Program Enhancement in Program Enhancement in Human/Family and Consumer Human/Family and Consumer

SciencesSciences

Annamaria CsizmadiaAnnamaria CsizmadiaDoctoral StudentDoctoral Student

Department of Human Development & Family StudiesDepartment of Human Development & Family Studies

Stephen R. Jorgensen, Ph. D.Stephen R. Jorgensen, Ph. D.College of Human Environmental SciencesCollege of Human Environmental Sciences

University of Missouri-ColumbiaUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Position of HS/ FCS Colleges in the Hierarchy Position of HS/ FCS Colleges in the Hierarchy of University Disciplinesof University Disciplines

Core disciplinesCore disciplines: English, Math, : English, Math, Biology, History, Philosophy, Biology, History, Philosophy, Agriculture (in land-grant Agriculture (in land-grant institutions)institutions)

Middle circleMiddle circle: Economics, : Economics, Sociology, PsychologySociology, Psychology

Outer circleOuter circle: Journalism, Law, : Journalism, Law, Medicine, Agriculture, Health Medicine, Agriculture, Health Professions, Business, Professions, Business, Human Human Environmental Sciences/ Family Environmental Sciences/ Family Consumer SciencesConsumer Sciences

Colleges in the outer circle are the Colleges in the outer circle are the most vulnerable to budget cuts and most vulnerable to budget cuts and reorganization, while core disciplines reorganization, while core disciplines are less threatened.are less threatened.

Core disciplinesCORE

DISCIPLINES

HS/ FCS Colleges and the Land Grant TraditionHS/ FCS Colleges and the Land Grant Tradition

Research at higher institutions evolved along the Research at higher institutions evolved along the development of farming and agriculturedevelopment of farming and agriculture

1862 1862 Morrill ActMorrill Act establishes the system of (106) land establishes the system of (106) land grant universities grant universities

Purpose: Purpose: • 1.) to educate “the common man” (teaching)1.) to educate “the common man” (teaching)• 2.) to produce new knowledge for agriculture (research)2.) to produce new knowledge for agriculture (research)• 3.) to establish outreach programs (extension)3.) to establish outreach programs (extension)

In subsequent years, minority institutions also receive In subsequent years, minority institutions also receive land grant status (e.g., 1894-18 historically Black land grant status (e.g., 1894-18 historically Black universities; 1994-31 American Indian universities)universities; 1994-31 American Indian universities)

Establishment of HS/ FCS ProgramsEstablishment of HS/ FCS Programs

Late 1800s: Realization that not only agriculture, but also family life Late 1800s: Realization that not only agriculture, but also family life mattersmatters

1909: Ellen Swallow Richards establishes the HS/ FCS profession to 1909: Ellen Swallow Richards establishes the HS/ FCS profession to address family life in urban areasaddress family life in urban areas

First program addressed water sanitation and over time new First program addressed water sanitation and over time new programs, such as nutrition, consumer, housing, clothing, and programs, such as nutrition, consumer, housing, clothing, and textiles were developedtextiles were developed

Later home economics separated from other programs and became Later home economics separated from other programs and became an independent unitan independent unit

1970s: these independent units changed their names (many to 1970s: these independent units changed their names (many to Human Ecology) to shed the negative, unscientific image that the Human Ecology) to shed the negative, unscientific image that the term “home economics“ evoked (universities did not adopt a term “home economics“ evoked (universities did not adopt a uniform name across the country, hence different names of HS/ FCS uniform name across the country, hence different names of HS/ FCS colleges and programs today)colleges and programs today)

Study BackgroundStudy BackgroundImportance of HS/ FCS ProgramsImportance of HS/ FCS Programs

The goal of these programs is to The goal of these programs is to develop human potential and to develop human potential and to support families in a holistic way support families in a holistic way (through extension services and (through extension services and interdisciplinary collaboration)interdisciplinary collaboration)

HS/ FCS students graduate with a HS/ FCS students graduate with a different set of skills than if they had different set of skills than if they had graduated from other departmentsgraduated from other departments

Study PurposeStudy Purpose In recent years, some HS/ In recent years, some HS/

FCS colleges have been FCS colleges have been eliminated or restructured eliminated or restructured across the USacross the US

Taskforce for Program Taskforce for Program EnhancementEnhancement: An inter-: An inter-organizational task force of organizational task force of university administrators to university administrators to examine program success in examine program success in HS/ FCS units.HS/ FCS units.

