Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED030812: The Organization and Continuing Education; A Study of Agency Factors Relating to Attendance and Support of Continuing Education in Public Health in California. A Summary Report."

See other formats










'v 



D0CUN6NT KBSUNB 

ED 030 812 

By<CaM*law, Raymond W.; And Others 



AC 004 684 



The Org^zati^ and Contir^ii^ Education; A Study of Agency Factors Relating to Attendance and Support 
of Continuing Education in Public Health in California, A ^mmary Report 
Pub Date May 69 
Note-34p. 

EDRS Price MF-S0.25 HC -Sl.30 

0'‘9^2ation, Adult Development, Attendance. Attitudes, ♦Community Agencies 
p !!Li Analysis. Educational Interest. Financial Support. ♦Geographic Regons, ♦Health 

Pers^l, ♦Professional Continuing Education Selection Statistical Data^ Surveys^; Voluntary Aoer^ies 
Identifiers -Call forma ' ^ 



A survey of continuing education of health personnel in Southern and Northern 
California was made to determine if there were differences in attendance, expressed 
interests, attitudes of health agency directors, recognition of employee participation 
presentation of courses, or in financial support. A random sample was drawn from 
each area resulting in 25 respondents from Northern California and 18 from Southern 
Cali^for^a who worked for official or voluntary agencies, or the State Department of 
Public Health. An openended questionnaire was administered in a one hour interview. 
Cluster analysis was used to cross check reliability and coding validity. Results are 
reported in tabular form. It was found that less interest m attending continuing 
education program was shown in Northern California, less positive support existed in 
Northern California because of greater consciousness of budgeting and difficulties 
associated with staff absences; Northern executives were more likely to screen 
notices of training programs and nominate specific people to attend; and more 
concern was expressed in the North for agency and program needs, while the South 
was concerned with personnel development, (pt) 




















^ 5 ^ 




THE ORGANIZATION 

AND 

CONTINUING 



E DUG ATION 



THE PROGRAM OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH 



i 



The Program of Continuing Education in Public Health 
is aponaored by the four Schoola of Public Health in 
the Weat --the University of California at Berkeley; 
the Univeraity of California at Loa Angeles; the Uni- 
versity of Hawaii; Loina Linda University —and the 
Western Regional Office of the American Public Health 
Association, Inc. 



CEPH PROGRAM STAFF 






NICHOLAS PARLETTE, M.P.H. 

Chief, Program of Continuing Education 

JAMES P* L0VE6REN, M.P.H. 

Education Associate 

WILLIAM R. MANNING, M.P.H. 

Education Associate 

LOUIS J. PANSKY, M.P.H. 

Education Associate 



655 Sutter Street - Suite 408 
San Francisco, California 94102 



(415) 673-7266 




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE 
OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE 
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS 
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
POSITION OR POLICY. 



THE ORGANIZATION 




CONTINUING EDUCATION 



a study of: agency 
to attendance and 
tlnulng education 
in California 



factors relating 
support of con- 
In public health 



Sumary Report iPrepared By: 



RAYMOND W. CARUtvW, M.P.H. 
SANDRA HELIMN, M.P.H. 
NICHOUS PARLETTE, M.P.H. 



lO 



May 1969 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2 

INTRODUCTION 3-5 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 5-6 

ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRAINING 6 

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS 6-7 

METHODS OF ADVISING AND SELECTING 

PARTICIPANTS 7-8 

ANALYSIS OF DATA - DETAILED FINDINGS 9-22 

CLUSTER ANALYSIS 23 

APPENDIX "A" 24-25 

APPENDIX *'B*' 26-29 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



Grateful acknowledgement is made of the helpful contributions given 
by Professors Beryl Roberts, Mayhew Derryberry, C. L. Chiang, and 
Lawrence Green of the School of Public Health, University of 
California at Berkeley. 



We are indebted to Mrs Irene Miller for conducting all the inter- 
views and to Miss Kathryl^ Green for her part in the field testing 
of the schedule. 



Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to the agency dir- 
ectors who generously gave time from their busy schedules to make 
the major part of this survey possible. Their frank and thought- 
ful comments were extremely valuable to the staff of the Program 
of Continuing Education in Public Health in assessing policy and 
in adjusting certain procedures. 



The study was supported in part by the Hill-Rhodes Formula Funds 
to the Schools of Public Health and by the United States Public 
Health Service Project Grant #PHT-6-38C-68. 



SUMHARY OF FINDINGS 



CEPH attendance figures indicated less interest in continuing 
education programs by public health personnel in Northern 
California than in Southern California. Analysis of available 
data, and a survey of opinion of health agency directors, in- 
dicates differences between the two regions. 

It would appear that there is less positive support for continu- 
ing education in Northern California than in Southern California, 
due in part to a greater consciousness of budgetary restrictions, 
and again in part to difficulties associated with staff absences 
incurred by attendance at education programs. 

Northern executives are more likely to screen notices of training 
course offerings, and to nominate specific people to attend those 
courses considered to be of value to the agency. 

There is more concern expressed in the North for agency and pro- 
gram needs as compared with concern for personnel development in 
the South. 

No factors were elicited, specifically talated to the Program of 
Continuing Education in Public Health practice, which might ex- 
plain or affect the differential in attendance. 



