Volume 31 Number 3
|
Fall 1993 Volume 31 Number 3 |
|
|
Attitudes: Theirs, Yours, and OursAt first glance, the feature articles in this issue of the Journal couldn't be more different from each other. They cover subject matter ranging from family life and youth to forestry and agriculture, describe Extension work in rural and urban areas, and treat internal and external organizational development issues. But far more intriguing than their differences is a common underlying focus on attitudes found in all but one of these articles. An attitude can be defined as a mental state, emotion, or disposition. The primary way to discern people's attitudes is by the opinions they express-their judgments, evaluations, impressions, or estimations about something. And while we like to think our business is educating and informing, these articles underscore the fact Extension professionals must also be in the business of creating, influencing, and attending to our own attitudes and those of others. The issue begins with a dialogue in the To the Point section about the image crisis facing the land grant system. A public that doesn't know or care enough about Extension to even form attitudes or express opinions isn't inclined to support its existence. Dave King, agricultural communications head at Purdue, lays out the parameters of the problem and argues for a national cooperative effort to promote the Extension and Experiment Station Systems and erase the image deficit. Paul Warner, associate director in Kentucky, responds that while Extension and research can work closely together, each must also establish its unique identity. In the second response, David Jenkins, of North Carolina, notes that one of the major impediments to success is a lingering attitude among some faculty and administrators against marketing and image-building efforts. It appears both public attitudes and those internal to Extension must be a concern if the image crisis is to be resolved. The need to attend to attitudes as part of making organizational changes is implicit in two feature articles. Rockwell and her co-authors report on a series of studies that tracked the reactions of clientele groups and staff to restructuring of Extension county units in Nebraska. In Louisiana, Baker and Verna surveyed Extension lay leaders and agents to find out what they think about issues programming and discovered ways to strengthen the process. As these articles demonstrate, Extension's long-term success in creating new organizational structures and methods of operation will be determined by the attitudes of clientele and Extension faculty alike. How Extension professionals' attitudes toward clientele groups influence their programming is also examined in the Journal. Astroth cites evidence from a literature review to argue against the popular culture's negative attitudes toward teenagers and the reflection of those attitudes in Extension youth development programs. An article by Extension educators from Illinois shows that attitudes fostered by the "expert" model of helping can be counterproductive in working with limited-resource families and demonstrates an alternative approach. In both cases, the interaction between educators' attitudes and their effectiveness is the concern. Finally, this issue offers two examples of Extension educational programs explicitly directed toward changing attitudes. In their article on building a forest stewardship ethic, Jones and Findley describe a process of constructing a program to promote positive attitudes toward forest management among forest landowners and the public. Taking the animal rights issue as a starting point, Goodwin's article demonstrates how presentation of contrasting viewpoints in an educational program can moderate attitudes on controversial matters. Both these articles address the need for Extension teaching methods that reflect greater understanding of public attitude formation and change. Although you'll find a variety of articles in this issue, their underlying theme seems strikingly similar. It's simply that from the survival of the Extension System to individual educational programs, the attitudes of our clientele, publics, and Extension staff are critical. To ignore attitudes will be perilous; to understand them will surely help Extension become a more responsive and effective organization. EMR
Editorial Committees and BoardExtension 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.
James Summers, president, Missouri, North Central Directors
Emmalou Norland, Columbus, Ohio, chairperson Public Forest Stewardship Ethic
Stephen B. Jones
James C. Finley The national Forest Stewardship Program offers Extension professionals an opportunity to interact with a largely untapped audience, eight million people strong, that's becoming increasingly important. These people own the nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs), which constitute 58% of the nation's forest acreage. Their willingness and ability to manage their forestlands for long-term, multiple benefits is key to the preservation of forests as a sustainable and necessary resource, both for themselves and for society at large-a fact that was pivotal in the creation of the national Forest Stewardship Program under the 1990 Farm Bill. Timber is a strategic national economic resource and forests are an essential cultural resource for wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, water and biological diversity. Industry-owned lands are already producing timber at near capacity, while the government is under increasing pressure to reduce timber production on public lands, which transfers the burden to NIPFs. Yet, these forests are generally poorly managed for meeting society's long-term demand for products and amenities. Thus, the Forest Stewardship Program's goal is to bring an additional 25 million acres of NIPFs under stewardship management within five years. Federal Expectations The 1990 Farm Bill established a U.S. Forest Service state partnership, through which federal dollars are used in the states to encourage landowners to develop and follow forest stewardship plans. A cost-share incentive program can be applied to the full array of management activities, including developing a stewardship plan. Annual acreage targets and a prescribed framework for program delivery, overseen by a state forester, characterize the Forest Service's expectations for state stewardship program development. The Forest Service strongly recommends technical service delivery to landowners through traditional methods of one -on-one technical help. However, Marty observed that in the Northeast, available resources are simply inadequate to serve the needs of NIPF landowners in this way.1 The fact that a stewardship program is badly needed suggests that traditional approaches encouraging NIPF owners to practice sound forestry haven't worked. Pennsylvania's NIPF Situation One-half million people own Pennsylvania's 12 million acres of nonindustrial private forests. Average length of ownership is less than 15 years, resulting in nearly 33,000 new forestland owners annually! Lack of knowledge about forestry is pervasive among forestland owners. Regulations governing forestry practices, other than those protecting water quality, are nonexistent and no professional certification or licensing procedure for professional foresters exists. Only an estimated 10% of Pennsylvania's NIPFs are covered by written forest management plans and less than 20% of the timber harvesting from them is supervised by a professional forester. Because NIPFs in Pennsylvania supply about 80% of the raw material for the nation's largest hardwood industry, the potential for long-term forest resource degradation is high. The urgency of this situation prompted Penn-sylvania's statewide Forest Stewardship Steering Committee (which includes Extension specialists) to go beyond the traditional approach recommended by the Forest Service. The committee's goal was to formulate a program that would raise the level of forestry awareness of all citizens, while also delivering technical services to individual NIPF landowners. In effect, this "new approach" in forestry reflects the essence of Extension philosophy and practice. Program Philosophy Pennsylvania's program is rooted in the belief that landowners will neither develop nor implement a plan that has long-term meaning for them unless they've embraced a forest stewardship ethic. That requires an educational outreach program to help them learn more about their unique relationship to the land, their neighbors, society, and the future. In designing the program, the advisory committee recognized the need to inform the general citizenry as well as landowners. Landowners need widespread support for their forest management objectives because public opinion has increasing influence over land management policies and practices. The committee also found that both forestland owners and the public share misconceptions about timber harvesting, an essential tool of forest management. When asked in a recent statewide survey, most landowners and general public respondents agreed that timber harvesting usually results in soil erosion, muddy streams, permanent loss of forest cover, and destruction of wildlife habitat.2 These widely held beliefs may result from personal observation of poor timber harvesting practices as well as lack of knowledge about the actual consequences of properly managed harvesting. Diffusion of Innovation Rogers and Shoemaker's diffusion of innovation concept served as the model for Pennsylvania's program, which included the classic three phases of awareness, knowledge, and adoption.3 Awareness Given that one in 10 Pennsylvania households owns forestland and the high turnover rate among owners, mass media was selected as the primary means for providing landowners and the public with a rudimentary understanding of forest stewardship. Television and radio advertisements and public service announcements reached all major market areas of the state during an eight-week period in Spring 1992. Additional awareness efforts included the use of newspaper and magazine feature articles and news releases, the appearance of forest stewardship spokespeople on television and radio programs, exhibits, and a poster. The awareness messages employed a visually or verbally friendly, low- key approach to inform audiences of the multiple benefits forests provide for everyone, stressed the need for informed management practices to maintain forests as a renewable resource, and offered a toll-free number answered at Penn State that people could call to learn more about Pennsylvania's Forest Stewardship Program. A four-color brochure with general information about the program was also published and distributed widely. People who call the toll-free number receive the brochure, which features a tear-off panel to mail in for more information. Respondents supply their name, address, and forest ownership status (if a forest owner, how many acres and in what county). Returned tear- off panels contribute to a database of actual or potential forest stewards in target audiences. Knowledge The knowledge component of the program targets landowners and others who commonly make or influence forestry decisions, such as natural resource professionals, loggers, and local and state lawmakers. Goals were to develop and disseminate information to instill a stewardship ethic among these audiences. The approach was to provided incentives for good management practices through public support and to emphasize the practical, economic, and environmental benefits of sound forest management ("What's in it for me?"). Program materials and delivery mechanisms included landowner workshops, a quarterly newsletter, technical bulletins, county landowner associations, direct mail, logger training and certification, service provider training, a volunteer recruitment and training program, and video productions. By June 1992, more than 4,000 names, mostly NIPF owners who had either sent in the brochure tear-off or attended a workshop, had been entered into the state's forest stewardship database. The Forest Stewardship Quarterly was sent to all names in the database. People identified as NIPF owners were referred to their Bureau of Forestry district office. A service forester called, then visited the landowners, conducting the initial step of the adoption phase. Adoption The federally mandated measure of program accomplishment is acres reported under forest stewardship management plans. Service foresters, with help from trained volunteers, contacted landowners, urging them to adopt a stewardship plan and telling them how to secure incentive program cost-share dollars to support the cost of preparing and implementing the plan. A natural resource manager (foresters, wildlife biologists, and other specialists as needed) followed up on the initial landowner contact and prepared the stewardship management plan on a fee basis. Pennsylvania will try to meet the target acreage within the five-year time frame. But because the program began with broad- based awareness and educational effort, the acreage brought under management plans won't be distributed evenly over the 1990-1995 period. The first acres were, in fact, not reported until June 1992. However, awareness and education, as well as time for an individual's stewardship ethic to mature, are essential to landowners developing an effective, long-term stewardship management plan. Public Education Approach Pennsylvania's approach to the national Forest Stewardship Program has differed from the singular path suggested (if not mandated) by Congress and the Forest Service. Pennsylvania is second only to New York in terms of both acreage target and Forest Service dollars committed. The program's public education techniques are untested, at least on a massive scale, in the forest resources arena. More than 20 months into the program, no acres were reported. Pennsylvania's contractual linkage to Penn State Cooperative Extension for the awareness and knowledge components is unprecedented. The Forest Service is genuinely anxious about the potential for Congressional criticism, especially if a sufficient number of acres aren't soon brought under stewardship management. Although viewed with skepticism by the Forest Service, the Pennsylvania program has been greeted with enthusiasm by other state forestry agencies and Extension Services. More than a dozen states have inquired about adopting Pennsylvania's television advertisements. Early results from our survey of the general public and NIPF owners support Pennsylvania's approach. Ninety-eight percent of all respondents agreed that "people need more information on how to take better care of forests." Interestingly, while 77% of the general public respondents believe "government cost sharing," a major federal Forest Stewardship vehicle, is an effective forest management promotion strategy, only 43% of NIPF owners agreed. This suggests landowners may inherently distrust programs perceived to have government strings attached. By contrast, 99% of the general public and 98% of landowners feel education is an effective forest management promotion strategy.4 The need for, and rationale behind, a forest resources Extension program is evident. Expanded Extension Role Pennsylvania's Forest Stewardship Program demonstrates the essential role Extension philosophy and practice can play in implementing natural resources programming. Extension is a major player in Pennsylvania's Forest Stewardship Program for several reasons, which can be translated to recommendations for others:
Footnotes 1. R. Marty, "Retargeting Public Forestry Assistance Programs in the North," in Non-Industrial Private Forests: A Review of Economic and Policy Studies, J. P. Royer and C. D. Risbrudt, eds. (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University, 1983), p. 398. 2. S. B. Jones and others, "The Impact of the Forest Service Media Campaign on Attitudes and Knowledge of the Stewardship Program in Pennsylvania" (USFS-funded project, Penn State University, University Park, 1992). 3. E. M. Rogers and F. F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innovation, 2nd ed. (New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971), p. 476. 4. Jones and others, "The Impact of the Forest Service Media Campaign."
