August 2006
Volume 44 Number 4

Features

Preparing Extension Professionals: The Ohio State University's Model of Extension Education

Scott D. Scheer
Associate Professor and State Extension Specialist
scheer.9@osu.edu

Theresa M. Ferrari
Assistant Professor and State Extension Specialist
ferrari.8@osu.edu

Garee W. Earnest
Associate Professor & Program Leader, OSU Leadership Center
earnest.1@osu.edu

James J. Connors
Assistant Professor
connors.49@osu.edu

The Ohio State University & OSU Extension
Columbus, Ohio

Introduction

Extension systems throughout the United States require individuals to have college degrees to work as Extension professionals. At the county Extension educator or agent level, some states currently require a bachelor's degree (e.g., Kentucky and Michigan), while others call for a master's degree (e.g., Ohio and Nevada). State-level Extension specialists and administrative positions typically call for a doctoral degree. Successful Extension educators take many different avenues to attain their positions. Sometimes, a particular content area such as crop science, human development, family science, or natural resources is the focus. In other cases, degrees are attained with a specific focus on Extension Education.

Students have unique educational needs, and thus there are different routes to help them become most qualified for an Extension position. Factors that affect the types of degrees future Extension educators receive include program area of interest (e.g., 4-H Youth Development, Agricultural and Natural Resources), previous work experience (e.g., Extension-related, content area), and long-term career goals (e.g., administrative positions, specialist roles). This article shares our approach to educating Extension professionals as a way to promote discussion and research for developing and improving academic programs in Extension Education throughout the United States and beyond.

Extension Education in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development

Extension Education in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development (HCRD) is best described as a professional program with foundations in various disciplines (e.g., youth development, adult education, psychology, agricultural sciences, sociology, leadership development, and family studies). Currently, HCRD at The Ohio State University (OSU) not only includes Extension Education, but also the fields of Agricultural Education (which was the previous name of department), Agricultural Communication, and Rural Sociology.

The Extension Education program is grounded in the following strengths: (1) the diverse scope and focus of Extension Education faculty members' teaching and research experience; (2) the flexibility of the graduate program in Extension Education (for students focused in Extension, general non-profit administration, and youth development); and (3) direct and ongoing relationships with OSU Extension through joint and no-salary appointments.

The OSU Extension Education faculty work to create an environment conducive for learning that is research based and relevant beyond the academic setting, as evident in our scholarship of application. In tandem, we work with students to help them develop and assume successful roles as leaders, Extension educators, and scholars who promote positive changes for individuals, families, and communities.

The undergraduate program in HCRD was revised to include a specific track in Extension Education. The other tracks are Teacher Education and general studies in Agricultural Education. The focus of the undergraduate Extension Education track is to provide a foundation for future Extension professionals in general areas of program development, teaching methods, communications, and program management. In addition students are required to complete an early field experience and an Extension internship. Undergraduate students are awarded Bachelor of Science degrees in Agricultural Education, which will change in the near future to Agricultural and Extension Education to clearly indicate that Extension Education content area.

Master of Science (thesis required), Master of Education (applied, non-thesis option), and Doctor of Philosophy degrees with an emphasis on Extension Education are offered in HCRD. The graduate program offers both breadth and depth.

The Ph.D. applicant must document a minimum of 3 years of work in Extension or Extension-oriented careers. The experience may involve domestic or international Extension positions in a variety of program areas. Each application is examined individually so as to determine what constitutes Extension or Extension-related work experience. The experience requirement helps doctoral students have a real-world foundation for their advanced studies. Graduate students earn degrees in Human and Community Resource Development, which will also change to Agricultural and Extension Education to better reflect the content of the academic area to improve the visibility for both the undergraduate and graduate degrees.

Purpose and Theoretical Foundations

We believe our primary purpose, in regards to students with a focus in Extension Education, is to provide them with the overall background and knowledge necessary for a successful future in Extension or Extension-related careers. Our Extension Education core competencies are based on the research literature (Cooper & Graham, 2001; Levine, 2004) and the essential skills required for employment by state Extension organizations. The competency areas are as follows:

1. Extension knowledge, leadership, and management
2. Technology
3. Communications
4. Program planning, implementation, and evaluation
5. Applied research
6. Diversity and pluralism
7. Marketing and public relations
8. Theories of human development and learning
9. Risk management
10. Community development process and diffusion.

Figure 1 depicts the core competency areas in a conceptual model.

Figure 1.
Extension Education Program Model

The core competency areas listed in Figure 1 are grounded in specific theoretical foundations of our Extension Education program. The theoretical foundations are given below, with a partial list of supporting references:

• Program Development and Evaluation (e.g., Bennett, 1975; Boone, Safrit, & Jones, 2002; Boyle, 1981; Caffarella, 2002; Cervero & Wilson, 1994; Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997)

• Human Development and Developmental Systems Theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Gardner, 1983; Hamilton & Hamilton, 2004; Scheer, 1997; Sternberg, 1985)

• Adult Learning (e.g., Brookfield, 1988; Knowles, 1990; Knowles, Holton, III, & Swanson, 1998)

• Program Management (e.g., Bryson, 1995; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Herman et al., 1993; Kreitner, 1995)

• Leadership (e.g., Burns, 1978; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Yukl, 1994)

• Volunteer Management (e.g., Buford, Bededian, & Lindner, 1994; Vineyard, 1993)

• Communication (e.g., Bovee & Thill, 1998; Burnett & Tucker, 2001; Polnac, Grant, & Cameron, 1999)

• Community Development (e.g., Lackey & Pratuckchai, 1991; Rogers, 1995).

In turn, these competency areas, guided by the theoretical foundations and practical needs of the Extension profession, are infused into the coursework.

Coursework in Extension Education

Coursework in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development (HCRD) has been designed and continually modified to provide learning environments necessary for success as an Extension professional. We also incorporate classes from other departments throughout the university to reach this desired goal. Table 1 illustrates how undergraduate and graduate courses are matched with the core competencies. Although some courses are more closely connected with the core competencies (e.g., Program Development in Extension), other competencies (e.g., human development and learning) are distributed over several courses.

When we initially developed this table, it allowed us to identify several gaps. This led us to consider whether we needed to add required courses to ensure that all competency areas were addressed. For example, Rural Sociology (RS) 622 Diffusion of Innovations was added because none of the other courses included this content. Furthermore, we have been able to make more subtle changes in the content and methods of existing courses.

Whenever possible, core competencies have both a theoretical and an applied component. For example, in the program development in Extension course (420), the focus is on the theory and process of program development in Extension; the opportunity to put the theory and process into practice is provided in the internship (560). With competencies such as research and evaluation, a series of courses is provided at the graduate level to encompass the desired depth. Thus, multiple quantitative and qualitative research courses are required for the Ph.D. degree in HCRD.

The HCRD teaching methods course (530) has one section (530.01 Æ Methods of Teaching in Non-Formal Learning Environments) that is directed for students in the Extension Education track. The Extension Education track focuses on preparing students in non-formal education settings while using actual Extension teaching scenarios. Extension Education students develop a program plan as compared to a lesson plan (as in the Teacher Education track) as they learn various teaching methods and strategies. Students have indicated this arrangement works extremely well for them because the class focuses specifically on Extension teaching.

Another example is the two youth program courses: Youth Organizations - 4-H (642) and Youth Program Management in Non-School Settings (643). The instructor plans field trips, guest speakers, and projects to connect the theoretical and the practical aspects of Extension Education. Students read about and discuss principles of positive youth development; then they observe these principles in action during a field trip to an urban youth education center.

