Volume 29 Number 4
|
Winter 1991 Volume 29 Number 4 |
|
|
Final ReportHighlights The Journal of Extension has gone through a great many changes over the past three years-and, of course, the changes in the Journal reflect changes in Extension. In this, my final Editor's Page, I'll summarize some of the major highlights of my tenure as editor:
Reflections It has been an honor to serve as editor of the Journal of Extension. When I became editor, it was clear the Journal's future was closely tied to the future of Extension. That's still true. The Journal supports Extension's future by making it clear that Extension operates from a knowledge base-and the Journal contributes to Extension's future by continuing to build and communicate that knowledge base. I wish to thank all those I've worked with. The Minnesota Extension Service, especially Patrick Borich and Gail Skinner, has been enormously supportive. The board members, Editorial Committee members, and special editors have shaped the Journal's new directions and, through their individual contributions and commitments, they've significantly enhanced the quality and stature of the Journal. I close with special appreciation for assistant editor Colleen Schuh, who has served the Journal 22 years. It's simply impossible to overstate her importance to every aspect of the Journal. I can't imagine having served as editor without Colleen. She's simply the best. After working with new editor Ellen Ritter in training the Editorial Committee, I leave with complete confidence in the Journal's future. The transition between editors' offices couldn't have been smoother. Ellen brings to her new position the experience, commitment, and vision that bode well for the Journal in the future. 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 Gardening's Socioeconomic Impacts
Ishwarbhai C. Patel Community gardening is an educational process for changing the minds and actions of people so they can "help themselves" attain economic and social well-being. A 1982 Gallup Poll1 revealed that more than three million Americans garden at community sites; an additional seven million would garden if land were available and 76% of those polled would like community gardens to be a permanent part of their communities. Community gardens are neighborhood open spaces managed by and for the members of the community. Most typically, the community garden is divided into individual plots and planted with vegetables by landless gardeners. Some families even share plots. Gardening relates to several of the Cooperative Extension System National Initiatives, especially Improving Nutrition, Diet, and Health. This article describes Extension's role in improving the life quality and socioeconomic well-being of individuals, families, and neighborhoods through community gardening in an urban environment. The data came from interviews with 178 gardeners residing in Newark, New Jersey and surrounding communities and records maintained in Rutgers Urban Gardening office. Findings Demographic Characteristics Almost two-thirds (65%) of the respondents were women; nearly 75% were black, 5% were white, and 19% Hispanic. More than half of the gardeners were middle-aged (56%) and 43% were senior citizens. Gardening was a hobby for after-job hours or on weekends for more than one-third (37%). Gardening cut across social, economic, and racial barriers and brought together people of all ages and backgrounds. Socioeconomic Benefits Table 1 shows the benefits listed by the gardeners. The majority of benefits reflect the value of horticulture to human well-being. More than two-fifths of the participants benefited by getting fresh vegetables, 35% felt the fresh vegetables they harvested improved their diets, and about one-fourth derived personal satisfaction through gardening.
Economic Well-Being. An important economic incentive or fringe benefit for one-third of the gardeners was money saved. In 1989, there were 905 community gardens in Newark covering an area of about 15 acres growing 45 varieties of vegetables worth over $450,000. The average size of a community garden was 720 square feet. The USDA has developed the formula listed below for converting garden area into dollar value of production. For Newark vegetable gardens, the distance between rows (crop intensity) was considered 1' to less than 2', the crop quality good, and frost-free days less than 200. Accordingly, the dollar value of production per garden was: 720 x 1.0 x 0.7 x 1.0 = $504. The average input cost per garden was about $25, making the average garden savings $475. The percentage return on direct- dollar involvement is definitely enviable, especially since this $475 saving is tax-free. Greater yields and dollar savings can be coaxed from the garden depending on the size of the plot, length of the growing season, and techniques used. Typical comments were: "I have hardly bought any vegetables since gardening." "I garden mainly to save money and provide vegetables to meet our family's needs year-round." "I plant varieties that I can't get at local markets or ones that are too costly." "My harvest is fresh and doesn't cost me anything." Social Well-Being. Table 1 strongly indicates that the gardens became places for social interaction and community building. Slightly less than one-third of the participants developed new friendships through the gardens. Gardening promotes a community atmosphere and gives people an opportunity to meet others, share concerns, and solve a few problems together. Almost a third helped others and 14% shared their produce. Many gardeners expressed feelings like: "Most of our gardeners enjoy the social experience. Lots of them might never meet if it weren't for the garden." "We have developed new friendships through gardening. We didn't know many people in our neighborhood until we started telling one another about how tasty our vegetables were." About 13% of the participants said the gardening activity improved the neighborhood. Typical comments included: "It's better to have a garden instead of having a garbage-filled lot." "Even people just passing felt like stopping and talking to gardeners." "Over the garden, we knew who our neighbors are." What stands out in this array of responses is that through gardening, participants felt good about themselves and their ability to cope with the world around them. It served as a neighborhood-building activity. Behavior as a social group was modified by the presence of plants and participation in gardening activities. Gardening served as a way to break down some of the social barriers existing between neighbors. Perhaps the most significant benefit of community gardening is providing a piece of land for people to call their own for a season at least. It's estimated that more than 20% of U.S. land is held by corporations, much of it around cities and suburbs where the need for gardening space is acute.2 For landless Americans, community gardening can be the first step toward self- sufficiency-providing land to garden, a place to call "mine," and the opportunity to grow and produce things of value. Implications for Extension The findings indicate it's worthwhile for Extension to promote community gardening. At present, Urban Gardening is a 23- city program. Extension could expand it to other communities where vacant lots may be available and provide research-based information to gardeners. Many at-risk youth could benefit from the sense of pride and self-worth that develops from community gardening if more emphasis would be placed on involving them and focusing on their specialized needs. Greater participation from the home economists has the potential for improving the diet and health of program participants. Extension has led the way to help the farming community produce food for the nation. The same sort of leadership could make city vacant lots produce fresh nutritious food for low- income families and individuals close to home. The future holds a tremendous potential for community gardening and Extension's involvement. Footnotes 1. Larry Sommers, Theory G-The Employee Gardening Book (Burlington, Vermont: The National Association for Gardening, 1984). 2. Ibid.
Dollar value
of production = Area x Crop x Crop x Length of season
(sq. ft) intensity quality (frost-free days)
(distance
between rows) Good = 0.7 200 or more = 1.2
Fair = 0.4 Less than 200 = 1.0
Less than 1' = 1.2
1' to less than 2' = 1.0
2' to less than 3' = 0.8
3' or more = 0.7
Leadership Involving Volunteers
Kathryn M. Penrod Leaders and L-O-O-P An Extension educator who's guiding volunteers is showing leadership. Sashkin and Burke report leaders direct their actions to influence others in socially acceptable ways-ways that benefit others and the organization rather than merely contributing to the leader's personal status or material condition.1 Research on effective volunteer work in Indiana led to the development of the L-O-O-P model,2 acronym forLocating, Orienting, Operating, and Perpetuating. This leadership model is a structured way for Extension educators to guide volunteers. When volunteers are eager to learn and share their talents, the Extension educator feels a double sense of accomplishment: the programs flourish and volunteers benefit. Actively involving volunteers in program design and implementation is easy for some leaders, but frustrating for others. Morrison3 and Wilson4 discuss many models that describe steps or strategies for involving volunteers, demonstrating leadership, or managing volunteer programs. The L-O-O-P model includes these key factors in a systems framework. Everyone who works with volunteers, including volunteers who guide other volunteers, must realize, understand, and apply the concepts of the model to achieve involvement and program quality. When those implementing a project use L-O-O-P as a guide, the project will be on target. They are able to link volunteers with organizational mission, project goals, personal interests, significant accomplishments, and appropriate recognition. Consequently, using L-O-O-P enhances program success and volunteer growth. L-O-O-P-An Explanation The L-O-O-P model, shown in Figure 1, includes four concepts, each representing one phase in the sequence of the management process. Arrows between concepts indicate that these activities aren't independent of one another, but blend together.
