Volume 29 Number 2
|
Summer 1991 Volume 29 Number 2 |
|
|
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
Janet Poley, president, Washington, D.C., Extension Service-USDA Editorial Committee
Doris Smith, chair, Oakland, California Tools of the Trade Editors
Martha Bullock Lamberts, Washington State University Futures Editor J. David Deshler, Cornell University
Themes That Bind Us TogetherThis issue of the Journal has three major themes: relations with the private sector, alternative communication methods, and international linkages. Each theme is a reflection of major trends affecting Extension's future. It's in that sense that they're themes that bind us together. Conflicts of Interest The increasing complexity of societal problems makes it clear that Extension's commitment to issues programming will require new partnerships and greater collaboration with the private sector. But closer relationships with the private sector hold the potential for conflicts of interest that could undermine Extension's credibility and effectiveness. ECOP Chair Richard Fowler focuses attention on this problem in his To the Point lead article. Janet Poley responds from the federal level, while Linda Erickson of Oregon provides a county perspective. John Voris' Forum article advocating direct Extension involvement in commodity associations is also relevant to this issue. Alternative Communication Methods The four feature articles present research on alternative communication, education, and delivery methods. Each article contains lessons learned about effective Extension methods relevant to all program areas and subject-matter specializations. Loftis and Kendall present lessons they learned about programming on controversial issues as a result of developing a videotape on pesticides in food. Iams and Marion found that the way people prefer to learn depends on what they're learning. Beuerlein, Helsel, and Woodruff present lessons they've learned about effective handbook production and use. Goetting and Pourroy discuss an evaluation of an innovative newsletter approach. Extension in a Global Context The special section on "Extension in a Global Context" calls our attention to one of the most significant trends of our times- the globalization of everything. The editorial deadline for this issue of the Journal was January 15, the date on which the United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq took effect. But, by the time you receive this issue, the war will be over. Whatever the news and events of the moment, you can be sure that global economic, political, and technological developments will have major implications for the issues Extension is asked to address and the resources available to address those issues. Extension's Growing Knowledge Base The Research in Brief section in this issue is twice as large as usual. This is a tribute to and manifestation of Extension's commitment to conduct research so Extension's programs and methods are based on a solid foundation of knowledge and reflective practice. Letters We've moved the Letters section to the front of the Journal. This is where you find the letters in most publications in recognition of the importance of reader responses. Send your letters-as well as manuscripts-to the new editor, Ellen Ritter. Her address is on the inside front cover. The next issue of the Journal will introduce Ellen more formally, but her three-year term begins July 1, 1991. MQP Videotape Education on a Controversial Issue-Pesticides in Food
Jim C. Loftis
Patricia A. Kendall A basic mission of Cooperative Extension is to provide unbiased, research-based information to clientele for informed decision making. Cooperative Extension professionals are comfortable with this mission in well-defined scientific disciplines. However, the world doesn't present the majority of its problems in disciplinary form. Many are presented as issues, matters of wide public concern arising out of complex human problems.1 Little is yet known about the results of issues programming in Cooperative Extension, especially for risk-benefit issues. Can we raise awareness about a complex issue such as the risk of pesticides in the food chain and provide scientific information needed for informed decision making without bias? Informed decision making includes rational assessment of the potential for risk, determining "acceptable risk," and taking responsible action to minimize or manage that risk for the well-being of those affected. Is a videotape an appropriate vehicle for such a program? Using an interdisciplinary team approach, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension produced an educational package (videotape and bulletin) targeted for consumers and home gardeners to promote the concept of rational alertness about the use of pesticides in the food chain.2 Collaborative Development The project team included faculty and Extension specialists from six university departments, specialists with the Office of Public and Media Relations, an evaluation specialist, and key Extension administrators and field agents. In addition, representatives of ES-USDA, Colorado Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Sierra Club were consulted. We (the authors), as the two project leaders, initially met with the interdisciplinary team to discuss issues to be raised and topics to be covered by the video, then drafted a technical outline. The outline was distributed to all team members and revised based on review comments. Topics emphasized in the outline included the inescapable nature of risk in daily activities, the process by which pesticides are regulated, the role of pesticides in production, alternatives for consumers to reduce their risk of exposure to pesticides, and the need for consumers to assume responsibility to make rational choices. Taped interviews were done with conventional and organic producers, scientific experts, grocers, and shoppers. From these, a video/audio script was developed and revised in response to team member comments. Once the videotape was completed, an accompanying brochure was produced to outline the main points and provide additional resources. Evaluation of Impact Impact of the videotape was evaluated by surveying seven audiences with before- and after-viewing questionnaires. Five of the viewings took place in Colorado, one in Georgia, and one in Oregon. Of the 146 evaluators, 26 were males and 120 were females. The majority (54%) were between age 36 and 55. Residence was fairly uniformly distributed between farm or ranch, small town, medium-sized town, and cities over 50,000. The group was highly educated-65.5% were college graduates (B.A./B.S. or higher) and another 26.7% had some college. Twenty- seven percent of the evaluators were Extension professionals, four percent identified themselves as producers, and the remainder (69%) were grouped as consumers. Results were analyzed statistically to assess the importance of before-and-after differences in viewer responses and to evaluate relationships between responses and demographic factors, occupation, and purchasing habits.3 Since the sample group didn't represent a scientific survey, the results don't have broad or population-wide implications. In a less rigorous, more descriptive sense, however, the results are enlightening. Table 1 summarizes changes in viewer knowledge and attitudes by comparing pre-viewing and post-viewing responses using a nonparametric test on the paired responses.4 After seeing the tape, viewers gave higher ratings to three important factors related to subject-area knowledge and confidence in personal ability to control risk. These factors were knowledge of the regulatory process, understanding of the "de minimis risk" concept used in setting acceptable limits of pesticides in foods, and confidence in ability to minimize personal exposure risks from pesticides in food. These results were encouraging since the goal of the project was to increase viewer knowledge and sense of control over personal risk levels as opposed to changing viewer opinions on the safety of the food supply.
