1. Six items on personal characteristics or circumstances were designed to elicit reports of
social angst generally and specifically toward EICAP functions. These variables demon-
strated normality and shared an inter-item covariance r(39)=0.778. Five percent of re-
spondents reported anxiety may prevent attendance.
The items related to experience with and understanding of EICAP showed lack of famili-
arity was the most frequent reason for lack of participation.
Two items relative to participant perception of familiarity were designed to assess re-
spondent understanding of the EICAP program. These variables demonstrated normality
and shared an inter-item covariance of r(38)=0.740 A moderate significant correlation
exists between reported attendance and reported understanding of the benefits EICAP
offers, r(39) = 0.335, p<0.037. No such correlation exists between attendance and re-
ported understanding of how the EICAP program functions, r(38)=0.064, p=0.704.
Several participants reported
understanding how the EICAP
programs function and what
benefits are available to them
while also reporting that there
is nothing to gain from them.
Independent samples T-tests were conducted for selected demographic data and report-
ed understanding of program benefits. Non-married status includes those reporting
“Single, never married; Widowed; Divorced; or Separated.” Unemployed includes those
reporting as “Homemaker, Student, Looking for work, Unable to work, or Other.” Educa-
tion categories typically represent low limit cutoff levels. The column labeled “Diploma/
GED” represents the mean score for those having attained at least a high school equiva-
lent education. An exception is respondents reporting having completed some high
school; the mean shown is for persons reporting “Some high school” only. Test results
show no significance between understanding of program benefits and any demographic
variables.
The greatest contributor to low attendance is lack of knowledge about programs EICAP of-
fers. Respondents appear to be confused as to what EICAP has to offer besides regular
food drives. Those who report understanding the benefits and function of EICAP additional-
ly report that they have nothing to gain from EICAP. This lack of understanding about what
the program is, how it functions, and what the benefits are seem to be the primary reason
for low attendance. A strong majority of respondents did not indicate personal characteris-
tics, or circumstances such as discomfort around others or with the EICAP program, as be-
ing related to their lack of attendance. The results show social anxiety was not correlated
with understanding of the program. None of the demographic variables analyzed were sta-
tistical predictors of understanding the program or its benefits. Further inquiry as to why
this communication breakdown is happening would be beneficial. Possible roadblocks to
effective marketing of EICAP programs may include the overuse of a little known acronym
as their name, the lack of or ineffective use of public relations campaigns, or quite possibly
something else entirely. Future inquiry would be most effective if it was able to pinpoint
those that EICAP is targeting with their budget class rather than the sample we took from
those using a somewhat unrelated program.
EICAP should increase the information they send out about the budgeting class if they want
to increase the size. This can be done through an email to EICAP program participants. EI-
CAP could also reach out to specific program participants identified some way that would
benefit from the budgeting class. This will reduce the ambiguity of any invites sent out which
may help increase attendance. Being specific, yet simple in the information presented can
help establish more of an understanding between EICAP and program participants (March,
1987)..
EICAP: Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership. (2015). Mission and visions state-
ments. Retrieved from: http://www.eicap.org/about/mission
Gross, D., Julion, W., & Fogg, L. (2001). What motivates participation and dropout
among low-income urban families of color in a prevention intervention?. Family Rela-
tions: An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Applied Family Studies, 50(3), 246-254.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00246.x
Kelly, J. F., Kahler, C. W., & Humphreys, K. (2010). Assessing why substance use disor-
der patients drop out from or refuse to attend 12-step mutual-help groups: The
'REASONS' questionnaire. Addiction Research & Theory, 18(3), 316-325.
doi:10.3109/16066350903254775
Reece, M. (2003). HIV-related mental health care: Factors influencing dropout among
low-income, HIV-positive individuals. AIDS Care, 15(5), 707-716.
doi:10.1080/09540120310001595195
March, J. G. (1987). Ambiguity and Accounting: The Elusive Link Between Information
and Decision Making. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 12(2), 153-168.
Special thanks to Gregory Barker, Tawnya Garz-Brewer, Ryan Grant, Paul Hulbert, Kei
Furukawa, Josh Livingston, Jessica Peterson, and Francisca Saldana for their assistance.
Understanding the Low Attendance of Low-Income Budget Classes
Peterson, Zac; Parham, Grover; Kahuhu, Harry; Souza, Andrews; Case, Keagan; Johnson, Zane; Delton, Yohan, Ph.D.
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership (EICAP) is an organization that aids low-
income households. Some programs offered by EICAP are underutilized. EICAP personnel
expressed the need to identify factors contributing to these conditions. A survey was ad-
ministered at an EICAP food distribution event, the most popular service/program they
provide. Thirty-nine surveys were completed by food-stuffs recipients. Data collected are
expected to allow analysis which will help EICAP improve participation in their programs.
Signing of the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 by President Lyndon Johnson was
aimed at transitioning control of aide programs to local areas, allowing more focus on
specific needs of communities rather than general, national needs. Community action
programs are flexible in their design, immediate in their assistance, and coordinated in
their resources. Typical programs offered by a community action program are directed to
help youth, low-income citizens, those in crisis, elderly, families, and whole communities
(IACAA source). Since its founding in 1968, EICAP has provided “the essential needed to
guide people from living a life filled with need to embracing a life of possibilities through
self sufficiency” (EICAP source). EICAP operates in 10 counties in Eastern Idaho. A pro-
gram considered necessary for local success, and unfortunately one of the least ac-
cessed, is a class on budgeting. In accordance with a core value of serving the best inter-
ests of the poor, EICAP wanted to know how to better reach more people. A survey was
created as an inquiry of the feelings and perceptions among recipients of EICAP pro-
grams and benefits. The following hypothesis was presumed:
H1: Some expression of anxiety in social environments contributes to low participation
rates in programs which do not satisfy a base physiological need.
Participants: Survey respondents were active recipients of the food assistance program of-
fered by EICAP. Completed surveys (N=39) indicate all participants were of age 18 and
over. reported ethnicities of White (69.4%), Hispanic or Latino (25.0%), and American Indi-
an or Alaska Native (5.6%) were not representative of 2014 census proportions of 82.8%,
12.0%, and 1.7%, respectively. Additional ethnicities attributable to the Idaho census were
not represented in the sample.
Procedures: The survey was administered to a convenience sample of individuals (N=39)
waiting in line during a food distribution activity. Providing food assistance to low-income
families is one of the better known and better attended programs offered by EICAP and
provided an opportunity to specifically sample those known to be 1) in need of assis-
tance, and 2) being served by an EICAP program.
Materials: An 18 item survey was developed around open-ended, partially open-ended,
and restricted response items, arranged in three categories: personal/circumstantial char-
acteristics of the individual, individual experience/familiarity with EICAP, and demographic
data. Items intended to assess quality of experiences and perceived familiarity with EICAP
avoided identifying specific programs with the intent to solicit unprimed responses.
INTRODUCTION
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RESULTSABSTRACT DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Response Agree
I don’t know enough about the program 41%
I don’t want to go by myself 21%
I understand the benefits of the program 41%
I know how the program functions 26%
There is nothing I hope to gain from the EICAP program 72%
METHODS