June 2007
Volume 45 Number 3

Features

Strengthening Extension's Capacity to Conduct Public Issues Education Programs: Results of a National Needs Assessment

Loretta Singletary
Extension Educator
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Yerington, Nevada
singletaryl@unce.unr.edu

Marilyn Smith
Area Specialist
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Elko, Nevada
smithm@unce.unr.edu

George Hill
Associate Professor
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, Nevada
ghill@unr.edu

Steven Daniels
State Extension Specialist
Utah State University Cooperative Extension
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
sdaniels@est.usu.edu

Steven Smutko
State Extension Specialist
Natural Resources Leadership Institute
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
steve_smutko@ncsu.edu

Janet Ayres
State Extension Specialist
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
ayres@purdue.edu

Kay Haaland
Regional Faculty Leadership and Public Issues Education
Washington State University Extension
Mount Vernon, Washington
kayh@co.skagit.wa.us

Introduction

Increasingly, citizens ask Extension professionals to provide education on contentious public issues involving multiple stakeholders. Public Issues Education (P.I.E.) provides a framework for an educational process that informs and assists citizens in order to improve group decisions about complex issues (P.I.E. Task Force, 2002). Conducting effective P.I.E. programs requires that Extension professionals possess specific knowledge and skills (Patton & Blaine, 2001).

The P.I.E. Task Force is a national group of Extension professionals who have worked together since 1999 to identify skills that enable Extension professionals to conduct effective P.I.E. programs. They have established a set of "core competencies" that include the following broad categories:

• Collect and interpret information about issues, audiences, and educational settings.


• Design, conduct and evaluate the impacts of P.I.E. programs.


• Communicate effectively.


• Facilitate group discussions and decision-making.


• Manage and transform conflict.


• Work with scientific and technical information.


• Create an environment of professionalism (P.I.E. Task Force, 2002).

A complete description and explanation of these core competencies are available through the P.I.E. Web site <www.publicissueseducation.net>.

In 2005, the P.I.E. Task Force conducted a national survey to assess Extension professionals' needs to acquire P.I.E. skills in order to conduct more effective programs. This article discusses the results of this assessment and suggests directions for development of a P.I.E. curriculum for Extension professionals. Additionally, the authors were interested in determining if skill needs differed geographically by Extension region so that future professional improvement opportunities might be tailored to fit each region's unique needs.

Methods and Procedures

For the purpose of the study, a questionnaire was designed to assess Extension professionals' needs to acquire specific skills to conduct P.I.E. programs. Skill items for the assessment were adapted from the "core competencies" described in the previous section. The questionnaire was revised based on the suggestions of a national panel of Extension professionals.

The resulting questionnaire featured 35 skill items considered important for conducting effective P.I.E. programs. Using a Likert scale of 1 (high priority) to 4 (not a priority), Extension professionals prioritized their needs to acquire these skills. In addition, the questionnaire included a number of items to help the authors understand something about the Extension professionals interested in P.I.E. skills and programs.

Because the Task Force desired to survey all Extension professionals nationwide, an Internet survey was designed, and the survey was administered by Internet only (Dillman, 2000). Because state address lists are confidential, in order to contact Extension professionals nationwide, e-mail addresses for each state Extension director were acquired from the USDA-CSREES. Each state Extension director received an e-mail requesting him or her to forward via e-mail the survey cover letter to all Extension appointments statewide. Additionally, to increase response rates, permission was requested to e-mail the cover letter and URL to all 2005 members of National Association of County Agricultural Agents (NACAA), Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals (ANREP), and National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals (NACDEP). These organizations were targeted because they are perceived to represent substantial Extension programming efforts in public issues and public policy education.

The e-mailed cover letter explained the purpose of the Internet survey and included instructions for completing the survey, the URL for accessing the survey, and an exemption statement approved by University of Nevada Institutional Review Board (IRB). A statement of exemption explained that voluntary completion of the Internet survey indicated their consent to participate in the study. To qualify for an IRB approved exemption, no repetitive contacts with survey participants to encourage survey completion were made.

Results

Approximately 766 completed questionnaires served as the data source for this study. Because some participants did not answer all survey items, the number of responses varies by survey item. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to estimate internal consistency of the 35 Likert-type scale items. The Cronbach score was high (r = .97) and indicates that there was high internal consistency between the skill items (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

Survey Participants

Of the survey respondents, the majority, 49.5% (n=383) indicated that they were employed as county educators, while 15.8% (n=122) reported they had multi-county responsibilities. Of the remaining respondents, 24.7% (n=191) were state specialists, and 7.2% (n= 56) were area Extension specialists. Only 2.2% (n=17) of the respondents indicated multi-state appointments, while 0.5% (n=4) indicated federal appointments.

In terms of Extension work experience, 25.8% worked 5 or fewer years; 27.5% worked 6 to 15 years; 29.7% worked 16 to 25 years; and 17% worked 26 or more years. The majority of survey respondents (29.3%) spent the majority of their Extension time in the area of Agriculture. Other areas represented by survey respondents included Community Development (17.6%); Family Services (16.2%); 4-H and Youth Development (14.6%); Natural Resources (10%); and "other" (12.3%).

In terms of current P.I.E. skills, the majority of survey respondents (49.6%) indicated they were "beginners," while 42.4% described their P.I.E. skills as "intermediate" and 8% as "advanced." The majority of survey respondents (44%) also indicated that they had never received P.I.E. training. Approximately 33% indicated they had received between one and two trainings, while the remainder (23%) had received at least three or more trainings. Finally, the majority of survey respondents (70%) indicated that P.I.E. trainings should be offered at annual professional meetings. In addition, 61% indicated they preferred "in-person" trainings to distance and self-paced trainings.

Figure 1 illustrates the four CSREES-established Extension regions and survey responses by region and by state. Regional participation is fairly evenly distributed, with the largest number of survey respondents representing the Southern region. Because the survey relied on a "relay" e-mail protocol, in some states only one Extension professional, presumably a state Extension specialist, may have received and completed the survey. Thus, the P.I.E. skill rankings for some states represent the perceptions of one Extension professional within that state. In contrast, NC had the highest response rate (174). Due to NC's higher response rate, compared with all other southern states, NC was given special consideration in the statistical analyses. The results from these analyses indicated no significant differences between NC and the rest of the southern states.

Figure 1.
Number of Survey Respondents by Extension Region and by State

Map Outline Source: http://srdc.msstate.edu/about/rdmap.htm

Table 1 illustrates mean scores for the 35 skill need priorities nationwide and by region, number of survey respondents, and, in parenthesis, skill rankings. Nationwide, Extension professionals who responded to the survey ranked all 35 skill items as either high or moderately high priorities for acquisition. In fact, no skill item was ranked "not a priority." The top five priority P.I.E. skill needs nationwide are:

1. Help participants move sequentially from problem definition to problem resolution;


2. Help participants define and agree on the problem to be solved and 2. Help participants engage in collaborative decision-making (tie);


3. Help participants separate their interests from their positions on a public issue;


4. Help participants incorporate diverse viewpoints about public issues into their own decisions; and


5. Understand methods for evaluating P.I.E. program impacts and 5. Help participants interact with diverse stakeholders and 5. Help participants evaluate and apply scientific data to resolve a public issue (tie).

Additionally, a Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between Extension regions' ratings of the 35 skill needs. Results indicate that only 10 of the 35 skill priorities differ significantly by region, and these items are noted with asterisks in Table 1. It is interesting to note that seven of the 10 skills are among the top five nationally ranked skill needs.