As part of this effort, we As part of this effort, we conducted a web-based conducted a web-based survey to identify program survey to identify program characteristics that characteristics that administrators consider administrators consider important for program important for program success.success.

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

What program characteristics are important for program What program characteristics are important for program success in HS/ FCS units?success in HS/ FCS units?

Do administrators rate the importance of certain program Do administrators rate the importance of certain program characteristics differentially depending on the type of characteristics differentially depending on the type of institution and the amount of annual funding their unit institution and the amount of annual funding their unit receives?receives?

If there is a difference in administrators’ ratings depending on If there is a difference in administrators’ ratings depending on these factors, what is the nature of this difference?these factors, what is the nature of this difference?

MethodMethod

ParticipantsParticipants We distributed our web-based survey to 113 We distributed our web-based survey to 113

administrators in HS/ FCS units.administrators in HS/ FCS units.

Final N= 60Final N= 60

Of the 60, 3 respondents answered only the Of the 60, 3 respondents answered only the background questions.background questions.

No data on gender, age, and raceNo data on gender, age, and race

Method (cont’d)Method (cont’d)

MeasureMeasure Program Enhancement Survey: Program Enhancement Survey:

• web-based survey distributed via Surveymonkey.comweb-based survey distributed via Surveymonkey.com

• Instrument pretested with Task Force for Program Advancement Instrument pretested with Task Force for Program Advancement membersmembers

• 5 items on background information (e. g. institution type, years as chief 5 items on background information (e. g. institution type, years as chief administrator of HS/ FCS unit, program size, funding, etc.)administrator of HS/ FCS unit, program size, funding, etc.)

• 39-item Likert-type scale of program characteristics (1=not very 39-item Likert-type scale of program characteristics (1=not very important, 5=extremely important)important, 5=extremely important)

• 1 open-ended item: “Please tell us what other program characteristics/ variables and factors may be important that have not been mentioned in this survey.”

Rating ScaleRating Scale

1 – Not important at all1 – Not important at all

2 – Slightly important2 – Slightly important

3 – Moderately important3 – Moderately important

4 – Very important4 – Very important

5 – Extremely important5 – Extremely important

6 - N/ A6 - N/ A

Dependent VariablesDependent Variables

1. Teaching performance1. Teaching performance

2. Teaching awards2. Teaching awards

3. Service learning programs3. Service learning programs

4. Professional journal publication4. Professional journal publication

5. Research journal publication5. Research journal publication

6 Teaching journal publication6 Teaching journal publication

7. Extension journal publication7. Extension journal publication

8. Trade journals & magazines8. Trade journals & magazines

9. Research awards9. Research awards

10. Undergraduate student involvement10. Undergraduate student involvement

11. Graduate student involvement11. Graduate student involvement

12. External funding12. External funding

13. Public federal funding13. Public federal funding

14. Public state funding14. Public state funding

Dependent Variables (cont’d)Dependent Variables (cont’d)

15. Public regional/ local funding15. Public regional/ local funding

16. Private funding sources16. Private funding sources

17. Funding to support research17. Funding to support research

18. Funding to support teaching18. Funding to support teaching

19. Funding to support service19. Funding to support service

20. Extension or outreach in general20. Extension or outreach in general

21. Local extension or outreach21. Local extension or outreach

22. State extension or outreach22. State extension or outreach

23. US extension or outreach23. US extension or outreach

24. Global extension or outreach24. Global extension or outreach

25. Service to institution & profession25. Service to institution & profession

26. Service to home unit & department26. Service to home unit & department

27. Service to broader school & college27. Service to broader school & college

28. Service to broader institution28. Service to broader institution

Dependent Variables (cont’d)Dependent Variables (cont’d)