Rural Water Quality Database
Ann Lemley
Linda Wagenet While improving water quality is a major National Initiative for Extension, a lack of sufficient data about rural water supplies limits the potential effectiveness of outreach educational efforts. In New York State, for example, six million residents rely on groundwater for drinking water. Of this number, 2.3 million people use private water systems with many of these homes also having onsite sewage treatment. Private water supplies aren't regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act or under the New York State Sanitary Code. Wells and well drillers aren't subject to registration or regulation in most New York counties. The only regular testing of private supplies occurs when property is sold, usually at the request of financial institutions involved in the transaction. The State Department of Health is concerned, but its primary responsibility is public water supplies. The scarcity of resources in the public sector underscores the need for innovative approaches to collecting water quality data. At the same time, homeowners know very little about groundwater and how to protect it, what to get the water tested for, how to interpret the tests, or what treatments are appropriate. This situation creates an opportunity for coordinated efforts by local agencies, including Extension, to collect information about private water systems while providing educational programs for rural residents faced with decisions about their private water and wastewater systems. The primary goal of the project described in this article was to create an ongoing water quality database for private drinking water supplies in New York State and to make use of a statewide educational program to collect the data. A secondary goal was to develop this educational program so rural residents could increase their knowledge of water supply management and Extension field staff could use it as an opportunity to coordinate local efforts on water issues. Conducting Water Clinics To collect the data and meet the educational objectives, Cornell Cooperative Extension specialists developed a rural water clinic program. While the idea of rural water clinics isn't new, the approach taken has enabled field staff, with some training, to take major responsibility for a continuing series of clinics in their counties and to contribute to a research project. A preliminary meeting of field staff was held to discuss how to implement a series of clinics, facilitate water testing, and interest local agencies in cosponsoring the clinics. From that assessment meeting, materials were provided to all interested agents. The materials included lists of certified labs to test drinking water in a given county, contaminants for which data were being collected, optional water tests and local agencies likely to participate on a committee on water quality issues; a sample agenda for a clinic; suggestions for local and state specialists who could speak on specific topics; educational resources; and a sample evaluation questionnaire. During the first and second years of the clinic program, special USDA funding for water quality was used to provide rebates to participants who had their water tested and to support development of materials and some travel to counties. Field staff were encouraged to work with testing laboratories to get a quantity discount for the testing. In some counties, residents were able to get water tested for coliform, nitrate, pH, and many nuisance chemicals for $20. Inservice educational opportunities were scheduled for field staff to provide background on topics where additional training was required. The sessions held in the first two years covered: water testing and interpretation, home water treatment, private water supplies, household hazardous waste, and onsite sewage systems. Educational materials, primarily from Cornell Cooperative Extension, were provided. Local committee participants included representatives from testing laboratories, health departments, soil and water conservation districts, citizen groups, and septic contractors. The typical agenda for a clinic included topics on the nature of water resources, prevention of contamination, nature of contaminants and their health effects, testing, private water supply construction and maintenance, and appropriate water treatment measures. Some clinics were held in two sessions, a day, a week, or a month apart. The second session usually included expanded information on onsite sewage systems and/or household hazardous waste management. Since Spring 1989, 29 rural water clinics held in New York State have followed the format described above. Participants have had their water tested for coliform bacteria and nitrate by certified drinking water laboratories. Most participants also received test results for other selected parameters such as pH and dissolved solids. In the early stages of the program, participants got sample bottles at the clinic and test results were sent to the county agent at the convenience of the participant. Feedback from field staff indicated that in those counties where water sampling was coordinated with the lab before the clinic and test results were returned at the clinic, more data were collected and the participants were more involved in the discussion. This gave participants an opportunity to learn more about test interpretation than if testing were done after the clinic. Most clinics are now organized this way. Water Test Results The water test data collected by the laboratories and Extension agents were provided to us for evaluation. Data from about 800 private water supplies tested since Spring 1989 are shown in Figure 1. About 100 reports weren't differentiated with respect to type of well, so these results aren't included in the breakdown for a specific type of water supply. An important inference from the data is the higher probability of bacteriological contamination in dug wells and springs compared to drilled/driven wells. Dug wells often aren't sealed from surface water runoff and usually aren't considered by health officials to be reliable supplies of potable water. Communicating this information to the public is important. The positive coliform results for drilled/driven wells identify the need for careful water supply management even if the well seems to conform to established standards. Homeowners don't always shock- chlorinate the well after maintenance or repair of the pump, the top of the well is sometimes below grade and not sealed properly, and well casings aren't always intact. 
