Editor's Page

Editor's Page

Questions & Answers for Authors

Q&A for Authors

Submission Instructions

Instructions for Submitting Articles

Review and Evaluation Process

Review and Evaluation Process

Editorial Committees and Board

Editorial Committee and Board

Feature Articles

Evaluation with a New Twist

Emmalou Van Tilburg

Judges Are Teachers, Too!

Barbara Sawer

EXPERT/R

Mark A.Varner and Richard A. Levins

Extension Goes to High School

Paul G. McKenna and William G. Barber, Jr.

Refining Performance Appraisal

Thomas F. Patterson

Executive Development Center

Keith L. Smith and Richard W. Clark

Futures

Developing an Innovative Culture

Michael Quinn Patton

Ideas at Work

Families...Take Time

Mary Crooks and Patricia Steiner

Life/Work Transitions

David Sanderson

It's a Reality

Sarah Henson

Research in Brief

Older Rural Adult Learners

Barbara A. White

Television as a Delivery System

S. Kay Rockwell and James K. Randall

Graying of America

Patricia Tanner Nelson

Tools of the Trade

From the Top Down

Martha Nall and Sam Quick

Supervisors often act on the assumption that what their staff members want most is to "get ahead." While this is certainly true in many cases, a significant number of people focus on other goals, such as job security, challenge, or optimal balance between work and personal life. Effective supervisors must recognize the diverse career needs of their staff and respond appropriately.

In Managing the New Careerists, C. Brooklyn Derr identifies five distinct career orientations, each bearing different motivational needs, benefits and costs, strategies for success, and managerial considerations. Which of these can you find reflected in yourself and your co-workers?

• Getting ahead: aroused by the possibility of advancing to higher and higher levels within the organization.
• Getting secure: a sense of job security and organizational loyalty is of primary importance.
• Getting free: wanting to feel a sense of autonomy and self-direction in one's work.
• Getting high: craving challenge and excitement.
• Getting balanced: being able to deal with work and personal life on a level of equal importance; not allowing one to overshadow the other.

Derr symbolizes an individual's internal career orientation by the equation:

Career Success Map = (Motives + Values + Talents) - Perceived Constraints

Although he provides more detailed evaluation instruments, a basic feel for these variables may be obtained by considering the following questions:

Motives

1. What kinds of events, tasks, and assignments are particularly enjoyable?
2. What do you particularly dislike doing?

Values

1. What philosophies or beliefs seem to guide you?
2. To what causes, people, or tasks are you dedicated?
3. What sorts of things seem to offend you the most?
4. Of what are you the proudest?

Talents

1. What are your major professional strengths or talents?
2. In which areas do you excel in comparison to peers?
3. What are some of your key weaknesses?
4. How much do these weaknesses affect your professional performance?

Perceived Constraints

1. Is you partnership life constraining? How?
2. Is you parenting life constraining? How?
3. Is your extended family life constraining? How?
4. Is your health a constraint? How?
5. Are you geographically mobile?
6. Are your educational or social backgrounds constraining? How?

Understanding internal and external forces affecting careers allows both the employee and the supervisor to make better decisions. Supervisors should recognize that "getting secure" employees won't be happy working under part-time or consultancy options, while "getting high" people would find these quite attractive. "Getting ahead" employees will put the organization's needs above all else to attain their objectives, but this isn't appropriate to those mostly interested in "getting balanced."

No one category is represented as necessarily more desirable than the other; the matter is simply one of matching the individual's needs to those of the organization. "Getting free" employees may be more difficult to manage than those who are "getting ahead," but may have a greater amount of creativity or highly developed technical ability than the latter. Compromise on either or both sides may be required, but it's helpful to have a clear idea of where the negotiating process starts.

What is you career orientation? Do your actions relate to your objectives? Recognizing, accepting, and reacting appropriately to inherent individual differences are the keys to making the most of everyone's careers.

PJB

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

James L. Smith, president, Alabama, Member at Large
Randel Price, vice-president, Arkansas, Southern Directors
Patrick G. Boyle, secretary, Wisconsin, Site Institution
Lynn Busse, Executive Committee, Indiana, North Central Directors
Ellawese B. McLendon, Executive Committee, New Jersey, NAEHE
Gail Shellberg, Executive Committee, Colorado, Member at Large
Wayne Bath, Washington, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Clarence J. Cunningham, Ohio, Member at Large
John Eix, Minnesota, NACAA
Donald W. Fancher, Missouri, Site Institution
Gary Gerhard, Ohio, NAE4-HA
Peter Horne, New Hamsphire, North East Directors
Robert Light, Massachusetts, ECOP
W. Robert Lovan, Washington, D.C., Extension Service, USDA
Norma Redeker, Arizona, Western Directors
Ellen M. Ritter, Texas, Editorial Committee
James Shaner, Missouri, ACE
M. F. Smith, Maryland, Member at Large
Leodrey Williams, Louisiana, 1890 Institutions

Editorial Committee

Ellen M. Ritter, chairperson, College Station, Texas
Julie Adamcin, Tucson, Arizona
Kirk Astroth, Chanute, Kansas
Henry Brooks, Princess Anne, Maryland
Dennis Brown, Pullman, Washington
Barbara Cooper, Columbus, Ohio
Roger Corbin, Waxahachie, Texas
Karen Goebel, Madison, Wisconsin
Marilyn Halusky, Jacksonville, Florida
Jeanne M. Hogarth, Ithaca, New York
Tom Jurchak, Scranton, Pennsylvania
Douglas Parrett, Urbana, Illinois
Myrna Powell, Omaha, Nebraska
Kathy Rickart, Simla, Colorado
Janet Rodekohr, Athens, Georgia
Jo Ellen Saumier, New City, New York
Suellen Scott, Muskogee, Oklahoma
Mark E. Settle, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
M. F. Smith, College Park, Maryland
Paul Warner, Lexington, Kentucky

Research in Brief Editors

William G. Boldt, Cornell University, educational marketing
Patricia Tanner Nelson, University of Delaware, human behavior
Kay Rockwell, University of Nebraska, communications and delivery systems
Keith L. Smith, Ohio State University, organizational management and administration
Barbara A. White, Kellogg Fellow, Montana, program development and evaluation

Tools of the Trade Editor

C. Stephen Scheneman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Futures Editor

Michael Quinn Patton, University of Minnesota

The real challenge...matching evaluation procedures to the program and population. As a teacher and practicing professional evaluator, I'm always looking for new and creative approaches to designing evaluations and collecting information.

When presented with the opportunity to design an evaluation for an educational program to be used by families with self-care children ("Keys for Kids" Home Study Packet), this evaluation was the perfect opportunity to use a data collection technique, children's drawings, that I hadn't used before, but imagined would work quite well.

Although very little research has been conducted on this particular method of data collection, children's drawings have been used successfully in several instances.

"Anything created by someone - a drawing, a painting, a piece of sculpture - is a nonverbal message from the creator about the inner self and that artist's world."1

This statement from Mommy, Daddy, Look What I'm Saying, a book on children's drawings and their meanings, suggests that using drawings as a method of data collection is quite a valid approach to measurement. Drawings have been used extensively for many years in psychological testing and diagnosis of emotionally disturbed children, as well as in a variety of other psychological testing situations.

In 1926, Florence Goodenough introduced the Draw-a-Person Test (DAP) that was used as a psychological test of intelligence.2 Many tests have been used as diagnostic and projective techniques including the House-Tree-Person Test first developed in 1948 and the Kinetic-Family-Drawings test developed in 1970.3

In his book on group values and drawings, Dennis also suggests children's drawings are an appropriate method to use to determine values, stating that "it is our hypothesis that drawings do not merely mirror the environment. They reflect values or preferences, not the frequencies of experiences."4 This would suggest that given the task of drawing something specific, children will include in their drawings preferred situations or valued situations to represent the actual situation.

Koppitz cautions that drawings tend to reflect the child's attitudes of the moment and that attitudes and drawings will change over time.5 However, this should be taken as a caution and not a true limitation because evaluators know that any measurement of attitude only captures the immediate state of the individual.

A limitation that should be taken into account is the limited skill of the artist. Dennis says many children won't try to draw a difficult scene, but will substitute less difficult objects in the picture. This occurs with the use of language as well.

Dennis concludes that "no tool can perform all functions and neither can any test." Thus, evaluators should analyze restrictions and appropriateness when considering this method.