Locating others to be involved is critical to the long-term success of a project and a major concern for leaders. The selection process involves identifying volunteers to do particular jobs within the organization. Volunteer selection can be based on criteria such as group needs, volunteer skills, interests, or ambitions, and specific task requirements. Intentional selection of appropriate volunteers to be responsible for jobs for which they're most suited is important. The recruitment process involves obtaining a volunteer's agreement to undertake tasks for the organization. Steps in the recruitment process include portraying a positive organizational image, approaching a potential volunteer for a specific opportunity, learning about the volunteer's needs, matching the volunteer's needs and interests with the appropriate organizational tasks, and getting agreement from the volunteer to participate in a meaningful way. The locating step of L-O-O-P suggests the Extension educator compare the goals of the program with those of the individual. The leader should envision volunteers doing jobs they're happy doing, ones they're well-suited for, and ones important to the outcome of the project. The L-O-O-P model gives a leader direction when volunteers are first asked to join a project effort. ORIENTING Volunteers Leadership requires guiding and inspiring volunteers to get things done effectively and efficiently. Those involved may not know much about the organization's goals or the intent of the protect. A leader must use this initiation time to ensure volunteers know about the organization and the specific project. An orientation will tell volunteers how their skills and energy will be invested. Both informal and formal orientation should be used with clear purpose and care. The informal orientation is the collection of varied information from other than a structured setting, which a person has collected before volunteering. Information is gathered from experience, statements in newspapers, informal conversations held with current volunteers, comments made during the recruitment process, and from Extension newsletters, fliers, electronic media, and bulletins. This process gives volunteers an initial view of their potential role and the organization's focus. If the informal orientation is influenced by inaccurate information, it won't accurately represent the organizational goals. A leader should discover an individual's knowledge and beliefs, and then begin to structure both the informal and the formal orientation process to accurately communicate the organization's goals. The formal orientation process is a structured and focused set of teaching and learning activities that help prepare the volunteer for a specific role. These activities may include explaining organizational by-laws, operating procedures, related policies, benefits, volunteer expectations, organizational goals, structure, and objectives. During formal orientation, a leader should share written materials, conduct prepared presentations, and get feedback through dialogue or evaluation to be confident that those involved have accurate information about the organization and the job to be completed. The orientation phase allows leaders to articulate the vision, mission, and goals at the beginning of a new volunteer's involvement, thus positioning the volunteer and related activity in an organizational framework. OPERATING with Volunteers The impact of leadership is the sum of individual accomplishments. Individuals must know what they've done, and may want to know they've learned something along the way. A leader who uses L-O-O-P brings attention to specific accomplishments and makes arrangements for related learning opportunities. The educational process is a method for helping volunteers learn new knowledge and skills, and acquire new attitudes and aspirations. For many volunteers, an opportunity to learn and grow is important to satisfaction, and a strong motivating factor. A great deal of learning occurs during the orientation process and should continue as the volunteer participates in the organization. Through exposure to new ideas, people, or methods, learning is a type of payment for the volunteer's service. The accomplishment process is important to the volunteer. A recent national survey of Extension volunteers found one of the most frequently reported gains was the feeling of helping others.5 Powerful impact results from recognizing volunteers' accomplishments because the volunteers then view their time, energy, and talents as contributing to an organization's success. Accomplishments include developing plans, implementing programs, completing evaluations, conducting meetings, involving people, fundraising, designing or completing projects, and improving lives. Volunteers sometimes don't give themselves credit for many of their accomplishments, so a leader should bring attention to specific achievements, especially those that highlight major goals of the organization. Volunteers must know that something meaningful happened because they were involved. When a leader can arrange for both project accomplishment and individual growth, Extension's human development goals are achieved. PERPETUATING the Involvement of Volunteers One important leadership function is the continuation of a project until it's done or until effective transfer of human resources from one project to another has occurred. L-O-O-P shows that to maintain the involvement of others in a program, evaluation and recognition are needed. Evaluation is needed because volunteers want to know how they're doing. Recognition is important because volunteers need to know their work is appreciated and necessary. The evaluation process is the specific feedback of the volunteer's performance. This process should be constructive, friendly, and directly related to the tasks the volunteer has done or tried to do. A clear set of expectations is a prerequisite to a relevant, meaningful, and constructive evaluation. A leader knows that the volunteer isn't being evaluated-the volunteer's performance relative to goals is. The person is being given feedback on specific contributions or shortcomings, with information related to enhancing future contributions. The recognition process is critical to a volunteer's satisfaction. Volunteer recognition is a process beginning with the way a person is selected, recruited, oriented, and actively involved. A formal recognition process, however, is most meaningful if the volunteers are recognized according to their unique motivational patterns. Time, attention, and sincere respect of a volunteer's contribution is the best form of recognition. Pins, certificates, and meals are usually rated as the second most meaningful form of recognition. Any management strategy should provide multiple avenues for recognizing people throughout the project's implementation. Perpetuating the involvement of volunteers is important for organizational growth. Both effective feedback and recognition are parts of the perpetuation process. Effective leadership strategies include a commitment to maintaining the involvement of those implementing a project. Summary The L-O-O-P model is a management tool that helps leaders who work with volunteers organize their efforts meaningfully. When the four sequential phases of L-O-O-P are used to manage work with volunteers, projects are completed more efficiently and effectively, and are more likely to stay focused and help achieve Extension's mission. Extension educators can manage the L-O-O-P and watch volunteer involvement grow and succeed. Footnotes 1. M. Sashkin and others, eds., Measures of Leadership (West Orange, New Jersey: Leadership Library of America, 1990), p. 305. 2. K. M. Penrod, Research Abstracts 1987 NAE4-HA Annual Conference (San Diego, California: NAE4-HA, 1987), p. 32. 3. E. K. Morrison, Skills for Leadership: Working with Volunteers (Tucson, Arizona: Jordon Press, 1983). 4. M. Wilson, The Effective Management of Volunteer Programs (Boulder, Colorado: Volunteer Management Associates, 1976). 5. S. M. Steele, "Balancing the E's in Volunteer Programs" (Madison, Wisconsin: Continuing and Vocational Education, 1988). 
Figure 1. The L-O-O-P model.
Computer Literacy and Use
Mark T. Taylor
Dana L. Hoag
Mitchell B. Owen Computers are increasingly finding their way into everyone's daily routine. Extension clientele are no exception. Computers are used for farm tasks ranging from financial management to increasing production efficiency.1 Home economists use them to provide advice on household tasks, identify sources of personal stress, and analyze diet. And youth instructors find simulations useful for teaching. Yet Extension clientele, especially farmers, have been reluctant to adopt this new technology. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that fewer than three percent of farmers use personal computers, even for record keeping.2 In response, the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (NCAES) recently developed ExCEL (Extension Computer Education Laboratory), a mobile unit used to offer computer education to Extension staff and clientele.3 Regional workshops provided educational programs in all counties during the program's first year. Staff training was offered in office management, basic computer education, and subject-matter computer applications developed by the NCAES. ExCEL courses for farm clientele included farm budgeting and record keeping, animal waste management, and feed-ration formulation. Home economics clientele learned about home care, kitchen design, dietary analysis, and stress management. The long-term goal of ExCEL is to integrate computer education into existing county Extension programs. ExCEL workshops provided important insight about how best to do this with a first-hand look at client computer literacy, interest in applications, and barriers to use. A great deal was revealed by interacting with participants in the computer education courses that couldn't have been learned with a survey. However, a small random survey of ExCEL users was done, as a complement, to provide comprehensive statistical data. The survey and experience gained in the ExCEL program provides important information about computer use that Extension educators can use to develop and implement other computer education programs. Perhaps the most important finding from the workshops was that low computer literacy is an important barrier to widespread computer use. Iddings and Apps support this finding.4 Without developing basic computer skills, only a small portion of Extension's clientele will be able to benefit from computer technology. Results and Interpretations A total of 57 full-time farmers, 22 part-time farmers, and 32 participants in home economics courses were surveyed. Data can't be generalized because individuals self-selected themselves by attending the ExCEL workshops; the data were unique and important, however, because they provided information about individuals with computer education. Computer Ownership and Literacy Full-time farmers were more likely to own and use computers than part-time farmers or home economics clientele. Thirty-nine percent of the full-time farmers owned a computer (n=22) compared to 25% for other participants. Computer ownership, however, didn't necessarily equate with computer literacy. About one-third of participants who owned computers reported little use of their machines. Many reported a lack of training opportunities contributed to this problem. In contrast, some non-owners of computers were computer literate. Over 20% of farmers who didn't own computers used them extensively or occasionally outside the home. Farm wives (who represented 26% of the full-time farmers and 45% of the part-time farmers) and home economics clientele used computers in their off -farm jobs, and many younger farmers used computers in college or previous jobs. Interest in Computer Applications Farmers displayed relatively little interest in nonbusiness uses of computers such as personal budgeting, education, or games. The majority of full-time farmers (88%) were interested in using computers for budgeting and record keeping functions; 35% were interested in agricultural programs (such as animal waste management), and 18% in personal use. Part-time farmers had more diverse interests: 73% were interested in budgeting and record keeping functions, 18% in agricultural programs, and 64% in personal uses of computers. Home economics clientele showed little interest in computerized business applications. Nearly 80% said they were interested in personal applications such as word processing, home record keeping, and educational uses for children. Barriers to Computer Ownership Few differences existed in the barriers to computer ownership. The most common one was the belief that the use of a computer wouldn't justify its cost. This was followed-in roughly equal proportions-by the expense of the machines and the belief that learning to operate a computer was difficult and time- consuming. Several individuals indicated lack of training in operating computers prevented them from purchasing one. Full-time farmers were most likely to cite time considerations as a barrier to computer ownership. Part-time farmers, however, didn't name time constraints. This may be partially explained by the number of retirees who participated in the workshops. About 20% of the part-time farmers were retired, and most part-time farmers had worked in professional and managerial roles (including the computer industry). Many of them were extremely interested in computers and saw the workshops as a means of developing a new hobby or use