A closer look at Table 1 provides some insight into these differences. For example, the skill "Help participants move sequentially from problem definition to problem resolution" is ranked as the highest priority training need nationwide and in all regions with the exception of the Northeast region, which ranked the item as 1.77 on a 4-point scale (a tie for second on their list of priorities). However, the top three skill needs in the Northeast only differ by .01, indicating little difference in ratings of the top three skill need priorities for that region.

Other differences are also noted. For example, while most Extension regions rated the skill item "Help participants incorporate diverse viewpoints about public issues into their own decisions" as 4th or 6th in their list of priorities, the Southern region rated this skill as 12th in their list of prioritized skill needs.

Prioritized P.I.E. Skill Needs by State

To further investigate geographic differences of P.I.E. skill needs, a cluster analysis was conducted for all states that participated, using the top five nationally ranked skill items (8 items total, including tied items). The results show that the majority of states placed either a high (1) or moderate (2) priority on acquiring the top nationally ranked P.I.E. skills (Figure 2). Only 10 states indicated that acquiring this set of skills was a low priority, with four states evenly split between high and low or moderate and low priority ratings. Those states with only one respondent or a high number of skipped items are indicated as IR for "insufficient response" (skipped question items) or NR for "no response."

The results of the cluster analysis by states illustrate that not all Extension regions have uniform perceptions regarding P.I.E. skill needs. When the results are examined from this perspective, several states indicate less extensive skill acquisition needs than others. Wisconsin, for example, is the only state within the North Central region to place a low priority on P.I.E. skills acquisition. Similarly, in the West, only three out of 11 states place a low priority on P.I.E. skill acquisition as compared with a high priority. In contrast, in the South, only Kentucky and Louisiana place a high priority on acquiring P.I.E. skills, with Florida being evenly divided between high and low priority. Finally, in the Northeast, the majority of states indicate a high priority or moderate priority, while only two states place a low priority on skill acquisition. Still, it is interesting to reiterate that at both the national and at the individual state level, no P.I.E. skill need was rated as "not a priority" for acquisition.

The results of the cluster analysis also suggest that although one national curriculum would suffice for teaching P.I.E. skills, definite differences exist with regards to individual state needs. These differences in needs might best be addressed through tailored teaching approaches that identify existing skill levels as beginning, intermediate, and advanced. It is possible, then, that those states that place a low priority on P.I.E. skill acquisition have professional development that targets this need. Thus, those Extension professionals may already possess intermediate to advanced skill mastery. However, another consideration for interpreting the results concerns very low response rates in several states, which may not adequately reflect the perceptions or skill needs for all Extension professionals within that state.

Figure 2.
Cluster Analysis Illustrating Individual States' P.I.E. Skill Priorities

Code: 1 = high priority; 2 = moderate priority; 3 = low priority; NR = No Response; IR = Insufficient Response

Conclusions

Extension professionals who are asked to work with citizens to address contentious public issues can play a critical community role nationwide (Singletary, Hill, Smith, & Corcoran, 2004a, 2004b; Corp & Darnell, 2002). Results of a national needs assessment indicate that the majority of Extension professionals who responded rate their priority for acquiring P.I.E. skills as high or moderately high, regardless of their Extension region. The results of this assessment clearly establish the need to develop a P.I.E. curriculum as well as support trainings in order to help Extension professionals acquire and/or strengthen skills to conduct effective P.I.E. programs. The demand by Extension professionals for such educational materials and trainings is evident nationwide.

Furthermore, the results of the assessment suggest that, in designing a P.I.E. curriculum, one national curriculum may suffice. Professional development trainings, however, should be fine-tuned to reflect the unique skill acquisition needs of individual states. For example, trainings may be tailored to address specific needs of Extension professionals at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels. Some states may already have professional development opportunities in place that enable Extension professionals in those states to possess stronger and more advanced P.I.E. skills. At the least, individualized state trainings could target combinations of adjacent states with similar P.I.E. skill acquisition needs. It must be reiterated, however, that small response rates for some states may not accurately reflect the skill acquisition needs of all Extension professionals within those states. One way to address this issue is to replicate the needs assessment at the state level, stipulating that all Extension appointments, including campus and field faculty, complete the survey.

The P.I.E. Task Force plans to use the results of the national needs assessment presented in this article to begin developing a national curriculum and support trainings that they will test or pilot in individual states. The P.I.E. Task Force is applying the LOGIC model to strengthen the quality and relevance of this program effort. The LOGIC model provides a rational set of procedures for the development of dynamic Extension programs based on an objective assessment to determine program needs (Singletary, 2004). As a precondition for applying the LOGIC model, the task force conducted this national assessment to determine Extension professionals' priorities for acquiring specific skills. The data collected and analyzed for this purpose is being used to determine how best to tailor the educational materials and approach (Hill, 2004). The task force is also attempting to locate funds to support their efforts. Subsequently, the P.I.E. Task Force will provide instruction in P.I.E. skills targeting Extension professionals first. However, the P.I.E. Task Force also recognizes a critical role that involves citizens and other non-Extension professionals as collaborative learning partners in acquiring and strengthening P.I.E. skills.

Recommendations for future research include further scrutiny of these data. Statistical tests could determine, for example, if significant differences exist with regards to perceived P.I.E. skill acquisition needs and years of Extension experience, program subject area responsibility, or geographic program area (state and county). Another question concerns how the P.I.E. skills featured in this survey may be grouped into learning modules, using factor analysis, for example, to ferret out groups of skills that are highly related.

Additional recommendations for future research include replication of a national survey after the national curriculum has been developed and professional trainings provided in the majority of states indicating high priority needs to acquire P.I.E. skills. This survey would again assess skill needs but be used to evaluate the impacts of the national curriculum and support trainings.

Much of what Extension professionals are asked to do in contentious public settings has been defined by Peters (2002a, 2002b) as a kind of "educational organizing." In these settings, Extension professionals develop leadership as well as the capacity for civic engagement. They convene people in order to publicly deliberate and make decisions about important public issues. These types of educational efforts provide practical learning experiences for Extension professionals while also teaching the public how to work together to respond effectively to real problems (Peters, 2002b; Forester, 1999). Thus, future professional development and curricula that seeks to strengthen P.I.E. skills may benefit from inclusion of case studies based on both the successes and failures of Extension efforts. And additional research may seek better understanding of specific skill needs through examination of explicit examples or case studies addressed though community level P.I.E. programs.

References

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Corp, M. K., & Darnell, T. (2002). Conflict-laden issues: A learning opportunity. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb1.html

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hill, G. (2004). Data-based decision-making. [Instructional Videotape]. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Reno.

Patton, D. B., & Blaine, T. W. (2001). Public issues education: Exploring Extension's role. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(4) Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a2.html

Peters, S. J. (2002a). Rousing the people on the land: The roots of an educational organizing tradition in Extension work. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html

Peters, S. J. (2002b). Citizens developing a voice at the table: A story of educational organizing in contemporary Extension work. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/a1.shtml

Public Issues Education (P.I.E) Task Force. (2002). Public issues education: Increasing competencies, enabling communities. Retrieved December 15, 2005 from http://www.publicissueseducation.net/docs/pie_competencies%2001-15-03.pdf

Singletary, L., Hill, G., Smith, M., & Corcoran, P. (2004a). An emerging arena: Preparing agricultural and natural resource outreach professionals to conduct Public Issues Education programs. National Agriculture College Teachers' Association (NACTA) Journal, 48(3), 41-46.