Most recently, students participated in service-learning projects that allowed them to meet real community needs and to apply principles of program management in the process. The instructor also holds an appointment as an Extension Specialist in youth development, and thus these experiences are grounded in the current and day-to-day issues experienced by Extension professionals.

Field Experiences in Extension Education

As mentioned earlier, the undergraduate program requires both an early field experience (EFE) and a quarter-long internship (quarters are 10 weeks in length vs. 15 weeks for semester). The objectives of the EFE are: (1) to identify the role of professional educator and the scope of programs in a county Extension office; (2) to clarify a career choice through observations and experiences in Extension Education; and (3) to collect information, interview professional educators, make observations, practice skills, and reflect on experiences in Extension Education.

The EFE helps students further explore careers and gain experience in Extension. It is an 80-hour field experience with a professional Extension educator (typically at the county level) designed to help the student look at careers in Extension from the role of a professional. This experience may be the first opportunity for students to see life from the other side of the desk, therefore enabling them to take the first steps as a beginner in Extension Education.

We believe that actual observation and practical experience with a professional educator builds confidence and creates focus for students who choose to pursue a career in developing people and communities. It also allows those who may be uncertain of Extension as a career path to gain a real-world view of what is involved in Extension work and make an informed decision.

The quarter-long internship is taken by students during their senior year. Students, under the supervision and leadership of a county Extension educator and in cooperation with the faculty instructor, plan learning experiences based on their program area of focus (e.g., Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4-H Youth Development, etc.). The course is designed to parallel the professional responsibilities of a county Extension educator. Thus, they have real-life experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating Extension educational programs.

The internship is a 10-week commitment (400 hours) involving regular, full workdays. Some of the assignments include: developing and implementing a major educational program that is incorporated and integrated into an existing county program; participating in and contributing to actual professional experiences in OSU Extension; conducting Extension programs requiring them to use skills in planning, implementing, and evaluating Extension educational programs; teaching Extension clientele and volunteers; and gaining experience working with volunteers and advisory committees. Both the faculty member and the supervising educator provide input into the design and the evaluation of this experience.

A graduate-level internship in the Extension Education program (655 - Internship in Agricultural and Extension Education) is available for students to take up to 15 credits designed for them to broaden their educational experience and expertise. The internship is a carefully planned experience in teaching, research, Extension, administration, supervision, or other related areas. Specifics of the experience and assignments are determined not only by the faculty member and placement supervisor, but the student as well.

Implications and Conclusions

To better serve and prepare future Extension educators, developing and revising academic programs must be an ongoing process. It is imperative that the curriculum presented is competency based and grounded in theory as well as in practice. Students must have an opportunity to experience the work of Extension educators in real-world settings (e.g., through field experiences, internships, and service-learning projects). We believe these competencies, along with the practical application of theory, provide future Extension educators with the proper skills and capacity sets to succeed in the profession.

Academic departments that prepare future Extension professionals can meet changing needs by consistently reviewing the literature and evaluating the evolving needs of Extension professionals. While it may not be practical to create an Extension Education major in many universities, other reasonable options may include Extension Education certification programs or Extension Education specializations within established degree programs. In addition, the core competencies identified in Figure 1 may inform orientation and professional development plans for new Extension educators. By sharing our academic model for a research-based Extension Education program, we hope to encourage dialogue and dissemination of information that will help us and other academic programs to offer the best possible education for future Extension Education professionals.

References

Bennett, C. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension [On-line], 13(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/1975-2-a1.pdf

Boone, J. E., Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual programming model. Prospect Heights, Il: Waveland.

Bovee, C. L., & Thill, J. V. (1998). Business communication today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boyle, P. (1981). Planning better programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 185-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1, Theory. (5th ed., pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley.

Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Conceptual, methodological, and practical ambiguities in self-directed learning. In H. B. Long (Ed.), Self-directed learning: Application and theory. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Bryson, J. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buford, J. A., Jr., Bededian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1994). Management in Extension. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.

Burnett, C., & Tucker, M. (2001). Writing for agriculture: A new approach using tested ideas (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). Planning responsibility for adult education: A guide to negotiating power and interests. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, A. W., & Graham, D. L. (2001). Competencies needed to be successful county agents and county supervisors. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.html

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (2004). The youth development handbook: Coming of age in American communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herman, R. D., & Associates (Eds.). (1993). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organizational behavior (6th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knowles, M. S., (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lackey, A. S., & Pratuckchai, W. (1991). Knowledge and skills required by community development professionals. Journal of the Community Development Society, 22(1), 1-19.

Levine, S. J., (2004). Core competencies. Extension Educator. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from Michigan State University, Michigan State University Extension Professional Development web site: http://web1.msue.msu.edu/profdev/teehtml.htm

Polnac, L., Grant, L., & Cameron, T. (1999). CommonSense: A handbook and guide for writers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Scheer, S. D. (1997). Program parameters for 5- to 8-year-old children in 4-H. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997august/a2.html

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative Extension. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.

Vineyard, M. S. (1993). Megatrends & volunteerism. Downers Grove, IL: Heritage Arts Publishing.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Strengthening Community Engagement Toward Sustainable Local Food Systems

Joan S. Thomson
Professor
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
Penn State University
jthomson@psu.edu

Rama B. Radhakrishna
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
Penn State University
brr100@psu.edu

Audrey N. Maretzki
Professor
Department of Food Science
Penn State University
anm1@psu.edu

Liberty O. Inciong
Former Graduate Student
ITCPH Compound
Marawoy, Lipa City
Batangas, Phillipines

Background

In the last decade, a growing recognition of the importance of local food systems (LFS) has emerged. A number of agencies, including federal and state governments, land-grant institutions, and sustainable agriculture organizations have initiated dialogue and provided funding and other support for LFS programming.

The LFS is a system in which foods are grown or produced, processed, and distributed locally at the household, neighborhood, municipal, and even regional level (Dahlberg, 1994). Dahlberg includes social, economic, and environmental issues surrounding the production, processing, distribution, access, use, and recycling and disposal of food, (Figure 1). Others have considered locally grown food as products sold within 40 miles of their farm location (Nash, 2003). To Smith (2003) local meant same-day delivery, but considered distances up to 100 miles as valid. Isensee (2003), however, provides a more comprehensive description of what local is. He states that backyard to 1 mile is a neighborhood, 1 mile to 10 miles is a city, 11 to 25 miles is a local area, and 26 to 100 or 150 miles is a region.

Figure 1.
The Food System (Dahlberg, 1994)

Many investigators have documented the benefits of LFSs (Dahlberg, 1994; DeLind, 1994; Gordon, 2003). These benefits are categorized as social (knowledge of from where foods come, production practices, interaction among like-minded consumers), economic (supporting the local economy, fewer transportation costs, increased local employment), health (improved food safety and lower risk of bioterrorism), and environmental (maintaining biological diversity and less use of pesticides/chemicals). Besides keeping businesses in the community, a sustainable LFS can offer fresh, tasty, and safe foods to consumers.

Because a variety of safe and nutritious food is available, local production provides both long-term food security and better health for local residents (DeLind, 1994). Stofferahn and Goreham (n.d.) have identified consumer trends that provide opportunities to develop LFS. These trends include: 1) increasing food safety concerns, 2) changing perceptions about organic foods, 3) changing buying behaviors, 4) willingness to pay more for premium products, 5) becoming more health conscious, 6) gaining popularity of buying seasonal foods, 7) increasing concern about the quality of life, and 8) recognition of the importance of supporting the local economy.