Koppitz offers this comment:

Drawing is a natural mode of expression for boys and girls. It is a nonverbal language and form of communication; like any other language, it can be analyzed for structure, quality and content.6

With this in mind, a section of the family mail questionnaire asked children responding to draw a picture of themselves doing their favorite after-school activity. There was no intent or attempt to analyze the content of the drawings in terms of the child's psychological state, but only to collect information on activities.

The drawings were scored on three elements: number of people in the picture (none, one, more than one), location of the scene in the picture (inside, outside, undetermined), and principal activity in the picture (eight categories were determined).

The children were also asked to report their feelings while home alone as measured by the following question:

How do you usually feel when you are home alone? (Circle all that describe your feelings.)

a. Happy that I can take care of myself.
b. Afraid that something might happen to me.
c. Lonely.
d. Bored.
e. Okay.
f. Other _____________________.

Relationships were investigated between the content of the drawings and children's reported feelings. Any relationships found were reported, but there was no attempt to explain them in terms of psychological state.

Children's feelings when home alone were fairly evenly distributed among the 42 responses. Thirty-three percent indicated they were "happy that they could take care of themselves." Thirty percent were "afraid," 23% were "lonely," 29% were "bored," and 40% marked "okay." Twelve percent indicated other feelings, mostly concern over safety.

Forty-two children drew pictures of themselves doing their favorite after-school activity. Of that number, 29 (66%) drew themselves alone, eight (18%) drew others in the picture, and five had no people at all in the picture. Eighteen pictures were inside scenes (42%), 14 were outside (33%), and 10 were undeterminable.

Eight categories of activities were established. These and their frequencies were:

1. Active sports               17        40%
2. Watching television         10        23%
3. Doing homework               4        10%
4. Doing quiet activity         4        10%
5. Visiting others              2         5%
6. Listening to music           2         5%
7. School bus riding            1         2%
8. Undeterminable               2         5%

Initially, it appeared to the evaluators that children who drew particular pictures appeared to be reporting the same emotional feelings. For example, it seemed that children who drew themselves in front of the TV tended to report that they were "bored."

However, using the chi-square test, it was found that only one trend was statistically significant: children who tended to draw themselves with others in their pictures also tended to mark lonely as one of their feelings of being home alone.

Dennis' hypothesis suggesting that children tend to draw what's valued and preferred, seems to be supported by this relationship. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the drawings in the study. Simple frequencies of occurrences must be recorded, but with the notation that the children were asked to draw themselves doing their favorite after-school activity, not the most frequent one.

Research using children's drawings has provided valid, useful information. This method for data collection can provide yet another vehicle for evaluators to use in their quest to capture the "real picture" of the program.

Using drawings with special populations can give evaluators the opportunity to obtain data that otherwise wouldn't be collected. The method also provides an alternative look at an individual's world of attitudes, values, and perceptions of reality.

However, care must be taken when interpreting results. As with any creative activity, drawings include much more than just a simple look at the world. Attitudes, emotions, perceptions, and psychological state can all be represented in an individual's drawings. Descriptive data collected by drawings can be reported as such, but interpretation and explanation must be either omitted or done by an expert. There's a temptation for evaluators to make interpretations that they're neither prepared nor qualified to make.

From ancient drawings in the cave to childrens' drawings on "Keys for Kids" evaluation instruments, pictures express what people see on the outside and feel on the inside. They include observation and imagination, fiction and reality, how people feel, and what people think. What a rich source of information we have at our fingertips as investigators in the use of drawings and other creative methods of expression. Aristotle admitted that "the soul never thinks without an image."7 The recommendation would be to tap that reservoir, but with great care in approach, process, and interpretation of results.

1. Myra Levick and Diana Wheeler, Mommy, Daddy, Look What I'm Saying: What Children Are Telling You Through Their Art (New York: M. Evans and Company, Inc., 1986).

2. Florence L. Goodenough, Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1926).

3. Robert C. Burns and S. Harvard Kaufman, Actions, Styles and Symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings: An Interpretative Manual (New York: Brunner/Mazel, Publishers, 1972).

4. Wayne Dennis, Group Values Through Children's Drawings (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966).

5. Elizabeth M. Koppitz, "Projective Drawings with Children and Adolescents," School Psychology Review, XII (No. 4, 1983), 421-27.

6. Ibid., p. 426.

7. Kenneth Gergen, The Concept of Self (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971).

Judges, in evaluating products and performance, have sometimes been elevated to legendary heights. These oft-quoted individuals ("the judge said...") can affect a member's attitude about a year-long learning experience or influence the direction of an entire program. Yet, judges are often unprepared to serve their most important role - that of a teacher.

Since judging occurs at a "teachable moment," it provides an ideal opportunity for feedback to help 4-H members improve their work. At the same time, judges need to be aware they're members of a teaching team that includes volunteer leaders, parents, and Extension staff. As members of that team, they have responsibilities to support and reinforce the learning that has occurred throughout the project year.

Today's judges have opportunities for active teaching in individual conferences with 4-Hers (interview judging). It's not enough for them to be familiar with subject matter, quality standards, and class descriptions - they also need to relate well to young people, offering constructive feedback and positive reinforcement to facilitate the learning process.

Recognizing the important role these teacher-evaluators play in total programming efforts, we include them in our state training schedule, specifically targeting workshops for judges just as we do for agents and volunteer leaders. Following is a description of a training workshop designed for 4-H clothing judges and offered at four regional locations.

Twelve hours of instruction were offered over one- and-a-half days. The judge's role as a teacher as well as an evaluator was introduced, then reinforced throughout. Specific content dealt with 4-H clothing project objectives, the purpose of judging in the 4-H program, the process, responsibilities of judges, fashion, clothing construction, and technology.

The importance of providing a positive learning experience during the interview judging process was emphasized. Major points included using a nurturing approach, showing flexibility in applying standards, depending on the age and ability of the member, recognizing more than one acceptable way of constructing a garment, and focusing on future performance ("next time you might want to consider...").

Teaching techniques included lectures, videotapes, slidetapes, and role playing. Small group "hands-on" sessions were used for evaluating garments made by 4-H members at various skill levels. A laboratory format provided "hands-on" experience with serger sewing machines. The principal instructors were the state clothing specialist and the state 4-H specialist with home economics responsibilities. Fourteen experienced judges were resources for these activities.

Attendance at the four workshops varied from 22 to 55, for a total of 151 participants at all locations. All counties but one were represented. More than half (53%) of those attending had never judged before; about a third (35%) were updating knowledge and skills learned in previous judging workshops.

Pretests were sent when registration was confirmed and posttests were filled out as the final workshop activity. Pretests were completed by 141 participants; 142 completed posttests-about 94% in each case.

Each test consisted of 25 knowledge items related to judging philosophy and skills, as well as clothing subject matter and five attitude items concerning youth and fashion. The posttest also included an assessment of the workshop.

Pre/posttest scores were compared using t-tests with statistical significance set at the .01 level. Although the pre/post comparisons are necessarily correlated, the t-test for uncorrelated means was used. Frequency counts and percentages were also used for data analysis.

A 21% gain in knowledge was noted when pre- and posttest scores were compared for the 25 knowledge items. The average posttest score of 23.2 was significantly higher than the pretest score of 19.1. Significant shifts were also noted in three of the five attitude items, indicating more understanding of issues relating to youth and fashion.

Nearly 85% of the participants said they learned "a lot," while 15% reported learning "some." None reported learning "little or nothing."

Asked in an open-ended question to name the two most important things they learned, participants listed items that we then grouped by topic and sorted into three categories-judging philosophy, judging skills, and subject matter. Responses relating to skills and subject matter were rather straightforward ("I gained more confidence in my ability to judge," "I learned to use a serger machine," and so on). Responses in the philosophy category were more reflective. For example, participants reported they learned to:
"...think of the 4-Her first, then the project."
"...be positive, teach, and encourage."
"...care about the member's feelings while evaluating as objectively as possible."

The largest number of responses (37%) related to subject-matter learning, with judging skills (34%) close behind. Responses in the judging philosophy category (29%) followed in third place (see Table 1).

Since we feel the primary reasons people attend the workshops are to update themselves in subject matter and learn the "how-to's" of judging, we weren't surprised at these findings. We also realize that those attending previous workshops have already been exposed to a healthy dose of judging philosophy. In subsequent workshops, these experienced participants might be more likely to focus their attention on "new" learning. This speculation was supported when we found that 95% of the comments made in the philosophy category came from first-time participants.

