Editor's Page

Editor's Page

Questions & Answers for Authors

Q&A for Authors

Submission Instructions

Instructions for Submitting Articles

Review and Evaluation Process

Review and Evaluation Process

Editorial Committees and Board

Editorial Committee and Board

Feature Articles

Applying Total Quality Management in Cooperative Extension

Fredendall, Lawrence D. Lippert, Robert M.

Overcoming Resistance to Issues-Based Programming

Yang, Raymond K. Fetsch, Robert J. Jenson, Glen O. Weigel, Randy R.

Using Focus Groups to Check Youth Perceptions of Agriculture

Holz-Clause, Mary Jost, Mark

Working with High-Risk Youth: A Collaborative Approach

Smith, Marilyn Hill, Dr. George C. Matranga, Dr. Myrna Good, Alice

Implications for Extension Educators Regarding the Juvenile Justice System

Filbert, Laura Thronburg, Kathy R. Mumford, Judy A. Leonard, Kimberly Kempf

Research in Brief

Florida's Organic Farmers: A Profile

Swisher, M.E. Monaghan, P.

Extensionists as Adult Educators: A Look at Teaching Style Preference

Seevers, Brenda S.

Computer-administered Surveys in Extension

Kawasaki, Jodee L. Raven, Matt R.

Ideas at Work

Organizational Renewal in the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service

Jelinek, Suzette M. Johnson, Martha R. Sauser, William I., Jr.

Building External Linkages for Extension Programs

Lafontaine, Kenneth R.

Looking for More Than New Knowledge

Steele, Sara M.

Garnishing Watermelon Enhances Promotions and Educational Programs

Dangler, James M.

Tools of the Trade

First Things First

Blum, Kristin Gamon, Julia A.

A Gauge of Success in Public Issues Education

Long, James S. Mark, Jo

Editor's Page

We are at the midpoint of the second year of the electronic Journal of Extension. Manuscript submissions continue to remain strong, which is very encouraging. We are doing our best to process and make decisions on manuscripts as quickly as possible. However, the time lost in converting to our new electronic format has not been easy to make up. It is interesting to note that in hard copy, publication decisions were made rather quickly and the authors typically had to wait to see their publication in print. In the transition to the new electronic format, authors have had to wait for a publication decision, but they see their manuscript published almost immediately after the decision is made.

There are several items I would like to bring to your attention concerning the Journal. We will be participating at the National Extension Technology Conference in Vermont in July. We will have a table at the registration desk and sponsor a poster session. We encourage you to stop by, especially state technical and institutional representatives, to learn more about the Journal of Extension.

At the Journal of Extension Board meeting in June, the idea of presenting an award for the best article in each of the Journal submission categories was discussed. We think this is a great idea and are planning to act on it. In the near future, we will be developing a process and set of criteria to judge the best articles in each of the Journal categories.

In light of the recent national strategic framework effort just completed, we strongly encourage Extension professionals to submit manuscripts on this important topic. If we receive enough of these, we may consider devoting a special issue of the Journal to this matter. This is an excellent example of a way the Journal can serve to foster the exchange of ideas to further advance the Extension mission. Please get these to us as soon as possible.

Finally, at the end of this year, the editorial responsibilities for the Journal will be passed on to a new editor. We have a number of excellent, well qualified candidates for this position. However, I was quite surprised that we did not have more institutions inquiring about this responsibility (especially after a national call). I was asked recently if the editorship of the Journal was considered prestigious for the institution. I replied yes. But the small number of responses to the call for assuming the editorial responsibilities gave me cause to wonder. As stated in the manuscript submission document:

     The Journal of Extension is the official refereed
     publication of the Cooperative Extension System.  The
     Journal expands and updates the research and knowledge base
     for Extension professionals and other adult educators to
     improve their effectiveness.  In addition, the Journal
     serves as a forum for emerging and contemporary issues
     affecting Extension education.  It's written and edited by
     Extension professionals, sharing with their colleagues
     successful educational applications, original and applied
     research findings, scholarly opinions, educational
     resources, and challenges on issues of critical importance
     to Extension educators.

If the Journal is a viable mechanism for serving these important purposes, then why are so few institutions vying for this critically important and prestigious responsibility? I would appreciate your perspectives and opinions on this issue.

Extension Journal, Inc.

Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers.