Serious gaps in communications and understanding of the food system exist among the public, the media, and food and agricultural stakeholders. Fewer and fewer consumers understand how their food is grown, how it reaches their market places, or the human and environmental costs involved in the current system. Yet a growing interest in local foods and markets can help to increase and support the availability of such foods. Most consumers also feel that local foods may have quality advantages over those imported from distant suppliers (Thomson & Kelvin, 1996).

In a survey of 1,205 consumers in the Northeast, nearly 88% of the respondents believed that local fruits and vegetables were fresher, 60% thought they looked better, and 62% said they tasted better than products imported from elsewhere (Wilkins & Bokaer-Smith, 1996). In a study conducted by Thomson and Kelvin (1996), consumers perceived that their buying patterns influenced farming and the food choices available in the market. Such responses indicate consumer preference and marketing opportunities for local produce and support for the development and sustainability of more localized food systems.

Many Extension programs relate to the food and fiber system from best practices in agronomic crops and livestock to nutrition, diet, and health and resource management. To facilitate Extension's involvement in the LFS, Extension educators should be aware of their views on the food system and those of their colleagues and their communities. In addition, they also should be aware of the support and barriers they perceive exist for such programming both within Extension and within their communities. With such information, Extension educators can recognize the variability regarding their perceptions and those of their colleagues and stakeholders toward the LFS both within their own organization and within their communities. Such research supports LFS program development and implementation.

Purpose and Research Questions

To strengthen LFS programming through Extension, field-based Extension educators were asked their perceptions about LFS issues, support and barriers to LFS programming, characteristics of their communities, and organizations involved in LFS programming. Through the study, the researchers plan to develop a framework for LFS programming. To guide the research, three questions were asked:

1. What are the important LFS issues perceived by Extension educators?

2. What factors--support and barriers--affect LFS programming at the county level?

3. What differences, if any, exist between demographic characteristics of Extension educators and their perceived importance of LFS issues?

Methods and Procedures

The population for the study consisted of all (N=203) Extension educators employed by Penn State Extension. These included educators with primary responsibilities for programming in family and consumer sciences, 4-H/youth development, community development, and agriculture and natural resources. The population frame was obtained from the Extension Director's Office.

This study utilized a descriptive research design. A three-section survey instrument suitable for collecting data via the Web was developed by the investigators. Section one contained 21 statements relative to LFS issues measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "very unimportant" to 5 "very important." Section two identified factors--support and barriers-- that affect LFS programming. The factors were measured on a five-point Likert-scale. The final section obtained demographic and program information (gender, program areas, highest education level, experience, training received, and history of participation in LFS programming) and open-ended comments.

The Web-based survey was validated for content and face validity by a panel of seven experts involved in LFS programming, including food science and nutrition faculty and agricultural and Extension educators. In addition, a field test/pilot test was conducted with 30 Extension educators employed in Ohio Cooperative Extension. A reliability analysis indicated acceptable reliability for the three sections of the instrument. Suggestions from the field test/pilot test were incorporated into the final instrument. For the final study, Cronbach's alpha ranged from a low of 0.68 (support and barrier factors) to a high of 0.89 (importance of LFS issues).

The e-survey was carried out through Penn State using Test Pilot software. A pre-notification letter explaining the purpose of the study and the tentative date for receiving the e-survey was sent to all Extension educators. After two follow-ups, a total of 82 Extension educators responded for a return rate of 40%.

Early and late respondents were compared based on procedures suggested by Miller and Smith (1983). No significant differences were found between the two groups of respondents on key variables in the study. Therefore, the information provided by 82 Extension educators was generalizable to the population of Extension educators (N=203). Data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0) was used to analyze the data.

Results

Demographic Profile

The majority (57.1%) of Extension educators were female. Two-thirds (66.1%) of the educators reported a graduate degree (MS/PHD) as their highest education level; 35% reported a bachelor's degree. Close to one-half of the educators indicated agricultural and natural resources as their primary area of program responsibility, followed by family and consumer science (31.3%), 4-H/youth development (16%), and community development (6.3%). Representation of Extension educators from each of the regions ranged from a low of 18.4% (Northwest/Southwest) to a high of 34.2% (Susquehanna/Northeast). Approximately 60% of the educators reported "extensive" to "moderate" participation in LFS programming.

Research Question 1: Importance of LFS Issues

Extension educators were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the importance of 21 issues related to LFS programming. Mean scores for the 21 issues ranged from a low of M=3.76 to a high of M=4.45, see Table 1. The issue, consumer food safety was perceived as "very important" (M=4.45), while the issue institutional use of local food was perceived as "important" (M=3.76). Overall, Extension educators perceived all of the 21 issues "important" to LFS programming.

Research Question 2: Factors--Support and Barriers--Affecting LFS Programming

Extension educators were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (1=not sure to 5=very strong support) the nature and extent of stakeholder support to conduct LFS programming (Table 2). Extension educators expressed "strong support" for LFS programming from their County Extension Directors (M=4.14), followed by their Regional Directors/Program Leaders (M=3.88), County Extension Associations (M=3.76), and Program Advisory Boards (M=3.76). However, educators expressed "limited" support for such programming from County Commissioners (M=3.30), State Director of Extension (M=3.26) and local residents (M=2.93).

Regarding barriers to conduct LFS programming, educators identified lack of program resources to support LFS programming as a "moderate" barrier (M=2.77), followed by food systems programming not fitting their primary area of program responsibilities (M=2.74), and lack of knowledge to carry out LFS programming (M=2.56), (Table 3). All 10 factors were identified as either a "slight" or "moderate" barrier. No single factor was identified as a "total" barrier to LFS programming.

Research Question 3: Demographic Differences

T-tests and ANOVA were used to determine differences, if any, between select demographic and program characteristics (gender, educational level, Extension region, and primary area of program responsibility) and Extension educators' perspectives on LFS issues.

An independent t-test analysis revealed statistically significant differences at the .001 level, between gender of Extension educators and their perspectives on six LFS issues. For five of the issues, female Extension educators had significantly higher "importance" scores than male educators. For female educators, issues such as hunger, institutional use of local foods, transfer of farm ownership to county residents, access to grocery stores, and loss of food preparation skills were significantly "more important" than to their male counterparts (Figure 2). On the other hand, male educators perceived the issue viability of local agricultural related businesses as "more important" than did female educators.

Figure 2.
T-test Results for LFS Issues by Gender

In terms of education, Extension educators with bachelor's degrees perceived 4 of the 21 LFS issues significantly (.001 level) more important than educators with graduate degrees. For educators with bachelor's degrees, the issues hunger, local waste management, institutional use of local foods and loss of family-owned farms were more important than to educators with graduate degrees (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
T-test Results for LFS Issues by Degree

One-way analysis of variance was used to determine differences, if any, between select program characteristics (Extension regions and primary area of program responsibility) and perceived importance educators give to LFS issues. Figure 4 reports these results.

Figure 4.
ANOVA Results for LFS by Extension Regions

Significant differences were found among four LFS issues and Pennsylvania Extension regions. Extension educators from the Susquehanna/Northeast region viewed farmland preservation as "neither important nor unimportant." Educators in the other three regions viewed this issue as significantly more important. Similarly, educators in the Susquehanna/Northeast region perceived issues such as transfer of farm ownership and globalization of food systems as "less important" then did educators in the other three regions.

In the Southeast/Capital regions, land use planning was viewed as significantly more important than in the other regions. However, no significant differences were found among the regions on the issue loss of family-owned farms as indicated by Scheffee post-hoc analysis. These regional differences reflect differences in the Pennsylvania landscape. The Southeast/Central region is experiencing extensive development pressure. The Susquehanna/Northeast region is heavily forested.