29. Service to the profession29. Service to the profession

30. Interdisciplinary research collaboration30. Interdisciplinary research collaboration

31. Interdisciplinary program development 31. Interdisciplinary program development

32. Good assessment plan to assess learning32. Good assessment plan to assess learning

33. Referred conference presentations33. Referred conference presentations

34. Strong, articulate dean34. Strong, articulate dean

35. Continuity in leadership35. Continuity in leadership

36. Faculty cohesiveness36. Faculty cohesiveness

37. Commitment to integrative/ interdisciplinary philosophy37. Commitment to integrative/ interdisciplinary philosophy

38. Effective communication between dean of HS/ FCS unit and university 38. Effective communication between dean of HS/ FCS unit and university administration administration

39. Success of fund development39. Success of fund development

Institutional CharacteristicsInstitutional Characteristics

The majority (28) of our The majority (28) of our survey respondents reported survey respondents reported being at a research intensive, being at a research intensive, doctoral granting institutiondoctoral granting institution

A good number of our A good number of our respondents reported working respondents reported working at primarily baccalaureate at primarily baccalaureate institutions (19 out of 60)institutions (19 out of 60)

Only 8 administrators Only 8 administrators reported being at primarily reported being at primarily master’s granting institutionsmaster’s granting institutions

Of the 60 survey respondents, Of the 60 survey respondents, 2 chose other and 3 did not 2 chose other and 3 did not indicate their institution typeindicate their institution type

47%

13%

32%

3%5%

ResearchIntensive,DoctoralGranting

Master'sGrantingPrimarily

BaccaleauratePrimarily

Other

Missing

Institution TypeInstitution Type

Institution typeInstitution type % (N)% (N)

Research intensive, doctoral grantingResearch intensive, doctoral granting 46.746.7

(28)(28)

Primarily master’s grantingPrimarily master’s granting 13.313.3

(8)(8)

Primarily baccalaureate Primarily baccalaureate (19)(19)

31.731.7

OtherOther (2)(2)

3.33.3

TotalTotal 9595

(57)(57)

MissingMissing 55

(3)(3)

Administrator and ProgramAdministrator and ProgramCharacteristicsCharacteristics

Survey respondents have been chief administrators of Human Survey respondents have been chief administrators of Human Sciences and Family Consumer Sciences on average 6 to 9 yearsSciences and Family Consumer Sciences on average 6 to 9 years

Over 1/3 of the respondents have been in such positions for 10 years Over 1/3 of the respondents have been in such positions for 10 years or more (20 of 60 or 33.3%) while only 17% (10 out of 60) have or more (20 of 60 or 33.3%) while only 17% (10 out of 60) have been chief administrators for only a couple of years at the most been chief administrators for only a couple of years at the most

Almost half of our survey participants reported that their Almost half of our survey participants reported that their undergraduate program had 101-500 students (27 out of 60)undergraduate program had 101-500 students (27 out of 60)

Only 2 reported having an undergraduate program with fewer than Only 2 reported having an undergraduate program with fewer than 100 students and 11 reported having an undergraduate program with 100 students and 11 reported having an undergraduate program with 1301 or more students1301 or more students

While about 2/3 (35, 58%) of the surveyed administrators had no While about 2/3 (35, 58%) of the surveyed administrators had no doctoral programs, about 1/3 (17, 28%) had no master’s programsdoctoral programs, about 1/3 (17, 28%) had no master’s programs

Of those administrators who did report having graduate programs, Of those administrators who did report having graduate programs, most reported having master’s or doctoral programs with 61 students most reported having master’s or doctoral programs with 61 students or more (Of 60 respondents, 14 reported master’s programs and 11 or more (Of 60 respondents, 14 reported master’s programs and 11 reported doctoral programs of this size.)reported doctoral programs of this size.)