Pre-viewing concern for the safety of the food supply was significantly higher among women than men. Not surprisingly, strong relationships were observed between concern for food safety and gardening and purchasing habits. As the level of pre- viewing concern for food safety increased, so did the tendency to purchase organically grown produce or to grow produce in home gardens using organic methods. On the other hand, correlations between viewer confidence in the safety of the food supply and occupational or demographic factors were weak. The videotape was successful in achieving a balanced viewpoint. When judged on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1=understates the risk, 3=balanced in approach to risks, and 5=overstates the health risks associated with pesticides in the food chain, over two-thirds (67.8%) felt the videotape was balanced in its approach to risks. Among those who thought it was not balanced, a higher proportion of respondents indicated that they felt the videotape overly minimized the risks (21.9%) than overstated the risks (10.3%). Lessons Learned Although we found the videotape an effective way to communicate about a risk/benefit issue, we learned several important lessons. First, programming on risk/benefit issues requires more careful preparation than programming for less controversial areas. Trust, control, and outrage factors can outweigh actual hazards and must be carefully considered. We found literature in the subject areas of risk assessment and risk communication to be important resources.5 Previews of materials by people from a variety of viewpoints (consumer, regulator, researcher, environmentalist) were helpful in avoiding word choices that could have blocked communication by belittling the issue or raising "red flags." For example, in an early draft we tried to put risks into perspective by comparing the minimal risk of cancer from pesticide residues to the much greater and well-known risk from smoking. However, reviews with both EPA toxicologists and consumers revealed that such a comparison didn't achieve the effect desired because smoking was considered a voluntary risk controllable by the risk taker, whereas pesticide residues on foods weren't. In revisions, we were careful to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary risks and tried to establish the risks of pesticide residues in food as one over which the consumer has some control (by altering purchasing habits, growing their own, washing and peeling produce, eating a variety of foods). Once this was established, we were then able to say pesticide residues are but one of many cancer-causing agents encountered daily. Saccharine-containing soft drinks, nitrosamines in charcoal- broiled steaks, and cigarette smoke were given as examples of other common risks, all of which require rational alertness on the part of the individual. Although we were careful to have the script evaluated by a number of important stakeholders, we and they failed to appreciate the power of the visuals accompanying the audio. The idea of pictures speaking louder than words is even more true when the viewer is already sensitized to an issue. For example, several frames of fields being sprayed were used throughout the video, primarily because the video production staff found them more visually appealing than other footage available. What was underestimated, however, was the negative visual impact this footage would have, especially on producers and rural consumers. The only message they received was that spraying was "dangerous." They didn't hear the rational message being delivered by the narrator at the same time. The use of storyboards during formative evaluation to visually portray images proposed to accompany this narration may be one way to help avert such problems. While most viewers responded positively to the presentation, consumers responded more favorably than Extension professionals to the documentary method used in the videotape to raise issues and present risks and benefits without clear-cut answers. Comments from Extension agents and specialists indicated that, given the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, they'd have liked the videotape to conclude that the risk from pesticide residues in food "is insignificant and no cause for concern." Unfortunately, "How safe is safe?" questions that arise in many health and environmental issues don't have easy answers, nor answers completely satisfactory to all concerned. For the issue of pesticide residues in the food chain, we believe a logical role for Cooperative Extension is to present both sides of the issue and allow producers and consumers to take responsibility for informed choice. By its very nature, such a role demands the use of an interdisciplinary approach. Footnotes 1. K. A. Dalgaard and others, Issues Programming in Extension (Washington, D.C.: Extension Service-USDA, ECOP, and the Minnesota Extension Service, 1988). 2. Funding for this project was provided from ES-USDA as part of an eight-state "Safety of the Food Supply Pilot Projects" cooperative agreement. For information on the videotape, contact the CSU Bulletin Room, 171 SW Aylesworth Hall, CSU, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, 303- 491-6198. 3. P. A. Kendall and J. C. Loftis, Analyzing Risks from Pesticides in the Food Chain (Fort Collins: Colorado State University, 1989). 4. W. J. Conover, Practical Nonparametric Statistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980). 5. P. M. Sandman, Explaining Environmental Risk (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1986) and Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. Improving Risk Communication (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1989).
Reactions to Alternative Delivery Methods
Donna R. Iams
Mary H. Marion How people prefer to learn depends on what they're learning. Television, radio, and newspapers are the preferred sources of educational information on energy conservation.1 But change the subject to financial and health management, then pamphlets, correspondence courses, and recorded telephone messages become the methods of choice.2 Entering the 1990s, environmental topics are emerging as high-priority issues for Extension.3 A University of Arizona research project determined that people prefer to learn about environmental issues in yet another way. Identifying Issues In 1988, we surveyed University of Arizona employees, ages 40 to 65, working in positions ranging from grounds maintenance workers to upper administration.4 A mail questionnaire was sent to 850 employees with a 71% return rate. The survey focused on problems resulting from growth and development in Arizona. Questions included environmental and policy issues of most concern to the employees when they thought about continuing to live in Arizona. Analysis of the data indicated that, in order of importance, priority issues were (see Figure 1):
Figure 1. Respondents' concerns on environmental and public policy issues. There were no significant differences in these results by age, education, occupation, and years to retirement. Extension Education on These Issues Recognition and ordering of these issues is just the beginning. What are effective methods of reaching people with information about these issues? Cooperative Extension in Arizona has traditionally offered educational programs at daytime or evening meetings. Lifestyles and economic changes mean Extension has to reevaluate delivery methods and services. To determine how today's populations would be willing to receive information about community issues, respondents were given a list of alternative information delivery methods and asked to indicate their willingness to participate. These methods included renting videotapes for home use, enrolling in home study courses, purchasing bulletins and other printed materials, and/or attending educational meetings held within the community area. Figure 2 shows the results. 
Figure 2. Acceptance of dissemination methods. Rent Videotapes Sixty-seven percent of the respondents said that they were willing to rent videotapes. However, as age increased their willingness to rent decreased. Within the age group 40-45, 82% said yes to rentals, while only 54% of those over 61 were willing to rent. As educational level increased so did the willingness to rent videotapes, with respondents having earned technical school and junior college degrees the most willing to rent the tapes. The average rental price most respondents (54%) were willing to pay was $1.00-$2.99. If the price was increased to $3.00- $4.99, only 28% would pay and those respondents tended to be over 55. Those few who were willing to pay rental charges of $5.00- $6.99 had doctoral degrees. Home Study Course Overall, 54% were willing to enroll in a home study course, but older respondents were less willing to participate this way. Seventy-one percent of those aged 40-45 were willing to participate in such an activity, while that figure dropped to 44% among those over 60. Although the 40-45 age group was most willing to participate, they were the least willing to pay more than $14.99. The remaining participants were willing to pay in the range of $15.00-$20.00 for the home study course. The higher the educational level, the more willing the respondents were to pay the higher fee. Educational Bulletins Bulletins and other free educational materials have long been a staple of Extension. Budget cuts have forced many offices to charge for published information. Results of this study indicated that respondents' level of education didn't influence decisions about paying for bulletins. As age increased, willingness to pay for bulletins also increased, but not at increasing prices. The most acceptable price range was $2.00 or less; the least acceptable, $3.00-$4.99. This is encouraging considering current Extension resources. Educational Meetings Extension will continue to offer educational meetings in local communities. Ten miles was the maximum distance respondents were willing to drive to attend meetings. As respondents' age and educational level increased, the distance they were willing to drive decreased. Implications for Extension The availability of a safe and plentiful water supply was most important to the respondents in this study, lending support to Extension's efforts in issues-based programming at the local, state, and national levels. People were willing to accept alternative delivery methods like renting educational videotapes. The availability of electronic equipment like satellite dishes in remote, rural areas also increased willingness to participate in lifelong learning. Extension faculty need to hone their skills in teaching about critical environmental issues like water quality by both live and taped television programming. People were reluctant to drive long distances to obtain educational information, but studying at home was a different matter. Since some respondents were willing to pay up to $20 to enroll in a home study course, Extension should make greater use of this delivery method. The results of this study can positively affect both Extension faculty and programming as we near the 21st century. Change will continue. Demands on people's time will grow, but working people can watch a professionally produced educational videotape while riding an exercise bicycle. Retirees can study in an Extension-produced home study course at their leisure. To survive and flourish in this highly competitive environment, Extension faculty will have to regroup. Training to produce professional, educational television programs and videotapes can no longer be looked on as a luxury to do "someday," but as an immediate necessity. Footnotes 1. D. R. Iams and M. S. Wilhelm, "The Public's View of Energy Education," Journal of Extension, XXII (November/December 1984), 11-14. 2. V. E. Steinfelt and D. R. Iams, "So You're Planning a Money Management Program!" Journal of Extension, XXIII (Winter 1985), 15-17 and B. A. Epstein, "Instant Health Information," Journal of Extension, XXVI (Spring 1988), 14-17. 3. Steinfelt and Iams, "So You're Planning a Money Management Program!" 4. Western Region Project, Housing and Locational Decisions of the Maturing Population: Opportunities for the Western Region (Tucson: University of Arizona, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1989).
