Volume 30 Number 1
|
Spring 1992 Volume 30 Number 1 |
|
|
Editor's PageStudying Our GrassrootsWe call them "users," "clientele," "audiences," or "learners." People, and their needs, are the rationale for the Extension System's existence. So it seems appropriate to begin 1992, and the 30th year of publication for the Journal, with a focus on clientele. The key clientele group of agricultural producers provides the topic for the To the Point section. Peter Bloome argues for a mature relationship with agriculture in which Extension serves as a public policy educator rather than an advocate. Orrin Smith sees obstacles to this role coming more from within the university department structure than agricultural clientele. In his response, George McDowell questions whether the relationship can be changed without a strong endorsement from agriculture on the grounds of self-interest. The special section articles apply to all Extension clientele. What clientele think about Extension is critical for accountability, marketing, and program development. Warnock shows how faculty in Florida counties determined client satisfaction with their information services and shared the results with legislators. Black and his colleagues studied how county advisory council members are selected and found that the process may not be the best for involving diverse clientele groups in issues- based programming. How Extension clientele think is significant to us as educators. McKenna and Martin describe a tool for understanding individual differences that affect motivation and change in adults. Jones describes how Extension educators can foster critical thinking skills in learners. To expand the Extension knowledge base about clientele, or any other subject, faculty must continually share ideas. We hope you'll contribute to this enterprise by writing about your research, study, or practice for the Journal. Journal Transitions Dynamic institutions are constantly in transition. The Journal is no exception. After eight months on the job, this is my first published issue. I thank former editor Michael Patton and assistant editor Colleen Schuh for making my transition into the role of editor go so smoothly. Other changes in our editorial team began with the new calendar year. Two members of the Editorial Committee completed their terms in 1991. Terry Mikel of Arizona and Kristine Saunders of Utah served the Journal with dedication and distinction. Emmett Fiske of Washington and Donna Iams of Arizona join the committee this year. The 27 Editorial Committee members, who are named on the inside back cover, perform the invaluable service of evaluating manuscripts. They're your peers in the Journal peer review system. Our thanks and recognition for a job well done also go to J. David Deshler of New York and Gregory Nolting of Missouri who completed their terms as Futures and Tools of the Trade editors, respectively. Michael Duttweiler of New York will take on the task of Futures editor. To accommodate both the increasing interest in global Extension and manuscript submissions from other countries, I've established an International section for the Journal. William Rivera of Maryland will serve as editor of this section. The International section will alternate with the Futures section in coming issues. We inaugurate the International section in this issue with an interesting article from Australia about new approaches to information transfer on sustainable agriculture. 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
Kirk Astroth, president, Montana, Member at Large Editorial Committee
Doris Smith, chair, Oakland, California Tools of the Trade Editor Martha Bullock Lamberts, Washington State University Futures Editor Michael Duttweiler, Cornell University International Editor William Rivera, University of Maryland Surveying Client Satisfaction
Peter Warnock "How am I doing?" Posing that question demonstrates the qualities of openness, courage, and a willingness to change. American businesses increasingly ask their customers similar questions, and the Extension Service should be doing the same. Entrepreneur Tom Leonard reminds us of an accepted marketing principle that says that it costs five times as much money to get a new customer into a store than it does to keep an old one happy.1 Perhaps that's why Leonard, and many other businesspeople, adhere uncompromisingly to a corporate policy of: Rule 1-The customer is always right. Rule 2-If the customer is ever wrong, reread rule 1. Importance of Client Service Balancing reactive and issues-based programs continues to challenge Extension faculty. Every agent knows, however, that providing information to a client looking you in the eye or questioning you on the phone is undoubtedly one of Extension's most important functions. It's a significant educational function because when adults seek information, they learn best. With the availability of electronic information transmission and a growing number of Master Gardeners, program assistants, and volunteers working in all aspects of Extension programs, answering client questions continues to consume large amounts of available staff time and energy. As one county agent wrote, "The agent who gives good service stands out because he/she helped the customer solve a problem and left him or her with positive feelings."2 In 1988, the Board of Regents of the state University of Florida required the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) to implement a statewide practice of surveying Extension effectiveness in providing information to the public.3 These accountability studies were requested by the chairperson of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who questioned the efficacy of Extension information delivery to both rural and urban Florida clientele. Without this political threat to IFAS funding, the Florida Extension client satisfaction survey wouldn't have been designed and implemented. Client Satisfaction Survey The Florida client study was patterned after a program evaluation process entitled, "Reflective Appraisal of Programs (RAP): An Approach to Studying Clientele,"4 developed by Claude Bennett of ES-USDA. The client survey examines two levels of evidence from Bennett's Hierarchy of Evidence, clientele reactions and clientele practice changes. Potential respondents to the survey are all clients seeking educational information from an Extension office over a 30-day period. The requested educational information could be related to the subject-matter areas of agriculture, home economics, 4-H youth development, community development, sea grant, and energy. Examples of educational information given by an agent, volunteer, or staff member include: soil test results, a 4-H fact sheet on horse judging, an organic vegetable gardening bulletin, advice on low cholesterol diets, plant cost data on raising azaleas in containers, or information on controlling cockroaches in the home. Questions related to meeting times and places, references to other public agencies, or information of a general nature aren't considered educational information. When Floridians visit or call the Extension office for educational information during the 30-day study, they're asked to provide their name, address, and phone number, after they've received the requested information. They're also told they may be asked to participate in a clientele satisfaction study. Once county agents decide to undertake a client survey, a team of six to eight county agents, staff, and key volunteers is assembled. The team discusses the rationale for the study, the study design, the telephone interview instrument, the time frame, reporting requirements, and sampling and data collection procedures as preparation for conducting the survey. Team members are also encouraged to role play a telephone interview. A minimum of 50 names is drawn randomly from the listing of people receiving educational information from the county office to guarantee 30 to 40 valid responses to the survey. One county in each of Florida's five administrative districts undertook a client satisfaction survey in 1989 and 1990, with many more counties using the survey in 1991. For example, Martin County, with a population of about 100,000 residents, recorded 485 visitors or callers during a 30-day period. The eight-person team randomly selected 50 names from their list to call for interviews and then quantified the responses. A partial survey summary is shown in Table 1.5 In addition, the unsolicited comments, questions, and recommendations gained from respondents were valuable to the team and study.
The Martin County client survey team's final report indicated clients generally appreciated Extension and the help they received. Additionally, clients suggested that better internal communications and a friendlier attitude on the part of some Extension staff could enhance information transfer and clientele satisfaction. A User-Friendly Survey After two years of use, the advantages of the client satisfaction survey have become apparent. The survey is conceptually anchored to the RAP format and content, but sufficiently flexible to accommodate the survey team's preferences. In practice, some counties chose to make substantial modifications to the recommended questions and procedure. Nevertheless, the essential conceptual work has been done for the team, from beginning to end. The survey provides a straightforward program evaluation procedure that's readily understood by Extension staff and volunteers, and relatively easy to use. Unlike many evaluation procedures, it doesn't require a long drawn out effort or lengthy report. County reports averaged about three pages. Conducting the client survey can empower important stakeholders, such as secretaries, program assistants, and volunteers, who are often left out of program evaluation. Forest and Rossing argue for this empowerment by encouraging Extension to open lines of communication between all people and program levels in the evaluation process.6 Finally, because such surveys are unusual in the public sector, it impresses elected officials with Extension's business- like approach to measuring customer satisfaction. Client Satisfaction Tells the Story By involving clientele and volunteers in program evaluation, they were able to speak from firsthand experience about the effectiveness of Extension information transfer in Florida. Volunteers and clients are unquestionably more credible in justifying this work than employees on the payroll. Local and state government officials were positively influenced with the evaluation data and the procedures used in collecting the information. Furthermore, the client survey demonstrated to legislators that we were willing to ask our customers, "How are we doing?" and then act on their suggestions for improvement. Agents and other county Extension workers took greater pride in their work as a result of objective positive reinforcement from the clientele. In addition, they gained insights in nonthreatening ways on how to improve the flow of information from the university to the citizens as well as within their county. Leonard believes it's not the critical customers who are your enemy-they're really your best friends because they give you a chance to improve.7 It's the customer who doesn't complain, who says, "Oh, the heck with it," that's most feared. Our state senator did Florida Cooperative Extension a favor by asking a tough question and then giving us a chance to respond. Reactive information-giving to clients takes about one-third of county staff time and energy. Consequently, a client satisfaction survey is easily justified because we don't want the phone to stop ringing and the doors to remain closed. Extension must continue to serve clients seeking timely information during their most teachable moment. Footnotes 1. T. Leonard, "The Customer Is Always Right," The Journal of Creative Behavior, XXIV (No. 4, 1990), 231. 2. C. Williams, "Keeping and Increasing County Support for Extension by Marketing and Delivering Good Service" (Kissimmee, Florida: Osceola County Cooperative Extension Service, 1988). 3. "The Relationship Between Research and the Cooperative Extension Service" (A report to the Florida Legislature by the Board of Regents, February 1988, E7). 4. C. F. Bennett, "Reflective Appraisal of Programs (RAP): An Approach to Studying Clientele-Perceived Results of Cooperative Extension Programs (Ithaca, New York: Media Services at Cornell University, 1982). 5. R. Whitty, "Clientele Satisfaction Survey of Martin County" (Stuart, Florida: Martin County Cooperative Extension Service, 1989). 6. L. Forest and B. Rossing, "Human Values and Program Evaluation," Journal of Extension, XX (September/October 1982), 32-36. 7. Leonard, "The Customer Is Always Right," p. 229.