3 . 



INTRODUCTION 



The extensive changes taking place within the policies and programs of 
public health over the last few years have sharpened the need for 
effective presentations In continuing education If health personnel 
are to keep abreast of these changes. Meeting these emerging needs 
of public health and allied professionals has long been the concern 
of the Program of Continuing Education In Public Health —a continu- 
ing education program sponsored by —the Schools of Public Health In 
the West —Che University of California at Berkeley, the University 
of California at Los Angeles, the University of Hawaii, Loma Linda 
University --and the Western Regional Office of the American Public 
Health Association, Inc. 

Examination of attendance figures within California over the past 
two years has led to concern that the degree of Interest In the 
Program of Continuing Education In Public Health courses In Northern 
California Is lower than that for the Southern part of the state. 

For nine particular courses offered In both northern and southern 
regions of the state over a period of 24 months In 1966-68, the 
average attendance In the north was 36.3 while that In the south was 
52.5 per course. While there Is a greater concentration of popula- 
tion south of the Tehachapl Mountains, Indications are that the num- 
ber of health personnel employed In the northern part of the state 
Is at least as great as In the south. 

Factors Influencing attendance at courses are many. Some of the more 
obvious are Interest and relevancy of the course to the potential 
participant or agency, location of the course (travel Involved and 
attractiveness of site), freedom of access (e.g. L.A. freeway system), 
time structure of the course (periodic or block), and variety of al- 
ternative courses which are available. 

A survey of the Interests and needs of health personnel In the 
Western States was conducted In 1966-67 by the Program of Continuing 
Education In Public Health. The data was analyzed by two major areas: 
California and Non-Callfomla. However, there was no Internal divi- 
sion of the California data. The major difference occuzrlmg between 
the two major regions was In membership In professional public health 
associations. Only 327. of 583 respondents within California were 
members of state or national public health associations, while some 
56% of the 772 Non-Callfomlans responding held such membership. Of 
the primary reasons given for non-attendance, the most Important was 
that employers feel that they connot afford to give time off. This 



4 . 



was followed, in order, by lack of notification, heavy workloads, and 
lack of recognition for employee participation by the employing agency.^ 
Again, no differentiation was made by region within California. 

As direct notice of CEPH courses is given to members of the state health 
association, a comparison of California memberships becomes Important 
in relation to the original problem, that of attendance differential. 

Of 241 respondents from official agencies in Southern California only 
53 or 2lX, were menibers of the state association. In the North the 
figure was 77 or 33Z from a total of 235. The figure for voluntary 
agency returns is similar in both Northern and Southern California 
(207. of n * 150). If lack of notification was the major problem then 
one might hypothesize a greater attendance in the North than in the 
South from the above figures. 

In considering the problem several questions were asked. 

1) Is there a real difference in attendance figures 
between Northern and Southern California regions 
based on potential attenders? 

2) Are there differences in the expressed Interests 
between these two areas? 

3) Is there a difference in the attitudes of health 
agency directors toward time off for continuing 
education, as the major factor perceived by per- 
sonnel as responsible for poor attendance? 

4) Direct notice of course offerings goes to agency 
directors and to state public health association 
members only. Is there a differential operating 
between the northern region and the south which 
puts one region at a disadvantage relative to 
notification? 

5) Does one region offer more recognition for employee 
participation in continuing education than the other? 

6) Are courses alternative to the CEPH program more 
popular in one region than the other, and if so, 
what courses and why? 

7) Is there a difference in the time, place, and manner 
of presentation of courses within the two regions; 
and alternatively is there a difference in the de- 
sired time, plane, and manner of presentation? 



^ See Public Health Professionals and Continuing Education, a report 

of a survey conducted by the Program of Continuing Education in Public 
Health, June 1961. 



5 . 



8) Do barriers such as financial support or travel limita- 
tions arise more frequently in the north than in the 
south, or vice versa? 

In order to find answers to these questions, a study was undertaken to 
elicit from agency directors, policy and operational factors which 
might Influence attendance at continuing education courses. 



SURVEY METHODOLOGY 



California was divided into two regions, north and south, arbitrarily 
set by the east-west line of the Tehachapl Mountains and corresponding 
to the territory served by the two (Northern and Southern) California 
Public Health Associations, but including Santa Barbara County within 
the sotttiiani region. A stratified random sample was drawn from each 
of these two populations by using a population unit of 100,000 as a 
base unit, and excluding from the sample population all counties hav- 
ing a population of less than 50,000 or having health services pro- 
vided under contract from the State of California Department of Public 
Health. It was recognized that very small counties may have special 
needs in continuing education but they were excluded because their 
needs may be atypical, and there were difficulties in identifying a 
spokesman on health agency opinion. Every fifth nuid>er drawn was 
assigned to a voluntary agency within the county Indicated to give a 
20X return from such agencies. The actual sample drawn was as follows 
in lABLE I: 

TAble I 



Size and Nature of Sample in California Health Agency 

Opinion Survey 
1968 



Agency 


No. California 


So. California 


Official Agencies 

(Includes Los Angeles Health 
Districts) 


19 


13 


Voluntary Agencies 

(Includes Calif. TB & Health Assn.] 