Figure 1. Results of 791 water tests. The nitrate results in this study showed that 2.9% of the samples were above the 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) drinking water standard. This is comparable to the results reported in the National Pesticide Survey conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.1 In that study, about 2.4% of the 752 rural domestic wells sampled had nitrate levels above the drinking water standard. The number of water supplies with detectable nitrate (> 0.2 mg/L) was 41%. This isn't surprising in rural areas where agricultural and onsite sewage sources of nitrate are ubiquitous, but it's an indication that home-owners should have their wells tested regularly for nitrate to ensure the levels don't go above the drinking water standard. Coliform and nitrate results can be compared to results in another project we conducted at the same time. Separate, focused water quality studies were undertaken in three New York State counties to determine practices and perceptions related to private water and onsite sewage systems.2 A total of 244 participants were contacted individually on a random basis within a given geographical unit. This is in contrast to the participants in the rural water clinics, who chose to become educated about their water supplies. In the focused studies, 32% of the water supplies tested had positive coliform, compared to 19% of the clinic participants' wells, and less than one percent had nitrate above the 10 mg/L drinking water level compared to 2.9% of the clinic participants. The number of samples with nitrates above the drinking water standard is so low that the difference in results in the two types of studies isn't significant, but the results for coliform are worth noting. Those choosing to participate in the clinics had water of better quality with respect to bacteriological contamination than the more random sample in the focused studies. This difference can't be attributed to the percent of dug wells or springs in each sample, since they're similar-22% in the clinic samples and 18% in the focused studies. This suggests that people who attend water clinics may be more concerned than the random sample of homeowners and may therefore have solved some of the obvious problems with their water supplies that would allow bacteriological contamination. Clinic Evaluations An evaluation of each clinic was conducted immediately after the event, and a summary indicates that participants gained useful knowledge and planned to change their behavior. The question, "Because of this workshop I plan on the following..." evoked such responses as: more frequent testing of our water, replace my activated charcoal unit, have my well water tested (majority of answers), share the information with my family, reevaluate my present water system, and seal my dug well. Indepth, follow-up evaluations of four clinics were done during the Summer of 1991, 12 to 18 months after the clinics. The response rate for 235 questionnaires sent out was 34%. While this response isn't what's needed for statistical analysis or generalizing to the population of clinic participants, we have studied it for trends. A marked increase exists in respondents getting drinking water supplies tested as a result of the workshops. Fifty-one percent had their water tested in the past, 92% percent had their water tested at or since the workshop, and 86% stated they intended to have their water tested in the future. Respondents rated the usefulness and value of the information as moderate to high, and most reported they were better able to make decisions about treating water, choosing among alternative treatments, and maintaining a well after the clinic. Sixty-seven percent of respondents were able to make decisions about whether to treat water after the workshop compared to 30% before. Fifty percent of participants were able to choose among alternative treatments of water after the workshop compared to 12% before, and 59% of participants were able to maintain a well after the workshop compared to 38% before. Respondents also indicated they were influenced either to purchase or not purchase specific water treatment equipment using information from the workshop. The follow-up evaluation suggests that the educational objectives of the water clinics are being met, although results from a larger sample of participants are needed to confirm these findings. Conclusions Cornell's rural water clinic program has been successfully used to develop a database of private water supplies in New York State. The information gathered indicates quality problems exist with these supplies throughout the state that should be communicated to residents. This database should help convince policymakers to support local health departments, educational programs, and new regulations to help New Yorkers relying on private water supplies. Summaries of the water quality data collected in the study now provide an important tool for raising awareness of private water quality issues. From the high attendance at clinics and the comments of the participants in the immediate evaluations, it's also clear rural residents want to know how to manage these supplies and can increase their knowledge. Another major outcome of the program has been a demonstration of the ease with which an Extension educational program with its own set of worthwhile goals can be used to collect important research data. The field staff were very cooperative in helping the authors in this endeavor. They received education and training and are now able to make presentations, handle questions, and talk knowledgeably with their local colleagues about water quality issues. Extension field staff have made valuable contacts with others in their communities who are concerned with water quality issues. In one county, water clinics were held in four of the towns, and elected officials participated. In many counties, Extension field staff have joined with colleagues from local agencies to form water quality coordinating committees and have applied to the state for additional water quality funding. Coalitions such as this are long-term partnerships that will continue to work on local water quality issues. Footnotes 1. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, Phase I Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1990). 2. Contact article authors for unpublished reports cited here. Figure 1. Results of 791 water tests.Beyond the Expert Helping ModelFamily Ties Project Team1 By almost any measure, families are having a more difficult time providing a safe haven for its members. A survey of the health and well-being of families over the past decade provides many indicators that families with children are in trouble.2 In the wake of the current crisis, Extension programs concerning adolescents and young children have been made a high priority. While Extension has a long history of working with limited- resource fam-ilies, understanding assumptions that guide how we work with these families can help improve the effectiveness of our efforts. This article outlines two models for working with families living in at-risk environments, with particular emphasis on the role of paraprofessionals. It further describes how application of an empowerment model to programming for at-risk families in Illinois has expanded the traditional roles of Extension paraprofessionals. Models of Response Since the 1960s, a primary approach to dealing with families at risk has been to involve paraprofessionals as a mechanism for employment and training as well as a way to more effectively deliver educational and social services.3 Evidence exists that paraprofessionals can effectively provide valuable help to families.4 In Extension, the most extensive use of paraprofessionals has been through the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). How paraprofessionals and professionals work with at-risk families is largely determined by the educational model being applied. Expert Model Many prevention efforts designed to help families at risk are based on a set of assumptions that have been described as the "expert model" of helping.5 The core assumption of the expert model is that people with problems aren't responsible for those problems and are expected to accept direction from experts who will help them change. In this model, the experts are charged with developing a structured system of treatment that will remedy the problem. When an expert model includes paraprofessional staff, they're responsible for implementing precise plans, developed by professionals, to help individuals improve their situation. Within the Extension System,6 this model has meant professionals design a specific curriculum to teach well-defined knowledge and skills. The curriculum is first taught to paraprofessionals who then teach clients. It's assumed the problem will be solved or the situation improved if clients use the prescribed knowledge and skills. Neither the paraprofessional nor the client helps design the solution to the problem; both simply need to follow the guidance of the experts. The major limitation of the expert model is that it fosters dependency among clients and paraprofessionals. Since clients aren't responsible for handling their own problems, they must constantly seek expert advice when new problems occur. Likewise, treatment plans don't include the ability to solve problems, only specific instructions for fixing the immediate concern. Researchers who have studied this helping model found that clients may actually lose the ability to do something they once did well, because they have been made to feel dependent.7 Another limitation is that the paraprofessionals who implement the plans are often not taught how to adapt them to meet changing conditions. In some cases, they're actually prevented from altering plans by strict rules of implementation. Thus, expert intervention plans appropriate for one family, community, or cultural group may be applied inappropriately in another context. This may be especially true in situations where the professionals have little regular contact with clients and may not understand the prevailing cultural and social conditions. Empowerment Model An alternative model for working with families at risk is an empowerment approach based on the assumption that clients are responsible, in part, for improving their life situation.8 Clients view themselves as actively working to solve problems, while those in helping roles view themselves as collaborators in addressing problems. Brick-man and his colleagues write, "The strength of the [empowerment model]...is that it allows people to direct their energies outward, working on trying to solve problems and transform the environment...."9 They note this model allows the recipients to command respect because they're not blamed for their problems, but are given credit for devising solutions. In an empowerment model, the roles of paraprofessionals are quite different than in the expert model. The paraprofessional becomes a collaborator both with the professional and the client. The paraprofessional also becomes part of a problem identification and problem-solving team. Rather than working from a prescribed curriculum, the intervention becomes a creative process of helping clients identify, analyze, and solve problems. This model offers the possibility of clients being better able to solve their own problems over time. The empowerment model has limits, too. It may take very skilled people to address the complex problems confronting families at risk. Many of these problems are overwhelming to the families, the paraprofessional, and even the professional. Moreover, developing an individual plan for each client makes evaluating the success of an activity more difficult since there's not one treatment for all families. Demonstrating the Empowerment Model Over the last three years, the University of Illinois CES has implemented Family Ties, a project involving collaboration between paraprofessionals, professionals, and families in several Chicago neighborhoods to identify and remove impediments to healthy family functioning. Scholars have argued that one of the major problems affecting families living in poverty is a sense of powerlessness. At its worst, this results in a loss of hope.10 Based on this analysis, family life specialists developed the Family Ties program to foster a sense of control among family members and paraprofessionals and to encourage participants to both solve problems and increase positive experiences in their lives. The goals of the project are to provide parent education, enhance the quality of child care in the community, and develop activities for youth. The project staff is composed of two university Extension faculty, one project manager, and eight paraprofessional staff known as "family advocates." The family advocates are housed in an elementary school (two per school) in four communities. Clients for the project include the children in each school and their parents. Implementing Family Ties has required developing orientation training, action plans, team meetings, and inservice training that reflect the principle of empowerment. Orientation Training Extension professional staff designed a four-week orientation program to help paraprofessionals understand their jobs and the project goals. In the first part of this training, all staff spent time developing a collegial group based on trust, mutual respect, and shared understanding. During the second phase, paraprofessionals engaged in a community assessment process. Using structured interviews with youth, parents, and professionals, the family advocates developed a working understanding of both the strengths and needs of their community. The assessment process also helped them identify resources in the community and establish partnerships with existing organizations. In the third part of the orientation program, professional and paraprofessional staff collaboratively developed initial action plans to address community issues. An action plan was based on the community assessment and included a series of steps to be followed in addressing an important concern. A critical component of each action plan was how youth, parents, and/or community professionals would be involved in planning and implementation of any program or activity-in the problem-solving process itself. Implementing Action Plans Following the orientation training, paraprofessionals initiated the action plans with the support of the professional staff. For example, parents and leaders in one community indicated that children who had little to do when school was out were becoming involved in dangerous activities. The action plan was to create alternatives for children and the specific outcome was a summer camp to provide fun and educational activities. Clients from another school were concerned about fires in the neighborhood. A program on fire safety was established for children and parents. Getting educational information to parents about early childhood development was the issue in another community and a joint outreach effort between Extension and a local agency was developed. People in many communities wanted to improve relationships