Effective Handbook Production and Distribution
J. E. Beuerlein
Z. R. Helsel
J. M. Woodruff The rapid development of agricultural technology since 1960 has led many state Extension Services and others to develop subject-matter handbooks organizing vast amounts of subject specific information for teaching and reference. The value of educational material is realized only when it has reached the intended clientele, been studied, and the knowledge applied. The development and production of educational material is Phase I of the three-phase educational process. Distribution, Phase II, may sometimes be inadequate because of inefficient distribution systems, lack of promotion, or both. Except for the quality of effort expressed in Phases I and II, an Extension Service unit has little control of Phase III-clientele application of transferred knowledge. Between 1967 and 1988, seven soybean handbooks of varying size, content, presentation quality, and subject matter were produced. A brief description of their makeup and sale price is presented in Table 1. This article will present lessons learned from successful handbook production and review two less successful distribution efforts. It will also offer guidelines on presentation quality and production sequence to maximize resource use. Presentation Quality vs. Cost The production costs for handbooks are a function of many factors, including the number of pages, tables, illustrations, and paper quality-which is a function of intended durability and whether black and white or color photos and illustrations are used. For all but three of the handbooks described in Table 1, authors received no direct payment because they were salaried university employees. Often the cost of artwork, editing, and layout may also be borne by public institutions because personnel are salaried. There is considerable confounding of production costs for handbooks. For example, a decision to use four-color illustrations necessitates the use of higher quality, more expensive paper. Grouping all the color into one section rather than scattering it throughout a publication produces some savings in both printing and paper cost. Two qualities of paper can then be used in the publication. Table 2 shows a comparison of estimated production costs for four versions of a hypothetical 100-page publication. For 5,000 copies of a 100-page publication with no photos, illustrations, or color, it would cost about $1.84 per copy for typesetting, layout, printing, and binding. Including 25 tables printed in a second color increases the per copy cost by 33%, although adding 25 black and while photos increases the cost only another six cents a copy. When 50 four-color pictures are distributed throughout the publication, the production cost increases 333% from the base of $1.84 to over $5.12 per copy. Color may be necessary to show color-related quantitative characteristics, and in such cases the cost for color is unavoidable. Although the cost of color is great, the appeal of color in today's marketplace is often considered necessary for professional appearance. Phase I-Production Producing a large (100+ page) publication may require as little as eight months or as much as three years depending on how well activities are planned to eliminate bottlenecks and duplicated efforts. The following sequence of events typifies efficient handbook production:
Phase II-Distribution While the creation of educational materials is normally well -done by educators, they sometimes consider the development phase of an educational project as the completed project. This is analogous to building a factory, but failing to equip it. Phase II, distribution to clientele, can be poorly or well-done. Following are examples of both. Single copies of the first Missouri soybean handbook were distributed free to all Missouri soybean growers who wanted it. News releases and radio tapes were prepared to promote the availability of the handbook and to remind potential users it was free if they'd participated in the soybean checkoff program. Before general distribution, all Missouri county agricultural Extension agents were given the opportunity to order copies for local distribution. This effort helped establish them as a source of an excellent soybean publication. The publication was advertised to growers as an enticement to attend local and regional producer meetings. Within three months of release, unsolicited requests totaling 4,000 copies arrived from agri-organizations and a second printing was made and distributed. All but 300 copies were distributed within two years of release. Five years after release, the Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council approved a grant to publish 27,000 copies of a revision. The second edition was fairly easy to update and produce because only two chapters required significant changes. A few new photos were available and a new cover was chosen to differentiate the first and second publication. Distribution of the second edition was similar to the first except that bulk orders from outside organizations were solicited before printing. Production and distribution of the Missouri Soybean handbooks were efficient and well-done. In contrast, the Ohio and Georgia handbooks are examples of excellent publications successfully produced in Phase I, but inadequately or inappropriately promoted and distributed. A price was assigned to each handbook (Table 1) to recover some of the development and production cost. Salable copies were provided to county Extension offices accompanied by a news release. Two years after the production of the Ohio handbook, 25% of the original 8,000 remain unsold. Three years after release of the Georgia handbook, 40% of the original 5,000 copies remain unsold.
Farmers and agricultural business leaders in both states were complimentary of the quality and utility of those handbooks. Why were these valuable resources not readily accepted and purchased? Producers and authors of those handbooks felt the deterrent to sale was multifaceted. On release, county Extension offices in both states were provided with a limited supply of books and the staff was expected to promote and market the product. In Georgia, a promotional leaflet was prepared and sent to county agents for circulation to promote the handbook. About half of the Georgia handbook sales were due to the promotional leaflet. Typically, county staff aren't trained for marketing activities, nor do they have time for these activities if they fulfill their primary and preferred function of clientele education and service. Underlying these problems is a negative attitude toward "for-sale" publications by clientele and some county Extension staff and the associated need to collect funds from clients who are taxed to support Extension staffing and programming. These conditions and attitudes discourage the promotion and marketing of educational material. Additionally, no rewards existed to do so in either state, and negative comments about salable publications were expressed by customers. Therefore, Phase II was incomplete for the Ohio and Georgia handbooks, which predisposed those educational projects to Phase III failure. When Phase II fails, the overall objective of an educational publication is lost even though thousands of hours and dollars have been spent in development and production. Conclusions and Questions The lesson to be learned from these experiences is that promotion and distribution of educational materials are of prime importance to the success of such projects. Outstanding educational materials are of little value unless they reach the intended clientele. Important questions for the Ohio and Georgia Extension administrative teams include:
The answers to these questions and the fate of similar publications in other states are in the hands of the state Extension administrators who are ultimately responsible for the success of all educational projects regardless of media. Delivery systems for interdepartmental educational materials and projects can be successful only when their promotion and distribution are planned for, supported, and managed from the higher levels of administration. While the creators of handbooks are responsible for content and presentation quality, they shouldn't be responsible for the organized promotion and distribution.
An "Interactive" Newsletter
Marsha A. Goetting
Raeann Pourroy Young families in Pondera County, Montana, improved their resource management skills by "Getting It Together" via an "interactive" newsletter series. Previous efforts to reach these families with public meetings had been frustrated by unpredictable winter weather, long distances between towns, conflicts with family or school activities, family illnesses, and time commitments to other groups. Confronted by these challenges, the MSU Extension agent and family economics specialist brainstormed ideas for new educational methods. The concept of a series of "interactive" newsletters was born. This approach would permit families to learn in their own homes while maintaining contact with the instructors via the mail or telephone. The series differed from the typical newsletter approach in which all issues were sent to each subscriber. "Getting It Together" participants selected from among 16 possible educational topics those they perceived were most needed. They could then get follow-up help. Program Procedure "Getting It Together" newsletters were mailed once a week from January to June 1989. Participants were given a list of topics and dates on which each newsletter would be mailed so they'd know when to expect the ones they'd requested. An "interactive" sheet was enclosed with each newsletter. This sheet allowed participants to: (1) ask questions, (2) request additional materials, (3) make suggestions about information they wished had been included, (4) recommend whether the topic should be included if the series were to be offered statewide, and (5) indicate any estate, financial, or household management actions they'd taken as a result of reading the information in the newsletter. Promotional Methods The first challenge was getting people to register for the interactive newsletter approach. Different promotional methods were evaluated to find out which were effective. Personal "selling" by the agent at group meetings worked best, but was also the most time-consuming. Out of 54 registration forms distributed during several group meetings, 20 were returned for a response rate of 37%. In contrast, only nine registrations (8%) were returned out of 110 enclosed with an issue of the county employees' newsletter. Of the 80 registrants, almost half enrolled on a form included in the home economics newsletter. Twenty-five percent enrolled on the three-fold flier distributed during meetings. Slightly more (11%) registered on a newspaper form. Only two percent responded to two paid ads. The remaining three percent were office drop-ins who had heard of the series by word of mouth. Half of the registrants indicated they wanted all 16 newsletters. The other half were quite selective in their educational choices. For example, three percent of the registrants requested two of the topics, while four percent requested four topics. The percentage of newsletters selected ranged from a low of 61% for the one describing a check register tracking system, to a high of 91% for the one explaining which household papers to keep and where (see Table 1-Requested column).