Serger sewing, mentioned by 39% of the respondents, topped the list of individual topics, followed by increased self-confidence (25%), tips for interview judging (21%), and new construction techniques (19%). All were from the subject-matter and skills categories.

Three of the four topics in the philosophy category also made what we felt was a substantial showing: providing a positive experience for members (17%), using judging as a teaching opportunity (15%), and using flexible standards (14%). Nearly all these responses came from first-time participants.

The workshop was rated "excellent" by 86% of the participants and "good" by 14%. Ratings for the individual sections were high, with participants generally reporting the length of each as "just right." Typical unsolicited comments written in the margins of the posttests include:

"Well worth the time and money - I feel inspired to increase my commitment to the 4-H program."

"I'm a picky judge, but you made me see beyond the exhibit to the member's experience."

"I really wanted to judge even before I attended. Now I feel confident and want to judge even more."

Ninety percent of the participants requested that their names be placed on the 4-H Home Economics Judges List distributed to agents and county fair managers. The list includes project areas in which the judge feels qualified, judging assignments during the past three years, and year of last training. Beginning judges, designated as "apprentices," are responsible for contacting experienced ones and arranging to accompany them on assignments.

The list is updated in odd-numbered years, with a supplement appearing in even-numbered years. While counties aren't obligated to select judges from the list, 98% of the 4-H home economics judges hired throughout the state last year came from the current list of 217 names. (Although it's not required, nearly everyone on the list has attended at least one judging workshop.)

Those on the list are sent newsletters updating them on changes and reinforcing judging concepts. They also receive an optional evaluation form that allows a superintendent to assess a judge's performance. The forms are returned to the state 4-H office where comments are summarized and sent to judges as feedback.

Continuing a tradition of more than 20 years of judges' training (about 2.5 workshops annually), the Oregon 4-H staff has scheduled 12 more workshops over the next five years, all dealing with different project areas. Clothing judges will meet again at the end of the five-year rotation.

Since we're pleased for the most part with our training workshops, we plan next to focus our attention on evaluating judging performance. Although we aren't interested in formal certification, we'd like to do some performance monitoring, with follow-up counseling for those whose skills need improvement.

The most important role a judge plays is that of a teacher. As members of the Extension teaching team, they have responsibilities to support and reinforce learning that occurs throughout the total 4-H experience. Training workshops are an effective means of preparing them for teaching roles by providing current subject-matter and project information, "hands-on" judging experience, and a philosophical foundation for facilitating the learning process.

A follow-up listing of workshop participants offers a pool of trained judges for fairs and other competitive activities. Performance monitoring, with follow-up counseling, shows promise as a technique for controlling quality and providing feedback to apprentice, as well as experienced, judges.

Extension specialists and county agents are often called on to do one-on-one counseling. The more success one has in solving problems, the more one's called on to do variations of this kind of work. Apart from using valuable time, these calls can reduce already scarce funds for travel and other program necessities.

One-on-one calls also present another problem. While all specialists and agents have some areas in which they feel competent to provide advice, there are many more areas in which someone else's advice would be better. In other words, it's hard to put the best of each individual's expertise into everyone's head.

In the winter of 1985, we wondered if computer software could be designed for agents doing one-on-one work. Such programs could reduce the time required to do routine work and free the time of state specialists for work on the more unusual and difficult cases. Further, the programs could be designed by those with the most expertise in a subject, but used equally well by everyone to provide advice in the subject area.

The problem we chose to work on was that of diagnosing reproductive problems in dairy cattle. Reproductive problems are of significant economic importance, but their solution usually requires one-on-one work. In a typical problem-solving session with a dairy producer, two or three farm visits are required. The first determines herd status, identifies potential problem causes, and sets priorities for further actions. These actions can include recording specific data for refinement of diagnosis and/or adoption of management practices. The next visit is necessary for about half the herds, to improve the diagnosis. The last visit is required to adapt recommended management practices to the peculiar set of conditions (animal housing, labor availability, etc.) for that herd. This process often takes a year or more to complete.

With no formal training in advanced computer techniques, no money for programmers, and only microcomputers with which to work, we set out to design a computer program that would expand our capabilities to make routine diagnoses. In this article, we briefly describe our program (called EXPERT/R) and how we're using it. Readers interested in learning more about the program's details are encouraged to contact us directly.

EXPERT/R is designed to mimic the thought process of a human expert in solving a problem. It asks questions, uses the answers to make deductions, and produces a statement of the problem's solution. A typical diagnostic session with the program requires about 15 minutes and produces a report of one-half to one-and-one -half pages long.

In EXPERT/R, a collection of 36 questions is the means the program uses to find out information. Typical questions ask information on herd statistics, use of drugs, condition of dry cows, and whether certain tests are routinely performed. The answer to each question asked is used to determine which question is to be asked next, so the user will never be asked questions that aren't relevant to his/her particular situation. A herd with excellent reproductive management will be asked as few as four questions, but a herd with several and/or severe problems will be asked many more questions.

Each session with EXPERT/R produces a diagnostic report. If problems are diagnosed, they're brought to the user's attention in the report, as is the rationale for the diagnosis. This helps users more fully understand the diagnosis and thereby increases their confidence in the report.

Finally, recommendations are made on how to solve the diagnosed problems. At times, an EXPERT/R report might recommend that better records be kept, regular veterinary check-ups be scheduled, or the use of certain drugs be discontinued.

The choice of a programming language for EXPERT/R was based on three factors:

1. The program was to be used in typical situations encountered by county agents, veterinarians, and dairy farmers.
2. The program had to run on the Radio Shack 16B microcomputers that had been installed in all county Extension offices in Maryland.
3. The program had to be relatively compatible with many computers and within the abilities of other specialists to modify.

These factors led us to program EXPERT/R as a BASIC program using extensive text files as data. It will run on a machine with 64K RAM and requires about 120K of disk storage space. The text files, which contain the diagnostic reports, were prepared with an ordinary word processing program and therefore required no programming expertise to assemble. The questions and rules for selecting reports were included in the BASIC program.

Our initial use of EXPERT/R was as a diagnostic aid for 26 dairy herds participating in a demonstration project focusing on the efficiency of dairy production. For these 26 herds, a diagnosis made by the program was compared to one made by the herd's veterinarian. Fifteen different veterinarians worked with the 26 herds. Two were dairy cattle reproductive specialists and the others had practices that treated many types of livestock and companion animals.

The results of the comparison confirmed the accuracy of the program. Only three of the diagnoses made by the veterinarians were judged to be potentially more accurate than those provided by the program, and those were all made by the veterinarians who were reproductive specialists. The program did as well or better than the veterinarians in the other 23 cases. This type of testing is important not only for validation of the existing system, but to indicate directions for future improvement.

We've been pleased with the reaction of county agents who are now using the program. They were provided with example herds to run with EXPERT/R, but quickly went beyond this level of testing and ran other diagnoses. In one county, the agent used the program with four herds. In each case, the producer had contacted the agent about other matters, but dairy reproductive problems came up in conversation, and the agent ran EXPERT/R. These herds all had relatively simple diagnoses, and the agent was able to make recommendations that helped these producers without any specialist visits.

In a second county, the agent ran EXPERT/R using the producer's Dairy Herd Improvement Association records and produced a preliminary report. The agent then made a farm visit with the local veterinarian and obtained answers to the remaining EXPERT/R questions. EXPERT/R indicated that further data were needed before making a full diagnosis. Thus, two of three possible specialist visits were unnecessary for this herd because EXPERT/R was used.

An unexpected use of EXPERT/R will be made in a third county. The agent plans to run EXPERT/R on 15 county herds from the county. He'll then use the pattern of problems found to set priorities for the educational needs of dairy producers in his county. The problem areas will be targeted with mass media releases and annual Extension meetings.

Acceptance of the program was slow at first, but now EXPERT/R has become a useful tool in our overall educational effort. The hardware and software requirements are within easy reach of any Extension effort, the results of the program are accurate, and the county faculty are adapting to the new way of doing business. Our current work involves refining the program, investigating farmer-level response to using the program, and exploring ways to deliver EXPERT/R on a statewide basis.

Based on our experience with EXPERT/R, we feel that computer software of this type holds the promise of helping specialists and agents live better with fewer resources. We can easily see this approach to one-on-one work as an important part of tomorrow's Extension.

