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

To the Point

Extension in Transition: Review and Renewal

Myron D. Johnsrud and Roy S. Rauschkolb

Too Little, Too Late?

Norman Brown

Yes, But... Yes, And

Susan G. Laughlin

Feature Articles

Improving Extension: Views from Agricultural Deans

Orville E. Thompson and Douglas Gwynn

Evaluating Across State Lines

Dorothea Cudabeck

School-Aged Child Care Education

Kristine L. Blacklock

Is It Worth the Costs?

Joy Cantrell, Anne L. Heinsohn, and Melanie K. Doebler

Others Influencing Others

Don A. Dillman, Carl F. Engle, James S. Long, and C. Ellen Lamiman

Futures

Future Risk Assessment Issues Programming Opportunity

David Deshler

Forum

They've Done It Again

Richard A. Krueger

Research in Brief

Personality Types and Rural Leadership

Laverne A. Barrett and James T. Horner

Reaching Black Farmers

Christopher N. Hunte

Ideas at Work

Building Community Teams

Elisabeth Schafer, Susan L. Anthony, Suzanne Secor Parker, and Laura Sands

Distance Education: Making Videoconferencing Work

Lynda C. Harriman

Working Through Crisis

Ruth I. Harmelink

Tools of the Trade

Thriving on Chaos

Arlen Etling

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

Gail Shellberg, president, Colorado, Member at Large
James Shaner, vice-president, Missouri, Member at Large
Patrick G. Boyle, secretary, Wisconsin, Site Institution
Jim Brasher, Executive Committee, Florida, Southern Directors
Gary Gerhard, Executive Committee, Nebraska, Member at Large
Joyce Olsen, Executive Committee, Washington, NAE4-HA
Kirk Astroth, Kansas, Editorial Committee
George Enlow, Missouri, 1890 Institutions
Richard E. Fowler, Delaware, North East Directors
Ralf Graham, Kansaa, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Meatra D. Harrison, Texas, Member at Large
Sandra Henderson, Virginia, NAEHE
Robert Light, Massachusetts, ECOP
Janet Poley, Washington, D.C., Extension Service-USDA
Gail M. Skinner, Minnesota, Site Institution
M. F. Smith, Maryland, Member at Large
James Summers, Missouri, North Central Directors
Diane Wallace, California, Member at Large

Editorial Committee

Kirk Astroth, chairperson, Chanute, Kansas
Julie Adamcin, Tucson, Arizona
Henry Brooks, Princess Anne, Maryland
Dennis Brown, Pullman, Washington
Patricia Day, Madison, Wisconsin
Marilyn Grantham, St. Paul, Minnesota
Mable J. Grimes, Columbia, Missouri
Beth Honadle, Washington, D.C.
Tom Jurchak, Scranton, Pennsylvania
Susan Laughlin, Berkeley, California
John Michael, Washington, D.C.
Terry H. Mikel, Phoenix, Arizona
Douglas Parrett, Urbana, Illinois
Myrna Powell, Omaha, Nebraska
Maria Russell, Storrs, Connecticut
Jo Ellen Saumier, New City, New York
Kristine S. Saunders, Logan, Utah
Barbara Sawer, Corvallis, Oregon
Suellen Scott, Muskogee, Oklahoma
Mark E. Settle, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Valya T. Vincell, Petersburg, Virginia

Research in Brief Editors

William G. Boldt, Cornell University, educational marketing
Patricia Tanner Nelson, University of Delaware, human behavior
S. 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

Futures Editor

J. David Deshler, Cornell University

Changes, prompted by review and renewal, are constant currents within today's Cooperative Extension System. These changes are positive signs of a dynamic organization experiencing transition and rebirth.

External reviews and comments often prompt organizations to heighten the intensity and scope of their renewal efforts. Since the early 1980s, the Cooperative Extension System has experienced several unsolicited external reviews and some self-directed internal reviews and commentaries. Among these were the Office of Technology Office Assessment report on the Cooperative Extension System, the Donald Lambro article published by Reader's Digest, the Extension in the 80s Task Force and report, and the recent ECOP-commissioned Futures Task Force study. These and other commentaries, articles, and projections collectively became forces for change within Extension.

One critical theme pervades all these critiques - the challenge to better define our relevance, mission, priorities, and capabilities. Significant challenges for any organization, this recurring theme sounded a warning to the system. Yet, many of these concerns and recommendations came because people and organizations care enough about the Cooperative Extension System to offer constructive criticisms and suggested changes.

We responded proactively to these critiques by implementing several program and organizational changes during the past two years. These include issues-based programming, focus on nationwide and statewide critical priorities through National Initiatives, multi- and interdisciplinary program leadership, and redefined mission and functions for both Extension Service-USDA and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP).

These changes challenge each of us to reconsider how to best apply our abilities and responsibilities. They signal that it's certainly not business-as-usual for Extension. But, it's an exciting time for those of us who thrive on risk-taking in achieving goals and results. The payoff for all is a stronger, more proactive, relevant, and responsive Extension System.

During this process of review and renewal, several people have referred to the National Initiatives as a "top-down" effort. In reality, the National Initiatives are a total system team effort with state and federal partners working together from concept to adoption.

The development of the National Initiatives began as a response to those forces of change mentioned earlier. In the early 1980s, ECOP and ES-USDA initiated the development of a series of issue-focused papers: 4-H in Century III, Regaining Farm Profitability in America, Groundwater Education, Food and Nutrition, and Revitalizing Rural America. At the same time, the ECOP Budget Subcommittee began to explore the importance of identifying significant national issues as a basis for pursuing federal funding for the Cooperative Extension System.

These various internal activities joined in a coordinated effort in 1986. At that time, ES-USDA and ECOP focused a three-pronged approach in response to needed change:

• Appointment of a Futures Task Force.
• Identification of national program initiatives.
• Appointment of an ECOP/ES-USDA National Initiatives Coordinating Committee and eight National Initiative teams to operationalize these initiatives.

The Coordinating Committee was charged with developing policy and guidelines, while the teams were to identify and develop the critical issues within each initiative area. Each team consisted of 10-15 Extension staff - one member from ES-USDA and the balance from state, area, and county staff. As they worked, these National Initiatives teams secured input from more than 200 citizens, organizations, associations, public officials, and existing databases. That's why the National Initiatives are called a total system team effort - with a lot of public input - definitely not just "top-down."

At the same time, another Extension group serving as a "think tank" focused on delivery, planning, and organization rather than the content of Extension programs. Called the Futures Task Force, this group held public hearings, reviewed many of the reports cited in this article, and drew on their talent as they examined the need for organizational and structural changes.

The information gathered by this task force reinforced previous external reviews and articles. Don Paarlberg, former U.S. assistant secretary of agriculture, typified the tenor of these hearings when he said it was time to examine our organization: "I doubt whether increased lobbying efforts will significantly increase available funds - the public is trying to tell us something and we would do well to listen."

Listen we did. Action we are taking. Yet, it's difficult not to feel the sting of these seemingly critical remarks.

Marianne Houston, an Extension volunteer from New Hampshire, told the Futures Task Force: "Yes, the Extension Service has a proud tradition, but it's time to look realistically towards the future." Keith Bjerke, a farmer from North Dakota and member of the Research and Extension Users Advisory Board, reflected the feelings of many hearing witnesses: "I'm afraid that the time has already arrived when the innovative farmer no longer depends on his county Extension agent for timely information."

The challenge is unmistakable. The Cooperative Extension System must continue to signal its willingness, desire, and ability to undergo change to respond to national and local needs and issues. If we do less, we risk the public perceiving us as unresponsive and irrelevant. And, we relinquish our leadership role in off-campus education and problem solving.

Our constituency has spoken - and we have responded. Our response is found in several actions designed to more accurately focus our efforts:

• Development of an issues programming model to implement the National Initiatives.
• Adoption of a strategic planning process, including appointment of a council charged with anticipating new issues on the national agenda.
• Development of a new Cooperative Extension System mission and a new directions statement.
• Delineation of specific roles and responsibilities for ES-USDA and ECOP.
• Identification of the functions of ECOP and design for a new structure to implement those functions.

These and other planned actions demonstrate Extension's resolve to provide excellence in programming relevant to the needs of our clientele and the critical concerns of the nation.

Gary King, W. K. Kellogg Foundation executive, summed up our challenge this way: "The dustbins of civilization have a great many organizations in them that have outlived their utility, that haven't changed with the times."

Our vision for Extension is bright and promising; there are no dustbins in this future. We challenge you to share this vision - and work with us to make that future a reality.

Cooperative Extension and the land-grant university system of which it's a key part are at a crossroads. Extension came into existence as a creative attempt to help people solve problems. It did this well for decades by extending the knowledge resources of the university and building the capacity of entrepreneurs, families, communities, and local organizations and institutions to use that knowledge. Recently, many formerly supportive clientele have been criticizing Extension for becoming unresponsive and even irrelevant - failing to change and adapt to a rapidly changing world. An equally serious (but seldom heard) criticism is that many potential audiences are being ignored or poorly served.

The system is to be commended for its recent efforts to become more proactive and relevant. Unfortunately, this may be too little and too late, except in a handful of states with inspired and respected leadership.

