Family Life Program Accountability Norms: How Do Your Results Compare?

The focus today is on national initiatives and accountability (Board of Agriculture, 1996). Therefore, the need is even greater for credible, understandable answers to two questions: a) "What is it we are getting for tax dollars invested in family life programs?" and b) "Which programs work best with whom under what circumstances?" The more we can aggregate our data on program impacts, the stronger case we can make that investing in Cooperative Extension family life programs is worthwhile.

For years there has been a need for a way to aggregate and compare family life program accountability impacts across state lines. Within Cooperative Extension at the national level, the focus has shifted toward national initiatives and away from base programs, where many of the Extension parenting and child development programs have been. National, state, and county stakeholders need quantifiable program impact data, especially in these budget-cutting times, which tend to make the public and their elected officials scrutinize more closely what it is they are getting for the dollars invested in preventive education programs.

Family life specialists are in a better position to answer accountability questions than many competitors not associated with land-grant universities, that is, other agency professionals, private parenting educators, and commercial family life program facilitators. Many specialists already have the background and training to conduct quality program evaluation studies. Those who do not have colleagues at their own land-grant universities with whom they can work to collect aggregatable program impact data.

Specialists can also collaborate with specialists at other land-grant universities, as has been done (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994, 1995). For at least 17 years, Cooperative Extension family life specialists have collaborated to develop, test, and share methods for obtaining aggregatable results of family life programs (Fetsch, 1991; Fetsch et al., 1989). This work eventually led to the development of the Cooperative Extension Program Evaluation Surveys (CEPES) (Fetsch, 1995b).

The purpose of this paper is to present normative data from Cooperative Extension family life program participants in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska between 1989 and 1995. (Appreciation is expressed to Deb Gebeke, North Dakota State University; Lynette Olson, formerly with South Dakota State University; Elaine Sturges formerly with Colorado State University; Jacque Miller, Colorado State University; and Pat Steffens, University of Nebraska, for contributing CEPES data to this study.) Normative data is presented from a sample of 916 Cooperative Extension program participants in more than 24 family life programs who voluntarily responded to our surveys on indicators of program results: family strains, family coherence/coping, quality of life, self-esteem, stress and depression levels, and tax dollar support.

Cooperative Extension family life state specialists and agents from four western states used CEPES to be more accountable in assessing their preventive educational program results. They invited participants to complete voluntary and anonymous surveys.

Sample

More than three out of four respondents were married (77.9%, n = 714/916). We used the family life cycle stages recommended by McCubbin (1987; McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985). Regarding which family life cycle stage program respondents were in, over half reported being in the pre-school or school-age stage with their oldest child being 11 years old or older (53.5%, n = 490/916). Another 22.7% were in the adolescent or launching stage with their oldest child being 12 years of age or older, and some children/young adults still living in the home or apartment.

Three out of four respondents were female (75.1%, n = 688/916). Regarding age of respondents, almost half were 31-40 years old (46.7%, n = 428/916). Another 22.4% were 21-30. Although the ethnicity question was optional, 99% of respondents answered it. Almost nine out of 10 respondents were white, not Hispanic (88.9%, n = 814/916). Regarding educational level, 94.6% of the respondents were high school graduates or higher. Almost four out of 10 were college graduates or higher (38.8%, n = 355/916), 34.6% had some college or technical school, and 21.2% had a high school diploma or Graduate Equivalency Diploma.

Almost 80 percent of the respondents lived in rural settings. Almost one-third lived on a farm or ranch (31.9%, n = 292/916). Another 21.2% lived in a small town with a population under 2,500, 14.8% lived in a town (2,500-10,000), and 11.1% lived in a rural setting which was not a farm or ranch.

Assessment Protocol

Cooperative Extension program attendees completed self- report written pre-tests (Fetsch, 1995b) early during their participation in Cooperative Extension research-based preventive education programs. Participants voluntarily responded to questions about their family strains, family coherence/coping, quality of life, self-esteem, stress and depression levels, and tax dollar support.

The Family Strains Index (McCubbin, Patterson & Wilson, 1987) is a 10-item life event and change subscale. The index includes conflict between spouses, difficulty in managing child(ren), financial hardships, and caring for an ill family member. McCubbin (1987) reported a validity coefficient of .87 and a reliability index of .69, scoring procedures, norms, and comparative data for Family Strains by life cycle stage (Fetsch, 1991; 1995a).

The Family Coherence/Coping Index (McCubbin, Larsen, & Olson, 1987) is a four-item appraisal skill subscale. The index includes accepting stressful events and difficulties, appraising a family problem positively, and having faith in God. McCubbin (1987) reported a validity coefficient of .80, a reliability index of .71, norms (McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985), scoring procedures, and comparative data by life cycle stage.

The Quality of Life Index (McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985) is a 10-item family adaptation subscale for measuring the family's overall feeling of life satisfaction. The index asks about satisfaction with family, relatives, religious life, schools, health care services, and the neighborhood. The authors reported a validity coefficient of .82 and a reliability index of .76.

Self-Esteem levels were measured with a single-item, Likert scale question, "In the past month, how have you felt about yourself most of the time?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Very bad" and 9 = "Very good."

Stress levels were measured with a single-item Likert scale question, "What has your stress level been during the past month?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Very low" and 9 = "Very high."

Depression levels were assessed with a single-item, Likert scale question, "During the past month how depressed have you been?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled a number between 1 = "Not depressed" and 9 = "Very depressed."

When questionnaire items correlate with each other or with an instrument of known validity and reliability at approximately the .5 level, there tends to be a good deal of cross-scale validity, and the researcher tends to be more confident that the items are likely to be more sensitive to the responses of broad social strata like those who voluntarily participate in Cooperative Extension programs than to the responses of a narrow social strata like, for example clinical groups, high socioeconomic groups, etc. (Horwitz & Smith, 1962).