It has been argued that Extension shouldn't have a role in formal education or in any area outside of commercial agriculture.1 However, the point can be made that such a role fosters agriculture and agribusiness. In New Haven, Connecticut, the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service has been successfully involved in formal education through an inner-city high school that does just that.

In early 1983, the Extension administrator was interested in finding alternative ways to meet Extension's public service responsibilities. Extension was interested in sharing its knowledge and resources in the areas of food production, food distribution, nutrition education, resource conservation, energy conservation, and waste recycling with the urban community. From a discussion with the administration of the New Haven Public School System, an alternative inner-city high school was quickly identified as a possible site for a long-term cooperative venture.

The High School in the Community (HSC) was established in 1970 and was the first alternative school in New Haven. It has a student body of 230, 60% of whom are black or Hispanic, and a professional staff of 18. HSC has a history of trying to vary teaching techniques to maintain student motivation. HSC also uses longer time blocks to meet total curriculum needs. Students can group class periods together so a whole morning or afternoon can be used for a particular class or group of classes. In previous years, HSC offered experiential learning opportunities at a local nature center, so the school was also accustomed to having students go off campus.

Key Components

Through collaborative planning, the county administrator and a school administrator developed a proposal for a pilot project. Key components of this project were: (1) the unique collaborative nature of the program, (2) development of an interdisciplinary curriculum focusing on human life support systems, (3) emphasis on the relevancy of academic knowledge through the use of practical, first-hand experiences, and (4) through the project, development of a full proposal for funding a long-term collaborative effort between Extension and the High School in the Community. A small planning grant application was submitted to the Hazen Foundation in New Haven and subsequently funded.

Curriculum

Through the grant, a part-time consultant-coordinator was hired and Extension began to work with the high school teachers to design a curriculum for the 1983-84 academic year. Although the coordinator reported to the high school, his selection was a joint decision between Extension and HSC. Over the summer months, five HSC faculty members met regularly with the consultant-coordinator and staff of Extension to develop a five-course interdisciplinary curriculum. They wrote the full proposal for establishing and funding (through the Hazen Foundation) a long-term collaboration between Extension and HSC.

Early in the planning stages, it became clear that the HSC teachers weren't familiar with the services and resources of Extension, nor did the Extension staff clearly understand the curricula needs of the inner-city high school teachers. To address this gap, regular weekly meetings were scheduled for the first semester. In addition, the Extension administrator coordinated a site visit for the HSC teachers to the University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources to acquaint them with the resources of Extension and the University of Connecticut.

By the end of the summer planning period, five interdisciplinary course outlines had been developed: Appropriate Technology, Ecology, Food and Energy, the Politics of Food, and Third World Economics. Each course would consist of 120 hours of instruction and, by using HSC's alternative structure, could be completed in one nine-week quarter by using blocks of three or four hours. Except for the practicum components, which would be completed at the local nature center, the courses could be taught in a traditional high school.

Goal

The specific goal of the project was to establish a model high school curriculum that would acquaint students with life-support systems such as food production, nutrition education, energy use, and waste disposal. The experiences and resources of Extension would be incorporated into the formal academic program. The curriculum would emphasize first-hand experiences in small-scale urban food production, raising small animals, and related construction activities.

Extension would benefit by expanding its ability to disseminate practical information, and the high school would benefit through additional resources and expertise. The community would benefit by having demonstration projects located in public parks, community gardens, and public greenhouse facilities. The students would benefit by actually experiencing the application and relevancy of academic knowledge and by gaining an additional understanding of life-support systems. It was hoped that the practical nature of the project would increase the students' motivation to learn these subjects and pique their interest in agriculture-related careers.

A critical aspect of the project was the integration of the five-course project into the school curriculum. If the school adopted it, the project's continuation would be assured. Therefore, steps were taken early in the planning stages to foster this integration. The first year would involve the efforts of five teachers. In the second year, four additional faculty members would become involved, and by the third year, all faculty would be using materials obtained or developed through the project.

A parallel approach involved 30 students during the planning grant. The first semester, students participated in planting and maintaining a botanical field station at the nature center and designing a model solar greenhouse to be constructed if the full collaborative project was funded. In the first full year of the project, at least 50% of the student body would be exposed to the curriculum and, by the third year, all 230 students would be involved.

At this time, the project is continuing. There have been two major evaluations conducted and some modifications have been made in response to the recommendations contained in those evaluations. We learned that communication must continually be addresssed. Initially, Extension didn't understand the needs of the High School in the Community, and HSC teachers weren't aware of the resources available to them through Extension. That communication need continues, and regular monthly meetings have been reestablished.

The evaluations found that the project has been successful largely due to the strong commitment of Extension staff and the school faculty. However, it was the project coordinator who brought it all together. For example, he obtained the baby chicks for the broiler raising project, worked with the students in planting and maintaining the gardens, and helped the teachers by providing practical examples to support their lessons. While a university specialist taught the students how to slaughter the chickens they'd raised and how to prepare them for market, the coordinator was the on-site resource.

The HSC students are clearly benefiting from this experience. Their principal reports:

The students are actively involved in learning. They are more motivated and sensitive to scientific education, they question more and see relationships that were not understood prior to this project.

The students have taken field trips to the university, visited a large egg production farm and a feed mill, gone to a local vegetable farm and orchard, and spoken with farmers, migrant workers in the fields, and university faculty in their labs.

In addition to producing food in the gardens and raising chickens, the students have conducted a food drive and prepared food for local soup kitchens. Students who once knew only the inner-city are now beginning to understand the role of agriculture, food production, waste disposal, and the environment in their lives.

So that the project might continue after the completion of the grant, Extension helped establish an Advisory Board. On the board are representatives of Extension, Park and Recreation Department, Board of Education, Mayor's Office, and High School in the Community, as well as a city alderman, state representative, and several local businesspeople. Through the board's efforts, scholarships for further education were sought, as were placements for noncollege-bound students in agribusinesses or in agriculture-related fields. The board was also instrumental in convincing the New Haven Board of Education to approve funding for the half-time position of the project coordinator for at least the next year.

The project is succeeding. The curriculum2 has been integrated into the school, and the coordinator has been funded. The Advisory Board is in place and meeting regularly. Perhaps most important, the students are learning - they're motivated and interested in agriculture and agribusiness. Extension can have a role in formal education; indeed, it can be argued, we should have.

1. C. Brice Ratchford, "Extension: Unchanging, But Changing," Journal of Extension, XXII (September/October 1984), 8-15.

2. Curriculum guides are available through William Barber, New Haven County Extension Office, 670 Wintergreen Avenue, Hamden, CT 06514.

Probably no other organizational function strikes as much terror in the hearts of Extension agents as the annual job evaluation or performance appraisal. Defined by Schneier and Beatty as, "...the process of identifying, measuring and developing human performance in organizations,"1 performance appraisal tries to:

1. Give feedback to employees to improve subsequent performance.
2. Identify employee training needs.
3. Document criteria used to allocate organizational rewards.
4. Form a basis for personnel decisions-salary (merit) increases, disciplinary actions, etc.
5. Provide the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and development.
6. Facilitate communication between employee and administrator.
7. Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to meet federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.

Over the years, many different formats and procedures have been tried to meet these multiple objectives.

For each of these purposes, someone in the organization must make some decisions about the kinds of characteristics of people or their performance to be evaluated and about the manner in which the evaluation will be done, by whom, and how well. There are relatively few special rules or special principles applicable only to the specific purposes.2

Common performance appraisal formats include:

1. Global ratings: A one-dimensional rating that uses a rater's overall estimate of performance without distinguishing between critical job dimensions (poor, fair, good, excellent).
2. Trait-based scales: A multidimensional (or graphic) approach used to measure performance. Some commonly used traits are: loyalty, dependability, cooperation, initiative, and self-confidence.
3. Effectiveness-based systems: A system based on "objective" results, representing the measurement of an employee's contribution, not an employee's activities or behaviors. Management by Objectives (MBO) is a popular example of this kind of performance appraisal format.

Despite its standard practice in most public and private organizations for more than 50 years, performance appraisal still has many problems. Raters show resistance to criticizing subordinates, and the judgmental aspect of evaluating human performance is subject to both covert (subjective and individual) and overt (prejudice and bias) errors. Raters often aren't trained in employee counseling and may be forced to conduct performance appraisals with inadequate or erroneous information about ratee performance.

Also, the critical effect on the ratee can sometimes be devastating. Some studies have shown that employees tend to remember only negative comments, which can have a negative effect on job performance for up to three months afterward. Appraisals are often taken as personal criticism or a challenge to self-worth.