for computers. Home economics clientele also didn't indicate that time was an important constraint. Options for Clients Workshop participants demonstrated considerable interest in purchasing a computer despite their concerns. Forty-three percent of the full-time farmers, 30% of home economics clientele, and 18% of the part-time farmers indicated that they planned to buy a computer soon. Seventeen percent of the full-time farmers and over one-third of the other clientele were not ready to buy a computer, but would like to have access to a computer through their county Extension offices. The remaining participants were considering buying a computer, but wanted more information before purchasing. Only three to six percent had no interest in computers. The money clients were willing to spend on a computer system (computer, monitor, and printer) varied. Full-time farmers had realistic expectations about the cost of a system that would meet their needs. Full-time farmers were willing to spend more on a system than part-time farmers, and part-time farmers would spend greater amounts than the home economics clientele, perhaps implying that a farm or home business more easily justifies the expense of acquiring a computer. Implications Computer literacy may be more widespread among Extension clientele than previously supposed and will probably increase as computers become a more important part of daily life. This is reflected in the numbers of non-owners of computers in the survey who were computer literate (20%). Nevertheless, the majority of Extension clientele aren't computer literate, and important differences exist in their needs. Computer education programs should meet the literacy levels and needs of particular groups. Retirees, for example, were very interested in computer training, and the home economics courses had the best overall attendance at ExCEL workshops. On the other hand, full-time farmers expressed concern about having time to become computer literate or to use software applications. Yet, more Extension effort is probably placed in software support for full-time farmers than for home economics clientele or retirees. Extension staff should demonstrate the advantages of their programs to help clientele justify the cost of owning computers. Farmers, for example, must see that the returns from a computer will warrant the investment. This can best be done by providing repeated computer training opportunities. Although the workshops were highly rated by all participants, computer ownership was the single most important factor influencing individuals' attitudes toward computers. Among full-time farmers, 82% of computer owners believed the machines useful compared to 46% of non-owners. Similar results were obtained for part-time farmers. One way to increase clientele literacy may be to improve agents' and specialists' understanding of computers. Most of the agents involved in the ExCEL project had limited computer skills. Sponsoring computer classes, providing access to computers and instruction through county Extension offices, developing computer user groups, and encouraging Extension clientele to get additional training are ways of developing computer literacy and more advanced computer skills among Extension clientele. Footnotes 1. P. Beetley and S. Gifford, "The Farm Computer: A Management Information Perspective" (Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, Vol. 1, 1988), pp. 44-48. 2. D. Willimack, "The Financial Record-Keeping Practices of U.S. Farm Operators and Their Relationship to Selected Operator Characteristics" (Presented at the 1989 annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Baton Rouge, Louisiana). 3. M. Owen, D. Hoag, and T. Taylor, "ExCEL: Extension Computer Education Laboratory" (Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, Orlando, Florida, 1990). 4. R. Iddings and J. Apps, "What Influences Farmer's Computer Use?" Journal of Extension, XXVIII (Spring 1990), 19-21.
Telephone Hotline Programming
Virginia K. Molgaard
Fran Phillips As Extension addresses emerging state and national issues, we're called on to identify innovative methods for reaching both traditional and new clientele. A telephone hotline offers several advantages over more tried-and-true ways of providing education and support for individuals, families, and businesses. When a significant problem or concern arises, often there isn't time to follow the usual channels of preparing publications and program materials, providing inservice training for staff, and gearing up the whole system for response. What's needed is rapid, up-to-the-minute, accurate information and support. When a drought hits and a farmer runs out of water or when news breaks about a potentially dangerous food safety issue, Extension clientele need information immediately. Specialists have a quick and effective channel for providing research-based facts to hotline operators who've been trained to relay information appropriately and make referrals when necessary. Especially in rural areas with fewer sources of information and support, a statewide hotline can be one answer for addressing problems. Advantages of a Hotline A telephone hotline can help clients probe deeply into a complex problem to move toward a decision. Hotline operators trained in process and facilitation skills can encourage clients to look beneath the surface of problems, sort out priorities, and deal with feelings. In addition, potential clients may find it easier to seek and accept information and support from a hotline than through our traditional delivery methods. A hotline is an excellent way to offer not only indepth, but anonymous, support. A person who wouldn't attend a meeting or visit an Extension office might more easily and confidentially make contact and receive help from a telephone hotline. Also, a hotline can capitalize on Extension's skill and experience in effective networking with other agencies-acting as a clearinghouse for services offered by a variety of state and local groups. Particularly in rural areas where clients may be less aware of available services, a call to the hotline can put the individuals in touch with the nearest support system. Extension staff, as well as clientele, can use the hotline as an immediate source of knowledge and help. County staff can receive information to pass on locally and, in turn, the hotline can refer individuals who haven't been involved with Extension to the services of the county office. Specialists can also benefit. Summaries of the content of calls over a period of weeks or months can help specialists put a "finger on the pulse" of problems facing clientele. A hotline, therefore, can be an effective method for Extension to use either in ongoing programming or to meet special needs in identified priority issues. The hotline described in this article was initially developed to address concerns of individuals and rural communities during the recent farm crisis. In the past two years, its mission has broadened to address other concerns. A Hotline Example In late 1984, both public and private groups recognized that farm families needed immediate help in coping with their rapidly escalating problems. Even though many families needed financial counseling, legal advice, and emotional support, few people knew where to go. After consulting with leaders of state and local organizations, the governor of Iowa issued an executive order calling for a statewide telephone hotline for farm families. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension was enlisted to form the Rural Concern Hotline. Initial funding came from donations given by state and local farm organizations and commodity groups. In addition, state government provided money as a line item in its budget. Interdisciplinary Approach An interdisciplinary perspective was used from the beginning of the hotline. Early in the farm crisis, county Extension agents had become aware that concerns over farm finances typically involved emotional reactions of the whole family. Until family stress was acknowledged and dealt with, farmers often were unable to listen or accept help. Therefore, hotline operators were trained to respond to a wide variety of needs in callers, including conflict between family members and emotional stress. Operators reported they were able to listen "between the lines" and offer referrals for family concerns and personal issues. Implementation of the Hotline Work was started immediately on the development of a statewide directory. County Extension staff were asked to compile lists of resources, description of services, telephone numbers, and names of contact people. This was expanded through contacts with state agencies. In addition, surveys were sent to ministerial associations throughout the state and a telephone survey was conducted with all the community and private colleges to add to the list of services and resources.1 The hotline staff was chosen for their knowledge and understanding of farming and the rural crisis. The majority of Rural Concern Hotline operators had been farmers themselves. Twelve part-time paraprofessionals were hired as telephone operators. An attorney, program coordinator, and secretary completed the staff. Training of the hotline operators began with a two-week series of classes on the economic and legal situation of the farm crisis, typical reactions of individuals and families, process skills in listening, and responding to callers. A community telephone counseling service provided specific training in appropriate listening and helping skills for phone counseling. The telephone operators practiced addressing human concerns with role plays and learned appropriate responses in ongoing training sessions. During the first 18 months of the hotline, telephone operators received additional on-site training weekly, both informally as well as in classes. Continuing group processing of difficult calls, especially those in which callers exhibited severe stress, helped the operators gain confidence and skills. The list of agencies and groups involved in training included Legal Aid, Job Service of Iowa, Iowa Department of Substance Abuse, the Family Violence Center, and Iowa Farmer Creditor Mediation Service. Representatives of more than 40 groups and organizations have taken part in the training of operators. Extension specialists in agriculture, community resource development, and human development played an important role in the training, as well as providing ongoing consultation for the hotline. The initial marketing plan was successful largely because of the interest, support, and activity of top officials from state government, agribusiness, and both local and state farm organizations. Word about the hotline was spread initially through personal contacts of these officials and business leaders, as well as through the media service at Iowa State University Extension. Brochures and business cards were distributed by local Extension staff at banks, cooperatives, mental health clinics, churches, and Department of Human Services offices. Table tents, made from heavy paper folded to form small "pup" tents, had information about the hotline, and were distributed at restaurants and counters of local businesses. Bumper stickers with the hotline number were another way of spreading the word. The Extension news service also sent out newspaper articles and radio spots for staff to use in local communities. Nature of Calls From the beginning of the hotline's operation in February 1985, operators have recorded confidential information about each call including the nature of the call, the credit problem, the farmer's current financial position, the help needed, and the referral made. This documentation has been invaluable in getting funding for the hotline, as well as providing information on the needs of farm families. Since Rural Concern Hotline began receiving calls, nearly 47,000 call-ins have been recorded. About 60% of the callers are male and 40% female. A content analysis of the calls from log books is shown in Table 1. The majority of the calls have been requests for help and information about financial issues, although that percentage has continued to decline since 1987. These calls range from questions on options for refinancing the farming operation to how to secure complete financial help and ways of improving farm income. A major shift has taken place in the number and percentage of callers asking for legal advice. By 1987, 75% were asking for legal help, including how to select a competent lawyer, borrower rights, and implications for liability. In response, the Rural Concern's attorney was moved from part-time to full-time. Callers have typically voiced more than one concern. This explains why the figures in each column of Table 1 add up to more than 100%. Over the seven-year period of hotline operation, there has been an increase in the percentage of calls in which individuals exhibit emotional problems and ask for help in dealing with emotional issues for themselves or family members. These calls about family issues include intergenerational conflict, marital problems, spouse abuse, and lack of communication between family members. Operators used the following description to identify emotional stress calls: (1) mild stress, in which the person's story contains many stress factors, but he or she appears to be coping well; (2) moderate stress, in which there are many stress factors, but less ability to cope; and (3) severe stress, in which callers are crying or verbalizing extreme anger, violence, or suicide.2 The numbers exhibiting moderate to high levels of stress has remained high (see Table 1).