Unprecedented efforts must be made to tap the knowledge base of the entire university. For too long, we've seen administrators argue that the only way they could broaden resources beyond agriculture and home economics was to receive large infusions of new money. Extension must either reallocate its present resources or face extinction. Significant new resources will only come when Extension leadership is seen as capable of making difficult decisions and stopping (or greatly reducing) some formerly sacred programs to provide others society clearly needs more. Incidentally, the cry for Extension to serve in some new areas may be faint because many people may have given up on Extension as they've seen their needs ignored for years.

In most universities, Extension needs to be placed organizationally at the upper level of the university, certainly at a level higher than one college. Colleges of Agriculture simply aren't providing bold leadership in broad societal issues such as youth development, family strengthening, broad economic development, community revitalization, and environmental sustainability. As a result, Extension's not seen as relevant by many. It simply doesn't have the knowledge resources needed by citizens nor the administrative leverage to get them.

In many cases, Extension must broaden its staff to reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the audiences it purports to serve. Of all institutions, Extension should be a leader in building a pluralistic staff. Too often its leaders are content to meet only the minimum legal requirements, and some do that begrudgingly, if at all.

Faculty and staff are Extension's greatest resource. In many states, due to low salaries and lack of leadership, the most effective Extension workers are discouraged and some are leaving. Recruitment is difficult. A hard decision needs to be made either to get the resources to pay for quality professionals or to cut positions to adequately compensate those remaining. Extension education takes a high level of expertise and people skills and is much more demanding than many roles. Extension won't survive with mediocre staff.

Bold new efforts must be made to more effectively involve a greater number of volunteers in meaningful roles. Extension knows how to do this better than anyone else. It should lead with one of its greatest assets.

As odd as it may sound, Extension must be more effective in using citizen advisory groups. While known for its use of clientele in such roles, too many perceive Extension as needing to listen more and "sell" less when seeking advice. A new respect for the ability and knowledge of clientele must be developed.

This is a time for bold, visionary leadership. Land-grant presidents, Extension faculty and staff, and the people Extension serves, or should serve, must decide. Is Extension going to meet the needs and become more relevant or is it to be replaced by new institutions that will?

As I read the Johnsrud and Rauschkolb article, I found myself muttering "yes, but...." An image of my father's exasperated face crossed my mind. He considered those two words anything but charming. I quickly switched to "yes, and...," a trick I find both alleviates my guilt and changes a whine into a clarifying statement. Those who create visions for the future of Extension and those who make them work must all face the frustration of many "yes, buts" and we might all find the "and" trick useful in seeing and using each other's points of view.

Yes, change is essential. Extension can't go on with business as usual. Something has to be fixed. Issues-based programming is one way to deal with concerns about "relevance, mission, priorities, and capabilities." And, there are others who perceive the problems differently. One of these different points of view holds that Extension is drifting away from a strong basic research foundation into rapid responses to whatever happens to be the latest fad. Clearly, the cure for this problem is quite distinct from the approach ES-USDA has taken. Issues programming may aggravate the problem of Extension's already weak link to campus-based research. A solution must include balance between rapid response relevance and a strong research foundation in Extension programming.

Yes, the ES-USDA process was a fine "total system team effort." In fact, those who choose to focus on fixing the linkage between Extension and research often have much to learn about involvement, participatory decision making, planning, and citizen input from true masters of Extension processes. And, the products of team efforts sometimes express more devotion to including all points of view than to clarity, focus, and well-defined objectives. The National Initiatives are so broad and all-inclusive that they provide little in the way of real priority setting for those of us inside Extension. They do, however, provide the appearance of priorities for external consumption.

Yes, we have need for National Initiatives. Johnsrud has made a convincing argument for them and relates evidence that they're making a difference in the image of Extension. The effort to grow them from the bottom up was probably the best it could have been. And, the National Initiatives are still perceived by many as top-down, belonging to "the Feds." No surprise. Which of us can really experience ownership of ideas we haven't personally debated and painstakingly examined the implications of? Which of us on the front lines, in county offices, isn't torn by the need to assure local constituents that needs, as they define them, are our primary focus?

Clearly, the processing of the National Initiatives can't stop here. Each state has its own work to do to bring all Extension players - and research partners - into open discussion of where and to what extent National Initiatives fit in our daily work and how they affect our ability to maintain a county-based educational response system. The efforts made by ES-USDA really deserve our honest feedback about the actions we're willing to take and the other points of view we feel the need to incorporate in our own renewal efforts.

This article presents the opinions of the dean of the College of Agriculture at the major land-grant university in each of the 50 states. While the larger study of which this was a part dealt with the effects the farm crisis has had on the land-grant institutions, the following report specifically deals with the deans' views of Cooperative Extension within today's changing economy. Keep in mind, the results are limited because they don't include the views of deans of home economics, forestry, and other colleges.

The principal researcher used a pretested instrument to interview each of the deans by telephone after they'd been contacted by letter. While the average telephone interview was 37 minutes, interviews varied from 19 minutes to two hours. In 44 (86%) of the 50 states, the dean (or acting dean) responded to the interview. Three deans referred us to a vice-president of agriculture and two had the associate dean respond. One dean asked the director of the Agricultural Experiment Station to respond. All 50 respondents were male. The deans had on the average spent 29.2 years in agriculture, with 15.5 years in administration. Most had been department chairmen.

Two of the open-ended questions in the interview specifically dealt with Cooperative Extension. One question asked what role Cooperative Extension had played in responding to the economic problems in the agricultural sector, and the other asked what changes, if any, in Cooperative Extension the respondent would like to see so Extension could become more effective in helping farmers. A summary of the responses to the second open-ended question appears in Table 1.

The administrative relationship between Cooperative Extension and the Colleges of Agriculture differ from state to state. The resulting linkages were of major concern to many deans. A fifth of the deans stated that more integration is needed between Extension and the agricultural colleges. While no deans in the North Central region specifically mentioned this, from a quarter to almost a third of the deans in other regions expressed concern over the "lack of integration."1 As one dean put it, "...Extension specialists are separate from the college. They should be managed by department chairs. This would facilitate joint interaction, joint planning, and teaching which has not worked well in the past. Farm advisers and faculty need to get together more." Suggestions were joint appointments and joint Extension faculty research programs.

Deans who were also heads of Cooperative Extension were uniformly satisfied with the administrative structure at their institution. In contrast, where Extension was administratively separated from the College of Agriculture, dissatisfaction was typically expressed with the organizational structure. For example, a dean of a southern school said, "Cooperative Extension needs to be more closely aligned with the rest of the university. The experiment station does this by joint appointments with the department...but Extension has supervisors in charge of their personnel and they would be better off putting them under the department head...." Another dean reflected this attitude when he said, "This is just a personal view, but the increasing joint staffing of agricultural personnel with specialists is important. The housing of Extension specialists with their counterparts is helpful."

About a third (32%) of the deans expressed the need for more specialists and fewer generalists to upgrade subject-matter competency. This feeling was consistent in each of the four regions. A dean at a larger north central school said, "We have already carried out major restructuring and refocusing of Cooperative Extension. We have clustered counties together so agents can be more specialized. We are putting more people out as area specialists with Ph.D.'s....We found that regular county Extension agents can no longer cope with the high technological nature and specialized nature of farm problems."

Related to this, a fourth (26%) of the deans stated that Cooperative Extension should operate on a multi-county or regional basis. This was of particular concern in the South where it was mentioned by five (39%) of the 13 deans. One dean from a southern state said, "There is a decline in the need for agents in every county and eventually county heads will begin to disappear. Politically this is hard, but the sooner it comes, the better. Get specialists into regional centers, where the farmers go for help - that's the best help." Some deans also expressed concern with the valuable time university researchers were spending providing technical advice to farmers that generalists weren't able to provide.

It should be noted that deans recognized that there's a place for generalists; that, in fact, two different clientele groups are developing. While the full-time commercial farmers may need highly technical expertise, the part-time farmers, who are growing in number, still need help from generalists. Many deans also recognized the high quality of training of many Cooperative Extension personnel. In describing this, one dean mentioned that Extension personnel have tended to see themselves as second-class citizens at the university. The university places so much prestige on the peer review in professional journals that it hurts those in applied research.

Another area of concern was research involvement of Cooperative Extension personnel. A fifth of the deans felt this area needed to be strengthened. This was especially true in the South where four mentioned lack of involvement in research as being a problem. Nine (18%) of the total respondents indicated that Cooperative Extension needs to make more use of high technology, computerizing operations where possible.

Eleven deans (22%) mentioned the need for more social research on the analysis of markets. For example, it was pointed out that it's important to study the social and cultural preferences of minority populations in urban areas to develop new markets for produce. While this type of social research was mentioned by only one dean in the West, it was mentioned by a quarter to a third of the deans elsewhere. The need for Cooperative Extension to do more multidisciplinary research was mentioned by seven (14%) of the deans.

The trend in research at land-grant universities affects Extension programs. Consequently, it's useful to examine how recent economic changes have modified research priorities of Colleges of Agriculture. Deans reported that the farm crisis has affected their research programs and these changes parallel the interests of students. Most (90%) deans reported increased emphasis on basic biotechnology types of research in their colleges, with only one dean reporting an actual decrease in research in this area. Three fourths (76%) reported an increase in research on marketing, and over half observed an increase in research on farm finance (64%) and social research (52%).

In contrast, research in production agriculture declined in 54% of the colleges. Only seven deans (14%) saw an increase in research on production while 16 (32%) witnessed no change. A number of the deans also mentioned the importance of a systems approach in research. "We are integrating what we do into production and economics. For example, in rape2 [cereal crop] production as an alternative crop, we also develop markets for this crop." Another dean pointed out that, "Not enough time is spent on developing alternatives for agriculture....We focus too much on policy or subsidies instead of the total system."

