USDA-CSREES executive team, (5) heads of commodity commissions, and (6) administrators in partner federal, state, and local agencies. In addition to this mailing list, PNWWATER UPDATES are also mailed to all county Extension offices in the region.

All PNWWATER UPDATES are numbered for easy identification and inventory. Since the inception of this program, over 65 PNWWATER UPDATES have been issued. All updates are available in html and pdf formats on our regional Web site, www.pnwwaterweb.com. These updates have served to populate our Web site and are organized on this site the following three different ways: (1) in chronological order of issue, (2) by national water theme category, and (3) by subject matter (Table 1).

Evaluation of PNWWATER UPDATES

In March 2005 we asked the 114 policy makers (members of Congress and state legislators) who had been on our mailing list for a minimum of 24 months to evaluate the value of PNWWATER UPDATES.

We developed an evaluation form with nine questions that fit on one sheet of paper. This questionnaire, mailed to each of the 114 policy makers, was packaged with a letter of explanation and a business reply return envelope. Fifty-seven evaluation forms were returned completed by the survey reply cutoff date of June 1, 2005. The survey response rate of 50% was considered large enough to effectively evaluate the PNWWATER UPDATES.

The survey results are shown in Table 2. In general, the 57 policy makers who filled out the evaluation form had positive things to say about the PNWWATER UPDATES. Thirty-three, 30, 33, and 4% of the respondents reported that they always, often, sometimes, or never read the PNWWATER UPDATES mailed to them, respectively (Table 2). The fact that 96% of these policy makers at least occasionally read our materials was encouraging.

Over 88% of the responding policy makers reported that they wanted to continue receiving our updates. The types of information of most interest to policy makers varied; however, a majority of respondents expressed interest in updates highlighting water quality, success stories, current programs efforts, and water quantity (Table 2).

Over 59% of the respondents have visited the regional water Web site, www.pnwwaterweb.com. Seventy-six percent of respondents have followed-up on information provided in a particular PNWWATER UPDATE (Table 2). The most common method of follow-up utilized our regional Web site. Ninety-seven percent of responding policy makers felt that the updates were addressing the water resource priorities in the Pacific Northwest.

Seventy-three percent of respondents thought that the quality of the bi-monthly updates was excellent. The same percentage also felt that the updates were about the right length (Table 2). The answers to survey question 8 indicated that the majority of policy makers learned much about water programs at land grant institutions in the Pacific Northwest (Table 2). In fact, over 81% of respondents reported that prior to receiving PNWWATER UPDATES they knew virtually nothing or much less than they do now about water programs at land grant institutions (Table 2).

Based on the responses to survey question 9, policy makers are satisfied with the current format of the updates and do not want significant change. Over 70% of respondents want us to stay with the current color one-sheet format. Only seven respondents would prefer a Web-based only update. It appears that a traditional paper copy is handier and effective, and more likely to be read to convey water information to policy makers than via electronic transmission.

Discussion

Based on evaluation results, PNWWATER UPDATES are meeting our needs by providing timely and important water information to policy makers in the Pacific Northwest. We have received 105 documented requests for additional information on highlighted water topics from stakeholders regularly receiving PNWWATER UPDATES (more than just the policy makers). Several of the surveyed policy makers indicated that they have often used the provided information in their work and deliberations. One state policy maker commented that the information provided in a particular PNWWATER UPDATE influenced his vote in the 2004 legislative session.

The cost of printing and mailing each copy of PNWWATER UPDATE is $0.81. In addition to these fixed costs, a significant amount of human resources (faculty and staff) labor is involved in the preparation of each issue. However, we believe that this money is well spent for the following reasons.

• Much of the PNWWATER UPDATE material can be used dually in the preparation of quarterly and annual reports.

• PNWWATER UPDATES gets our information out in an organized and timely manner using an easy-to-digest sound-byte strategy.

• This information allows us to more effectively populate our Web site, www.pnwwaterweb.com, with water resource information.

• It provides us with a feedback loop on our current efforts and progress.

It is important to note that in this age of electronically transmitted information, policy makers prefer hard copies of PNWWATER UPDATES. We speculate that this hard-copy format is better received than electronic materials because:

• The hard-copy format puts the issue right in front of the staffer or legislator.