New Directions for the Hotline The improved state of the economy and the lower number of crisis calls has led to new directions in the purpose, funding, and type of referrals of the hotline. After the first year, in which money for the hotline came primarily from donations of farm organizations and the agricultural service industry, funding for the next four years was provided both by the state legislature and Extension. Presently, the hotline is funded entirely by Extension because it's seen as an ongoing means of service delivery. Still a 24-hour service, Extension cooperates with the Red Cross, which takes calls in the evening hours. Questions of callers reflect a basic shift in how farmers are viewing present possibilities in agriculture. A greater stability in agriculture and the need for diversification have led to questions about new enterprises, ways of reducing chemical inputs, and the best use of existing resources. Calls within the last year reflect the need to lessen cost of production and become more efficient. Operators continue to refer callers to local resources, especially county Extension offices. This type of information and referral service supports county and area Extension efforts. Rather than taking the place of the local agent, the hotline puts farmers who may not have used Extension in touch with the county office for information and help. A new emphasis of the hotline is reflected in Telelink, a service by which farmers call to get information on local upcoming programs and clinics. In addition to referrals to the local Extension Service, a comprehensive directory is continually updated to include other agencies, support groups, and job training programs. Summary Because of its knowledge of existing resources around the state and because of the trust Rural Concern Hotline has been built up, this telephone service stands ready to help in rural emergencies. In the Summer 1988 drought, the hotline linked people who needed hay with those who could provide it, as well as those who could transport the hay. In addition, the hotline staff was able to suggest possible resources for farmers experiencing a water shortage. During Operation Desert Storm, the hotline answered calls from family members of military requesting information about local support groups. And so, while the hotline continues to handle calls from farm families in severe financial difficulties, the purpose and future direction have expanded to include new services. Footnotes 1. Fran Phillips, Crisis Intervention Plan and Evaluation Framework (Paper prepared for Stress and Family Crisis Intervention, Family Environment Department, Iowa State University, Ames, 1987). 2. Paul Lasley and Fran Phillips, Responding to the Social Problems Created by the Farm Crisis (Paper presented at the 1987 Midwest Sociological Society Meetings, Chicago, Illinois, 1988).
Self-Esteem of Rural Teens
Anita M. Hall
George P. Rowe Teenagers' feelings of self-worth affect all aspects of their lives and strongly influence the realization of their potential. In Nebraska, two Extension priority initiatives, Youth at Risk and Strengthening Individuals and Families, focus on enhancing self-esteem, an essential ingredient for healthy personality development.1 As a basis for program development, a central research question was asked. What are the family characteristics of young teens who display feelings of high self- esteem compared with teens who struggle to feel good about themselves? Research supports the correlation between high self- esteem and positive personality traits. Youth high in self-esteem are more emotionally mature, stable, realistic, and relaxed with good frustration tolerance.2 Adolescents with a low self-worth and personal identity tend to be dependent, conforming, and frequently reflect the personalities of those with whom they associate. Research relating family background to adolescent self- esteem indicates it's not the structure of the family, but rather the degree of discord within the family that influences self- esteem. Raschke and Raschke3 report that the greater the perceived happiness of the parent(s), the higher the children's self-concept. It's conflict rather than family structure that makes a difference in self-esteem. Family types and adolescent self-esteem were correlated by Kurdek and Sinclair.4 Teens from two-parent families, stepfather families, and mother-custody divorced families were examined. Generally, adjustment was negatively related to family conflict and was positively related to the family dimensions of cohesion, expressiveness, and personal growth. These findings were sustained across all three types of families. Approach to Problem Our research studied self-esteem of young adolescents in Boone County, Nebraska.5 The study examined the relationship of adolescent self-esteem to: source of parental income (farm vs nonfarm), father and mother employment outside the home, and family type (two-parent, single-parent, and step-family). Self-esteem scores were calculated for each individual using the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI). It consists of 50 statements concerned with the subjects' self-attitudes to four subgroups: peers, parents, school, and personal interests. Examples of statements include: "Things usually don't bother me." "I'm a lot of fun to be with." "There are many times when I'd like to leave home." Teens were asked to read each item and decide whether that particular statement was characteristic of how they felt about themselves. The inventory was scored with a key for each subgroup. The sum of the four subgroups composed the total self-esteem score. These scores were compared with the following independent variables: (1) male vs female, (2) farm vs nonfarm family income, (3) family type, and (4) employment of father and mother outside the home. The Fisher t-test and analysis of variance were used. Findings A total of 108 out of a possible 200 students (54%) completed the SEI and family characteristics' questionnaire. These were administered through the four school systems of the county. Prior permission had been received first from the school administrators and secondly from the parent or guardian of the teens. There were 42 males and 66 females who participated in the study. All were seventh and eighth grade students ranging in age from 12-15 years, with a mean age of 12.8. The majority of the parents' income was derived from nonfarm sources rather than from farming and ranching (65% vs 35%). A total of 68% of the subjects' mothers worked for pay outside the home, while 32% of the mothers were full-time homemakers. Of the subjects' fathers, 51% were fully employed off the farm, 30% were full-time farmers, and 19% farmed-but also worked off the farm. The majority of the subjects came from two-parent families composed of both the biological mother and father (82%). The remainder was split between single-parent families (9%) and step- parent families (9%). Total self-esteem scores ranged from 16 to 96 out of a possible score of 100, with a mean of 64.98. The Fisher t-test didn't show a significant difference between males and females on their self-esteem scores. No significant differences were found between adolescent self-esteem scores and farm versus nonfarm employment of the father and between adolescent self-esteem scores and maternal employment outside the home. Self-esteem scores were analyzed by family type (two-parent, single-parent, and step-parent). As shown in Table 1, scores weren't significantly different between adolescents in two-parent and single-parent families, nor between adolescents in step- parent and single-parent families. Self-esteem scores approached statistical significance (.1) when comparing teens from two- parent families with step-parent families (lower scores).
The SEI gives a total self-esteem score, and is further subdivided into subscales-general, social, home, and school. Analysis of variance was performed comparing each of these subgroups by family type. The home subscale approached statistical significance (.075). This suggests the possibility that the area of the home and relationships with parents may be negatively related to adolescent self-esteem. Mean scores for the "home" subgroup were considerably lower for step-parent families than for the other family types. Implications for Extension Programing Our research has several implications for Extension educators in developing family life education programs. First, we need to keep in mind the changing circumstances of rural audiences. This research supports other studies showing that off- farm employment of mothers and fathers doesn't lower self-esteem of children. The belief that single-parent homes lead to children with lower self-esteem must be reconsidered. Extension must support single-parent families and show them as a viable family structure in our publications and programming. Programs are needed for parents to use to help children feel more accepted, and children need help learning to accept new step -parents. Step-family support groups and programs facilitating step-family identity during the transition period must be implemented. We must also find ways to improve self-esteem at home. Parents need help with positive parenting skills for children of all ages, but especially when parenting teenagers. We can help by conducting parenting classes specifically for parents of teens. 4-H events and projects that bring parents and teens together in open communication can foster a greater understanding and higher self-esteem for both generations. We as Extension educators have a responsibility to help each individual with whom we work to develop a positive feeling of self-worth. Teens, just by the nature of their transition status, are especially vulnerable to experiences that may alter their self-esteem for the rest of their life. We must accept this responsibility in all of our programming areas. Footnotes 1. J. Kizziar and J. Hagedorn, Search for Acceptance: The Adolescent and Self-Esteem (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1979). 2. D. J. Stanwyck, "Self-Esteem Through the Life Span," Family and Community Health, VI (No. 6, 1983), 11-28. 3. H. J. Raschke and V. J. Raschke, "Family Conflict and Children's Self-Concepts: A Comparison of Intact and Single- Parent Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family, XLI (No. 41, 1979), 367-74. 4. L. A. Kurdek and R. J. Sinclair, "Adjustment of Young Adolescents in Two-Parent Nuclear, Step-Father, and Mother- Custody Families," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, LVI (No. 56, 1988), 91-96. 5. Anita Hall, "The Relationship of Family Characteristics to Early Adolescent Self-Esteem" (Master's thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1989).