The increase in social research, marketing, business and farm finance, and especially the emphasis placed on research within a systems context bodes well for a closer integration between Cooperative Extension, the experiment stations, and the Colleges of Agriculture in the future. As one dean stated, "In research, we need to move to a systems approach in packaging and modeling in the applied area....This will increase the interaction between Extension persons and faculty."

The increase in biotechnical research may also help define the relationship between Extension and teaching/research faculty. A western dean said, "Cooperative Extension personnel need direct contact with current research. They need to definitely become more specialized. We may find that we need fewer persons [in the counties] and they will need to handle broader [geographic] areas. There will be more emphasis on biotechnical research and they need to keep up. Also, computer technology and information transfer is an important part of this."

Although the deans of agriculture had many suggestions they believed would improve Cooperative Extension, overall they spoke very highly of Extension's role in helping farmers deal with the problems brought on by the farm crisis. The following comment was representative of the attitudes of most respondents. "Cooperative Extension has been very responsive. On short notice, they have been willing to retool to help farmers in management and record keeping. There is immediate need for help now in marketing and stress programs."

When asked what role Cooperative Extension has played in meeting emerging needs of those affected by the farm crisis, 29 deans (58%) mentioned stress management programs. Half emphasized financial planning programs in helping farmers. The University of Minnesota developed a "FINPACK" program that's now used in 30 states. This was frequently mentioned by respondents as being used to help farmers deal with financial management.

Farm management techniques and record keeping were mentioned by 19 (38%) of the deans as being important programs to help farmers deal with the farm crisis. One dean gave a great deal of credit to Cooperative Extension for the excellent support Colleges of Agriculture have received from their state legislatures. However, he also said Cooperative Extension has to modernize for it can't be all things to all people.

Although the importance and recognition of its work in helping to alleviate the farm crisis was recognized, considerable concern over the present role and organization of Cooperative Extension was expressed. The following points were stressed by agricultural deans and administrators of land-grant institutions:

1. A need exists for more specialization and a higher level subject-matter competency within Extension. This was recognized in all four regions.

2. Cooperative Extension should operate more on a regional basis. This was mentioned most frequently by deans in the South.

3. Cooperative Extension needs to make greater use of an agricultural systems approach in research. For example, this could involve carrying out more social analysis of new markets in urban areas or among particular ethnic groups where particular agricultural products could be sold.

4. There's a need for more involvement in research by Extension personnel. This was felt particularly strongly by deans in the South.

5. Cooperative Extension should be closely integrated into Colleges of Agriculture. At many colleges, Cooperative Extension specialists are already under department heads. Where this wasn't the case, deans generally favored the establishment of this type of system.

6. Greater use needs to be made of high technology both in terms of information transfer and use of new computer hardware and software.

7. A need exists for more multidisciplinary work.

Contrary to what a minority of people believe, Cooperative Extension hasn't outlived its usefulness. It is, however, imperative for survival that Cooperative Extension make many of the changes suggested in this article.

1. Here are the states included in each region:

North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin.

North East: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia.

South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

2. A plant whose seeds are used for oil and leaves for animal fodder.

National Initiatives and multistate issues programming will require new forms of collaboration that extend across state lines. It's one thing to talk about multistate cooperation, but it's quite another to actually do it. It clearly takes a lot of effort, but is the effort worthwhile? A multistate evaluation by family life specialists offers both lessons and caveats that may be relevant to any multi-state Extension effort.

The seeds of this multistate evaluation were planted in 1981 at a national Cooperative Extension family life specialists conference. About a dozen of us got together to share ideas about our use of age-paced, parent-education, home-learning programs. These are a series of four- to eight-page booklets of information about pregnancy, infant development, and parenting, which are distributed monthly-usually by mail-to new parents. The information in each booklet is keyed to the baby's age in months, so parents receive information when they most want and need it.

Each of us in this group was using some form of this program. We decided that we wanted to learn more about how these programs were used nationally and the impact they had on the parents who received them. That was the first and last time we met together face to face; from then on, communication was by phone or mail.

Our first year, we surveyed all state Cooperative Extension family life specialists to learn about their use, if any, of these home-learning, parent-education programs. We found that 19 states were using the programs, reaching about 100,000 families annually. We also learned that although the specialists were pleased with the programs, only a few had tried to evaluate them.1

By now, it was 1983 and our team had shrunk to five specialists.2 Intrigued by the results of our survey, we decided to do a multistate evaluation to determine more fully the impact of the programs on recipients and to learn about the kinds of parents for which the series was most useful. We invited family life specialists from each of the other user states to join us in this venture. Eight accepted our invitation; five were able to follow-through.3 Our study consisted of evaluating programs in 10 states-five states served by the invited specialists and five by the team members.

With one exception, each state's series differed from the rest in length, format, style, and reading level, but a content analysis showed that generally content and goals were similar. We agreed on common program objectives, devised a common post-series questionnaire, and determined a standard method of administering the questionnaire and eliciting returns.

Each of the 10 state specialists duplicated and mailed her own questionnaires. My staff and I coded, tabulated, and analyzed the data. Computer costs came from the University of California Cooperative Extension budget.

By mid-1985, we had analyzed the 2,263 usable questionnaires received, a 58% return rate. Our analysis gave us aggregate and state data about the kinds of parents who received the series, the extent to which they read and shared the booklets, their rating of the usefulness of each subject, and their view of the impact of the series on their parenting attitudes and practices. Our analysis also identified those kinds of parents who were most likely to report changes in parenting as a result of receiving the series.

State printouts and aggregate data reports were sent to each of the 10 participating state specialists to use as she wanted. A few months later, and again a year later, we contacted family life specialists in each of the 10 states to find out if and how they had used the information.

We learned that our data didn't end up filed and forgotten. All 10 family life specialists had used their state data in national and state reports and had sent summaries of it to their county staff. Three had used the data in reports to funding agencies; two had sent material based on the data to key state legislators.

All but one state specialist reported that the evaluation results had had a significant impact on her state's parenting program. Four states extended the length of their home-learning programs to parents of older children. Two improved the content of their series, using top-rated items from other states. Three state specialists increased their distribution of the series to those parents shown by our evaluation to be most responsive to the program (teenage, Hispanic, and low-income parents). Three state specialists shifted from batch mailing to monthly mailing of their booklets because our analysis showed that parents who received the booklets monthly were most likely to show improved parenting practices. Seven state specialists successfully used the results of our study to promote increased program funding for postage, printing, and/or series revision.

Multistate evaluations bring with them benefits and challenges. Collaborating takes time. Any one of us working alone could have evaluated our program more quickly. It took time to come to agreement on evaluation goals, direction, and methodology. Work was delayed by team members' heavy work schedules, study leaves, vacations, etc. To produce multistate evaluations on a tight schedule, all participants would need to commit some unencumbered time to the evaluation process; this isn't always easy to do.

On the other hand, our multistate evaluation gave us more credible and useful data than we could have obtained by individual state evaluations. Aggregating our data gave us convincing numbers-ones we could work with statistically. Jointly, we received over 2,000 evaluation responses; had we done separate state evaluations, each of us would probably have received only about one tenth this number. The common evaluation also gave us the opportunity to compare the impact of slightly different home-learning series. We also saved time and money by tabulating and analyzing our data in one location.

Our much discussed and revised evaluation methodology and instruments are probably better than any we could have devised individually. Working together, we prodded each other to keep the evaluation moving, pondered jointly our evaluation dilemmas, and, when the results were in, shared ideas on interpreting the data and using the information to improve our programs. Finally, and maybe most importantly, our joint endeavor has encouraged us to continue to work together on other issues, share program ideas, and struggle with common problems.

Extension is moving toward increased national issue-oriented programming that will likely mean more cooperative state programming to address national priority problems. As part of this effort, we'll need to measure the extent to which these programs succeed in reducing the problems they address-and thus evaluation will transcend state borders. Our experience has convinced us that this kind of multistate evaluation is practical, effective - and exciting.

1. For more information on the results of this survey see: Dorothea Cudaback and others, "Becoming Successful Parents: Can Age-Paced Newsletters Help?" Family Relations, XXXIV (April 1985), 271-75 and Patricia Nelson and Dorothea Cudaback, "Catch Them When You Can: Sequencing Newsletters to Capture the Teachable Moment," Journal of Extension, XXIII (Summer 1985), 13-15.

2. State family life specialists on the team were: Dorothea Cudaback, California; Cindy Darden, Georgia; Dorothy Labensohn, Iowa; Patricia Nelson, Delaware; and Emily Wiggins, South Carolina.

3. The following five state family life specialists collaborated with our team in this evaluation: Alberta Johnson, Arizona; Sally Kees, Nevada; Martha Lamberts, Washington; Frances Wagner, North Carolina; and Evelyn Rooks-Weir, Florida.

Self-care children, latchkey kids, unsupervised youngsters - the names differ, but each refers to a national societal phenomenon of epidemic proportions. Millions of school-aged youth are home alone before and after school, on school holidays, during teacher inservice training, and summer vacation. The Children's Defense Fund, a child advocacy group, estimates 5.2 million American children of elementary age bear the label "latchkey" children.1

According to the 1980 Census, 67% of Wisconsin women with children aged 6-17 years are in the labor force.2 Sauk County, Wisconsin, experiences a 75% maternal employment rate for families of school-aged youth. If these trends continue, by 1995, 34.4 million of the nation's children aged 6-17 will have mothers employed outside the home.

