Barriers to participation in Extension programs often influence the means of program delivery and approaches to developing educational programs. A study of Expanded Foods and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) clientele in one of North Carolina\u27s poorer rural counties accentuates the difficulties faced by these limited resource clientele in their participation in the EFNEP program, as well as challenges to Extension to recognize and overcome such barriers. The research found that essentially all of this limited resource audience expressed some level of barriers. These included logistical, social, situational, and emotional barriers

Mustian, R David

Richardson, John G

Williams, Jo Ann Y

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 41 Number 4 Article 8 8-1-2003 Barriers to Participation in Extension Expanded Foods and Nutrition Programs John G. Richardson North Carolina State University, john_richardson@ncsu.edu Jo Ann Y. Williams North Carolina State University, joann_williams@ncsu.edu R David Mustian North Carolina State University, robert_mustian@ncsu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Richardson, J. G., Williams, J. Y., & Mustian, R. (2003). Barriers to Participation in Extension Expanded Foods and Nutrition Programs. The Journal of Extension, 41(4), Article 8. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol41/iss4/8 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesAugust	2003	//	Volume	41	//	Number	4	//	Feature	Articles	//	4FEA6Barriers	to	Participation	in	Extension	Expanded	Foods	andNutrition	ProgramsAbstractBarriers	to	participation	in	Extension	programs	often	influence	the	means	of	program	deliveryand	approaches	to	developing	educational	programs.	A	study	of	Expanded	Foods	and	NutritionEducation	Program	(EFNEP)	clientele	in	one	of	North	Carolina's	poorer	rural	counties	accentuatesthe	difficulties	faced	by	these	limited	resource	clientele	in	their	participation	in	the	EFNEPprogram,	as	well	as	challenges	to	Extension	to	recognize	and	overcome	such	barriers.	Theresearch	found	that	essentially	all	of	this	limited	resource	audience	expressed	some	level	ofbarriers.	These	included	logistical,	social,	situational,	and	emotional	barriers.	IntroductionThe	Expanded	Food	and	Nutrition	Education	Program	(EFNEP)	is	a	Cooperative	Extension	programthat	operates	in	all	50	states	and	in	American	Samoa,	Guam,	Micronesia,	Northern	Marianas,Puerto	Rico,	and	the	U.S.	Virgin	Islands	(USDA,	2000).	The	objectives	of	EFNEP	are	to	assist	limitedresource	families	and	youth	in	acquiring	the	knowledge,	skills,	attitudes,	and	changed	behaviornecessary	for	nutritionally	sound	diets	and	to	contribute	to	their	personal	development	and	theimprovement	of	the	total	family	diet	and	nutritional	well-being.The	primary	audiences	of	EFNEP	programs	are	limited	resource	youth	and	limited	resource	familieswith	young	children.	EFNEP	participants	receive	educational	information	from	trainedparaprofessionals	and	volunteers,	who	give	lessons	on:Food	safety,Choosing	healthy	foods,Meal	planning,Food	purchasing,Storage,Preparation,	andSanitation	(USDA,	2000).EFNEP	has	been	a	viable	program	of	the	North	Carolina	Cooperative	Extension	Service	since	1969(NCCES,	1992).	Based	on	its	stated	objectives,	the	program	was	implemented	in	many	of	thestate's	poorer	counties.	As	one	of	those	poorer	counties,	Duplin	consistently	has	over	25%	of	itsnearly	50,000	population	eligible	for	EFNEP	programs.John	G.	RichardsonExtension	Program	Delivery	and	Accountability	LeaderInternet	Address:	john_richardson@ncsu.eduJo	Ann	Y.	WilliamsExtension	Agent,	Nutrition	Programs	SupervisorInternet	Address:	joann_williams@ncsu.eduR.	David	MustianProfessor	and	Extension	Evaluation	LeaderInternet	Address:	robert_mustian@ncsu.eduNorth	Carolina	Cooperative	ExtensionNorth	Carolina	State	UniversityRaleigh,	North	CarolinaThe	rate	of	adult	illiteracy	in	Duplin	County	exceeds	the	state	average	by	33%.	TraditionalExtension	delivery	methods	such	as	publications,	newsletters,	and	newspaper	articles	have	provenlimited	in	reaching	these	low	resource	audiences.	The	county's	large	rural	geographic	area	(814square	miles)	and	lack	of	public	transportation	restricts	program	delivery	options,	especially	thosethat	require	travel	to	distant	locations.Another	educational	barrier	that	may	influence	the	EFNEP	programming	is	the	number	of	workingmothers	in	the	county.	There	are	nearly	6,000	mothers	of	small	children	working	outside	the	homein	the	county.	Of	that	number,	there	are	1,107	single	working	mothers	in	the	county	(DuplinCounty,	1994).	If	targeted	clientele	were	to	participate	in	traditional	Extension	programmingdelivery	methods,	such	as	night	meetings,	adequate	and	quality	childcare	generates	anotherbarrier.	