Videos for Self-Study
Glenn D. Israel
Dewayne L. Ingram Self-study educational programs aren't new to Extension (learn-by-mail programs have been used for years), but what's new is using videotapes and workbooks to deliver an educational program. However, little is known about the potential of different clientele groups using this method. Given the diversity of Extension audiences, two key questions are: "What factors affect participation in such self-study programs?" and "How can Extension professionals increase the likelihood of participation in self-study educational programs using videotapes and workbooks?" Data from a survey of small farm operators were used to explore answers to these questions and recommend ways for increasing use of self-study programs by small farm operators and other clientele groups. Influences on Participation Based on Brown's study of the diffusion of innovations, the use of videotapes and workbooks would be influenced by a number of factors, including access to the educational materials and availability of alternatives.1 Farmers who own, or have access to, a video cassette recorder (VCR) would be more likely to participate in a self-study program than those who don't. Similarly, Extension offices in metropolitan counties would provide better access because they have more resources (number of copies of tapes, VCR to use or loan) than offices in nonmetropolitan counties. This would likely increase participation in a self-study program more for small farm operators from metro counties than for those from nonmetro counties. The distance that a farmer or a family member must travel to the Extension office to borrow tapes and obtain workbooks would also reduce access, thereby reducing participation in a self- study program. Finally, a large staff of agriculture agents in a county, relative to the number of farmers, means that more clientele would be reached on an individual basis, thus reducing interest among clientele to use videotapes and workbooks. Potential users' capabilities, needs, and resources also affect the probability of participation.2 Given the reading skills needed to fully comprehend many Extension publications,3 small farm operators with greater education would be more likely to participate in a self-study program using videotapes and workbooks than those with less education.4 Similarly, management skills can reduce the effort required to use workbooks and videotapes in a self-study educational program. Farmers considering production of a new enterprise or planning to increase their emphasis on faming would be more motivated to participate. On the other hand, farm households made up of retirees may have less need, or the physical capacity, to change their farming operation than those from households with younger operators. Having an off-farm job could increase the probability of participating in a self-study program because small farm operators with an off-farm job may not have enough flexible time to attend Extension meetings or repeatedly visit the Extension office. Other factors-farm size, farm diversity, and family income-have been significant in influencing adoption of agricultural innovations, but evidence about the effect of these is less clear for communication technologies (teletext and videotext).5 Small farm operators who had gotten information from Extension during the past year were more likely to trust in Extension's ability to deliver useful information.6 If small farm operators have developed a "trust relationship" with their county Extension Service, the risk of them finding little benefit from the information in a self-study program should be reduced. These farmers could be expected to report a higher likelihood of participating in a self-study program using videotapes and workbooks. Data and Methods Data were obtained from a random sample of 1,350 (from a list of 7,951) small farm operators in six Florida counties. The six counties represent metropolitan and nonmetrpolitan areas of north central and north Florida. A mail survey was conducted using the total design method.7 Of the 1,015 farmers contacted, 41.3% (n=418) provided usable responses. Respondents who had farms with over 150 acres or missing data were excluded, leaving 286 (28%) respondents for the analysis below. We checked the representativeness of those who responded to the mail survey versus those who didn't and found no significant differences.8 The survey data were supplemented with data from secondary sources. The dependent variable, based on the question "How likely are you to participate in a self-study educational program using videotapes and workbooks?" was measured with ordered response categories.9. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of participation in a self-study education program for a given individual.10 Based on the model, the percentage of farmers who are predicted to participate was estimated for selected farmer types. Findings Several factors significantly influenced small farm operators' reported likelihood of participating in a self-study educational program. Of the measures related to access and availability of alternatives, having a VCR had a strong positive affect on interest in participating in a self-study program. Contrary to expectation, metro farmers were less likely to report a high probability of participating. Distance to the county Extension office and the number of agriculture agents didn't significantly affect the farmers' reported likelihood of participation. Of the measures related to users' capabilities, needs, and resources, increased levels of management skills, educational attainment, and having an off-farm job were associated with increased responses of "somewhat" or "very likely" for participating in a self-study program. Need for information had a positive affect on the likelihood of participation for one measure (respondents who plan to increase their emphasis on farming), but not another (farmers who considered starting a new enterprise). Retired and aging small farm operators also had a lower likelihood of participating than farmers with younger families. Although farm size and farm diversity didn't significantly affect the farmers' reported likelihood of participation, higher family income decreased the likelihood of participation (perhaps because of the decreased need to improve farm productivity and profits). Use of Extension as a source of information during the past year increased the reported likelihood of participation in a self- study program using videotapes and workbooks. The combined effect of the factors described above is illustrated by the predicted probabilities for participation for selected profiles11 of small farm operators (see Table 1). This shows that access to a VCR dramatically increases the probability of participation for farmers as a whole, and particularly for "expanding part-timers" and "sundowners." For example, expanding part-timers who have a VCR and farm in a nonmetro county are predicted to be very likely to participate at six times the rate of this same group farming in a nonmetro county and having no VCR. Comparison of farmer profiles for a given level of access to VCRs and metro status also show wide differences in the predicted probability of participation. These differences are most pronounced when farm operators have a VCR and farm in a nonmetro county and least for metro farmers who don't have a VCR.
Implications Although it's unrealistic to expect all of any clientele group to participate in self-study educational activities, the findings suggest several ways to increase the probability of clientele groups using videotapes and workbooks. First, access to VCRs needs to be increased. Thirty percent of our sample didn't own one. County Extension offices may need to get additional VCRs and offer a loaner program to clientele or work with others, such as libraries or local video rental stores, to provide access to a VCR at a nominal or no cost. A second strategy involves the development of promotional messages for the self-study program to specific segments of the target audience. For example, use of a self-study program among clientele with limited "free time," such as small farm operators who have an off-farm job, can be increased by emphasizing the convenience and flexibility of participating in the program. A third strategy involves developing a trust relationship with larger numbers of current or potential Extension clientele. As agents nurture a trust relationship with new clientele through delivery methods such as individual consultation, demonstrations, and meetings, they can increase the number of clientele who "graduate" to using self-study programs. An agent's ability to graduate clientele will be critical to resolving the difficulty of increasing the number of trust relationships without increasing the time that he or she must work. Footnotes 1. L. Brown, Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective (New York: Methuen, 1981). 2. Ibid. 3. E. Johnson and S. Varma, "Are Extension Publications Readable?" Journal of Extension, XXVIII (Spring 1990), 35. 4. E. M. Rogers and F. F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York: Free Press, 1971). 5. E. A. Abbott, "The Electronic Farmers' Marketplace: New Technologies and Agricultural Information," Journal of Communication, XXXIX (No. 3, 1989), 124-36 and Rogers and Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations. 6. G. D. Israel, "Reaching Extension's Clientele: Patterns of Preferred Information Channels Among Small Farm Operators," Southern Rural Sociology, publication pending. 7. D. A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley, 1978). 8. Comparison of the sample data with characteristics for farms with 1 to 179 acres in the Census of Agriculture shows a close correspondence. 9. Data were coded as follows: "not at all likely" responses were assigned a value of 0 for the analysis and "uncertain," "somewhat likely," and "very likely" were assigned 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This assumed that "uncertain" reflected a greater probability of participation than a "not at all likely" and less than a "somewhat likely" response. 10. Variables in the analysis were: (a) had a VCR, (b) miles to CES office, (c) farmed in a metro county, (d) number of agricultural agents per 1,000 farmers, (e) educational attainment, (f) management index, (g) family income, (h) considering a new enterprise, (i) planned to increase farming emphasis, (j) retired and aging family, (k) used CES last year, (l) number of acres, (m) number of enterprises, and (n) had an off-farm job. The model accounted for 18.1% of the variation in responses about participating in a self-study program. 11. The profiles are based on combinations of characteristics of farmers responding to the survey. Farmers labeled "expanding part -timer": (a) used CES last year, (b) planned to increase their emphasis on farming, (c) weren't retired, (d) scored 1 (scale of 0 to 4) on the management skills index, (e) had an off-farm job, (f) had a college degree, and (g) had a family income of $40,000 or more. "Sundowners" were similar to expanding part-timers, except that they didn't plan to increase their emphasis on farming. "Subsistence farmers": (a) didn't use CES last year, (b) didn't plan to increase their emphasis on farming, (c) weren't retired, (d) scored 0 on the management index, (e) had no off- farm job, (f) had a high school degree, and (g) had an income of $10,000-$15,000. "Aging farmers": (a) didn't use CES last year, (b) didn't plan to increase their emphasis on farming, (c) were aged or retired, (d) scored 2 on the management index, (e) had no off-farm job, (f) had a high school degree, and (g) had an income of $40,000 or more.