Teaching Clientele What or How To Think
Jo Jones Teaching learners to think critically has become an important educational goal in our rapidly changing society. A former president of the National Education Association believes that "in a society facing the twenty-first century, where change may be the only constant, the ability to formulate problems, resolve issues, determine the most effective decision and create new solutions is a prerequisite of success...for life...."1 As adult educators, we must begin to view Extension teaching in the context of how it contributes to the information and process skills needed by clientele for critical thinking. Critical thinking has been defined as "reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do."2 It's an alternative to making decisions by blind acceptance, impulse or whim, tradition or habit that involves the ability to explore and imagine alternatives. Critical thinking is necessary if people are to make sense of what they hear and read, to gain insight into the information that bombards them, and to develop and evaluate their own positions on issues. It's an essential element of problem solving, decision making, and creative production. Critical thinking isn't a mysterious mental operation, but an essential component of everyday thought and deliberations. Fostering Critical Thinking A survey of the 87 Extension home economists in Ohio indicated they perceived the principles of critical thinking, shown in Table 1, to be either important or very important in teaching adult learners. However, the majority of agents felt their teaching didn't foster these skills. On a self-anchoring scale of 0 to 10, with 0 indicating virtually no knowledge of critical thinking and 10 indicating completely knowledgeable, more than 72% of the agents responding placed themselves at a knowledge level of five or below.3
One of the essential needs of Extension clientele is the development of critical thinking skills that will help them solve problems and make decisions that have an impact on economic, social, and environmental aspects of their lives. Freire4 criticizes educators for being bankers of knowledge-simply depositing information with learners to withdraw when they need it. Extension educators must ask, "Are we strictly sharing subject matter or are we helping people to process information and reflect on what implications it has for them?" Creating Learning Environments To foster critical thinking, Extension educators must know how to create learning environments that:
Key elements of teaching critical thinking are dialogue and questioning. We can encourage dialogue to take place within a person's mind or between two or more people. Paul encourages educators "...to focus on the Socratic spirit, the educational power of rational dialogue focused on questions of significance in an atmosphere of mutual support and cooperation."5 The questioning technique is only effective if the questions asked probe for more than a response from memory. Good questions encourage learners to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate. Research shows that about 60% of teachers' questions require students to only recall facts, about 20% require students to think, and the remaining 20% are procedural.6 In the Ohio study, 77% of the responding agents indicated they need training and practice in effectively using the questioning technique. Some instructional strategies foster critical thinking more effectively than others. Table 2 lists a number of strategies Extension educators can include in their teaching. More than 50% of the responding Ohio agents indicated they'd never used six of the 12 identified strategies.7
If Extension is to continue as a viable adult education organization, it must meet the educational challenge of incorporating critical thinking skills into the current curriculum. Extension professionals can play a part in encouraging what many educators believe to be the single most important cognitive skill-thinking critically. Extension, as the largest nonformal adult education system in the nation, should be instrumental in helping adults develop capacities needed to effectively cope with changes and challenges brought about by the "information explosion" of the 1990s and beyond. Footnotes 1. B. Z. Presseisen, Teaching Skills: Research and Practice, Monograph No. 107306 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1986). 2. R. H. Ennis, "A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Disposition and Abilities" (A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C., July 11, 1985). 3. J. M. Jones, "Principles and Instructional Strategies for Fostering Critical Thinking in Adult Learners: Ohio Extension Home Economists' Perception of Importance of the Principles and Current Use of the Strategies" (Ed.D dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1989). 4. P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970). 5. R. W. Paul, "The Socratic Spirit: An Answer to Louis Goldman," Educational Leadership, XLII (September 1984), 63-64. 6. M. Gall, "Synthesis of Research on Teachers' Questioning," Educational Leadership, XLII (November 1984), 40-47. 7. Jones, "Principles and Instructional Strategies for Fostering Critical Thinking."
Understanding Clientele Differences
Judy McKenna
Dorothy Martin Extension educators are dedicated to enabling change in clientele. One of our strengths is our ability to provide timely information about critical issues. But, how well do we understand the personalities of clientele-the individual orientation that plays a crucial role in motivation and change? Scientists are just beginning to identify the influence the mind has on the body and incorporate this knowledge into their research about people and behavior. Researchers and authors are finding the mind is more powerful than was ever imagined, in increasing athletic performance, combating illness, propelling us toward personal success, and achieving goals.1 As people learn to appreciate and trust themselves, they become more comfortable using their minds creatively to apply solutions to their problems. By combining interdisciplinary, issues-based programming with a better understanding of our clientele as individuals, more effective educational programs will result. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator In Colorado, we've used a powerful theory for better understanding clientele. The theory was originated by Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist. His ideas were used to develop an instrument called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).2 This instrument is designed to help individuals understand and accept themselves, as well as appreciate and value differences in others. We're finding people who accept uniqueness in themselves and others are more creative, more productive, and better equipped to be successful in a world that's rapidly changing. The MBTI is designed to identify four ways that individuals deal with life. For each approach, there are two different preferences, equally successful. Just as people have a physical preference for their right or left hand, they also have mental preferences that influence their behavior. As individuals understand what they have to contribute, they also find strengths in other people who have developed different preferences that offer new ways of thinking and processing information. By better understanding mental preferences, people can appreciate others' viewpoints and not react in anger or feel diminished when someone takes a different approach or disagrees. Preferences The preferences, extraversion and introversion, describe where individuals get their energy. For example, if you're energized by being with other people, you prefer extraversion. If, however, you like being with people, but must have time to yourself to restore your energy, you prefer introversion. Extraverts talk while they're thinking and often don't know where they're headed with an idea-it's formulated as they talk. Introverts like to think things through thoroughly and consider alternatives before they share their ideas with others. Sensing and intuition are preferences describing how people think. Sensing people trust thoughts that come from the use of their senses. If they can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, they trust these experiences and act accordingly. Sensing people are practical and oriented to what's happening right now. They want to focus on practical things to do. Intuitives trust their "gut" reactions and hunches. They're focused on the future, on possibilities, on the big picture. Intuitives are dreamers and theoreticians, they speculate and consider what might be. In groups, intuitives want to spend time generating lots of possibilities and sensors want to be sure plans are practical and sensible. Our orientation-to-life preferences, thinking and feeling, describe the basis on which people make decisions. A thinking person relies on principles, laws, cause and effect, and processes that are logical, methodical, analytical, and impersonal. People who operate primarily from a feeling preference are concerned first of all with harmony-how people are getting along and if people are satisfied with what's happening. Feeling people are good at making all participants feel they have an important role. The judging and perceiving preferences describe how people make decisions. A judging person likes to reach conclusions and wants rapid closure to get on with other matters. Perceiving people want to keep their options open until the last minute because they believe that at any time additional information will come along that will make their decision better. People who prefer judging tend to work in an orderly and planned way moving steadily toward completion of a task. They're frequently time driven and expect others to be the same. Perceivers may wait until the last minute and accomplish their goals in a burst of energy and concentration. Both preferences can produce high quality results.3 The purpose of incorporating these ideas into Extension programming and teamwork efforts is simply to become more accepting of ourselves and to learn to work more effectively with others. To work best as interdisciplinary teams, we must appreciate not only the technical expertise we bring, but the unique contributions made by each individual to the process of program planning and implementation. Most importantly, we can enhance communication with clientele by better understanding what's meaningful to them. Applying MBTI Principles Using the actual MBTI instrument with clientele isn't practical because successful completion of the MBTI training is required to use the instrument and ethics mandate providing face- to-face feedback to people answering the MBTI questionnaire. As a result, the process of administering the instrument and explaining the concepts would take too much time to use in conjunction with other workshops. Extension program planners can, however, use MBTI principles any time they're involved with clientele. They can learn to use a variety of approaches to engage the interest, commitment, and learning styles of a wide range of clientele. The MBTI theory and application can be useful to Extension personnel in team building within Extension, developing educational programs, working with advisory councils, and planning conferences. Teamwork People tend to give their best when they feel their contributions are respected and appreciated. When tensions begin to build, it's helpful to remember that both practicality and unusual ideas are important. Attention to task and appreciation of team players produces optimum results. Developing Educational Programs The following key ideas can be incorporated into Extension programming. Extraverts learn from discussion and group interaction; introverts through thinking, concentration, and study. Sensing types like practical, useful experiences; intuitives are challenged by possibilities and future orientation. Thinking types learn best when exploring systems and principles; feeling types are most interested in using ideas to help people. Goals and deadlines motivate judging types; perceivers prefer flexible and open-ended situations. We can incorporate opportunities for each preference or we can team with others whose preferences offer a different orientation. Planning Conferences Some conferences focus strictly on delivering information. Others are almost totally concerned with group interaction. An imbalance causes frustration and disappointment. Conference committees can mix exercises and get-acquainted events with technical information and research updates to satisfy a variety of personal needs. Working with Advisory Councils Because extraverts tend to talk and keep moving, the thorough thinking of the introverts may be overlooked. An Extension agent believes that he or she has identified what local citizens think is important; however, it may be only what the extraverts in the county think is important. To avoid problems of this type, send information to advisory committee members well in advance of the meetings. Make sure everyone has a chance to think through and express opinions. Take breaks and get one-to-one feedback from those who haven't spoken. Be prepared with techniques for opening the discussion to everyone. MBTI Workshops in Colorado Understanding the MBTI principles makes a difference. We have given MBTI workshops for more than 2,000 people, including Extension faculty, EFNEP aides, Integrated Resource Management Team, Family Community Leadership participants, American Association of University Women, Colorado State University faculty and staff, International Association for Financial Planning, and the Colorado Rural Revitalization Program. Table 1 summarizes how a sample of 90 participants from these workshops perceived they'd use the ideas following the workshop.