Singletary, L., Hill, G., Smith, M., & Corcoran, P. (2004b). Survey of Extension professionals' skill levels needed to practice Public Issues Education. Journal of Extension [On-line] 42(6) Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/rb2.shtml

Singletary, L. (2004). Dynamic Extension programs. In L. Singletary (Ed.), Conducting community situational analyses: A field guide to dynamic Extension course development (pp.69-74). EB-04-02. Reno: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

An Integrative Approach to Addressing Childhood Overweight: Inclusion of Parenting Information in Nutrition Education Programs

Lenna L. Ontai
Assistant Specialist in Cooperative Extension
lontaigrz@ucdavis.edu

Shannon Tierney Williams
Doctoral Candidate
stlipscomb@ucdavis.edu

Cathi Lamp
Nutrition Family Consumer Science Advisor
cllamp@ucdavis.edu

Dorothy Smith
Nutrition Family Consumer Science Advisor
dorsmith@ucdavis.edu

Families with Young Children Workgroup
University of California, Davis
Davis, California

Introduction

Childhood overweight is of growing concern, with as many as 15% of children between the ages of 6 and 19 being classified as obese (Centers for Disease Control, 2004). While there are a variety of approaches aimed at addressing this epidemic, research suggests that early prevention of weight gain is more effective than intervention after weight gain is established (Ritchie et al., 2001). To prevent childhood weight problems early in life, programs typically focus on teaching parents information about nutrition and feeding, such as the USDA funded Expanded Food and Nutrition Education (EFNE) and Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

However, families participating in these programs face many barriers when attempting to make lasting nutritional changes, including difficulties with carrying out effective parenting strategies. While parents learn information for optimal child nutrition, they may not have the skills necessary to effectively make the changes in their homes. Further, nutrition educators may not be prepared to support parents in building the general parenting skills required to facilitate these changes. The study reported here used focus groups with nutrition educators to examine possible barriers parents and educators face in effectively changing child feeding behaviors.

Parenting

There is widespread empirical support for the role parenting quality assumes in children's development (see Teti & Candelaria, 2002, for review). The wealth of research in this area has consistently supported the benefits of an "authoritative" parenting style (Baumrind, 1973) that includes reasonable control, high levels of nurturance, appropriate limit setting, and clear communication patterns. In contrast, "authoritarian" styles are described by high levels of control, low levels of nurturance, and unclear communication patterns, and "permissive" styles are characterized by high levels of nurturance and clear communication patterns but low levels of control. Thus, where authoritative parents are sensitive and set clear and reasonable limits with their children, authoritarian parents display little warmth and set unreasonable limits with their children, and permissive parents set very few limits.

Research investigating the implications of these parenting styles on children's development has consistently linked authoritative styles to desirable developmental outcomes for children (see Maccoby & Martin, 1998 for review), although some variation is found across cultures (Bornstein, 2002). In essence, authoritative parents tend to have children who are physically, cognitively, and emotionally healthy. In contrast, authoritarian and permissive styles are both associated with a lack of self-control, social skills, and academic achievement.

Given the consistent and pervasive relations between parenting and child well-being, it is no surprise that programs regularly aim to improve child development outcomes by improving parenting skills (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). Through these types of programs parents learn appropriate expectations for their children's developmental stage, suitable boundaries, and effective discipline techniques that have positive effects on their parenting behaviors.

Parenting Behaviors & Nutrition

Recent research has found that when parents attempt to improve their family's nutritional status, they struggle with resistance from their children (Birkett, Johnson, Thompson, & Oberg, 2004). The ways in which parents respond to such resistance is likely tied to their overall style of parenting and may have important implications for their children's nutrition and weight.

There is some evidence that parental feeding practices may be related to overall parenting style. Specifically, parents whose behavior is indicative of "authoritarian" and "permissive" styles tend to use ineffective feeding strategies linked with child overweight (Hughes, Power, Fisher, Mueller, & Nicklas, 2005), including rewarding good behavior with food, controlling or limiting the availability of certain foods, pressuring children to eat, and being overly permissive regarding food intake. Alternatively, parents who demonstrate behaviors associated with "authoritative" styles tend to exhibit more appropriate levels of control and more effective strategies for encouraging positive eating behaviors in their children (Hughes et al., 2005).

Overall, the relation between parenting and children's nutrition parallel those found in the parenting literature. Just as over-control (authoritative) or lack of control (permissive) is associated with negative social and cognitive developmental outcomes, this pattern appears to hold for children's feeding behaviors as well. Parents who put too much restriction on children's food choices, or allow children to have all the control, tend to have children who develop harmful eating behaviors and weight problems (Hughes et al., 2005; Patrick, Nicklas, Hughes & Morales, 2005; Rhee, Lumeng, Appugliese, Kaciroti, & Bradley, 2006).

The similarity in these patterns may point to common, underlying components of competent parenting. In essence, parents who have the skills necessary to set, communicate, and consistently reinforce reasonable limits with their children are able to foster an environment supportive of optimal development in all areas. Programs aimed at reducing child overweight and improving child feeding practices may therefore be most effective when they incorporate the teaching of parenting skills into their programs.

Nutrition Education Programs

Despite these findings, programs that focus on delivery of nutrition information are more common than those that also include parenting education. For example, USDA-funded nutrition education programs such as EFNEP and those funded by FSNE operate in all 50 states to improve the nutritional status of low-income families. While Adult EFNEP serves limited resource families with children and pregnant women from a diverse ethnic background (157,800 families served nationally in 2004; 33% white, 33% Hispanic, 29% Black, 3% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 2% American Indian), adult FSNE is implemented by state agencies and Cooperative Extension services and serves food stamp recipients and those eligible for food stamps on a voluntary basis (No national data available: University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) FSNE program enrolled 6,696 participants in 2004; 34% white, 47% Hispanic, 13% Black, 3% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 3% American Indian).

While a significant part of these programs is targeted at improving nutrition for families, the effectiveness of these efforts for children's nutrition may be limited by their scope. Classes are commonly taught by paraprofessionals and are strictly limited to providing information regarding basic nutrition, resource management, and food safety (EFNEP) and the messages of the Dietary Guidelines (EFNEP and FSNE). While the focus of these federal programs is mandated, narrowing the approach to focus solely on nutrition void of the family context misses opportunities to foster parenting skills necessary to enact behaviors that prevent child overweight. This perspective is consistent with the National Extension Parenting Education Model (Smith, Cudaback, Goddard, & Myers-Wall, 1994), which identifies seven critical categories of parent skills that are seen as fluid and dynamic. In other words, all aspects of parenting co-exist and influence one other.

There is no research to date exploring whether parents participating in these programs or the educators delivering the information see a need for parenting information. Further, if parents are expressing difficulties with parenting when negotiating changes in their feeding practices, it is unclear how nutrition educators currently respond. The study reported here used focus groups with nutrition educators to examine barriers expressed by parents attending nutrition education courses and educators' ability to respond.

Method

Participants

Ten nutrition educators (100% female) representing 10 counties throughout the state of California participated in the focus groups. All educators worked with FSNEP and/or EFNEP.

Procedure

Two semi-structured focus groups were conducted by the first author through telephone conference calls following protocol suggested by Morgan (1997). The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both groups were asked open-ended questions about concerns parents have regarding nutrition for their children and what they saw as possible barriers underlying these concerns. Based on their responses, follow-up probes were used to generate discussion about their ability to help parents overcome the identified barriers and what resources they accessed for information about these issues.