Board of Directors:

Kathryn R. Treat, President, New Mexico, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Judith Jones, Vice President, Virginia, Southern Director
Janice Leno, Secretary, Oregon, National Association of Extension Home Economists
William Meyer, Treasurer, Wisconsin
Paige Baker, Minnesota, Member-at-Large
John Bentley, Georgia, 1890 Institutions
Henry Brooks, Maryland, ECOP
Leon Brooks, Maryland, National Association of Extension 4-H Agents
Sorrel Brown, Iowa, North Central Directors
Roger Crickenberger, North Carolina, Member-at-Large
Emmett Fiske, Washington, Editorial Committee Chair
Eldon Fredericks, Indiana, ACE
Gary Hall, Nebraska, National Association of County Agriculture Agents
Dana Hallman-Bama, Washington, DC, CSREES/USDA
Ellen Ritter, Texas, Member-at-Large
Trish Sacks, Massachusetts, North East Directors
Jerry Schickedanz, New Mexico, Western Directors
Satish Verma, Louisiana, Member-at-Large

Editorial Committee:

Joyce Alves, Arizona
Tom Archer, Ohio
Janet Benson, Minnesota
Robert Christensen, Massachusetts
Henry Findlay, Alabama
Emmett Fiske, Washington, Committee Chair
Barbara Hunter, New Hampshire
Gregory Hutchins, Wisconsin
Donna Iams, Arizona
Ron Meyer, Colorado
Kathleen Parrott, Virginia
Joel Plath, Virginia
Kathy Prochaska-Cue, Nebraska
Roger Rennekamp, Kentucky
Shirley Rouse, North Carolina
Bill Umscheid, Kentucky
Barbara White, Washington, DC

Applying Total Quality Management in Cooperative Extension

Most employees in the Cooperative Extension system recognize that the rapid changes in public demands will require significant alterations in the way we conduct our business. As part of these changes, we need to develop innovative program delivery methods (Taylor-Powell & Richardson, 1990).

Total quality management (TQM) is an approach commonly used in private business to focus the firm on improving service to the customer. TQM improves service delivery by striving to continuously improve customer satisfaction by improving the service delivery process. TQM is not a single technique or a collection of techniques, rather TQM is a philosophy of management. There are numerous techniques developed and extensively implemented in private business, but one important component of TQM is that it provides a vision that focuses each member of the firm on improving customer service.

TQM may be a useful approach for the Cooperative Extension Service to use in developing innovative program delivery methods and adequately servicing the customer's needs. This paper reports on efforts to implement TQM at a soil analysis laboratory. Before reporting the results, a TQM model used in private service industries and the relevance of this model to the Cooperative Extension Service is described through an example of the soil analysis laboratories in South Carolina.

Tenner and DeToro (1992) provide an appropriate model to structure the Extension Service's TQM effort. In Figure 1, the service firm is shown as a system of internal processes. Each process is both a provider of a service and a customer of a prior service. It is important to note that each internal process needs internal performance measures and an identified process owner. The process owner is the lowest level person with authority to make a change in the process. A process measure is a performance measure used to determine whether the process is providing the service as required. This process measure has two purposes. First, it measures effectiveness by determining if the process provides what the customer needs. Second, it provides a baseline to determine if the process is improving.

     |PROCESS|-->|PROCESS|-->|PROCESS|----|---->End Customer
     |   A   |   |   B   |   |   C   |    |      (customer
         |           |           |        |       satisfaction)
        \|/         \|/         \|/      \|/
     -Owner      -Owner      -Owner     Output
     -process    -process    -process   Measure
      measure     measure     measure

     Figure 1. Internal Process

An output measure is a measure of the entire system's performance. It measures the explicit tangible good or service provided. Most services gather and report some type of output measure. An example might be the number of soil analyses returned to the customer within five days. The challenge for the service manager is to ensure that the measures used by the firm evaluate output that actually matters to the customer. The end customer satisfaction measure evaluates the customer's overall satisfaction with the system output. This measure also provides information about how the intangible aspects of the service influence the customer (e.g., how the firm's reputation influences the customer). It is difficult to measure customer satisfaction, but it is necessary to ensure that both the output measures and the internal process measures are appropriate.