This	creates	an	additional	impact	on	the	constraints	of	effective	educational	programmingfor	these	EFNEP	audiences.Purpose	of	StudyThe	purpose	of	the	study	reported	here	was	to	examine	the	educational	barriers	of	EFNEP	clientelein	Duplin	County,	North	Carolina.	The	study	was	designed	to	identify	key	variables	of	EFNEPprogram	participants,	including:Marital	status,Age,Education	level,Children	in	household,Age	of	children	single,	andPublic	assistance	participation.The	study	further	sought	to	determine	program	participants'	perceived	barriers	to	adult	educationprovided	by	the	NCCES.	The	specific	objective	was	to	determine	critical	factors	contributing	tobarriers	of	adult	education	among	this	specially	targeted	audience.Barriers	to	EducationAlthough	selection	of	appropriate	delivery	methods	and	content	of	educational	programs	influencehow	adults	learn,	there	may	be	barriers	to	participation	that	may	also	affect	desired	educationaloutcomes.	Several	researchers	have	clustered	reasons	why	adults	do	not	participate	into	types	ofbarriers.	Johnstone	and	Rivera	(1965)	described	10	potential	barriers	that	were	clustered	into	twocategories:	external	or	situational	barriers	and	internal	and	dispositional	barriers.	These	barrierswere	then	linked	to	different	sex,	age,	and	socioeconomic	categories.	Older	adults	cited	moredispositional	barriers,	while	younger	people	and	women	were	more	constrained	by	situationalbarriers.	The	researchers	noted,	"persons	of	lower	socioeconomic	circumstances	face	both	kinds	ofobstacles"	(p.	221).Cross	(1981),	using	data	from	the	Commission	on	Nontraditional	Study,	grouped	24nonparticipation	items	into	three	different	categories	of	barriers.	These	were:	situational	barriersrelating	to	a	person's	situation	at	a	given	time;	institutional	barriers	consisting	of	"all	thosepractices	and	procedures	that	exclude	or	discourage	working	adults	from	participating	ineducational	activities";	and	dispositional	barriers	arising	from	a	person's	attitude	toward	self	andlearning.Darkenwald	and	Merriam	(1982)	cite	another	typology	of	barriers.	They	labeled	barriers	such	asbeliefs,	values,	attitudes,	and	perceptions	about	education	or	about	oneself	as	a	learner	as"psychosocial."	Darkenwald	and	Merriam	have	also	added	a	fourth	category,	informational,	whichreflects	the	lack	of	awareness	as	to	what	educational	opportunities	are	available.Motivating	a	learner	to	change	behavior	can	also	be	deterred	by	another	barrier.	That	barrier	maybe	defined	as	a	level	of	self-esteem.	An	individual's	need	for	self-esteem	"motivates	the	individualfor	achievement,	strength,	confidence,	independence,	and	freedom"	(Petri,	1981).MethodologyThe	purpose	of	the	study	was	to	examine	the	educational	barriers	of	EFNEP	clientele	in	DuplinCounty.	The	population	used	in	the	study	was	enrolled	EFNEP	program	participants	livingthroughout	Duplin	County,	North	Carolina.	This	population	was	determined	utilizing	monthly	EFNEPclientele	records	totaling	114.	A	sample	of	20	persons	was	selected	from	the	total	population	of114	by	means	of	a	randomized	table.Data	collection	procedures	involved	a	field	study	including	face-to-face	interviews	and	a	structuredquestionnaire	instrument.The	questionnaire	instrument	was	tested	for	validity	with	an	independent	population	of	threecurrently	enrolled	EFNEP	program	participants	who	were	not	chosen	in	the	20-person	sample,professional	Extension	staff,	and	support	staff.	The	responses	of	those	reviewers	indicated	a	needfor	slight	changes	in	wording,	choices,	and	other	minor	changes	for	clarity	of	the	questionnaire.	Alist	of	barriers	was	established	based	on	prior	research	and	focus	groups	of	program	clientele.Basic	statistical	techniques	used	were	the	descriptive	statistics,	i.e.,	means,	standard	deviations,and	percentage	distributions.FindingsTable	1.Characteristics	of	Respondents	 N %Marital	StatusMarried 7 35Single 11 55Divorced 2 10Total 20 100AgeLess	than	20 1 520	to	29 8 4030	or	more 11 55Total 20 100Education	levelLess	than	8	years 1 58-11	years 9 4512	(high	school	graduate) 4 2013	or	more	years 6 30Total 20 100Children	in	householdYes 18 90No 2 10Total 20 100Age	of	Children0-4 8 265-9 13 4410-15 9 30Total 30 100Employment	statusEmployed 7 35Unemployed 13 65Total 20 100Government	assistanceAFDC 8	40	 	Food	Stamps 9 45WIC 7 35No	assistance 9 45Use	of	Extension	informationNone 0 0Little 2 10Some 9 45Much 2 10Very	Much 7 35Total 20 100Table	2.EFNEP	Respondents	Perceiving	Barriers	Preventing	Use	ofExtension	Information	 N %Yes 1 5No 0 0Possibly 19 95Total 20 100Table	3.Barriers	to	Participating	and	Using	Extension	Information	by	EFNEPRespondentsBarriersMajor