between ethnic groups. To address this issue, one family advocate worked with school staff and children to develop a cultural exchange program between a Korean and an African-American school. While some action plans were successful, others weren't. In some cases, the identified issue was too complex to support. For example, addressing the child care issue proved very difficult since few neighborhood buildings met the fire codes required for day care centers. Likewise, expanding the number of family day care homes was problematic because potential providers believed they couldn't earn enough money to support their families. In some cases, the professional staff were pulled in too many directions to effectively support the plans. This created several early failures that might have succeeded with a more limited set of initial plans and more staff working on fewer projects. Supporting the Empowerment Model Team Meetings Maintaining the problem-solving process central to the empowerment model requires weekly team meetings of staff working in a particular community as well as the total Family Ties staff. Through an agenda-building procedure, all participants are encouraged to identify questions, issues, or successes to discuss. Each staff member's task is to bring his or her perspective and expertise to the issue and help develop a consensual solution. Another essential part of the team meetings is fostering a collegial spirit. We use these occasions to celebrate holidays, birthdays, and other significant events. Weekly meetings have also been a safe place for professional and paraprofessional staff to express frustrations and disappointments. Since work with at-risk families can be emotionally draining, it's critical to develop an atmosphere where emotions, including hostile or negative feelings, can be expressed without reprisal. The collegial discussion format encouraged flexibility and creativity among staff, but also made it difficult to monitor and address all project activities within limited meeting times. Inservice Training The empowerment model requires a broader range of inservice training topics than the expert model since staff members are constantly expanding and experimenting with new ideas and approaches to problems. Training must also focus on critical thinking and problem-solving skills as well as content knowledge. To supplement the training provided by Extension professional staff, family advocates are encouraged to identify inservice opportunities through other organizations. In addition, the project provides financial support for community members to attend training sessions along with paraprofessionals, thus enhancing citizens' abilities to address their own concerns. Using outside training resources has enriched the Family Ties program with new ideas. It has also sometimes exposed the parprofessional staff to information inconsistent with the goals and philosophy of the project. However, providing family advocates with thorough training in the project and helping them critically evaluate new information through the weekly meetings minimized the risk that inaccurate or inappropriate information would be used in the program. With the empowerment model, paraprofessionals in the Family Ties program began displaying the initiative and critical thinking skills typical of professionals. It's therefore essential that paraprofessionals be encouraged to continue their formal education and be able to access a career ladder permitting them to move upward in the organization. Summary In addressing issues faced by families at risk, an empowerment model, as illustrated by the Family Ties project, provides an important alternative to the expert model. By fostering a collegial group through which family and community issues can be addressed, the empowerment model provides a means of addressing the powerlessness and hopelessness experienced by many families. Evaluation studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of this model and its effects on clients. The challenge to Extension is to explore this model and others in an effort to identify effective ways of providing outreach services to families at risk in the coming century. Footnotes 1. The following were members of the Family Ties Project Team: Luisita Collazo, Trudy Hall, Nore Hare, Jessica Hill, Robert Hughes, Jr., Nidia Pulido, Gladys Quinones, Mamie Shorter, Audrey Smith, and Christine M. Todd. This program was funded in part by the Kellogg Foundation. 2. Center for the Study of Social Policy, Kids Count Data Book (Washington, D.C.: 1250 Eye Street, NW, 1992) and J. G. Dryfoos, Adolescents at Risk (New York: Oxford, 1990). 3. A. Pearl and F. Reissman, New Careers for the Poor (New York: Free Press, 1965). 4. J. A. Hattie, C. F. Sharpley, and H. J. Rogers, "Comparative Effectiveness of Professional and Paraprofessional Helpers," Psychological Bulletin, VC (No. 3, 1984), 534-41. 5. P. Brickman and others, "Models of Helping and Coping," American Psychologist, XXXVII (No. 4, 1982), 368-84. 6. These comments refer primarily to Extension programs targeted to at-risk audiences. We acknowledge that not all Extension programs are based on the expert model and that Extension programming compared with that of many other organizations is more likely to be based on aspects of the empowerment model. However, there are many instances in which Extension programming is described in the language of empowerment, but in actual practice is more like the expert model. 7. E. J. Langer, Mindfulness (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley, 1989). 8. There are important similarities between this model and some approaches to community development. For an overview of this work, see J. A. Christenson and J. W. Robinson, Jr., eds., Community Development in Perspective (Ames: Iowa State University, 1989). 9. Brickman and others, "Models of Helping and Coping." 10. C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson, eds., The Urban Underclass (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1991). For further information, contact Robert Hughes, Jr.: Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Family Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Internet address: hughesr.idea.ag.uluc.edu
From Single to Multicounty Programming Units
S. Kay Rockwell
Jack Furgason
Connie Jacobson
Dave Schmidt
Lila Tooker A county-based educational network has been the foundation for Extension program delivery from the land grant university system since Cooperative Extension was established in 1914. Throughout the century, major changes-first in transportation and then in communications, computers, and satellite technologies- have greatly impacted methods of informal adult education. These changes provide an opportunity to gain greater efficiency in program delivery, while still serving people with quality educational opportunities. Today's Extension clients have more years of schooling and access to more sources of information than ever before. Consequently, Extension staff must be able to provide greater indepth information in educational programs. At the same time, programs are expanding to address high priority societal issues related to the environment, nutrition and health, waste management, and youth at risk. Educational programs using modern delivery methods to address issues require Extension staff with focused skills and expertise, rather than generalists. However, county Extension workers can't realistically be expected to have expertise in a number of programming areas, and county budgets can't support a number of specialized agents. Multicounty Programming The compelling need for Extension field staff to specialize, along with limitations imposed by county boundaries, has forced Extension to become more serious about multicounty programming. Johnson found county Extension directors and state specialists enthusiastic about area Extension work and its potential for improving the efficiency of Extension programming. However, farm advisers weren't as uniform in their support for area programming as were the county Extension directors. Based on his findings, Johnson developed guidelines to implement area Extension work in the 60s.1 Barnett and Louderback found Extension agents derive satisfaction from their jobs, even in the wake of organizational change, when they feel an obligation to their clientele, have a positive attitude toward their jobs, and receive recognition from within the organization and appreciation from the clientele. Dissatisfaction occurs when organizational policies aren't clearly understood, changes in working conditions conflict with personal goals, or organizational changes reduce opportunity or ability to fulfill clientele expectations.2 Hutchins concluded that county clustering may be one approach to help develop more effective strategies for issues-based programming.3 In 1986, Nebraska Cooperative Extension administrators started exploring methods to gain greater efficiency, yet still serve Nebraskans with quality education and programs. This exploration resulted in developing multicounty Extension programming units (EPUs) to replace single-county programs. The program units were designed to increase the Extension agent's role as an educator within a specialized area and create a situation in which agents could be more proactive in responding to critical issues. Major staff changes implemented in the EPUs included having one agent coordinator for each program unit and assigning agents according to their area of special interest. In some EPUs, Extension assistants were employed for youth responsibilities. Five pilot sites were targeted in 1986 to test the feasibility of implementing program units across the state. After the two-year pilot, 21 EPUs were formed. The five pilot program units established in 1987, and the 16 EPUs established in 1989, replaced 87 single-county program units (see Figure 1). 
Figure 1. Nebraska programming units. Assessing Reorganization Four assessments conducted over a six-year period tracked citizen concerns about reorganizing into multi-county units and identified citizen and staff opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness of EPUs in delivering the educational programs. The assessments were:
Taken together, these four studies describe how a major structural reorganization in Cooperative Extension improved program delivery to lifelong learners in Nebraska. Reactions to Reorganization After the pilot tests, agents and assistants indicated that reorganizing into EPUs presented new roles and new time demands for staff. Extension agents became more specialized as they focused on their specific area of expertise and they did more direct teaching. Agents spent more time planning and less total time preparing programs because they taught the programs throughout the unit rather than in just one county. Office service staff became more a part of the unit team as their roles were also targeted toward more specific tasks within the unit. Advantages of EPUs cited by agents and assistants were that changes allowed them to divide their work according to subject- matter areas, audiences were larger, programming was more flexible, and different types of program delivery methods could be tried, resulting in a wider variety of programs. Matters they noted as needing attention and concentrated effort during the reorganization process were the development of open communication and teamwork among the EPU staff, feeling excessive time pressure in new roles, logistical problems in keeping all county office sites open, and public concern about the possibility of less emphasis on 4-H, or losing county identity, offices, and services. After the pilot tests, clientele indicated restructuring supported their expectations that agent specialization would provide better quality programs with less duplication of effort and agents working across county lines would result in more indepth programming. Extension clientele no longer were concerned about agents having less time to offer the same types of services they'd offered in the past, the length of time taken for clientele to obtain information, a decrease in audience participation, agents duplicating roles of specialists, and clientele bypassing the local agent. Travel time for Extension staff was still a concern two years after restructuring. However, it emerged as a major problem in only the most sparsely populated EPU pilot site. After all program units were operational for two years, Extension board members had a favorable reaction to the statewide EPU system. They believed: program units were a positive and futuristic approach to programming beneficial in their counties, program depth had improved, EPUs made better use of agents' knowledge and skills, agents should give the overall direction for the youth program but have assistants run most of the youth programs, and county costs hadn't been affected. Board members had a strong desire to keep organizational decision making, especially budget and facilities, with county Extension boards. There was strong support for maintaining an office in each county. They also felt program units could function best with one EPU Extension board along with individual county boards. After all EPUs were operational for two years, agents and assistants felt the program unit concept was a future-oriented approach for Extension. They reported that program quality and quantity increased, participatory planning improved, sharing responsibilities for implementing programs with co-workers in other units improved programming, programming made better use of staff knowledge, skills, and training, and EPUs allowed them to personally make better use of their individual talents. Opinions about clientele having opportunities for program input into the EPUs were mixed, however, with about half agreeing while the other half disagreed. Administratively, paperwork had increased, but duplication of effort was reduced. Staff didn't feel agent time was distributed equitably among the counties. They believed the program units could function better with individual county boards in conjunction with an EPU issue advisory committee. Conclusions and Recommendations Reorganizing Nebraska's statewide Extension System into multicounty EPUs rather than single-county programming units was viewed by Extension staff and Extension board members as a positive and futuristic approach to programming beneficial to the county. Based on the staff and clientele reactions to reorganization in Nebraska, here are recommendations to Extension personnel involved in forming multicounty units:
Multicounty programming units allow Extension to better meet the needs of current clientele. While a major reorganization is never easy, making such a transition may be necessary for Extension's continued viability as a provider of informal adult education. Footnotes 1. R. L. Johnson, Area Extension Work: A Pilot Study (Manhattan: Kansas State University, Extension Service, 1966). 2. R. Barnett and L. Louderback, "When Organizations Change," Journal of Extension, XIX (Summer 1971), 9-14. 3. G. K. Hutchins, "Evaluating County Clustering," Journal of Extension, XXX (Spring 1992), 17-19. Figure 1. Nebraska programming units.