Stating Our Values and Beliefs
M. F. Smith
Craig S. Oliver It's time for the Cooperative Extension System to update and openly state its long-held values to reflect contemporary circumstances and add new concepts to reflect the economic and social realities of the new era of the '90s. Each state should have a current statement of its values, beliefs, and goals-a statement that explains what it stands for, what it believes in, and what it intends to accomplish. This statement should be understandable, brief, and incorporated into all aspects of the organization and at all levels. Every single individual that represents the organization in any way-including volunteers- should be aware of the statement and know what it means relative to their actions. The present environment is volatile and dynamic. The only certainties seem to be increasing change and decreasing resources. If Extension is to react quickly to changes in the marketplace and take advantage of opportunities while they exist, at least three conditions must prevail: a flexible organizational structure, an arsenal of strategies to choose from, and a work force that can assume the initiative and automatically act- without having to stop and think-to enhance organizational success. Though all three are important, it's the last one we're concerned with here. We must close the gap between principles and practice; our people must instinctively know what's appropriate and what's not-and that's where values come in. What we stand for as an organization-what our people believe in-is crucial to our success. Any control we have is philosophical and conceptual. It's our ideas about ourselves and others and the environment we exist in that make us believe and behave as we do. These are the common understandings that align the director's office with that in the county and the county office with the people. The continuing decline in resources is all the more reason for us to be clear about who we are. When we eliminate programs- as we must-and become more efficient and effective with those we keep, we must know what's relevant in the overall scheme of things. We must know what's essential and what we can safely let go. We must be very clear in our thoughts and consistent in our actions and be able to articulate our rationale to the constituencies we serve. This is especially important if they're to understand and support us-as they must if we're to survive. The Maryland CES has adopted as its guiding philosophy the values, beliefs, and goals described in Figure 1. It's not something we defined and then put aside. Every statement has implications for action. For example, What does it mean to say: "We respect the diversity of the people we serve and that of ourselves..."? We think it means having a diverse work force (ethnic group, sex, age), but that it goes beyond that to seeking diversity in perspectives, to honestly inviting and rewarding differing points of view. We think it goes beyond targeting our programs to people's many informational needs to attending to their diverse learning styles. We think it means getting to know people who are different-spending time with them, truly listening to them, and sharing ourselves. And, we could go on with implications of all the other statements. How can such a document be effectively used? Our plans aren't complete, as yet, but we'll share where we are:
Our Values, Beliefs, Goals statement is new. We know that having this spelled out is important internally for our faculty, staff, and volunteers, and externally for our clientele. We know that efficiency and effectiveness is increased when we can automatically act in beneficial ways for our clients and for the organization and we believe client support is more likely when this occurs. We believe Paul Klee's observation that "becoming is superior to being" and see ourselves in a "state of becoming" relative to the use of our values, beliefs, and goals document. At the present time, though, we think the most important thing we can do at the administrative level is to try to model the behaviors we know are so important and to reward individual faculty as we see him or her following suit. Footnote 1. "Values," "inner wisdom," and other such terms are part of the "new paradigm" of business, according to recent issues of Fortune and Harvard Business Review (HBR). The January 14, 1991, Fortune (pp. 30-62) included the concept as "one of the most fascinating ideas of 1991," and HBRs September-October 1991 issue (pp. 132-44) featured the Chairman and CEO of Levi Strauss, Robert Strauss, explaining how "values make the company." Values, Beliefs, GoalsWe believe our programs should be judged on their relevance, their quality, and their utility. We believe the focus of our programs should be determined by societal needs, that program content should be based on research, and that the delivery process should be based on sound educational theory conditioned by the capabilities and motivations of our targeted audiences. We respect the diversity of the people we serve and that of ourselves-the faculty and staff of CES. At the same time, we believe both similarities and differences in our programs and in our employees determine our ability to respond in an effective manner-similarities increase our depth and strength and differences increase our breadth and humanity. We are committed to the welfare of our fellow workers, our communities, our state, and the nation and the world. We believe in the local and global interdependence of these entities and see it as our duty to work toward the enhancement of the environment in which they exist. We believe MCES is a dynamic organization and that as such, change is inevitable and necessary for its continuing renewal and survival. At the same time, we see it as our duty to constantly attend to the basic building blocks of its foundation-its employees, its resources, its knowledge base, its history, and its philosophy-to provide the security and ability essential for grounding in the midst of change. These statements reflect the philosophy which guides our actions as we respond to the relevant issues of today and anticipate those relevant in the future for the diverse audiences we serve.
Craig Oliver
It's Been Done, Almost
Jane Schuchardt
Mitch Geasler We couldn't agree more that an enunciated, well-defined statement of values, beliefs, and goals is the foundation for organizational success. However, to get to the point, it's been done-recently, in fact, by the national Extension leadership through the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) and Extension Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture. In the reports Patterns of Change (1991, p. vi) and Strategic Directions of the Cooperative Extension System (1990, p. 3), the Cooperative Extension System's (CES) "New Direction," set forth in 1987, is described. Underlying this statement of vision are the values and beliefs forming this public-funded, nonformal, educational system called Extension. Similar to the Maryland statement, the CES version embodies an intense commitment to program relevance and creative delivery; diversity of staff, including volunteers, and clientele; and the value of organizational change and self-renewal. The CES statement also recognizes the importance of coalitions, including representation by the intended audience, and interdisciplinary team effort for identifying issues, setting priorities, delivering programs, and assessing impacts. The Maryland statement goes beyond that of CES by pledging attention to global interdependence, environmental stewardship, and the well-being of fellow workers, communities, Maryland, the United States, and the world. Both statements describe what we, as Extension employees and volunteers, feel are intrinsically desirable. But, during an era when resources are too limited to duplicate effort, did Maryland capitalize on its position within a nationwide system to adapt and use what exists? There is value-often greater than the end product-for each state Extension Service to work through the process of defining its philosophical base. In so doing, states can capitalize on and complement the system's efforts. Then, more time can be channeled to identifying the state-specific goals that give direction, purpose, and consistency to values. Writing a statement doesn't guarantee a sense of organizational spirit and community that's evident to our collaborators and clients. CES could learn from Maryland's use of its values statement by:
We commend CES and the leadership in Maryland for moving forward with the development of a statement of values. We would encourage other units of the system to move aggressively to adopt the CES statement or modify it to meet state or local needs.
Stand for Nothing-Fall for Anything
Mable J. Grimes "An organization that stands for nothing, falls for anything," is a thought that comes to mind when I think of the need to update the philosophical base of the Extension System. Yes, I do agree. Extension needs to not only update its philosophical base, it needs to ensure that the philosophy, once updated and adapted by the system, truly acts as the foundation on which the organization and all of its activities are based. As a 25-year employee of the Extension System, I have seen many changes occur in the system-some good and some not so good. One of the not-so-good changes has been the loss of a commonly defined and publicly stated philosophy Extension System personnel can identify with and from which all programs and activities emanate. I have heard lots of talk; but I have seen very little action. When one checks the practices of the Cooperative Extension System's administrators and professionals with the principles that supposedly undergird these practices, a vast gap often appears. How many of you have "Extension Strategic Plans" with carefully worded statements of values and philosophy lying on your shelves or in your files? Do these plans and statements guide your actions and those of your system's administration? From my viewpoint, these have too often been empty words reflecting the need to have a document, because it's the popular thing to do, but not to truly guide the behavior of the organization. Sadly, too many of us within the system fail to see the gap that exists between who we say we are and what we stand for versus what we actually do and our reason given for doing it. Worse still, many of us recognize that the gap exists, but don't care! When this occurs over a long period of time, an organization becomes a victim of spiritual and ethical bankruptcy; its main purpose becomes self-serving survival. So, plaudits go to the Maryland Cooperative Extension System for the development of a philosophical statement of values, beliefs, and goals against which Extension educators can measure their professional practices. Diversity in Ideology and Practice For those of you who'd like to explore this topic further, I'd refer you to Chapter One in the book Ethical Issues in Adult Education. Brockett says adult education is characterized by extreme diversity in ideology and practice. So is Extension education. Brockett writes: In a field that is as action-oriented as adult education...it is easy to become so focused on pragmatic issues inherent in the day-to-day operation of a program that some of the broad questions confronting the larger field can easily become overlooked or relegated to secondary importance. Regardless of the specific setting in which one practices, it is vital that the adult educator not lose a grasp of his or her basic mission.1 The Extension System must constantly keep its mission in front of its personnel and ask why certain behaviors or practices are being done rather than focus only on questions of what and how. We can't continue to rely on reactive approaches to decision making such as, "We've always done it this way" or "I'll keep shooting from the hip" in trying to fulfill my role as educator. As educators in the Cooperative Extension System, we must continually search for balance as we serve multiple audiences. This means setting priorities based on anticipated consequences of our actions and accepting responsibility for those actions. We must know and be clear about who we are and why we do what we do. Update your Extension philosophical base-that's the point! Footnote 1. Ralph G. Brockett, Ethical Issues in Adult Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), p. 1.