ANOVA results relative to Extension educators' perceptions regarding the importance of LFS issues and their primary area of program responsibility revealed significant differences for 2 of the 21 LFS issues, see Figure 5. Agricultural and natural resource educators perceived hunger as "neither important nor unimportant" while family and consumer science, 4-H/youth, and community development educators perceived hunger as "important." The issue, loss of food preparation skills, was perceived as "very important" by family and consumer science educators. However, agricultural and natural resource, 4-H/youth, and community development educators perceived this issue as "important." No significant differences existed regarding the transfer of farm ownership and program areas among Extension educators.

Figure 5.
ANOVA Results for LFS by Program Area

Conclusions and Implications

Overall, Extension educators in Penn State Extension perceive LFS issues as "important" for Extension programming in Pennsylvania. They recognize issues such as consumer food safety, viable ag-related businesses, land use planning, farm land preservation, loss of family-owned farms, and access to quality foods as important for Extension programming. However, importance alone, particularly when each topic is considered important, cannot determine program focus. Extension educators must respond to community-identified needs to define program priorities regarding the food system.

Extension educators consider county Extension directors, regional directors, and program advisory boards as the strongest supporters for LFS programming within their communities. However, educators perceived limited support from either county commissioners or local residents. To ensure a sustainable LFS, those concerned must expand the dialogue to involve the larger community, not only those with special interests. Working in collaboration with other organizations on the LFS can broaden community participation in food systems programming.

Lack of program resources to support LFS programming was identified as a "moderate" barrier. In addition, educators identified knowledge to carry out food systems programming similarly. To help Extension educators see the scope and potential of community-based food systems programming as part of or within their professional responsibilities, opportunities need to be available at regional and state levels through which Extension educators can share with one another the local programming in which they are involved. Such settings can also be used to introduce community-based programming resources to facilitate local dialogue on the food system. Numerous resources (Maretzki & Wilkins, 2001; Nunnery, Thomson, & Maretzki, 2000; Abel & Thomson, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Harmon & Maretzki, 1999; Wilkins & Bokaer-Smith, 1996) are available to support such programming.

Significant differences were found between Extension educators' demographic and program characteristics (gender, educational level, program responsibility, and location) and importance of LFS issues. Four variables--gender, educational level, primary area of program responsibility, and Extension region--are strategically important to program development on LFS. Just as different issues resonate with different stakeholders, diversity also exists among Extension educators. These differences must be acknowledged as programs are defined and implemented.

Incorporating diverse interests and expertise can strengthen resulting community initiatives. An LFS reflects the community of which it is a part. All who are involved in this food system must participate in order to build consensus for, as well as acceptance of, local action. Defining the community's "food future" depends on such engagement. Extension specialists and others involved in LFS issues should consider demographic differences as well as program priorities among those involved when designing LFS programs.

Findings from the study serve as an important LFS program development tool. For example, field-based Extension educators are better able to identify and prioritize key LFS issues facing their respective counties. Second, study findings highlight internal organizational and demographic differences and external community differences.

Awareness and understanding of these differences are helpful in developing in-service training programs and developing educational resources. Several efforts are planned or ongoing to share these findings within Extension so that informed decisions can be made regarding LFS programming. Several educational resources relative to the LFS have been shared with educators and community leaders to develop and sustain LFS programs.

References

Abel, J. L. & Thomson, J. S. (2000a). Food system planning: A guide for county and municipal planners (4 pages). Available from the Penn State College of Agriculture Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802.

Abel, J. L. & Thomson, J. S. (2000b). Working with planners on community food system issues: A guide for community organizations (4 pages). Available from the Penn State College of Agriculture Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802.

Abel, J. L. & Thomson, J. S. (2000c). Working with planners community food system issues: A guide for Extension educators (4 pages). Available from the Penn State College of Agriculture Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802.

Dahlberg, K. A. (1994). Localizing food systems. The Neighborhood Works, February/March, p.14.

Dahlberg, K. A. (1993, December). What are food systems? Poster session presented at the International Healthy Cities Conference, San Francisco.

DeLind, L. (1994). Local foods: There's no place like home. Groundwork, January 1994, p. 4-5.

Gordon, S. (2003, August 20). Local food challenge announcement. Message posted to comfood-l@listproc.tufts.edu

Isensee, M. (2003, August 18). What does locally grown and what does family farm mean? Message posted to comfood-l@listproc.tufts.edu

Maretzki, A.N. & Wilkins, J. (2001). Our food: our future--Community food projects in the northeast. Funding from W.K. Kellogg Foundation in cooperation with CSREES/USDA. Production by Shirley Road Productions, Philadelphia PA.

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension [On-line], 21(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf

Nash, M. (2003, August 14). What does locally grown mean? Message posted to comfood-l@listproc.tufts.edu

Nunnery, S., Thomson, J. S., & Maretzki, A. N. (2000). Edible connections: Changing the way we talk about food, farm, and community: A planning guide for conducting a food communications forum with supporting video (40 pages; 12:30 minute video). Available from the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802.

Smith, J. (2003, August 15). What does locally grown and what does family farm mean? Message posted to comfood-l@listproc.tufts.edu

Stofferahn, C., & Goreham, G. (n.d.). Sustainable community food systems: Case studies. Retrieved January 3, 2004, from http://www.und.edu/misc/ndrural/Case%20Studies.pdf

Thomson, J. S. & Kelvin, R. E. (1996). Suburbanites' perceptions about agriculture. Journal of Applied Communications, 80(3) 11-20.

Wilkins J. L, & Bokaer-Smith, J. C. (1996). The Northeast regional food guide. (Code lines 399NRFGP, 399NRFGS and 399NRFGset). Cornell Cooperative Extension.

Exploring Tribal Leadership: Understanding and Working with Tribal People

Jeff G. Hart
Extension Educator
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension
Lincoln, Nebraska
Jhart4@unl.edu

Introduction

Understanding and working with tribal people can be important for Extension professionals who deliver educational programming in Native American communities. It is important for Extension to provide educational information that is research based. This article provides research-based implications and recommendations for working with Native American tribal people.

The article begins with a Methodology section that provides background information about a research study completed by the author that explored indigenous tribal leadership; the tribe's history, culture, and traditions; and how it has been affected by acculturation from the dominant society. The Findings and Discoveries section gives the reader a better sense of tribal culture and leadership. The research specifically explored leadership with the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. However, the Interpretations, Implications, and Recommendations section may be applicable to several Native American or other indigenous cultural populations who are potential audiences for Extension partnerships and educational programs.

The majority of the dominant white/Caucasian culture know little about indigenous tribal leadership in North America. This lack of knowledge and experience in working with tribes and tribal leaders have often produced the following results: negative opinions and attitudes, impatience with timing and deadlines, and the development of programming by the dominant culture's government, institutions, and organizations that are not accepted by tribal people.

This more in-depth exploration of indigenous tribal leadership discovered cultural characteristics and practices that can contribute to a better understanding and a more harmonious relationship between tribes and non-tribal organizations. Having a better understanding of tribal leadership practices can improve communication and the ability of Extension and land-grant institutions to work more cooperatively and progressively with tribal nations. Knowledge of these leadership practices could specifically help to strengthen partnerships between leaders of 1862 land-grant institutions, tribal governments and 1994 land-grant institutions.

Methodology

Research Design

The research followed an ethnographic design. Ethnographic studies or "ethnographic designs are qualitative research procedures for describing, analyzing, and interpreting a cultural group's shared patterns of behavior, beliefs, and language that develop over time" (Creswell, 2002, p. 481). Specifically, this was a microethnography study, which is a type of ethnographic design focused on a specific aspect of a cultural group or setting (Creswell, 2002). The study followed a realist ethnography (Creswell, 2002) form of ethnographic design where the researcher reports on what is observed or heard from participants and produces participant views through edited quotations (p. 484).