Summary Congress has designated the 1990s as the "Decade of the Brain." We have an opportunity to meet this challenge to focus our efforts on new discoveries and educational opportunities that will enhance human functioning. Through better understanding of our clientele, we can create messages to stimulate the mind for increased learning, enhanced decision making, and fuller involvement in life's choices. As Extension moves toward the 21st century, we're asked to evaluate our role in educating the public. By combining our existing strengths of information, skill-building, and research- based choices with a thorough understanding of people, we can offer a comprehensive approach with a variety of opportunities for people to make changes that truly enrich their lives. Footnotes 1. Norman Cousins, Head First: The Biology of Hope (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1989); Bernie S. Siegel, Love, Medicine & Miracles (New York: Harper and Row, 1986); Charles Garfield, Peak Performers (New York: Avon Books, 1987); and Bernie Zilbergeld, Mind Power (New York: Ballantine Books, 1988). 2. Katherine C. Briggs and Isabella Briggs Myers, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Palto Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1977). 3. Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, LIFETypes (New York: Warner Books, 1989).
Selecting Advisory Council Members
Donald C. Black
Gerald W. Howe
David L. Howell
Patricia Bedker When Cooperative Extension began in 1914, society in the United States was different than it is now. Ninety percent of the nation's work force was active in agricultural production, compared to just three percent in production agriculture and 23% in agribusiness today.1 Extension has also changed. Its technology, its clientele, its volunteers, and the ways it deals with the greater masses of people have undergone a dramatic evolution. Its mission of putting knowledge and research to work so people can help themselves and others is, however, still the same. Another characteristic that hasn't changed, but is in need of change, is the makeup of the county Extension advisory councils. In general, the people who comprise the councils still come from groups primarily associated with farming, 4-H, home economics, and forest management. This signifies that Extension advisory councils haven't kept pace with the changing times, the changing clientele base, and the changing programing emphasis. Over the past 20 years, many Extension educators have argued for change in the advisory council system and provided the tools to help make it more effective. Extension agent, Sally K. Ebling of Cuyahoga County, Ohio restructured her advisory council with new people who more effectively represented the people she was trying to serve. The result was increased participation by new clientele and the increase of public funding as a result of new people volunteering on the council.2 Cole and Cole in their book on advisory councils maintain that: "A necessary ingredient for success in Extension programming is the active participation of a cross section of people in developing and supporting its programs."3 Other Extension faculty have demonstrated how to educate and develop the leadership potential of public service groups. Biagi developed a guide for helping groups work together.4 Dale developed educational manuals to empower the leadership potential in advisory boards,5 and Silas Weeks illuminated the power of individuals working together to solve community problems and bring about social change.6 Advisory Council Study A 1988 report of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Cooperative Extension at the University of New Hampshire recommended that "the make-up, role and method of selection of county extension councils must be reviewed."7 In response to this recommendation, a survey was developed and sent to all 126 members of New Hampshire's advisory councils. Council members were asked because often the solution to a problem and its resolution can be found and developed from the group involved. The validity of the questionnaire was tested with county office coordinators and the reliability was tested in the adjoining states of Vermont and Maine. The object of the survey was to answer the following questions:
Of the 126 council members, 101 (81%) responded to the survey. Included in the survey along with research questions were inquiries about demographics and council member's availability for orientation and continuing education. Fifty respondents were women and 51 were men. More than half of the respondents (57) were ages 25 to 49 and 44 were older than 49 years of age. Eighteen council members were past age 65. Findings Membership Of the various ways people became council members, 47% were appointed or brought to the group by an Extension agent and 42% joined by means of a balloting process, sometimes through an associated group or a mass county balloting, such as a newsletter. Even though these elected members joined the council through a balloting process, usually their names were on the ballot as a direct result of Extension educator selection. Member Role Council members showed high esteem for their county Extension educator and the Extension administrators at the university. They also indicated their input was needed, useful, and that they weren't "rubber stamping" Extension programs. Appropriate Tasks Participants strongly stated they didn't want to be managers of the county Extension offices, but did want to advise and in many cases approve or disapprove:
Council members acknowledged the need for orientation and continuing update information on UNH Cooperative Extension activities. Moreover, they advised on a time commitment to be available for that purpose. Getting politicians to act positively on state and county Extension budgets was also viewed as an important role for them. Conclusions One area of concern that emerged as a result of the survey was the way people become Extension council members. Almost half of those that responded said they were on the council as a result of action by Extension educators. Another 41% said they were on the council as a result of balloting; however, the balloting was done in an audience with very strong Extension ties and an established Extension history. This selection process means 89% of present members could have strongly focused (perhaps narrowly focused) concerns for a particular Extension program area. As a result, they'd have a vested interest in maintaining current programming efforts. Their historical link to program direction might present an obstacle to responsible programming for emerging needs. Further study would be necessary to determine if this was indeed a fact, but the potential was there. To have such a large portion of the Extension council come from such a narrow and specific audience doesn't serve the current direction Extension is taking nor does it serve the needs of our changing society. If Extension is to embark on new programming initiatives, it should also embark on a new selection process for council members. The process should ensure that all sectors of the local society are represented. The council should also do an internal needs assessment to determine what's missing and recruit to fill the identified gaps. The council should be an important component of the needs assessment process as well as key to program direction. Extension can no longer afford to use the council simply as a grassroots advocacy base. The councils must be used to ensure Extension programming is germane to the needs of the people and the programming efforts are effective. Today, our mission to help people put knowledge and research to work is much broader than just educating those engaged in agri-business. Our advisory councils must represent all our clientele to be effective. Footnotes 1. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987 Abstract of the United States, 107th edition, #661, Employment by Selected Industry (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), p. 389. 2. Sally K. Ebling, "Using the Advisory Committee Effectively," Journal of Extension, XXIII (Fall 1985), 16-17. 3. Jacquelyn M. Cole and Maurice F. Cole, Advisory Councils (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983), page xi. 4. Bob Biagi, Working Together: A Manual for Helping Groups Work More Effectively (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Citizen Involvement Training Project, 1978). 5. Duane Dale, How to Make Citizen Involvement Work (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Citizen Involvement Training Project, 1978). 6. Silas B. Weeks, "Involving Citizens in Making Public Policy," Journal of Extension , VIII (Winter 1970), 40-45. 7. Paul Bofinger, "Summary of Major Recommendations" (Report of the Presidential Task Force, May 10, 1988, p. 31).