• The color format is attractive, and the inclusion of a color picture grabs the attention of the stakeholder.

• The hard-copy PNWWATER UPDATE is the right length (500 to 700 words) and is a single sheet of paper.

• The single-sheet format lends itself to one-step filing--no copying from a computer is necessary.

• The hard-copy format is attractive and thus easy to route through an office and receive attention from several employees.

This article has documented our impact on education of our policy makers; however, the updates are targeted at a wider audience. In addition we need to expand our audience to include the media. For instance, the updates could be used as news releases. We need to build upon our initial idea of PNWWATER UPDATE to truly achieve our water research, education, and Extension mission in the Pacific Northwest.

Using Robotics as an Educational Tool in 4-H

Bradley S. Barker
Extension 4-H Youth Development Specialist/Assistant Professor
bbarker@unl.edu

John Ansorge
Nebraska 4-H Graduate Assistant
jansorge@unl.edu

University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska

Introduction

Nebraska 4-H is working to prepare youth with 21st century skills and training. The cornerstone of that effort is to disseminate a hands-on, minds-on program that utilizes robotics to teach science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) concepts. To debut robotics in Nebraska, the authors held a 2-day workshop with members of the state's Technology Team. A competition was held at the Nebraska State Fair to showcase the team's efforts and present robotics to the community.

Background

American students' low proficiency in math and science is a major concern in building a competitive 21st century workplace. America's economy is highly dependent on advanced technology, but research indicates that the United States is producing fewer science and technology workers (Porter & van Opstal, 2001). International test scores show that American students are relatively poor performers in math and science (Lemke et al., 2004).

The use of hands-on, minds-on educational tools like robots may reverse the downward trend in STEM fields. The research literature regarding robotics in education suggests that robotics can be used to:

• Engage students (Barnes, 1999; Mauch, 2001; Nourbakhsh et al., 2005; Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004; Miller & Stein, 2000);

• Teach scientific and mathematic principles through experimentation (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004);

• Promote math and science careers (Barnes, 1999; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004; Miller & Stein, 2000);

• Develop problem solving skills (Barnes, 1999; Mauch, 2001; Nourbakhsh et al., 2005; Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004); and

• Promote cooperative learning (Nourbakhsh et al., 2005; Beer, Chiel, & Drushel, 1999).

In addition:

• Female students are more likely to appreciate learning with robots than with traditional STEM teaching techniques (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004; Nourbakhsh et al., 2005); and

• Robotics may be effective for at-risk or under-served student populations (Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004; Miller, Church, & Trexler, 2000).

Description

In the spring of 2005, the Nebraska 4-H department held a 2-day workshop for members of the Technology Team. The team is comprised of 10 youth ages 15 to 19 with an interest in technology. The workshop covered topics including:

• Computer programming (variables, loops, conditions, counters);

• Engineering concepts (gear ratios, vehicle design);

• Data collection techniques to use with sensors; and

• Math concepts (threshold values, ratios, measurement).

Problem solving and computer program debugging procedures were emphasized throughout the workshop. For example, to debug a program, team members were taught to use musical notes to indicate what function within the Robolab program was executing at that precise moment. By listening to the notes, the team members could determine if the robot's behavior was working the way they had planned.

Although there are a number of different commercially available robotic kits available, Nebraska 4-H elected to use the LEGO Mindstorm for Schools kits. Because most youth have experience using LEGOs, they can easily transfer these skills to building robots. The LEGO Mindstorm kits are comprised of 828 parts, including axles, gears, motors, and sensors. The kits come with a programmable microcomputer with three output and three input ports for controlling sensors and motors. In addition, the robots are programmed using a specialized programming language called ROBOLAB.

At the end of the workshop, students were sent home with the laptops and Mindstorm kits to prepare for the State Fair competition. A bulletin board type Web site was developed to foster communication. The site permitted members to exchange ideas and to post images and video clips of the robots in development. The rules and arena layout were also shared via the Web site.

The State Fair Competition

The competition was designed to allow students to showcase what they had learned about engineering and programming. The arena was a 3 by 3 foot white melamine surface with a 1/2-inch black electrical tape border (Figure 1). The objective of the competition was to locate and push their competitor's robot out of the arena. The black border permitted the use of the light sensor to keep the robots inside the arena.