These societal trends have a profound impact on family life. For the employed parent, it's a tremendous challenge to meet work, child-rearing, and household responsibilities. When children reach school-age, working parents are faced with the task of making out-of-school transportation and child care arrangements. This includes daily transportation to and from school plus supervised care before and/or after school hours, as well as for school holidays, school vacations, teacher inservice days, emergency school closings, and child illnesses.

The question now is two-fold. What child care needs are specific to families with school-aged children? What sources of information are preferred by parents? To help answer these questions, we conducted research in April 1987 to assess current and future child care needs, identify parent and child self-care educational needs, and identify preferred sources of child care information.3 Baraboo, Wisconsin (located in central Sauk County, population 8,081) was selected for the study based on an 82% maternal employment rate, a large industrial employment base, and an interest in this issue by the school district's administrative staff.

The study's subjects were parents with children enrolled in kindergarten through sixth grade in the public and parochial schools within the Baraboo School District. The survey was distributed to all 1,474 elementary-aged children as an enclosure in each student's third quarter report card. Each household was asked to return one sealed survey to the student's teacher or mail it directly to the UW-Extension home economist. Teachers kept a list of nonrespondents, who then received follow-up prompting. A total of 734 usable surveys were returned for a 67% response rate.

Anticipated Child Care Needs

Eighty-one individuals indicated they would use before-school
child care every school day, 34 parents needed care two or three times per week, and 40 respondents stated they needed care on an irregular basis. After-school care was needed on a daily basis by 130 respondents, 80 individuals would use after-school care two to three times per week, and 74 parents needed care on an irregular basis.

The earliest time care would be needed ranged from 6:30 a.m. (28%), 7:00 a.m. (13%), to 7:30 a.m. (21%). The latest time care would be needed ranged from 4:00 p.m. (16%), 4:30 p.m. (14%), 5:00 p.m. (26%), 5:30 p.m. (19%), to 6:00 p.m. or later (15%).

Respondents were fairly realistic about what they'd be willing to pay per child for supervised child care: 53% indicated they'd pay $1.00/hour; 18%, $1.50/hour; and 8%, $2.00/hour. Respondents felt the community should offer child care programs and opportunities for their elementary-aged children. They also felt such programs should be paid for by parents and not publicly financed through property taxes.

Self-Care Educational Needs

Respondents identified the following self-care educational needs for their school-aged children: how to apply first aid; what to do when there's a fire at home; how to answer the phone and door without letting anyone know the child is home alone; how to get help in emergencies; and how to deal with boredom, loneliness, and fear. Other needs cited were: safe food preparation; getting along with brothers, sisters, and friends; and following rules at home.

Preferred Source of Self-Care Information

Most respondents (86%) reported they'd like to have a self-care packet to prepare their children to stay home and an instructional videotape they could borrow to help teach self-care. Self-care packets should cover: a list of important phone numbers; procedures for coming and leaving home, answering the phone, and answering the door; and handling emergencies. It should also include information on establishing family chores, rules, schedules, and family meetings.

The research showed a need for educational programs that help strengthen and preserve family cohesiveness; develop self-responsibility among children; and identify the physical, cognitive, and psychological changes in children aged 6-11 years. Areas that could be taught for elementary school children and their parents include teaching self-responsibility skills; dealing with childhood fear, loneliness, boredom, and sibling rivalry; and handling and reporting emergencies with an emphasis on first aid.

In Sauk County, we developed a program based on research results. The program, called "Self-Care: Being in Charge at Home," was developed to explain developmental characteristics of children 6-11 years old, identify potential risks and opportunities of self-care, and offer community school-aged child care alternatives.4 Classroom instruction (including discussion and distribution of a parent/child workbook and viewing of a home-alone videotape) was provided during the 1987-88 academic school year to kindergarten through sixth grade youth enrolled in the Sauk County school districts of Baraboo, Reedsburg, and Sauk-Prairie. Instruction was also made available to school-parent associations. Parent inservices focused on: situations requiring children to be self-responsible, awareness of the societal trends that have increased the number of school-aged children in self-care, anticipating risks and opportunities for self-care based on children's developmental characteristics, reviewing family rules, and exploring child care options. As a result of participating in the "Self-Care: Being in Charge at Home" program, 181 parent respondents indicated they practiced and adopted the following self-care skills with their children:

• 85% discussed what the child should do when one leaves and arrives home.
• 84% discussed answering the phone when home alone.
• 79% developed a list of important phone numbers with their child.
• 78% developed a home fire escape plan.
• 78% discussed answering the door when home alone.
• 67% talked about handling unexpected problems, such as lock out, power outage, etc.
• 65% reviewed family rules and chores with children.

As a result of practicing self-care skills, respondents indicated their family benefited in the following ways:

• 80% knew how to prepare children for time home alone.
• 33% were able to more openly communicate about individual and family concerns and feelings.
• 27% indicated they became a stronger, more cohesive family.

In 1988, the Baraboo School District needs assessment research data were used within the Baraboo community to substantiate the need for a community school-age child care program and help a nonprofit group day care center build a $105,000 preschool and school-aged child care facility. The expanded program will serve 2 1/2 through 10 years of age, operate from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and will provide transportation to and from elementary school.

Sharp growth in the number of dual-income families in the United States during the past quarter century has raised some important questions about child care. As maternal and dual-career employment continues to increase, school-aged child care issues will be increasingly problematic for parents, employers, schools, and communities. Extension-sponsored research and educational programs can anticipate, assess, and meet current and projected child care needs.

1. Lynette and Thomas Long, The Handbook for Latchkey Children and Their Parents (New York: Arbor House Publishing, 1983), p. 22.

2. Wisconsin Population Computer Information System (1980 Census Data), "Sauk County Labor Force Status vs Presence and Age of Own Children, Females 16 Years and Over" (Madison, Wisconsin: Applied Population Laboratory, 1985), Table 431.

3. A Baraboo Community Child Care Advisory Committee, Baraboo School District needs assessment, and elementary school-aged, self-care education program was developed by Kristine L. Blacklock, Sauk County UW-Extension home economist. For more information on activities and results of this special project, contact the Sauk County UW-Extension Office, Courthouse, P.O. Box 49, Baraboo, WI 53913-0049.

4. Ibid.

County, regional, state, and national 4-H events and activities play a major role in 4-H teen programming and are designed to address youth development needs. Unfortunately, these shows, contests, camps, and retreats are expensive and staff intensive. In these times of reduced resources, it's not surprising 4-H events and activities are easy and early targets for cutbacks. Before making any sweeping policy decisions about reducing these programs, youth development professionals need to take a close look at specific 4-H experiences and determine their value in terms of teens' life skill development.

A recent impact evaluation study of teen programming in Pennsylvania examined the relationship of life skill development to various 4-H experiences. The results indicate that 4-H experiences beyond the local club contribute significantly to the development of teens' life skills.

Following four years of teen programming emphasis, 1,500 4-H teens, randomly sampled, were asked to evaluate their program experiences. Over 760 youth between the ages of 13 and 19 responded to questions about their 4-H participation and their perceptions of their life skill development.

Fifty-five specific skills were initially identified as life skills. Using factor analysis, these skills were grouped into 10 clusters. The clusters were labeled as leadership skills, social development, personal development, value development, interpersonal skills, citizenship development, communication skills, career development, agriculture skills, and home economics skills. Participating 4-Hers rated their perceived competency in the skills within each cluster using a four-point scale. This resulted in indices reflecting the overall mastery of each life skill area.

Focusing first on participation, teens were asked about their involvement in 4-H activities and events such as demonstrations, roundups, contests, and shows at the club, county, and beyond-the-county levels. In addition to general participation, 4-Hers were also asked about holding leadership positions at these events (committee chairpersons, officers, camp counselors, and emcees). In short, participation was categorized at the club, county, and beyond-county levels into general participation and leadership roles. Mean scores for each of the 10 life skill clusters were compared for significant differences between those teens participating generally and teens in leadership roles. A t-test analysis was used to test for significant differences at each of the three programming levels.

Generally, we found that perceived life skill development was positively related to general participation and leadership roles at the three succeeding levels of 4-H programming. As would be expected, the surveyed 4-H teens were very active at the club level with 98% reporting general participation experiences and 90% reporting roles in club leadership. At the county level, 92% cited general participation with 41% indicating leadership roles; beyond-the-county level, the figures were 68% and 17%, respectively.

Teens' general participation in 4-H Club activities showed a positive and statistically significant relationship to their life skill development in the areas of leadership, personal development, and citizenship. Teens reporting leadership roles at the club level had higher interpersonal skill levels than those 4-Hers who didn't hold such positions (see Table 1).

The study revealed that life skill development dramatically increased when teens experienced leadership roles beyond-the-club level. General participation at the county level was positively related to only one life skill area: value development. However, teens reporting participation in leadership roles at the county level indicated increased life skill development in eight of the 10 life skill areas.

Participation in 4-H activities and events beyond-the-county level had an even greater impact on perceived life skill development. General participation beyond-the-county level was positively related to life skill development in five areas; participating as leader in these same 4-H experiences positively affected life skill development in nine of the10 life skill clusters.