Transcripts were coded by a research assistant in three steps. In the first step, respondent answers were coded into two broad groups: "Questions/Concerns of Parents" and "Barriers for Parents." In the second step, the identified patterns within each group were organized into categories that captured the naturally occurring patterns of responses. In the third and final step, each category was reviewed for references to educator attempts to address the concern or barrier.

Results

Coding resulted in seven categories of "Questions/Concerns" and five categories of "Barriers" (Table 1). Given the small number of coded responses in some categories, only the most commonly coded categories are discussed below.

Common Categories for "Questions/Concerns of Parents"

The most common category under "Questions/Concerns of Parents" was "strategies to get children to eat well." For example, one of the educators reported that, "I hear all the time that my--my kids will only eat white bread - my kids will only eat white pasta--my kids won't eat any vegetable except carrot." Another educator indicated that, "the parents that I work with, they are really concerned about their children and the vegetable part you know, they [the children] don't want to eat the vegetables--and how they can make them eat their vegetables." This issue of how to get children to eat vegetables, in particular, was reported as a pressing parental concern by the majority of the educators.

Educators generally reported feeling inadequately trained to provide parents with effective strategies to get children to change their eating habits. They indicated that when they try to teach parents how to keep their children from becoming overweight, parents often give up because they cannot get their children to eat healthier foods. For example, educators described, "so I will say--give them vegetables, but then the kids refuse so they sometimes--don't buy anymore [vegetables]," and "so while I try to help them--[but] some just say that they [the kids] just want to eat pure meat." The types of parental concerns for which educators did feel prepared to handle were those dealing directly with nutritional issues, such as appropriate serving sizes and how to find affordable nutritious foods. These concerns were reported much less frequently than were those concerns related to changing children's eating habits.

Barriers for Parents

The most common categories within "Barriers for Parents" were "parenting strategies/knowledge about child development" and "cultural beliefs/traditions".

Parenting Strategies/Knowledge About Child Development

When describing parenting strategies educators explained that, "they [parents] often don't feel in control of what their children eat," "just to get the kids to quiet down, they give them food." Other examples of ineffective parenting or feeding strategies included "using food--dessert and junk food as a reward for--for eating well" and forcing and pressuring children to eat certain foods. Educators also indicated that parents do not know what to do when their children do not eat what they ask them to. They report that parents say, "If they don't eat--what are the consequences, what do I do?"

Resistance from Family

A similar parenting-related obstacle to making changes in nutrition-related behaviors was resistance from children and spouses. Just as parents voice concern with getting their children to eat better, educators reported that this resistance from children is a significant barrier impeding behavior change in families. Again, the most common source of resistance from children cited by educators centered on eating vegetables. As one educator described, "I guess it's one of the hardest part--vegetables, how do you feed vegetables to the children." Confirming this statement, another educator stated, "Yeah, I agree. It's an obvious thing that they are having problems with." Resistance to change, however, was also reported to derive from spouses. Educators describe that sometimes, "the obstacle is the husband," or "maybe they [the mothers] want to change, but it is really difficult for them to go to change because of the men in their lives. They [the men] want the taste certain ways."

Educators uniformly reported that they were not prepared to help families overcome these barriers of ineffective parenting and resistance from family members. For example, when asked what they do to address the issue of parents feeding their children junk food to quiet or comfort them, educators responded that, "I tend to ignore it, because I don't really know how to deal with it--it's a little tough." As one educator explained, "if you are working with a family and one of the issues is that you know the children don't want [to eat] vegetables or don't want to drink water--you don't find in your curriculum those caveats of how one would address that--you may be just teaching milk and milk products or you may be teaching fruits and vegetables--but the other caveats of how you move if there (are) eating problems with the children for whatever reason, usually we don't find necessarily in those curriculum how one move(s) on and address(es) (those) parent-related issue(s)."

In an attempt to provide parents with some form of advice, educators were therefore left searching for information. Some reported sorting through the vast quantities of sources on the Internet, while others resorted to using materials in the office that were developed for other purposes or resources not directly related to the intersection of parenting and nutrition. However, they reported that the little information they do access is not readily available when they need it or that "the timing isn't necessarily where it needs to be."

Some turned to other parents in the group to give tips from their own experiences or suggested strategies to get around the parenting issue rather than to address the issue directly. For example, educators suggested that parents sneak vegetables into soups or serve them with dressing. Some educators reported feeling uncomfortable addressing the issue because the information was not part of the regular curriculum and they did not want to single out individual parents in front of the group: "I don't really feel comfortable saying well look here--I don't want to make an example out of the parent" and "I don't know what to say [to the parents]."

Cultural Beliefs/Traditions

In addition to "resistance from family," educators also commonly identified barriers related to "cultural beliefs/traditions." For example, one educator reported that, "my experience--it is not every time--you know, the Hispanic population--believes that our children that is a little bit chubby is--you know, their way to go because, you know, as it looks healthy and looks good." Similarly, educators described that, "they [parents from certain cultures] are teaching their children you have to eat everything on your plate" because this is what they were taught when they were young. While a few of the educators reported feeling uncomfortable addressing these cultural issues, others reported many successful strategies, such as "you can kind of qualify your statement--and not attack them personally--that their beliefs are valuable but maybe there's another opinion they may want to consider." Similarly, "Instead of saying 'no you cannot eat that,' I just said 'oh, that is a great food if we can just change it a little bit,' and help them to see that the change is good without telling them what they doing is wrong."

Discussion

Results from these study revealed that parents lack the skills necessary to effectively implement new nutrition information with their children and educators lack the understanding of parenting and child development that is required to address these issues with parents. Educator responses indicate that parents express frustration related to implementing changes in feeding practices that reflect the use of ineffective parenting strategies. For instance, educators related that parents express a lack of control over what their children eat and commonly give up because of children's "refusal" to eat what parents serve. These types of parent-child interactions reflect parents' inability to consistently set boundaries with their children around food.

Additionally, educators do not feel prepared to adequately respond to these frustrations. Instead, they report ignoring the issue, asking for tips from other parents, or searching for resources on the Internet. By not directly addressing the underlying parenting behaviors, many parents are left using ineffective techniques that may deteriorate rather than improve child nutrition and weight. As one educator pointed out near the end of one focus group, "we tend to somehow separate parenting from feeding their children--as if they are two different things and it is really even in two different disciplines." However, given the frustrations encountered by the educators in the current sample, this may not be the most effective approach.

While there are some examples of the incorporation of a parenting framework with nutrition education (for example, Satter, 2000), a recent review of the field noted a lack of family systems approaches to child overweight and called for programs to begin thinking about parenting change as the mediator in the process between programming and child weight control (Kitzmann & Beech, 2006). However, the application of these types of approaches remains limited by funding constraints that exist within programs such as EFNEP and FSNE.

Conclusion and Recommendations

These results indicate that parenting issues are being raised in federally funded nutrition classes despite the limitations on class content and that educators are not equipped to respond in an effective manner. Thus, nutrition programs would benefit from the inclusion of parent resources to teach parents how to lead their children toward healthy behavior and educator training on these issues. While some EFNEP and FSNE educators have many years of experience and extensive training in nutrition and nutrition education, most have no specific training on parenting, despite the fact that all EFNEP and many FSNE clientele are parents or pregnant women.