Many soil analysis laboratories, following the organizational structure of the Extension Services, deliver services through field offices as shown in Figure 2. This structure is necessary to reach out across the state, but it creates a tendency for the central Extension staff (including the soil analysis laboratory) to view the Extension field offices as their external customer and not as internal customers within the Extension Services. To clarify this point, remember that the internal customer is defined as the next process within the same organization, and external customers belong to other organizations. When the provider of the internal service tracks and reports its services as output to the customer, it begins to believe that these internal output measures reflect the end customer's satisfaction. As illustrated in Figure 2, this means that the Agriculture Service Laboratory may view the field office as its customer and tracks output measure "A" instead of output measure "B," so it may lose sight of its end customer--who submitted the soil sample.

 |Submit |--->|Test   |-----|---->|Review    |---|--->End
 |Samples|    |Samples|     |     |& Mail    |   |    Customer
     |            |         |     |Results to|   |  (customer
     |            |         |     |Customer  |   | satisfaction)
     |            |         |          |         |
     |            |         |          |         |
    \|/          \|/       \|/        \|/       \|/
  -Field    -Agriculture  Output    -Field     Output
   Office    Service Lab  Measure    Office    Measure
  -process  -process       "A"      -process    "B"
   measure   measure                 measure

Figure 2. Process Owner Performance Measure

As shown in Figure 2, the lab is also the customer of the county agent who mails the samples to the laboratory. So it is possible that this confusion of internal measures with output measures could be repeated at multiple points within the organization. The result of confusing internal process measures with output measures is that staff may feel they are effectively serving their customer, when end customer satisfaction may actually be very low. This type of structure insulates the laboratory staff from direct feedback from the farmer/customer, and prevents the quantitative gathering of customer satisfaction measures. The separation of the organization's performance measures from its customers requirements is not unique in any U.S. industry. Only recently have most manufacturing and service firms begun to identify customer satisfaction as their firm's primary goal.

The following report examines the initial steps to improve customer satisfaction by implementing TQM at the South Carolina Agricultural Service Laboratory in Clemson, South Carolina. One of the major analytical services provided by the Agricultural Service Laboratory is soil testing. Until recently, the lab tested an average of 65,000 soil samples annually. After the lab changed its fee from no charge to $5.00 a sample for its services, the number of samples processed dropped to about 30,000 samples in 1992.

To begin their implementation of TQM, the laboratory decided to first identify what their end customer, the farmer, considered to be important and what their internal customer, the Extension agent, considered to be important. To aid in this effort, they obtained the help of a group of business students who were studying process improvement techniques. The students first interviewed selected field Extension agents about their relationship with the laboratory and their view of why the number of soil samples decreased. Agents felt that the number of samples dropped when the laboratory charged a fee because some farmers were combining samples from larger areas, some homeowners no longer submitted samples, and some farmers were sending samples to private labs to obtain more comprehensive tests. Agents felt the laboratory needed to provide additional tests to effectively compete with the private labs. Finally, some agents felt that the laboratory's reports were not as attractive as some of the private laboratory's reports.

The soil laboratory then cooperated with the students to survey its customers to establish their satisfaction level with their soil tests. The survey was mailed to 500 farmers who currently use the lab's services. Two hundred fifty-two surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.4%. Of these respondents, 97% were pleased with the accuracy and usefulness of the lab's results and recommendations and 92% planned to continue using the service. About 89% of the customers were satisfied with the turnaround time. The survey also asked customers to indicate improvements they wanted. Suggestions included the need for the laboratory to do testing for additional plant nutrients and to improve its report forms. Nearly 18% of those who responded thought the fee of $5.00 per sample was too high.

This information came only from those customers who continued to use the lab's services after the lab began to charge a fee. To evaluate the perceptions of those not currently using the lab's services, the lab staff and the students conducted another survey of 520 farmers who were not using the lab's services. These farmers, identified by the county agents, included both those who previously used the services and those who had never used the lab's services. One hundred surveys were returned for a response rate of 20%. Their major source of dissatisfaction was the length of time it took for the lab to give them the results of their soil analysis. Part of this problem may have been due to out-moded equipment which was replaced in 1992.

To determine which part of the process was susceptible to the delay turning around the soil analysis, the students prepared a detailed flow chart of the lab's internal process. A flow chart is a tool commonly used with TQM to identify the steps in the process and the length of time to conduct each step. Analysis of this flow chart demonstrated that the lab finished all analysis in two days or less. Extending the flow chart to county Extension offices showed that the transportation time of the samples from the county office to the lab as well as the transit time of the reports back to the county offices could extend the turnaround time up to almost two weeks.