Targeting Audiences for the 21st Century
Soneeta Grogan By the year 2010, one-quarter to one-third of all Americans will belong to racial or ethnic minority groups.1 Additionally, more than one-third of children living in the U.S. will be black, Hispanic, or Asian.2 If current trends continue, a significant proportion of these individuals will have low incomes. Even those with middle incomes and greater resources will have different characteristics than Extension's traditional white, middle-income audience. Citizens from these racial and ethnic minority groups will have varying histories, customs, values, and sensitivities. How well is Extension reaching minorities? The data show it has been increasing its contact with minority clientele. Over the fiscal 1984-86 period, Extension's total contacts with minority clientele increased slightly from 15.6% to 16.3%. For the same period, total contacts with majority clientele decreased from 84.4% to 83.8%.3 In fiscal 1986, contacts with minority clientele accounted for 33% of a 46.5 million minority clientele potential. For the same period, contacts with majority clientele accounted for 38% of the 206.1 million majority potential.4 Although contacts with minority clientele have increased, the percentage of contacts with this population relative to the potential continues to be lower than for majority clientele. The next century also promises a larger proportion of low- income citizens. Many of these citizens will constitute the limited-resource audience that includes "individuals and families who lack access to adequate nutrition, affordable health care, transportation alternatives, stable home environments, and quality housing because of limited income and education."5 These individuals and families will struggle to provide for the necessities of life. Adults and youth from this audience will need a variety of life skills to effectively manage with limited resources. Extension and Equity While Extension's traditional white, middle-class audience shouldn't be neglected, greater participation by members of these other audiences should be an Extension priority. Equity demands that all groups participate in and benefit from Extension programs. In addition, in some localities, Extension may not have a clientele if programs aren't designed to attract and involve these nontraditional audiences.6 As Extension staff, we must increase our knowledge and skills for working with low-income and minority populations. Each staff person can benefit from learning about other racial or ethnic groups. Staff who have never been low-income or were a long time ago can benefit from learning about the low-income experience-a prerequisite to developing programs relevant to nontraditional audiences. Approaches for Administrators To meet the challenge of reaching and educating these audiences, here are several approaches for Extension administrators and other Extension staff:
In the first part of her article on hunger and malnutrition, Fitchen says they do indeed exist in the U.S.9 The last part of the article focuses on how the food and eating patterns of the poor are shaped by dominant American cultural ideas and practices. Most important, she discusses common attitudes about poverty and the poor and how those attitudes demonstrate a lack of awareness of the cultural aspects of eating and living in the U.S. She submits that, like all of us, the low- income are American by culture and thus have the same desires as other Americans.
Approaches for All Staff The following are approaches for all staff:
The Future Challenge During its history, Extension has successfully met numerous challenges. Many Extension staff have the ability to develop skills and sensitivities needed to educate low-income and minority audiences. What's needed now is an active commitment to this objective by more Extension staff-not just those who have always educated these audiences. The future success of Extension will be determined not only by the relevance of its educational programs, but by the extent to which low-income and minority group citizens participate in and consider them valuable. Footnotes 1. J. P. Allen and E. Turner, "Diversity Reigns," American Demographics, XII (August 1990), 34-38. 2. J. Schwartz and T. Exter, "All Our Children," American Demographics, XI (May 1989), 34-37. 3. Louise P. Ashton, A Resource Directory of Actual Clientele Contacts in the Cooperative Extension Service, Fiscal Years 1984 to 1986 with Fiscal Year 1987 Planned (Washington, D.C.: Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, June 1987). 4. Ibid. 5. Jane Schuchardt, ed., "Reaching Limited Resource Audiences," Family Economics Newsletter (Washington, D.C.: Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, December 1990/January 1991), pp. 1-2. 6. W. A. Henry III, "Beyond the Melting Pot," Time, CXXXV (April 9, 1990), 28-31. 7. J. Ross-Gordon, L. Martin, and D. Buck Briscoe, Serving Culturally Diverse Populations (San Francisco, California: Jossey -Bass, 1990). 8. Janet M. Fitchen, Poverty in Rural America: A Case Study (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981). 9. Janet M. Fitchen, "Hunger, Malnutrition, and Poverty in the Contemporary United States: Some Observations on Their Social and Cultural Context," Food and Foodways, II (No. 3, 1988), 309-33. 10. Ross-Gordon, Martin, and Briscoe, Serving Culturally Diverse Populations.
Institutional Conflict Between Issues-Based and Disciplinary Programming
Henry M. Bahn1 Acceptance of issues programming hasn't been unanimous within the Cooperative Extension System (CES). Particularly at the specialist and agent levels, confusion exists about how issues programming complements a disciplinary and departmental program structure. Reluctance to fully embrace issues programming results from a conflict of institutional incentives. The issues programming paradigm isn't consistent with norms currently embodied in CES; it's perceived as insensitive to the role that specialization has played in CES' long history. Arguments to the contrary haven't been convincingly articulated. In reaction to debate about the declining relevance of the land-grant university system and decreased funding, the Extension Committee on Policy and Organization commissioned a paper to explore the topic relative to CES. The response, Issues Programming in Extension, suggested shifting from a departmental and disciplinary programming structure to focus on "matters of wide public concern arising out of complex human problems."2 A follow-up to this response, The Role of Disciplines in Issues Programming, noted dissimilarity between issues programming and disciplinary programming. The authors concluded that "specialists have an allegiance to both the issue and to their respective subject matter."3 Error in Introducing Issues Programming Axiomatic allegiance first to issues, then to subject matter is tantamount to a "type-two error" (accepting what's unproven as true) regarding a paradigm shift. The error stems from a felt need to improve conditions, and the search for a model to meet that need. The aim of issues programming was perceived as valuable to society and thus beneficial to CES. Therefore, the model was expected to be valued by CES staff as desirable and the paradigm shift was expected to be accepted without reservation. Role of Incentives Members of complex organizations are rational. Their behavior is motivated by existing institutional incentives: supervisory pressures, professional expectations, and pressures generated by the local environment. Supervisory pressures result from the institutional philosophy, or "party line," that members of organizations are expected to follow. These pressures are difficult to sustain when members of the organization have a high degree of competence and commitment and roughly equal professional status, especially in organizations with a high degree of individual autonomy. Professional expectations relate to career advancement. Faculty, including those without research appointments, must demonstrate credibility and scholarly growth of sufficient quality and quantity as judged acceptable by peers. Promotion and career advancement depend on the display of personal competency to primary stakeholders-the department and the discipline. Rational faculty don't lose sight of this fundamental fact. Proponents view tenure and promotion based on individual achievement as a barrier to issues programming. It may be, but the motivation of individuals and internal rules governing organizational structure must be addressed before change can occur. Local pressures relate to workloads, resource allocations, and stakeholder expectations. They're dynamic, political, and sometimes controversial, and may place the individual in conflict with institutional philosophy and supervisory pressures. Incentives are manifest in different ways. When faced with multiple or conflicting incentives, however, rational faculty choose a "safety-first" strategy under conditions of uncertainty. They maintain allegiance to the institutional structure that provides tangible incentives and concrete rewards for performance. Toward a Possible Resolution Institutional conflict could be minimized by developing an issues-oriented programming model that's sensitive to the incentives facing CES faculty. But thorough analysis needs to be done first. The alleged breakdown in CES' social contract must be defined and validated. A conceptual base for issues programming must replace the argument that CES "is moving so rapidly that practice of issues programming is preceding theory and conceptual development."4 Institutions are dynamic, finite entities. Altering institutional structure requires reorientation of priorities and reallocation of resources. Mistakes decrease quality, reduce effectiveness, and lower the institution's value to society. Expediency is dangerous, especially if responses are subjective. CES' social contract must be verified and explained before the merits of alternative models can be objectively explored. Footnotes 1. This article doesn't necessarily represent the views of the Extension Service or USDA. Janet Poley and Bill Rivera provided helpful comments and direction in the preparation of this article. 2. Kathleen Albrecht Dalgaard and others, Issues Programing in Extension (St. Paul: University of Minnesota, CES, 1988), p. 5. 3. Ellen Taylor-Powell and Lawrence A. Lippke, The Role of Disciplines in Issues Programming (College Station: Texas A&M University System, Agricultural Extension Service, 1989), p. 34. 4. Dalgaard, Issues Programming in Extension, p. 4.
Philosophy Diversions-Which Road?