Four recommendations toward an integrative approach are made. First, nutrition education programs should incorporate parenting and child development information into the curricula. While there are constraints with federally funded programs, information that directly relates to the feeding and nutrition of children should be considered. Second, to improve educators' capacity to respond to parents' concerns, information about the effects of parenting styles on child nutrition should be included in training. Third, nutrition educators must be provided with educational tools to effectively respond to the concerns raised by parents. Finally, ongoing, convenient resources regarding parenting, child development, nutrition, and how to use their knowledge to prevent childhood overweight need to be available to parents and educators.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by funding provided to the Families with Young Children workgroup from University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The authors would like to thank the University of California Cooperative Extension educators who participated in this research. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Lenna Ontai, University of California, Department of Human and Community Development, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 (email: lontaigrz@ucdavis.edu).

References

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. Minnesota symposium on child psychology, Vol. 7, (pp. 3-46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Birkett, D., Johnson, D., Thompson, J. R., & Oberg, D. (2004). Reaching low-income families: Focus group results provide direction for a behavioral approach to WIC services. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(8), 1277-1280.

Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cowan, P. A., Powell, D., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Parenting interventions: A family systems perspective. In W. Damon, I. Sigel, and K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (Vol. 4, pp. 3-72). New York: Wiley.

Hughes, S. O., Power, T. G., Fisher, J. O., Mueller, S., & Nicklas, T. A. (2005). Revising a neglected construct: parenting styles in a child feeding context. Appetite, 44, 83-92.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) and P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd Edition). Qualitative Research Methods Series, v.16. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Patrick, H., Nicklas, T. A., Huhges, S. O., & Morales, M. (2005). The benefits of authoritative feeding style: caregiver feeding styles and children's food consumption patterns. Appetite, 44,243-349.

Rhee, K, E., Lumeng, J. C., Appugliese, D. P., Kaciroti, N., & Bradley, R. H. (2006). Parenting styles and overweight status in first grade. Pediatrics, 117, 2047-2054.

Ritchie, L., Ivey, S., Masch, M., Lopez, G. W., Ikeda, J., & Crawford, P. (2001). Pediatric overweight: A review of the literature. Report prepared for California Department of Health Services Childhood Obesity Prevention Initiative. Available at: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/Full_COPI_secure.pdf

Satter, E. (2000). Child of mine: Feeding with love and good sense. Bull Publishing, Boulder, CO.

Smith, C. A., Cudaback, D., Goddard, H. W., & Myers-Wall, J. (1994). National Extension Parent Education Model of Critical Parenting Practices. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS.

Teti, D. M., & Candelaria, M. A. (2002). Parenting competence. In: M. H. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed.) (pp. 149-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reaching Fathers in Parent Education: Perceptions of Newsletter Value Among Fathers and Father Figures

Sean E. Brotherson
Extension Family Science Specialist
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota
sean.brotherson@ndsuext.nodak.edu

Christopher J. Bouwhuis
Certified Family Life Educator
Layton, Utah
chrisbmft@yahoo.com

Introduction and Background

Parents need information and knowledge that will help them to understand children, provide a healthy environment, and nurture their children to adulthood. One educational tool that has become increasingly popular in parent education is the use of parenting newsletters (Martin & Weigel, 2001; Walker, 2005.). These educational resources are often targeted at parents of children of particular ages and focus on increasing a parent's knowledge, giving parents confidence, and promoting healthy parenting practices (Riley, Meinhardt, Nelson, Salisbury, & Winnett, 1991).

Although parenting newsletters have been developed and used in parent education for many years, they have rarely if ever focused specifically on fathers as parents and their role in the development of young children. A growing body of research has documented the changing roles of fathers and their importance to the well-being of young children (e.g., Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998; Lamb, 1997; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). In particular, it has been noted that parent and family educators seeking to develop best practices need to "adapt content, methods, and goals to include male needs and parenting strengths" (Palm, 1997, p. 176). Fathers and father figures of young children may benefit from information targeted specifically at them as parents. To address the needs of fathers and father figures as a growing audience in parent education, the Father Times parenting newsletter was developed within the NDSU Extension Service at North Dakota State University.

The Father Times Parenting Newsletter

Father Times is an educational newsletter series designed to provide fathers and father figures of young children (ages 0 to 8) with quality information and ideas about healthy parenting and child development. It is also appropriate for mothers or other caregivers of young children. The newsletter resource includes a variety of features designed to teach, share examples, encourage discussion, and provide activities that fathers or father figures and children can do together. Father Times is a series of nine topic-based newsletters on issues such as child guidance, reading, and play with children, and is available in two versions, an in-depth eight-page version and a shorter four-page version, in both English and Spanish.

The Father Times newsletter was developed after conducting a literature review on parenting newsletters and identifying a need for reaching fathers. The state family life specialist in North Dakota and a local parent educator with previous Extension experience worked together to create the materials. Newsletter topics and features were selected to focus on increasing practical knowledge of child development, assisting parents to aid in healthy development, and facilitating active father-child involvement. Also, the generative fathering framework was used to guide emphasis on key areas of father-child relationships (Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998). The materials were then reviewed in depth by two child development professionals, three mothers, and three fathers, and pilot tested with parents in Head Start and Early Childhood Family Education. Suggested revisions were then incorporated into the final materials.

Since its inception in 2003, the Father Times newsletter has been evaluated specifically with fathers of kindergarten and Head Start populations and is now being used in over 25 states throughout the United States. It is designed for use in a variety of educational settings, and has been used in early childhood settings (Head Start and Early Head Start), kindergarten and other school programs, parent education centers, home visitation programs, prisons with incarcerated fathers, social service agencies, county Extension programs, and other areas where fathers and father figures can be reached. Local programs or agencies order the newsletter series, instructional guide, and evaluation materials on CD and then print and distribute the material locally. Information about Father Times is available on-line for the public and other professionals to access at <http://www.ext.nodak.edu/parenting/fathertimes.htm>.

Purposes of the Study

Only a handful of studies have evaluated parenting newsletters. Those studies that have been completed suggest that newsletters can be an effective means for strengthening parent-child relationships (Cudaback et al., 1985; Garton et al., 2003; Riley et al., 1991). Logically, those parents who read more of a newsletter and who value it more highly as an information source report greater impacts from a parenting newsletter (Bogenschneider & Stone, 1997; Walker, 2005). For those involved in community education, a critical question is how individuals perceive and value written educational materials. Written material not perceived as valuable by parents is less likely to be read, discussed, or used in guiding parental activities and behavior.

The major purpose of the study reported here was to assess how fathers and father figures would perceive the value of a parenting newsletter as a resource for parenting information. This question was addressed in multiple ways. Fathers were asked to rate:

• Overall appeal and usefulness of the newsletter;


• Value compared to other sources of information on parenting and family life;


• Value of various features of the newsletter; and


• Value of specific issues of the newsletter.

This approach allowed us to assess for the first time how fathers perceive a parenting newsletter as a source of information and also to gain insight into their perceptions of a newsletter's value using multiple criteria.

Methodology and Sample

Six complete issues of the Father Times newsletter (8-page version) were distributed to parents of children at an urban kindergarten center on a weekly basis. Newsletter issues covering the topics of communication, connection, play, reading, emotional intelligence, and child guidance were selected for this project. A self-report questionnaire was used as the research instrument, which was developed for this project following a review of prior research on parenting newsletters. The study used a census approach and sampled the entire population of fathers of children in the kindergarten program. Each father or father figure with a child in the kindergarten program was sent a cover letter, questionnaire, and return envelope, and an incentive for return of the survey was a gift certificate for a free donut with their child at a local restaurant. The questionnaire could be returned by regular mail, to the child's teacher, or at a parent involvement activity at the school.