As a next step in the investigation, the students met with some agents who had the shortest turn-around times. The students discovered that these offices submitted samples to the lab using United Parcel Services (UPS) and not fourth class mail as the counties did with longer turn-around times. Also, those counties with the shortest turn-around times printed the final report for the farmer directly from the Extension Service's computer network by using their office personal computers and printers. They could then send the reports to the local farmer within hours of it being completed by the laboratory.

The complaints about the quality of the laboratory's report form required more analysis. First, the laboratory developed two additional report forms and sent surveys to 100 farmers who repeatedly used the laboratory's service to evaluate their perceptions of the different report formats. The response rate was 34%, but the respondents indicated they saw little difference between the report formats. Follow-up to determine why there was no perceived difference between the formats established that none of the formats were as attractive as the private laboratory reports. Analysis of the private laboratory report forms showed that differences in formats were that the private laboratories used color printers and graphics and that they indicated a specific yield goal for various crops selected by the customer.

Given this data, it was clear that customers considered the accuracy and usefulness of the lab's test results to be high. The customer's perception of the lab's services however, were predominantly shaped by two other factors. First, many farmers found that the turn-around time for some counties (up to nearly two weeks) was excessive. Second, some farmers evaluated the laboratory's report quality in part by the appearance of its format and its comprehensiveness compared to the private laboratory's reports. Examining Figure 2 shows that the laboratory does not completely control either of these factors. Improvement in these two areas, which is now being implemented, will greatly enhance the delivery of the lab's services and likely increase customer satisfaction and the number of lab users.

The Agricultural Service Laboratory first recognized the need to consider the end customer's satisfaction with its services. It then began a TQM evaluation by surveying end customers and internal customers. The surveys showed that the laboratory needs to take certain steps to improve customer satisfaction. First, it needs to continue implementing the means of optimizing turn-around time for laboratory reports. Second, it needs to evaluate how to improve the appearance of its reports.

TQM is a process of continuous improvement that is applicable to the entire Cooperative Extension network. The use of customer surveys is a valuable starting point for any TQM effort. It helps to ensure that change is directed towards satisfying the customer. Also, it encourages continual change. As one improvement is made, another need is identified and the search to develop a method of meeting this need or removing a cause of dissatisfaction begins.

Taylor-Powell, E., & Richardson, B., (1990). Issues programming changes Extension. Journal of Extension, 28(Summer), 16-17.

Tenner, A. R., & DeToro, I. J. (1992). Total quality management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Overcoming Resistance to Issues-Based Programming

Issues-Based Programming (IBP) is increasingly described as the way to make Cooperative Extension programs more responsive to public needs. IBP is also thought to be useful when Extension offices cannot serve all of their clientele, for example, when budget reductions necessitate reductions in staff. IBP helps Extension administrators and specialists delineate and prioritize important issues, and respond to those issues efficiently. This may be important when legislators and the public demand more responsive and accountable service.

Baker and Verma (1993) found both substantial use of and resistance to IBP by Extension personnel. They cited five reasons for this contradiction: unfamiliarity with practical strategies to conduct IBP; lack of state and field administrative support for the IBP process; inadequate training for agents and specialists in the role of facilitator, especially with focus-group interview procedures; fear of territorial problems; and ineffective use of volunteers with experience and interest in the issues.

Three additional reasons for Extension resistance to IBP seem possible. First, IBP may appear to be a ploy that administrators use to redirect efforts of specialists and agents. Second, IBP may be without a truly empirical method of delineating and prioritizing issues. That is, it may be vulnerable to the influences of others (e.g., an administrator with predetermined issues and priorities). Third, the concept of IBP may contain too many tandem elements to be workable. That is, IBP requires that issues be identified, and that ensuing programming be based directly on those issues. When programming does not align closely with identified issues, the entire process can appear desultory.

In this article, a process for empirically delineating issues in a way that directly informs and focuses programming is described. A method for ensuring that stakeholders are directly involved in the process, and therefore, should feel responsible to implement it is also articulated. Three components of this process have been successfully tested: defining the issues (Jenson, Warstadt, Daly & Schuchardt, 1990), validating them (Weigel, Fetsch, Jenson, Yang & Rogers, 1992), and clustering them in a way that focuses programming (Yang, Fetsch, Jenson & Weigel, 1994).