Evaluating County Clustering
Gregory K. Hutchins Extension is being asked to address a variety of complex human problems not limited by county boundaries. Addressing these problems typically requires many areas of expertise that can't be found among agents in a single county office. This scenario has given rise to the concept of county clustering, an Extension staffing and programming model that brings together multicounty teams of Extension agents to address complex, large-scale problems. Minnesota Cluster System Clustering has been in existence in Minnesota since 1987. It was introduced as a way to improve the Minnesota Extension Service's capacity to do issues-based programming. Clustering has been accompanied by the implementation of agent specializations.1 Specialization increases the expertise of individual agents, and county clustering brings these agents together in multicounty teams to apply their collective expertise to regional problems. Agents continue to be based in county offices and still spend the majority of their time on county programs and problems, but up to 25% of their work is done on behalf of the cluster. The formation of clusters was voluntary; counties could choose whether they wished to participate in a cluster, and if so, who they wanted to cluster with. County Extension committees negotiated with one another and submitted their proposed configurations to the director's office. Based on these local decisions, the state was divided into 20 clusters. The original clusters were composed of three to seven counties, and had from nine to more than 50 county Extension agents per cluster. During the Summer of 1990, a study was done to gain some understanding of agents' experiences with county clustering and agent specialization in Minnesota. Fifteen county Extension agents representing 15 counties and three program areas were systematically interviewed using a standard set of open-ended questions. The agents had between four and 25 years Extension experience, so they were able to contrast the recent changes with the previous organizational norms. Agents' Initial Reactions The introduction of clustering was received in different ways by the staff. Feelings ranged from excitement to anxiety to apathy. The agents who were excited believed specialization promised the opportunity to focus more of their time on an area of special interest. They expected that regularly working with agents in other counties would offer a new level of collegial support and stimulation. These agents anticipated the potential to be involved in programs that were larger, more interesting, and more innovative than those in their individual counties. Other agents were anxious about the plan. They saw increased demands on their time. Agents would spend up to 25% of their time working on cluster programs, yet there was no clear indication of a corresponding reduction in county work. Some staff believed local priorities were of primary concern, and the distraction of clustering would pull them away from serving local needs. Some agents were uncomfortable with the new level of collegial accountability found in clustering. Presenting programs on behalf of a colleague in a neighboring county produced a new type of peer pressure. A third group was indifferent. They viewed clustering as a new name for something they thought they'd been doing for a long time. They anticipated no change. Cluster Team Development Program Teams Each cluster was expected to form staff teams in agriculture, home economics, and 4-H. The teams were comprised of agents who had those program area assignments in their counties. District directors appointed one of the agents on each team to serve as a coordinator. The first cluster programs emerged from the work of these teams. Their initial focus was on ongoing programming, as they explored ways that cluster coordination could create efficiencies in what they were already doing. Most of these teams had a history of periodically coordinating together, so this first step was easy:
In many clusters, the program area teams quickly became an important source of support for individual agents, particularly the less-experienced agents. That collegial support and camaraderie gave most of these teams a positive feeling about meeting together on a regular basis:
Issue Teams After some initial success with the three cluster program teams, Extension administration asked the clusters to identify cluster issues, produce a cluster plan of work, and create issue teams that would begin implementing those program plans. This shift towards interdisciplinary issue teams proved to be a difficult step for the staff. The activity of the original cluster program teams developed naturally, drawing primarily on the agents' historical working relationships and programming patterns. The cluster issue teams seemed to many agents at first to be an unnatural way to work. Staff needed additional support and direction from Extension middle managers, district directors, and state program leaders to move into this newer form. With this administrative help, agents in the clusters began to go through a collective process of issue identification:
This was followed by the formation of individual issue teams. Every agent in the cluster was to participate on one of these teams. These new groups began to meet and struggle with the combined challenges of being a team and also addressing a new kind of program need. As they did this, the teams began to develop a shared vision for their task and a new view of what each of the individuals on the team could contribute to their collective effort. The eventual outcome was a new type of integrated programming that built on the combined talents of a variety of agents:
Benefits and Costs From an agent's perspective, clustering has both benefits and costs. First, agents found specialization an attractive component of clustering. Agents liked being able to focus more of their energy in a single area, and to be viewed throughout the cluster as a teacher and a resource in a specialized field. However, they're still saddled with "generalist" duties and find that frustrating. Agents have enjoyed the specialized staff development they've received, and feel they're better trained today as a result:
In the opinion of the staff, the quality of their programs has also improved, though some agents fear selected county programming may be suffering because of the increased staff time that must be given to the cluster. Agents said they do a more thorough job of preparation for programs because they're now delivering them in a number of counties. The larger audiences, the multiple presentations, and the sense of commitment to their fellow agents has prompted them to be better prepared:
Collegial support has been important. Clustering has heightened the sense of personal and professional support that agents receive from their colleagues. That has been particularly helpful to newer agents:
The clustering process has required much time and energy from agents. As one home economics agent said, "The whole thing just takes a lot more time." Developing and working on cluster teams has involved more time for planning and coordination. It has also meant increased levels of personal stress for many agents:
In Minnesota, clustering continues to evolve. Agents have found reasons to both like and dislike the concept. Over time, however, the agents in this study have found ways to refine the model and make it function effectively for them. As Extension continues to develop more effective strategies for issues-based programming, county clustering may be one approach that can help. Footnote 1. G. K. Hutchins, "Agent Specialization and the 4-H PRK Model," Journal of Extension, XXVII (Winter 1990), 12-14.
Database Information for Small Organizations
Peter J. DePaulo Where are our best customers located? How has our town's population been changing? What new businesses can we attract to our downtown? How have some rural communities managed to revitalize their economies? What segments of our state's farm economy have been relatively strong? Does our region need more services for pregnant teenagers, homeless families, the impoverished elderly, or other at-risk groups? Answers to questions like these are needed by small businesses, nonprofit service organizations, city planners, and local government officials. This article describes a demonstration program in which information to help answer such questions is provided through Extension. The information is based on secondary data-records and statistics already gathered into databases by organizations such as the Census Bureau and Dun & Bradstreet. Utilization Gap Secondary data can be obtained by anyone, often at low cost, from various suppliers: state data centers, private data companies, and other organizations that compile and sell information from computer databases. However, major databases are extremely voluminous and complex. Further, their usefulness for particular purposes may not be readily apparent. For example, a data center's catalog may include "automobile registrations by year, make, and zipcode." Certain applications of this database, such as finding a location for a new automobile service center, may be obvious. Other applications are more subtle. For instance, automobile registration data can also indicate the relative affluence of various areas within a city, because more affluent areas have newer cars. Large organizations have staffs of information specialists who can handle complex databases with finesse. However, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and local governments may not have easy access to such expertise. One survey has shown that when small business managers seek marketplace information, they rely on word-of-mouth information from business associates rather than on database information.1 Although officials in small organizations often have a general idea that various information is available, they may not know where to get it and how to ask for it. If officials do acquire a relevant set of data, they may be unsure how to compile and interpret the numbers. Therefore, a utilization gap exists between the small organizations that can use database information and the technical organizations that can supply it. From 1988 to 1990, the Center for Business and Industrial Studies (CBIS) at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, in conjunction with the UM-St. Louis Urban Information Center, conducted an information-services demonstration project. The project explored ways to bridge the utilization gap by helping small organizations benefit from public database information. The work was funded by the Urban Extension Project, a joint project of the East Central Region of University Extension and Continuing Education-Extension at UM-St. Louis. Secondary information may be relevant to virtually any Extension initiative. Consider, for example, programs in the overlapping areas of family development, health and nutrition improvement, and youth at risk. Program developers could refer to county-level statistics on divorce rates, adult illiteracy, homeless families, impoverished elderly, teenage pregnancies, infant deaths, licensed day care facilities, hazardous chemical storage sites, and a variety of other variables. The UM-St. Louis Extension project dealt with small businesses and economic development, as illustrated below. Demonstration Cases Case #1: Washington County, Missouri. In addition to the economic problems typical of many rural areas, Washington County has suffered high unemployment after a large mine closed. Because retail sales in local