Years as Chief Administrator of HS/ FCS UnitYears as Chief Administrator of HS/ FCS UnitYears as chief administrator of HS/ FCS Years as chief administrator of HS/ FCS unitunit

% (N)% (N)

0-2 years0-2 years 16.716.7

(10)(10)

3-5 years3-5 years 23.323.3

(14)(14)

6-9 years6-9 years 20.020.0

(12)(12)

10 years or more10 years or more 33.333.3

(20)(20)

Total Total 93.393.3

(56)(56)

MissingMissing 6.76.7

(4)(4)

Program SizeProgram SizeUndergraduate Program SizeUndergraduate Program Size % (N)% (N)

100 students or fewer100 students or fewer 3.3 3.3

(2) (2)

101-500 students101-500 students 45 45

(27) (27)

501-900 students501-900 students 16.7 16.7

(10) (10)

901-1300 students901-1300 students 8.38.3

(5)(5)

1301 students or more1301 students or more 18.318.3

(11)(11)

MissingMissing 8.38.3

(5)(5)

Total Total 100 100

(60)(60)

Graduate Program SizeGraduate Program SizeSizeSize Master’sMaster’s

% (N)% (N)

DoctoralDoctoral

% (N)% (N)

No programNo program 28.3 (17) 28.3 (17) 58.3 (35)58.3 (35)

1-20 students1-20 students 16.716.7

(10)(10)

6.7 6.7

(4)(4)

21-40 students21-40 students 1515

(9)(9)

55

(3)(3)

41-60 students41-60 students 1010

(6)(6)

55

(3)(3)

61 or more students61 or more students 23.323.3

(14)(14)

18.318.3

(11)(11)

MissingMissing 6.76.7

(4)(4)

6.76.7

(4)(4)

TotalTotal 100 (60)100 (60) 100 (60)100 (60)

Sponsored Project Funding Through Grants and Sponsored Project Funding Through Grants and Contracts from External Agencies on Average Contracts from External Agencies on Average

(Over the Past 3 Years)(Over the Past 3 Years)

The number of survey participants who reported having The number of survey participants who reported having $250,000 or less annual funding was the same as the number $250,000 or less annual funding was the same as the number of those who reported having more than $1,500,000 annual of those who reported having more than $1,500,000 annual funding (31.7% or 19 out of 60, respectively)funding (31.7% or 19 out of 60, respectively)

Only 2 participants reported having an annual funding Only 2 participants reported having an annual funding between $500,000 and $1,000,000, all the other participants between $500,000 and $1,000,000, all the other participants reported either $500,000 or less or $1,000,000 or morereported either $500,000 or less or $1,000,000 or more

Funding from External Agencies on Average over the Funding from External Agencies on Average over the Past Three YearsPast Three Years

Amount of funding per yearAmount of funding per year % (N)% (N)

$250,000 or less $250,000 or less 31.7 31.7

(19)(19)

$250,000-500,000$250,000-500,000 10 10

(6)(6)

$500,000-1,000,000$500,000-1,000,000 3.3 3.3

(2)(2)

$1,000,000-1,500,000$1,000,000-1,500,000 13.313.3

(8)(8)

More than $1,500,000More than $1,500,000 31.731.7

(19)(19)

TotalTotal 90 90

(54)(54)

MissingMissing 10 (6)10 (6)

Group Comparisons Group Comparisons Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding FundingVariable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding

1. Teaching performance 4.351. Teaching performance 4.35 4.354.35 4.36 4.36 4.42 4.32 4.42 4.32

2. Teaching awards 3.52. Teaching awards 3.5 3.613.61 3.39 3.39 3.35 3.35 3.68 3.68

3. Service learning progr. 3.53. Service learning progr. 3.5 3.1*3.1* 3.82*3.82* 3.6 3.6 3.33 3.33

4. Professional journ. publ. 4.284. Professional journ. publ. 4.28 4.314.31 4.25 4.35 4.25 4.35 4.32 4.32

5. Research journ. publ. 4.335. Research journ. publ. 4.33 4.65**4.65** 4.04**4.04** 4.11**4.11** 4.68**4.68**

6. Teaching journ. publ. 4.06. Teaching journ. publ. 4.0 3.853.85 4.15 4.15 4.16 4.16 3.88 3.88

7. Extension journ. publ. 3.8 7. Extension journ. publ. 3.8 3.733.73 3.89 4.11 3.89 4.11 3.62 3.62

8. Trade journal publ. 2.748. Trade journal publ. 2.74 2.692.69 2.79 2.79 2.96 2.96 2.6 2.6

9. Research awards 4.179. Research awards 4.174.46*4.46* 3.89*3.89* 3.96*3.96* 4.48*4.48*

10. Undergrad. student inv. 3.6410. Undergrad. student inv. 3.64 3.653.65 3.63 3.63 3.6 3.6 3.76 3.76

11. Grad. student inv. 4.05 11. Grad. student inv. 4.05 4.694.69 4.14 4.14 4.07*4.07* 4.8*4.8*

12. External funding 4.63 12. External funding 4.63 4.774.77 4.50 4.50 4.35***4.35*** 4.96***4.96***

13. Public federal funding 4.58 13. Public federal funding 4.58 4.694.69 4.46 4.46 4.27***4.27*** 4.88***4.88***

* * pp< .05 ** < .05 ** pp< .01 *** < .01 *** pp< .001< .001

Group Comparisons (cont’d)Group Comparisons (cont’d)

Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding FundingVariable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding

14. Public state fund. 4.37 4.3814. Public state fund. 4.37 4.38 4.36 4.36 4.15 4.15†† 4.56† 4.56†15. Publ. local fund. 4.2415. Publ. local fund. 4.24 4.11 4.11 4.37 4.37 4.12 4.12 4.32 4.3216. Private fund.16. Private fund. 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.42 4.46 4.46 4.23 4.68 4.23 4.6817. Research fund.17. Research fund. 4.60 4.60 4.73 4.73 4.46 4.46 4.35***4.35*** 4.88***4.88***18. Teach. fund.18. Teach. fund. 4.30 4.30 4.08 4.08 4.43 4.234.43 4.23 4.21 4.2119. Service fund.19. Service fund. 3.89 3.89 3.84 3.84 3.93 3.93 3.73 3.73 4.00 4.0020. Extension 20. Extension 3.83 3.83 3.80 3.80 3.863.86 3.73 3.73 3.92 3.9221. Local exten.21. Local exten. 3.91 3.91 3.76 3.76 4.044.04 3.85 3.85 3.87 3.8722. State exten.22. State exten. 3.96 3.96 3.88 3.88 4.044.04 3.85 3.85 4.0 4.023. US exten.23. US exten. 3.64 3.64 3.61 3.61 3.673.67 3.48 3.48 3.76 3.7624. Global exten.24. Global exten. 3.53 3.53 3.32 3.32 3.713.71 3.35 3.35 3.67 3.6725. Service to profes. 3.87 25. Service to profes. 3.87 3.77 3.77 3.963.96 3.88 3.88 3.80 3.8026. Serv. home unit 3.83 3.6926. Serv. home unit 3.83 3.69 3.963.96 3.85 3.85 3.80 3.8027. Serv. college27. Serv. college 3.78 3.78 3.73 3.73 3.823.82 3.85 3.85 3.68 3.68

* * pp< .05 ** < .05 ** pp< .01 *** < .01 *** pp< .001< .001

Group Comparisons (cont’d)Group Comparisons (cont’d)

Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding FundingVariable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding

28. Serv. Institution 3.7728. Serv. Institution 3.77 3.76 3.76 3.793.79 3.73 3.73 3.79 3.7929. Serv. Profession 3.8729. Serv. Profession 3.87 3.88 3.88 3.863.86 3.81 3.81 3.88 3.8830. Interdisc. Res. 4.0930. Interdisc. Res. 4.09 4.42**4.42** 3.79**3.79** 3.96* 4.40* 3.96* 4.40*31. Int.disc. Prog. D. 3.9631. Int.disc. Prog. D. 3.96 4.04 4.04 3.893.89 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.0432. Assessment 4.22 32. Assessment 4.22 3.92*3.92* 4.5*4.5* 4.384.38 4.08 4.0833. Conf. Present. 3.92 3.9233. Conf. Present. 3.92 3.92 3.933.93 3.92 3.96 3.92 3.9634. Strong, artic. Dean 4.6834. Strong, artic. Dean 4.68 4.77 4.77 4.614.61 4.61 4.61 4.80 4.8035. Continuity in leader. 4.11 4.1135. Continuity in leader. 4.11 4.11 4.114.11 4.08 4.08 4.20 4.2036. Faculty cohesive. 4.3436. Faculty cohesive. 4.34 4.36 4.36 4.314.31 4.36 4.36 4.40 4.4037. Integr. Philosophy 3.6637. Integr. Philosophy 3.66 3.38 3.38 3.933.93 3.69 3.68 3.69 3.6838. Effective comm. 4.7038. Effective comm. 4.70 4.77 4.77 4.64 4.614.64 4.61 4.84 4.8439. Success of fund dev. 4.26 4.4639. Success of fund dev. 4.26 4.46 4.074.07 3.80**3.80** 4.72**4.72**