Jenson and his colleagues (Jenson & Daly, 1988; Jenson et al., 1990) collected statements indicative of family trends and issues from congressional committees, federal funding agencies, agencies with responsibilities for family-related matters, and social policy organizations. From these statements 83 emerging trends and issues were generated. These trends and issues were winnowed to 33 issues through a process of elimination; professional Extension staff and homemaker club presidents selected a rank-ordered subset representing the most important issues (Jenson & Daly, 1988). Each issue in the subset was then rated on how critical it was (i.e., in need of immediate attention) by a national sample of Extension professionals, university faculty, and others (Jenson et al., 1990). This rating was replicated with a sample representing consumers (Weigel et al., 1992). Below is a listing of the 12 family issues rated most critical by the consumer sample:

0. Rising Health Care Costs
1. Substance Abuse
2. Child Abuse
3. Functional Illiteracy of Youth
4. Inadequate Elderly Health Care
5. High School Dropouts
6. Health Insurance for Young Adults
7. Inadequate School Preparation for the Labor Market
8. Youth Suicide
9. Strengthening the Family
10. Alcoholism
11. Teenage Pregnancy and Childbearing

These top 12 issues are similar to those obtained by Jenson and his colleagues (Jenson & Daly, 1988; Jenson et al., 1990). Despite their comparable ranking, the method does not help identify issues which are interrelated, and whose interrelationships might better inform program developers.

Therefore, to determine which issues were interrelated, a factor analysis of the entire 33-item subset was conducted. Each item was factor-scored to generate a ranked set of broader concerns (Yang et al., 1994). The analysis provided six orthogonal factors: (a) School System Failure, (b) Substance Abuse Effects, (c) Parenting Stress, (c) Elderly's Critical Needs, (e) Disenfranchised Poor, and (f) Economic Challenges.

The factors economically summarized the entire set of issues and generated a prioritized set of broad concerns. Notably, the ranking of these factor-generated concerns differed from the ranked single issues. This meant that the broad concerns contained single issues which, when clustered with other issues rated similarly, changed their ranking. These concerns defined targetable sets of issues for which specific programs could be developed.

Cooperative Extension is a multi-disciplinary profession. The complex issues dealt with by Extension faculty often engage several subject matters. The issues identification process outlined by Jenson and Daly (1988) and Weigel et al., (1992) focused only on family issues. The suggestions listed below are applicable to identifying and clustering issues in all subject-matter disciplines offered by Extension. Based on previous experience with IBP, 10 steps are suggested to develop, validate, and cluster issues into programmable units.

1. Identify the constituencies who have an investment in the results of issues-based programming. Consider clientele, non-clientele, volunteers, field agents, campus specialists, faculty, and administrators.

2. Form a small "Issues Task Force" with representatives from each of these constituencies. Limit the group to 5-8 members with a facilitator. Members must have the time and energy to commit to IBP. A rapid written communication system (e.g., e-mail) should link all task force members. An effective communication system (e.g., telephone) should link task force members with their constituencies.

3. Have each task force member collect statements of critical issues from their constituencies. The statements should be simple declarative sentences, for example, "Teenage drug abuse is a serious problem" or "Non-point source water pollution must be addressed." The statements should represent as many of the critical issues as possible; the actual number of statements is not important at this point.

4. Have the task force collate all the collected statements. From the declarative sentences the subject should be retained and the predicates should be dropped. For example, "Teenage drug abuse is a serious problem" should be truncated to "Teenage Drug Abuse." This process can eliminate redundant topics. For example, "Teenage drug abuse is a serious problem" and "Teenage drug abuse is vastly overestimated" become identical. Care should be taken to avoid combining subjects that are similar, but not identical (e.g., teenage alcoholism and teenage abuse of other drugs).

5. Construct a survey form, listing a reasonable number of critical issues. The survey could be designed to be administered as a mail or telephone survey. Items should be randomly ordered. The survey should not identify the respondent beyond status and, possibly, demographic characteristics. A prototype of the survey should be pilot tested with people not on the task force. This helps to discover confusing statements and eliminate easily missed errors.

6. Construct Likert-type scales applicable for all issue statements. The responses might range from "Unimportant" or "May Need Attention in Several Years" to "Extremely Important" or "Needs Immediate Attention." Each item should be paired with the Likert-type scale and examined for appropriateness.

7. Obtain a random sample of the population. Consider State Drivers License Bureau, Voter Registration lists, or telephone listings. Sample size will vary based on the number of issues in the survey. A general rule of thumb is to multiply by ten the number of items in the survey to determine sample size. Thus, a 30-issue survey should have about 300 respondents. Generally, this is enough to sustain the statistical reliability of the analysis.