Population

The population for this research was tribal members of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. The population is summarized in Table 1.

Extension in Thurston County, Nebraska

All of Thurston County is located on Indian Reservation land consisting of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Reservation and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Reservation. Three of the seven communities in the county have a population of at least 95% Native Americans. The Extension county office is located in one of those three communities. The total county population was 7,142 according to the 2002 census. The tribal member population on the reservations in the county is about 4,600. Therefore, about 64% of the county's population to be potentially served by Extension is Native American.

Participants

Twenty-one tribal members from Winnebago completed formal recorded interviews. Table 2 indicates how these participants were represented in the various aspects of gender, age, and tribal leadership.

Data Collection and Analysis

Formal data collection was focused on: 1) document reviews, 2) observations, 3) conversations, and 4) in-depth interviewing. Models and techniques used for analyzing and interpreting data included the following.

1. Text Analysis or Transcription (Creswell, 2002): This is the process of converting audio recordings and field notes into text data.

2. Coding (or Themes) Process (Creswell, 2002): The object of the coding process is to make sense out of text data and to develop themes.

3. Conveying Personal Reflections (Creswell, 2002): Personal interpretations of the researcher were used to interpret the data from the findings and to develop and interpret themes.

4. Making Comparisons with the Literature (Creswell, 2002): The literature was important in the early stages of data collection. The researcher's interpretations also contain references to the literature.

Findings and Discoveries

Context of the Study: The Findings Environment

It is important to understand the environment and conditions under which the researcher gathered the findings. The Winnebago Indian Reservation is located in Thurston County, a rural county in Northeast Nebraska. Businesses in Winnebago include two tribal-owned gas stations, a tribal-owned grocery store, and a new Dollar General store. Many tribal offices, departments, and institutions are located in the town. The majority of Winnebago tribal members live in the town of Winnebago and the immediate surrounding area.

Two general approaches were necessary for the collection of data: 1) scheduling appointments for interviews or 2) calling ahead, drop-in and visit with tribal people. Conducting formal interviews was often a challenge. The researcher learned to "go with the flow" when visiting the reservation.

Tribal Leadership Themes

Tribal leadership themes were developed from key descriptors found in transcribed conversations and interviews. Three categories or themes were identified.

Theme 1. Traditional Tribal Leadership

Theme 2. Tribal Leader/Leadership Characteristics

Theme 3. Tribal Acculturation and Interventions

The descriptive words and phrases used most frequently in transcribed conversations and interviews are summarized in Table 3. They are listed according to the theme areas developed.

Findings Compared to the Literature

The study involved an extensive review of literature. The following is a sample of literature that verified some of the findings.

1. Clanship and families were found to be high on the list as descriptors for traditional leadership in this study. Johnson (1963) confirms this: "Tribal Council leadership is often dominated by extended families or bands (clans)" (120-125).

2. Wise councils, spiritual leaders, and elders were essential to the organization of a tribe, as found in the study. "The elders know the old ways, they can help" (Haase & Whirlwind Soldier, 1993, p 22). "Always remember who you are and to respect and appreciate your elders" (Piper, 1995, p. 86).

3. Being a role model and having vision ranked high on the list of descriptive words for a tribal leader in the study. Having vision refers to looking ahead to the future and seeing the needs of the people. "A Leader possesses vision and focuses on mission, serves as a role model for others, and enables others to take action" (McLeod, 2002, p. 13).

4. The study found that a tribal member often became a tribal leader because of the needs of the tribe, such as the need for a war chief in times of war or a civil chief in times of peace. "Ancestral leaders emphasized the needs of the tribe, not individuals" (Martin, 1993, p. 24).

5. The findings of the study revealed the importance of the oral tradition in maintaining traditional tribal leadership, despite the dominant society's emphasis on written documentation. "During the course of the last several centuries, oral tradition has continued in an unbroken chain for many peoples and this sometimes conflicts with written records documented by settlers, missionaries and anthropologists, each of whom transcribed speeches and reminiscences through the prism of his or her own beliefs and codes" (Fleet, 2000, p. 4).

Quotes and Stories from Tribal People

The richness of the findings was found in the many quotes and stories told by the Winnebago people. This section presents sample quotes for each of the Tribal Leadership themes.

Theme 1: Traditional Tribal Leadership

"Leadership is based on the knowledge of knowing your community, knowing your people, knowing the visions, and knowing the culture." A tribal council member talked about the importance of knowledge as a base for leadership in order to see the large picture and look into the future for the needs of the people.

Theme 2: Tribal Leader/Leadership Characteristics

"A true leader not only mentors for the people who are following, but also shares the leadership and develops the leadership within the group or the membership." This tribal councilman was responding to what is meant by shared leadership. Sharing leadership means providing opportunities for all people to be in leadership roles relating to family, extended family, clans and community.

"If you want to be a leader, you have to also be the guy who is cleaning up the place. A true leader is a great follower. If you can't follow, how in the heck can you lead?" A tribal councilman and tribal elder contributed this quote. The quote indicates that a leader, who was also a follower, was someone who would listen to others, ask them for their opinion and suggestions, and allow them to be involved in making decisions.

Theme 3: Tribal Acculturation and Interventions

"I asked my Grandma, 'Why didn't you teach me those words when I was little?' She said, 'Who you gonna talk to? All those old Indians are dead.'" A tribal spiritual leader told about his grandmother's response when he asked her why she did not teach him the language. It was another example of how the white man had beaten the Indian out of the Indian.

"Those church people who ran the children's home used to put this soap in our mouths for speaking the language. Our spirit and pride was destroyed as a result." This was part of a conversation with five elder women at the Winnebago Senior Center. They were recalling their past and the negative interventions of the boarding schools. Statements like these should need very little explanation about the result of the white dominant society interventions on the Winnebago people.

Interpretations, Implications, and Recommendations

Interpretations of Tribal Leadership Themes

If an Extension professional is going to have a working relationship with tribal people, he or she would do well to know and understand the leadership of that tribal nation, the characteristics of a true leader, and the effects of tribal acculturation and interventions imposed upon tribal people. Major themes discovered from the research are a starting point for gaining this knowledge and understanding. These themes are summarized as follows.

Theme 1. Traditional Tribal Leadership

Tribal leadership is a shared leadership, organized by the clan system, guided and sustained by elders through the teaching of language and telling of stories. Winnebago tribal leadership is about role and relationships, the clan system, elders, women, families, children, moms and dads, chokas (grandpas), kakas (grandmas), aunts, and uncles. All have a role in the leadership of the tribe. All are part of the sacred circle. It is this shared role that binds the people as one and provides a role model for leadership.

Theme 2. Tribal Leader/Leadership Characteristics

A true leader has vision, knows traditional ways, shares and develops leadership, serves and protects the tribal community, develops trust, and shows respect for all tribal people. They are chosen in time of need because they have vision toward the future. A true tribal leader assumes a leadership role, not because he or she has chosen that leadership position, but because that leadership role has chosen him or her.

Theme 3. Tribal Acculturation and Interventions

The dominant society leadership has done much to force acculturation on tribal people, but the old traditional ways are not forgotten and live strong in the spirit of Winnebago people. Tribal people, because of their desperate need to survive, have accepted acculturation to some extent.