* * pp< .05 ** < .05 ** pp< .01 *** < .01 *** pp< .001< .001

Institution TypeInstitution Type

Service learning programs delivered by administrators’ units Service learning programs delivered by administrators’ units ((FF(3,48)=5.468, (3,48)=5.468, pp<.01).<.01).• Doctoral vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference= -1.04167, Doctoral vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference= -1.04167, pp<.01).<.01).

Publication in refereed extension journals (Publication in refereed extension journals (FF(3,49)=6.624, (3,49)=6.624, pp=.001). =.001). • Master’s vs. Research intensive (Mean difference= 1.519, Master’s vs. Research intensive (Mean difference= 1.519, pp<.05) <.05) • Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=2.132, Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=2.132, pp=.001)=.001)

Research awards and recognition by faculty members (Research awards and recognition by faculty members (FF(3,50)=2.869, (3,50)=2.869, pp<.05)<.05)• Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference=.9615, Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference=.9615, pp<.05)<.05)

Service to the academic institution and profession (Service to the academic institution and profession (FF(3,50)=3.062, (3,50)=3.062, pp<.05)<.05)• Baccalaureate vs. “Other” (Mean difference=1.666, Baccalaureate vs. “Other” (Mean difference=1.666, pp<.05)<.05)

Success of fund development (Success of fund development (FF(3,49)=3.14, (3,49)=3.14, pp<.05)<.05)• Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference= 1.211, Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference= 1.211, pp<.05)<.05)• Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=-1.1617, Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=-1.1617, p<p<.05).05)

Annual FundingAnnual Funding

Publications in trade journals (Publications in trade journals (FF(4,46)=3.1, (4,46)=3.1, pp<.05)<.05)• Units with $1,000,000-1,500,000 funding vs. Units with more than Units with $1,000,000-1,500,000 funding vs. Units with more than

$1,500,000 (Mean difference=1.547, $1,500,000 (Mean difference=1.547, pp<.05)<.05)

Success of fund development (Success of fund development (FF(4,45)=4.206, (4,45)=4.206, pp=.006)=.006)• Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with $1,000,000-Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with $1,000,000-

1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1,714, 1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1,714, pp<.05) <.05)

• Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with more than Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with more than $1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1.722, $1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1.722, pp<.05)<.05)

DiscussionDiscussion Summary of findings: Summary of findings:

• Administrators of research intensive, doctoral units rated research-related Administrators of research intensive, doctoral units rated research-related program characteristics (awards, publication & presentation) on average higher program characteristics (awards, publication & presentation) on average higher in importance than did administrators of all other institution types.in importance than did administrators of all other institution types.

• Administrators whose units had an annual funding of more than $ 1,000,000 Administrators whose units had an annual funding of more than $ 1,000,000 rated funding-related program characteristics higher in importance than did rated funding-related program characteristics higher in importance than did administrators of all other institution types. administrators of all other institution types.

Limitations: Limitations: • Relatively small non-random sampleRelatively small non-random sample

• A series of ANOVAs may have increased the risk of Type I errorA series of ANOVAs may have increased the risk of Type I error Strengths: Strengths:

• Comprehensive list of program characteristics Comprehensive list of program characteristics

• Sample drawn from a nationwide list of HS/ FCS unit administratorsSample drawn from a nationwide list of HS/ FCS unit administrators Recommendations: Recommendations:

• Future studies with greater NFuture studies with greater N

• Include culturally relevant program characteristics Include culturally relevant program characteristics