Evaluating Issues Programming
Fred Eugene Baker
Satish Verma In Extension, issues programming is distinguished from disciplinary (base) programming by a focus on broad and complex societal issues, and targeting of nontraditional audiences and interdisciplinary faculty involvement.1 Since its introduction in 1987 as a new programming concept in the Cooperative Extension System (CES),2 issues programming has had its proponents and adversaries. Some believe the underlying philosophy and recommended approach were overdue and are appropriate to addressing the broad and complex problems facing society. Others counter that Extension has always addressed societal issues, in community resource development and public policy education particularly. They further argue that Extension shouldn't dilute agricultural programs and divert its attention to complex issues in which we may not be competent or have much control while exposing ourselves to the risk of controversy and the frustration of failure. Because such mixed feelings are aroused by issues programming, we surveyed state Extension Services in 1991 to find out whether the concept had been implemented. Our survey showed that most states had initiated the process at about the same time and were addressing many issues. Of the 38 states that responded, 36 had begun issues programming in 1987 or 1988, with 87% of them saying that all counties were participating and 45% indicating that up to one-fourth of their total program effort was on issues. An average of six statewide issues were being addressed covering a wide range from agriculture to family/community to the environment. A variety of planning and implementation procedures were reported from respondents, the most common being state issues planning and oversight teams. Invariably some system of grassroots issues identification and collaborative structure was being used to address consensus issues in the states.3 It appears, therefore, states are committed to the process. In 1988, the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service (LCES) adapted nationally recommended issues programming procedures to increase nontraditional clientele representation on Parish (County) Advisory Councils, identify local/state issues, and operationalize task forces for addressing priority issues.4 Field faculty with specialist support were intended to serve as facilitators in networking resources required to address or resolve issues. Considerable time and money were invested in faculty training and implementation of this initiative. In 1991, we evaluated the LCES issues programming effort to see how well it had worked and what could be done to improve it. This study of the perceptions of faculty and local leaders who had participated in Parish Advisory Councils and issues task forces was conducted to help LCES draw conclusions about the utility of the issues programming process. Methodology We designed a qualitative evaluation using the focus group interview technique. Four interviews at two sites designed to draw participants from 22 of the 64 parishes (counties) in the state were established. Lists of leaders who had served on a Parish Advisory Council and at least one issues task force were obtained from the selected parishes. Currently employed agents who had been involved with issues programming were identified. A random sample of 22 leaders and 22 agents was drawn to participate in the study. When the interviews were held, 13 leaders and 18 agents attended. Considerations of knowledge, experience, and homogeneity of participants, convenience of interview locations, participant incentives, moderator neutrality and skills, question planning, and questioning procedure cited in the literature on the focus group technique were taken into account in designing and conducting the interviews.5 The interviews were moderated by a trained, non-Extension person. Interviews were audio and video recorded and written notes kept. Questions moved from general to specific. Interview data were analyzed by recommended qualitative data analytical techniques. Perceptual messages were extracted, sorted into categories and indexed, summarized into action/situation- outcome tables, and perception themes/patterns abstracted by the researchers. Results Major perception themes and patterns emerging from the evaluation were:
Educational Implications From a program development perspective, the motivation engendered among leaders and agents for program planning and evaluation, and the closeness and cooperation experienced among them are positive outcomes of the issues programming process. Results of the evaluation study support several recommendations for future program development efforts:
Lessons learned from the issues programming experience in Louisiana, as expressed by agents and leaders, provide useful insights into cautions, strengths, and weaknesses that should be considered in future issues programming efforts. Footnotes 1. Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Reality (Washington, D.C.: Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1987). 2. K. A. Dalgaard and others, Issues Programming in Extension (St. Paul: Minnesota Extension Service and ES-USDA, 1988). 3. F. E. Baker, "A Qualitative Evaluation of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Issues Programming Process Using Focus Group Interviews (Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1992). 4. F. E. Baker and others, Guidelines for Issues Programming in the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service (Baton Rouge: Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, LSU Agricultural Center, 1989). 5. R. A. Krueger, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1988).
Are Youth at Risk?
Kirk A. Astroth In public discussion of today's youth problems, balance and context has vanished. As a result, youth policy and programming are increasingly divorced from research findings, historical lessons, and common sense. Many of us in Extension youth development education have simply repeated the popular myths circulating in the media about "at-risk" youth without questioning their basis or using research to help us more accurately discern the situation of today's youth. Risk in Perspective The extent to which youth are labeled "at risk" varies according to different authorities from psychology, education, sociology, and other fields. Some authorities maintain that today "all youth are born at high risk."1 Others, like Dryfoos, estimate that one-quarter of 10-17 year olds are "high risk" and that an additional 25% are at moderate risk.2 On the other hand, educators Males and Lewis argue that today's teens are doing well in comparison to previous generations and that only a small percentage are "at risk" for life failures.3 Given the disagreement among experts (and even lack of consensus about whether youth are at risk or they live in at-risk environments), it seems reasonable to question general claims about the state of American teens. With the array of adolescent problems displayed in the media, it's surprising when research surveys show that teenagers are healthier, better educated, basically optimistic, and more responsible by nearly every measure than teens of the past.4 The Iowa Youth Poll, for example, demonstrated that most youth feel satisfied with their lives and generally positive about themselves.5 A recent study of adolescents in Montana reported that "Montana adolescents view themselves positively. The overall adolescent population is healthy and vital."6 The situation for the majority of youth, including African- American youth, is improving. For example, while high school completion rates have remained largely unchanged for most other groups during the past 20 years, African-American student completion rates have increased by 10%. Moreover, African- American dropouts are more likely than members of any other group to have returned to school within four years. Between 1976 and 1992, the mean scores for African-American students on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) rose 20 points on the verbal section and 31 points on the math section. African-American students are also much less likely to engage in alcohol and drug use-and more likely to engage in community service-than youth of other racial groups.7 Today's teens are also healthier than teens of the past. Never before have teenagers been less likely to die from disease; never before have more been enrolled in or graduated from educational institutions;8 never have fewer been forced out of school by injury, sickness, poverty, handicap, early pregnancy, or social disadvantage; never before has their projected life span been longer. As Lewis points out, this is an important story that's not being told, yet "the facts are easily accessible from sources that anyone can find in the library...."9 Like previous generations of adults, we appear to be suffering from a reoccurring bout of what I call "ephebiphobia"10 (a fear and loathing toward adolescents). Nearly every generation of young people has been chastised as "out of control" or aberrant in some way. Alarmist statements about the younger generation can be found in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and certainly in the 1960s. For example, the cover of a 1954 issue of Newsweek blared: "Let's Face It: Our Teenagers Are Out of Control." The article laments a "national teenage problem-a problem that is apparently getting worse." And why? "There's too much divorce, too few normal homes," claimed one sociologist. Others denounced "salacious, sadistic comic books."11 Today, we tend to blame rock -n-roll, MTV, or heavy metal music. Young people today are typically portrayed as some aberrant and pariah class suffering its own distinct "epidemics" that are different from behavior of previous generations and bear no relationship to adult patterns of behavior. Yet, an early survey of teenager drinking patterns in the 1950s also describes patterns that are the same as those of teens today.12 Moreover, unwed pregnancy rates are lower for teens than for any other age group except for women over the age of 35.13 Today's teens have lower rates of suicide, violent death, unwed pregnancy, drug abuse, smoking, and drunk drinking than young and middle-aged adults. And where youth problems do occur, adult influence is direct.14 Negative Treatment of Youth "Youth at risk" has become a lens through which all young people are viewed so that adolescence itself is seen today as some awful, incurable disease. Indeed, it would appear that troubled youth aren't the exception but rather have become the dysfunctional rule. As Lofquist observes, our reliance on a deficit-focused, diagnosed problem model to frame youth behavior has fostered an overly negative perspective and a limited vision.15 The overly negative treatment of the current generation of young people is evident in several areas. The first is youth gang involvement. Despite a barrage of media attention, today's youth are no more likely to be involved in gang activities. In cities like Los Angeles, estimates are that only 5%-10% of all young people are involved in gangs. "Even in the most heavily gang-infested neighborhoods, the majority of young people are not gang-affiliated." As Prothrow-Stith and Weissman observe: the failure of the mass media to accurately portray gang activity has existed for decades-long before West Side Story. Gang activity has changed little over time, but what has changed is the amount of attention editors-and thus the public-have paid to it.16 The pathological treatment of youth is also manifest in the mental health area. Since 1980, teen psychiatric admissions have increased 250%-400%, but one observer notes "it's not because teens are suddenly so much crazier than they were a decade ago."17 The Children's Defense Fund has suggested that at least 40% of these juvenile admissions are inappropriate.18 According to Schwartz of the University of Minnesota, the figure may be closer to 50%. Such premature institutionalization may violate teens' civil rights and are a result of parent's inability to deal with normal adolescent behavior.19 Teenage pregnancy rates are used to portray today's youth as amoral and permissive. Yet, in Montana, for instance, nearly 60% of so-called teenage pregnancies result from relationships between teenage girls and men over the age of 21.20 Only 1.5% of all pregnancies in the U.S. involved youth under age 19. Eight percent of all teenage pregnancies actually involved two minors under age 16 and just 21% involve two teenagers 16-19.21 The most important thing adults can do about the "epidemic of teen pregnancy" in Montana and other states is to stop causing it. Teen suicide is now frequently cited as "epidemic." The often-quoted figures are that nearly 6,000 teens kill themselves annually and that suicide has tripled (or quadrupled, depending on who you read) since the 1950s. What does the research data say? Federal data for 1990 shows 13.6 suicides per 100,000 population for people ages 15-24. The cited teen suicide rate of 6,000 comes from this same age group-a group which also includes young adults. To be accurate in discussing teen suicide, we should be looking at the suicide rate for 13-19 year olds. Vital statistics data show that the suicide rate for 10-19 year olds is about 10 per 100,000, one of the lowest for most age groups. More teenagers die each year from cancer (13 per 100,000) than from suicide.22 What we also fail to ask is how the teenager suicide rate compares to other age groups. Senior citizens over the age of 85 have a suicide rate of 22.5 per 100,000-two and a half times the rate for 10-19 year olds. Those 75-84 have a suicide rate of 26.1 per 100,000. Those 65-74 years of age have a suicide rate of 18.1 per 100,000. And rates for Americans 65 and older rose 21% from 1980 to 1986.23 Who's at risk? Teenagers as a whole are less likely to commit suicide than any age group except pre-teens. In Montana, the teen suicide rate is not rising, and youth suicide levels and trends appear to be linked to those of adult suicide. What has changed, though, is the reporting of how