Do Reports on Drinking Water Quality Affect Customers' Concerns? Experiments in Report Content

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 required U.S. utilities to report on drinking water quality to their customers annually, beginning in fall 1999, on the assumption that such reports would alert them to quality problems and perhaps mobilize pressure for improvement. A random sample of New Jersey customers read alternative versions of a water quality report, in an experiment on reactions to water quality information under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rules. Experiment design was 2 x 3 + 1: two versions each--one with, one without, a violation of a health standard--of a report that was (1) Qualitative (without water quality numbers, thus not meeting USEPA rules); (2) Basic, with minimal information meeting the rules; or (3) Extended, adding reading aids and utility performance information; plus a control instrument without any hypothetical report. Results of ANOVA suggest the reports will have less effect than hoped or feared. These manipulations were successful: people reading the Qualitative versions were less likely to say that the report gave the amounts of substances found in the water, and those reading Violation versions were more likely to report a violation of a health standard. The main differences in responses to the report involved the judged adequacy of the information, and to a lesser extent responses on a Concern scale (constructed from measures of concern, judged risk, clean-up intentions, distrust of utility information, and doubt that the utility was doing all it could to improve water quality). Overall judgments of water quality and utility performance did not change, either relative to the controls or in before versus after responses. Qualitative reports performed worse than others, confirming the decision to have utilities report actual contaminant levels. Extended reports did only slightly better than the Basic versions on these measures. Many respondents had trouble identifying the presence or absence of substance amounts or violations, despite their seeming obviousness (e.g., in a "bottom line" summary on the front page of each report), suggesting many were not processing this information carefully. However, the pattern of responses for those who accurately identified the presence or absence of substance amounts or violations did not differ substantially from that for the group as a whole. Generic risk beliefs (serious local environmental problems; lack of control over risks to one's health) dominated demographic variables, attitudes toward utility water quality or trustworthiness, and the content and format of water quality reports in influencing concern about drinking water quality. Previous empirical and theoretical evidence for lack of change in public risk attitudes due to one-time or infrequent communications--e.g., role of personal experience, perseverance of prior trust or distrust--seems to be confirmed for annual water quality reports.     

Communicating Worst-Case Scenarios: Neighbors'' Views of Industrial Accident Management

The prospect of industrial accidents motivated the U.S. Congress to require in the Clean Air Act of 1990 that manufacturing facilities develop Risk Management Plans (RMP) to submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) by July 1999. Industry worried that the requirement to communicate to the public a "worst-case scenario" would arouse unnecessary and counterproductive fears among industry neighbors. We report here the results of focus groups and surveys with such neighbors, focusing particularly upon their reactions to messages about a hypothetical worst-case scenario and management of these risks by industry, government, and other parties. Our findings confirmed our hypotheses that citizens would be skeptical of the competence and trustworthiness of these managers and that this stance would color their views of industrial-facility accident risks. People with job ties to industry or who saw industrial benefits to the community as exceeding its risks had more positive views of industrial risks, but still expressed great concern about the risk and doubt about accident management. Notwithstanding these reactions, overall respondents welcomed this and other related information, which they wanted their local industries to supply. Respondents were not more reassured by additional text describing management of accidents by government and industry. However, respondents did react very positively to the concept of community oversight to review plant safety. Claims about the firm's moral obligation or financial self-interest in preventing accidents were also received positively. Further research on innovative communication and management of accident risks is warranted by these results, even before recent terrorist attacks made this topic more salient.     

Illinois's child welfare research agenda: an approach to building consensus for practice-based research

This article presents a consensus-building initiative to develop a statewide research agenda that responds to the needs of Illinois's child welfare community. Researchers conducted this process through a university-community partnership to engage those interested in child welfare services. The process and findings resulted in a living document that will guide child welfare research throughout the state. Findings of the inquiry suggest that the development of best practice models may be one of the most important contributions research can make to practice.     

More harm than good? Diagnostic codes for child and adult abuse

This study sought to understand the reasons for the lack of use of ICD diagnostic codes for child and adult abuse. New Jersey professionals were recruited to participate in three focus groups on child abuse, adult or primarily woman abuse, and elder abuse. Participants included health care providers, advocates from the community, and representatives of state agencies and the insurance industry. Concerns about coding abuse included further jeopardizing victims/patients, diagnostic uncertainty, and lack of resources. Members of the child abuse group were somewhat more receptive to coding abuse. Reasons to code, such as for documentation and reimbursement were discussed and rebutted. Most participants concluded that use of the abuse codes should be judicious because they have the potential to do more harm than good. More research is needed on the implications of coding for victims/patients along with medical education in the identification of abuse in general and coding abuse in particular.     

Healing in familiar settings: support for children and youth in the classroom and community

The Classroom-Based Intervention emphasizes a specific theme each week to allow children to construct safe places to express their stories and develop coping strategies in a group environment.     

Family therapy saves the planet: messianic tendencies in the family systems literature

It is not unusual occasionally to hear individual family therapists describe their work as an effort to "save the world." The messianic notion that family therapy should be the world's salvation is not simply a fancy of individual clinicians, but is deeply imbedded in several of our field's most fundamental theories. This article explores messianic arguments in the work of some of family therapy's most important thinkers, including von Bertalanffy, Bateson, and Keeney, and then discusses the implications that these arguments have for the clinical and theoretical development of our field.     

Functional testing: Approaches and injury management integration

Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) have become the standard for identifying an individual's physical abilities and/or limitations following injury or illness. While philosophies and approaches differ, the focus of most FCE systems is to identify the individual's maximum capabilities. This article will discuss the usefulness of the FCE information and how FCEs are impacted by multiple factors including APTA guidelines, machine based testing, therapist expertise, medical legal credibility and court testimony, IMEs and FCE, and return to work/return to function.