Boarding schools provided education, but it was the white man's education. Churches provided a place for tribal people to gather, but it was the white man's religion. Commodity food was provided and alcohol was cheap, but it has created many negative health conditions. Money was given to tribal members based on blood quantum, but there were very few jobs, and there was not much acceptable job training. Finally, the dominant society allowed the existence of a tribal government with a tribal leadership organization, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs mandates the structure of this new government with strict compliance requirements. Knowing these things and understanding all the dominant society interventions that contributed to forced acculturation can help to develop trusted partnerships and relationships with tribal people.

Implications for Extension

There are some overall implications that should be recognized by Extension administration and educators when considering partnerships and program development with indigenous tribal populations. Those implications are summarized as follows.

1. Extension Needs to Understand Tribal Leadership

Learning about tribal leadership takes time and patience, and requires listening to tribal people. Understanding tribal leadership involves letting go of most dominant white society leadership theories and leadership management ideas. An elder indicated, "A person should forget what they have been told about the outside world and what they read about Indian people and leadership. A person needs to come and listen to what people have to say." This implies that Extension leaders and professionals must have an open mind and be willing to learn (as well as teach) when developing relationships with tribal people and other indigenous culture populations.

2. Extension Needs to Learn About Tribal Leaders

It is important to learn about who tribal leaders are and what they do. Learning and training to become a true tribal leader involves a lifetime of experiences. Learning about who a tribal leader is and what he or she does could involve spending a considerable amount of time in the setting. Tribal leaders describe a true leader as, "One who mentors, shares leadership, develops leadership for others, builds consensus, leads by example, allows other people to take the lead, gives other people the opportunity to be in their position, and is the last one to eat at a meal." Extension leaders should know these characteristics when developing relationships with tribal leaders. Spending time with tribal elder leaders can give non-tribal leaders and organizations new knowledge about what it means to be a leader.

3. Extension Can Learn from Tribal Leadership Styles and Practices

The application of tribal leadership styles and leader characteristics might be beneficial for non-tribal leaders and leadership organizations. Extension leaders who are open to change and who are patient may find tribal leadership styles beneficial for making tough decisions currently facing Extension. However, leaders and organizations that are very time oriented may have some difficulty applying tribal leadership styles.

Implications from Key Descriptive Words

Vision

Vision in tribal leadership is about looking ahead to the future. A good leader has vision or insight into the future, seeing the future needs of the people. Sometimes a vision comes during times of hardships. Tribal leaders have always had the vision to look ahead and plan and pray, not for themselves, but for everyone who is to come. This is what is meant when someone talks about praying for seven generations, seven generations to come. This implies the need for Extension leaders to be proactive, looking ahead to the future needs of their constituents.

Shared Leadership

Shared leadership involves all the informal leaders of the tribe. Informal leaders can be volunteers at community events and tribal ceremonies. A tribal leader knows when to step back from that leadership role and let someone else who can do it better lead, then step in and carry the load when needed. Shared leadership implies the need for all Extension professionals to be a leader when needed in their program area of focus (e.g., Focused Educators).

Council of Elders

The Council of Elders has been explained as a group of various leaders representing the tribal clans. Clans represent the various groups of tribal people within a tribal nation, responsible for various roles within the tribe. Traditionally, a council of elders would sit and make decisions based on people coming to them to seek advice and sometimes even adjudication. This is an organizational implication that could be compared to a state Extension organization. Extension Deans and District Extension Directors may represent Council of Elders. State program areas (e.g., Extension Action Teams) could be compared to the clans, each having a role in the organization.

Recommendations for Extension and Non-Tribal Organizations

Tribal leadership on the reservation is different than leadership in the outside or white man's world. Representatives from Extension and non-tribal organizations can best learn about tribal leadership by simply going to the reservation and spending time with tribal people. The following recommendations can help non-tribal audiences prepare for what to do when visiting the tribal environment.

• Be patient, and expect time changes or postponements for scheduled meetings.

• Allow some time for a meal at the local restaurant, senior center, or community event.

• When introducing yourself, simply say your name, where you are from, and maybe something about your family. Do not give a complete vitae of information about yourself. Telling about your family is more important than telling about your job and credentials.

• Do a lot more listening than talking. It is better to walk-the-talk than to talk-the-walk.

• If you are asked to come to the reservation and give a presentation, remember that shared learning is important. You should devote at least as much time to listening and learning as you do to talking and presenting.

• Do not say you are a leader. Tribal leadership is not about, "I am the leader."

• Expect to change your ideas about leadership. If you don't expect to do this, then it is best not to make the trip.

• Remember, it is always important to sit down, share a meal, share life, and talk about things.

The recommendations from the study may or may not be generalizable to other tribal populations or indigenous cultures. However, the author recommends reading this article in its entirety before you visit a tribal community.

Final Thoughts

It seems appropriate to give some closing thoughts about Extension and support these thoughts with some quotes from tribal people, recorded in the tradition of oral conversation.

Extension Is About Knowledge and Education.

"Leadership Is Knowing"--Tribal Council Leader

A tribal council member spoke of knowledge, "Leadership is based on the knowledge of knowing your community, knowing your people, knowing the visions, and knowing the culture."

Extension Is Involved with Leadership at Many Levels.

"Leadership Is Shared"--Tribal Organization Leader

One tribal member views leadership like this, "Leadership. It's just a crazy quilt of shared responsibilities at various levels. And you don't know who's going to be telling you what to do next. The maintenance guy could be the one telling me what to do tonight."

Extension Is About Spending Time with Local People.

"Take Time to Share"--Grandma Leader

This elder woman talked about the grandmas in K-Mart tennis shoes who spent much of their time devoted to the family, "It was always important to sit down and share meal, share life, and talk about things."

Extension Has a Vision for the Future.

"Hope For The Future"--Young Warrior Leader

A young Winnebago warrior seeks vision for the future of his people, "I hope the future is as bright as what I live, for the generations to come, and even beyond. I hope the future is brighter than what I left. That's what I hope."

References

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Fleet, C. (2000). Native American wisdom. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.

Haase, E. & Whirlwind Soldier, L. (1993). Tribal College Journal of American Higher Education, 5(2), 19-23.

Johnson, C. C. (1963). A study of modern southwestern Indian leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Martin, T. (1993). Going to battle. Tribal College Journal of American Higher Education, 5(2), 24-27.

McLeod, M. (2002). Keeping the circle strong: Learning about native American leadership. Tribal College Journal of American Higher Education, 13(4), 10-13.

Piper, L. (1995). We the women. Winds of Change, 10(2), 82-83.

Running Successful Extension Camps for Hispanic Children: From Program Planning to Program Delivery for a 1-Week Day Camp

Susan Farner
Department of Kinesiology and Community Health
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
sfarner@uiuc.edu

German Cutz
University of Illinois Extension
cutz@uiuc.edu

Barbara Farner
University of Illinois Extension
farnerb@uiuc.edu

Sheri Seibold
University of Illinois Extension
sseibold@uiuc.edu

Viviana Abuchar
Department of Kinesiology and Community Health
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
abuchar@uiuc.edu

Introduction

The Hispanic population in both the United States and the state of Illinois is rapidly increasing (US Census Bureau, 2000). To address this demographic change and to follow the mission of the University of Illinois Extension to "provide practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses, and communities in Illinois," Extension must find ways to reach this growing Hispanic population. However, involving Hispanic audiences must become an integral part of Extension philosophy and not be developed as a separate program that depends on external funding (Hobbs, 2001).

University of Illinois Extension is committed to serving Hispanics in Illinois, but the lack of bilingual staff has turned this commitment into a challenge. As of 2004, Extension in Illinois only employed two native Spanish-speakers and very few bilingual professionals. When attempting to serve Latino populations with non-bilingual staff, there are some questions that need to be answered:

• How can Extension plan and deliver Extension programs for the Hispanic population?