Clearly, 4-H activities and events are major factors in promoting life skill development. At succeeding levels of programming, life skill development increases. This becomes particularly evident when leadership roles are introduced; holding leadership positions in 4-H events and activities profoundly affects perceived life skill development. What are the implications of these findings for 4-H programming?

The overall mission of 4-H is "to assist youth in acquiring knowledge, developing life skills, and forming attitudes which will enable them to become self-directing, productive, and contributing members of society."1 The results of Pennsylvania's impact study indicate that curtailing or eliminating 4-H activities and events could have serious consequences in fulfilling our mission. In times of reduced resources, the most expensive and staff intensive 4-H programs are earmarked for cutbacks. However, in terms of developing life skills of 4-H teens, it's those very programs that are the most effective.

What can be done to save regional, state, and national 4-H activities and events? First, it's important to realize their value. They aren't, as some believe, a waste of precious resources that provide a vacation for 4-H youth. Rather, they're valuable, nonformal, educational experiences that help 4-H teens develop their life skills. In terms of our mission, they're well worth the expense.

As for the problem of reduced staff, 4-H youth themselves may hold the answer. Study results indicate that leadership participation in regional, state, and national 4-H activities and events enhances the development of life skills. Therefore, it's important to provide opportunities for 4-H teens to hold leadership positions. Teens can be prepared to carry responsible roles throughout the planning and implementation of 4-H events. In the past, staff and adult leaders have been required to carry out supervisory and teaching duties. However, older and experienced teens can do much of what adults traditionally have done for these events. Teens can act as group leaders, teach workshops, and handle many of the administrative details such as dormitory supervision. Building teen leadership experiences into 4-H activities and events not only provides youth with valuable life skill development opportunities, but also stretches Extension's staff resources.

By recognizing the value of regional, state, and national 4-H
events and activities, and by delegating leadership responsibilities to 4-H teens, 4-H can continue to provide quality programming beyond the county level to enhance teens' life skill development. After all, isn't youth development what 4-H is all about?

1. Extension Service, USDA, Challenge and Change: A Blueprint for the Future (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

Traditional agricultural Extension methods such as summer field days and winter conferences are sometimes questioned as outdated in our emerging information age. The problem may not be the effectiveness of these methods, but rather the way these approaches are evaluated. The traditional yardstick for measuring success of field events and conferences has been whether participants change their behavior as a result of participation. But such a narrow focus on participants misses the impact of participants on others. To capture the ripple effects of Extension programs, it's necessary to evaluate in a way that measures long-term, overall impacts-especially the influence of participants on others.

We addressed the long-term impact of field days and conferences in evaluating adoption of no-till seeding of small grains. Our research shows that farmers are the most important influence on the adoption of new approaches by other farmers.1 These results reaffirm the importance of targeting beyond direct participants in designing and evaluating Extension programs.

We studied farmers' adoption of no-till seeding of small grains in the highly erosive Palouse region of eastern Washington and northern Idaho.2 No-till seeding is an important conservation innovation in agriculture. At the time of the follow-up study, 23% of the region's farmers were known users of no-till seeding within 50 miles of the summer conservation field days and the winter tillage conference. These farmers were asked to identify the most important influence on their decision to use no-till seeding. The results clearly show the primary influence of farmers on other farmers.

Forty-two percent of the no-till users identified other farmers as the single most important influence on their decision to first try no-till. The Soil Conservation Service, which provided technical help, was a distant second, being identified as the most important influence by 32% of the farmers. Third was no-till tours, identified by 17%. No other source of influence was identified by more than five percent of the farmers. Thus, despite the availability of many alternative sources of information, farmers were the single most important influence on other farmers' decisions to try no-till.

Research on the use of widely accepted agricultural practices has shown that use begins with only a few farmers and then spreads more rapidly.3 The use of no-till by Palouse farmers followed this pattern. Only eight farmers first used this practice in the initial five-year period (1970-74), followed by 32 others in the next four years (1975-78), 87 in the next four years (1979-82), and 45 in the final two years of that study (1983-84). Each farmer in the study was shown a list of all other no-till users and asked to indicate which, if any on the list, had influenced the farmer to first use no-till.

We then compared information from this study with the complete registration lists from the summer field days and winter conferences to test two hypotheses: (1) the earliest users of no-till are more likely than late and nonusers to participate in Extension field days and conferences and (2) influential users of no-till (those reported by other farmers as having influenced their decisions to first use no-till) are more likely to participate in both events.

Support for these hypotheses would suggest that Extension is accomplishing more through these events than would be indicated by simply noting numbers of participants and subsequent changes in these participants' conservation behaviors. In addition, we would have evidence that Extension is reaching those farmers who, because of their innovative use and subsequent influence on others, are most critical to the initiation and subsequent diffusion of no-till farming methods.

Data to test these hypotheses were obtained from two sources. One source was a set of structured two-hour interviews conducted in the winter of 1984-85 with all farmers in the Palouse region of Whitman County, Washington, and Latah County, Idaho, who had used no-till at least once. Of 187 users, face-to-face interviews were completed with 174 or 93%. Of 140 farmer operators in a random sample comparison group who hadn't used no-till, 114 interviews were completed for an 81% response.4

The second source of data consisted of registration lists for all summer Palouse Conservation Field Days from 1974 to 1985 and all winter Conservation Tillage Conferences from 1982 through 1986. The summer Palouse Conservation Station Field Day presents new research information about conservation farming. The winter Conservation Tillage Conference is a multiagency/agricultural industry effort to package information for on-farm application. Each of these events draws from 200 to 400 attendees yearly from a broad geographic area. By comparing the lists of registrants with farmers' answers in the no-till interviews, the hypotheses can be appropriately tested.

Data in Table 1 show that the earliest users of no-till were significantly more likely than later users and nonusers to have participated. For example, 25% of the first group to use no-till attended the summer field days more than once, but the proportions steadily drop to 1.8% of the nonusers.

The relationship between time of first use and attendance at each type of Extension event is statistically significant, p < .002 for the summer field day and p < .003 for the winter tillage conference.5 Thus, the first hypothesis is supported: each of these two events was more likely to attract early users than late or nonusers.

It's important that participants in the summer field days were also significantly more likely to participate in the winter tillage conferences. For example, 29% of those who had attended more than one field day had also attended more than one conservation tillage conference; in contrast, 91% of those who hadn't attended a field day had also not attended a winter conference. Thus, the two events were inclined to reach the same audience.

Data in Table 2 show that those early no-till farmers identified by other no-till farmers as having influenced their decision to try this practice were also significantly more likely than noninfluentials to have attended both events. For example, while about one-third of those farmers who influenced two or more other farmers to use no-till had attended the summer field days at least once, only 12% of those who influenced no one had attended. The relationship between influence and attendance is statistically significant for each event (p = .04 for the summer field day and p = .002 for the winter tillage conference). Thus, the second hypothesis is also supported: influential early users of no-till were more likely to participate in both Extension events.

We found that both a summer field day and a winter conservation tillage conference were effective in reaching influential early users of no-till in the Palouse region. This study of influences on farmers' decisions to use no-till in the Pacific Northwest provides an important perspective for evaluating Extension techniques: farmers were most influenced in their decision to try no-till by the experiences of other farmers; therefore, Extension may be most effective by working closely with those early users on whom other farmers rely for information.

Because the diffusion of new agricultural practices that become widely accepted usually begins slowly and then gathers momentum, the first users are especially important as an Extension audience. By reaching the earliest users, and in particular those early users who influence others, Extension can have a far greater impact than might be indicated by tallies of participation or changes in conservation behavior of only the participants.

In this era of advanced information technologies, it's tempting to believe that media and agencies have a direct impact on their clientele's decisions. These results show, however, that reaching farmers through other farmers remains important as a way to diffuse new ideas. This study suggests that, indeed, these two Extension techniques, rich with opportunities to see, hear, and talk attracted early users and further enabled them to diffuse conservation tillage technology to other farmers.

Early adopters, thereby, became "extenders" - yet another Extension education technique!

1. Don A. Dillman, Donald Beck, and John E. Carlson. "Factors Influencing the Diffusion of No-Till Agriculture in the Pacific Northwest," inSTEEP-Conservation Concepts and Accomplishments, L. F. Elliot, ed. (Pullman: Washington State University, University Press, 1987), pp. 343-64.

2. John E. Carlson, Don A. Dillman, and C. Ellen Lamiman, The Present and Future Use of No-Till in the Palouse, Research Bulletin No. 140 (Boise: University of Idaho, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1987).

3. Everett M. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1983).

4. Carlson, Dillman, and Lamiman, The Present and Future Use of No-Till in the Palouse.

5. Chi-square is a social science test of significance. It's based on the difference between the observed distribution of values and the distribution that would be expected if there were no relationship between the two variables under study. The larger the differences between observed and expected frequencies, the larger the value of chi-square. When all observed and expected frequencies are identical, chi-square will be zero. Chi-square doesn't measure the direction of the relationship. The probability associated with the chi-square statistic is interpreted as the probability of obtaining a chi-square of the reported magnitude assuming a random sample and no relationship between the variables. Gamma is an ordinal measure of association. Gamma values vary from -1 to +1, indicating the magnitude of the association between two variables as well as the direction. For more information see: Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1983).

In the future, Cooperative Extension has an unprecedented opportunity to provide education in conjunction with economic, technological, environmental, and social impact or risk assessments. These assessments will become more crucial to the quality of life on our planet and will affect the lives of millions of people, including those yet to be born. Decisions about impact and risk assessments shouldn't be made by experts alone, but should be formed by participation on the part of an informed general public.