stores had dropped so sharply, the county program director, the contact person for this case, wondered whether many residents might be "outshopping"-making purchases in urban areas outside Washington County. From another university office, the county director had already acquired a set of data tables, with statistics such as "effective buying income" and "total retail sales." He realized these data were probably relevant to outshopping, but didn't know how the numbers were compiled or defined. We identified the data source as the Sales and Marketing Management (S&MM) magazine and found an issue explaining the statistics. We then conducted a library computer search, which uncovered a business journal article explaining how to use the S&MM data to study outshopping.2 Our analyses provided hard evidence that Washington, like other rural counties near metropolitan St. Louis, loses considerably more retail business to outshopping than rural counties not located near a large city. The library computer search also found some interesting articles about outshopping in general and about small rural towns that have successfully turned their economies around. These articles suggested some new ideas for revitalization strategies. The county director is now working with Washington County officials to develop a systematic plan for dealing with economic problems. Case #2: Maplewood Chamber of Commerce. This suburban St. Louis client needed demographic information to help in strategic planning for its "main street" business district. We conducted this project in 1988, when the 1980 Census was largely outdated. Because the 1990 Census data won't be available until at least 1992, finding substitute sources of up-to-date demographics was essential. For example, to estimate the current populations of the neighborhoods around the business district, the Urban Information Center used a statistical extrapolation from county housing data. Also, to compare levels of affluence in various neighborhoods, we compiled vehicle registration data on the average ages of automobiles. Some of the findings were relevant to Maplewood's efforts to attract new retailers to the business district. For example, data on changes in population and affluence since the 1980 Census showed that the Maplewood trade area compared favorably with other local business districts competing with Maplewood for new retailers. Case #3: Leander Lubricants, Inc. Leander is a small manufacturer of specialty oils used in metalworking industries. The owner requested information to help locate potential customers in his prime trade area, the Midwest. We provided computer-generated maps with shading patterns enabling managers to see, at a glance, the areas containing high concentrations of metalworking firms that buy Leander's products. The maps could help plot efficient travel routes for sales representatives, allowing them to call on many customers while containing travel costs. The maps were compiled from a business database maintained by the Census Bureau. From these demonstration cases, insights about the kinds of database information useful to small businesses and local governments were gained. Further, we learned how to organize and present the data in ways useful to such clients. In other words, it's not enough to get the right set of numbers; one must also turn the data into information. Information Handbook for Extension Specialists To help guide Extension specialists in providing information services to their clients, we've prepared a detailed handbook, entitled Information Services: How To Acquire Public Database Information and Make It Useful for Small Businesses and Government.3 Although intended to be self-explanatory, the handbook will also serve as the textbook for a new seminar that may become part of inservice training for Extension specialists in Missouri. The trained Extension personnel should be able to handle most of the secondary data needs of their clients. That is, they should be able to locate relevant secondary data, work with database suppliers, acquire statistics compiled in useful forms, and interpret the information for their clients. Sometimes, however, the Extension personnel may need help with the more technical aspects of secondary data. To provide such help, we hope to acquire funding for a part-time information specialist with expertise in demographic statistics and business research. This technical specialist would help Extension field personnel and clients with information needs on request. We've conducted one seminar for Extension specialists involved in economic development; the participants felt they'd need such technical assistance occasionally. When secondary data are compiled by a state data center or private data company, there are out-of-pocket costs to compensate the supplier for programming time, computer operations, and printouts. Such costs range from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the complexity of the request. While our grant covered these costs for the demonstration cases, in the future, clients will have to cover some or all of such costs. This poses a problem, since small organizations are unaccustomed to paying for a few pages of statistical tables and maps. Furthermore, the Extension specialist may spend considerable time working with the client to find relevant data, compile it, and derive strategic recommendations. Conclusion Several Extension educators maintain Extension should do more to aid small businesses.4 By training its staff in the use of secondary data, Extension can build its capacity to help small organizations gain the information edge. As one well-known writer who has studied business excellence observed, the most successful companies thrive on information.5 Although this project focused on small businesses, secondary data are relevant to virtually all Extension activities. Whether dealing with family issues, youth development, displaced workers, health problems, environmental quality, agricultural issues, or any other concerns, Extension personnel and their clients need to understand what the situation is now and how it has been changing. Secondary data, when converted to useful information, help provide that understanding. Moreover, encouraging the use of information can be viewed as the "core business" of Extension.6 Footnotes 1. J. Lynn Johnson and Ralph Kuehn, "The Small Business Owner/Manager's Search for External Information," Journal of Small Business Management, XXV (July 1987), 53-60. 2. Gary Brockway and W. Glynn Mangold, "The Sales Conversion Index: A Method for Analyzing Small Business Market Opportunities," Journal of Small Business Management, XXVI (April 1988), 38-48. 3. For information on ordering the handbook, contact University of Missouri-St. Louis, Center for Business and Industrial Studies, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO 63121-4999. 4. For example, William R. Bernhagen and Wesley T. Mott, "Small Business: An Opportunity for Extension," Journal of Extension, XXIV (Fall 1986), 8-10 and Thomas A. Henderson, "Should Business Be the 'Business' of Extension?" Journal of Extension, XXIV (Winter 1986), 23. 5. Robert H. Waterman, Jr., The Renewal Factor: How the Best Get and Keep the Competitive Edge (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1987). 6. Michael Quinn Patton, "Extension Excellence in the Information Age," Journal of Extension, XXIII (Summer 1985), 4-7.
Risk Management Education
Jean C. Buzby
Jerry R. Skees
Fred J. Benson The National Extension Initiatives emphasize efforts to increase profitability in U.S. agriculture. A component of "increasing profitability" involves efforts to protect profits from dropping to unacceptable levels. Even before the National Extension Initiatives, educational programs to help farmers make farm management decisions were increasing in importance. In part, this is because farmers have become more sophisticated managers relying more on various risk management strategies. In many cases, the choice and use of these risk management strategies are keys to farm survival. Given these concerns, a national survey was done to learn more about risk management education of county agricultural Extension agents. A nationwide survey of agents was conducted to determine county agents' views about farmers' understanding of different risk management strategies and to determine how agents differ in their knowledge and use of educational programming about risk management strategies. Survey Procedures A phone survey method was chosen due to its relative ease in administration, insensitivity to geographical dispersion of the respondents, and potential for a high response rate.1 The Census of Agriculture was used to create a sample of 1,100 counties which were in the top half of all U.S. counties in total crop acres; in terms of market value of all crops sold; and in corn, wheat, and soybean production. The 1,100 counties represent at least 90% of the total U.S. crop value. This selection process focused the survey on crop production counties where risk management strategies would be most needed. Of the 1,100 counties selected, 500 were randomly drawn from the survey. The sampling frame of nearly 46% (500 of 1,100 counties) is highly representative of the views of county agents in the top crop counties, but may not be representative of all agricultural agents in the nation. The Survey Research Center at the University of Kentucky conducted the survey. Of 504 agent contacts, 468 were completed, resulting in a response rate of 93%. The phone surveyor asked to speak to the Extension agent whose area of expertise was in crops. A screening question required agents to have at least three years of work experience in the county, thus ensuring the respondents were familiar with the local situation. Of the 468 agents surveyed, 93% had a farm background, 75% had a graduate degree, and 66% had a degree in agronomy, animal sciences, or agricultural education. The survey focused on nine risk management strategies: hedging using the futures markets; price options on commodity futures contracts; cash forward contracting; government commodity programs; timing of sales from storage; multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI);2 crop, hail, and fire insurance; diversification to reduce risk; and alternative land tenure arrangements. Questions about the agents' knowledge of risk management strategies were scaled with five degrees of comfort. For example, agents were asked to "please give me a number from 1 to 5, where 1 means you have 'no knowledge' and 5 means you have a 'complete working knowledge.' " To summarize the results and provide a comparison between strategies, the responses were scaled down by a constant value of 3. Then an average was taken for each strategy after the questions were rated on a -2 to +2 scale where -2 corresponded to the "no knowledge" response and +2 to the "complete working knowledge" response. This was done to emphasize the neutral position, which was assigned a zero. Results The first group of questions assessed the county agents' knowledge of the nine risk management strategies and their perceptions of farmers' knowledge. Not surprisingly, agents generally believed they were more knowledgeable than the farmers in their counties. Using the average response for each strategy, Figure 1 shows county agents felt they had the most knowledge about diversification, alternative land tenure arrangements, cash forwarding, commodity programs, and timing of sales. They indicated less knowledge of hedging and options. Most felt they understood the concept of MPCI, but didn't understand it in depth. 