5 


4 


State Department of Public Health 


1 


1 


Totals 


25 


18 



ERIC 




6 . 



The interview schedule was constructed to allow for a maximum of open- 
ended responses for two reasons. The respondents were the senior men 
within the health services of California and might therefore be ex- 
pected to have distinct opinions of value to the survey ranging beyond 
the confines of a closed response table. Secondly , the schedule was 
to be administered by personal interview to ensure a response from 
each unit within the sample and each item within the schedule. The 
interviewer was a health education professional holding a M.P.H. de- 
gree. The schedule took about one hour to administer and was well re- 
ceived by all respondents. It is noted that the interviewer was un- 
aware of any tentative hypotheses or expected trends within regions. 



ATTITUDES TOWARD TRAINING 



A number of significant differences exist between Northern and 
Southern California health agency opinions and attitudes on continu- 
ing education in public health. 

While almost all respondents claimed that the agency utilized outside 
training programs, only 5071 of agencies in the north had formal staff 
training programs compared with 92% in the south. Only 42% of the 
northern region agencies considered in-service training and continuing 
education as a factor in promotion as against 771 in the south. Both 
southern and northern regions preferred CEPH sponsored courses to other 
sponsoring agencies with other universities as the next preferred sponsor. 
About one-third of the respondents had no preferred sponsor or gave no 
comnent. There was no significant variation in response to the question 
on preferred sponsorship. However, more ctitlclsm of course presenta- 
tion was offered by the north than by the south. This related to the 
quality of the presentation and the lack of practical experience of the 
faculty. Comments referred to all continuing education courses in- 
cluding those presented by CEPH. 



ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS 



Agencies in Southern California preferred more discrete training courses 
of two to four days, or blocks of time running into one to two weeks, 
while in the north there was more support for a pattern of one half to 
two days (mode of one day) per week over a number of weeks. There was 



7 . 



also a difference in the tine allowed away from the Job for continuing 
education. Sixty percent (60Z) of Southern California agencies stated 
that there were no limits or that limits were not defined, while only 
29% of the northern respondents held this view. Defined periods ranged 
from five days (one week) per annum to three weeks, with 25X of the 
northern agencies giving five days or less, compared with two weeks as 
the lowest defined period in the south. 



showed some differences. It was of interest to note 
that 37% of the northern agencies gave "no agency funds" or "budget 
restrictions" as their response to this question, while no one in the 
south mentioned budget or funding in this connection. 



Financial support for continuing education was similar in both regions, 
but there was a slight advantage in the north where about 50% gave full 
financial support compared with 31% in the south. 



METHODS OF ADVISING AND SELECTING PARTICIPANTS 



In an open-ended response to a question on methods of alerting staff to 
the availability of continuing education courses, two broad approaches 
were discerned. Some agencies made information freely available through 

bulletin boards, and circular memos. In other agencies 
high level personnel screened announcements, chose staff or advised 

supervisors of courses and asked for names. Given 
^ichotomy there was a significant variation in pattern between 
official agencies in the two regions. Screening was more common in the 
north and general notification more usual in the south. 

observed in the selection of candidates. Criteria 
u ed in the selection of staff for continuing education courses further 
supported this trend. Criteria Indicated as Important were dichotomised 

nart IVIZ factors. There was a tendency for the northern 

part of the state to mention program or departmental benefit over such 

items as individual interest and personal creativity. This was not true 
of the responses from Southern California. 

continuing education to perm>nnel in the agencs 
Significant words were either ■•personally” 
Northern respondent, gave almost equal 
weight to such words while the southern agencies emphasised ‘•personal" 
over 'Bepartmental'^ by a ratio of 4 ; 1. Fe«ouai 



o 

ERIC 



8 . 



Table II 

Sunnary of Major Attitudes and Opinions Related to Continuing Educa- 
tion as Expressed by Health Agency Directors in Northern and Southern 

California - 1968 







Northern California 


Southern California 


Short (one day per week) ab- 
sences preferred. 


More formal training programs. 

More weight given to in-service 
training as a factor in pro- 
motion. 

Longer (block training) ab- 
sences preferred. 


Defined and limited time 
allowed off each year for 
attendance at training 
courses. 


Time off for training courses 
more often undefined or not 
limited. 


Notification on courses tends 
to be restricted. 


Notification generally unre- 
stricted. 


Top level staff tend to 
screen courses and select 
participants. 


Advice on courses circulated 
to all staff and interested 
persons apply. 


Greater percentage of staff 
in State PHA. (They there- 
fore receive direct notifi- 
cation of courses.) 




Value of continuing education 
seen in relation to agency. 


Value of continuing education 
seen in relation to personnel. 



9 . 



ANALYSIS OF EAIA - DETAILED FINDINGS 



Training 

All respondents in both regions were aware of CEPH sponsored courses ^ 
but less than 70% of agency directors in either region had had per- 
sonal experience with such courses* In Southern California 92% of 
the official agencies had a formal training program for their staff 
but only 50% of the northern agencies. Voluntary agencies reflected 
a similar bias. All agencies knew of supplemental or alternative 
training programs, and almost all reported that they were utilized* 



Table III 



Formal Training Programs in Voluntary And Official Agency by North 
and South Regions of California - 1968 



Type of 
Agency 


Northern 

California 


Southern 

Califcmia 


Have 


Have Not 


Have 


Have Not 


Official Agency 
(Large) ^ 


7 


4 


4 


— 


Official Agency 
(Small) * 


3 


5 


8 


1 


Voluntary Agency 


2 


3 


4 


— 


Totals 


12 


12 


16 

1 


1 



Note: Difference significant at P *■ .02 by Fisher Exact Pro- 

bahRity Test. 