Another consideration is that federal legislation, court decisions, and guidelines of several federal agencies have recently targeted performance appraisal as a validation procedure for employee selection techniques and preventing discrimination in the workplace. The courts have found organizations in violation of civil rights laws in failing to validate performance appraisal criteria and methods.

To try to rectify some of the above problems, Smith and Kendall developed Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, better known as BARS.3 The BARS format deals with measurable behaviors, not personality, provides raters and ratees with clear statements of performance goals, and is based on a specific, thorough job analysis.

Using BARS, raters focus on specific ratee behaviors. These behaviors are compared to specific examples (job dimensions and anchors developed from the job analysis) that provide concrete benchmarks for making appraisal judgments.

The BARS format was used to develop the Extension Agent Behaviors and Results Anchored Rating System (EABRARS). Job dimensions and anchors were derived from a 1979 Extension agent job analysis commissioned by USDA and conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR).4 Nine job dimensions (5 behaviors and 4 results) were selected from the AIR analysis (Table 1). Within each of these job dimensions, anchor statements were rewritten and grouped in categories from 1 to 7, according to AIR weightings. An example of the final EABRARS performance appraisal format is shown in Table 2.

In a 1984 study in New England, 16 raters (Extension administrators designated by their state Extension director as having agent performance appraisal responsibility) completed EABRARS on 141 rural New England Extension agents.5 Reliability analysis of the total ratings indicated that EABRARS was an internally consistent, highly reliable instrument. Differences between New England agents were detected at the .05 confidence level with respect to age, subject-matter area, years of experience, and state of employment. Raters reported that the EABRARS format was easy to use and straightforward.

In the 1984 study, I discovered that the existing performance appraisal systems weren't sophisticated or tested and some weren't even legal. EABRARS overcame these problems. It's based on a thorough job analysis of Extension agents' duties and responsibilities; it focuses on measurable behaviors and results, not personality; and it provides specific benchmarks for raters and ratees alike. In addition, it has undergone statistical testing that meets legal requirements.

"Performance evaluation," wrote Glueck, "is a personnel activity which, while not new, has not matured. Some significant studies have been done, but there are conflicting results, and a complete body of knowledge is years away."6 Further use and refinement of EABRARS will be a major step in the development of a performance appraisal system for Extension agents. EABRARS represents the beginning of a new wave of performance appraisal formats that must meet legal mandates as well as serve a variety of organizational purposes in identifying, measuring, and developing human performance.

Copies of the EABRARS performance appraisal may be obtained from the author.

1. Craig Eric Schneier and Richard W. Beatty, "Integrating Behaviorally Based Effectiveness-Based Methods,"The Personnel Administrator, XXIV (July 1979), 66.

2. Robert M. Guion, "Performance Assessment in Personnel Selection and Evaluation" (Paper presented at the Fourth Johns Hopkins University National Symposium on Educational Research, Performance Assessment: The State of the Art, November 5-6, 1982), pp. 3-4.

3. Craig Eric Schneier and Richard W. Beatty, "Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)," The Personnel Administrator , XXIV (August 1979), 59-68.

4. American Institutes for Research, "Development of Performance Evaluation and Selection Procedures for the Cooperative Extension Services" (Washington, D.C.: AIR, 1979).

5. Thomas F. Patterson, Jr., "A Study to Determine the Relationship Between Rural New England Extension Agent Educational Orientation and Job Performance" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, October 1984).

6. William F. Glueck, Personnel: A Diagnostic Approach (Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, 1978), p. 285.

Before World War II, the German army implemented a multiple-assessment procedure they believed would greatly help in selecting military officers. The Germans knew that paper and pencil tests alone didn't give a proper or total picture of a person's potential as an officer and wanted to be able to observe the behavior of potential candidates under different situations. England and the United States soon followed Germany's technique, using a similar procedure to select spies. Since this wartime effort, American and European businesses have used and improved the multiple-assessment concept, now using these centers for staff development and promotional purposes.1

The Ohio Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) isn't in the business of developing spies or finding officers, but it is in the business, as are other American businesses, of developing and finding managers. Thus, we created the Executive Development Center to help Extension administrators identify and evaluate supervisory and managerial capabilities of county chairpersons.

Three trained assessors evaluate participants, in groups of six, on their performance in eight individual and group exercises. A candidate's overall evaluation is based on a pooling of information from the assessors. Performance on the eight exercises rate according to 16 job-related dimensions that were identified by a team of county chairs at a special job-analysis workshop. The dimensions, with abbreviated definitions, the exercises, and how the exercises relate to the dimensions, can be seen in Table 1. Here's a brief description of the eight exercises:

1. Inbasket. Assessees are given an adequate period of time to respond to a number of actual letter, memos, etc., taken from county chair inbaskets.
2. Inbasket Interview. Assessees explain their handling of these items to assessors.
3. Leaderless Group (Assigned Roles). Assessees are assigned an issue that will require a verbal report. Adequate preparation time is given. After the report, the balance of the allotted time is used by the six assessees to come to a consensus on the issue.
4. Leaderless Group (Unassigned Roles). Assessees are each given a description of the same typical county problem. The group is then charged with coming to a consensus on how to handle the problem in an allotted time period.
5. Case-Study Analysis. Assessees are given a typical county budget problem and an adequate amount of time to provide a written solution.
6. Background Interview. Assessors interview assessees one-on-one to determine leadership qualities, communication skills, and ability to work with committees or small groups.
7. Fact Finding. Assessees are given an overview of a conflict in a county office. They then question the resource person (assessor) for additional facts that would help solve the problem. After a short period provided to organize their thoughts, they explain to the assessor how they'd handle the conflict.
8. Interview Simulation. Assessees are given some background information on a "typical" county agent (either agriculture, 4-H, or home economics) for overnight perusal. The next day, they interview this agent (actor) in a performance appraisal setting.

Work on the Executive Development Center began in the summer of 1984 with a review of related literature and exploratory visits to other assessment centers. Consultants at Ohio State were used and elements of other successful centers were incorporated into the plan. After this preliminary work, the following proposal with its five elements was presented to the Extension administrative cabinet with subsequent approval.

1. Job Analysis and Exercise Construction. Job analysis and exercise construction was crucial, requiring an accurate description of the skills needed to successfully perform the job of county chairperson. These skills were identified and defined over a two-day period by a team of county chairpersons. This skills list was used as the foundation for developing 16 assessment center dimensions. The skills and dimensions then were used by the steering committee to develop the eight exercises. The exercises were consistent with Task Force on Assessment Center Standards.2
2. Selection of Assessors. For the assessment process to work, assessors must be well-qualified and representative (by race and sex) of the population to be assessed. Eighteen individuals recommended by the Steering Committee were drawn from within the OCES as an assessor pool. They were composed of retired county chairpersons, OCES state faculty, and current district and supervisory personnel.
3. Development and Training. The development of the training package and the conducting of the original training of the assessors was done with the help of a consultant familiar with assessment centers. The training consisted of five days of intensive review of the eight exercises, job dimensions, and the rating process.
4. Executive Center Usage. During the spring and summer of 1985, 83 county chairpersons were assessed in groups of six. After the two days to complete the process, another half day was required to compile the findings of the assessors. They then wrote a three-to-four page final report for each individual listing the participant's strengths and weaknesses and assessed level of overall competence in performing the job of county chairperson.
5. Staff Development Plan. The staff development plan is the payoff of the OCES Executive Development Center. The purpose of the developmental plan portion of the assessment process is to encourage, support, and guide the development efforts of the county chairpersons so they can enhance strengths and correct weaknesses in supervisory and managerial skills.

Developmental plans were individually packaged for each county chairperson based on the rating received at the center and their identified strengths and weaknesses. Each chair received a list of suggested managerial/supervisory or related courses, plus short course listings, self-study courses, and a bibliography of suggested readings on leadership and related issues. They have four years to complete these plans and are monitored by their district supervisor and the OCES leader for personnel development.