Evaluating the Interactive Newsletter Model Since "Getting It Together" was a pilot project, two evaluation approaches were used. The goals of the evaluations were to determine what actions were taken by participants as a result of the series, to learn if they thought the newsletter should be offered statewide, and, if so, what changes should be made. The first evaluation was based on a section of the interaction sheet included with each newsletter. Return rates for the interaction sheets ranged from seven percent to 41% with an average of 30% for all 16. Responses dwindled as the weeks progressed. The interaction sheet with the highest percentage return was the first one mailed (41%). The sheet with the lowest percentage return was the last one mailed (7%). The second evaluation was a five-page questionnaire sent to all 80 participants a month after the last lesson was mailed. Twenty-four participants (30%) returned the final evaluation. Self-addressed paid envelopes were provided for each form of evaluation. Results The final evaluation showed "Getting It Together" was the first Extension program in which 65% of the respondents had participated. Participants were mostly female, married, well- educated, relatively young, and employed. When asked if the series should be offered to residents in other counties, 96% of the respondents said yes. Two newsletters, financial goal-setting and establishing a credit card safety record, each received a 100% recommendation for inclusion in a statewide series. Estate planning topics of power of attorney and wills each received over 80% recommendation. Newsletters receiving the lowest percent concerned prorating debt payments (33%) and computing debt-to- income ratio (57%) (see Table 1-Inclusion Statewide column). Management Actions Taken Among the respondents returning the interaction sheets, the action taken by the highest percentage (90%) was establishing a credit card safety record (see Table 2). The second most frequently reported action was computing prorated debt payments (69%) followed by making a valuable papers' list (56%). Among the respondents returning the final evaluation form, the action done by the highest percentage was making a list of financial goals (100%). The second most frequently reported action was discussing values with family members (56%), followed by establishing a credit card safety record (42%).
In most cases, a higher percentage of actions was reported by the respondents who returned the weekly interaction sheets than by the respondents who returned the final evaluation. This result was surprising because Extension faculty are often encouraged to wait at least six months before conducting an evaluation to give participants time to "take action." Comments from Participants Almost every respondent wrote a comment on the interaction sheets and on the final evaluation. One said, "I thought I had a good filing system, but you have helped me really improve on it." Another wrote, "I consider this (household inventory) very important after losing everything in a propane explosion in 1970. I still come up with things I had that were not listed at the time we were trying to recall our losses." Implications and Program Changes Before offering "Getting It Together" statewide, several newsletters were revised and combined. Three topics-estate planning, retirement planning, and a computerized budget analysis -were added. Thus, 1990 participants have the same number (16) of newsletter topics from which to choose. Because 43% requested a total of 266 additional publications, a list of additional publications available from the Montana State University (MSU) Extension Service will be maintained on the interaction sheet. Five dollars was charged for the statewide series based on a question about willingness to pay for the information. Over 70% of the respondents said they'd pay from $6-$10. More "interactive" opportunities are available in the revised series. Since participants identified estate planning as the area they wanted more information about and felt was of most help, educational meetings are planned in several counties. A listing of videotapes available from the MSU Extension Service are featured on the interactive sheets accompanying each topic. Office conferences with the agent are available for those who want more help with financial management. Contact with 1990 "Getting It Together" participants was continued for four months after the completion of the series to increase the response rate on the evaluation done in for September 1990. An additional 13% of participants in the pilot project returned their interaction sheets after they received the final evaluation. Several commented that the evaluation reminded them to complete some of the tasks. Extension agents have been encouraged to mail the newsletters twice a month instead of weekly as respondents indicated a week is often not enough time to accomplish the task for that topic. Extension home economists were provided with a word processing diskette containing all 16 newsletter cover letters and interaction sheets. This enabled the agents to personalize the letters and save hours of secretarial time. Summary An "interactive" newsletter series is an effective method of meeting the needs of many adults who can't or won't attend a public meeting or series of classes. Initiating the series as a pilot project in one county enabled the authors to make significant changes in the content of the series before offering it statewide. The evaluations revealed that respondents were "Getting It Together" and had improved their resource management skills in the areas of estate planning, household, and financial management.
International Programming Issues for Extension Education
C. Parr Rosson, III
Larry D. Sanders Cooperative Extension faces perhaps no greater challenge than to keep constituents updated on the events shaping change in today's global economy. International forces often provide the impetus for these changes. During the 1970s, international trade was a key to farm prosperity. However, in the 1980s, international forces contributed to a declining farm sector and the subsequent resource adjustments in agriculture. For the 1990s, global events will continue to place a high level of uncertainty into farm and rural community decision making. In many instances, political and social concerns may override sound economic logic. Yet, as educators, it's Extension's responsibility to ensure constituents understand the importance of international events and issues that affect their daily lives and their long-term business planning needs. Presently, Extension training may not be adequate to address many crucial concerns related to international forces and events as they affect U.S. agriculture. This article discusses the results of a recent survey of Extension educators in the South about their perceived needs and the role of Extension in developing educational programs with international content. Program topics, methods of delivery, and implications for Extension programming are presented. Survey Results Extension educators in the South were surveyed during 1988 and 1989 on their perceptions of program needs in international agriculture. The first survey was conducted in June 1988 during the trade conference "Southern Agriculture, International Trade and You" at Williamsburg, Virginia. A total of 106 responded-48 university faculty, 20 area/district specialists, 24 county staff, and 14 others including federal Extension personnel. Survey results show that 90% of the respondents rated their own knowledge of international issues moderate to high. Yet, three- quarters involve Extension clientele in international programming very little. One reason for this low involvement may have been the respondents' low degree of familiarity with international resource materials. Another could reflect the fact that almost 40% believed Extension wasn't supportive of international programming efforts (Table 1). At the same time, 86% agreed that Extension programs should include more subject matter related to global issues and that their clientele could benefit from such programs (77%). Table 1. Conference participants' perceptions of Extension.
Almost 75% of the respondents indicated they weren't able to design programs with an international focus or had little or no ability to use a public affairs/policy analysis framework in presenting international issues. Yet, as Table 1 shows, 55% of the respondents felt they understood international issues and linkages to the domestic economy. Conference attendees were surveyed again almost one year after attending to determine if their perceptions about Extension's role in international programming had changed. Strong support for international efforts was still evident. Almost 85% of the respondents indicated Extension programs should include global issues. Further, strong support existed for the educational role of Extension in international trade and development programming. Forty percent of the respondents believed their constituents would not be supportive of international trade programs, while 36% felt they would be. Almost three-fourths indicated their administration would support programs with an international focus. Finally, 40% believed Extension had more important priorities than international programming. The survey results have several important implications. First, knowledge and understanding of international issues seem fairly high, with a strong educational need to do more Extension programming with an international component or focus. Second, confidence in resources, Extension abilities, and constituent acceptance of international programming is weak. This suggests a need for more, high quality educational support materials and additional inservice training on how international issues affect constituents and how to best help them in adjusting to these impacts. Programs While these results suggest some general perceptions about the direction of international programming, they give little insight into specific topic areas and what the critical research and training needs might be. To answer some of these questions, a second survey was completed in July 1988. Conducted by Oklahoma State University, this survey questioned Extension personnel in the South about specific program needs in international trade and development. Questionnaires were mailed to 71 potential respondents, resulting in a 69% response rate, including 25 Extension economists, 10 county agents, 10 non-economist state specialists, and four area/district specialists. Among all respondents, 80% felt more programming was needed in international affairs. This sentiment was strongest among non- economists and weakest among county/area personnel (50%). A strong need exists for information about the impact on state economies of international trade and aid to less developed countries. Programs on the global competitiveness of southern agriculture were supported by 94% of all respondents, all of the non-economist specialists, and 89% of county/area personnel. Strong need was expressed for programs explaining the relationship between state economic development and other countries and the impact of the U.S. trade deficit. Method of program delivery is of crucial importance to the overall success of any educational effort. All survey respondents indicated any material on international issues should be integrated into existing programs (69%). Almost two-thirds of the non-economist and county/area personnel supported this method of program delivery over developing a separate, stand-alone international programming thrust. Implications Global competition, and its implications for southern agriculture, was identified as a key program area. However, data relating the international competitive position of crops and livestock products important to many southern states are lacking. Another high priority area identified was the impact of international trade on state economies. Much of the South is trade-oriented-large shares of major crops move into the export market and many producers of regional specialties face strong import competition for the U.S. market. As these trends continue, southern agriculture will undergo a continual process of adjustment to forces abroad. Much of the stimulus for this adjustment will be brought about through international trade. Many of the questions producers have about what and how much to grow go unanswered. Agribusinesses, facing critical investment decisions, are experiencing a similar dilemma. The U.S. trade deficit and its impact on state economies was identified as a high priority area. A related topic was the federal budget deficit and the interrelationship between the two. As policymakers formulate plans to deal with these twin deficits, education about the impact of alternative scenarios on important sectors of the economy will be crucial. For constituents to make informed policy choices, this information must be both accurate and timely. The importance of non-economists as a key group must be recognized to ensure the overall success of the program efforts. Many Extension personnel and their constituents have little or no training in economics. They're often reluctant to conduct or attend programs with a high degree of economic content. Adding an international component only compounds the problem. To effectively "train the trainers," educational materials must be developed with a non-economist audience in mind. This will ensure maximum use of the resource materials developed and enhance the chances of successfully educating non-economists and their constituents about key international economic issues and problems. Extension in a Global Context Editor's Introduction: One of the major challenges facing Extension is how to provide staff and clientele with a global perspective. This special section presents three articles on this issue. The first looks at programming needs and Extension's ability to deliver appropriate programming that includes an international perspective. The second article describes one state's efforts at staff development on global issues. The third article describes a participatory evaluation approach to community development in Argentina. This article demonstrates what we can learn from our Extension colleagues in other countries.