* Large Agencies are those with 100 staff. 

* Small Agencies are those with < 100 staff. 



When asked — *'Is in-service training and continuing education a factor 
when considering personnel for promotion?*' —the response of official 
agency directors showed considerable differences, as indicated in the 
following table. 



tv 



Table IV 



In-Service Training and Continuing Education as a Factor in Personnel 
Promotion Within Health Agencies in California - 1968 



Type of 
Agency 


Northern 

California 


Southern 

California 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Official Agency 




Q 


A 




(Large) 




O 






Official Agency 


1% 




ii 


Q 


(Small) 




o 


Q 




Voluntary Agency 


4 


1 


3 


1 


Totals 


12 


12 


13 


4 



Note: Official Agency difference significant at p=.05 level by 

Fisher Test. 

Preferences for aponaorshlp of training courses or continuing education 
showed no significant variation between north and south. Approximately 
one-third of respondents in each region specified CEPH as the preferred 
sponsor, with an equal number giving no comment or no favored sponsor. 
Second on the list of preferred sponsors was the University, and while 
the north was slightly more in favor of this sponsor than the south, 
the difference was not significant (21% and 16%). Other sponsors men- 
tioned were the California State Department of Public Health, Communlca- 
bie Disease Center, U.S. Public Health Service, State Colleges, small 
corporations, and in the case of the voluntary agencies, their State 
Headquarters. Hore dissatisfaction with sponsors was expressed by 
northern respondents and this mostly concerned faculty Inexperienced in 
field problems, and the lack of time for discussion. The comments on 
faculty applied to CEPH courses as well as others. 

Reaction to the question on whether the agency receives adequate notifi- 
cation of time, place, and subject natter of courses was evenly divided. 
Most of the dissatisfaction was directed toward Inadequate notice of 
courses. 



11 . 



Table V,a 



Satlafactlon with Notification of Tiat» Place, and Subject Matter of 
Courses by Voluntary and Official Agency in North and South California 

Health Agencies - 1968 





Northern California 


Southern California 


All Agencies 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


Satisfied 


4 


10 


3 


8 


Not Satisfied * 


1 


9 


1 


5 



Table V.b 





Northern California 


Southern California 


CEPH COURSES 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


Satisfied 


2 


18 


4 


9 


Not Satisfied * 


2 




-- 


2 


Uncertain 


1 


1 


-- 


2 


Totals 


5 


19 


4 


13 



Note: * Major causes of dissatifaction were insufficient notice 

on courses and inadequate information on faculty. 



Adequate notice of courses was thought to be at least one 
month and a significant number wanted two months or more. 



Table VI 



Health Agency Opinion on Adequate Prior Hotice of Courses to be 
Offered y By Voluntary and Official Agency in Northern and Southern 

Califociia - 1968 



Length of Prior 


Northern 


California 


Southern California 


Notification 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


One Month 


2 


12 


1 


7 


^o Months or Longer 


3 


7 


3 


6 



While there was no trend in the statement on the most preferred season 
there was strong opinion on the least preferred. Of those responding » 
more than 75% spoke against the months of July through September for 
training courses. 

In considering the pattern of absence which is most convenient to the 
agency there is a distinct difference between the Northern and Southern 
California responses. In the North, short absences of one*half to two 
days per week had the support of 47% while only 23% mentioned this 
pattern in the Southern part of the State. There, the preferred pattern 
was from two to four days (which may or may not include a weekend) 
through to courses of one or two weeks duration. The South appeared 
to prefer block courses while the North was more in favor of stretching 
the courses out over several weeks.* 

To a question on the aaiount of time actually permitted away from the job 
for continuing education, official agencies in Northern California 
appeared to be more restrictive than in the South. Thirty-one percent 
(31%) said that limits were not defined as compared with 77% in the 
South. Of the balance in the North, 37% mentioned two weeks or less, 
while another 26% said less than five days per year were allowed for 
absences relating to continuing education. 



NOTE: 



* See Appendix A for details 



13 . 



Table VII 



Anouikw of Time Permitted Away From Job Per Annum for Continuing Educa- 
tioni. By Voluntary and Official Agency in Northern and Southern 

California - 1968 



Time Permitted 

Away From Job 
Per Annum 


Northern 


California 


Southern California 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


No Limits or Not 
Defined 


1 


6 


2 


10 


< 3 weeks >2 weeks 


1 


1 


— 


1 


< 2 weeks ^1 week 


2 


7 


2 


2 


< 5 days 


1 


5 


-- 





Note; Difference between defined and undefined is significant at 
p “ .012 by the Fisher Test, 



Travel 



Travel limitations also show some differences though not so marked. Vol- 
untary agencies have freedom to travel within the State but only 26X of 
the Northern California official and 28X of the Southern California 
official agencies have this freedom. Thirty-seven percent (37X) of the 
Northern California agencies are restricted to their county (or Bay Area) 
61X of those in the Southern portion of the state. A further 37X in the 
North stated that there were no agency funds for travel » or that travel 
depended on the budget. None of the respondents in the South made men- 
tion of budget or funding in this conneetion. A specific question on 
financial support available to personnel attending education courses showed 
little difference between regions. 