8. Use a systematic method for increasing return rates. Dillman (1978) has outlined a method that has proven effective in many situations.

9. Factor analyze the data to identify broad concerns. Factor analysis is helpful in identifying which group of issues is assigned the greatest importance. Pre-packaged computer programs (e.g., Statistical Programs for the Social Sciences) are available on most university campuses. Additional analyses can be conducted on the relation between demographic characteristics, status, and concerns.

10. To verify findings from the mail or telephone survey and to determine which issues are most appropriate for Cooperative Extension to address, identify a random number of people who are willing to participate in focus group interviews to review and reflect on the data. Having skilled Extension faculty lead focus groups can help solve some of the problems faced by Baker and Verma (1993).

The method described above is similar to opinion polling. But, there is an important difference: The method ensures that the respondents define issues about which they will later express opinions. Thus, this method deals with issues that are important to constituents. By comparison, national opinion polls (e.g., Roper, Gallup) deal with issues that may not be considered particularly relevant by community members to their communities.

Determining critical issues is a daunting task. Certain issues while critical to some, may ultimately be ranked low in the list of priorities. Also, some issues ranked high by the public may not be ones thought to be important by professionals. These issues may not be among those to which professionals feel they can effectively respond. Nonetheless, IBP has a prerequisite--that professionals know what their clientele consider to be the important issues.

Much of the resistance to IBP by Extension can be precluded with practical strategies for issues validation. By creating teams of stakeholders with a commitment to work together to use the steps outlined in this article, most of the resistance can be overcome. Involving the Extension Director, other administrators, campus faculty, and field faculty to help the task force identify critical issues builds ownership and support for using the results in IBP. By building an interdisciplinary task force with a skilled facilitator, territorial problems can be minimized. This public and empirically-based process increases the likelihood that redirected efforts of specialists and agents will more likely be focused on the publics' perceived needs.

Baker, F. E., & Verma, S. (1993). Evaluating issues programming. Journal of Extension, 31(Fall), 20-21.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

Jenson, G. O., & Daly, R. T. (1988). Family and economic well-being environmental scan. Cooperative Extension System national initiatives: Focus on issues (GPO No. 1988- 201:80180/ES). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Jenson, G., Warstadt, T., Daly, R., & Schuchardt, J. (1990). A ranking of critical issues facing American families (ED435b). Logan: Utah State University Cooperative Extension.

Weigel, R. R., Fetsch, R. J., Jenson, G. O., Yang, R. K., & Rogers, D. L. (1992). Issues validation: A new environmental scanning technique for family life educators. Family Relations, 41, 251-255.

Yang, R. K., Fetsch, R. J., Jenson, G. O., & Weigel, R. R. (1994). Broad attitudes subsume public concerns about specific family issues. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Yang and Fetsch made equal contributions to this article.

Using Focus Groups to Check Youth Perceptions of Agriculture

What comes to your mind when you think of a farmer? Iowa middle school students often think of an old man, dressed in overalls, smelling dirty, and chewing on a straw. This perception came through in a series of focus groups conducted during the winter of 1992-93 in selected Iowa communities.

The objective of the study was to learn more about middle school students' perceptions of agriculture and the food processing industry in Iowa, so commodity groups could develop agricultural curriculum appropriate for a youth audience. The focus group approach was chosen because it has proven to be effective for uncovering and understanding attitudes and opinions of individuals (Krueger, 1988).

The focus groups, conducted by Iowa State University Extension, were sponsored by a coalition of Iowa commodity groups. The focus groups took place in seven locations: four in urban areas (population 25,000-200,000) and three in rural areas (population less than 3,000) The urban and rural locations were selected to determine if there was a difference in attitudes among rural and urban youth.

The focus groups were composed of a roughly equal mix of boys and girls, and varied in size from five to seven participants. Researchers worked through the schools and asked principals or guidance counselors for a typical demographic representation of middle school youth in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. In an effort to make the participants as comfortable as possible, the discussions took place at school. Youth were required to obtain parental permission before they could participate.

Focus group questions included the following:

• When I hear the word "agriculture" I think of ___________.
• How does the word "agriculture" make you feel?
• Tell me about the good things that agriculture does.
• Why do you think the people in agriculture do those things?
• Tell me about the bad things that agriculture does.
• Why do you think the people in agriculture do those things?
• Has agriculture touched your life in the last 24 hours? How?
• If agriculture disappeared today, would it matter to you personally? How? To your community? How? To Iowa? How?