Expanding Our Horizons Internationally
John G. Richardson
Fred Woods In this changing world, Extensionists can no longer educate effectively by functioning the same way their predecessors did. Today's environment is no longer confined to a county, state, or even the nation-it's global. To deal programmatically with worldwide technological advancements, mass communications, and the complex intermeshing of markets around the globe, Extensionists must be prepared. Such preparation can help clientele understand the internationalization of issues or concerns that were once viewed in a national context. The impact from the international arena on our lives and the decisions we make provide vast opportunities and challenges for Extension. How do we meet these challenges effectively and efficiently? Realistically, our only viable means is for current Extensionists to retool or upgrade their competencies to include an international dimension. Staff Development To meet the challenge of programming in a global context, many state Extension Services are beginning to identify important relationships between the international arena and domestic program thrusts by adding international dimensions to their staff development programs. But much more needs to be done to integrate a global perspective. Many Extension staff recognize this need: 75% of field staff responding to an 11-state survey in Winter 1985-86 felt Extension had a responsibility to increase clientele's awareness of international issues. Respondents also supported strengthened staff development efforts to prepare Extension agents and specialists for this task. Led by the Extension Services of Georgia, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Utah, fully half of the states have made significant strides toward meeting this challenge. In recent years, North Carolina has made a major commitment to professional staff development in the international arena. North Carolina Approach The international staff development programs in North Carolina have focused on both field- and campus-based Extension faculty. In addition to two major programs, sabbaticals for Extension specialists and administrators have resulted in a greatly enhanced knowledge base in the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service about forage production techniques in New Zealand, crop diseases in France and Spain, and computer systems in Western Europe. Agent exchange programs with other developed countries are currently being explored as another way to provide an indepth international perspective for selected personnel. Also, inservice international training programs are now offered annually. One of the major programs, North Carolina in the World, was initiated in 1988, and annually provides 10 agents or specialists training in Third World development; economics, agriculture, youth, and family in developing countries; technology transfer issues; Extension and research systems in other countries; and the benefits of development help to North Carolina. This program culminates in a two-week assignment in a developing country where participants work directly with local citizens in leadership development, volunteer training, or identifying technical assistance opportunities. On a much larger scale, an international staff development opportunity called North Carolina Agriculture in the World (NCAIW) was conducted during 1989 and 1990 for 36 agents, specialists, and administrators. The program had four parts. Part one included three multiday training seminars on political and economic aspects of international trade, cultural and language differences, and developed versus underdeveloped economies. In evaluating usefulness of information, program participants gave the three seminars a rating of 4.01 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating useless and 5, very useful. A second component focused on the international involvement of multinational corporations and U.S. trade policies. In Washington, D.C., participants learned about the interests and involvement of the U.S. Congress and agencies of the executive branch in developing and implementing international trade policies. Using the same rating scale as with the seminars, participants rated this experience at 3.89 for usefulness. Some participants felt several speakers used too much jargon and approached their subjects on a scale too broad to be of much value to program participants. European Field Experience The third part of the program was a two-week study in six countries of the European Community (EC): Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, Luxemburg, France, and Spain. Issues studied included EC agricultural trade and research policies, plus a wide array of issues in the individual countries such as animal welfare, plant protection, water quality, the changing patterns of agriculture, declining numbers of farmers, agricultural research capabilities, and changing agricultural information systems, that is, Extension Services. In rating the international experience for information gained, on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 as useless and 10 as outstanding, the mean rating was 9.39. Analysis by job classification showed 11 specialists rated their experience 8.91, while 18 agents gave the experience a higher rating of 9.55. The four state administrators in the program were most pleased as indicated by their rating of 10. Four months following the international travel, the formal part of the program concluded with a two-day review and program development session. In this fourth segment, participants reviewed and discussed their newly gained international knowledge and developed ideas and specific plans for educational programs for relevant publics in North Carolina. Participants gave this session a positive rating of 4.01 on the scale of 1 to 5. In an evaluation of the total NCAIW program, on the scale of 1 to 5, participants gave the entire program experience a rating of 4.33 for value and usefulness of information gained. Conclusions and Implications Developing a global perspective makes us realize many other nations have highly sophisticated systems of agricultural technology development, research, and education. Indeed, reverse technology flow is now becoming the norm rather than the exception for the United States. Technological advances abroad have resulted in a technology flow to the U.S. whereby in 1990 we depend on sources abroad for 60% of our basic technological needs.2 Research and education systems integrate programs that deal directly with pressing public issues such as food safety, the environment, and animal welfare.3 These issues receive considerable public resources for research and regulatory activities. As a result of the North Carolina extensionists gaining direct international experience, increased programming dimensions on issues such as animal waste management and pesticide application are evident. Successful programs expanding international markets for North Carolina farm products have been implemented, and programs that focus on product quality reflect the knowledge gained. The impetus for rapidly integrating newly gained international knowledge into current programs can best be summarized by the way one NCAIW participant described his changed attitude: "What most sticks in my memory is the destruction of my stereotype of European agriculture. I had the notion that European farmers weren't as technically and scientifically advanced as U.S. farmers. If anything, maybe U.S. farmers are lagging a little behind. Those people are dealing with problems (animal waste, pesticides) we're only beginning to place emphasis on." Such obvious enlightenment underscores the impact an international professional development opportunity can have. Yet, with the already pressing needs and demands for limited resources, is the addition of a significant staff development program in each state to address global issues and opportunities feasible? Or would a multistate cooperative program be more efficient? Is there an opportunity to establish a national program? Who will be the focus of training programs and how will they be financed? The North Carolina programs were funded by grants from USAID, a major multinational corporation, and the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Whether through public or private funds, the demonstrated changes in knowledge of program participants and resultant educational programs that have broader dimensions as a result of international staff development emphasize the needs that exist for Extensionists to seek opportunities for a comprehensive global perspective. Footnotes 1. Mary Andrews and Michael Lambur, International Programming in the Cooperative Extension System (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1986). 2. William R. Furtick, "U.S. Agricultural Science: Its Shrinking Global Impact and Strategies for the Future" (Seminar presented to university faculty at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, April 24, 1990). 3. John G. Richardson, ed., North Carolina Agriculture in the World Program Description and Daily Summaries of National and International Experiences (Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, 1990).