Keith L. Smith What is the land-grant philosophy? What is our Extension philosophy? How do these two philosophies fit with our goals for issues programming, staffing, finances, and faculty development? Are these philosophies congruent with what we're "doing" in Extension? More importantly: Are they on the same road or diverging? From Mission to Philosophy As written in 1862, the Land-Grant College Act says the purpose of the land-grant university is: "...to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics, and to encourage application of the same." The key words are people, practical information, and application. The Smith Lever Act establishing the Extension System used the same key words.1 More than 128 years later, the 1990 farm bill states: The basic objectives of food and agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs are to make the maximum contribution to the health and welfare of people and the economy of the United States through the enhancement of family farms, to improve community services and institutions, to increase the quality of life in rural America, and to improve the well-being of consumers....2 The mission statements for the Extension Service and the land-grant institutions of which they're a part express a philosophy of meeting the needs of the people by using the latest research, teaching for application, and practical problem solving. Philosophical Diversions The land-grant university, and to some extent our Extension programs, have strayed from the philosophy expressed in this legislation. Edward Schuh, a top official at the World Bank, has listed the symptoms of this philosophical diversion:
Carolyn Mooney, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, noted that: With their growing dependence on private fund raising, campaigns to improve quality and attract better applicants, and aggressive national research efforts, many land-grant universities are looking and acting more like the private research institutions that once mainly educated the elite.4 Agricultural economist George McDowell argues that "the transformation of the Land-Grant University is so complete that today it is often the extension faculty who are considered 'out of step' rather than the other way around."5 Reasserting the Our Philosophy The diversion from the stated land-grant philosophy is largely our fault, for Extension administrators and faculty have done little to help make our institutions aware of the problem and its implications. Extension educators must now respond by being more involved in the university. Norman Brown, president of the Kellogg Foundation, believes "unprecedented efforts must be made to tap the knowledge base of the entire university...."6 Myron Johnsrud and Roy Rauschkolb have suggested greater definition as a means of addressing the problem. "One critical theme pervades in all the critiques hurled at Extension-the challenge to better define our relevance, mission, priorities, and capabilities."7 Patrick Boyle, chancellor of Extension at the University of Wisconsin, further challenges Extension faculty to ask six critical questions:
Action Agenda As Extension faculty, we can realign ourselves and our institutions more with the stated Extension and land-grant philosophies. We must begin by making more inroads to top administration at our land-grant universities. Too many land- grant presidents are of the "ivory tower," publish-or-perish mindset. I believe that if the presidents truly understood what the Extension Service can do as an outreach in their states they would be more supportive. As Chase Peterson noted, "Public institutions (including land-grant) risk collapse from an eroding support base attributable to local dissatisfactions...."9 Now is the time to demonstrate how Extension programs build support for the university. Second, we must expand issues programming. Some say issues programming is old Extension programming in a new package. Perhaps it is. But the "new package" forces us to look outward to the people before we look inward, address broader audiences, enlarge our circle of resources, and drop some sacred cows. We need to let go of a third of our programs to increase the percentage of issues programming. Third, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water by eliminating traditional programming that forms our identity base. In most states, who will fight for us before the legislature? It won't be youth-at-risk kids and people who we've helped to balance their work and family. Fourth, Extension must pursue bold new staffing patterns. We need to advocate clustering and its derivatives in which staff from two or more counties work together to conduct Extension programming efforts. Clustering supports agent specialization and issues programming, provides indepth knowledge to our more informed and educated clientele, enhances opportunities for agents to be teachers, and could increase applied research. Finally, Extension needs leaders now and in the future who can be "trumpets that do not give an uncertain sound."10 Decisions must be made more rapidly and our leaders will have to see what needs to be done and adjust quickly. Let us hope the Extension Service can lead the land-grant institutions along the philosophy less traveled and toward our true mission of making a difference by meeting the needs of people. Footnotes 1. Warren Prawl, Roger Medlin and John Gross, Adult and Continuing Education Through the Cooperative Extension Service (Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri-Columbia, Extension Division, 1984), pp. 240-42. 2. Farm Bill (1990), Title 7-Agriculture, Chapter 64: Subchapter I-Findings, Purposes, and Definitions. Chapter 13: Subchapter IV-Agricultural Extension Work Appropriation. 3. Michael B. Lafferty, quoting The Columbus Dispatch, October 4, 1986, Edward Schuh, "Colleges Urged to Re-Establish Relevance." 4. Carolyn J. Mooney, "Land-Grant Institutions Take a Fresh Look at How They Treat 125-Year-Old-Mission," The Chronicle of Higher Education, XXXIV (October 28, 1987), pp. A1, A30, A32. 5. George R. McDowell, "Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract," Choices (Second Quarter, 1988), pp. 18-21. 6. Norman Brown, "Too Little, Too Late?" Journal of Extension, XXVII (Spring 1989), 5. 7. Myron D. Johnsrud and Roy S. Rauschkolb, "Extension in Transition: Review and Renewal," Journal of Extension, XXVII (Spring 1989), 3-4. 8. Patrick Boyle, "The Look of Extension in the Future" (Presentation at the Symposium on Research in Extension Education, Columbus, Ohio, May 18, 1989). 9. Chase Peterson, "Three Presidents Speak" (Presentation at 102nd Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, November 19-21, 1989, Washington, D.C.), pp. 13-46. 10. Robert K. Mueller, "Leading-Edge Leadership," in Contemporary Issues in Leadership, William E. Rosenbach and Robert L. Taylor, eds. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984).
Responding to Crisis: Drought Directives
Kathryn K. Chenoweth A daily fact sheet, "Drought Directives," helped Washington County, Ohio families deal with the 1988 drought crisis. From July 11 to August 19, the Washington County agriculture associate and home economics agent prepared and distributed "Drought Directives" daily to local news media. The one-page fact sheet summarized current information from several sources under three headings: Managing on the Farm, Helping in the Home, and Coping with the Stress. These kept the public informed about the severity of the drought. Practical information was given to help families and communities in reducing their water consumption at home and cope with the emotional devastation of the drought. During the seemingly unending drought, Extension played a major role in helping families and communities deal with the crisis. Extension staff convened agri-business and community leaders to share ideas about how that objective could best be met. Included in that first meeting were representatives from the County Health Department, Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, Farm Bureau, National Farmers Organization, and the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. The committee felt there should be an effective way to distribute that knowledge to the farm and nonfarm community. A secondary goal was to make the nonfarm community aware of the fact that the drought wasn't just a farm problem, but that everyone was affected. Once the format for the "Drought Directives" fact sheet was developed, the local news media were asked to cooperate. One newspaper agreed to print the daily "Drought Directives" in conjunction with its weather report and forecast. Several radio stations periodically broadcasted the information and telephoned agents for on-air interviews. The county's willingness to use both wholesale and retail approaches for disseminating information of widespread relevance was evidence of the perceived need, potential impact of the information, and collective support of all communities. Because of the content and format of the information provided by the Extension state specialists, the daily preparation of the county fact sheets took a minimal amount of time. The committee suggested the information be kept short so individuals could easily assimilate and use the facts and be able to share them with others. In the interest of cost effectiveness, a five-day compilation of the fact sheets was mailed weekly to a targeted audience of 358 people including water haulers, agribusiness leaders and suppliers, health department officials, county and township officials, ministers, and farmers. University and Extension administrators presented the program to the Ohio state legislature when asking for money to help farmers through the crisis. The program was used to show Extension efforts focusing on the problem, providing situation update and analysis, and encouraging positive actions. At the end of the program, a written evaluation was given to the recipients of the "Drought Directives." Only five percent of the recipients returned the surveys, but the written responses echoed the verbal reactions communicated to the OCES staff and throughout the community. Eighty-four percent of the respondents reported using the information they received. One business leader made the fact sheets available in his lobby. A minister reprinted the stress management skills in his church bulletin. A home economics instructor taught water conservation techniques to her students. Fifty-three percent said the information they received helped them, their families, or their businesses in management decisions. Ninety-two percent reported making changes in their farming practices or family water use as a result of "Drought Directives." One family reported improved water conservation skills. Others reported not washing cars as often, and sweeping, rather than hosing, the garage and walkways. A farmer reported plans for developing spring tanks. Another family reported not using the dishwasher and doing less washing. Eighty-four percent of the respondents said the information presented in "Drought Directives" was more valid than other sources of information related to the crisis. Seventy-six percent said they felt the information helped the nonfarm community better understand, appreciate, and contribute to reducing the problems caused by the drought. Reactions to this program exceeded expectations. The news media approach was an effective way to disseminate the issue- based information. A similar approach could be equally successful for an major issue of widespread impact, such as flooding or other types of emergency disaster relief.
Entrepreneurship Program
Beth Duncan
Marilyn Prudie In 1988, the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service joined efforts with industry, specifically the American Home Sewing Association, to fund a pilot project targeted to home- based sewing entrepreneurs. The objective of the project was to train and help entrepreneurs establish and maintain profitable home-based sewing businesses to supplement family income. The business could be sewing or teaching sewing for profit. The program was a five-day, intensive workshop, titled "Sewing As a Business." The workshop included three one-day sessions on Business Awareness, Marketing Directions, and Update, and a two-day session Using New Technology. Business Awareness included basic management skills needed to establish and maintain a viable business. Topics included: financial records and taxes, zoning and licensing, bank accounts and securing loans, time management, and legal aspects of operating a business. Marketing Directions centered on the relationships of strategic marketing skills to the survival of a business. Topics included: advertising and promotion, pricing, networking, targeting markets, and projecting a professional image. The Update session concentrated on the types, sources, and costs of new equipment and products available to the sewing entrepreneur. Using New Technology focused on the development of competitive skills. Eleven "Sewing As a Business" workshops were conducted at five Mississippi locations. County Extension home economists promoted and advertised the workshops through news articles, radio programs, newsletters, home sewing retailers, and personal contacts. The response to the workshops was overwhelming-over 700 applications were received. About 20 participants were selected for each of the 11 workshops. All partic | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