14 . 



Table VIII 



l^vel of Financial Support Given by Agency to Staff Attending Continu- 
ing Educatirn Courses, By Voluntary and Official Agency in Northern and 

Southern California - 1968 



Type of j 

Support 


1 Northern 


California 


Southern 


California 


[ 

Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


Large 


Small 


Large 


Small 


No Financial Support 


— 


3 


2 


-- 


2 


2 


Some Support 


1 


2 


3 


1 


1 


4 


Full Support 


4 


6 


3 


3 


1 


3 



SELECTION OF COURSES AND PARTICIPANTS 



Agency directors were asked to describe the steps by which: 

(a) a particular course is selected, and 

(b) a particular menber of the agency staff 
is selected for attendance at such a 
course. 

There was overlap in the response to these two questions indicating sone 
blurring of lines in this area. However, from the responses which were 
open-ende<4 four major categories appear. They are: 

1) Agency selects course and requests individuals 
to attend. 

2) Agency selects course but allows staff to self- 
select and request attendance. 

3) Agency makes information on courses openly available 
and leaves it up to staff to request attendance. 



15 . 



4) I«ltlatlve for finding courses and requesting 
attendance is responsibility of staff member. 

These four categories rank from authoritative (1) to laissez-faire (4). 



Table IX 



Ranked Description of Selection Procedures Relative to Courses and Per- 
sonnel for Continuing Education By Northern and Southern California Health 

Agencies - 1968 





Northern California 


Southern California 


Major Category 


Voluntary Official 


Voluntary Official 


1 (Restrictive) 


2 9^ 

( 


^ "V 


2 






3 


*] , 


1 6') 

fio 


4 (Open) 




1 0 I 



Note: Ranks 1 and 2 were collapsed together and Ranks 3 and 4 

by region. Differences were significant (x^ : p « .02). 

The responses to the question on steps in selection were checked for in- 
ternal consistency against a later question describing the actual selection 
of a recent participant in a continuing education course. There was a high 
consistency between what was reported in both sections of the interview 
schedule. 

In response to the question --"How do you alert your staff to the avail- 
ability of continuing education courses?" --significant differences were 
noted between the North and South. Replies* which were open-ended* fell 
into two broad Categories: 

I. Circulates material and/or written announcements; 
tells staff (staff meetings); posts announcements 
on bulletin board. 



11. Screens announcements, chooses trainees, advises 
supervisors or division chiefs. 

It was hypothesised that the former category placed more emphasis on 
staff Initiative (they were aware of all course offerings and could make 
inquiries about participation) while the latter appeared to Indicate a 
more directive attitude. These responses were not prompted In any way. 



Table X 

Methods of Alerting Staff to the Availability of Continuing Education 
Courses as Reported by Official Health Agencies in Northern and Southern 

California - 1968 



Method of Alerting 
Staff mi Continuing 
Education Courses 


Northern 

California 


Southern 

California 


Cateftorv 1 

General advice to staff 
(Bulletin board and staff 
meetings) 


6 


9 


Catesmrv 11 

Advice to supervisors 

(Announcements screened) 


13 


4 



Note: Level of significance (p * .034) by Fisher E?^act Probability 

Test. 



Criteria 



Agency directors were asked to rank on a Likert type scale the relevant 
Importance of certain criteria In selecting participants for continuing 
education courses. A list of seven criteria which had been found to be 
significant on the pre-test was offered. Respondents were free to In* 
elude other Items as they saw fit* From those which were most Important 
(checked In Colums 4 or 5 on the five point scale), respondents were 
asked to indicate the two most Important criteria. 



17 . 



Table XI 

Criteria Used in the Selection of Candidates for Continuing Education 
Courses as Indicated by Official and Voluntary Agencies in Northern and 

Southern California - 1968 



Criteria Used in Selection 


Northern 


California 


Southern Cali&ndi 


Volun- 

tary 


Official 


Volun- 

tary 


Official 


Personal Factors or 
Of Personal Benefit 










-Individual Interest 


1 


8 


1 


4 


^-Individual Need 


- 


- 


- 


1 


-Pronotional Potential 


2 


1 


1 


3 


-Educational Qualifications 


- 


1 


- 


1 


*-Gaps in Present Knowledge 


1 


- 


- 


- 


-Creativity or Ability to 
Innovate 


2 


5 


- 


5 






16 


Axencv Factors or Of 
Aaency Benefit 










-Association with Special 
Program 


3 


15 


3 


7 


-Supervisory Function 


- 


4 


3 


4 


-Length of Service 


- 


1 


- 


- 


^-Departmental Benefit 


- 


1 


- 


- 


^-Relationship to Productivity 


- 


1 


- 


- 


♦-Course Content 


- 


1 


- 


- 


♦-Dedication 




- 


- 


1 




26 


"~18^ 



Note: * Indicates criteria suggested by respondents. 