The resources of the land-grant universities can be used to ensure quality impact and risk assessments through the Cooperative Extension System. No other adult education network is likely to fill this crucial educational niche that's essential to the future of our American society through the next 20 years. Cooperative Extension should willingly accept this significant educational role, seek funding, and engage staff to undertake it.

Impact and risk assessments are futures techniques that help us anticipate potential unintended hazards or undesirable consequences associated with specific situations or proposed plans. The assessment may call for adaptation or abandonment of proposals or the consideration of alternative proposals to provide protection against risk. Different types of risk assessments (economic, technological, environmental, and social) focus on unique effects; however, effects from several of these categories are likely to be included in any specific assessment.

Assessments may be conducted in response to proposals of employment and tax policy, energy technology, plant closings or openings, agricultural policy or technology, physical structures, transportation, biotechnology, waste treatment, housing construction, electronic technology, water quality efforts, medical technology, welfare policy, and urban redevelopment, to name a few.

Economic impact assessments have been around a long time. Their use has been a major interest of businesses and governments. Questions that these studies typically address include: (1) Is the proposal workable, feasible, and within budget? (2) Who will use it and pay for it? (3) How can demand be generated? (4) What is the benefit/cost ratio? (5) Which alternatives will maximize the net value of benefits? For many years, if the answers to these questions were positive, it meant a green light for the technology, development project, or economic policy. However, these questions didn't include a concern for environmental or social risks.1

No one seriously doubts the major role that decades of technological innovation have played in shaping the modern world - its living standards, geographical features, atmosphere, and food chain. Technological advance has been considered a source of economic, social, and cultural progress over the centuries. Increasingly, technological efficiencies have been realized in primary industries such as agriculture and mining, in the production and distribution of energy, in transportation, and in electronic and information processing. However, more recently economic impact assessments of development, including various forms of technology, didn't include considerations of the effects of technologies on the environment and health.

An amazing series of alarms and controversies over technology has occurred.2 Unforseen disasters from DDT to oil slicks and nuclear power meltdowns have received worldwide attention. A different set of questions emerged. Society became more aware of environmental dysfunctions, as well as indirect and delayed impacts on natural resources and human social patterns. Frequently, these effects were undesired and unintended. Clearly, feasibility and desirability were recognized as different from each other. Risk assessment techniques have provided tools to examine the often unquestioned applications of technology and the rush to unbridled development.

Once the door was opened to technological and environmental impact assessment, it took little time to recognize that social impact assessment had been neglected. Concern for unintended, indirect, and delayed impacts, such as thalidomide on people, became important enough to require social impact studies as well. It's widely recognized now that even if all negative effects can't be avoided, they should be anticipated as fully as possible through impact assessments that include technological, environmental, and social effects. To fail to do this leaves society subject to unintended human, social, and environmental costs and sometimes irreversible consequences that are more severe than the original problems that prompted the action. Most impact studies now assess combinations of technological, environmental, and social impacts.3

The primary purposes of economic, technological, environmental, and social impact or risk assessments are to provide: (1) an information base for understanding complex effects of proposals such as construction, new products or technologies, new policies, and service provisions; (2) an early warning system to prevent adverse effects; (3) a tool for citizen groups to use to protect the public's interest and the interests of future generations; (4) a means of identifying alternative approaches, technologies, and adaptations that are less harmful; and (5) a basis for planning that involves affected constituents.

Rarely is a proposal to be assessed confined to a single option; usually a variety of alternatives must be considered. In addition, the various groups having an interest in a study are likely to be unclear about what the potential problems are. Thus, the initial framing of the problem may require frequent reworking. Many qualitative and quantitative tools may be brought to bear: cost-benefit analysis, trend extrapolation, systems analysis, social surveys, historical surveys, historical analogy, Delphi, conferences, workshops, briefings, hearings, advisory committees, moot courts, artistic judgment, on-site field investigation, scaling techniques, and scenario creation.4 Therefore, it's impossible to identify a single general methodology applicable to all potential impact situations. Cooperative Extension staff will, in most cases, not be engaged in actually conducting impact or risk assessments; rather, we should know what good ones look like and be able to facilitate the use of the resources of our land-grant universities when needed.

Several conflicts are inherent to impact assessments. These conflicts are political and usually call for public policy education. Typical tradeoffs or decision dilemmas associated with most impact assessments are: (1) short-term benefits versus long-term costs; (2) tolerable risks versus benefits and costs; (3) economic growth versus environmental protection; (4) decentralized, simple, citizen-controlled technology versus centralized, complex corporate- or government-controlled technology; (5) benefits to some versus burdens to others; and (6) benefits to present generations versus costs to future generations.

One purpose of an impact study is to make these choices known. The choices obviously aren't all technical, but are value-laden and political as well. They reflect social goals. No "hard research" answers exist to such questions, or established degrees of tolerable uncertainty and risk. Political issues are at stake among special interest groups, organizations, government, the general public, and those trying to represent future generations.

To some extent, technological, environmental, and social impact or risk assessments are attempts to exert democratic control over unbridled development and special interest group benefits that could be implemented at the expense of the public's interest. As such, participation in the assessment is as important as its findings. Citizen involvement can help bridge the gap between factual technical analysis and value-oriented policy decisions. Several approaches to participation that have been tried include: (1) gathering data from a wide range of parties that are likely to be affected; (2) including interested parties and stakeholders on advisory committees to plan, analyze, and react to assessment findings; (3) involving interested parties in working together to create adaptations and alternative plans for innovations, once the potential impacts have been assessed; and (4) encouraging participatory research controlled by interested parties.

This last form of involvement can be particularly important when government agencies are unresponsive, try to minimize or cover up consequences that are embarrassing, or receive limited resources for risk assessments. We should remember that participatory research originally documented hazardous conditions at New York's Love Canal and brought the findings to the attention of public health officials. The influence of many grassroots groups has resulted in government and industry carrying out technological, environmental, and social risk assessments. People often need to act to protect themselves.

Extension personnel can perform the following roles in impact assessment: (1) identify conditions and situations that require impact assessments; (2) act as brokers between citizens and organizations that perform impact studies, including the land-grant institutions and government agencies; (3) disseminate findings from impact assessments to the general public; and (4) facilitate dialogue among interested parties concerning the value bases for decisions.

Extension is the one adult education system that can provide excellent impact and risk assessment education using the resources of the land-grant universities. The community college and public adult systems aren't prepared to undertake it. Government, in most cases, is an interested party and isn't likely to be accepted in an educational role. Other special interest groups will, of course, participate educationally on behalf of their own perspectives. Extension can fill a unique niche among educational providers. "Module 6: Education for Public Decisions"5 and "Module 7: Techniques for Futures Perspectives,"6 the new core modules titled Working with Our Publics: Inservice Education for Cooperative Extension provide us with a foundation for this issue-oriented public policy educational role. Impact and risk assessment education could very well offer Extension the "boll weevils" issue of our generation.

1. C. Dede, "Technology and the Future," in Handbook of Futures Research, J. Fowles, ed. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978).

2. E. Lawless, Technology and Social Shock (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1977).

3. J. Coates, "Technology Assessment," in Handbook of Futures Research, J. Fowles, ed. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978).

4. P. Manheim, "The Effects of Social Impact Analysis on Decisions Allocating Investments in Resources by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1984).

5. V. House and A. Young, "Module 6: Education for Public Decisions," in Working with Our Publics: Inservice Education for Cooperative Extension (Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service and the Department of Adult and Community College Education, North Carolina State University, 1988).

6. D. Deshler, "Module 7: Techniques for Futures Perspectives," in Working with Our Publics: Inservice Education for Cooperative Extension (Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Adult and Community College Education, North Carolina State University, 1988).

Every five to ten years, Cooperative Extension introduces a new vocabulary. They've done it again! Recently, at both the state and national levels, Extension has initiated a new means of categorizing program efforts, using terms such as "initiatives" and "issues." Indeed, recent reports emphasize that "issues guide the system"1 and "issues are key."2 When confronted with this new vocabulary, Extension workers ask: Where do issues come from? Who discovers them? How do you know when you've found one?

Instead of struggling with a definition of "issues," a more productive approach is to observe how they develop and emerge. Societal concerns (issues) typically have a pattern of development that's reasonably predictable and consistent. The issue often begins with low public awareness and then encounters increased public support over time (which might be precipitated by legal, social, or economic conditions).

Awareness, as presented here, refers to both the numbers of people who are now alert to the issue as well as the intensity of feeling (depth of concern) toward it expressed by those individuals. It then peaks in terms of public concern. This peaking may be brief or long lasting, depending on contextual factors. After the peak, a period of decline typically follows. Like the adoption curve, different people discover the issue at different times.

Various patterns of awareness and support are possible. Some issues can be characterized by the normal bell curve with the period of increased awareness matching the period of decreased interest (see Figure 1).

Other variations are possible-a trigger event might prompt a period of rapid awareness followed by peaking and a slower decrease (see Figure 2). For example, suppose a well water testing program uncovers dangerous levels of contaminants and community interest is rapidly aroused.

In some situations, you might encounter a period of slow increases in awareness, peaking, and then more rapid decline. Figure 3 depicts situations where a technological solution has been developed after considerable research and the public assumes the problem has been solved. (It's interesting to speculate if the present concern about AIDS might reflect this pattern.) In still other situations, the peaking of public awareness might be long lasting as depicted in Figure 4. The slopes of increase and decrease will vary, as will the length of the peaking. The exact nature of the curve will be dictated by the situation, the solution, the nature of the response, and a host of environmental issues.