Of the 434 questionnaires distributed, a total of 177 were returned with useable data (41% response rate). Only fathers and father figures were included in the study. The mean age for fathers in the study was 37.16 years (SD=6.02 years). The average number of children these fathers and father figures reported having was 2.40 children (SD=.99). The majority of respondents (95.9%) reported themselves as Caucasian, followed by African-Americans and Hispanics (2.4% of the total sample population). The majority of respondents (83.6%) reported being currently married, followed by separated or divorced (7%), single and never married (3.5%), and living with a partner or being remarried (each 2.9%). Fifty-six percent of participants reported having a 4-year degree or higher, followed by "some college" (17.6%), a 2-year degree (13.5%), and high school/GED (12.4%). The majority of the participants (89.8%) reported being the biological father of the child, 5.9% reported being the child's stepfather, and 4.7% of the participants reported being some other type of father figure to the child.

Results

The main research question for the study focused on the perceived value of the parenting newsletter by fathers and father figures. Overall perceived value of the newsletter was assessed with five questions using a 4-point scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Relative value of the newsletter as an information resource as compared to other sources of information was assessed with nine questions using a 5-point Likert scale. The perceived value of specific newsletter features was assessed with five questions using a 5-point Likert scale. Finally, the perceived value of specific issues (topics) in the newsletter series was evaluated for six newsletters using a 5-point Likert scale. An open-ended question to assess perception of newsletter value was also included to allow for participant feedback.

Fathers' Responses to Newsletter Appeal

Participants were first asked how they perceived the overall appeal and value of the Father Times newsletter. Questions focused on newsletter length and format appeal and also if it was easy to read and understand, interesting and informative, and useful to everyday parenting. These questions capture responses to newsletter layout, readability, and usefulness for parenting.

Most fathers (89.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that the newsletter was about the right length, and 89.9% felt the newsletter was visually appealing in its format. Most of them also seemed to like the readability of the newsletter, with 97.5% agreeing the newsletter was easy to read and understand and 92.3% of participants agreeing it was interesting to read and informative. Finally, the majority of participants (89%) agreed or strongly agreed that the newsletter was useful in their everyday parenting (Table 1). These results suggest a positive response by fathers in their perceptions of general appeal of the Father Times newsletter as a resource.

Perceptions of Newsletter Value Compared to Other Information Sources

Study participants were asked to rate the usefulness of nine different sources from which men might get information on parenting and family life. This provides a sense of how parents might value information as compared to other information sources. Each information source was rated from "not at all useful" (1) to "very useful" (5). Sources of information included (1) parents, relatives, and in-laws; (2) spouse or mother of the child; (3) friends or other parents; (4) other fathers or father figures; (5) physician, nurse, or care provider; (6) books, magazines, and newspapers; (7) parent education or discussion group; (8) the Internet; and (9) the Father Times newsletter.

Among the sources of information rated by participants, all informal sources of information (such as relatives or friends) received the highest rankings. Of these sources, the information source rated most highly was the father's spouse or mother of their child, with 78.7% of men rating her as "useful" or "very useful." Parents, relatives, and in-laws were rated the next highest as a source of information (54.5% rated as "useful" or "very useful"), followed by friends or other parents, and other fathers or father figures.

The Father Times newsletter rated highest among all formal sources of information, with 73.8% of men listing it as "somewhat" to "very" useful. Six out of 10 fathers rated physician, nurse, or care provider (59.5%) and books, magazines, or newspapers (62.8%) as "somewhat useful" or higher. The sources of information regarded as least useful by fathers in this study were parent education or discussion groups and the Internet. Mean scores for fathers' ratings of the usefulness of different information sources to them are listed in Table 2.

Fathers' Perceptions of Specific Newsletter Features

Fathers and father figures were next asked to rate the value to them of specific features of the newsletter. The purpose of this effort was to assess which features of the newsletter resource were most highly valued by fathers and father figures. Each issue of the Father Times newsletter included five recurring sections that were listed in the questionnaire for fathers to rate. These specific newsletter features were: (1) "Once Upon a Time" (a story about a father and his situation); (2) "Fathering Facts" (research about fathering on a specific topic); (3) "What Children Need" (child development information on a specific topic); (4) "Time Together" (activities for fathers and children); and (5) a list of resources and books for dads and kids. Again, each was rated on a 5-point scale from "not at all useful" (1) to "very useful" (5).

Fathers rated the newsletter feature on child development topics ("What Children Need" as the most useful of the five sections, with 53.9% of them indicating it was "useful" or "very useful" and 30.8% saying it was "somewhat useful." "Time Together," the newsletter section on activities for dads and kids, was rated next highest by participants, with 49.3% suggesting it was "useful" or "very useful" to them. Another 35.2% of the men marked it as "somewhat useful" to them. The "Fathering Facts" section was rated "useful" or "very useful" by 46.4% of the fathers in the study, and 37.9% indicated it was "somewhat useful." These three newsletter features were regarded as somewhat to very useful by three out of four fathers or father figures in the study.

The newsletter features that included a story about a father and his situation ("Once Upon a Time") and a list of resources or books to read for dads and kids were rated "useful" or higher, respectively, by 33.1% and 28.5% of participants, with many more marking them as "somewhat useful." These results give insight into what features of a newsletter are perceived as most useful by fathers and father figures. Mean scores for fathers' ratings of the usefulness of each newsletter feature are listed in Table 3.

Fathers' Perceptions of Specific Newsletter Topics

A final aspect of how fathers perceived the value of the newsletter was assessed by having them rate the usefulness of specific newsletter issues on single topics. Each newsletter issue revolved around a singular topic such as reading with children or play with children, rather than presenting a smorgasbord of age-related information. Fathers' ratings were completed on a 5-point scale ranging from "not at all useful" (1) to "very useful" (5). The newsletter topics assessed were on connection, communication, play, reading, child guidance, and emotional intelligence.

The newsletter topics as rated by fathers did not show dramatic differences, with only a .14 difference between the highest and lowest mean scores. The topic of "fathers, kids, and communication" received the highest rating, with 87.1% of men listing it as "somewhat useful" or higher and 46.2% as "useful" or "very useful." "Fathers and children's emotional intelligence" was rated next highest, with 47.7% of men marking it as "useful" or "very useful" and 82.5% overall as "somewhat useful" or higher. The topics rated next were reading and child guidance, respectively, with 45.4% and 42.9% of men rating these as "useful" or "very useful." Finally, the newsletter topic of connections with children was rated by 41.6% as "useful" or "very useful," and the topic of play as "useful" or higher by 42.2% of fathers. In all, eight out of 10 fathers rated each newsletter topic as at least "somewhat useful" or higher. Mean scores for fathers' ratings of the usefulness of each newsletter topic are listed in Table 4.

Discussion and Applications

Prior studies indicate that parenting newsletters can be a valuable resource for information on parenting and family life (e.g., Cudaback et al. 1985; Doescher, Pratt, Allen, & Grobe, 1997; Merkowitz, Jelly, Collins, & Arkin, 1997; Riley et al., 1991). However, all such previous studies have focused almost exclusively on mothers as parents. This study suggests that, for fathers and father figures, a parenting newsletter can also be a good resource for parenting information.