Figure 1. Agent knowledge of risk management strategies. When agents rated the knowledge farmers had about the risk management strategies, the same directional patterns emerged (Figure 2). The agents felt farmers understood commodity programs and alternative land tenure the best. They didn't feel comfortable about farmers knowledge of MPCI. 
Figure 2. Farmer knowledge of risk management strategies. Figure 3 indicates those risk management strategies agents felt should receive more educational emphasis. The four that ranked highest in terms of need were hedging, options, timing of sales, and diversification. The ratings indicate agents believed diversification needs more emphasis than MPCI, even though they also indicated farmers were more knowledgeable about diversification than MPCI. This may reflect the relative importance agents place on diversification. 
Figure 3. Need for education of risk management strategies. County agents were also questioned on the relative effectiveness of methods for delivering risk management strategies. Agents felt the most effective delivery method was one-on-one contact between Extension agent and farmer. Three other methods they felt were effective were informal interactions between farmers, teaching or conducting county producer meetings, and use of state specialists. In contrast, most felt that news articles, TV, radio, and other media programs weren't effective delivery methods. When agents were asked if they felt qualified to teach the nine risk management strategies, the responses ranged from 26% who said they felt qualified to teach MPCI to 88% who felt qualified to teach diversification. Table 1 shows the percent of agents who have attended, taught, or provided risk management training in the past three years and the percent of agents who feel qualified to teach the risk management strategies. The focus of comments is on agents conducting county producer meetings or setting up meetings for teaching by Extension and research specialists. Eighty percent of the agents had conducted or provided some form of risk management education in the past three years. The percent of agents who had conducted or provided training ranged from 19% for crop, hail, and fire insurance to 66% for diversification.
In addition, 84% of the agents had attended some form of risk management training in the past three years. The range in the percent of agents who had attended is similar to that found in the statistics for conducting programs on risk management strategies. In other research designed to predict the probability that an agent had conducted training on a specific strategy, the training the agent received in that strategy was the most consistent explanatory variable.3 This demonstrates the importance of agent training in influencing agent programs. Strengthening Risk Management Education This study demonstrated that agents are comfortable with many of the basic strategies farmers use for risk management. However, agents feel the least qualified to offer educational programs on the futures markets and crop insurance. Both of these strategies should become more important as recent changes in U.S. agricultural policy, such as the move to flexible base in the 1990 Farm Bill, increase the risk for crop farmers. Only one out of four felt comfortable teaching MPCI. Although 27% of the agents had attended MPCI training in the past three years, most still didn't feel qualified to teach the subject. This was particularly true in the southern region of the country. This finding indicates educational efforts on MPCI need to be more intensive or more frequent. Further education may enhance the agents' view that MPCI is an effective risk management option and encourage them to convey this attitude to farmers. These conclusions support agent beliefs that the best way to increase MPCI participation is to increase farmer education on overall risk, risk management, and MPCI. The survey also indicated a strong need for educational emphasis on hedging and options. These strategies were rated as the least understood by agents and farmers. This means more agent training is needed on on these strategies before agents can teach them. A need for educational emphasis on diversification was also indicated, even though agents feel they understand diversification. This means that agents can teach farmers about diversification without much additional training. Conclusions With limited funding and Extension personnel, which educational programs should be targeted for increased emphasis to support National Initiatives? In the case of agricultural profitability, answering this question requires a thorough understanding of how farmers perceive risk and their reasons for making certain farm-level decisions. It also requires an understanding of how information flows among farmers, Extension agents, and Extension and research specialists. The survey focused on differences in agents' knowledge and their perceptions of farmers' knowledge of risk management strategies. Future Extension educational efforts should focus on strategies farmers are requesting most frequently and what part the farmer's risk preferences and level of knowledge of risk management strategies have in the overall picture. Surveys such as this can be used by Extension personnel to identify gaps in knowledge and agent training needs in particular counties. This process has broad application to other initiatives and Extension subjects. The survey instrument can be a strong tool for efficiently directing funds to those areas that most need educational emphasis. Footnotes 1. Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978). 2. Multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI) refers to federally subsidized insurance supported by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and marketed through private reinsurance companies. 3. Fred J. Benson, Jean C. Buzby, and Jerry R. Skees, Explaining Differences Among County Extension Agents' Knowledge and Attitudes About Risk Management Strategies (Lexington: University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper #310, October 1991).
Successful Mentoring for New Agents
Bruce P. Zimmer
Keith L. Smith Building helping relationships is a critical rung on the career development ladder for new employees. Most organizations use an orientation program to help with the process of integrating personally and professionally into the organization. Increasingly, organizations are using the benefits of mentoring as a part of the orientation process. Many state Extension Services have incorporated mentoring relationships into traditional training and development programs because mentoring objectives can be effectively accomplished in a relatively short period of time. Need for Mentoring New employees have the potential to become the new life and energy of any organization. Nurturing this energy is important if organizations want to keep new agents from being overwhelmed. New agents enter Extension with novel ideas and a vision of improved programs. This abundant energy is quickly diminished as the new agent becomes "spread thin" among organizational, administrative, and clientele expectations-not to mention personal, family, career, and professional obligations. Mentoring isn't a quick fix for personnel orientation. However, it does offer an open door for mentors to become an influential sounding board of professional expertise. Since Ohio mentors aren't assigned proteges they directly supervise within the Extension Service, proteges view mentors as trustful and open. Mentoring research1 has linked successful relationships to employees who were relatively new to their jobs. Therefore, the success and impact of a mentor relationship weighs heavily on the mentor to be readily accessible to the protege when questions arise and help is needed. Mentoring has been defined most often by focusing on behaviors mentors perform: teaching, guiding, advising, counseling, sponsoring, role modeling, validating, motivating, protecting, and communicating.2 Once a mentor relationship has begun, the mentor provides the informal link between the protege and organizational expectations. Mentors are the key to successful relationships because mentors support, challenge, and provide vision to their proteges.3 Mentoring in Ohio Extension The mentoring system for Ohio Extension was developed in 1983 as a supplement to orientation activities provided during the agent's first year of employment. To establish the system, all Extension agents were asked to identify three peers to be considered as mentors. Nominations were based on personality characteristics and technical expertise. A point system was established in which nominations from peers outside the named agent's geographical and program area received higher point values. This allowed an agent with widespread recognition to be ranked higher than the agent whose reputation was limited to a specific geographical area or subject-matter program. Nominees with the highest points were selected as mentors. They were then assigned to proteges based on geographical location, program area, and particular needs of the new agents.4 Evaluating the System The program was evaluated after the first full year of its existence. Enough positive feedback was obtained to continue the program. In 1989, after five years, a comprehensive study was undertaken to determine satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the program. For this study, the 60 mentors and 60 proteges who had completed a one-year team relationship were surveyed using mail questionnaires designed by the researchers. Reliability of the instruments was established using a test/re-test procedure and validated for content by faculty at Ohio State University. Responses were received from 58 of the 60 mentors (96.7%) and 57 of the 60 proteges (95.0%). The 20 female and 38 male mentors had an average age of 44. The mentors averaged 18 years in Extension work and 14 years in their present position. Proteges in the study consisted of 32 females and 25 males with an average age of 34. Their length of employment at the time of this study averaged four years in Extension work and two years in their current positions. The mentor/protege teams met an average of three times for a total average time together of 15 hours. The mentor's county office or protege's county office was the location for the majority of these meetings. During the one year length of the program, home economics mentors spent significantly more hours mentoring (23.8 hours) than agriculture (13.9 hours) or 4-H mentors (11.2 hours). As mentors and proteges spent more time mentoring, they felt the success of their mentoring experience increased. The findings also indicated that mentors must be able and willing to commit the needed extra time to the relationship. Some of the proteges commented that their mentors were either too busy or not interested in carrying out the relationship. Once the mentor and protege were paired by the OCES state leader of Personnel Development, mentors were asked to make the initial contact with their assigned protege. According to study results, over 25% of the relationships were initiated by the protege. On a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, mentors and proteges "agreed" (mentors = 6.5, proteges = 6.1) that their communication was open. Openness of the communication atmosphere entails the presence of a calm and relaxed interaction period between the mentor and protege. Both groups believed this was a key factor related to a successful mentoring experience. The mentors and proteges were asked to list what they perceived as the five most important outcomes the protege gained from the mentoring meetings. The four outcomes listed most frequently by proteges were the same as those listed most frequently by the mentors (see Table 1). Both groups perceived program planning ideas, knowledge of Extension policy and procedures, expertise from the mentor, gaining a friend, and knowledge of available resources as important outcomes.