><• 



18 . 



Sharing 

Another possible measure of the significance attached to continuing educa- 
tion is the possible "sharing*' of the education experience of a staff 
member with other members of the agency staff on return from the course. 

No significant differences appeared in the data. 



Table HI 



Emphasis Given to Recording and Sharing the Continuing Education Ex- 
perience of a Staff Hember, as Reported by Voluntary and Official 
Agencies in Northern & Southern California - 1968 



T}rpe of Reporting 


Northern 


California 


Southern California 


Volun- 

tary 


Official 


Volun- 

tary 


Official 


Report Required of 
Participant 


4 


16 


2 


9 


Report Not Required 


- 


4 


1 


1 


Depends on Circum- 
stances 


- 


- 


1 


2 


Report Shared with 
Staff (whole staff, 
division staff, 
peers, etc.) 


3 


9 


2 


5 


Report to Supervisors 
(division head, C.H.O., 
board of supervisors) 


1 


7 


1 


7 



Open-ended responses to the question —"Of what value is continuing educa- 
tion to the personnel in your agency?" —were coded according to word con- 
tent and this code checked against general comments made by agency director 
under another question. Words such as personnel . personals and staff 
showed a personal orientation » and words such as agency , department . programs . 
methods . and public health benefit « were considered to denote an agency or- 
ientation. In the South, the ratio of personal to agency was about 4:1, 
and in the North, about 1 : 1.5. 



19 . 



Course Attendance Factors 



In ane.yzlng the responses from the Regional Survey of Interest and Needs 
In Continuing Education ( Public Health Professionals and Continuing Educa - 
tion. June 1968) relative to course attendance there is little difference 
between Northern and Southern California regions. Eighty-one percent 
(81%) of the Southern respondents (n * 241) had not participated in CEPH 
courses since 1960« and 15X had taken from one to three courses in the 
last five years. Three percent (3Z) had taken more than three courses in 
that period. Response in the North was similar. Seventy-six percent 
(76Z) had not participated since 1960» 20% had taken from one to three 
courses, and 3Z had taken more than three courses in the last five years. 

Reasons for non-attendance, both personal and "projective”^, showed 
similarity. These are set out in the following table. 

Table XIII 



Reasons for Non-Attendance at CEPH Courses as Given by Individual Health 
Staff in Northern and Southern California - 1967 - Expressed in Percentages 
(From 1967 Interest and Needs Survey Study) 



Reasons For 
Non-Attendance at 
CEPH Courses 


N. Calif. 


(n - 235) 


S. Calif. 


(n - 241) 


Personal 


i 1 

Projective 


Personal 


*Projective* 


Topics Not Pertinent 


9X 


7X 


2X 


6X 


Employer Feels Cannot 
Give Time Off 


5X 


23X 


8X 


11 % 


Feel No Need for Educatioi 


1/2X 


3X 


1/2X 


5X 


Lack of Recognition for 
Participation 


3X 


lOX 


IX 


lOX 


Lack of Notification 


32X 


21X 


39X 


21X 


Site Too Distant 


7X 


9X 


8X 


8X 


Course Content Too Vague 


- 


2X 


- 


2X 


Timing of Course Incon- 
venient 


6X 


6X 


7X 


4X 


Workload too Heavy 


4X 


7X 


3X 


4X 


Other 


7X 


3X 


9X 


5X 


No Response 


26X 


lOX 


23X 


8X 




lOOX 


lOOX 


lOOX 


lOOZ j 



Note: * 'Pcvjective' reasons were. those reasons which respondents gave 

as preventing other people from attending CEPH courses. 



20 . 



The Above teble suggests several things. While respondents regarded 
lack of notification as the most important personal reason for non- 
attendance » it seems that they thought other people or other agencies 
received notices more frequently than they did. On the other hand, 
time off did not appear as a major obstacle to the individual but he 
or she felt that it would be the most Important reason for others not 
attending. A similar projection exists when considering agency re- 
cognition of course participation. Respondents felt that others would 
receive less recognltlon» or that such lack of recognition would rank 
higher as a reason for non-attendance than was true of them personally. 

Course Cont en t 



Data is available on expressed preferences for course content from three 
separate sources --public health personnel » official health agency dir- 
ectors » and voluntary agency directors. The nominal scores for these 
preferences have been set out in Appendix B. The table below shows those 
subject areas receiving a high score from both agency directors and 
health personnel in the same region. 

Table XIV. a 



Subject Areas Offered by CEPH Which Received a High Interest Rating by 
Both Agency Directors and Health Personnel from the Same Region. Surveys 

1968 and 1967 Respectively. 



Northern California 


Southern California 


Budget Development and Personnel 
Hanagement 
Alcoholism 

Dangerous and Addictive Drugs 
Motivation and Persuasion 
Environmental Sociology and 
Anthropology 

Applied Behavioral Science and 
Public Health 
Genetic Counselling 
Quality Control and Evaluation 
The Multi-Problem Family 


Urbanization: Its Effects on 
Public Health 

Dangerous and Addictive Drugs 
Multi -Phasic Screening for Chronic 

Diseases 

Coupunlcatlons: Individual and 
Organizational 

Family Planning and Community 
Services 

Public Medical Care 
Regional Planning of Services and 
Facilities 

Mental Disorders of Concern to 
Public Health Personnel 
Mental Health of Children and 
Teenagers 



21 . 