Each contestant's robot competed in a round-robin tournament. The competition was broken-down into rounds; each round consisted of three bouts lasting 1 minute each. The winner of two bouts would win the round and gain three points. A draw would give each member one point.

Figure 1.
The Competition Arena with Two LEGO Mindstorm Robots

Each contestant in the contest used a different strategy to try to win. One used a tracked, tank-like robot, while another focused on using large wheels and gears designed to provide maximum torque. Another contestant focused on maximizing the use of sensors. An alternative approach was a robot that walked around the arena on legs. The competition drew a large enough crowd to convince the Technology Team members to return to the fair several other days to put on exhibition matches for fair-goers.

Technology Team members comments indicated that they enjoyed the experience. Unfortunately, the beginning of the tournament was a little uncertain because the first robot flew off the arena and shattered on the floor while the other robot did not move. The non-moving robot won the bout, and it took a few minutes to repair the second robot.

The team members were allowed to make modifications to their robots and their programs between rounds. It was encouraging to see the team members experiment with their robots designs and programming, and make essential modifications. Ultimately, the winner of the tournament was the only female participant.

Here are some suggestions for running your own competition.

• Purchase LEGO Mindstorm for Schools Robotics kits (http://www.legoeducation.com) and become familiar with how to build and program robots.
• Organize a hands-on robotics training workshop for interested participants. At a minimum, the workshop should cover the following topics:
  • Basic robot building.
  • Basic robot programming.
  • Basic sensor programming and building.
  • Line tracking.
• Establish rules and scoring for the competition.
• Build your arena.
• Run your competition.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Based on the success of these efforts, Nebraska 4-H will be helping to pilot a new set of 4-H CCS robotics curriculum. The curriculum will lead students through a set of increasingly challenging robot building and programming activities. By the time students are done with the program, they should be able to design and build impressive robots to compete in the next State Fair competition. Technology Team members expect next year's competition to be much larger and more competitive.

Robotics may be a valuable tool for integrating science and technology into 4-H. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of using robotics to teach STEM concepts.

References

Barnes, D. J. (2002, February-March). Teaching introductory Java through Lego Mindstorms models. Paper presented at SIGCSE 2002 Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Covington, Kentucky.

Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92.

Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., & Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem solving skills of middle school students. The Clearing House, 75(4), 211-213.

Miller, D. P., & Stein, C., (2000). "So that's what Pi is for" and other educational epiphanies from hands-on robotics. In Druin, A. & Hendler, J. (Eds.) Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Miller, G., Church, R., & Trexler, M. (2000). Teaching diverse learners using robotics. In Druin, A. Hendler, J. (Eds.). Robots for kids exploring new technologies for learning. San Diego: Academic Press.

Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsium, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S., & Wilkinson, K. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robots course: Robot design, curriculum design, and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103-127.

Porter, M., & van Opstal, D. (2001). U.S. competitiveness 2001: Strengths vulnerabilities and long-term priorities. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.

Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73-84.

Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3&4), 17-28.

Animal Feeding Operations and Water Quality--Resources and Livestock in Balance

Tipton D. Hudson
Rangeland & Livestock Management Educator
Ellensburg, Washington
hudsont@wsu.edu

Joe H. Harrison
Nutrient Management Specialist
Washington State University Extension
Puyallup, Washington
jhharrison@wsu.edu

Washington State University Extension

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO/AFO) in 2003. Under the new guidelines, affected CAFOs will be required to develop a nutrient management plan, implement practices to manage manure in an environmentally safe manner, conduct soil and manure testing, and keep a variety or records. The changes in the federal rule resulted in a need in Washington to provide livestock producers with a common message about state and federal water quality rules.

This article describes an education program developed as a partnership including the Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State conservation districts, Washington State Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Washington State University (WSU) Extension, Washington Cattlemen's Association, and Washington State Dairy Federation. A primary goal of the education program was to provide conservation district staff with an understanding of state and federal water quality rules and guidance toward recommending specific best management practices to livestock producers to protect water quality based on identified risk factors.

Educational Methods

The education partners were convened by WSU in the fall of 2004 to begin the design of the Livestock Nutrient Management Education program. Over the course of 2 days a structure evolved that included four working subcommittees to develop a 3-day water quality conference for conservation district regulatory agency staff, Animal Feeding Operations and Water Quality--Resources and Livestock in Balance.