Self-assessments of current stress level and depression level during the past year were found to have reasonable correlation levels with the Everly Stress and Symptom Inventory (ESSI) (Everly & Sherman, 1986), a standardized instrument measuring stress arousal levels. Concurrent validity correlations were found for the stress level item to be .552 (p < .001) and for the depression level item to be .501 (p < .001) with a sample of 61 farmers (stress level m = 4.506, depression level m = 3.914).

Tax Dollar Support was assessed with a single-item statement and categorical question: "Your tax dollars support this Cooperative Extension Program either totally or in part. Do you want your tax dollars to continue supporting this type of effort?" (Fetsch, 1995b). Respondents circled "Yes" or "No."

Family Strains levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents were significantly higher (M = 146.85, SD = 92.89, N = 909, p < .0001) than those reported by mccubbin, olson, lavee, & patterson (1985, p. 20) (m = 85.0, sd = 82.2, n = 1,000). cooperative extension sample scores ranged from 22 to 418. this statistically significant difference in group mean scores may be due to a selection bias. perhaps people with higher family strains levels seek out cooperative extension programs for information and education that can assist them in reducing their elevated family strains levels.

Family Coherence/Coping levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents were within McCubbin's normal range (M = 16.0, SD = 2.0, N = 1,000). Cooperative Extension program respondents' norms were not significantly different (M = 15.26, SD = 2.48, N = 910). Scores ranged from 4 to 20.

Although Quality of Life levels were somewhat higher for the Cooperative Extension sample, they were still within McCubbin's normal range (M = 36.0, SD = 4.9, N = 1,000). The Cooperative Extension sample's norms were not significantly different (M = 40.09, SD = 6.32, N = 915). Scores ranged from 13 to 50.

Self-Esteem levels for Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 6.05, SD = 1.98, N = 914). Stress levels of Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 6.31, SD = 2.26, N = 915). Depression levels of Cooperative Extension program respondents ranged from 1 to 9 (M = 4.01, SD = 2.33, N = 904).

Tax Dollar Support to continue supporting this type of effort was strong (Fetsch, 1996). 91.9 percent (n = 842/916) said, "Yes." 1.7 percent (n = 16/916) said, "No." 6.3 percent (n = 58/916) did not respond. When only completed responses were considered, 98.1 percent said "Yes" (n = 842/858) and 1.9 percent said "No" (n = 16/858).

The normative data reported in this article is new and of interest to state family life specialists and family living agents in several respects. This is the first time CEPES normative data has been reported on such a large sample of program respondents. This is the first time McCubbin's norms have been compared with Cooperative Extension's norms.

Evaluating the effects of family life programs with valid and reliable instruments to collect program accountability impact data that is aggregatable and comparable across state lines is a challenge that can be met. Doing so as a team can provide policy makers with data to present a strong argument for continued family living program funding.

This article expands and updates the research and knowledge base for Extension professionals interested in a family life program accountability tool. Following previously published Journal of Extension articles describing the development of CEPES (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994), a pilot study (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1995), and tax dollars support (Fetsch, 1996), this article fills the need for parenting and child development program outcome benchmark norms.

Family living Extension professionals can improve their effective documentation of program outcomes by using CEPES pre- tests early in their educational programs and CEPES post-tests approximately two-six months after the program is concluded. Now they can not only accurately assess their program impacts, they can also aggregate and compare their impacts to established norms with 916 program respondents from four states.

Board of Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy Press. (1996). Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: Public service and public policy. Washington, DC: Author.

Everly, G. S. & Sherman, M. (1986). Everly stress and symptom inventory (ESSI), Unpublished manuscript.

Fetsch, R. J. (1991, November). Preliminary Colorado results using Cooperative Extension program evaluation survey (CEPES). Paper presented at the National Meeting of Extension Specialists NCFR Pre-Conference, Denver, CO.

Fetsch, R. J. (1995a, November 14). Cooperative Extension norms with 916 family life program participants. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations Cooperative Extension Pre-Conference, Portland, OR. (Available from author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.)

Fetsch, R. J. (1995b). Cooperative Extension program evaluation surveys: Pretest & posttest (CEPES). (Unpublished surveys available to Extension faculty from author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.)

Fetsch, R. J. (1996, April). Tax dollars support levels are strong for family living programs. Journal of Extension, 34(2), ideas 1.

Fetsch, R. J., & Gebeke, D. (1994, June). A family life program accountablity tool. Journal of Extension, 32(1), Feature 6.

Fetsch, R. J., & Gebeke, D. (1995, February). Colorado and North Dakota strengthening marriage and family programs increase positive family functioning levels. Journal of Extension, 33(1), feature 4.

Fetsch, R. J., Lingren, H., Hansen, G., Daly, R., Jenson, G. O., Kobbe, A. M., & Olson, L. (1989, November 4). Accomplishment summary and pending impact study: Family disruption and dislocation task force. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations Cooperative Extension Pre- Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Horwitz, H., & Smith, E. (1962). The interchangeability of socio-economic indices. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research (pp. 73-77). U.S.: Free Press.

McCubbin, H. I. (1987). FIRA-G family index of regenerativity and adaptation--General. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 285-302). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin- Madison.

McCubbin, H., Larsen, A., & Olson, D. (1987). F-COPES Family crisis oriented personal evaluation scales. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 193-207). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin -Madison.

McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D. H., Lavee, Y., & Patterson, J. M. (1985). The family paradigm album: Family invulnerability test stress, strengths and adaptation. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Stress, Coping, and Health Project and Family Wellness Project.

McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., & Wilson, L. (1987). Family inventory of life events and changes (FILE) Form A. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 79-98). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.