It is important to acknowledge that while this study suggests positive perceptions among fathers regarding a newsletter resource, there are also limitations to consider. A significant majority of the sample population was Caucasian, well educated, and currently married, which is not necessarily representative of the broader population. Further research with more broadly representative samples will be necessary to assess these findings, and these findings may not generalize to more diverse populations. Additionally, it is likely that those individuals who felt most positively about the newsletter resource were more likely to complete and return the surveys, and nonrespondents to the survey may vary significantly in their perceptions and be less positive than reported here.

A few larger issues are raised by the findings in this study. One issue is that fathers and father figures have often been neglected in efforts to reach parents with educational resources, and the topic of fathers in family life represents a rich opportunity for further exploration. Key potential topics regarding fathers in family life include the contributions of fathers to children, barriers to meaningful father involvement, important contexts of father involvement, and critical strategies and resources for involving fathers in family life. Other practical questions include what goals mothers versus fathers have in receiving parent education, which delivery systems are most effective for mothers versus fathers, and what outcomes are most important to focus on in educating fathers.

As a source of information on parenting and family life, the Father Times newsletter was ranked by fathers as the highest in usefulness of any formal source. However, unlike some prior research findings, which found parenting newsletters to be the most preferred source of information on parenting and family life, (e.g., Doescher et al., 1997; Merkowitz et al. 1997), the highest ranked source of information reported in this study was the participant's spouse or mother of their child. All informal sources of information, such as relatives and friends, were ranked higher in usefulness than the formal sources.

This may be due somewhat to the fact that the period of exposure to the Father Times newsletter was relatively brief (6 weeks). It also indicates that fathers may tend to prefer informal sources of information on parenting. As a first option, fathers may be more likely to value information gained from a spouse, parent, or friend. The ranking of the newsletter as most valued among formal sources of information, however, illustrates its significant potential as a source of education.

Key findings that deserve consideration and which can be applied to current practices in preparing educational materials and parent education efforts, include the following.

• Fathers and father figures are likely to respond positively to a newsletter resource that targets them specifically.


• Fathers and father figures typically turn first to informal sources, particularly a spouse or mother of their child, for information on parenting and family life. Making educational information part of a father's "social network" is thus important to reaching them in parent education.


• Fathers and father figures are likely to value an educational newsletter more highly than other formal sources of information on parenting.


• Fathers and father figures most value educational features that focus on key development needs of children, activities for engaging with children, and research facts they can use in parenting their children.


• Fathers and father figures value a variety of parenting topics in an educational newsletter, particularly those related to communication, feelings, reading, and guidance of children.

Fathers represent a large and generally underserved audience in parent education efforts, whether in Extension programs or other community programs. The findings from the study reported here have shown that a resource such as the Father Times parenting newsletter is perceived as valuable in multiple ways by fathers and father figures.

References

Bogenschneider, K., & Stone, M. (1997). Delivering parent education to low and high risk parents of adolescents via age-paced newsletters. Family Relations, 46, 123-134.

Cudaback, D., Darden, C., Nelson, P., O'Brien, S., Pinsky, D., & Wiggins, E. (1985). Becoming successful parents: Can age paced newsletters help? Family Relations, 34, 271-275.

Doescher, S., Pratt, C., Allen, T., & Grobe, D. (1997). Parenting the first year newsletter evaluation: Final report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service.

Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277-292.

Dollahite, D. C., & Hawkins, A. J. (1998). A conceptual ethic of generative fathering. Journal of Men's Studies, 7, 109-132.

Garton, M., Hicks, K., Leatherman, M., Miltenberger, M., Mulkeen, P., Nelson-Mitchell, L., & Winland, C. (2003). Newsletters: Treasures or trash? Parenting newsletter series results in positive behavior changes. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/rb5.shtml

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Martin, S. S., & Weigel, D. J. (2001). Age-paced parenting materials and child maltreatment: Can newsletters make a difference? Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, November 2001, Rochester, New York.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173-1191.

Merkowitz, R. F., Jelly, K., Collins, E., & Arkin, C. F. (1997). Backpack buddies: A newsletter series for parents. Journal of Extension, [On-line] 35(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/iw3.html

Palm, G. F. (1997). Promoting generative fathering through parent and family education. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 167-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Riley, D., Meinhardt, G., Nelson, C., Salisbury, M. J., & Winnett, T. (1991). How effective are age-paced newsletters for new parents? A replication and extension of earlier studies. Family Relations, 40(3) p. 247-253.

Walker, S. K. (2005). Use of a parenting newsletter series and other child-rearing information sources by mothers of infants. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34(2), 153-172.

Communication Efforts of Florida Extension Agents During the 2004 Hurricane Season

Ricky Telg
Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
rwtelg@ufl.edu

Tracy Irani
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
irani@ufl.edu

Melissa Muegge
Graduate Student
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
mmuegge@allflexusa.com

Mark Kistler
Assistant Professor
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
mark_kistler@ncsu.edu

Nick Place
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
nplace@ufl.edu

Introduction

Hurricanes Charley, Francis, Ivan, and Jeanne swept over Florida in a little over a month in August and September of 2004, killing more than 100 people and causing more than $22 billion in damages (Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, 2005; Sherman, 2004). In agriculture and allied industries, estimates of hurricane-inflicted damages totaled more than $2 billion (UF/IFAS, 2005). In response, the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) formed a Hurricane Recovery Task Force to inventory UF/IFAS's immediate response and to "develop long-term strategies for dealing with these and future hurricanes or disasters, both natural and man-made" (UF/IFAS, 2005, p. 1). Among the recommendations, UF/IFAS Extension identified the need to improve communication efforts as a primary concern after the 2004 hurricane season (UF/IFAS, 2005).

Historically, the Cooperative Extension Service has responded to the problems and crises of communities from local depressions and regional droughts to more nationwide cases, such as the Great Depression and world wars (Bosch, 2004; Cartwright, Case, Gallagher, & Hathaway, 2002). Extension's primary role in many former crises was to provide reliable information delivered by various forms of communication media (Cartwright et al., 2002). In relation to the Florida hurricane crisis of 2004, Extension agents responded by supporting the hurricane preparation and recovery efforts in their communities (McGovney, 2005).

Determining how to communicate to their publics or clientele and how to do so in a timely manner were just some of the communication issues facing Florida's Extension agents. The purpose of the study reported here was to examine the communication channels used by Extension personnel to communicate with the public during the 2004 hurricane season and to survey Extension agents about the perceived effectiveness of these communication channels.

Literature Review

Crisis communication involves incidents that suddenly and unpredictably threaten the stability of an organization (Whiting, Tucker, & Whaley, 2004). It is the "dialog between the organization and its publics prior to, during, and after the negative occurrence" (Fearn-Banks, 2002, p. 2). Messages of hope, support, and the rebuilding process offer publics the reassurance needed in uncertain times (Sapriel, 2003). Also, relaying timely information is relevant when communicating in a crisis. Communicators should strive for brevity but respect requests for information and offer to provide desired information within a specified time period (Covello, 2003).

Because the goal of crisis and risk communicators is to establish long-term relationships of trust and credibility with the media, communicators should provide information tailored to the needs of each type of media (Heath & Nathan, 1990-91). News media have easy access to large publics and communication systems that remain working even in the case of partial breakdown (Peters, Covello, & McCallum, 1997).

However, crisis situations become a crisis communication problem when there is extensive media attention that is not planned for or anticipated (Barton, 2000). Media coverage during a crisis situation tends to attract increased media attention for the individuals affected by the crisis (Brown, 2003). Generally, the news media try to obtain information about a disaster from authoritative sources like officials from county, state, and federal government agencies and traditional emergency organizations (Sood, Stockdale, & Rogers, 1987). According to Fett, Shinners-Gray, Duffy, and Doyle (1995), most persons' only contact with Extension is through the mass media. In past crises, Extension personnel have consequently been called on to provide expert and reliable information through various communication media (Cartwright et al., 2002).

To understand how the news media typically operates in natural disaster situations, communicators should examine how the media's coverage frames the public's perception and work to establish rapport and credibility with the media in order to maintain and enhance news coverage (Ruth, Muegge, & Irani, 2005). By examining the framing of news media coverage of agriculture in three major metropolitan newspapers in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season, Ruth, Muegge, and Irani (2005) found that agricultural stories only constituted about 4% of the hurricane coverage.

In terms of communicating during a crisis, Whiting, Tucker, and Whaley (2004) analyzed the preparedness of colleges of agriculture across the U.S. and the handling of crisis situations at those institutions. Only about 60% of responding land-grant universities had a central crisis communication plan, while nearly one-third of the respondents were unaware of a crisis communication plan in place for their Experiment Station and academic programs. A large majority of respondents believed that their administrators were somewhat or well informed of the crisis plan; however, less than half of the respondents believed that either faculty (43.3%) or staff (46%) were somewhat or well informed (Whiting et al., 2004).

Methodology

A team of researchers in the Agricultural Education and Communication department at the University of Florida developed a 76-question survey instrument that included quantitative and open-ended (qualitative) questions. The questionnaire was converted to an online Web form using Zoomerang, a premium online survey software that numerous businesses and organizations use to create professional, customized questionnaires. The survey was conducted via e-mail using an adapted form of Dillman's Tailored Design method (2000) to collect the data.

The 76-question survey was adapted from previous research on professional development and agricultural scientists' communication efforts (Ruth, Lundy, Telg, & Irani, 2005), as well as specific questions the researchers believed necessary to gain a clear understanding of Extension's role during the hurricane preparation and recovery efforts. Experts from the departments of Family Youth and Community Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Food and Resource Economics, and Clinical and Health Psychology were also asked to include and edit questions related to disaster preparedness, educational materials, agents' personal needs (including mental health issues), and community support needs. The population for this study included all UF/IFAS county Extension faculty and district Extension directors (n=328) with a viable e-mail address as of October 2004.

Extension faculty and directors received an e-mail on November 30, 2004, the last day of the official hurricane season, that gave them an overview of the study and provided the link to the 76-question survey. Two waves of follow-up reminders were conducted with nonrespondents on December 9 and December 20, 2004. The researchers closed the questionnaire on January 5, 2005, preventing any new responses. All communication and distribution of the questionnaire was done online, via e-mail, based upon the most current list of faculty. A total of 208 viable responses were received, for a 63.4% response rate. The data were analyzed using SPSS ® Student Version 12.0 for Windows.

Results

A total of 208 Extension faculty responded, for a 63.4% response rate. In terms of gender, 38% (n=70) of respondents were male, while 62% (n=114) were female. Table 1 identifies respondents according to age. The majority of agents (38.1%, n=51) ranged in age from 51-60, and 30.6% (n=41) were ages 41-50.

For those with administrative responsibilities, 39 (95%) were County Extension Directors, and two (5%) were District Directors.

Respondents were asked to indicate their primary program area from a list generated by the District Extension Directors' office. Out of 194 responses, the top program areas were family and consumer sciences (n=46, 24%); agricultural and natural resources (n=45, 23%); and 4-H youth development (n=37, 19%). Agents who indicated "other" as their response listed citrus; water quality; urban forestry; and livestock, pasture, and forage production, as some of their program areas (Table 2).

Agents reported their years of experience with the Cooperative Extension Service in and outside of Florida. About one-third of respondents (30%, n=60) had worked for Extension 5 years or less, while less than 8% (7.6%, n=15) had worked more than 30 years. Table 3 identifies the number of responses according to years of service.

Communicating to news media channels (television, radio, newspaper) has been reported as being a component of Extension agents' responsibilities, especially in marketing and promoting local Extension programs (Hurst, 2005). In the study reported here, roughly one-half of respondents made slight (28%, n=56) to moderate (27%, n=54) use of news media channels to communicate hurricane-related messages to specific clientele and the general public. Almost one-third (31%, n=61) did not use news media channels at all. This is in keeping with Hurst's study, where it was found that personal communication methods--such as word of mouth, speeches--were used slightly more frequently than news releases, public service announcements, and media interviews to market and promote local Extension programs to the public.

Many respondents noted in open-ended answers that communicating with news media channels was difficult because of electrical outages. Many also commented that they were performing other duties beyond their normal responsibilities--such as helping ranchers round up stray cattle; securing feed; clearing trees and debris; distributing food, water, ice, and supplies; and answering hurricane victims' questions by telephone or in person--which made communicating with news media a lower priority. Respondents noted feeling "pulled" between their own responsibilities at home--many experienced structural damage to their homes or had children at home because schools were closed due to electrical outages and storm damage--and their responsibilities at work. And they felt equally "pulled" between determining if they should work with news media outlets or serve immediate needs of persons around them.

The most used mediated communication channel--defined as one-to-many communication using print or electronic methods--during the 2004 hurricane season was flyers/print materials (29%, n=56), followed by newspapers (19%, n=37). Respondents rarely used live television and radio or recorded public service announcements (Table 4). Several respondents reported that the Internet/Web was the best medium to use to control a message, but power outages made Internet/Web and other electronic media channels problematic.

Respondents said face-to-face communication was the most commonly used (37%, n=71) personal method of communication, defined as one-to-one or one-to-few person communication. Telephones (37%, n=71), on-site visits (20%, n=38), and cell phones (19%, n=36) were also ranked as necessary sources of personal communication. The least used sources of personal communication were text messaging (95%, n=169) and electronic mail (34%, n=62) (Table 5).

Agents were asked to report the effectiveness of mediated communication channels used during the hurricanes. Approximately one-third of respondents (32%, n=49) reported flyers/print materials as most effective, followed by newspapers (29%, n=45) and "other" (17%, n=26) forms of communication. Only 3% felt live television interviews (n=4) and Internet/Web (n=4) were the most effective channels used (Table 6).

When reporting on the most effective personal communication methods used to communicate, agents perceived face-to-face communication (36%, n=60) to be the most effective, followed by telephone communication (35%, n=59), on-site visits (9%, n=16), and cell phones (8%, n=14) (Table 7).

Agents were asked to give their perception of the general public's and their clientele's awareness of Extension's efforts during the hurricane season (Table 8). Over half (53%, n=104) of the respondents reported the general public was only slightly aware of Extension's efforts, and 20% (n=39) indicated the general public was not at all aware. Only 4% (n=8) of respondents felt the general public was aware to a great extent.

When asked the same question about their Extension clientele group, the majority of agents (40%, n=79) reported their clientele was moderately informed of Extension's efforts; however, 11% (n=22) reported their clientele not being aware at all (Table 9).

Finally, respondents were asked if their Extension office had an internal or external plan to manage communication efforts in a crisis like the hurricanes or other emergency situations. For the purpose of the study, "internal" referred to the crisis communication preparedness on behalf of Extension agents, Extension offices, and the UF/IFAS Extension administration. "External" communication preparedness was how participants communicated with outside agencies at the local, county, state, and national level. Respondents reported that 83% (n=160