Issues evolve in a predictable series of phases, beginning with identification, followed by confirmation, support, and finally, problem-solving alternatives.

Phase 1-Identification

Identification consists of observing, detecting a pattern, and attaching an appropriate label to a situation, phenomenon, or need.

Phase 2-Confirmation

Confirmation is essential to further progress. Confirmation consists of others (often professional colleagues) who corroborate the identification.

Phase 3-Support

Identification and confirmation are typically not sufficient to launch an issue into public prominence. Two forms of support are critical, and often intertwined, in the evolution of the issue: public support and fiscal support. Public support occurs when enough people place value on the resolution of the problem. Financial support is often needed to employ staff in conducting research to increase knowledge, marketing the issue to increase public attention, and piloting alternative solutions.

Phase 4-Problem-Solving Alternatives

The final phase in the evolution of an issue is the development of one or more alternatives that can address the problem. In Extension, this is an issue- developed program.

Several features about the dynamic nature of issues can be discerned:

1. Some people are able to identify the issue earlier than others. Community residents may see the problem, but fail to identify a trend. Regularly, but not exclusively, county agents and subject-matter experts take on this identification role. Someone must see a sufficient number of examples of the problem or need, effectively articulate the problem, and then seek confirmation of the interpretation. Progress may stop here unless the issue is confirmed, reinforced, or supported.
2. The problem may not show up in needs assessment instruments until peak or post peak. Survey instruments that assess community needs and measure local opinion lag behind the actual need. An over-reliance on needs assessment procedures can place the organization in a situation where it reacts to public opinion too slowly and too late to have meaningful impact.
3. Administrators of organizations and elected officials may not provide support until the concern reaches the peak. A considerable amount of risk exists for administrators or elected officials in investing scarce resources in program efforts that haven't yet met with public approval. It's unfortunate that early infusion of resources isn't readily available, because a small investment early in the development of the problem may save considerable resources later.

Here are what I consider some major implications for Extension:

1. Each staff member should examine his/her present programming efforts in light of the state and national issues. Efforts should be made to fit current programs into the issue and initiative categories. Issues make sense as a means of categorizing Extension's endeavors. One of the principal values of issues programming is that it has enabled us to cluster Extension efforts into categories that can be more effectively communicated.
2. Extension staff should be alert to emerging issues on the local, state, or national level, and recognize the need for early identification and confirmation.
3. Extension staff should be careful about the use of surveys and needs assessment procedures that tend to be reactive in ascertaining opinions, or that capture concerns only at the peak of public awareness.
4. Extension staff at all levels should recognize the dynamic and developmental nature of issues. Program strategies will need to match the pattern of issue evolution.

The identified issues and initiatives don't represent the nation's pulse beat of need, but rather a strategic compromise between what's needed and what's possible within the constraints of current resources. In fact, this is a sophisticated and appropriate response in that it melds together needs and resources. Cooperative Extension can't, and won't ever be able to, meet all citizen needs, but it can meet certain needs within areas of expertise and resource capabilities. This is the strength of the existing attention to issues.

1. Extension Service, Cooperative Extension System National Initiatives: Focus on Issues (Washington, D.C.: USDA, January 1988).

2. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Reality (Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1987).

Cooperation is part of the Extension creed, but does it really work? Our experience convinced us that building community teams can: (1) increase the quality of client services, (2) strengthen each program, and (3) support professional development through networking.

Many community programs, both governmental and private, provide food and nutrition services to low-income families. Because we have similar objectives and clientele, the state director of nutrition education for the Special Supplemental Foods for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), a consultant from the Child Care Food Program (CCFP), and a nutrition specialist from the Extension Service began to meet quarterly.

The three of us represented separate agencies of USDA. Our purpose was to keep one another informed of changes in regulations or services and development of educational resources. We soon discovered we were able to save time and money by using educational resources developed by one another. It wasn't necessary for WIC, for example, to develop a printed brochure on emergency food pantries, since the Extension Service already had a good one. We discussed nutrition issues for the low-income audience and enjoyed a critical exchange of ideas.

After resolving local disagreements among agencies and giving presentations to one another's state meetings, we developed a long-range plan of action in four phases: (1) collect baseline data on local cooperation, (2) conduct a statewide interagency inservice meeting on team-building, (3) collect follow-up data on changes in cooperative behavior, and (4) assess the impact of cooperative efforts on clientele.

In a classic research-Extension linkage, we interested a graduate student in studying cooperation among community food and nutrition agencies. Using a mailed questionnaire, she collected data on availability of food and nutrition services, level and type of local cooperation, and reasons for cooperation/noncooperation.

Using her profile, we planned and held a statewide interagency inservice meeting where agencies met separately, then in plenary session to learn the value of their uniqueness to a cooperative team. Geographically assigned small interagency groups planned cooperative ventures for local implementation. Professionals in the participating agencies were enthusiastic about getting to know one another and exchanged telephone numbers.

In several counties, community food and nutrition teams have formed and now meet regularly. In three counties, multiple newsletters have been consolidated into single, unified, joint-agency monthly newsletters. One county sponsored a joint Child Care Health Fair. Extensive referral systems were established. The new community teams planned and conducted joint training sessions for day care providers.

Agencies report better use of resources and less duplication of services available through other programs. Agents report that coordination of effort results in less client confusion, mutual political support in times of budget cuts, and shared expertise. Professionals from small communities no longer feel isolated from others with similar responsibilities.

Phases 1, 2, and 3 of our long-range plan for cooperation have been completed. We're now ready for the final phase: to assess the benefits to program clientele of interagency cooperation. In summary, Extension, cooperating with other community programs, can improve service to clientele, increase each program's visibility in the community, and establish supportive professional networks. True cooperation can produce better programs with fewer tax dollars.

Today's high tech world is rapidly moving us into the information age. It's affecting the way we do Extension business by changing the face of education. Using information technology effectively to deliver education is an important challenge. As a distance education technique, videoconferencing has the potential to reach people in urban and remote rural locations. A major goal of Extension educators using this delivery technique is making it acceptable to Extension professionals and clientele.1

The following checklist identifies critical steps in planning and conducting a successful videoconference:

Scheduling

• Be alert to the availability of the intended audience.
• Consider demands on field staff time.
• Update staff on scheduled broadcasts, changes in broadcasts, satellite and channel information.
• Schedule most videoconferences for the program year before submission of plans of work by field staff.

Promotion

• Prepare special promotional materials for videoconferences.
• Get promotional materials to field staff at least one month, and ideally two months, before a scheduled videoconference.
• Inform field staff if promotional materials are sent to a cooperating group, organization, or agency so promotional efforts can be coordinated.

Orientation

• Prepare field staff for their role through on-site orientation conducted in several locations, or through orientation conducted via satellite.
• Include these components in the orientation:
  • Purpose and content of the upcoming production.
  • Target audience.
  • Clarification of coordinator's role in introducing the videoconference to local participants, evaluating the presentation, and conducting concurrent and follow-up educational activities.
  • Coordinator's discussion guide.
  • Fact sheets, bulletins, and other educational material to be provided to participants.
  • Name and phone number of one campus-based contact person.

Program Design and Format

• Keep presentations short and interspersed with charts, graphs, or on-location shots.
• Feature short interviews with experts to add interest.
• Keep videoconferences short (1 to 1 1/2 hours).
• Enhance the auditory quality of the presentation through appropriate music and narration.
• Improve the visual presentation through demonstrations, colorful visuals, and action shots.2

Distance education provides a new set of challenges to Extension. Conscious effort is required to assure that this educational method is facilitating education, not just providing information.3 Making videoconferencing work means paying special attention to scheduling, promotion, and overall program design and format.

Because distance education is a delivery method of the future, Extension educators must prepare by making it an effective way to help people put knowledge to work.

1. "Project in Agriculture Utilizing an Integrated Telecommunications Network," Second Annual Report to W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Oklahoma State University (Stillwater: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, May 1987) and Janice R. Stewart and LuAnn Soliah, "Creating Educational Excellence," Journal of Extension, XXV (Fall 1987), 34-36.

2. Marilyn Burns, "Making Your Point with Visual Images," Forecast, XXXIII (November/December 1987), 8, 10, 60.

3. Randy R. Weigel, "Is Extension Changing Its Mission?" Journal of Extension, XXIV (Spring 1986), 30.

Agricultural lenders face enormous pressures as they find themselves having to say "no" to farmers who may also be their friends and relatives. Many lenders and farmers, having lived in the same community and attended the same church and social functions, now find themselves in an adversarial relationship.

The "Farmers and Lenders: Working Through Crisis" workshop was developed in 1986 in response to the stress that agricultural lenders were feeling as a result of the farm crisis. The workshop's overall objectives are:

• To enhance communication skills within the farmer/lender relationship.
• To help the lender identify and successfully deal with his/her feelings of stress.
• To help the lender understand the feelings of the farmer, including recognizing the warning signs of potential suicide, and where to seek help.
• To promote wellness and a healthy balance between the lender's personal and professional life.