Minor TotalN % N % N %Knowledge	of	information	andeducational	programsavailable	through	NCCES6 30 3 15 9 45Family	responsibilities	will	notallow	me	to	leave	home7 35 9 45 16 80Lack	of	equipment	needed	toreceive	information1 5 3 15 4 20The	information	is	not	what	Ineeded1 5 8 40 9 45I	don't	have	transportation7 35 10 50 17 85I	have	trouble	reading	theinformation5 25 11 55 16 80I	don't	feel	comfortable	in	agroup3 15 5 25 8 40In	addition	to	the	items	listed	in	Table	3,	three	of	the	20	respondents	indicated	that	having	notelephone	contributed	to	circumstances	preventing	them	from	using	Extension	information.Discussion	and	ConclusionWith	100%	of	the	respondents	indicating	barriers	to	participation	in	Extension	programs,	there	islittle	argument	that	educational	programs	must	be	prudently	focused	on	the	EFNEP	audience	toassure	that	information	is	delivered	in	ways	that	can	overcome	many	of	these	barriers.	Clearly,with	85%	indicating	transportation	difficulties,	there	can	be	little	question	that	educationalprograms	must	be	taken	directly	to	the	participants	that	are	logistically	applicable	to	their	needs,whether	directly	in	the	home	or	in	the	nearby	community	if	the	program	requires	direct	personalinteraction.Otherwise,	non	face-to-face	delivery	means	may	be	used,	such	as	mass	media	or	self-directededucational	materials.	These	could	include	audio	cassettes,	video	cassettes,	learning	modules,	orprinted	materials	as	alternatives,	although	these	alternatives	could	be	less	viable	due	toparticipants'	poor	reading	skills,	lack	of	equipment,	or	motivational	distractions.An	analysis	of	the	personal	variables	associated	with	the	respondents	indicates	the	overwhelmingimplication	of	situational	variables,	which	the	findings	bore	out.	Also,	the	low	educationalattainment	of	most	participants,	as	well	as	their	low	economic	status,	could	influence	self-esteemnegatively	and	thereby	explain	why	they	indicated	a	lack	of	comfort	in	group	settings.	Indeed,	thelow	education	levels,	high	unemployment,	and	lack	of	economic	status	may	all	be	contributors	tolow	self	esteem	and	its	resulting	behavioral	influences.	As	Sorensen	(1998)	explained	in	her	bookon	breaking	the	chain	of	low	self-esteem,Others	slink	back	in	fear,	never	realizing	their	skills	or	talents.	In	their	insecurity,	theyare	afraid	to	try	new	things	and	are	frightened	by	the	challenges	they	face,	vulnerable	tothe	possibility	of	failure	and	humiliation.	While	these	people	are	often	capable	andbright,	they	do	not	recognize	or	utilize	their	skills	because	their	motivation	has	been	sorepressed	and	their	fear	of	failure	is	so	great.	.	.The	study	indicates	that	barriers	frequently	observed	by	EFNEP	educators	were	substantiated	byresearch	conducted	on	a	small	sample	and	is	an	indicator	of	the	need	for	further	research	on	thesubject	of	barriers	and	their	geneses.	Yet,	in	light	of	these	findings,	diligence	on	the	part	of	theExtension	educator	in	correctly	assessing	obvious	or	potential	barriers	to	program	participation	canbe	a	highly	effective	deterrent	in	preventing	program	dropouts.	Indeed,	such	diligence	and	positiveactions	may	stimulate	self-esteem	improvements,	which	can	ultimately	translate	to	enhancementof	the	quality	of	life	of	the	program	participants.It	must	be	recognized	that	barriers	will	always	exist.	The	key	is	to	recognize	and	deal	with	thesebarriers	creatively	and	effectively.ReferencesCross,	K.	P.	(1981).	Adults	as	learners:	Increasing	participation	and	facilitating	learning.	SanFrancisco:	Jossey-Bass.Darkenwald,	G.	G.,	&	Merriam,	S.	B.	(1982).	Adult	education:	Foundations	of	practice.	New	York:Harper	&	Row.Duplin	County	Health	Department.	(1994).	Duplin	county	health	statistics.	Kenansville,	NorthCarolina.Johnstone,	J.	W.	C,	&	Rivera,	R.	J.	(1965).	Volunteers	for	learning:	A	study	of	the	education	pursuitsof	adults.	Hawthorne,	NY.	Aldine.North	Carolina	Cooperative	Extension	Service.	(1992).	Guide	to	program	management	andsupervision.	North	Carolina	Cooperative	Extension	Service,	Raleigh,	NC.Petri,	H.	L.	(1981).	Motivation:	Theory	and	research.	Belmont,	California:	Wadsworth,	Inc.Sorensen,	M.	J.	(1998).	Breaking	the	chain	of	low	self‑esteem.	Wolf	Publishing	Co,	Sherwood,Oregon.United	States	Department	of	Agriculture.	(2000).	EFNEP:	Focus	on	food	safety.	[On-line],	availableat:	http://www.reeusda.gov/f4hn/efnep/publication.htmCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Barriers to Participation in Extension Expanded Foods and Nutrition Programs

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5022&context=joe

Barriers to Participation in Extension Expanded Foods and Nutrition Programs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints