Volume 34 Number 1
|
February 1996 Volume 34 Number 1 |
|
|
Extension Journal, Inc.Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers. Board of Directors:
Judith Jones, President, Virginia, Southern Directors Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, Arizona Citizen Diplomacy Efforts Should Precede Policy Formation on Sustainable Agriculture
Michael Score Consider the momentum that is building around studies of sustainable agriculture. Many involved in the land-grant system are familiar with an ongoing national initiative funded by the Kellogg foundation to study approaches to integrated farm system management. Through this grant program, more than twenty million dollars has been committed to farm communities in eighteen states to improve our national understanding of sustainable agriculture, and to encourage public policy at local, state, and federal levels that will nurture development of sustainable farm communities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funded research and education initiatives through the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education/Agriculture in Concert with the Environment (SARE/ACE) program to complement these private sector efforts at the regional level. In the national arena, land-grant institutions in all 50 states have recently completed strategies toward sustainable agriculture as mandated in the 1990 Farm Bill. When fully implemented, farm communities and Extension clientele will be working at varying degrees to improve the sustainability of food and fiber production systems in all counties. Additionally, there are grass roots organizations working in concert to empower individual farm community members. Contributions from groups like Farm Bureau, Community Farm Alliance, and Practical Farmers of Iowa will increase citizen involvement in the public policy formation process. Dialogue processes have matured to a point where even those with initial negative or skeptical attitudes toward the concept are appearing at community forums or educational meetings to participate in public deliberation over definitions and implied directions of sustainable agriculture. While community and statewide discussions have produced examples of consensus on local or regional directions for sustainable agriculture (Worstell, 1995), division into camps has been observed at the national level. Allen, Van Dusen, Lundy, and Gliessman (1991) suggest that there are two major schools of thought regarding definition of sustainable farm systems: (a) sustainability defined primarily in terms of resource conservation and profitability, and (b) sustainability defined in terms of pressing social problems in the food and agriculture system. As scientists approach this area of study, a division occurs within disciplines as theoretical models are applied to evaluation of farm system sustainability. In sociology for example, evaluation of farm systems from a Marxist tradition leads to a focus on skewed relationships between farm owners and hired migrant labor. A functionalist perspective would view migrant laborers, farm owners, lending institutions, and others as components of a system. Each component is viewed as making a positive contribution to the functioning of the system. Functionalists could arguably be viewed as being more open to the idea of regulating production practices with a goal of maintaining a functional farm system. Those working from a rational choice or exchange theory perspective on the other hand, believe that humans respond to rewards and consequences, or punishments. Based on this perspective, they might argue that regulation of production relationships and practices is uncalled for. Despite these restraints to development of public policy that will nurture sustainable agriculture as the nation defines it, the considerable investment that has been made in public deliberation suggests an optimism about the prospects for successfully dealing with these tensions. Within American culture we have seen that there is a social infrastructure able to allow adequate deliberation for passage of public policy. Perhaps it is the enormity of the task that has moved us to pretend, at least for a little while, that the end goal is to identify a common ground at the national level from which sustainable agricultural policies can be developed. In reality however, the arena is much larger than the complex network we've just considered. While some countries are also engaged in assessment of farm system sustainability, other citizens have not perceived a need to look at the long range impacts of resource management on communities, ecosystems, and economies. Wendell Berry, in his address during the Louisville Summit, mentioned the fact that local or national sustainable agriculture strategies can encounter serious challenges when conflicting cultural and ideological perspectives encounter each other in the language of international trade agreements (Stutsman, 1993). The problem is that our well-intentioned discussions are avoiding how our conclusions are perceived in the international community. In a recent tour during which Russian agricultural leaders came to the United States to study rural development, several references were made by American resource people to sustainable development initiatives. Each time, translators had to struggle to describe sustainable agriculture. At regional government, and private farm levels in Russia, the concept of sustainable development has not yet been applied to agricultural systems. Another term that was difficult to translate into Russian was the word "issue." Translators explained that there are many words in Russian corresponding to our concept of issue. Another example that can be addressed at a local level in many North American farm communities is the gap between migrant farm laborers from countries like Mexico and the farmers that hire them. As farmers agree with their neighbors on steps to take in improving overall farm system sustainability, they more often than not make these decisions without consideration of how new production practices or agricultural policies will affect this significant sector of the labor force. Farmers admit that without migrant laborers they could not continue to farm at existing levels. However, they are in the process of re-working agriculture without consulting them. The risk is that in improving agriculture from their perspective, they may create labor management strategies or working conditions that are unacceptable to those who do most of the physical labor in some farm communities. In other areas of public life, the concept of citizen diplomacy has been used to prepare for encounters between government representatives. Without intentions of creating a war metaphor to describe the tensions attached to agricultural issues, it is helpful to refer to citizen-to-citizen encounters between Arabs and Israelis, and between citizens from factions within the ongoing civil war in Tajikistan. In these situations of conflict, citizens were brought together before official representatives of warring parties engaged in negotiations over peace agreements. These encounters were more than cross-cultural exchange visits. Citizens came together specifically to deliberate the issues underlying the positions opposing sides had taken. Their task was to explore potential compatibility of definitions and ideas. The results of their discussions guided diplomats at a later date when official dialogues on treaties and policy began. In the realm of agriculture, increasing communications between farm community members during the grass-roots initiatives for defining policies that nurture "sustainable agricultural systems" would pre-empt ideological blind-siding when local ideas finally reach the level of international dialogue. Indeed, citizen-to-citizen dialogue about definition of the issues is essential if the deliberative processes being funded by foundations and departments of agriculture are to avoid accusations of coaptation and false empowerment. Funding strategies for the next phases of sustainable farm system studies should include allocation of resources for cross-cultural interaction specifically for exploration of evolving concepts of sustainable agriculture. Unleashing the creative thinking at all levels of the international farm system, and taking steps to increase community agency would surely achieve greater enthusiasm for living by the discoveries that come out of the deliberative process. The alternative is a discussion network dominated by experts and official community representatives working from abstracts and summary statements generated during community forums and Extension educational meetings. Citizen diplomacy... the process of cross-cultural dialogue at the citizen level about pressing issues, is compatible with contemporary land-grant mission statements focusing on empowerment and leadership development.
Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J., & Gliessman, S. (1991). Commentary: Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 6(1), 34-39. Stutsman, R. (1993). From Rio to the capitols. Frankfort: Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Cabinet. Worstell, J. (1995). Southern futures: Opportunities for sustainable agricultural systems. Almyra, AR: Delta Land and Community Inc.
New National Program Information System for Cooperative Extension: Lessons from Experience
Claude Bennett The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and its land-grant university partners are developing a new, national program information system that will cover programs of the Cooperative Extension System. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), designed to improve both the management and the accountability of programs supported by Federal funding, provides the mandate, direction, and overall framework for the new program information system. To be successful, GPRA implementation must be consistent with Cooperative Extension's decentralized, intergovernmental partnership and programming structure. Given GPRA's Federal origin, there is risk that the design of the new program information system will under-emphasize the program information needs of the state and local Extension partners of CSREES. If this happens, there will likely be repetition of major problems encountered by CSREES's current (1992-1997) Program Planning and Reporting System (PPARS). PPARS was designed to focus on Extension program information needs of CSREES without attending to related program information needs of state and local Extension partners. National Extension program information systems that have focused only on Federal information needs, including PPARS, have been plagued by severe data acquisition problems. Problems in acquiring valid and complete program indicator data are likely to re-occur in the new, GPRA-influenced information system unless designers understand and apply lessons from past and current experiences with Extension national program reporting systems. This article is to stimulate consideration of these experiences toward ensuring acquisition of adequate program indicator data by the new, national program information system.
The Extension Management Information System (EMIS) was launched in 1970. It focused on national quantitative indicators of staff time, program activities, and clientele participation. EMIS was discontinued in 1981, due to widespread state Extension staff resistance to the reporting burden; lack of usefulness of detailed national statistics on Extension program efforts and clientele participation; and lack of data on program results. Reacting to the limitations of EMIS, Extension's 1982-1991 Narrative Accomplishments Reporting System (NARS) de-emphasized national quantitative indicators. Instead, NARS encouraged state Extension program staffs to report their respective program plans and attendant outcomes according to state perspectives. NARS reports were intended for use at both the state and Federal levels. NARS provided many valid and helpful anecdotal reports about state Extension programs and their results; these were used in numerous U.S. Department of Agriculture reports to exemplify Cooperative Extension programs and associated results. But, Extension national program leaders found the largely narrative, state-oriented NARS program reports difficult to combine into national or multi-state generalizations about the scope and effectiveness of Extension programs. Retrievals from the NARS database were time consuming. The state program data, self-selected by individual states, could not be aggregated; and synthesizing state reports into national reports was extremely demanding because of lack of consistency among state reports. Hence, PPARS was designed to aggregate--for national use--state Extension program indicator data focused on federally-selected quantitative indicators. PPARS promised to efficiently provide useful quantitative generalizations about the scope and performance of nationally targeted Extension programs (i.e., state Extension programs that fit into the same federally- defined program category). But PPARS has provided a questionable number of such generalizations, due to the generally poor quality of indicator data in most of its databases representing nationally targeted programs. Many state Extension programs are represented by only partially complete data for only some of the national indicators that are relevant to these programs. State narrative data that are submitted to PPARS tend to be illuminating, but these submissions are often limited in depth, scope, and consistency. The quality of the databases for most of the nationally targeted programs is so low that they are unusable for preparing credible, quantitative, national program reports. For most of the nationally targeted programs, there is a general lack of state and CSREES processes to assure the quality of PPARS indicator data; and so, quantitative data in these PPARS national databases include many discrepancies. Consequently, different states and regions show clearly incredible variations in reported quantitative program results within these national Extension targeted programs. (For example, two different regions in the U.S. report expending similar amounts of resources to conduct programs within the same nationally targeted program; but these regions also report up to a 100-fold difference in results of their respective programs according to the same national indicators. Likewise, two individual states report expending similar amounts of resources to conduct programs within the same nationally targeted program; but these states also report up to a 1,000-fold difference in results of their respective programs according to the same national indicators). The kinds and magnitudes of voids and invalidity in much of the quantitative indicator data of PPARS were also found in the data for the 1994-1995 Extension pilot test of GPRA implementation, and were a major reason for early termination of the pilot test. Diverse factors are collectively responsible for the frequently low quality of indicator data in PPARS. However, many of the factors can be traced to limited collaboration among state and CSREES counterparts of the same nationally targeted Extension programs, regarding indicator data for those national program categories. Such collaboration requires continuity of dialogue to agree on intent and implementation of (a) collection, quality control, and analysis of indicator data, as well as (b) data utilization for improving program effectiveness and accountability. The needed collaboration would motivate both state and CSREES program staffs to ensure that program planning and performance data are of adequate quality for use at both the state and Federal levels.
GPRA requires CSREES, as a Federal Agency, to submit a strategic plan, annual program plans, and annual program performance reports. Annual plans should contain goals for each program set forth in the annual budget of CSREES. Extension programs set forth as specific budget lines in the CSREES annual budget include "Children and Youth at Risk," "Water Quality," "Integrated Pest Management," and "Rural Health and Safety Education." (For purposes of facilitating compliance with its requirements, GPRA permits related budget line programs to be combined into program clusters). GPRA requires that each federally budgeted program or program cluster have goals for immediate outputs and longer-range outcomes. Such goals are required to have quantitative indicators to gauge the performance of the program in achieving its targeted outputs and outcomes. Under GPRA, program performance indicator data used by CSREES will be subject to validity checks by external auditors representing Federal monitoring agencies. Program performance indicators in CSREES's new information system may focus largely or exclusively on Federal needs with little or no assurance of use of these indicators in state Extension programming and marketing. If this happens, then Extension will again have--as in EMIS and PPARS--a national system for reporting program plans and associated results that has little or no direct potential use in states. In this event, state program staffs will understandably not see whether, or how, collection and use of data for national indicators directly reflects, guides, or benefits their respective state program. Thus, these staff will have limited reason to meet the challenge of supplying complete and valid data for national program indicators. Extension staffs in states generally focus on program indicators that are relevant to program planning, budgeting, management, evaluation, and marketing at the state, area, and/or county levels. Extension's cooperative (non-line), intergovernmental character and routine funding mechanisms limit the institutional incentives provided to state program staff for reporting quality-controlled performance data to CSREES. State Extension staff have increasingly heavy work loads and concomitant need to set priorities. Therefore, is it realistic to expect state staffs to respond with the significant effort and leadership necessary to annually provide valid and complete program indicator data that are to be used only or primarily for Federal purposes? Experience generally does not support a positive answer to this question. Experience of CSREES staff with PPARS' federally focused program indicators shows there is, currently, only one condition that assures state Extension program coordinators will supply valid and complete data for national program indicators. The condition is this: state program coordinators receive, from their respective CSREES counterparts (a) repeated requests (based on quality checks) for immediate, systematic upgrading of the quality of submitted indicator data, along with (b) considerable amounts of sustained support, guidance, and encouragement toward resubmitting the requested data of upgraded quality. Significant CSREES staff time commitments are needed for continuity of these requests, support, guidance, and encouragement. These efforts are being expended by the CSREES staff of a few nationally targeted Extension programs, but the magnitude of these efforts appear to be unsustainable by CSREES program staff as a whole. Program indicators (or sub-indicators for constructing indexes or scales) must be relevant and useful at the state, area, and county levels. Under these conditions CSREES, state, and local cooperators can have a collaborative and jointly-owned program information system that produces valid and complete program performance indicator data. The key to establishing a meaningful national GPRA system for Extension is to construct it to be useful also to program and administrative staffs in states--for program planning, budgeting and managing, as well as program improvement and marketing. This will: (a) avoid state, area, and county staff perceptions of the new, national program information system as just a burden and exercise required by the Federal partner; and (b) promote collaborative, effective efforts by state and CSREES program staffs to acquire and use valid and complete program indicator data. State program staff motivation to obtain and report valid and complete program indicator data must be the number one priority in constructing a workable, national program information system. Given existing institutional arrangements within and between county, state, and Federal partners of Extension, this motivation can only be achieved through joint state/CSREES program staff ownership of national databases. Resources needed to obtain, analyze, communicate, and use relevant, valid and complete performance indicator data will follow from program staff motivation to market and improve their respective programs. Increasingly competitive funding environments reflected by downsizing and privatization of public sector programs will augment this motivation.
The following are nine recommended steps for collaboration among CSREES, state, and local program staffs to successfully complete GPRA annual plans and performance reports. These steps would obtain and use management and accountability indicator data regarding the targets, implementation, and associated results of each CSREES budget line program or program cluster. The steps (a) are based upon the observations, lessons, and precepts cited above, and (b) draw upon experience of and innovations by CSREES and collaborating state staffs in Extension's national water quality initiative. Of course, pilot testing would be necessary prior to any agency-wide adoption of these recommendations. The first six steps for a budget line program or program cluster lead to submission of a proposal by a national committee of one or more CSREES program leaders and representatives of their state and local counterparts. The proposal would be to obtain and use program indicator data. The final three steps focus on state and CSREES approval and implementation of the proposal, followed by evaluation of both the resultant program information and the methodologies used to acquire and use it.
CSREES staff--through cooperative agreements with one or more state institutions and guidance from the overall national GPRA Council for CSREES--would summarize the array of completed national program reports into brief summaries of program plans and performance reports for submission to USDA's Chief Financial Officer, as required by GPRA.
Collaboration among CSREES, state, and local staffs can successfully produce and utilize state and national reports of Cooperative Extension program plans and associated results. It is critical that state, local, and CSREES program staffs have joint ownership of the new, national program information system. In the United States, there is a strong consensus that providing education is primarily a state and local responsibility. Therefore, performance indicators for Extension budget line programs of CSREES should summarize those indicators that state and county staffs of the respective programs select and use most frequently to improve their program management, delivery, and accountability. This view places responsibility on each state Extension Service to ensure that its program staff uses robust program indicators for their own programming and reporting purposes. CSREES is collaborating with selected state Extension services to examine needs and potential ways for state and local Extension staffs to strengthen their use of program indicators in water quality programming and marketing. This article is intended to provide food for thought toward obtaining adequate indicator data that can be used to improve operational program effectiveness, delivery, and accountability as intended by GPRA. It is imperative that the Cooperative Extension System maximize the usefulness of indicator data regarding its programs.
Cutting Evaluation Costs by Reducing Sample Size
Satish Verma
Michael F. Burnett
School of Vocational Education
Increasingly, over the past two decades, Extension programs have been subject to scrutiny by funding agencies to see how well programs are being conducted and the extent to which clientele are benefiting from them. At the same time, federal, state, and local funds for Extension programs are becoming more difficult to secure. For these reasons, it is important that accountability- focused evaluations of Extension programs be cost-effective and produce valid, defensible results. Sample size is an important factor to consider in conducting Extension evaluations, because it influences the cost of evaluations and the validity of results obtained. Larger samples reduce research error, but can be expensive, time-consuming, and often impractical. Smaller samples, on the other hand, are less expensive but the risk of error is increased and the validity of results can be questioned. When researchers select a particular sample size, they are basically answering two questions. The precision question is how accurately (precisely) do we want the calculated sample "statistic" to measure the population "parameter." The confidence question is what are the desired limits around the sample mean? The greater the precision desired (1% rather than 5%), and the greater the confidence desired (99% rather than 95%), the greater will be the sample size needed. Cochran's formula for calculating sample size incorporates these two criteria (Cochran, 1977). The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of reducing sample size on the results and costs of doing program evaluation.
Data source and sample size The two-part question of cost-effectiveness and validity of research results implied in the above purpose was addressed by analyzing the data of two doctoral dissertation studies on issues in the Cooperative Extension System completed by Davis (1991) and Seals (1989) in the School of Vocational Education at Louisiana State University. Raw data for both studies were available to the researchers. Davis' regional study covered six state Extension services in the southeastern United States. It focused on performance appraisal of county agents, specifically on their perceptions of how the system was being administered and how an ideal performance appraisal system should be administered. Fifty-six items with a 7-point, Likert-type response scale in fifteen performance appraisal categories were included in a mail questionnaire to a proportionate sample of 602 agents randomly selected from state personnel lists. Seals' contrasting statewide study involved a segment of a youth client group of a state Extension service. It dealt with the technical aspect of an Extension program, specifically nutrition, comparing a sample of high school 4-H members with a sample of non-members on selected characteristics, dietary practices, and food consumption patterns. The two studies used nearly similar sample sizes. Davis used a total drawn sample of 602 with 558 usable returned responses. Seals had a total usable sample response of 553. These sample sizes were calculated by Cochran's formula based on a 1% margin of error for interval data. For purposes of comparison for this paper, two additional sample sizes were calculated at 3% and 5% error margins. The calculated samples were 174 at the 3% error margin and 50 at the 5% error margin. Data analysis The scope of both studies was considerable. Therefore, only a sample of the original analyses was used in each case. For each study, the three sample sizes were compared on descriptive measures--means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals around the mean. If the confidence intervals for the three sample sizes overlapped, the samples were not considered to be different; whereas, if the confidence intervals did not overlap, the samples were considered to be different. Differences between means of selected data were compared for the three sample sizes using the t-test.
Davis expected to find a "discrepancy" between how agents perceived the performance appraisal system was being administered and how it should be ideally done. For each of the fifteen performance appraisal categories, he found that this discrepancy, as measured by the difference between the means of perceptions of the "present" system and an "ideal" system, was statistically significant (p>=.0001) for the sample size of 558. When the sample size was reduced to 174 and 50, the discrepancy was found to also be statistically significant (p>=.0001) for all fifteen categories. A second set of analyses concerned certain important work- related variables (i.e., years in Extension, years in current position, and most recent appraisal score). It was observed that the 95% confidence intervals around the mean for each of these three variables were overlapping for all three sample sizes. This meant that the three samples were drawn from the same population. Both the above analyses showed that reducing sample size did not affect the results of the study. Seals' analyses selected for study dealt with nine demographic characteristics and nutrition program outcome measures. Results were compared for the three sample sizes. One set of analyses dealt with confidence intervals. It was determined that the 95% confidence intervals around the mean of each of the nine variables were overlapping for all three sample sizes. This meant that the three samples came from the same population. A second set of analyses compared 4-H members and non-members on the same nine variables to see if similar differences were obtained between the two groups on each of the three sample sizes. The t-test was used as the test statistic to determine differences. In the largest sample (n = 552), statistically significant differences were found for seven of the nine variables. For the sample n = 174, significant differences were found on five variables. And for the sample n = 50, only one variable showed a statistically significant difference. Comparing n = 558 with n = 174, significance levels were the same for five items, but different for two items. On these latter items, probability levels changed from p = .04 to p = .07, and p = .002 to p = .07. It should be mentioned that even though a p of .07 is not statistically significant, it indicates to researchers and research consumers that the variable merits further study. In contrast, the comparison of the results of analyses with n = 552 and n = 50 showed many and large differences in outcomes. Only one variable was found to be significantly different in the small sample as compared to seven variables in the large sample. Furthermore, the probability levels in the small and large samples were considerably different.
The results of this study of different sample sizes vis-a-vis cost considerations and validity of results suggest the following useful applications for conducting evaluations of Extension programs.
In conclusion, given Extension's accountability mandate and budgetary constraints, Extension evaluators should consider the use of smaller sample sizes in conducting evaluation studies, especially when the primary purpose of the study is description of outcomes.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Davis, W. L. (1991). Perceptions of performance appraisal by Cooperative Extension Service agents in selected southern states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Seals, S. (1989). The effectiveness of the food and nutrition 4-H project in improving dietary practices and food consumption patterns of high school students in Louisiana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
The On-Going Farm Crisis:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 1 Concerns Faced by Farmers | |
|---|---|
| Concern | Number of Responses |
| Low milk or other commodity prices | 301 |
| High cost of inputs | 82 |
| High taxes | 70 |
| Financial/cash flow problems | 51 |
| Health insurance/health problems | 48 |
| Ability to compete/stay in farming | 38 |
| Government indifference/regulations | 36 |
| Interest high/no credit | 31 |
| Weather conditions | 27 |
| Too much work/lack of hired help | 18 |
| Lack of good markets | 14 |
| Not able to enter/exit farming | 9 |
| Lack of time/money for family | 9 |
| Society doesn't understand farming/treats poorly | 8 |
| Lack of hay/feed | 5 |
| Note: Listed in declining order of priority, using a weighted rating to assess priorities. | |
Low milk or other commodity prices was, by far, the most pressing concern of Harvest of Hope recipients. Yet, what should be clear from the responses is the central theme of tight finances: high cost of inputs, high taxes, financial/cash flow problems, interest high/no credit, lack of good markets, and others. The survey also verified two observations made by Harvest of Hope volunteers through the years: (a) many applicants were without health insurance due to the high cost of obtaining coverage, and (b) many farm families felt strapped to the farm due to the amount of work and the difficulty of finding good, reliable hired help.
Farmers were then asked about their continuing needs at this time. Respondents offered a range of different needs or issues. In declining order, the needs were: time off (59); financial consultation (53); medical needs (50); feed for cattle (38); legal assistance (34); food stamps (31); someone to talk to (29); couples retreat (25); off-farm work (21); spiritual needs (15); job training (14); farm wife retreat (14); repairs from flooding (11); support group (10); social activities (9); see a counselor (5).
These needs were cross-checked by respondent age. While financial consultation and time off surfaced as common needs for younger and middle aged farmers and food stamps emerged as a common need between younger and older farmers, the only need that appears among the top three priorities for all three age groups is medical needs. It is clear from this survey that medical issues (lack of insurance, inadequate insurance, disabling illness, disabling injury, hospital or medical bills) were a major concern for farm families in difficult financial situations.
When asked to indicate the degree of help they had received from local agencies and organizations, several organizations were listed, including Harvest of Hope, churches, schools, Extension, social services, mental health agency, health care agency, community action, and food pantries. A weighted rating was used to reflect the overall helpfulness of agencies and the results were: Harvest of Hope (495); churches (227); extension (141); social services (89); food pantries (81); schools (68); community action (57); health care agencies (39); and mental health agencies (13).
Because all of the farm families surveyed had received direct financial assistance from the Harvest of Hope, it is not surprising that they would rate Harvest of Hope as being helpful. What is interesting is that churches and Extension were perceived as being more responsive to farm families than the helping agencies--social services, community action, health care agencies, and mental health agencies--in communities. This finding undoubtedly reflects farmers' negative experiences with these agencies as well as their lack of awareness of helping organizations in communities.
Finally, farmers were asked what, if anything, prevented them from gaining the needed services? Respondents provided a variety of different answers. The one response that came through overwhelmingly was pride (24 responses). Farmers tend to be too proud and independent to reach out for services from agencies in the community. Several farmers also commented that they were ineligible for services (14 responses) and many responded that they were not aware of what resources were available or how to tap into them (13 responses). It is clear that agencies could be doing much more to help farmers understand what services are available to farm families and what constraints they may have in addressing farm family needs.
What can Extension agents do to help farmers in crisis? One of the most helpful things an agent can do is network with other agencies in the community. Farmers in distress require a range of different resources: financial consultation, legal advice, social support, spiritual guidance, emergency needs (food, clothing, fuel oil), job counseling and/or job training, emotional counseling, and others. It is helpful if agents can be aware of these community resources and be able to refer farm families for assistance. The referral will be much more effective if the agent knows the job counselor or mental health counselor and can say "I know _________ and I think you would find him/her to be most helpful with your situation."
Given farmer's lack of awareness of resources in communities, agents can also help out by making farmers more aware of the agencies in their communities and the services they offer. This can be done in a variety of ways: newsletters, newspaper columns, service provider panels at Extension sponsored meetings, and directories of helping agencies in the county or area. The directories can be available at the Extension office and at all meetings offered by Extension, at the county fair, in churches and schools, and in the offices of all helping agencies in the community. A number of Extension offices in Wisconsin have been involved in developing agency directories--some elaborate, some simple--and it has been viewed as most helpful by farm families in need.
What else can Extension agents do? Agents can also take a leadership role in sponsoring workshops on topics of concern to distressed farmers, offering one-on-one counseling to farmers in distress, getting farmers linked with print and video resources that may be helpful to them, initiating farm family support groups, and training formal and informal helpers to be more responsive to farm families in distress. Work in these arenas can counteract the criticism sometimes leveled at Extension agents that "Extension only works with the most successful farmers in the county."
Some of the needs for financial and legal assistance that were identified in the Harvest of Hope survey can be addressed through a combination of workshops, one-on-one counseling, and linking farmers with print and video resources. This is an arena where Extension has functioned well in the past. Yet, there is a need to recognize the special needs of farmers in distress and to target some services toward these farm families. Workshops that focus on legal options and more intensive one-on-one financial counseling sessions can be most helpful. Video resources may be more helpful than print resources with farm families that are depressed, exhausted, and not able to think clearly. Videos that highlight alternative economic options (diversifying the farming operation, starting a business in the home, seeking off-farm employment) can be most helpful if they involve farmers talking about options that have worked for them (Williams, 1989).
The need for social support is also apparent from the Harvest of Hope survey. A number of farmers identified their needs for: someone to talk to, couples retreat, farm wife retreat, support group, and social activities. Agents wanting to establish farm family support groups have a number of barriers to overcome: (a) farm families have become more and more isolated as the crisis has continued, (b) families often lack the time and energy to become involved, and (c) the pride and independence of farm families can make it difficult for them to share heartfelt concerns. Some of these barriers can be overcome by following basic principles of support group formation: go where the energy is; decide on a purpose; include time for socializing; share responsibility for the group; emphasize nurturing and acceptance; make sure people have a chance to talk; encourage contacts between sessions; and emphasize the importance of confidentiality (Williams, 1990; Williams 1989). While it may be difficult to get a support group established, it can be a powerful resource for farmers in distress. One farmer from southwestern Wisconsin commented that "This group is my lifeline" and he meant it literally: it was his group that gave him the support he needed to go on living.
Creating a more supportive climate for farmers in their communities can also be a helpful role for Extension agents. This means going beyond agency networking to train formal and informal helpers in the community to be more responsive to farmers in need. The farm culture is unique--farm families are proud, independent, and self-reliant and these qualities make it hard for farm families to reach out for help when they are in need. Formal helpers (health, mental health, social services, clergy, community action, employment and training staff) and informal helpers (veterinarians, milk testers, creditors, agribusinesses, consolidated farm service workers) can be most helpful if they understand the farmers' dilemma and how to respond. Formal caregivers need to understand the current situation of farm families, the farm culture, the implications of agency policies (sliding fee scales based on gross income), and how they can be more responsive to farmers in need. Informal caregivers need to understand the signs and symptoms of distress, what resources exist in the community, how to listen and demonstrate support, and how to make referrals to helping resources. Providing training for both groups can help to create linkages between the formal and informal helpers in communities (Williams, 1995).
Finally, Extension agents can be helpful by addressing the complex web of national, state, and local policies that are making it hard to survive and be profitable as a farmer in today's economy. Agents can address the following seven issues in newsletters and newspaper columns, by sponsoring policy forums which highlight the issues, and by using their own personal influence to change the policies: (a) promoting commodity pricing which allows farmers to survive; (b) cutting property taxes and/or valuing agricultural land on the basis of its current use; (c) allowing capital gains to roll over into a retirement account so older farmers are not taxed heavily as they exit farming; (d) creating environmental policies that protect natural resources and allow farmers to produce food and earn a living; (e) providing health insurance by changing Medicaid eligibility requirements or making sure farmers are covered in health care reform packages at the federal or state level; (f) creating outreach programs to link farmers with resources to meet their financial, legal or human service needs; and (g) providing job training for distressed farmers to help them supplement their farm income or transition out of farming.
Farm families have faced a "decade of distress" as the farm crisis continues. There are several things Extension agents can do to respond to farm families in distress. The interventions outlined in this article can help Extension agents overcome the perception that Extension only works with the most successful farmers in the county.
Albee, G. (1982). Preventing psychopathology and promoting human potential. American Psychologist, 37(9), 1043-1050.
Beeson, P. G., Johnson, D. R., & Ortega, S. T. (1991). The farm crisis and mental health: A longitudinal (1981, 1986, 1989) and comparative study of the economy and mental health status. Unpublished manuscript.
Bultena, G., Lasley, P., & Geller, J. (1986). The farm crisis: Patterns and impacts of financial distress among Iowa farm families. Rural Sociology, 51(4).
Heffernan, J. B., & Heffernan, W. D. (1985). The effects of the agricultural crisis on the health and lives of farm families. Statement prepared for a hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. (Available from William Heffernan, Rural Sociology Department, University of Missouri-Columbia, 102 Sociology Building, Columbia, MO 65211)
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1981). Systematic assessment of family stress, resources and coping. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.
Walker, J. L., & Walker, L. J. S. (1988). Self reported stress symptoms in farmers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(1).
Williams, R. T. (1990). Developing farm family support groups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Williams, R. T. (1989). Economic options for Wisconsin farm families [Videos]. (Available from Roger Williams, Health and Human Issues Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 610 Langdon Street, Madison, WI 53703)
Williams, R. T. (1989). Organizing community support groups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Williams, R. T. (1995, January). The farm and rural crisis: developing services for farm families and rural communities. Paper presented at The First International Conference on Social Work in Health and Mental Health Care, Jerusalem, Israel.
Stephen F. Duncan, Ph.D.
Family and Human Development Specialist
Montana State University Extension Service
Bozeman, Montana
Internet Address: uhdsd@msu.oscs.montana.edu
Ralph Foster, M.S.
Director of Outreach Information
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
Internet Address: ralphf@uce.auburn.edu
America is a graying society. The size of the population over 65 years of age has increased far more rapidly than the rest of the population for most of this century. By the year 2030, the elderly population is expected to double (Aging in America, 1993). Responding to this trend, Extension has made programming for older persons a high priority, as emphasized by National Extension's recent "Aging in America" booklet.
Reaching out with educational programs for seniors has also been a high priority in Alabama. It has been observed that a number of different organizations and educational institutions were working very hard to serve the educational needs of older persons. However, most groups were working independently of one another with little coordination of effort. On the Auburn campus, resident instructional and Extension faculty tended to not work together on projects for older persons and little effort was being made to address their educational needs from an interdisciplinary perspective. Consequently, it seemed that lowering interdisciplinary and organizational barriers and working collaboratively would be a more effective way to meet the needs of our growing aged population. This article describes what the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service and its collaborators did to promote interdisciplinary programming for older persons.
Under the leadership of an Extension specialist, an Interdisciplinary Aging Team (IAT) was organized. It was comprised of Extension specialists, departmental faculty, and staff from the Centers on Aging and Governmental Services. Eleven disciplines were represented: family and human development, family resource management, nursing, health and human performance, psychology, clothing and textiles, governmental services, housing and safety, nutrition, economics, and gerontology. External partners, such as the Area Agency on Aging and the Alabama State Commission on Aging , were also members of the team. Center staff and external partners assisted the discipline-based faculty by providing information regarding state and local data on older persons. They also assisted with data collection needed for targeting programs, providing valuable insights into content and process of educational programs, and collaborated in the actual development of these programs. At the university level, the IAT later functioned for a time as an ad hoc committee appointed by the Vice President for Extension/Director of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, to facilitate communication, collaboration, direction, and resource sharing among groups interested in educational programs for older persons.
By fostering internal interest and collaboration on multidisciplinary projects and activities related to aging, the IAT focused on creating or disseminating community-based programs in which senior citizens have meaningful social roles, educational experiences, and/or productive volunteer work assignments. The major objectives of the IAT, adapted from the objectives of the Senior Series program, were to stimulate programs that:
Having objectives is one thing. But can an interdisciplinary, interagency group really work together effectively to provide practical benefits for older persons? Here is an example of what was accomplished.
A few of the IAT members had recently received training in the original Senior Series program, developed by the University of Missouri-Extension and funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The team was impressed with the content and organization of the material, but weren't sure if the program covered the particular needs of older persons in Alabama, especially those with limited resources. Thus, members of the IAT worked together to develop an assessment tool that would help determine the kinds of topics older adults would like to know about and in what form (e.g., classes, radio, television, etc.) they would like to receive that information. Topic areas addressed in the assessment included physical health and comfort, mental health and well-being, literacy and education, housing and energy conservation, personal and family relationships, planning for retirement, government programs and community services, death and dying, and consumerism. Several subtopics were listed under each general topic area. For instance, under the general topic area "Physical Health and Comfort," subtopics such as "physical changes experienced as we grow older" and "food and nutrition" were listed. The IAT had at least one person per general area with recognized expertise in that area.
In Alabama, many limited resource older persons congregate in neighborhood senior centers. Education coordinators at five senior centers were contacted and agreed to participate in an assessment of seniors' educational needs. Each coordinator explained to their seniors the purpose of the assessment and asked for volunteer participation. A total of 80 limited resource seniors agreed to be interviewed (20, 13, 23, 10, and 14 per center, respectively). Two undergraduate interns trained in interviewing skills conducted the assessments. Respondents were asked about how much they needed information in the various topic areas. Possible responses ranged from "A Great Deal" to "No Additional Information." They were also asked where they typically acquired information in the topic area, the source of information they used most often (or best source), and from what sources they would prefer to get the information.
Findings from this assessment suggested the need to expand certain Senior Series program guides and/or add new ones. For example, in the Government and Community Services area, nearly three-fourths of the respondents reported some or a great need for information about Medicaid, a topic not addressed in the current materials. In the Personal and Family Relationships area, nearly two-thirds of senior center participants reported some or a great deal of need for information about friendships during later life, likewise not addressed by the current Senior Series.
Overall, the greatest percentage of seniors said they were getting their information on topics from television (43%), followed by professionals (31%), and radio (27%). Television was the most frequently indicated source of information on every topic except physical health and comfort (professionals were most frequently indicated), and personal and family relationships (friends were most frequently indicated). The greatest number of seniors (40% overall) indicated television to be the best source of information on topics, followed by professionals (31%), and radio (25%). Again, television was most frequently indicated as the best source of information on every topic except physical health and comfort (professionals were most frequently indicated), and mental health and well-being (professionals were most frequently indicated).
The greatest percentage of seniors (44% overall) also indicated television as their preferred source of information, followed by professionals (30%), and radio (26%). Television was the most frequently preferred source for every topic except physical health and comfort (professionals were most frequently indicated). In summary, findings from the assessment suggested that more limited resource seniors would be reached if instructional materials were adapted for media outlets and for distribution by professionals.
In response to the assessment, members of the IAT agreed to develop the needed instructional units and adaptations in their particular areas of expertise. Adaptations for television (e.g., videos) were not attempted at this time. A five-day, system-wide training was held for county Extension faculty and their local collaborators on the adapted Senior Series. Members of the IAT agreed to do the training. Each participant received two Senior Series notebooks, plus an adaptation notebook put together by the IAT. Feedback from participants in the training was very positive.
Response from Alabama Extension field faculty using the adapted Senior Series has likewise been positive. Agents are using the materials for newsletters, leader training, and special interest classes. They enjoy the quality and adaptability of the programs. One agent wrote, "The Senior Series has been wonderful for me. I've used material for quarterly newsletters at Senior Centers, information for news articles, and started a Creative Aging Radio Program that has a sponsor. The grandmother of a rising country star is on the program (it's twice a month); so there have been requests for our program as far away as California."
The IAT also identified many other opportunities for educational efforts to benefit older Alabamians. For example, team members discussed utilizing existing state Extension information networks as a clearinghouse for information promoting senior adults as volunteers for public service organizations. This clearinghouse would provide information and consultation to seniors desiring involvement, as well as to public organizations seeking senior volunteers. This would help define expectations, increase volunteer effectiveness, and promote productive senior involvement in meaningful public activities.
The story of the IAT shows what can be accomplished when a group of individuals and a university make a commitment of its resources and faculty expertise to serve a growing population of older persons. Interdisciplinary collaboration can enable cooperating agencies and communities to be more responsive and proactive to the needs of that population, and to demonstrate the values of the knowledge, talents, skills, and life experiences of senior adults. The process used by the IAT to more adequately address the educational needs of older persons can be replicated in any Extension program area.
Garee W. Earnest, Ph.D.
Program Leader
OSU Extension Leadership Center
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet address: earnest.1@osu.edu
Leadership is not an innate characteristic, and can be developed through formal and informal training (Bolton, 1991). Leadership can also be developed through properly designed leadership projects. An impact assessment of the public affairs leadership programs in California, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania concluded that leadership programs make a difference in the lives of participants (Howell, Weir & Cook, 1979).
Community leadership development programs in Ohio have existed for several years with more added each year. In particular, Ohio State University (OSU) Extension, in conjunction with Project EXCEL (Excellence in Community Elected and Appointed Leadership), assists Ohio counties in developing and teaching community leadership programs. However, the impact of community leadership programs upon the participants and the communities within Ohio has not been appropriately documented.
The purpose of this study was to identify potential impacts of community leadership development programs on program participants' leadership skills. The specific objective of the study was to assess the impact of each community leadership program on the leadership skills acquired by program participants.
Many community leadership programs exist across the United States. Community leadership programs from California, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Washington were reviewed. Although the programs differed in format and length, and were geared specifically to a particular community, similar outcomes have been reported.
The most often cited benefit of community leadership programming was increased citizen involvement/volunteer activity (Grimshaw, 1982; Kimball, Andrews & Quiroz, 1987; Kincaid & Knop, 1992; Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee, 1991; Williams, 1981). Another frequently reported benefit included increased leadership skills (Rohs & Langone, 1993; Whent & Leising, 1992; Seeley, 1981; Williams). Increased confidence was reported by Rohs and Langone, Kimball et al., and Williams.
Additionally, increased networking among participants and/or community groups was reported by Langone and Rohs (1992), Kincaid and Knop (1992), Whent and Leising (1992), and the Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee (1991). A broadened or different perspective was reported by Langone and Rohs, Whent and Leising, and the Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee, whereas education on community issues was found by Rohs and Langone (1993), Whent and Leising, the Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee, and Kimball et al., (1987).
Although increased leadership skills were found by four studies, the Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee (1991) and Kimball et al., (1987) reported no significant increase in these skills. Taking on a new leadership role was reported in studies by Rohs and Langone (1993), and Grimshaw (1982), whereas Kimball et al., found no change in leadership roles. Increased listening/communication skills was reported by Grimshaw and Seeley (1981) and a shift in community organization activity to those organizations that have more impact on the community was reported by Kimball et al., and Williams (1981).
This descriptive exploratory study was initiated in 1993. Community leadership programs included in the study must have been supported by OSU Extension and Project EXCEL in the planning or teaching of at least 50% of their leadership programs during the 1992-93 program year. A total of seven county programs met this criterion. Participants for this study consisted of a census of 67 program participants, a purposeful sample of 36 program alumni, and a census of the seven program directors.
Kouzes' and Posner's (1993) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was used as pre- and post assessments for program participants. The response rate was 85.1% (57 participants completed the program, five participants did not complete their program and five participants had incomplete data).
In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with the seven program directors and focus group interviews were conducted with six of the 1992-93 community leadership program alumni groups by OSU Extension personnel. The main purpose of the director interviews and focus group interviews was to gather overall impressions about their respective leadership programs.
Quantitative data from the Leadership Practices Inventory were analyzed utilizing SPSS for Windows 6.0. Program director and focus group interviews were analyzed using Ethnograph, a qualitative software computer program.
Table 1 displays pre- and post-test mean scores for the Leadership Practices Inventory. T-tests for dependent groups were used to make sure differences were not due to chance. Program participants significantly increased (p<.01) their leadership skills in each area of the Leadership Practices Inventory.
|
Table 1 Paired t-Tests for Leadership Practices Inventory (n = 57) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | sd. | p |
| Challenging the Process | |||
| Pre-Test | 3.48 | .59 | <.01 |
| Post Test | 3.80 | .53 | |
| Inspiring a Shared Vision | |||
| Pre-Test | 3.16 | .68 | <.01 |
| Post Test | 3.51 | .59 | |
| Enabling Others to Act | |||
| Pre-Test | 3.84 | .44 | <.01 |
| Post Test | 4.15 | .41 | |
| Modeling the Way | |||
| Pre-Test | 3.40 | .49 | <.01 |
| Post Test | 3.80 | .46 | |
| Encouraging the Heart | |||
| Pre-Test | 3.74 | .69 | <.01 |
| Post Test | 3.99 | .65 | |
General themes of personal and community benefits, benefits attributed to OSU Extension and Project EXCEL, and program improvement suggestions were identified from the qualitative analyses. Benefits identified by program directors included community awareness, understanding and interacting with others, an increased sense of teamwork, development of local leaders, implementation of community projects, availability of quality instructors for reasonable fees, and increased networking with Extension. Program directors felt local programs could be improved by addressing less topics per day, holding class sessions only during the fall, winter, and spring months, increasing sponsorship by local businesses and agencies, and keeping alumni actively involved with future classes.
Benefits identified by alumni included improved personal communication skills, personal networking within the community, community awareness, increased self-confidence, motivation and risk taking, understanding and interacting with others, a broadened perspective on many issues, improved teamwork, and improved problem solving abilities. Alumni felt that gaining insight as to how government officials and agencies interrelate was an additional benefit. Program improvements identified by alumni included wanting to spend more time applying leadership skills (experiential learning) than just learning academic theory, needing a class project to practice leadership skills learned, reducing the amount of content and allowing more time for class discussion, improving recruitment efforts for future classes, and increasing community awareness of the leadership program.
Differences in the pre- and post-assessments indicated that the participants improved their leadership skills and practices as a result of participating in the respective community leadership programs. Participants (a) were more willing to challenge the status quo and take risks; (b) broadened and changed their perspective of leadership roles/responsibilities within the community and were encouraging others to accept some leadership responsibility; (c) developed a greater appreciation for teamwork and collaboration within their community and improved their problem solving skills; and (d) learned to adapt their leadership styles to fit different contexts within the community.
Through the face-to-face and focus group interviews, perceptual insights were gained on how community leadership programs contributed to participants' personal and professional lives and to the community. Alumni were highly complimentary of their respective leadership programs. The most common benefits reported by alumni were: (a) increased networking within the community; (b) developed a greater understanding and ability to interact with people; (c) increased self-confidence and the personal motivation to become actively involved in community affairs; and (d) developed an understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of their leadership responsibility as a citizen.
Program directors and alumni identified several recommendations to improve the quality of the leadership programs. Programmatically, suggestions were to: (a) include additional topics such as grantsmanship, customer relations, boardsmanship, economic development, reinventing government, and public speaking; (b) allow the class participants to develop their program agendas and goals in collaboration with program directors to make the program more learner centered; (c) reduce the amount of content per program day to allow the participants more time for discussion, reflection, and to see the relevance of the concepts being taught; (d) develop workshops, seminars, discussion groups, and other means of making leadership development a life long learning process; and (e) continue to promote the community leadership program within the community and secure additional funds from corporate and local sponsors.
Community leadership programs should incorporate curriculum application of leadership skills in addition to leadership awareness. Allocating more time for hands-on practical learning experiences would enhance community leadership programs. As suggested by alumni, assigning a class group project would help participants apply the leadership skills learned throughout the program.
Advanced educational programming should be made available for those alumni wanting to pursue a more in-depth study of leadership. A needs assessment should be conducted with alumni of community leadership programs to determine what topics should be addressed in subsequent workshops.
More in depth study to develop an individual's leadership behaviors and actions should be incorporated into the programs and less time should be spent on community awareness. Community leadership programs should be designed in two phases. The first phase should be designed for the development of participant's leadership behaviors and actions, and to learn about community issues. The second phase should incorporate the application of the behaviors and actions through a class project.
Annual educational workshops should be provided for program directors on adult education training techniques. These workshops would allow program directors to enhance their teaching skills and develop additional capacities for future programming efforts.
Bolton, E. B. (1991). Developing local leaders: Results of a structured learning experience. Journal of the Community Development Society, 21(1), 119-143.
Grimshaw, W. F. (1982, December). Grassroots leadership training: A case study of a model in action. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Community Education Association, Atlanta, GA.
Howell, R. E., Weir, I. L., & Cook, A. K. (1979). Public affairs leadership program: An impact assessment of programs conducted in California, Michigan, Montana, & Pennsylvania. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Kimball, W., Andrews, M., & Quiroz, C. (1987). Impacts on the participants of five expanding horizons leadership development programs in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service.
Kincaid, J. M., Jr., & Knop, E. C. (1992). Insights and implications from the Colorado rural revitalization project, 1988-1991: A final evaluation report. Colorado State Department of Local Affairs, Denver; Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Center for Rural Assistance; Colorado University, Denver; Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Leadership practices inventory: Trainer's manual. San Diego: Pfeiffer.
Langone, C. A., & Rohs, F. R. (1992). Community leadership a force for future change: An impact assessment of Georgia's community leadership a county perspective program. Athens: University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service.
Leadership Tomorrow Evaluation Committee. (1991). Leadership tomorrow report of the evaluation committee. Seattle, WA: Author.
Rohs, F. R., & Langone, C. A. (1993). Assessing leadership and problem-solving skills and their impacts in the community. Evaluation Review, 17(1), 109-115.
Seeley, J. A. (1981). Development of a model network of university/community team leadership final report. Akron, OH: Akron University.
Whent, L. S., & Leising, J. G. (1992). A twenty-year evaluation of the California agricultural leadership program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 32-39.
Williams, A. S. (1981). Training rural citizens: An evaluation of a leadership training program. Journal of the Community Development Society, 12(1), 63-82.
Rama B. Radhakrishna
Research Associate
Internet address: rradhakr@psupen.psu.edu
Joan S. Thomson
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
The Pennsylvania State University
What, when, and how information is gathered and used by Extension agents is of critical importance in meeting the information needs of such agents and the clientele they serve. Identification and understanding of their search and use of information sources will go a long way in improving delivery methods for Extension. As Extension educators consider various delivery methods, inquiries must be made concerning the usefulness and appropriateness of delivery methods, type of audience, educational level of learners, skills of Extension agents, and their educational goals. These inquiries become even more critical in the context of budget cuts, reduced staff, professional development goals, and efficient use of resources.
Several studies have been conducted regarding information use by Extension agents (Burns & Anderson, 1973; Shih & Evans, 1991). These studies suggest that Extension specialists, agricultural experiment station bulletins, Extension publications, and farm magazines are major information sources consulted by Extension agents. Agnew (1991) found that state Extension directors perceived that program delivery approaches will change in the next five years. These changes include increased use of electronic communications and instructional devices. The electronic changes most often mentioned were increased use of telecommunication as a mode of delivery, access to electronic data sources, interactive instructional video, and increased use of computer technology.
The overall purpose of this study was to examine information use by Extension agents in the United States. The first objective was to determine agents' search for and use of information--that is, how soon they need an item for information and for what purpose they need that information. The second objective was to identify information sources that Extension agents most frequently used. The third objective was to determine differences, if any, between frequency of use of information sources and agents' demographic characteristics (age, gender, education level, and primary area of program responsibility).
A mail questionnaire was used to collect data. A stratified random sample of 305 agents (stratified by Extension regions) was drawn from 1,515 Extension agents in eight randomly selected states: Iowa, Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, Georgia, Texas, Colorado, and Oregon. The questionnaire, developed by the researchers, had three sections: (a) agents' information search and use; (b) frequency of use of information sources measured on a five-point, Likert scale which ranged from 1(none) to 5 (once a day); and (c) demographic information (age, gender, highest education level, major for the highest degree, and primary area of program responsibility). The questionnaire was assessed for content and face validity by a panel of experts in agricultural communications and research methodology. Items that were measured on the Likert scale were assessed for reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Results of reliability analysis indicated that the questionnaire had acceptable reliability (alpha = .81). After the initial mailing and two follow-ups, a total of 191 (63%) agents responded. Early and late respondents were compared on key variables as per procedures suggested by Miller and Smith (1983). No significant differences were found between the two groups and the data were generalized to the population. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA.
Demographic Profile of Agents
The 91 female and 100 male agents had an average age of 43 years. Age of respondents ranged from 21 to 66 years old. Agents averaged 13 years of work experience. A majority of agents (74%) reported a master's degree as their highest level of education. Agriculture was the primary area of program responsibility for 73 agents, family living/home economics for 53 agents, and 4-H/youth development for 41 agents. Twenty-three agents were in the "other" category (forestry, community development, and natural resources).
Objective 1--Search for and Use of Information Sources
Agents were asked to indicate: (a) when they need an item for information; (b) causes for information search; and (c) frequently searched subject-matter areas. Seventy-seven percent of agents indicated that they needed an item for information the same day. To answer a clients' inquiry was the most frequent cause for searching information (94%), followed by preparing for a training program (63%), report preparation (56%), collecting research-based information (36%), preparing for a presentation (35%), and preparing a radio program (33%). The most frequently searched subject area was county information (48%), followed by 4-H (46%), pesticide application (38%), crop production (38%), farm management (36%), livestock feeding (30%), food processing (24%), leasing (22%), and nursery production (21%).
Objective 2--Frequency of Use of Information Sources
Agents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 (none) to 5 (once a day), the extent they communicate with 21 information sources. Extension agents communicate with clients (4.85), followed by another agent in the office (4.62), another agent in another county (3.95), Extension specialists (3.72), their immediate supervisor (3.66), local news agencies (3.66), local business organizations (3.20), state and federal agencies (3.04), and local school teachers and administrators (3.00). Agents communicate at least once a year with Extension workers in another state and non-Extension university faculty.
Objective 3--Demographic Differences
T-tests and ANOVA results indicated significant differences between frequency of use of information sources and agents' age, gender, highest education level, and primary area of program responsibility. Older agents (over 44 years old) communicated more frequently than younger agents with Extension program advisory committees. Younger agents (less than 44 years old) were more likely than older agents to communicate with local school teachers and administrators. Male agents differed from female agents by more frequently communicating with Extension specialists, Extension workers in another state, non-Extension university faculty, and state and federal agencies. Female agents communicated more frequently than male agents with other community organizations.
Agents with B.S. degrees communicated more frequently with their immediate supervisors, county commissioners, and local school teachers and administrators than agents with M.S. and Ph.D. degrees. Agents with Ph.D. degrees communicated with agents in another county and in another state more often than agents with B.S. and M.S. degrees.
Agricultural agents differed from family living and 4-H agents by more frequently communicating with Extension specialists, Extension workers in another state, and non-Extension university faculty (Table 1). 4-H and family living agents communicated more frequently with local school teachers and administrators and youth organizations than agricultural and other agents.
|
Table 1 ANOVA Results for Primary Area of Program Responsibility and Frequency of Use of Information Sources | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information Source | 4-H/YD Mean(a) | FL/HE Mean(a) | AG Mean(a) | Others Mean(a) | F Ratio |
| Extension specialist | 3.61A | 3.35A | 3.93B | 4.13B | 8.76** |
| My immediate supervisor | 4.00A | 3.58A | 3.60A | 3.43A | 2.83* |
| Extension worker in another state | 1.89A | 1.86A | 2.30B | 2.30B | 4.80** |
| Non-Extension university faculty | 2.31A | 1.86A | 2.49B | 2.74B | 7.93** |
| Local school teachers and administrators | 3.49A | 3.06A | 2.72B | 2.87A | 6.85* |
| Youth organizations | 3.36A | 2.66B | 2.93B | 2.53B | 5.50** |
| State and federal agencies | 2.66A | 2.96A | 3.19B | 3.35B | 4.89* |
| Other community organizations | 3.17A | 3.36A | 2.87A | 3.17A | 3.46* |
| Local news agencies | 3.56A | 3.83A | 3.68A | 3.35A | 2.87* |
| Note. 4-H/YD = 4-H and Youth Development; FL/HE = Family Living and Home Economics; AG = Agriculture; Others = Forestry, Community Development, and Administration; (a) The mean can range from 1 (none) to 5 (once per day). Means followed by the same alphabet are not significantly different from each other at .05 (*) and .001(**) levels as computed by Scheffe post-hoc test. | |||||
Extension agents regularly seek information to carry out their day-to-day work. Agents searched a variety of information sources not only for their own knowledge, but also to meet the information needs of their clients. These findings suggest that agents should not only be fairly knowledgeable in subject-matter areas, but they should also be aware of where, from whom, and how to find information to answer a client's inquiry.
Extension agents frequently communicate with a variety of information sources. Prominent among these were: clients, another agent in the office, another agent in another county, Extension specialists, their immediate supervisor, local news agencies, local business organizations, state, and federal agencies, and local school teachers and administrators.
Several reasons could account for the differences in demographic characteristics and frequency of use of information sources. Younger agents are more likely to be 4-H and youth agents (39% of 4-H agents were below 35 years of age compared to 19% family living agents, and 26% agriculture agents). Moreover, the program emphasis of these agents is to work with children and youth. Therefore, it is possible that they more frequently communicated with local school teachers and administrators. On the other hand, it appears that older agents, who have been in the system for a longer time, are more comfortable working with Extension program advisory committees. Male agents predominantly are agricultural agents and are most likely to communicate with Extension specialists in subject-matter areas of agronomy, pathology, soil science, and entomology. In addition, state and federal agencies are a major source of information on issues such as IPM, soil conservation, etc. Female agents, on the other hand, frequently communicated with community organizations, mainly because the programs of these organizations are more concerned with communities--food, health, nutrition, clothing, etc.
Extension agents work in communities. Agents, regardless of their primary area of responsibility and education level, frequently communicated with community organizations and local news agencies. Agents have to be in constant contact with local news agencies to publicize Extension programs and events. As such, agents frequently communicate with media personnel.