Participatory Evaluation for Community Development
Cristina Bosio de Ortecho In the past 10 to 15 years, social planners have become aware that development requires community participation. In projects where participants were responsible for the actions undertaken, conventional evaluations were protested because evaluations done by outsiders didn't capture the particular meaning that the projects (processes and results) had for its participants. This stimulated a new approach to evaluation commonly known as participatory evaluation. Having worked in housing for the Argentine poor in the last 20 years, we'd done many evaluations in the conventional way and decided to join the participatory trend and develop different technical means. Our experiences suggest that certain necessary features exist in a participatory evaluation: participants evaluate, evaluation specialists facilitate their work by means of proposing methods and techniques, evaluation approaches and topics come from the expectations and concerns of participants, and proceedings are simple with clear stages and steps. A Participatory Evaluation Example A poor group that had set up a housing cooperative in Argentina wanted to evaluate their history collectively and asked us for technical advice. Since they couldn't work easily with a written history of their long community experience, we thought of providing them with a visual synthesis of their process, which would mean they could look at their history, think about it, and draw lessons from it. The work involved several steps. First, cooperative members, with our help, represented the remarkable moments and scenes from their community history by drawings, phrases, and pictures. We arranged these on a wall. We worked with simple, child-like images that were easy to draw, so anybody could incorporate ideas or situations and participate in building the panel. Pictures and phrases were also included. Next, we expected participants to identify the turning points of their history and reflect on them. Looking over their history, they gradually reached consensus on eight critical events. They called these "rudder strokes" and signaled them with colored circles. This first participatory evaluation with community groups showed us, among other things, that images and manual work enrich dialogues and lead to holistic thinking. For this reason, we went on experimenting with images applied to rather abstract topics, like the relationship among different actors involved in a social and housing development process. Several groups were pleased to participate in this kind of analysis. Years before we'd approached this topic with conventional procedures. We took from those experiences a traditional way of representing the group structure (that is, small circles linked by lines). With that idea in mind, we gave each group a blank sheet of paper and small colored circles representing various stakeholders: cooperative associates, community representatives, volunteers, etc. The task was to play with circles on the sheet of paper until they represented the relationships among participants, and closeness or distance of stakeholders. Members of the groups said: "It was fascinating to see and realize how we've changed, altogether, over the years." Working with images became for us a never-ending path. We found as many variations as one can imagine, discovering they turn on the power of evocation and freedom of expression. Training Participants in Survey Methods Our next challenge was how we could train these community groups in different types of conventional procedures so they could work not only with opinions, perceptions, and ideas, but also verify and measure items of importance. We tried this with a group that had asked us for technical help in planning their housing process collectively. Once again we worked it out, little by little. As a first step, we helped the group identify possible resources for a community housing process. They talked about it, wrote a list, and drew cards representing the many diverse possibilities. As a second step, we had them classify identified resources in a matrix by putting each card in a proper shelf. Shelves had been drawn on a paper panel glued to the wall. The idea of using one shelf for each type of resource worked so well in showing the abstract conception of a matrix that they had no problem later handling different types of matrixes. As a third step, they verified and quantified community resources by designing, with our help, a close-ended quantitative interview. Community representatives filled out the forms with the families they visited at their homes. Later, we prepared a huge table where they tabulated the data obtained in the interviews. It was an enjoyable task, and an enabling one as well. Using the data, they carried out several other surveys, which backed up a housing proposal used to obtain funding soon afterwards. Final Comments Results of participatory community development and evaluation effort not only appeared at the end of a working process when a final report was elaborated; on the contrary, we often found useful outcomes during the processes:
Challenges That Lie Ahead In the past 30 years, Latin American people have seen that as one economic crisis is followed by another one, massive social groups are increasingly being impoverished. Traditional means of dealing with those problems have become useless. At the same time, social projects turned into collective learning processes are little by little being recognized as a way to mobilize human resources. We're facing methodological questions we didn't think of a couple of years ago. The frontier to be pushed is enabling community groups to handle useful evaluation processes. The time has come to face a challenge of a different nature-to turn these group learning processes into larger community learning processes to match the magnitude of the changes needed and expected with the ability to produce them. 
Identifying critical events.
Letters to the EditorFear and Intimidation?Your editorial "Fear and Intimidation: Threats to Academia Freedom and Extension" (Spring 1991) struck a sensitive chord about Extension's potential to change with the times to meet clientele needs. You asked: "Has Extension in its commitment to project a positive external image created an internal environment of fear and intimidation?" Yes! My 11-year experience as an Extension professional communicator supports this answer. An Extension culture exists that suggests "do it my way-or the highway." A climate permeates the Extension System that emphasizes how over what, personality over performance, mediocrity over innovation, and accommodation over accountability. Doublespeak has replaced vision and caretakers have replaced leaders in all too many circumstances. As a member of Epsilon Sigma Phi's Speakers' Bureau, I visit many other states and the similar comments and reports are simply too striking to dismiss as coincidence. We're an organization adrift in fear-fear of making a mistake, fear of making someone angry, fear of the unknown, fear of each other-and to compensate, we cling to the notion of efficient tradition, never fully understanding that the most wasted thing in the world is something done efficiently that shouldn't be done at all. Some of the brightest and most innovative minds in America have graced the pages of this Journal over the years. Extension is blessed with talent-it's a nurturing, confident, and wise leadership that's missing and that leads to fear and confusion every time.
William Russell
Letters to the EditorFear and Intimidation? 2Patton's Spring 1991 Editor's Page brings up one of the great fallacies of the 20th century-that Extension people enjoy the same liberties that academics do. I've been an Extension specialist and administrator for 18 years and an academic department chairperson for five years. Although there are tenured resident instruction people in the department, those of us with Extension appointments have annual contracts. Thus, I've witnessed first hand the inequity of academic freedom Patton speaks of. While tenured academics enjoy the rights and privileges of autonomy, self-determination, and security with broad organizational guidelines, Extension people operate under tighter controls-program planning, plans of work, annual appointments and review, close supervision, political stakeholder requirements, and clientele expectations. One professor in the College of Arts and Sciences summed it up when he referred to Extension people as "government workers." At the University of Vermont, every Extension faculty member, regardless of rank or years of service, undergoes a rigorous performance review every four years, while resident instruction faculty, once tenured, undergo this same process only if they wish to be promoted. Would you speak your mind on critical organizational and ethical issues, knowing that your contract runs out June 30th? I'm not sure you'd call that lack of conviction-more like a healthy dose of common sense to me. Simply put, it's easier to control people who are kept on a short organizational leash. And, until Extension faculty enjoy exactly the same rights and privileges as academic faculty, to expect them to exercise "the most fundamental ideals of intellectual integrity, academic freedom, and independent judgment," is a little naive, Pollyannish, and, like the current system, simply unfair.
Thomas F. Patterson, Jr.
Letters to the EditorFear and Intimidation? 3I've just begun reading the Spring 1991 issue of the Journal. I've gotten as far as the editorial page. I'm very interested and concerned about the content of the editorial. As a loyal reader of the Journal for many years, I'm intrigued and anxious to know more about the feelings, opinions, attitudes, and value judgments of those "tenured" Extension professionals that wouldn't submit their articles. Maybe there is an answer and a way. It seems that you've identified the type of person who should write this type of article. It would probably also be easy to identify additional Extension professionals with quality backgrounds that should submit articles. Question: Have you thought of creating a special section in the Journal titled "Exit Interview" or "Almost Retired"? Then, those within the last few months of their career (prior to actual retirement) might be strongly encouraged to submit an article of the type you're suggesting. Give this some thought and maybe it can bear fruit.
Max G. Miller
Letters to the EditorGetting to the PointI was excited about the topic of the Fall 1990 To The Point. What an exciting concept: Have someone present an idea and then present a response to it, all in the same issue. I envisioned exciting interchanges, challenging discussions, and thought- provoking ideas. Instead, we have Boone and Malone engaged in some kind of personal dialogue that has little to do with their supposed audience. It's bad enough to use a public forum for a private or "inside" exchange, but the articles themselves are a dead end. Why? Because they're written with the kind of undecipherable, wordy jargon we're constantly advised not to use in Extension work. If this is the direction our leaders are going, then we won't need to worry about "crossing lines" or "dropping the lines." We won't have an audience to work with. They'll probably let us "Extensionists" know we can just "operationalize" somewhere else.