Table XlV.b 



Subject 

Agencies 



Areas of Most Concern to Vbluntarv 
In Northern and Southern California 
1968 



Northern California 



Federal Legislation and Health 
Programs 

Multl-Fhaslc Screening for 
Chronic Diseases 
Communications: Individual and 
Organizational 
Environmental Sociology and 
Anthropology 

Basic Public Health for Non- 
Public Health Trained 
Personnel 

Comprehensive Health Planning 
Consultation 

Health of the School Age Child: 
School Health Programs 
Regional Planning for Services 
and Facilities 
The Multi -Problem Family 



Southern California 



Multl-Phaslc Screening for 
Chronic Diseases 

Community Organization: Develop- 
ment and Use of Resources 
Techniques of Health Education 
and Teaching 

Health of the School Age Child 
School Health Programs 
Regional Planning of Services 
and Facilities 






ee 



22 . 



Agency Prioritlea 



Prlorltlee within official agencies showed very close similarities 
between the two regions. 



Table XV 

Agency Priorities as Indicated by Offici al Agencies in Northern and 
Southern California - 1968 - Expressed by Percentages 



Subject Areas 


Northern California 


Southern California 


Research 


IIX 


15X 


Education of the Public 
and Public Relations 


84X 


85X 


Fund Raising 


-- 


-aox 


Continuing Education for 
Agency Staff 


42X 


38X 


Health Services 


68X 


69X 


Consultation and Per- 
sonnel Training to 
Other Agencies 


<10X 


15X 


Coordination and Admin- 
istration of Health 
Services 


95X 


77X 


Planning for Health 
Services 


95X 


92X 



Note: The above percentages were calculated from the four major 

priorities in the agency. Totals therefore add up to 400X. 



23 . 



CLUSTER ANALYSIS 



In order to cross check reliability and coding validity) a separate 
coding of 24 major variables was conducted working from the raw data 
and ranking responses so that they might be subject to computer ana~ 
lysis. Responses from the California State Department of Public 
Health were excluded from the sample as these tended to differ 
widely from county and voluntary health agencies. The analysis was 
made with the BC TRY* System to give a correlation matrixy cluster 
analysis and spherical analysis. 

The results validate the earliet findings. 



Note: 



* BC TRY, Special Computer Program for Factor 
and Spherical Analysis. 



24 



APPENDIX A, 



CALIFORNIA HEALTH AGENCY OPIONION ON TIKE PERIODS FOR CONTINUING 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING COURSES 



Seasons 


Northern California 


Southern California 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


Season Most Preferred 










January - March 


-- 


1 


1 


3 


April - June 


1 


3 


1 




July - September 


2 


2 


1 




October - December 


1 


2 


-- 


2 


February - May 


-- 


1 


.. 




Any Time 


— 


1 


— 


wm mm 


Season Least Preferred 










April - June 


— 


-- 


1 




July - September 


2 


12 


-- 


9 


October ~ December 


1 


2 


1 


3 


Septend>er - June 


— 


— 


1 




•* 











25 



APPENDIX A. 
Continued 



PATTERN OF ABSENCE WHICH IS MOST PREFERRED 





Northern California 


Southern 


California 


Absence Preferred 


Voluntary 


Official 


Voluntary 


Official 


1/2 dey per day ) 
1/2 - 1 day per week ) 
1-2 days per week ) 


3 


9 


.. 


3 


2-4 days during week) 
over weekend ) 

includes part of week-) 
end 


1 


8 


1 


6 


block of one to two 
weeks 


— 


1 


3 


2 


situational 


1 


1 


— 


2 



id 

ERIC 









26 . 



APPENDIX B. 



INTEREST IN COURSE OFFERINGS UNDER CEPH PROGRAM, 1968 
BY COURSE TITLE & CURRICULUM AREA 
(X ■ High Priority) 

In the study conducted in 1967, 78 course titles were grouped into 
eight general content areas. Each person was first asked if he had 
an interest in the area. If he did, he was to select the course 
topic he was most and next most interested in. In this way, course 
priorities were determined. 

In the present study, agency administrators were asked to do the 
same as in the 1967 study. 

The following table indicate^ ONLY those course topic which were 
of a high priority for individuals and/or agency directors. 