Perceived Relationship Success More than 90% of the mentors reported their mentoring experience was successful, and 70% of the proteges indicated a successful experience. The dependent variable of perceived success was correlated with the characteristics of the study to identify possible relationships. As noted in Table 2, "Understanding of Extension organization" correlated highly to the success of the mentoring experience for proteges. Openness of communication, program planning skills, and hours of mentoring were also correlated with perceived success. The low correlation for the variable of initiator of the relationships, while not statistically large, may have some practical significance. The negative relationship suggests proteges may view the mentoring relationship as less successful if they're forced to make the original contact.
For mentors, perceived success correlated with protege program planning skills, hours of mentoring, and the protege's understanding of the OCES. Recommendations Based on this study, the following recommendations were made to the Ohio CES and may apply to other Extension mentoring programs:
Summary New personnel are interested in building mentoring relationships that will benefit them personally and professionally, while gaining knowledge about the Extension organization. The mentor brings to the relationship expertise, ideas, feedback, and friendship. With proper guidance, structure, and encouragement, a successful mentoring system can be established and maintained. The key to success may ultimately be the selection and training of mentors who are willing to commit the time necessary to build an open and trusting relationship. Footnotes 1. B. Kaye, "Career Development Puts Training in Its Place," Personnel Journal, LXII (No. 2, 1983), 132-37. 2. D. Lea and Z. B. Leibowitz, "A Mentor: Would You Know One If You Saw One?" Supervisory Management, XXVIII (No. 3, 1983), 32- 35. 3. L. A. Daloz, Affective Teaching and Mentoring (San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1986). 4. K. L. Smith and W. E. Beckley, "Mentoring: Is It for Extension?" Journal of Extension, XXIII (Fall 1985), 21-24.
Land-Grant Mission RevisitedThe Summer 1991 issue of your Journal has an interesting article by Richard Fowler on "Conflicts of Interest and the Land- Grant Mission." His article confirms to me that U.S. Extension agents have a limited knowledge of what's going on in other countries, as he doesn't discuss a number of issues, which are considered important elsewhere and might also be relevant in the USA, such as:
A. W. van den Ban
Seeking a Mature Relationship with Agriculture
Peter D. Bloome Extension and commercial agriculture have matured together. The discovery and subsequent adoption of new technology by American agriculture, with increases in productivity, constitute a remarkable story of success. Farm population fell from 30% of the U.S. population in 1914 to less than two percent at present, constituting the greatest human migration in our nation's history. This migration was made possible, and necessary, by the huge increase in the productivity of American agriculture. Extension and commercial agriculture are now seeking a relationship more appropriate to the changing social, environmental, and technological context of American agriculture. A part of that changing context was expressed in 1987 by Keith Bjerke, a North Dakota farmer and currently administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. In testimony before the Extension Futures Task Force, Bjerke said, "I'm afraid that the time has already arrived when the innovative farmer no longer depends on his County Extension agent for timely information."1 Extension No Longer Needed? Some farmers go further than Bjerke and suggest they no longer need Extension. Those of us in the organization usually respond by pointing out the many indirect paths by which we channel important information to farmers. Much of the information conveyed by the farm press and farm-supply industries originates from Extension. Extension wholesales information to many retailers. While this is undeniably true, two other responses to the question of agriculture's continuing need for Extension are also appropriate. One response is to suggest this is an important sign of Extension's success. It was never our intention to make farmers depend on Extension. On the contrary, we have delivered educational programs to farmers with the goal of making them independent of us. To the extent that these farmers, our adult co -learners, are now able to independently seek information, interpret that information to their own situation, and, as a result, make better management decisions, we've been successful. We should now ask them to release us so we can do the same for others. Yet another appropriate response can be made to farmers who declare they no longer need Extension. Baloney! American agriculture, in all its parts, desperately needs to develop and implement strategic plans to reposition the industry with respect to the global marketplace and the social and environmental context within which it will operate. In this effort, American agriculture needs the applied research and Extension functions of the land-grant system as never before. Society has become much more involved in determining how agriculture will be practiced. Taxpayers and consumers are as interested in the integrity of the environment and the aesthetics of the countryside as they are in assuring the domestic food supply. Farmers who say they have no further need of Extension are stuck in an old paradigm. Public Policy Education In delivering educational programs to farmers, Extension has traditionally confined itself to the private accounting system of the market economy. It's now challenged to help farmers understand the more complex public accounting system. Soil fertility offers a good example. How much nitrogen fertilizer to use, in what form, and how and when to apply it, has usually hinged on profitability. If expected marginal returns provided a reasonable rate of return above marginal costs, the investment in additional fertilizer was considered sound. We now recognize two important external factors: the amount of nonrenewable energy required to produce, store, transport, and apply the fertilizer (that is, the full costs of fossil energy aren't being paid) and the risk that some of the nitrogen will find its way into private or public water supplies. What was previously a straightforward topic of production agriculture has now become a public policy issue. Hildreth of the Farm Foundation points out that such issues require Extension to follow the definition/alternatives/consequences approach in delivering objective educational programs.2 Apologetic and advocacy positions should be avoided. Formulating Extension recommendations is much more complex when they're surrounded by public policy issues. Private vs Public Benefit In the early years of this century, it was easy to recognize the benefits of Extension educational programs to farmers, their families, and rural communities as human development in the national interest. In the 1990s, it will be more difficult to defend the delivery of firm-specific management information to large commercial farms as being of primarily public benefit, the costs of which should be borne by the public. In fact, it's the private value of this information that has given rise to growing private sector sources. Consultants from a number of fields, together with the farm-supply industries, general farm and commodity organizations, and the farm press routinely deliver information to farmers that was previously delivered primarily by Extension. In addition, a number of state and federal agencies have now declared their own role in education. It has been observed that "Extension now has competitors in the information delivery business." Surely this is an oxymoron. Extension must be competitive in acquiring the resources necessary to carry out its unique mission and it must be competitive in hiring and rewarding a competent and innovative staff. However, in its unique educational role, Extension can't be competitive; it can only cooperate. When some other individual or organization seeks to deliver information to an audience presently served by Extension, the Extension role immediately changes to one of helping the new entity deliver high quality, objective information to the audience. The public isn't inclined to pay Extension to compete, either with the private sector or with other agencies. The cooperative approach won't put Extension out of business. On the contrary, this approach will serve to redefine Extension's future. As Extension cooperates with and supports other information providers, the proper applied research and Extension education role for the land-grant system will become evident and political support for that role will grow. The crop consulting industry offers an example. Extension has worked for more than 20 years to develop and support this fledgling industry. Suppose now that all farmers decided to employ a crop consulting service and that the supply of consultants is sufficient to meet the demand. Would this spell the end of Extension's programs in crop development and pest management? Just the opposite. Extension would be very busy providing professional development and training to the consultants and their staffs, working with consultants to develop the next generation of products and services to be offered to farmers, and providing education to farmers enabling them to make best use of the products and services of the consultants. Rather than representing a competitive threat, each emerging information provider presents an opportunity for Extension to rediscover and fulfill its unique educational role. A More Mature Relationship Agriculture has been described as a mature industry. If Extension is to achieve a relationship with agriculture that's more in keeping with the maturity of the industry, the following must happen:
Footnotes 1. Keith Bjerke, Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Reality (Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, 1987), p. 15. 2. R. J. Hildreth, speech given at the National Invitational Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee, April 3-5, 1991.