Danny M. Bullington
Letters to the EditorGetting to the Point 2Boone (To the Point, Fall 1990) emphasized the need for greater teamwork for successful issues programming and argued training is the key for encouraging staff to cross the organizational lines that keep them from greater teamwork. In response, Malone urged the elimination of organizational and other lines. While I endorse the authors' concerns for improving teamwork, I'm uncomfortable with their solutions. I hypothesize that the level of teamwork in Extension is a matter of motivation or incentives. Enough literature demonstrates that motivation, rather than training and reorganization, is the key to effective teamwork. If training is to play a role, it must begin with training Extension leadership in understanding and addressing the factors that provide motivation for teamwork. Boone's "set of general competencies" has little relationship to teamwork development. Yates, the second respondent to Boone, is right on target when she cites the need for "getting innovative team players to the top levels of administration."
David L. Holder
Letters to the EditorFrustrated VolunteerThe Fall 1990 issue of the Journal contained a special section on volunteerism. I've tried to volunteer to help my state's Extension Service. As my technical background is in postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables, I first offered my services to the program staff involved in a produce marketing program. My offer was initially met with enthusiasm, but eight months and several unanswered letters later, I learned that my services wouldn't be needed. Undaunted, I volunteered to help Extension prepare for a statewide inservice on internationalizing Extension programs. Since I hold a master's in international agricultural development and my doctorate focused on program development and evaluation, again my offer was met with enthusiasm. While awaiting some concrete indication of how I could help (and writing letters and making phone calls that went unanswered), I was setting up a consulting firm that deals with Extension worldwide. I'm now working across the U.S. and abroad and being paid well to perform tasks I've repeatedly volunteered to Extension. Almost four months passed before I was allowed to begin working with a county agent on the evaluation plan for the inservice, by then only a week away. My personal saga of frustration and failure to be taken seriously as a volunteer may or may not have relevance for Extension as a whole. I'd ask these questions: Can Extension afford to ignore those interested in volunteering during these resource-constrained times? Does having expertise work against being considered an appropriate Extension volunteer? Is there really a place for volunteers in most Extension programs or is working with volunteers simply too much trouble? After a year and a half of trying to volunteer to work with Extension, much of my own enthusiasm has passed. How many other potential volunteers may already have given up?
Lisa Kitinoja
Conflicts of Interest and the Land-Grant Mission
Richard E. Fowler The land-grant university, including the Experiment Station and Extension, have achieved a reputation for being an unbiased and objective educational resource. The land-grant university and its various units must protect their objectivity and strengthen their reputation as unbiased research and education resources. The 1990 Farm Bill states: "The Secretary shall ensure that each college seeking to receive funds under this [Smith-Lever] Act has in place appropriate guidelines, as determined by the Secretary, to minimize actual or potential conflicts of interest among employees of such college whose salaries are funded in whole or in part with such funds." The 1990 Farm Bill language refers to the Smith-Lever Act and is clearly directed to Extension. Extension, the Experiment Station, and the university, however, must act as a team to effectively serve users with unbiased research-based information and educational programs. If that's the case, should the conflict of interest guidelines apply the same way to all university research and Extension personnel? Relations with the Private Sector There are several areas where Extension, research, and the land-grant system should examine relationships with the private sector to protect and strengthen our objectivity and reputation. The system's relationship with the private sector is vital. Existing and new challenges require the public/private sector team approach to solve problems. Limited public resources at the federal, state, and county levels create opportunities for alliances to be formed with the private sector that can either strengthen the land-grant mission of research and education or detract from it. It's within this public/private area where improper relationships may detract from the credibility of that mission. A long-standing and positive relationship exists between the system and firms that produce and market products or services. Are we clear on how we should interact with these firms? I believe on balance this public/private sector relationship has benefited our clientele. Generally speaking, the testing and demonstrating of processes, techniques, and products in an unbiased, scientific environment has helped effectively transfer products and services into uses that benefit both the producer and consumer. Working relationships between land-grant universities and the private sector should be guided by written cooperative agreements that clearly indicate freedom from constraints on publication of results by our personnel. Results should be published for public use with appropriate disclaimer statements to indicate that the testing of products isn't an endorsement by the public institution. I believe these relationships have a place within the system and should continue. Relations with User Groups Another area where Extension interacts with the private sector is in meetings of its professionals and with user groups. How can the private sector properly be involved with our personnel in this phase of the system's agenda? Limited resources in the public sector have seriously constrained our capacity to fully support the participation of our professionals in meetings. Some of the ways industry now supports educational programs may take the form of monetary support through contracts and grants, which could be interpreted as inappropriate. It would seem that the key to industry support of meetings is to examine the way support is provided. As an alternative to a completely self-supported meeting, one approach may be to invite industry to display its products and services in conjunction with the educational event. Educational sessions can be conducted concurrently with the exhibit function, but with multiple exhibitors, the perception that the private sector is sponsoring any particular meeting agenda or topic is lessened. Registration fees, dues, and trade show resources then help create the financial support base for the meeting and should be publicly recognized.
There are other areas where the public/private agenda involves mutual interests and a need exists for collaborative effort. Extension's issues programming includes topics that could include joint public/private sector effort. For example, environmental issues need curriculum materials, especially for youth. Industry has generously supported youth recognition programs and selected corporations contribute significantly to enrichment and recognition programs for youth. The development of appropriate educational materials can be done collaboratively with industry, but with final editing and accuracy based on independent research resting with the Extension/research system. It's important to properly credit the firms and provide disclaimer statements relative to company products. In short, the land-grant university can and should be collaborative with the private sector, especially where mutual concerns exist and benefits can be generated for public good. The approaches used to plan and implement these collaborative efforts need to be done carefully to avert any perceived or actual conflict of interest situations. Areas of Potential Conflict of Interest The need to develop conflict of interest guidelines is now incumbent on each state or territory receiving Smith-Lever funds. Should these guidelines reflect the same policy for all university faculty? In addressing that question, there are conditions of employment and specific situations that must be considered in developing guidelines. Here are some conditions of employment that may contribute to conflicts of interest:
The Challenges of Maintaining Credibility The land-grant university mission and our current agenda place employees in highly visible roles where unbiased, highly credible approaches are vitally important to clientele. University employees, especially research and Extension faculty, need to be aware of potential conflicts of interest and avoid such conflicts through circumspect behavior, good communications, careful planning, and diligent program implementation. Our future credibility, effectiveness, and public support depend on how we handle these issues.