The differences among demographic characteristics and the frequency of use of information sources suggest that specialists who develop educational materials should look into demographic characteristics of agents and the type of information delivery methods they use when designing and developing Extension program materials.
The findings of this study should be shared with staff development personnel and Extension information services so that informed decisions are made in the development, publication, and delivery of educational materials.
References
Agnew, D. M. (1991). Extension program delivery trends. Journal of Extension, 29(2), 34.
Burns, R. W., & Anderson, L. W. (1973). The elements of access to agricultural sciences information within Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Fort Collins: Colorado State University Libraries.
Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 24, 11-13.
Shih, W. Y., & Evans, J. F. (1991). Where field staff get information--approaching the electronic times. Journal of Extension, 29(3), 16-19.
Barbara H. James
Extension Agent
Family and Consumer Sciences/Community Development
Internet address: geau@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu
Randall E. James
Extension Agent
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ohio State University Extension
Geauga County Office
Burton, Ohio
USDA #1, Choice, Jumbo, Fancy, Cutter... agricultural commodity grade names. What do they mean to the consumer? Do they assist the consumer in making educated choices about a product... or do they mean nothing?
Grading standards and grade names have developed over the years to assist in the long distance trading of agricultural products. They are important marketing tools for growers, handlers, processors and large terminal markets. They serve a number of functions in the wholesale market. But they have not been developed to communicate with consumers (Janick, 1986; Lieberman, 1983). An opportunity exists for Extension professionals to work with commodity groups to develop understandable grade names that convey information about the product to the consumer; while maintaining the integrity of the grading system for the benefit of the wholesale market.
This article examines a progressive three step method, including focus group interviews, survey instrument development and a national mail survey, to identify consumer understandable grade names. This method has potential for use in generating consumer understandable grade names for many food products. The example used in this article is pure maple syrup.
Step 1 - Focus Group Interviews
Focus group interviews were conducted with consumers to identify purchasing criteria and proposed grade names based on that identified criteria.
Participants in the focus groups were randomly selected from producer/retailers' mailing lists of annual purchasers of maple syrup as provided by board members of the Ohio Maple Syrup Producers Association. Each group had seven to nine men and women of various ages (Archer, 1987; Greenbaum, 1988). Questions and questioning procedures were reviewed and edited by an Ohio State University Extension faculty member who has a specialty in focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were conducted until little new information was provided. Three focus group interviews were conducted (Krueger, 1988).
The focus group process identified color and flavor as the primary criteria used by consumers in purchasing pure maple syrup. The grade names "delicate," "standard," and "hearty" were gleaned from the focus group information and suggested as replacements for the existing USDA system USDA Grade A Light Amber, Medium Amber, and Dark Amber.
It would be tempting to simply take the information gleaned from the focus group interviews, draw conclusions and make recommendations to the industry. However, focus groups are better used to provide information to assist in conducting additional research (Greenbaum, 1988). Therefore the information was used to develop a survey instrument.
Step 2 - Survey Instrument
The development of an original questionnaire was the most challenging part of this research methodology. The instrument needed to measure the respondent's ability to match definitions based on the focus group identified criteria of color and flavor with various grade names.
The industry has traditionally used the USDA grade name system and the Vermont name system which only described the color of maple syrup grades. These two grading name systems were pitted against the focus group suggested set, which the focus groups felt more fully described the sensory properties of the product. A completely bogus system (the beef grading system) never used by the industry was also included (Table 1).
|
Table 1 Maple Syrup Grade Names Tested | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Set 1 Current USDA | Set 2 Focus Group | Set 3 Bogus | Set 4 Vermont | |
| Lightest Grade | Grade A Light Amber | Delicate | Prime | Fancy |
| Medium Grade | Grade A Medium Amber | Standard | Choice | Grade A Medium Amber |
| Darkest Grade | Grade A Dark Amber | Hearty | Good | Grade A Dark Amber |
Each page of the survey instrument contained a different set of grade names. Definitions, based on information from focus group interviews, followed. The consumer was asked to match each grade name with the most appropriate definition. A sample page from the instrument (with the correct responses) appears in Table 2. The survey instrument was field tested by eleven customers of pure maple syrup.
| Table 2 Maple Syrup Grade Names Survey Instrument Page |
|---|
| Set 1 |
| Number of Correct Definition |
| 2. Grade A Light Amber |
| 5. Grade A Medium Amber |
| 3. Grade A Dark Amber |
| Definitions |
| 1. A GOLDEN SYRUP WITH A STRONG FLAVOR |
| 2. A PALE GOLDEN SYRUP WITH A MILD FLAVOR |
| 3. A DEEP GOLDEN SYRUP WITH A STRONG FLAVOR |
| 4. A PALE GOLDEN SYRUP WITH THE CUSTOMARY MAPLE FLAVOR |
| 5. A GOLDEN SYRUP WITH THE CUSTOMARY MAPLE FLAVOR |
| 6. A DEEP GOLDEN SYRUP WITH A MILD FLAVOR |
Step 3 - Mail Survey
It is recommended that focus group interviews be used early in the research process for idea generation. A more quantitative research study should then be used to test the new ideas with a larger population (Greenbaum, 1988). The information gleaned from the focus group interviews and used to develop the survey instrument, became the basis for conducting a mail survey of 100% pure maple syrup customers across the United States. Customer names were provided by North American Maple Syrup Council members from their mailing lists. Five hundred sixty-five maple syrup customers were surveyed with 349 questionnaires returned (62% rate). Questionnaires were mailed three times.
Reliability was determined on each of the grading name sets using a Kuder Richardson Reliability test. Reliability for each set was as follows: Set 1 (USDA) 0.2308, Set 2 (focus group suggested) 0.5011, Set 3 (bogus) 0.47777, and Set 4 (Vermont system) 0.2531. The focus group suggested name set was the most accurate, dependable and consistent. Set 3 the bogus system was also fairly reliable (0.47777), this can be explained by the fact that the bogus system is actually the beef grading system of prime, choice and good. Therefore the set's internal reliability is not surprising. However, a one-sample chi-square analysis conducted on the four sets of grade names revealed that the expected distribution frequency relative to the observed distribution was so small for the "bogus" system that it was dropped from further analysis.
The "focus group suggested" grade name system was clearly the most understandable by maple syrup customers. Forty-four percent of the respondents correctly matched all three grade names with the appropriate characteristics. Twenty-five percent matched the USDA system, twelve percent matched the Vermont system and eight percent matched the bogus system.
The three step methodology outlined in this article can utilize the expertise of Extension professionals working in agriculture, community development and consumer science. Extension professionals have an opportunity to assist commodity groups, anywhere in the country, develop consumer understandable grade names. The new names will allow product grading systems to communicate not only to wholesale buyers and sellers, but to retail consumers as well. Extension can therefore help reduce confusion in the marketplace by helping producers and consumers communicate more clearly.
The idea is catching on! At least one commodity group, The Alaskan Birch Syrup Makers Association, is currently adapting this methodology for use with their product.
Archer, T. (1987). Focus group interview. Edge Guide to Evaluation Fact Sheet. Columbus: The Ohio State University Extension.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1988). The practical handbook and guide to focus group research. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Janick, J. (1986). Horticultural science. New York: Freeman.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups--A practical guide for applied research. Newberry Park, CA: Sages.
Lieberman, M. (1983). Post-harvest physiology and crop preservation. New York: Plenum.
Michael Score
Extension Associate
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
Internet address: mscore@ca.uky.edu
Extension workers are often faced with the responsibility of selecting proposals for participation in funded program initiatives. This article focuses on the use of Hard Talk as an evaluation tool in selection of grant proposals for Extension educational initiatives.
In 1994, a grant was awarded to five Kentucky agricultural institutions for the purpose of conducting a study in integrated farm systems and farm system sustainability. Reference to the original proposal reveals a commitment to a complex set of criteria for distribution of grant resources at the local level.
Publicity about state-wide goals and objectives was circulated through participating agricultural institution networks. Forty-seven applications were received. Site visits were arranged as proposals came in. The purpose of the visits was to determine to what extent local initiatives were compatible with overall project goals and objectives. In preparation for the first two visits, a questionnaire was designed to gain insights into what groups wa