• What support do non-bilingual Extension personnel need to deliver programs to Hispanic populations?

• How can Extension work to meet the needs of the Hispanic population?

This article reports on the delivery of an Extension program to the Hispanic population and attempts to answer these questions.

Program Planning

Identifying the Need

In 2002, Will County had a population of 502,266, and the Hispanic population represented 8.7% (US Census Bureau, 2000). This was an increase from 5.6% in the1990 census (US Census Bureau, 1990). University of Illinois Extension and the Hispanic/Latino Coalition of Will and Grundy Counties (HLC) identified a need for safe summer educational activities for Hispanic children. The coalition and this article use both the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" to refer to the Spanish-speaking community.

Planning for this activity was not a linear process. However, there were some steps that guided the process. Indeed, one of the first steps was to establish a partnership between Extension and HLC. With this partnership, Extension could begin to develop programs to address the needs of the Hispanic population rather than just one project with a limited audience.

The city of Joliet was chosen as the location for the summer camp for several reasons. First, most members of HLC worked for institutions serving Joliet, so their contacts would help to recruit children. Second, a school with more than 80% Latino children was located in Joliet. Third, transportation wouldn't be provided, so the site had to be within a walking distance. Fourth, a member of the HLC worked for the identified school.

Sator Sànchez School in Joliet, where the majority of Hispanic children were enrolled, agreed to host the camp. In 2003, two schools were combined to become the Sator Sanchez School. In 2004, 89.1% of the student enrollment was classified as Hispanic. Of the families represented by students in the school, 95.5% were classified as low income.

Involving Community Representatives in the Program Planning Process

After the Hispanic/Latino Coalition of Will and Grundy Counties (HLC) agreed to co-sponsor a summer camp for Hispanic/Latino children, a planning committee with three representatives from HLC and five from University of Illinois Extension began planning the summer camp. The committee met face-to-face four times to plan the camp activities.

There were several decisions the committee needed to make. For example, the site for the summer camp, dates for the camp, ages of participating children, the content and format of the program, length of the program, support for non-bilingual teachers, how to recruit children and volunteers, how to obtain funding for this camp, evaluation of the camp, etc. Volunteer role descriptions were written to encourage parents and older teens to assist with the camp. A risk management plan was also written for the camp setting.

Selecting Extension Curricula that Addressed the Needs of the Hispanic Children

One purpose of the camp was to expose the target population to University of Illinois Extension 4-H Youth Development programs. University of Illinois Extension had previously developed a summer day-camp program, Camp Clover--Your Summer Fun Adventure, for children ages 8-12 from limited resource environments. This camp, designed as a 4-day, 3-hour per day session, consisted of three curriculum sections: social science, nutrition, and physical science. This program had been offered in multiple locations in the state since its inception in 2000, reaching over 6,000 youth, and included several camps for Hispanic children.

Promotion and Enrollment

Promotional materials were distributed by mail using the school's address list. A total of 581 announcements were sent. Promotional materials in both English and Spanish included a flyer promoting Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Day Camp, parent letter, registration form, parental informed consent form, and health form. Flyers were also created and distributed through the HCL.

Twenty-two parents came directly to the Extension office to enroll their children in camp. Seventy-three inquiries were made by phone. Of the phone calls received, 59 required a Spanish interpreter to assist the parent. There was capacity for 100 youth at the camp, and 88 campers were enrolled by the deadline.

Funding

Two grants, one from University of Illinois Extension and one from Joliet Township, plus registration fees of five dollars per camper, covered the approximately $4,200 cost of the camp. Expenses for the camp included educational materials, sports equipment, office supplies, lunch for bilingual aides and adult volunteers, camper snacks, stipend for bilingual aides, and insurance. Lunch for the children was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Federal Summer Lunch Program. Sports equipment, which will be used in future programming, was purchased at a cost of $650. In-kind contributions consisting of Extension staff time, community volunteers, facility use, and Summer Lunch Program helped to reduce costs.

Program Delivery

Camp Description

The summer camp for Hispanic children, Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp, was a 5-day camp from 9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. based on Camp Clover curriculum. The morning session, Monday through Thursday, was devoted to three specific curricula from the Camp Clover program: Que Rico-Latino Cultural Arts, Food Guide Pyramid Revisited, and Aerospace Adventures. Also, each day the 4-H pledge was recited in English and Spanish, and other 4-H symbols and traditions were shared. The afternoon program consisted of a variety of physical fitness activities, including soccer, volleyball, basketball, judo, and jump rope. The activities for Friday included a morning session of hands-on science and physical activities, with recognition and concluding ceremonies in the afternoon.

Camp Staff

Seven Extension professionals from county, regional, and state staff were identified to provide the educational content of the camp. Two paraprofessional staff from the Extension Family Nutrition Program (FNP) taught nutrition and coordinated food supplies and lunch for campers and staff. One additional paraprofessional from Will County coordinated the promotion, registration, collection of teaching materials, and evaluation for the camp. Three bilingual teacher's aides were paid a stipend to assist the non-bilingual Extension staff. In addition, several volunteers from the coalition assisted with the program throughout the week (Joliet Police Department, Mt Carmel Catholic Church, Joliet Junior College, Spanish Center of Joliet, and Joliet City Department of Human Services). Staff prepared for the camp with an all-day training session, including a tour of the facility, meeting with the school staff, and hands-on practice with the educational content.

The Camp Clover curricula were reviewed with respect to the Hispanic campers. The only change made was to the Food Guide Pyramid Revisited curriculum. Pita bread was substituted for tortillas because the children preferred heated tortillas, which was a logistical problem. Three counties in Illinois had previously used the Camp Clover program with Hispanic children as a half-day program. They, too, included the change made to the curriculum of the use of pita bread rather than tortillas (Seibold, personal communication, October 10, 2004). They also found interpreters to be helpful.

Program Evaluation

An evaluation of the program was conducted to determine if the program was addressing the target audience's needs. Both quantitative survey and focus group methods were used to evaluate the program.

Focus Groups

Parents were randomly selected to participate in a focus group that took place Thursday afternoon during camp. A total of 15 Hispanic parents participated in the group, 14 females and one male. All participants were Spanish speakers of Mexican origin. The length of time they had been in the U.S. varied from a few months to more than 13 years. The focus group was conducted in Spanish. The conversation was recorded and transcribed by a native Spanish-speaking graduate student.

Quantitative Survey

The educators conducting the camp developed the survey. A native Spanish-speaking graduate student translated and reviewed the questions. An Extension Specialist, also native speaking, made a final review for question content and translation. Suggested modifications were incorporated. Each family received a questionnaire in Spanish or English to complete and return the last day of camp.

Results

A total of 90 children were initially enrolled in the camp. Two children who were pre-registered did not attend the camp. Six children came who were not pre-registered. Of the students attending the first day, 80% completed the entire camp. Of the children attending any day of camp, 56% were female and 44% male. The ages of the children were divided as follows: 8yrs-24.5%, 9 yrs-30.2%, 10yrs-18.9%, 11yrs-17%, and 12 yrs 9.4%.

There were 75 families represented at the camp, and 40 (53%) returned completed questionnaires. The questions and results of the parent's survey concerning benefit to their children and location of the camp are presented in Table 1. The questions allowed for multiple responses. For the location of the camp, the school was the number one choice for 63% of the parents. The survey also included questions regarding the parents' previous awareness of 4-H and other Extension programs. The results are included in Table 2.

The focus group responses verified the findings of the written surveys. The parents participating said they were very interested in their children learning new things, developing their creativity, and learning how to interact with other children.

Also, the parents wanted a safe place for their children to participate in activities. The parents did not like their children to play outside of the home because they did not know other children in the area and they were afraid their children would be exposed to an unsafe environment.