teens die. Many firearm deaths during the 1950s that were classified as "accidental" are now accurately listed as suicides. The tripling of the teen suicide rate is more a function of accuracy in classifying teen deaths than an indictment of overall teen health. Implications for Extension So, what do these facts mean for an Extension System that has brought into the "at-risk" model? First, they suggest Extension youth education move away from a deficit-focused, problem model and move toward a condition-focused, resiliency model that recognizes and supports the basic vitality and strength of all young people. Imagine how different our view of early childhood might be if child development were taught only through a focus on bedwetting, stuttering, and sibling rivalry. Yet, that's the approach taken when we teach and research about adolescents from a deficit, epidemic, or crisis perspective. Why is it that when we talk about an Extension initiative on youth, we use negative terminology like "at risk" or "plight"? How would Extension be perceived if we labeled the water quality issue as water pollution, framed the food safety issue as food contamination, and described agricultural competitiveness and profitability as avoiding farm foreclosures and bankruptcies? To support young people, we need a more positive approach. Second, Extension youth workers should closely check the data for their communities, before succumbing to the national mythology that all youth are at risk. Broad generalizations about youth can detract from targeted efforts to address real-not perceived-problems in local communities. Extension's programmatic actions should be based on research. Third, we should be careful about the messages sent to young people. Unwarranted pessimism about one's generation, reinforced by negative and false publicity, can damage the confidence young people have in themselves and their future. Inherent in worthwhile efforts to prevent teen problems should be respect for the stability of our teenage population as a whole. Alarming parents, legislators, communities, and youth themselves with "all teens are at risk" does an injustice to the vast majority of youngsters who don't deserve a reputation for self- destructiveness. Beneath the national barrage of "youth problems" is a story of hope and determination in the face of challenging conditions. Rather than point fingers at youth, we should ask what institutions, such as Extension, are doing to enhance prospects for young people who are overcoming incredible odds and succeeding, only to confront barriers in young adulthood? Perhaps, we should focus on the fact that more African-American youth are in poverty now than were two decades ago. Or, we can recognize barriers such as racism which prevents 55% of black high school graduates from being employed (compared to 25% of white graduates).24 Fourth, Extension programming should reflect the facts that the majority of today's youth are well-adjusted, and the great majority of children who grow up in vulnerable environments do not develop self-destructive patterns of behavior.25 Perhaps we ought to examine these youth more closely. After all, in studying an epidemic, one of the first steps is to determine how the survivors differ from those who succumb to the disease. Rather than lamenting government policies or a changing family structure, youth educators would do better to clarify the resiliency factors that help youth in the most tragic circumstances survive and thrive. Then, we can take the steps necessary to create the conditions and foster the personal attributes that enhance the well-being of all young people. Fifth, while the problems faced by youth are serious, Extension educators shouldn't treat the situation as an "epidemic." Certainly, some youth are troubled and "at risk." Precisely because such problems as suicide, drug addiction, child abuse, and delinquency are enormous tragedies argues persuasively that the most accurate information and perspective should be applied to their study and prevention. Blanket approaches categorizing all youth as "at risk" aren't effective and really dilute the effectiveness of what should be targeted, research- based efforts. It's time to change from a deficit focus on liabilities to concentrate on building strengths in youth programs. Developing youth potential means focusing our efforts on creating the positive conditions and individual assets that foster the presence of resiliency factors and offset risk factors. We need to concentrate our efforts away from just "fixing" problem kids and toward efforts for creating positive opportunities to develop youth potential. Extension youth professionals must commit themselves to taking a critical, unbiased look at the research related to youth problems. Only then will we transcend ephebi- phobia and focus on the minority of youth who truly need help and support. Footnotes 1. H. Stephen Glenn and Jane Nelsen, Raising Self- Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World: Seven Building Blocks for Developing Capable Young People (Rocklin, California: Prima Publishing & Communications, 1988), p. 49. 2. J. G. Dryfoos, Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 3. Mike Males, "Top School Problems Are Myths," Phi Delta Kappan, LXXIV (September 1992), 54-55 and Anne C. Lewis, "A Tale Not Widely Told," Phi Delta Kappan, LXXIV (November 1991), 196-97. 4. Joanne Keith, L. Hoopfer, and C. Nelson, Michigan Early Adolescent Survey (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Family and Child Ecology and 4-H Youth Programs, 1985). 5. Iowa Youth Poll (Ames: Iowa State University Extension Service, 1991). 6. Montana Adolescent Health Status (Helena, Montana: Healthy Mothers & Healthy Babies, Montana Office of Public Instruction and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1990), p. 10. 7. U.S., Department of Education, The Condition of Education, 1992 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1992), pp. 5-6. 8. The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992). This report points out that the dropout rate has steadily declined and is at its lowest in history. In 1990, for example, 83% of all 19-20 year olds reported completing high school and the completion rate for those 23-24 years of age was 86%. In 1990, only 12% of all youth 16-24 years of age were high school dropouts. 9. Lewis, " Tale Not Widely Told," p. 196. 10. In ancient Greece, an ephebus was any Athenian youth who entered into a specialized training program in preparation for full citizenship. During the training, ephebi were denied most civic rights conferred on adults. 11. "Our Vicious Young Hoodlums: Is There Any Hope?" Newsweek, XLIV (September 6, 1954), 43. 12. "First Report on High School Drinking: Called Shocking by Some, Encouraging by Others," Better Homes and Gardens, XXXII (March 1954), 72, 73, 137-140, 142. This article reports an unpublished survey by the Research Bureau of Hofstra College. 13. Vital Statistics of the U.S. 1988, Volume I-Natality, Part A (Hyattsville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990), Table 1-32, p. 58. 14. John O'Neil, "A Generation Adrift?" Educational Leadership, XIXL (September 1991), 4. The Education Commission of the States recently examined preventable conditions associated with children's development of learning problems: low birthweight, maternal smoking, prenatal alcohol exposure, prenatal exposure to drugs, lead poisoning, child abuse and neglect, and malnutrition- all factors related to adult behaviors. 15. William A. Lofquist, "Mental Models and Fundamental Change: A Path to Human Service Transformation," New Designs for Youth Development, X (Spring 1992), 28-33. 16. Deborah Prothrow-Stith and Michaele Weissman, Deadly Consequences (New York: Harper-Collins, 1991), p. 104. 17. Lynette Lamb, "Kids in the Cuckoo's Nest: Why Are We Locking Up America's Troublesome Teens?" Utne Reader, L (March/April 1992), 38-39. 18. Jane Knitzer, Unclaimed Children: A Failure of Public Responsibility to Children and Adolescents in Need of Mental Health Services (Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1982), p. 46. 19. Holly Metz, "Kids in the Cuckoo's Next," The Progressive, LV (December 1991), 22-25. 20. Montana Vital Statistics, 1988 and 1989 (Helena: Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1991). 21. Vital Statistics of the U.S., 1988, Volume I-Natality. 22. Vital Statistics of the U.S., 1988, Volume II-Mortality, Part A (Hyattsville, Maryland: U.S., Department of Health and Human Services, 1990), Table 1-26, pp. 300-301. 23. Ibid.. 24. The Condition of Education, 1992, p. 268. 25. Emmy Werner and R. S. Smith, Vulnerable, But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982).
Contrasting Viewpoints About Controversial Issues
Jeff Goodwin Extension educational efforts to address controversial issues have typically revolved around the notion of Extension educators serving in the role of an objective third party. Popular methods used in public policy or public issues education, such as the "alternatives and consequences" approach, are proven and effective means to deal with controversial issues. These traditional methods may, however, be best suited to addressing specialized issues with precise and distinctive options and effects other than broad, complex social questions steeped in value judgments. A "contrasting viewpoints" method may be more appropriate for preliminary Extension educational efforts about controversial or contentious issues. "Contrasting Viewpoints" Defined The contrasting viewpoints method concentrates on the thorough examination of value judgments and belief structures as well as the empirical evidence involved in a particular controversial issue. Using this approach enables the Extension educator to provide clientele with a broad, general look at different perspectives of a controversial issue. Bender and Leone state the essence of this educational method: "Those who do not know their opponents' arguments do not completely understand their own."1 The explicit objective of contrasting viewpoints isn't to tell the audience what to think about an issue, but to help them think about the issue by the examination of different perspectives. Examination of different viewpoints promotes an enhanced perspective and comprehension of the subject or issue of concern. Presenting contrasting viewpoints can result in a moderation of attitudes or a depolarization of a very contentious issue. The purpose of using the contrasting viewpoints method isn't to arrive at a policy decision, but to have participants more informed at the conclusion of the educational activity than they were at the beginning. This is what makes the approach unique and significant. This method was implemented in a study involving county Extension agricultural agents in an educational program about animal rights/welfare issues. The Study The purpose of this study was two-fold: to determine the effectiveness of the "What's the Beef/Here's the Beef" educational program and to demonstrate the contrasting viewpoints method of addressing controversial issues. "What's the Beef/Here's the Beef' is a one-hour program introducing participants to the major concerns of the animal rights/welfare movement related to animal agriculture. The program is centered around two videos that examine this issue from different perspectives. The "What's the Beef" video represents the animal agriculture perspective and the "Here's the Beef" video highlights the animal activist perspective. The program addresses this controversial issue by examining contrasting viewpoints concerning the well-being of farm animals, the wise use of natural resources, and the safety of the nation's food supply. An accompanying lecture draws out major points made by the videos and offers supporting information designed to provoke critical thinking regarding this subject. Methods In Fall 1991, 258 county agriculture agents with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service participated in this study. Agents were exposed to the experimental treatment at district training sessions from August through November. A post-test-only control group experimental design with 13 blocks was used in this study. Participants at each test site were assigned randomly and equally into two groups-a treatment group and a control group. The post-test was first administered to the control group only. The treatment was administered to the treatment group (members of the control group, who had already completed the post-test, simultaneously received the treatment). The post-test was then administered to the treatment group only. The participant evaluation was administered to both groups. The data collected for the study consisted of: individual demographic information and a knowledge score derived from each participant's responses to 10 multiple choice questions about animal rights/welfare and animal production practice subject matter. An individual attitude score, the sum of 10 attitudinal questions on the subject measured on a five-point Likert scale, was also computed. Individual attitude scores could range from +20 (extreme animal agriculture position) to -20 (extreme animal rights' position). Scores closer to 0 on this scale are assumed to be indicative of a moderate attitude about the issue. Data regarding agent evaluation of the program were also collected. Operational objectives for the study were to:
Results Demographic characteristics of participants didn't differ whether they were members of the control group or the treatment group. These data were helpful in determining that the treatment and the control groups were homogeneous. The distribution of knowledge scores is shown on Figure 1. The mean knowledge score of agents in the control group was 2.31, or they answered 2.31 questions correctly out of a possible 10. The treatment group mean was 8.25 questions correct out of a possible 10. Analysis of variance of knowledge scores by treatment, blocked for effect of variation by test site, reveals that the difference in knowledge scores between treatment and control groups was statistically significant (p < .001). 