Are two years of planning, implementing, and continually evaluating such a program worth it? We've discovered, as others have, that the center:

1. Has greater validity for promotion and selection than traditional techniques.3
2. Having been developed on the basis of a job analysis, is inherently content-valid.4
3. Has shown itself to be a better indicator of future success than any other tool yet devised.5
4. Is relatively objective, provides uniform standards for judgment by trained observers, is valid, and can serve as a developmental experience for the participants.6
5. Could aid an organization in the early identification of management potential and in the diagnosis of individual management development needs so that training and development efforts can be invested more efficiently.7

We are particularly concerned with numbers 4 and 5, in that we're trying to provide a valid developmental activity that not only will aid current chairs, but help administration choose competent agents for future chair positions. We're currently assessing the supervisory and managerial capabilities of those who might enjoy this leadership opportunity, having completed the first round in April 1986. Our plans are to continue to help administration select county chairs and help agents with developmental plans that will aid them in sharpening specific skills needed to be effective county chairs.

1. W. F. Cascio, Applied Psychology in Personnel Management (Reston,Virginia: Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1982).

2. Task Force on Assessment Center Standards, Standards and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (New Orleans, Louisiana: June 1979).

3. K. McNutt, "Behavioral Consistency and Assessment Centers: A Reconciliation of the Literature," Journal of Assessment Center Technology, II (1979), 1-6.

4. C. L. Jaffee and J. T. Sefcik, "What Is an Assessment Center?" Personnel Administrator (February 1980), 40-43 and Joseph Kwarteng, Assessment Center Validity and Reliability: An Evaluation of The Ohio Cooperative Extension Service Assessment Center (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1986).

5. W. C. Byham, "Assessment Centers for Spotting Future Managers," in Perspectives on Employees, Staffing, and Selection, G. F. Dreher and P. R. Sackett, eds. (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1983), pp. 229-47.

6. Byham, "Assessment Centers"; J. R. Hinricks and S. Haanpera, "Reliability of Measurement in Situational Exercises: An Assessment of the Assessment Center Method," Personnel Psychology, XXIX (1976), 31-40; and Leslie Bart, The Role of Assessee Involvement in Development Assessment Center (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1986).

7. Bart, Role of Assessee and W. C. Byham, "The Assessment Center as an Aid in Management Development," in Contemporary Problems in Personnel, rev. ed., W. C. Hamner and F. L. Schmidt, eds. (Chicago, Illinois: St. Clair, 1977).

Being a futurist is a state of mind for individuals. For groups, a futurist orientation is a matter of culture. In each case, it means thinking about the future, paying attention to past and current trends affecting the future, and being prepared for the future by thinking through different possible scenarios and their consequences.

Can an entire nation become futurist in orientation? Australia is finding out. The Australian experience with a national futures process may hold lessons for efforts in the United States. Australia is using a future studies, public policy education process to build an innovative culture.

In late 1984, Australia created a Commission for the Future. The commission was announced by Minister for Science, Barry O. Jones, author of an important futures book, Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the Future of Work.1 The Commission for the Future represented a visible, nationwide commitment to become futures-oriented. The commission planned its strategies for a year before becoming fully operational in early 1986.

Five major participatory, public education strategies are being used: conferences, seminars and workshops, public communication through print and electronic media, a clearinghouse on futures issues, and a community-based science and technology network. The goal of the Commission for the Future is "to foster the development of a productive, innovative culture in Australia, and to encourage all Australians to become involved in shaping their future."2

A major mechanism for involving Australians in considering future options is a Future Options Information Kit.3 The kit provides a framework for broad discussions by people of all ages throughout Australia. The kit consists of six pamphlets, each four to eight pages, on the following themes:

1. Science, Technology and the Future
2. Information, the Economy and Society
3. Work, Technology and the Future
4. Education, Technology and the Future
5. Bio-medical, Technology and the Future
6. Environment, Technology and the Future

The Commission for the Future is also publishing a bimonthly popular magazine distributed free of charge and called IN FUTURE.

The Australian effort to involve an entire nation in thinking about the future holds lessons for what might be involved in a state futures initiative. The themes that follow constitute elements of a comprehensive, participatory approach to creating a futures-oriented community or state.

Questioning the Future. Taking a futures perspective involves asking questions. The Australian Commission has developed a paper series as a forum for personal views of futures issues by eminent Australians aimed at stimulating debate and raising questions in vital areas. Questions being raised include the following:

• Manufacturing - A Future?
• Science and Technology - For What Purpose?
• Australia - A Post Industrial Society?
• Information Technology and Australian Cities: A Promethean Dilemma?4

A participatory futures process, then, involves questioning the future.

Creating the Future. A second motif is that raising questions ought to be done not simply for the sake of intellectual debate, but rather to prepare citizens to be proactive in shaping the future. The overall theme of the Australian futures process is "Developing an Innovative Culture." That is also the title of the commission's Annual Report.5 An innovative culture is futures-oriented, proactive, and forward-looking. Moreover, the focus on culture means that this orientation goes beyond a small number of people or an elite; the innovative culture perspective is broad-based and meant to be widely shared throughout the population.

Future Options and Alternative Scenarios. Raising questions in the context of being prepared to create the future includes examining future options and alternative scenarios. A major methodology of futures studies is building alternative scenarios and considering various options. These scenarios are based on trends, speculations, and holistic analyses of what might occur in the future under varying assumptions. The typical plural form - futures studies rather than future studies - is meant to communicate the importance of considering alternatives and options as a futurist.

Two messages are part of developing futures options and alternative scenarios. First, there's an implicit message in building multiple scenarios that we can't know what the future will be like, so we must be mentally prepared for a range of possibilities. The second message is that, while we can't know which scenario will emerge, the very process of deliberating on the future will affect ultimate outcomes making it more possible to be proactive in shaping the future world.

Values-Based Futures. The heavy emphasis on technology and information in futures studies can appear to suggest that the future will be primarily technology-driven. However, by incorporating the idea of culture into futures studies, these studies become fundamentally values-based. Cultures are undergirded by fundamental values. A major part of the proactive stance in a futures process is clarifying those values that will shape our future world and thereby become the basis for controlling technology, information, science, and development.

Balanced Futures Perspectives. The futures literature sometimes seems to be either pure doomsdayism or glorious science fiction. The doom-and-gloom perspective focuses on negative scenarios, while the glorious science-fiction scenarios focus on the marvelous potential of future knowledge, technology, and human progress. It's important in a broad-based participatory futures process to include balanced perspectives. That's why scenario development typically includes at least three scenarios: one gloomy scenario, one optimistic scenario, and one middle-of-the-road scenario balancing optimism and pessimism.

A Global Perspective. Any future scenarios and options must be considered in a global context. Whether the futures process is taking place in a county, state, or nation, the only meaningful context for any realistic futures assessment is that of a global community and world economy. Australia is holding a series of seminars and developing papers on Future Challenges.6 A focal point of these challenges is the role of Australia in the larger world and the way in which Australia will be affected as a participant in the global village of the future.

As Extension moves increasingly towards issues-based programming and broad initiatives that cut across programs, there emerges the danger of fragmented, specialized perspectives on those issues and initiatives. One solution is to create an overarching theme within which various issues can be considered and diverse initiatives undertaken. The Australian experience suggests that FUTURES provides such an overarching theme.

A FUTURES perspective can provide a common set of methods and a holistic way of thinking that can undergird separate and diverse issues and initiatives, thereby providing linkages and cohesion among those different efforts. By so doing, we can combine process and content in the best traditions of adult education, teaching people to think about the future for themselves.

1. Barry O. Jones, Sleepers Wake! Technology and the Future of Work (London: Oxford Press, 1982).

2. World Future Society, "Australian Future Commission," Future Survey, IX (May 1987), 15-16.

3. Australian Commission for the Future, Future Options Information Kit (P. O. Box 115, Carleton South, Victoria 3053 Australia [$8.00 Australian by international money order], 1986).

4. Australia Commission for the Future, Questioning the Future, Occasional Paper Series I (Same address as #3 above [$3.00 Australian each], 1986).

5. Australian Commission for the Future, Developing an Innovative Culture, Annual Report (Same address as #3 above, 1986).

6. Australia Commission for the Future, Future Challenges for Australia, Occasional Paper Series II (Papers serving as background for Future Challenges Seminars [modeled somewhat after America's Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future]). (Same address as #3 above, 1986.)

If you're too busy for your family, you're too busy! That's the message conveyed in a six-lesson home study course called Families...Take Time, developed by two Iowa Extension home economists.

Course evaluation showed that most participants did indeed set aside a regular "family time." As a result of their involvement with the program, nearly all respondents to a follow-up survey had tried a variety of family time activities, including family recreation, how-to nights, and family councils. These families reported that their increased commitment to family members paid dividends far beyond their expectations. One mother wrote, "I can see how much it means to our children to do things together!"