The school was the preferred choice because parents felt it was safe and close to their homes. A recreation center would be acceptable if it were in their neighborhood. Some parents felt the school would be safer than the recreation center. They also said their children liked coming to the camp at the school.

When asked if their children shared with them their daily activities, parents said yes. They said their children liked the camp very much, especially the sports. The children had not talked to them as much about the activity on cultural backgrounds, but some said that their families did not emphasize their Mexican traditions that much, either.

The parents also said that one of the reasons they could send their children to the camp was the reasonable cost ($5 per child). Parents thought that the camp was very good. The only complaint the parents expressed was that they wished it lasted more than a week, because both parents and children were enjoying it. Some parents said they thought more children would participate in the camp if they knew about it.

In both the survey and the focus group data, parents indicated they were not aware of the 4-H program, nor that it was linked to this camp. During the focus group discussion when it was explained that this camp was developed by University of Illinois Extension 4-H, parents said they would like their children to participate in a 4-H club.

The data also indicated that parents did not know about University of Illinois Extension before this project. Now that they were aware of Extension they said that they or a family member would attend other programs.

Discussion

The planning and delivery of the Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp Program for children in the Hispanic population revealed unique challenges to Extension programming. Indeed, to identify the need it was necessary to first partner with an established local group that was working in the area. With the help of this group, relevant needs and an appropriate location were selected. The program planning process involving community representatives, who not only expressed their ideas but also made decisions, was an approach that truly empowered community leaders and enhanced the potential for sustainability of the Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp Program. Sustainability is a challenge that Extension professionals must take into consideration when implementing programs.

The selection of the school as the location of choice was not what might be expected from the Hispanic population. Studies have shown that many Hispanic Americans regard the educational institution as one in which they can have no influence (Chavkin & Gonzalez, 1995; Inger, 1992). However, the staff of Sator Sànchez School has worked in the neighborhood to be part of the community and help the parents feel comfortable with the school. In fact, focus group participants had a favorable opinion of the school as safe and a place they and their children would choose to participate in programs. From the 2004 Illinois School Report Card information, the parental contact at this school is 96%. This is comparable to the district at 96.1% and the state at 96.3% (Illinois State Board of Education, 2004).

One of the challenges in presenting educational material to the Hispanic population is language. The educators noted that 10-15% of the students did not understand English. This level of children who were non-English-speaking represented a higher portion than reported in the 2000 census for Will County. The level was reported at 3.2% of Spanish-speaking people who spoke English less than very well (US Census Bureau, 2000).

This language barrier was addressed in two ways. One way this barrier was addressed was informally with bilingual children helping to interpret for children lacking language skills. Formally, bilingual aides were recruited to help with the classes. Although for this program teaching teams worked very effectively, the recruitment and training of bilingual teaching aides may be an issue, especially in communities with smaller Hispanic populations. The ideal solution would be to have Spanish-speaking educators; however, availability of bilingual Extension personnel is limited at this time. Programming for the Hispanic population should not be curtailed due to this limitation.

The second strategy used was to present written materials in Spanish and English. Extension had already prepared materials in Spanish, and little modification was needed for presentation to the children attending camp.

To fulfill the mission of the University of Illinois Extension, meeting the needs of the Hispanic population is an important element. The lack of previous knowledge of 4-H and other Extension programs revealed by the focus groups and the surveys demonstrated the need for further outreach by Extension. The positive experience with the Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp opened up the opportunity for this outreach in Will County to the Hispanic population. Extension in this area is now positioned to have an impact on not only youth but also other groups in the Hispanic community.

This camp has demonstrated that Extension programs can be effectively carried out in Hispanic communities. It also revealed that existing Extension programs need little or no adaptations when offered to Hispanic children. And finally, the Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp is just an example of the kind of 4-H programs that would be welcomed by the Hispanic community.

Limitations

The parents may have been anxious to please the facilitators of the camp and give positive responses to the questions concerning future participation in an effort to ensure more programs would be available to their children. Although 53% of the surveys were returned, this might indicate a bias of parents satisfied with the camp returning the questionnaires. Parents whose children did not enjoy the camp may not have returned the surveys.

Conclusion

The Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp has helped answer the three questions posed for this study: How can Extension plan and deliver Extension programs for the Hispanic population? What support do non-bilingual Extension personnel need to deliver programs to Hispanic populations? How can Extension work to meet the needs of the Hispanic population?

First, to plan and deliver Extension programs for Hispanic population, Extension must establish partnerships with local agencies working in the target community to gain the trust of the target families and show its commitment to better serve the needs of Hispanic families. Findings in this study suggested that lack of participation of Hispanics in Extension programs and/or lack of enrollment in 4-H clubs was due to the unavailability of Extension programming in the target community. However, once Hispanic families were exposed to Extension programs, they found them beneficial to their children and parents would allow their children to participate in 4-H clubs or attend Extension programs.

Second, non-bilingual Extension personnel were supported formally and informally to overcome the language barrier. Informally, bilingual students in each group helped their low-English proficiency peers. Formally, bilingual aides were hired to assist non-bilingual staff, bilingual volunteers from partnering organizations were recruited, and teaching materials were available in English and Spanish.

Third, to meet the needs of the Hispanic population, Extension must first understand how to approach the target audience and implement actions to facilitate the interaction. Extension needs to hire more Spanish-speaking professionals to conduct educational programming. Continued professional development opportunities need to be offered to help non-Spanish-speaking staff feel more comfortable with the Hispanic audience and to build a commitment for on-going programming in the area. Taking the time to establish relationships with Hispanic partners and to build trust with Hispanic families will be crucial to the future success of Extension programming.

With the rising Hispanic population in many states, local and state government officials will become increasingly interested in seeing the results of Extension programming that address the needs of this audience. Reporting impact of programs such as the Fun, Food, and Friends Summer Camp will be very important for funding and accountability purposes.

References

Chavkin, N., & Gonzalez, D. (1995). Forging partnerships between Mexican American parents and the schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Hobbs, B. (2001). Diversifying the volunteer base: Latinos and volunteerism. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a1.html

Illinois State Board of Education. (2004). Illinois schools report card. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/rcard/detail.asp?f_ID=5609908602024

Inger, M. (1992). Increasing the school involvement of Hispanic parents. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

US Census Bureau. (1990). Census 1990. Retrieved Nov 5, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable

US Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 Census. Retrieved Nov 5, 2004, from http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/2000census/05017197

Cooking with a Chef

Marge Condrasky
Assistant Professor
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
mcondra@clemson.edu

Introduction

Family meals have undergone dramatic changes in the last two decades that have affected the quality of children's diets. Maternal employment, changes in family structure, and increased time pressure are factors affecting children's food choices (Escobar, 1999). Caregivers want to provide healthful food for their families, but many have not learned survival skills in the kitchen. They often come up short on meals that meet the dietary recommendations for fruit and vegetables, grains, and dairy products (Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association, 2004).

Low-income and minority families are especially at high risk for poor nutritional status and health (Lee, Hoerr, & Schiffman, 2005; Alaimo, Olson, Frongillo, & Briefel, 2001). Many of these families have limited time for food purchasing and preparation, limited access and availability to foods, limited food preparation skills, limited knowledge of proper nutrition, and limited budgets. As a result, these families' children may grow up in food-insecure households at risk for impaired cognitive development, childhood obesity, and other chronic health problems (Fleischhacker & Achterberg, 2003; Horodynski, Hoerr, & Coleman, 2004).

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) agents identify with family's daily concern for healthy, affordable food that children will eat. Cost-effective interventions that help households manage t