Figure 1. Knowledge score distribution. Totals of the attitude scores are shown on Figure 2. The mean attitude score of the agents in the control group was +6.40. the treatment group mean attitude score was +3.85. Analysis of variance of attitude scores by treatment, blocked for effect of variation by test site, showed that the difference in attitude scores between treatment and control groups was statistically significant (p < .001). 
Figure 2. Attitude score distribution. Ninety-two percent of the agents rated the "What's the Beef/Here's the Beef" educational program as effective or very effective. Ninety-seven percent of the agents also stated that they'd make use of the "What's the Beef" video and facilitator guide if it were made available to them. Conclusions and Implications This study indicated that the "What's the Beef/Here's the Beef" educational program increased the subject-matter knowledge and changed the attitudes of participants who were exposed to the program. The inference can also be made that the experimental treatment was instrumental in bringing about any attitude moderation among those who viewed the program. The moderation of attitudes exhibited in this study reflects the "inoculation theory" proposed in the persuasion literature. "Inoculation theory" suggests that inducing resistance to future persuasion is obtained by giving people inoculatory treatments involving exposure to "small doses" of the opposing view.2 The result is a moderation in attitude that should be more resistant to persuasion from either extreme in the future. From data obtained from the participant evaluation, the assumption can also be made that this example of the contrasting viewpoints method of addressing controversial issues was effective in providing prudent and much-needed education on this issue. The most powerful conclusion to be drawn from the study was the fact that a group of well-educated subjects who have deeply felt emotional underpinnings on such a controversial issue could have their attitudes moderated by exposure to a one-hour educational program. This suggests that materials of questionable validity disseminated by some extreme animal rights' organizations could be just as effective in altering the general public's attitudes. This would seem to indicate the need for Extension educational efforts concerning this issue. Summary Controversial issues are inherently explosive and can be a breeding ground for decision making based on emotional responses. How can education best be provided in these situations without becoming part of the controversy? The contrasting viewpoints method provides an educational tool that offers thorough investigation of value judgments and belief structures while simultaneously presenting the evidence involved in the controversy. Mill offers a persuasive case for the contrasting viewpoints method in this excerpt from On Liberty: The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any other mode but this.3 Mill's quote is used in the concluding segment of the "What's the Beef/Here's the Beef" educational program. Those who view the program have difficulty disagreeing with such logic. The Extension Service may best serve its educational mission by valuing and presenting "every variety of opinion" as it relates to the "whole of a subject." Such an approach promotes a broader perspective, a more comprehensive understanding, and an expanded "wisdom." Footnotes 1. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone, Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989), p. 1. 2. William J. McGuire, "The Effectiveness of Supportive and Refutional Defenses in Immunizing and Restoring Beliefs Against Persuasion," Sociometry, XXIV (June 1961), 184-97. 3. John S. Mill, On Liberty (New York: W. W. Horton and Co., 1975), p. 21.
Facing the Image Deficit
Dave King The room has an air of relaxation, sport shirts and soft shoes abound. The speaker at the front of the room, however, wears more typical Manhattan attire and his message seems similarly outside traditional discussion boundaries for Extension and Experiment Station directors. "The Land-Grant System is in an epic competition-dare I say a life and death competition-for the hearts and minds of America." The message, reminiscent of the motivational rhetoric from Roosevelt and Churchill, seems to ring true with the group. "Priorities are shifting. We are approaching 'zero-based' public policy. That means 'don't tell me about what you did for me yesterday, tell me how you're going to help me today and tomorrow." The speaker is John Paluszek, CEO of Ketchum Public Relations of New York City. His task is to provide an outsider's view of the Experiment Station-Extension System. What's our image with people who don't have to care about us? According to Paluszek, not great. The cornerstone of Paluszek's remarks is our "reputation deficit." According to Paluszek, reputation is sound performance well communicated to, and appreciated by, influential audiences. He says a two-month review of what's happening in the land grant system convinced him that we don't have a deficit in performance. We're doing great things. Our deficit is in how we tell people about it. Not enough of the right people know we're doing the right things. That's pretty tough to swallow for someone like me who's spent the better part of my professional career trying to make sure this is not the case. So, on a pleasant August day, a group of more than 50 Experiment Station and Extension directors spent an afternoon in Minneapolis building a consensus about whether this concern is real, and if so, what to do about it. The group agreed. The problem is real; and if we don't do something about it "we're dead." But, what to do about it is the question. Currently, a joint committee representing the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) and the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) is meeting to develop an action plan that will address the image deficit. As a member of that committee, I can tell you, we have our hands full. Telling the stories of Extension and agricultural research are priorities at every land grant institution in the country in one way or another. Following traditional land grant system thinking, the combined efforts of each communication operation in the country ought to be enough to create a credible, effective national image. So, why is the outcome of all our combined effort not capable of overcoming the reputation deficit? Perhaps we need to test some of our basic perceptions. For instance, what do we know about our "customers"? Paluszek says he could find no quantifiable data about who our audience and customers are. He's right. Extension and Experiment Stations have typically relied much too heavily on the fact that "we know our audience." After all, we've been serving them faithfully for 75 years. They know us, we know them, and it's worked out pretty well that way, right? Well, maybe not. One indisputable point from Paluszek stands out. He represents a portion of our clientele-potential customers, if you will-who really know little about us and seemingly care even less. If we're to survive, we must evolve and change in response to our potential customers' demands. Benchmarking is a hot management practice now. You check out how others do what you do. Find those who do certain things best so you can emulate. Along that line, companies who make money directly from the kind of public affairs and communications we do, dare not move without significant audience analysis and survey work. They risk losing their entire business by making a decision without adequate information. Why should we be any different? If you look around at the number of land grant institutions facing dramatic budget cuts and loss of personnel, perhaps the similarities are there. The only difference may be a little greater delay in the ultimate, possibly inescapable, outcome. Neville Clarke of Texas A&M and executive director of the Southern Region for ESCOP characterizes our land grant institution audience as a continuum. On one end, the perception is the land grant system is the source of all that's positive in the world of food, fiber, and natural resources; on the other end, we're viewed much less charitably. As Clarke puts it, the "increasingly broad zone in between of unawareness, apathy, and antipathy about Experiment Stations and Extension Services and the role they play in society" is what we must focus on. He's right. And that's the part of the audience we know the least about. So how do we begin to play in this new game? Hire a public relations firm like Ketchum and let them solve our problems? Probably not. We're paying for considerable expertise right now within the system. Even by shifting significant resources, I doubt there will ever be enough money available to "do it right." However, let's not lose sight of what selected individuals from operations like Ketchum might bring to our team. That is, in fact, the key word: team. I believe we must do it cooperatively. The CES and AES systems are part of the "lan - grant team." Now is the time to reap at least one of the benefits of a team effort. Synergy must be part of how we create more efficiency. And efficiency will be required to find the time to make this work. Finding the issues and projects that can be dealt with cooperatively will require some compromise for the traditional players in the process. Public affairs communication for Experiment Stations focuses on developing a positive image for agricultural research. Similar effort for Extension tends to focus on the actual process of education, expecting the positive image will naturally fall into place if you educate well. Reconciling the outward differences shouldn't be that difficult. As we scratch the surface, these differences begin to disappear. The image of Extension must be promoted just as the image of agricultural research must be promoted. The reputation deficiency must be eliminated. Both ECOP and ESCOP have developed national communication committees to review what to do on a national scale. The ESCOP plan calls for a relatively horizontal structure of project-based communication hubs around the country. The Extension structure appears more vertical, drawing its strength from the federal/state/local network of offices in every state and virtually every county of the country. There are good examples of our state-based system crossing state lines to address national concerns. The various iterations of the FACT committee, the national CES Distance Learning committee, and the ESCOP/CSRS Committee on Communication are among them. However, for the assault on the image deficit to be effective, it will take a greater commitment from directors and communicators. To find the solutions we need, it will take an interesting combination of factors yet to be found in our system. It will take the best communicators we have, thrown together in a mix we've not tried before. It will take new coalitions. It will take consulting communicators at every institution. It will take a cooperative effort. It will take a national perspective. It will take directors who trust their communication staffs to get the job done. It will take communication staffs who can get the job done. To have a direct impact on the reputation deficit identified by Paluszek, it will take money, spent on well-defined, well- executed national projects that may not have a direct impact in any individual state. The reputation deficiency must be eliminated.