The course was developed in response to continued concern in the counties about family problems such as divorce, child abuse, and suicide. The target audience for this effort was families with elementary school-age children. A home-study course was selected as the best method, because of the difficulty in recruiting these families for face-to-face meetings.

Research from the University of Nebraska identified six major characteristics of strong families: (1) mutual appreciation, (2) family time, (3) communication, (4) commitment, (5) values and religious orientation, and (6) ability to cope with crisis.

Each of these attributes was developed into a three-to-four-page lesson. A cover letter, reference list, and Extension bulletins were included in the lessons. A core piece of the course was the manual, FamilyTime: A Revolutionary Old Idea,1 which gives many ideas for family activities. Each lesson gave a variety of ideas for activities related to the characteristic discussed. Families were encouraged to set aside a regular "family time" and to strengthen relationships through group activities.

The course generated considerable community involvement. Life insurance agents donated copies of the manual. School administrators and teachers distributed flyers for school children to take home to their parents. Home economics committee members gave ideas for format and development of the course and helped publicize its availability.

A grant from a university foundation made the course available to low-resource families in the second year of the program. A small fee to cover mailing costs was charged to other families.

Enrollment in the course exceeded expectations. In the first year, 145 families in a three-county area enrolled. Some indicated an existing commitment to strengthening their families and were seeking ways to support and develop that commitment. Others wanted help in making this commitment and in getting other family members involved. During the second year the course was offered, more than 200 additional families participated. The program is now being used statewide.

1. Grady Nutt, FamilyTime: A Revolutionary Old Idea (Washington, D.C.: FamilyTime Committee of the Million Dollar Round Table and the American Family Society, 1977).

In November 1985, the University of Maine CES had an opportunity to show it wanted to support its faculty in even broader ways than in the past by sponsoring a three-day staff development workshop.

"Life/Work Transitions," a workshop conducted by Michael Brazzel, organization development specialist, ES-USDA, and Delyte Frost, a private consultant, offered participants the chance "to reevaluate the meaning of their lives and work, and begin to develop a strategy for continuing self-renewal." It also gave them an opportunity to explore with co-workers fundamental personal career issues.

Participants were asked in advance to read William Bridges' book Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes, which describes a chronological model of life's transitions and our typical responses to them.

With that as background, workshop participants examined patterns in their own lives and careers; key life events, values, and needs (including internal and external influences); career anchors; emotional responses to transition; and support needed from family, co-workers, and Extension to continue their growth. A special feature included learning in self-selected groups of four, called "Friends and Guides."

About a year later, the planners (who were also participants) collected extensive evidence from the six Friends and Guides groups about their experience during and since the workshop. Comments reflected these perceptions about staff development and UMCES organizational needs:

• Asked to rank the priority that should be given to such personal/career growth workshops on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest), four groups ranked them at 5; one group at 4; and one group at 2.
• Many participants felt strongly about the high value they place on the relationships they've sustained in their Friends and Guides groups. For many participants, the workshop itself and their experience in these groups over the past year led to a sense of critical need for greater support of staff relationships and greater recognition among all staff members for treating one another more sensitively, gently, and humanely. One group emphasized the need to maintain an atmosphere for personal and professional reflection and sharing.

For most participants, the workshop proved to be a productive experience, fostering a remarkable amount of growth, learning, and change. Although the planners knew in advance that such experiences are important both for staff members and the organizational climate, the depth of many participants' response and the strong emphasis on the organizational need for encouraging and supporting one another's growth were a surprise. Planners interpreted the results as a widespread plea for all staff members to take responsibility for developing relationships and encouraging more supportive interactions.

If you're considering ways to enhance the quality of organizational life in the future, an interactive workshop on transitions, career issues, and life/work patterns can help develop staff relationships by offering the opportunity to work together on issues of importance to all of us.

In southeastern Idaho, range livestock production is a major industry. As with any area of production, problems and opportunities exist unique to the locality. In five counties in this area, Beef Program Development Committees pooled their ideas and began to look at how their needs could be addressed through University of Idaho Extension programs.

Both the Extension agents and committee members were well-acquainted with the process of discussing problems and opportunities for area cattlemen and Extension program needs. Committees formed in the early 1950s and remained viable in the 1980s. What makes these committees unusual is their composition.

Recognizing that complex problems require an integrated problem-solving approach, committees are composed of ranchers, practicing veterinarians, Idaho Cattle Association Directors, ag lenders, and allied industry representatives, as well as Extension agents and livestock specialists.

Multidisciplinary committee composition allows review of county and multicounty situations from a variety of perspectives and the opportunity for an integrated problem-solving approach.

In 1984, Beef Program Development Committees met and prioritized four key concerns extending across the five-county area. They then looked to the land-grant university for ongoing research related to their needs and found two faculty members, one in animal science and one in veterinary medicine, who were conducting research related to the problems the committee members were seeing in the field.

When the researchers were contacted, they expressed interest in sharing their preliminary work with the committee members and were receptive to the committee's suggestion that their research include an on-ranch component, under ranch conditions and management. This formed the framework for the southeast Idaho Field Investigation Project.

As the project progressed, a strata of committees evolved, with county, multicounty, and ranch committees. The experience in southeastern Idaho suggests that multidisciplinary committees, working as teams, can strengthen Extension programs and impact, and provide a viable and responsive means of program development, implementation, and documentation of impacts.

Rural America, characterized by an agricultural tradition, sparse population, isolation, and the presence of small, loosely knit communities, presents a significant challenge to the Extension professional. The demographic shift toward an older population is coupled with increased attention to rural America, influencing program development, delivery, and evaluation. Perceiving learning needs and recognizing the issues of transportation, accessibility, social support, and costs aren't the only constraints the educator must try to accommodate. "The programmer therefore must be sensitive to the educational milieu and different modes of instruction for older persons."1

A study conducted by Nelson, based on the assumption that local planning of educational programs for older adults ultimately depends on the perceptions of community service providers, presents an operational framework for Extension. Findings from the study are applicable to the program development process, with specific attention to needs assessment and program delivery. Three specific questions addressed in the study were:

1. What are the perceptions of educational needs within service systems?
2. What are the perceived obstacles that must be overcome to expand educational opportunities at all levels?
3. How might educational programming for the older adult feasibly be put into effect?

Findings were based on a needs assessment of older adults living in a rural Pennsylvania community as perceived by 418 service providers who were in regular contact with this clientele group. Service providers represented six occupational groups: physicians and dentists, nurses, administrators of health and social service programs, social workers, clerical-technical personnel, and volunteers.

A 70-item questionnaire was designed to fit characteristics of the community. Findings of particular interest to the Extension professional include:

1. Obstacles to learning, in rank order, included cost, physical infirmities and poor health, uncertainty of trying something new, lack of interest, and lack of community resources and availabilities.
2. Most service providers favored informal approaches to learning among older people - incentive for improvement or enjoyment without academic credit, certificates, and degrees.
3. No one preferred type of delivery system was indicated by the majority of responses; group or classroom situations, individual meetings, and media provided the basis for the distribution of responses.
4. Contact of a personal and social nature must be a guiding principle in program development for the older adult.
5. Major differences existed in outlook between occupational groups for mode of instruction:

   Classroom instruction: physicians and dentists, administrators

   Individualized instruction: nurses, social workers

   Media and combination of approaches: clerical-technical and volunteers.

6. Service providers sampled weren't isolated from the current knowledge base in gerontology, as their level of knowledge about aging was found to be high, perhaps due to in-service training and workshops.

Numerous implications for the Extension professional can be drawn from this study:

1. Program development along educational lines should address basic assumptions about "needs." "Perceptions of educational needs among older adults are found to be related to differences in occupational orientation, which in turn reflect on the training received by the service provider and the situational milieu where contact is established."2
2. The potential exists for increased educational opportunities at all levels for the older learner with programs tailored to individual requirements.
3. Modes of instruction identified reflect a need for alternative strategies for older adults living in isolated communities.

Regardless of how the educator chooses to characterize educational needs, the importance of individual differences in the advanced years of life must not be overlooked.3 The potential exists for increased educational opportunities at all levels for the older learner. Extension, as provider of information and education, can be an important vehicle for dissemination to the rural adult learner.

1. G. K. Nelson, "Determining the Learning Needs of the Older Adult in a Rural Community: Perceptions of the Service Provider," Adult Education, XXXIII (Winter 1983), 97-105.