The centerpiece of the program is a videotape based on several interviews edited into a 22-minute presentation. Included on the videotape are interviews with bankers from a rural Iowa bank, the head of the Iowa Farmers Home Administration, and a counseling psychologist who had worked extensively with the FmHA. All of these lenders emphasized the importance of having good communication skills in working with farmers, and stressed that communication wasn't something they were normally taught in their profession. They also discussed how much stress they were feeling as a result of the rural crisis. The psychologist shared some of the work he had done with the FmHA lenders, emphasizing the importance of taking care of themselves, being able to recognize suicidal tendencies in a co-worker or farmer, and the importance of putting "balance" into their lives. This information laid the groundwork for the materials.

The workshop leader's guide includes materials and activities for over three hours of training. However, parts of the workshop can stand alone, if less time is available. Materials include a take-home handout for the lenders that summarizes the materials presented in the workshop: fine-tuning communication skills, learning to express feelings, understanding the farmers' feelings, recognizing suicide warning signs, and taking care of yourself during stressful times.

Many Extension staff are familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from staff development opportunities. We administered the Myers-Briggs by mail to 570 rural leaders to determine their psychological profile. Here's the sample:

• 16% established rural leaders (agricultural organizations and community groups).
• 26% Nebraska Ag Leadership (LEAD) Fellows, ages 25-40.
• 16% Young Farmer/Rancher Education Association and 4-H/FFA teen leaders and state officers.
• 17% Extension agents.
• 25% current and former vocational agricultural teachers.

The results can be described in terms of the four classic Kiersian Temperament types:

1. Sensing-Judging (SJ): The SJ leader may be called traditionalist, stabilizer, or consolidator. They value caution, carefulness, and accuracy.
2. Intuitive-Thinking (NT): The NT leader can be characterized as a visionary, an architect of systems, and a builder. They value competence, intelligence, and complexity.
3. Sensing-Perceiving (SP): The SP leader can be the trouble shooter, negotiator, or firefighter. They value flexibility, action, and taking risks.
4. Intuitive-Feeling (NF): Strengths of the NF leader are being a spokesperson and energizer. They value harmony and self-determination.

Statistically, when comparing this sample to a data bank sample of 39,036 males from the Center for Application of Psychological Type,1 there were more SJ (61% for our sample vs 38% for the center sample) and fewer NT (18% vs 27%). SP was 13% vs 17% and NF was 8% vs 18%.

We analyzed the various ag leadership groups to examine differences. The Extension agent/vo-ag teacher sample was quite similar to the total group. LEAD fellows and young farmer officers were almost identical to the professional and established leaders. Although not statistically greater, they did have a higher percentage of the intuitive thinking (NT) temperament than the other groups (22%).

The most significant differences were found in the 4-H/FFA leadership group. The intuitive feeling (NF) temperament had a significantly greater number than was present in the total ag leadership group (29% 4-H/FFA; 8% total sample). The SJ temperament was significantly less: 44% vs 61%.

The distribution of Extension agents and vo-ag teachers shouldn't be surprising since the sensing- judging (SJ) temperament is heavily represented in the general population, and especially in rural areas.2 They like to be of service to others and thus would find the calling of agricultural educator to their liking. They're good at putting ideas of others into practice, but paradoxically, they may resist change. This could be a serious problem, especially for Extension agents whose main mission is to be the link between the university and the community for change.

The LEAD and young farmer leaders have several differences in personality type. They have less concern for organization and "duty" than the other groups and they're more future-oriented. The intuitive thinkers in this group may be the leaders of tomorrow who can visualize a new agriculture and create changes soon enough to make a difference. Because of their ability to be more future-oriented, they, as leaders, are less apt to get "blind-sided" by unforseen events.

The 4-H/FFA youth leader group provides some insights into what may be a serious problem. This group, with a high percentage of the intuitive feeling (NF) temperament, has the most native skill in working with people and tends to be change agents. This may be one reason why they're either selected or elected to an office.

A problem, these data indicate, is that few of these NF leaders become agricultural leaders later in life. The youth that were identified as having much leadership potential may leave agriculture. This study raises an interesting question: Why don't the NF types stay in ag leadership? One possibility is that they don't see the diversity of agricultural opportunities, or they perceive that agriculture won't use their people skills.

Understanding the psychological type profile of rural leaders can help Extension at all levels to understand and be able to select future planning and educational strategies that will be most effective for all types of people.

1. Mary McCaulley and I. Myers, Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychological Press, 1985).

2. Leverne Barrett, R. Sorensen, and T. Hartung, "A Four-Year Study of the Personality Types of Agricultural College Students by Major-Implications for Teaching, Retention, Recruitment," NACTA Journal, XXXI (December 1987); James Crumly, A Financial Analysis of Farm Records by Personality Type (Master's thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1987); and James Horner and L. Barrett, "Personality Types of 500 Farm Couples-Implications for Agriculture Educators During Critical Economic Conditions" (Paper presented at the 13th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Dallas, Texas, 1986).

Over the past decade, 94% of our nation's black farmers have been displaced. The remaining group who continue to farm need to use modern agricultural technology if they're going to prosper.1 Is Extension servicing this group of farmers? Does Extension need to alter delivery methods to more effectively reach the black farmer?

In 1985, personal interviews were conducted with a randomly selected group of black farmers living in six rural parishes in Louisiana. Questions focused on ways black farmers obtain farming information and the modern agricultural technologies they're using.

Responses from 224 part-time black farmers and 156 full-time black farmers paralleled each other. Ranking the methods of obtaining farming information from the most frequent to the least frequent, the responses were:

1. Often to sometimes-consult neighbors.
2. Sometimes-contact Extension agent, receive agricultural bulletins, listen to radio or television.
3. Sometimes to rarely-read agricultural bulletins, read newspapers, attend workshops.
4. Rarely to never-take a course.

Responses from the entire group of black farmers indicate that less than half of them use any type of modern farming practice in their faming operation; and less than three percent of the farmers with dairy or beef cattle use appropriate new agricultural technologies in their cattle farming operation.

Black farmers receive most of their information on farming from each other. Sometimes they contact the Extension agent, receive bulletins, or hear information on radio or television.

To reach the black farmer with information on new technologies in agriculture, Extension must capitalize on the farmers interactions with each other. Thus, the model farmer or farm demonstrator offers the most promising means to increase the use of modern farm practices among black farmers. The best delivery methods that would help (or provide support) for a model farmers' approach would be direct contact by agents along with a media approach using radio and television.

Although this study didn't ask about the church as a source of information, Hunte2 concluded that black farmers obtain all types of community information from the church. Therefore, seeking ways to deliver the modern farming information through the black church should be explored.

1. "Southern University-Rockefeller Small Farmer Feasibility Study" (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Extension Cooperative Services, Southern University, 1979).

2. Christopher N. Hunte, "Rural Black Leadership: An Assessment of Community Problems" (Paper presented at American Rural Sociological Society, Lexington, Kentucky, 1983).

Thriving on Chaos. Tom Peters. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987. 561 pp. $19.95 hardcover. $10.95 paperback.

Peters proposes 45 prescriptions for managers in a world turned upside down. Although written primarily for business, this "handbook for a management revolution" applies directly to the management of Cooperative Extension programs.

Those who enjoyed In Search of Excellence and A Passion for Excellence, co-authored by Peters, will find the same topic addressed with the same direct and engaging style. However, according to the author, conditions have changed. The world of the two previous books no longer exists. "Predictability is a thing of the past." An accelerating rate of innovation has produced a chaotic new world requiring a revolution in management if organizations are to survive.

"You can't do it all at once, but you must," Peters observes. Extension workers can empathize. So what are some answers?

Peters advocates the elimination of bureaucratic rules and humiliating conditions, the support of fast failures, an obsession with listening, and the decentralization of authority and strategic planning. He advises managers to defer to the front line people, delegate whenever possible, manage by example, provide incentive pay for everyone, and evaluate everyone on his or her love of change.

The theme of this book is "...we must simply learn to love change as much as we have hated it in the past." Otherwise, the fast-changing competitive scene will leave us behind.

Some readers will have trouble with this premise. Others may have trouble translating the numerous business references (sales, markets, customers) into Extension language (communication, potential audiences, clients). Not all of the prescriptions can be implemented easily (making incentive pay 25% to 50% of base pay). Peters' advice to launch a revolution, to be an internationalist, will have negative connotations to many traditionalists. Not all of his ideas, however, are revolutionary.

The last chapter advocates "total integrity" in all dealings with people inside the organization and out. Other chapters emphasize the need for conservative goals, top quality and superior services, and such mundane activities as training, evaluation, and recognition.

This book is valuable not only for its stimulating advice. Its format makes it one of the most accessible books on management. The 45 prescriptions are broken into five sections:

1. Creating total customer responsiveness.
2. Pursuing fast-paced innovation.
3. Achieving flexibility by empowering people.
4. Learning to love change - a new view of leadership at all levels.
5. Building systems for a world turned upside down.

Within each section are chapters, one for each prescription. Each chapter includes an overview, an explanation of the prescription, examples, application to the public sector, and specific suggestions for action. Effective use of headings, underlining, and bold face facilitate skimming and rapid review.

The inside front and back covers each list the 45 prescriptions for easy reference. This device is particularly appropriate since the prescriptions are connected. Not only are the prescriptions in each section closely related, but each section is designed to support the other four.

Conclusion: don't wait! Find a copy of this reference NOW. It will entertain and stimulate. Then it can be used to help Extension managers at all levels to deal proactively with chaos - to take the chaos as given and learn to thrive on it.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1989spring/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.