It's Time to Tell the Extension Story
Paul D. Warner As one who has worked hard over a number of years to improve our state's marketing effort, I'd readily agree with Paluszek that Extension suffers from a reputation deficit. It comes as no surprise Extension is perceived to be better at carrying out effective programs than at communicating that fact to our "customers" and decision makers. We've emphasized the development and implementation of effective, quality educational programs rather than telling our story. For many in the Extension family, marketing has carried a negative stigma. Marketing efforts have often been seen as self- serving, as a combination of selling, slick advertising, and public relations. However, marketing (not sales) includes the concepts of determining client needs, developing programs responsive to those needs, targeting programs to specific audiences, repositioning the organization, coalition building, and the process of communicating information about the organization, its programs, and their impact. It's this last part that has often been slighted. Even though we have a cadre of communication specialists, they're primarily dedicated to the production function-carrying out the program rather than communicating its impact. We as a system must be willing to commit to not only producing excellent educational programs but also to getting the message out. I'm sure sometimes we've been guilty of ignoring changing needs and have charged ahead in our efforts to carry out an outdated program in the face of its declining importance and participation. The danger is that we're so intensely focused on implementation that crucial issues pass us by. We may be chasing ants when we get stepped on by an elephant. Likewise, Extension has been criticized for developing a cozy relationship with a group of loyal followers and not being overly concerned with the large potential customer pool out there. But, we're doing better. Strategic planning and the identification of critical issues and National Initiatives have gone a long way toward making us relevant and stretching our limits to focus on the needs of more and different audiences. King makes much of the coupling of Extension and Experiment Station Systems in a combined promotional effort. Definite commonalities encourage such a team effort and where joint interests are present, the land grant system should be advanced as a single entity. But the uniqueness of the partners in the marriage must also be recognized. Research agendas often are too narrow to serve Extension well. Within the Experiment Station System, research on such important topics as health care, youth at risk, and waste management is limited. To ignore the importance of these topics in the promotion of Extension's image would be to disregard critical elements of its agenda. As much as I agree that Extension and research ought to work closely together, there comes a point where each has to establish its own unique identity. I was disappointed to learn that Paluszek was unable to find any quantifiable data about Extension clientele. Either he didn't look very hard, since articles have appeared in the Journal of Extension and we published a book on that topic, or we've done an inadequate job of disseminating the results of studies that have been done. What bothers me more is our lack of information on those who are not our "customers." We need to know why we're not speaking to their needs. King concludes that communicators can get the job done, that with additional resources they can handle the task of developing a positive image for AES and CES. Of one thing I am sure: no one individual or group can market Extension. The marketing of Extension and its programs is everyone's job. Every leader, every agent, every specialist, every assistant, and every administrator contribute to Extension's image. Everything we do speaks. It's not a matter of whether we communicate; it's a question of what, how, and to whom we communicate. The messages we send can portray an organization that's relevant, responsive, and visionary, or one that's viewed as unresponsive and outdated. We can frame the message, but clientele, decision makers, and the general public will form the image.
Survival Depends on Reaching Influential Audiences
David Jenkins When Paluszek says that the Extension Services and Experiment Stations have a "reputation deficit," he's really saying they have an image problem. The problem isn't they have an unfavorable image; they don't. The problem is they have no image at all (or only a very weak and fuzzy one) with certain vitally important groups that will have a significant impact on their future. Image has two components: awareness and favorability. Those individuals and groups who are aware of our Extension and research organizations generally view them favorably. Warner and Christenson have documented that the Extension Service is seen positively by clientele most familiar with its programs and services.1 What we need to do, then, is identify what Paluszek calls "influential audiences" and deliver information to them in a way that will increase their awareness of our organizations and help them view those organizations favorably. Identifying the key audiences correctly will be one of the factors of success. King implies that those are our "customers," the users of the educational programs that Extension Services deliver or of the new knowledge that the Experiment Stations generate. Our customers often don't have a significant direct influence on continued support for our organizations. The pregnant teenager in the inner city isn't likely to mention the value of Extension's nutrition program to her state legislator. The scientist in Montana whose research program benefits from a discovery made by an Experiment Station scientists in Georgia isn't likely to communicate that information to her senator. We're here to educate and to create new knowledge for the public good. We make our appeals on the basis of principle, inviting people to become wiser, better educated, more productive citizens. The private sector exists to make a profit, typically by appealing to appetites, desires, fantasies, and fears. Now it's true that certain techniques can and should be learned from people in private enterprise. It's also fair to say that we're not doing enough research to ensure our programs and communications are having the desired effect. But I don't think our "image deficit" can be blamed on communicators' failure to adopt the corporate marketing model. Land grant universities are making a painful transition from the days when farming occupied most of the population to a time when it will occupy less than two percent of all Americans. That transition isn't complete. Too often Extension communicators are placed in the position of promoting programs designed for another era. And yes, it's true that "we're doing great things." We all want to be cheerleaders for our organizations. But we can't let that zeal blind us to the possibilities that some of our critics are occasionally right. As King observes, we believe we know our "customers," and, in fact, think we know them very well. In a sense, we create our clientele. Particularly in Extension work, we consciously tailor programs to specific audiences. Identifying clientele appropriate to our mission and assessing their learning needs is the first step in the Extension program development model. What we don't do as well is identify key "influential audiences," that ultimately decide whether our organizations thrive or fold, and communicate to them the value of our products and services. Why don't we? There are several reasons. One is fragmentation: we're working with a network of administrators and communicators spread across the nation and coordinated only loosely, if at all. As King rightly observes, a concerted effort to develop teamwork across state lines will solve the fragmentation problem. We're more fortunate than many public agencies in that our state Experiment Stations and Extension Services have a cadre of skilled and experienced communicators dedicated to getting the word out. Working individually, they can address our image problem on the local and state levels. Cooperating as a team, they can address it on the national level. It will take some leadership and effort to develop that national team spirit, but it can be done. The second reason is an internal attitude problem. A lingering attitude exists among some faculty members, administrators, and land grant communicators against marketing their organizations and especially against image building. They believe advancing our image is unethical or unprofessional. Or, they cling to the naive belief that if we do good work, if we produce goods and services of value to society, our efforts will be noticed and rewarded. As budgets are slashed in one state after another, this belief is gradually dying. Concomitantly, among some communicators, there's a belief our job is to disseminate "hard" information of value to our clientele such as reports of research results for the scientific community, pest management updates for farmers, or waste management information for community leaders. Advancing the image of the organization is seen as an encroachment on time that could be better spent in more conventional ways. As land grant communication units are decimated and dismantled, this belief is also gradually dying. Attitudes will continue to change as more and more faculty members, administrators, and communicators become acutely aware that survival depends on reaching those "influential audiences." But the will to succeed isn't enough. National teamwork isn't enough. As leaders and communicators, we must retool ourselves. How many of our land grant communicators are well-read in the principles and practices of marketing for nonprofit organizations? How many know how to critically analyze audiences, or "publics," with which their organization interacts and to select those that hold the keys to their future? These skills will be crucial to building the awareness and favorability comprising a positive image. Through our professional societies and our communication units, we must provide opportunities and incentives for land grant communicators to improve their marketing communication knowledge and skills. We need the national perspective and national teamwork King advocates. But we must also be sure our communicators and their leaders have the attitudes and skills essential for success. Footnote 1. Paul D. Warner and J. A. Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984).
Impacts of Extension Privatization
William M. Rivera Extension privatization has been taking place on a global basis since the mid-1980s as a result of severe attacks on public sector Extension Systems.1 Studies of privatized systems in countries demonstrate the negative effects of such systems, particularly on small farming. The Netherlands and New Zealand The Netherlands completed in 1990 its first steps toward "Going Dutch."2 Beginning in 1993, farmers will have to pay an increasing share of the Extension services until a share of 50% of the total costs is reached in 2003. This decision to privatize has brought with it important changes. Farmers' representatives now exert more influence on the Extension Service. Provincial Offices for Agricultural Affairs have been created. This effectively separates Extension advice on farm management from the provision of information on government policy by provincial offices. Two Information and Knowledge Centers (IKCs) have also been established as a new type of organization for the transfer of knowledge and specialists have been integrated into Extension teams within those centers.3 As a result of The Netherlands Extension privati-zation, Huang notes the high level of cooperation among Dutch Extension information organizations in both the public and private sectors no longer exists. The more commercial attitude of the system has created tensions between Extension workers and their clients in what has become a less open and even fragmented knowledge and information system. Farmers who used to share in-formation during study-group meetings are more reluctant to do so.4 Although The Netherlands government goal has been attained, farmers and information services seem to be more isolated from one another as a result. New Zealand's system was totally commercialized in 1987. Its Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) now operates in a results-oriented, user-pay environment. Its previous structure of 10 technically oriented divisions, such as the Meat Division, the Animal Health Division, and the Economics Division, was reorganized into four businesses. These businesses were distinguished on the basis of accountability, clients served, services provided, and responsibility for outcomes. The four businesses are MAFTechnology, MAFQuality Management, MAFFish- eries, and MAFCorporate Services. It appears, however, that more recently, the New Zealand agricultural advisory service is being influenced by changes in the political and economic environment. A backlash from small- and medium-scale farmers who can't afford the contractual arrangements demanded by the four Extension businesses appears to be creating second thoughts among government officials. It has become clear that the bias of the privatized system is toward larger, wealthier farm enterprises, and that small-scale farmers have little access to what once was considered a "public good"- agric |