From Conflict of Interest to Communities of Interest
Janet K. Poley Any leader who allows the organization to skirt the edge of the law not only undermines its conscience and sense of good citizenship, but may be creating circumstances that will give birth to new and more restrictive regulations in the future.1 I doubt that many will miss the point of Fowler's excellent article on conflict of interest. However, I fear that some may indeed miss a broader and equally important point for the system- the point that the ECOP chair chose to focus attention on an ethical question. CES must take the "high road" not just in matters of law, but in other areas essential to building our organizational integrity. We're an organization that historically gained and maintained public trust. The majority of CES leaders and staff have long acted out of a framework of personal integrity emphasizing fairness, loyalty, dependability, tolerance, caring, respect, and commitment to the very best traditions of the past. Yet today, some of these personal values of integrity, such as loyalty, may prevent us from establishing critical relationships with new audiences. CES must keep working toward a climate where people can feel proud and uncompromised by their affiliations, including moving on to address higher priority needs. Nanus2 argues that previous personal integrity standards are inadequate for development and maintenance of organizational integrity in the future. His path to the organizational high road of the future requires four actions. These are essential not just for CES, but the land-grant university community as a whole. We can't tolerate a compromised research agenda. Nor can research tolerate a weak Extension unable or unwilling to speak forcefully back to research of society's issues and needs. Nanus says organizations seeking integrity must:
In a democracy, passage of a law is a clear signal that some segments of society have unmet needs. An anticipatory, issues- driven, more broadly based CES should be better positioned to assure that the land-grant universities understand the purpose and the spirit driving societal demands for change. As Jim Moseley, the assistant secretary of agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, stated in a January address to new Extension directors and administrators, "Our communities need and want leadership that will help them sift through the maze of complex issues they confront. To me it's not a trite statement to say it's within your grasp to truly improve the quality of life for all Americans."3 How well have CES leaders done in leading and modeling integrity when more than half of the farmers responding to a recent survey conducted by Farm Futures magazine believe that, "...producer's ethical standards have slipped over the past 10 years," and that most farmers will cheat if they can get away with it? I applaud Fowler's focus on the issue of conflict of interest. I think his topic challenges us all to move away from conflict of interest to communities of interest. We can do what's good for the nation (issues-based, objective, unbiased research and extension), thus doing what's good for the Cooperative Extension System of the future. Footnotes 1. Burt Nanus, The Leader's Edge (Chicago: Contempory Books), 1989. 2. Ibid. 3. J. Moseley, speech given January 16, 1991 at the ES-USDA orientation conference for new directors and administrators, Washington, D.C.
A County Perspective
Linda P. Erickson Conflict of interest deals with a broad range of issues. Those Fowler identified fall into two broad categories: (1) consulting or owning a business with primary motivations being enhancement of self or community, monetary, or professional development and (2) working with private sector cooperators with the primary motivation being program enhancement. Fowler raised some good questions on the issues which I, as a county faculty member, will have very little involvement in solving. There are no simple answers, but, as a county faculty member, I need simple, direct, policies to work with. I know there will be gray areas and as a professional, I should be empowered to use prudent judgment at all times. In dealing with the two broad categories I've mentioned above, there are four elements I believe are necessary in the system: consistency, communication, excellent supervision, and professionalism.
In conclusion, consistent policies and guidelines, well- communicated, with excellent supervision can eliminate most problems with conflict of interest. But in the end, it comes down to the ethical and professional practices of the individual faculty member. The Forum section has an article advocating more active involvement of Extension educators with commodity associations. It addresses potential conflicts of interest and is highly relevant to the issues raised by this To The Point discussion.
Cooperative Extension and the Land-Grant University: A Futures History
Maria Maiorana Russell If we in Extension expect to transform vision into reality for a Cooperative Extension System in transition, we must more forcefully address the issue of Extension's relationship to the land-grant university. Four years ago, the Futures Task Force of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) recommended that "compelling issues facing people must drive the system" and "must constitute the basis upon which all decisions...are made" to "deliver issue-oriented educational programs." This would require the land-grant university system "renew its dedication to the tripartite mission," and for each member to "strive for comprehensive excellence in those areas which reflect the issues of concern to the state it represents." Commitment to that policy might allow the Extension System both access to and use of "all appropriate expertise related to relevant issues from throughout the land-grant university."1 A Dream-Vision One dream-vision of what progress toward these goals might mean starts by imagining a national discussion emanating from congressional and educational circles that prompts land-grant universities to re-examine their missions. They see that the undernourished child called Public Service requires not only survival, but maturity. Both "Father Research" and "Mother Teaching" agree their purposes would be greatly served by the offspring Public Service mission. My dream-vision continues as leaders of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), state legislatures, institutional administrators, and university senates ask whether the current situation reflects a true commitment to the tripartite mission mandated by federal and state policy. Land-grant universities are charged with abandoning their public sector mission. Suddenly, I realize this isn't a current dream-vision. It's the year 2000 and the land-grant universities are reporting what they've done since this charge of abandonment:
Waking Up...Dreaming On...Sharing Vision
When I wake up from dreams like these, I am both exhilarated and exhausted. My husband wants to know what my new affiliation means. I just say it doesn't mean anything yet...just dreaming. And he says, "What is this 1983...1983 you keep mumbling?" And I say, "Oh, that's just the year somebody wrote a staff development report that said: ...Today's challenge for Extension is an expanded educational effort to effectively relate the total expertise and resources of institutions of higher education to the solution of complex problems of individuals and society in general.7 And he says, "You've been working too hard again. It's affecting your mind. Do you have any other dreamers in that organization?" And I say, "Oh yes!" But I wonder if whoever wrote those 1983 words talked to the leaders of NASULGC, or the Urban Coalition in Congress, or the National Association of State Legislatures about what it would take to educate a people.8 Probably not. I wonder what would happen if all futurist dream- visioners in Extension finally shared their visions. Footnotes 1. NASULGC, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, Futures Task Force Report, Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Reality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1987). 2. Frank Newman, "The Public Service Mandate" (Notes from a keynote address at the President's Inaugural Symposium on the Public Service Mission, University of Connecticut, Storrs, School of Law, 1985). 3. Maria Maiorana Russell, "Proposal for Establishing a CES Critical Issues List, According to the Leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly" (Storrs: Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service, 1986). 4. Virginia Polytechnic Institute's Center for Volunteer Development serves this function for Cooperative Extension. It resulted from a pilot project funded by the Kellogg Foundation. 5. The University of Maryland has a hotline operated for this purpose; University of Wisconsin serves business and industry with a central access phone contact. 6. Claude F. Bennett, "Improving Coordinating of Extension and Research Through Use of Interdependency Models," in Foundations and Changing Practices in Extension, D. J. Blackburn, ed. (Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph, 1988). 7. Extension Service, USDA, National Policy Guidelines for Staff Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), p. 1. 8. Michael Quinn Patton, "To Educate a People," Journal of Extension, XXIV (Winter 1986), 21-22.
Extension-Industry-Consumer Interaction
John C. Voris Extension agricultural programs face new challenges in building and sustaining relationships with agricultural industry groups. Industry groups now have access to better research facilities and programs than many universities offer. Many traditional Extension roles are no longer viable. As an example, the California Turkey industry has more expertise in and research facilities for the traditional Extension areas of animal health and housing than does Extension. Housing innovations including ventilation, insulation, heating, and cooling are generated by industry. The challenge is to find ways of assuring that university research and education programs meet current needs of our clientele. One successful strategy for reintegrating university programs with a commodity group is to revitalize and reorganize a commodity association. One turkey specialist was able to maintain and strengthen the alliance with the turkey industry by becoming executive secretary for an existing organization called the California Turkey Forum at a time of rapid change in the Extension-industry interaction. The result has been a strong Extension program for the turkey industry, including monthly programs, seminars, annual conferences, and liaison between university researchers and the turkey industry. The Extension professional gave the organization continuity and a broadened perspective that changed a local industry clique to broader representation of all industry facets. Extension educators will find that supplying programs to the industry by direct participation in the commodity association will forge an important link between the university and the industry. The net result can be an improved relationship between industry and the university with continuing benefits for agricultural producers and consumers. Influencing Public Policy One nontraditional need of the agricultural industry is participating in the public policy process. Under pressure from a citizenry organized and experienced in county legal procedures, California livestock-related commodity policy is undergoing a drastic change. The siting (placement in areas of compatible land use) of poultry facilities has become the major problem in the poultry industry, even overshadowing disease control. One way of assuring these industries have access to sites is being involved in establishing policy for siting. This involves Extension in helping create guidelines of facilities acceptable to industry and to the public. They protect the public from nuisances and keep the industry from siting in legal, but irresponsible, locations. Working in the area of policy can include political involvement. Extension-industry experience with several nuisance complaints within a particular county indicate the extent of the politics involved. The challenge to Extension is to serve the industry and the public without bias. When politics are an industry's greatest challenge, helping it become politically aware is serving that industry. Through this involvement, the Extension professional i | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