Workshop Design

It was decided that the water quality training conference for conservation and regulatory agency staff should include multiple types of education materials and be conducted in a 3-day format. The use of real-farm case studies served as the core for describing conditions under which management of livestock might result in a risk of negatively impacting the quality of surface or ground water. These case studies also functioned to discuss the types of best management practices (BMPs) that would be most effective in protecting water quality. In addition to the case studies, presentations were made on topics of:

1. Changing People's Behavior: It's Not All About Education by William Hallman of Rutgers University (www.foodpolicyinstitute.org)--keynote presentation intended to persuade attendees to actively engage with agricultural producers rather than serve as information brokers;

2. Holistic Farm Management--considering nutrient management from a whole-farm perspective;

3. Grazing Management--management of grazing activity influences water quality criteria such as sediment, bacteria, and temperature;

4. Winter Management and Animal Health--animal health during a critical life stage is highly affected by winter manure management;

5. Phosphorus Index--new research indicates phosphorus may not always remained adsorbed to soil particles;

6. Washington NRCS Technical Note No. 1--Water Quality Indicator Tools --a technical approach to calculating manure loading for larger confinement operations; and

7. Livestock-Influenced Water Quality Risk Assessment Tool--a tool to assist livestock producers in evaluating their own risk of pollution and consider practical, targeted management solutions.

An evening session was devoted to a panel of presenters on the topic of livestock access to riparian water and the implications of two Washington State rules, one guaranteeing minimum sufficient flows to ensure livestock access to surface water and the other strictly prohibiting the willful or negligent pollution of surface and ground water, no matter how insignificant. This law is easily construed to prohibit direct access of livestock and the potential "discharge" associated therewith. The panel also discussed the contentious legal issue of diverting surface water to a stock tank without a diversionary water right.

The Livestock-Influenced Water Quality Risk Assessment Tool was developed by the EC subcommittee and was designed to be utilized by livestock producers as a self-assessment or used in cooperation with conservation district staff to make a more technical site-specific assessment of a livestock operation. This tool is explained in greater detail in the companion Tools of the Trade article, "Livestock-Influenced Water Quality Risk Assessment Tool."

Real-Farm Case Studies

Eleven case studies were selected for the conference that encompassed livestock management styles and size from small/recreational farms to commercial livestock operations. Species included llama, horse, beef, sheep, and dairy. The case studies were presented in the following manner:

1. 15 minutes for the case study leader to generally define the operation with photos and or video and allude to water quality issues;

2. 25 minutes for breakout groups (10 individuals per group) to discuss a list of resource concerns and a list of solutions;

3. A 10-minute period for break out groups to report back to the whole group the issues and solutions they identified; and

4. 10 minutes for the case study leader to report actual implementation of BMPs implemented to prevent a negative impact of livestock on water quality.

In the breakout groups, a facilitator, recorder, and reporter were selected from within the group. The case studies were presented throughout the conference in a progressing degree of complexity and relative potential risk of negatively affecting water quality. Of the 11 case studies, three case studies were presented before any risk assessment tools were presented, three case studies utilized the Livestock-Influenced Water Quality Risk Assessment Tool as part of their discussion, and four case studies utilized the Washington NRCS Technical Note No. 1--Water Quality Indicator Tools as part of their discussion.

Web Site

Materials from the water quality conference were made available in printed and CD format. In addition, some materials are also available at the following Web sites: http://animalag.wsu.edu and http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/dairy/joeharrison/. A copy of the presentations and workshop materials can be obtained by contacting Joe Harrison (jhharrison@wsu.edu) or Tip Hudson (hudsont@wsu.edu).

Summary

The education project described here increased conservation district staff understanding of state and federal water quality rules and made them aware of when to recommend best management practices to livestock producers to protect water quality. Real farm case studies were an effective tool to provide training on methodically assessing the potential of livestock confinement facilities to negatively affect water quality and determining appropriate, cost-effective BMPs to protect water quality.

References

Electronic-Field Office Technical Guide. (n.d.) Retrieved December, 2004, from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation - Final Rule. (February 12, 2003). Retrieved December, 2004, from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm

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.