Mature Relationship Requires Shifting Resources
George R. McDowell Bloome's article is thoughtful and useful in the growing discussion about the future direction of Extension, and more particularly, about the relationship with commercial agriculture. The situation he describes of only two percent of Americans engaged in farming and of many commercial farmers bypassing Extension as a source of information is undeniable. The adjustments suggested by Bloome confirm a growing awareness about the changing character and needs of commercial agriculture and appropriate ways of reaching this important group of farmers.1 Extension must continue to "wholesale" its information products as new entrants in the farm information market become active and provide new ways of reaching farm groups. Indeed, as Bloome points out, any reading of the farm press will reveal that much of the contents of those publications is from Extension specialists, albeit from several states. That only reinforces the need for increasingly specialized information and that county level agricultural generalists may no longer be a relevant source for commercial farmers. The full implications of Bloome's point about the changing political economy are important to re-emphasize and examine more carefully. In public policy education, it's inappropriate for Extension to make a final outcome recommendation. While the alternatives/consequences methodology of public policy education isn't the exclusive domain of economists, most public policy questions have considerable economic content. Yet, many of our staff have little training in this way of thinking. Unfortunately, farmers often look to Extension to be advocates for them in the public policy process. Many Extension staff comply, sometimes knowingly, mostly unwittingly. Indeed, as I argued elsewhere, part of what's at the root of the declining fortunes of Extension is the degree to which it has been captured and held hostage by agricultural interests.2 Advocacy has real costs to those who would be viewed as objective educators! The land-grant support to agriculture has always been justified on the grounds of a larger public purpose, even though there are considerable private benefits to farmers as well. Increased productivity in the sector that employed as many as 30% of all workers wasn't difficult to justify-the current numbers change that argument. Industries that are "atomistic" in nature, with many relatively small firms, have great difficulty in organizing their own research and development. Thus, without public funding, agricultural research and Extension wouldn't be done. A commercial agriculture of even one million farms won't be much more likely to directly support its own research and development than it was in the past. The issue isn't affordability, but whether there would be so many free riders that the private financing wouldn't be forthcoming. Even the "checkoff" programs haven't overcome that problem. Inexpensive and safe food to consumers is another major category of benefits, with increasing emphasis on the "safe food." In making this case, Bloome conveys the sense that all that's needed to make these well-reasoned changes is for Extension to act. If there is a public benefit or public purpose, Extension should do it. If not, then don't. I believe this glosses over some really tough implications. For example, Extension wants to be successful in the competition for public dollars. That competition gets played out in a political marketplace that we describe with terms like "audience support," "contacts," and a variety of other activities central to the institutional maintenance part of our jobs. Soil testing is the classic example of retaining an activity for its political impact that we could approach quite differently if we weren't competing for public funds. Making the changes that are implied by Bloome's article are likely to outrage both Extension staff and farm interests because his suggestion for "a mature relationship" implies the use of substantially different kinds of resources. From my perspective, it also implies a major shift of resources away from commercial agriculture to be able to compete in the political marketplace for continued public dollars. Without such shifts in resources, without new support, Extension won't be able to serve anyone at all. The shifts in resources will require not just the acquiescence of farm and agricultural interests, but their strong endorsement on grounds of their own self-interest. Does anyone see that kind of visionary leadership on the agricultural horizon? Footnotes 1. See, for example, David M. Kohl, Leonard A. Shabman, and Herbert H. Stoevener, "Agricultural Transition: Its Implications for Agricultural Economics Extension in the Southeast," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics , XIX (July 1987), 35-43. 2. George McDowell, "The USDA and the Extension System Revisited or If You Haven't Visited Extension Recently, You Better Do It Soon, Cause It Isn't Going To Be There Long" (Paper presented to the National Invitational Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee, April 3-5, 1991).
The Challenge Within
Orrin E. Smith Bloome offers two responses to the question of whether commercial agriculture continues to need Extension. While I might not choose to use the name of a well-known lunch meat to describe my response to such a question, I'd support his second hypothesis. That is to say, the farmers, ranchers, and woodlot managers who make up American agriculture face a difficult task of survival in a world of increasing public scrutiny. The issues are no longer just production efficiency, rather they're an increasingly complex matrix often referred to as sustainability. This matrix includes expectations that agriculture will be environmentally sound, humanly safe, bureaucratically regulated, politically controlled (export quotas), and strongly influenced by world markets. To continue to help American agriculture, Extension must move rapidly into this complex arena often called public policy education. At the same time, we must be able to maintain the research-based credibility on which we've built our success. I believe one of the greatest obstacles to overcome lies not with our agricultural public, but within our own university systems. Becoming involved in issues-based education requires flexibility in bringing together faculty resources that will challenge our traditional departmental and college "boxes." We need faculty from a broad spectrum of disciplines talking and working together to apply their disciplines to the problem. Yet, as a general rule this isn't happening. Department-based faculty seem pre-occupied with their own disciplines. Further, administrators of these units appear driven by the need to protect their discipline. Let's hope the Pogo philosophy, "We have met the enemy and they are us" doesn't apply to Extension's ability to respond. If we can overcome the challenge within, we have much to offer commercial agriculture.
Information Without the Transfer-A Common Problem?
Ross Hartley
Peter Hayman Publicly funded agricultural extension in Australia is undergoing major change both in direction and practice, reflecting the worldwide downsizing of agriculture and related industries. The traditional role of extension officers is changing too, from being one of problem solving to more educational and motivational, away from giving one-on-one advice to farmers. Some remarkable successes have occurred in changing farmer behavior using the traditional model, and some failures. Take wheat for example: recommendations about new varieties and herbicides tend to be readily adopted by farmers. On the other hand, recommendations concerning fertilizer use, crop rotations, and tillage practices aren't. The former are reasonably simple, low-risk changes in farming practice requiring little more than the information itself for the desired change to occur. The latter, by contrast, require motivational and educational aspects in addition to the information. Information Transfer Sub-optimal success with information transfer lies partly with the concept of the transfer as an agricultural problem. Clearly, it's not. Most extension staff in Australia, while well- versed in their subject matter, often lack expertise in how best to transfer the information. A recent national survey of extension officers1 found only 50% perceived themselves as competent in adult education and 51% as competent to evaluate extension principles. By contrast, 86% perceived themselves as competent in industry issues. Unless we view information transfer as communication and marketing, and act accordingly, the future for extension may simply repeat the past. This is especially important in Australia where the farming community has relatively low levels of education despite being arguably one of the more efficient in the world. Estimates suggest that only 25% of farmers are secondary school graduates compared with 50% in New Zealand and 90% in Europe.2 In the first national survey of adult literacy in Australia, 48% couldn't identify correctly the child's dosage on a package of headache tablets; 70% scored poorly in comprehending a newspaper editorial.3 The survey concluded that adults who didn't read in their occupation generally didn't read much at all. The distribution of farmer literacy is probably bimodal, which has implications for information transfer methodology. In view of these literacy problems, we've been advocating all extension material be written using plain English.4 A simple enough philosophy, yet one not readily adopted.5 Publications should be written with the user in mind so clients can understand what they read, whether the subject matter is basic or complex. Without a sound basis for understanding the subject matter, new information is difficult to comprehend. Farmers, like the rest of us, often don't know what information they ought to be seeking simply because of the lack of a basic understanding of the subject. In cognitive psychology, these basic understandings, or mental structures, are referred to as schemata. Without doubt, part of the present problem is the assumption that practitioners and clients share common schemata. Often, this isn't the case, with serious consequences on the efficacy of information transfer. A Changing System Resources for extension are declining, as are the numbers of frontline extension staff. This is true of agribusiness-based extension also. This is happening at a time when research and development corporations are demanding better and more effective information transfer. Such bodies invest millions each year in agricultural research and are increasingly looking to fund extension as well; they take the view that research encompasses more than running experiments and publishing results. If a message that benefits the whole community must be told, as do most agricultural extension messages, then we ought to tell it in ways that sell the message. This means uniting groups of people with diverse interests in the subject, combining limited resources for the common good, and being aware of information transfer problems. Operation Quality Wheat-Testing New Methods Operation Quality Wheat (OQW) is an innovative example of an extension program in New South Wales. The program involves agribusiness, institutional agriculture, and the various industry bodies associated with wheat growing, uniting for a common purpose. It takes a refreshing approach to motivating and educating farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. OQW is targeting cereal farmers to:
One of the essential OQW messages directed to farmers is to use legumes (grain or pasture) in intelligent crop rotation with cereals, to rejuvenate exhausted wheat soils, and so improve yields. By chance, 1991 provided an ideal economic climate in which to transfer the legume message since projected low wheat prices for the season made wheat growing unprofitable for many farmers. Commodity prices for sheep, beef, and wool were equally unattractive, so growing a grain legume was one of the few viable cropping options. And, we found many farmers were actively seeking information on growing legumes, a fairly remarkable change in farmer behavior. With all OQW literature and communications, our aim is to provide user-friendly information. Our first objective is always to entice clients to seek the information we wish extended. The second is to deliver the information in ways that make its assimilation and recall easier. The initial task was to produce a legume test kit for evaluation by the farmers, the potential users of our end product. The test kit contained a 40-minute audiocassette on legume facts and a 19-page booklet about rejuvenating wheat soils with legumes. Both items were in plain English and aimed toward educating farmers about the basics of legumes and motivating them to think of incorporating legumes into their cropping sequences. The need for basic, as opposed to more sophisticated, information had been highlighted a few months earlier when randomly selected farmers were interviewed at a regional field day. There was widescale misunderstanding about what legumes were and what they did, which possibly explains the reluctance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