Northern California 


Southern California 


Curriculum Area 
and Course Title 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directori 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directors 


ADMINISTRATION 










Budget Development and 
Personnel Management 


X 


X 


-- 


X 


Executive Development 


— 


— 


— 


X 


Introduction to Admin, 
and Decision Making 


— 


X 


X 


— 


Urbanization: Its Effects 
on Public Health 


X 


-- ) 


X 


X 


Research Methods and Pro- 
gram Evaluation 


X 


-- 


-- 


— 


CHRONIC DISEASE 










Alcoholism 


X 


X 


-- 


-- 


Dangerous and Addictive 
Drugs 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Epidemiology 


X 


-- 


X 


— 


Multi-Phasic Screening 
for Chronic Diseases 


— 


X 


X 


X 



r 



27 , 



Appendix B. ■ Continued 



Curriculum Area 
and Course Title 


Northern California 


Southern 


California 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directoxs 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directors 


COMMUNICATIONS AND 
COORDINATION 










Comminications: Indivi- 
dual and Organizational 


X 


— 


X 


X 


Community Organization: 
Development and Use of 
Resources 


— 


X 


-- 


X 


Motivation and Persuasion 


X 


X 


X 




ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 










Accident /in jury Preven- 
tion and Control 


— 


— 


— 


X 


Water and Air Pollution 


X 


- - 


X 


« * 


Environmental Sociology 
and Anthropology 


X 


X 


X 


-- 


Food and Drugs 


-- 


- - 


X 




Housing 


-- 


- - 


_ _ 


X 


Toxicological Considera- 
tions of Environment 


-- 


X 


- - 




GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH 










Applied Behavioral Sci- 
ence and Public Health 


X 


X 


-- 


X 


Comprehensive Health Plan. 


-- 


X 


-- 


X 


Consultation: Hoi? to Use It; 
How To Give It 


X 


— 


X 


M m 


Techniques of Health Educa- 
tion and Teaching 


— 


— 


X 


— 



ERIC 



Appendix B. - Continued 



28 



Curriculum Area 


Northern 


California 


Southern California 


and Course Title 


Health 


Agency 


1 Health 


Agency 




Persanel 


Directors 


Personnel 


Directors 


mAlTernal and CHITJ) 
HEALTH 










Child Development 


X 


— 


— 


— 


Family Planning and 
Community Services 


— 


X 


X 


X 


Genetic Counselling 


X 


I 


-- 


-- 


Mental Retardation 
and Community Services 


— 


X 


— 


-- 


Neurological Bisorders 
In Children 


X 


— 


X 


— 


Reducing Infant Morbidity 
and Mortality 


— 


— 


— 


X 


MEDICAL CARE ORGANIZA- 
TION 










Health Manpower 


— 


X 


— 


— 


Medicare Law 


— 


— 


X 


— 


Organized Health Care 


— 


X 


-- 




Public Hedlem Care 


-- 


-- 


X 


X 


Quality Control and 
Evaluation 


X 


X 


z 


— 


Regional Planning of 
Services and Facilities 


X 




X 


X 



Appendix B. - Continued 



Curriculum Area 
and Course Title 


Northern 


California 


Southern California 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directors 


Health 

Personnel 


Agency 

Directors 


MENTAL HEALTH 










Mental Disorders of Con- 
cern to Public Health 
Personnel 


— 


wm mm 


X 


X 


Mental Health of Children 
and Teenagers 


X 


mm mm 


X 


X 


Mental Health Problems of 
Race Relations and Poverty 
Population 


OT wm 


X 


mm mm 


X 


The Multi-Problem Family 


X 


X 


X 


mm mm 



FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 



Alvin R. Leonard, M.D., Chairman 

L. S. Gtoerke, M.D., M.S.P.H., Dean, School of 
Public Health, University of California at 
Los Angeles 

Mervyn G* Hardinge, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H*, Ph.D., 
Dean, School of Public Health, Loma Linda 
University 

Richard K. C. Lee, M.D., Dr.P.H., Dean, School of 
Public Health, University of Hawaii 

William C. Reeves, Ph.D., M.P.H., Dean, School of 
Public Health, University of California at 
Berkeley 

Jean Spencer Felton, M.D., Chairman, Environmental 
Health Subcommittee 

Andie Knutson, Ph.D., Chairman, Mental Health 
Subcommittee 

Edward S. Rogers, M.D., M.P.H., Chairman, Health 
Services Administration Subcommittee 

Jean French, Dr.P.H., Chairman, Personal Health 
Services Subcommittee 

John M. Chapman, M.D., M.P.H. 

Jerome Grossman, Ph.D., M.P.H. 

Andrew Haynal, M.D., M.P.H. 

Alfred H. Katz, D.S.W. 

Frank J. Massey, Ph.D. 

Robert E. Itytinger, Dr.P.H. 

Beryl J. Roberts, Dr.P.H. 

Milton X. Roemer , M.D., M.P.H. 

Guy Steuart, Ph.D., M.P.H. 

Irving R. Taber shaw, M.D. 



WESTERN BRANCH " COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING EDUCATION 

Alvin R. Leonard, M.D., M.P.H., Chairman 
ALASKA - David R. L. Duncan, M.D. 

ARIZONA - Betty R. Ord, R.N. 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA - Helen Ross, M.P.H. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - J. Albert Torribio, M.S.W. 
HAWAII - Ernest Bertel lotti, M.P.H. 

IDAHO - Florence Abel 
MONTANA ** K. Elizabeth Burrell, M.P.H. 

NEVADA - James Ashbaugh, Ed.D. 

NEW MEXICO - Mildred Tryon, R.N., M.P.H. 

OREGON - Max Braden, M.P.H. 

UTAH - Franklin K. Brough, M.P.H. 

WASHINGTON - Jo McNeil, R.N. , M.N. 

WYOMING - Flora I. Dulberg, Ed.S. 



ERIC Clearinphouse 

JUL3 1969 
Adtiit iiuucatioa 



on