2. Ibid.

3. B. O. Baker, "Understanding Rural Adult Learners: Characteristics and Challenges," Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, IX (October 1985), 4-7.

"Farm and Ranch Report," a television series designed to provide agricultural producers in Nebraska with current production and marketing information, first aired in May 1982 and continued during the growing season through 1985. Using a magazine format, Extension specialists and agents discussed timely topics in crop and livestock production and marketing on each weekly program.

Farm and Ranch Report: The First Four Years1 reports three interviews conducted with the program's target audience toward the end of the growing seasons in 1982, 1983, and 1985 (573, 532, and 511 farmers, respectively). The primary objective for all three studies was to obtain viewership statistics from the target audience and reactions to the program from the regular viewers.

Some of our conclusions based on these studies include:

• The percentage of farmers/ranchers who watched the program on a regular basis increased throughout the first two viewing seasons and leveled off at about 12% to 13%.
• The viewing audience changed from a high percentage of current Extension clientele the first year to a more representative cross-section of farmers/ranchers the fourth year.
• Of the regular viewers, 98% indicated the content was pertinent, 83% said it was delivered appropriately, and 98% felt it was delivered at an appropriate time in the growing season.
• In 1983, it cost about 66 cents per viewer per 1/2 hour program. The out-of-pocket costs for producing the program were approximately 45 cents; the indirect costs for specialists' time were about 21 cents.2
• Segments of Farm and Ranch Report were sent to commercial stations on a weekly basis to use in newscasts. Therefore, 80% of the farmers who watch farm news were probably exposed to parts of the program without recognizing the source of the information.

Continual programming over several years is an important factor in developing an audience when Extension selects television as a delivery system. Through this continual programming, Extension begins to attract viewers who aren't among its regular clientele.

Delivering production and marketing information via television appears to be accepted well by farmers/ranchers as a method for receiving pertinent and timely information.

To increase the value of the program within its cost guidelines, segments can be used in multiple ways, such as distribution for broadcast through other appropriate television and radio avenues.

1. S. K. Rockwell and J. K. Randall, Farm and Ranch Report: The First Four Years (Lincoln: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Cooperative Extension Service, 1986).

2. S. K. Rockwell, Testing and Evaluating a Flow Chart for Identifying Program Impact with Implications for Evaluation (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1984).

Who's responsible for dependent elderly? Current trends (the graying of the baby boomers, increases in the number of vulnerable "old old," and the popularity of early retirement) suggest that by the year 2000, nearly 40% of the federal budget may be consumed with aging-related programs.

How is this challenge different now than in "the good old days?" In a review of major factors contributing to the complexity of this issues, Treas and Bengstrom1 identify these major points:

• The growing number and needs of older Americans have outpaced the growth and resources of the younger population.
  • Increased life expectancy is creating record numbers of people aged 65 and older. In less than a century, we have added 25 years to our life span. Those aged 65 and older will represent 13% of the population in 2000, and about 21% of the population in 2030. The group expected to grow most rapidly in the next 30 years is the one aged 85 years and older. Advances in medicine allow people today to die in "small increments of debility."
  • Today's elders have fewer children than did their ancestors. Families may be taxed to their limit in providing elderly dependent care because younger adults will have fewer siblings with whom to share the caregiving responsibilities.
• Caregiving continues to be a core part of adult children's perception of their responsibility to parents. The main functions families perform are:
  • Direct Caregiving. As elders become more dependent, families are the primary providers of services such as transportation, assistance with daily living, and to a lesser extent, housing and economic support.
    • Women have always been the major care providers for aging relatives. Complicating this today is the fact that most middle-aged women also are employed full-time.
    • The caregiving situation may involve a considerable amount of stress for the caregiver and their family, and may not necessarily contribute to an increased quality of life for the elder.
  • Social and Psychological Support. Families are invaluable for helping elders negotiate through the bureaucratic red-tape associated with medical care, changes in housing locations, etc.
    • If they have good health and adequate financial resources, the elderly prefer to live independently, yet near enough to their children that they can have regular contact.2
    • Surveys show that elders report a high degree of interaction with their immediate family members. Children of elderly widows (especially daughters) have the highest amount of interaction with their parents. Of all the help they get from their children, elders seem to value most the social and psychological support.
• Public policy issues relating to aging are likely to receive increasing attention. According to Treas and Bengstrom:
  • It has been suggested that, as long as social policy in the United States continues to give only lip service to family policy that would help the elderly (as well as their primary caretakers, spouses, and "women in the middle"), all generations are at risk, for their health and well-being are interlocked....Decrements associated with aging-loss of spouse, job, health, and the capacity for independent living-place special demands on family relations. These demands may be manifested in guilt, friction, and feelings of inadequacy for old and young alike. If the familial demands of later life are more sorely felt or more openly acknowledged today than in the past, it may be because aging kin have become more commonplace. It may also be because Americans have come to accept that the welfare of older citizens is no longer merely a private concern, but also a public responsibility.3
• An examination of the research leads some to conclude that social and psychological support may be the most valuable assistance provided to elders by their families. If this is true, Extension may play a major role in addressing the challenge of caring for dependent elderly. Through research-based educational programming, families can have (1) greater understanding of the aging process and normal intergenerational family stresses, (2) increased skills in identifying services in their community that can aid in supporting family elders, and (3) skills that will allow them to participate more effectively in formulating public policy relating to senior citizens. The potential audience is large. More middle-aged adults today have elderly parents alive than ever before in history.

The Kellogg Foundation has recently funded the National Center of Extension Gerontology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. This has great promise, particularly if it's used to expedite the development of a national electronic database of research findings and program and evaluation tools so that each state in our system will have access and can contribute to up-to-the-minute information on this important topic.

1. J. Treas and V. L. Bengstrom, "The Family in Later Years,"Handbook of Marriage and the Family , M. K. Sussman and S. K. Steinmetz, eds. (New York: Plenum Press,1987), pp. 625-48.

2. E. Shanas and M. Sussman, eds., Family, Bureaucracy and the Elderly (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1981) and A. Thorton and D. Freeman, "The Changing American Family," Population Bulletin, XLI (No. 1, 1983).

3. Ibid.

From the Top Down: The Executive Role in Volunteer Program Success. Susan J. Ellis. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Energize, 1986. 185 pp. $16.75 paperback.

As suggested by its title, Ellis' book is designed to provide a chief executive with essential information for understanding and managing the volunteer component of an organization. Complete, yet concise, logically sequenced, and written from a practical, applied perspective, it's an excellent handbook addressing the management issues related to volunteers. A basic premise is that an executive or top-level manager must be involved if volunteer programs are to reach their potential.

Whether an agency, company, or organization is just exploring the use of volunteers, has recently launched a volunteer effort, or currently employs a well-established corps of volunteers, this thought-provoking volume will be valuable. Its usefulness stems, no doubt, from the author's extensive experience in working with volunteer programs. Energize Associates, the volunteer training and consulting firm Ellis directs, has conducted more than 750 workshops since 1977.

In addition to her own front-line experience, Ellis freely draws on outside expertise in appropriate sections of her book. For example, a significant portion of Chapter 9, "Legal Issues," is written by a legal expert, while Chapter 11, "The Dollar Value of Volunteers," is authored by a CPA experienced in working with nonprofit, volunteer-involving organizations.

Other major topics covered include planning, budgeting, staffing, and supervising a volunteer program; understanding the volunteer/salaried staff relationship; executive-level volunteers; and evaluation of volunteer impact. The "Executive Role Checklist," featured in Chapter 12, is a tool many executives will find useful, as they will Appendix A, which presents a "Volunteer Management Task Analysis."

From the Top Down presents a wholesome philosophy of volunteer programming that includes several fresh and stimulating ideas. For example, the author refers to volunteers as the "nonsalaried personnel" of an agency, proposes that saving money is a questionable prime motivation for volunteer use, and advocates strongly for the specific and invaluable benefits a volunteer can bring to his or her organization.

Of special interest to those working with advisory councils is the section in Chapter 8 in which Ellis discusses obstacles to genuine involvement and suggests procedures for getting the best advice. She emphasizes the difference between policy making and advisory functions. Particularly interesting is the recommendation that advisory councils not proceed to the point of taking a vote, because that can discourage diverse points of view and implies policy formation.

This book is superbly done and an eminently practical piece of scholarship. Its usefulness extends far beyond the purview of chief executive officers. Anyone interested in volunteer program success will be enriched by reading this insightful volume.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1987winter/ent.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.