The focus group discussions were recorded and hand-written notes taken by an assistant moderator. The notes were intended to capture not only the overall discussion, but noteworthy quotes, observations of group dynamics, body language, and possible follow-up questions. In almost all cases, adults (aside from the moderator and assistant moderator) were not present.

After the session, the moderator and assistant moderator debriefed and checked their perceptions of the discussion. Then the assistant moderator prepared a report from the notes and passed the report on to the moderator for review. The reports from the seven focus groups were used to create a summary report. Though the sample was not random or large enough to be representative, some themes emerged.

Stereotypical Views of Agriculture Prevail

Youth equated agriculture with farming, but made no connection to the technical or research-intensive aspects of agriculture. For example, farming was perceived to be hard, physical labor and stressful because of machinery breakage, weather uncertainties, and price variances. However, genetics, research, engineering, financial management, or international commodity markets were not mentioned by the youth.

Youth, both rural and urban, tended to think of farmers as wearing bib overalls and chewing on a straw. Some youth said they knew farmers. The farmers they knew didn't fit the stereotype, but "other farmers" did.

Farmers' Image Vaguely Positive

Some urban youth seemed not only ignorant of agriculture, but wished to remain so. They had no interest in agriculture and seemed to view a career in agriculture with disdain or at least apathy. Despite the disdain, interviews did not uncover any anger or resentment toward agriculture. Most youth expressed a vague sense of gratitude to farmers for raising food, with rural youth taking some pride in their connection to agriculture.

When students were asked to discuss the bad things that farmers do, use of pesticides that seep into the water supply was consistently mentioned. Other comments included soil erosion, taking the land so that houses couldn't be built, clearing of the rain forests in the southern hemisphere, cattle belching producing methane gas, and farmers not taking care of their animals properly.

However, the youth indicated they feel farmers do these bad things because they have little choice. They have to make a living. Students did not bring up issues involving farmers raising animals for slaughter. When asked specifically if slaughtering animals was bad, they indicated that it was too bad the animals had to die, but that was the cycle of things.

Farmers are Important

Most youth were generally aware of the importance of agriculture to food production. They strongly associated farming with corn. Cereal products and vegetables were most often mentioned in relation to food. Meat, milk, or other agricultural products were seldom mentioned.

The youth acknowledged that without agriculture there would be no food. If agriculture disappeared, their personal lives, as well as their community and state, would be affected. However, the impact was usually stated in terms of traditional farming: no food, loss of farm jobs, loss of farm-related jobs, etc. Some responses indicated Iowa would be hurt because it would lose its reputation for agriculture.

Farm Careers Appear Unattractive for Many

Feelings about agriculture varied, with many rural youth taking pride in farming and working outdoors. Many urban youth viewing farming as hard, boring, physical labor.

Attitudes toward careers in agriculture differed. A few of the rural youth hoped to farm. Some were interested in agriculture-related careers such as a veterinarian or a mechanic. Very few of the urban youth wanted anything to do with careers in agriculture, although there were differing views about living in the country. Members of one group viewed the country as healthy and pure; but another group said the country was dirty--the "boonies." The youth seemed unaware of nontraditional and technical career opportunities.

The youth indicated a belief that people get into agriculture because they grew up on a farm, or that someone gave them a farm. Most of them did not think someone could farm, just because he or she wanted to. They felt that buying land, machinery, etc., would be too expensive unless someone had received help to get started.

Rural students were divided about whether it is harder to make a living in agriculture today than it was 10 years ago. Students who were aware of grain operations thought it was more difficult, while students who knew about livestock production thought it was about the same or maybe a little easier. Urban youth felt farming was getting easier because farmers have more machinery, pesticides, etc., to help them. Overall, agriculture was viewed as having a limited future, with the traditional image of agriculture dominating.

The researchers recommended the following measurers to the commodity groups when writing agricultural curriculum for youth.

Tie Agriculture to Youth Interests

Don't assume youth are interested in agriculture. Instead, actively cultivate this interest, and demonstrate that agriculture is relevant to youth. Materials must define agriculture and relate it to youths' lives. Sports or music personalities could be enlisted to deliver messages to youth about agriculture.

For instance instead of discussing food, which seems to be of minor relevance in their lives, a discussion of a scenario such as, "leather comes from animals, and is made into the tennis shoes and basketballs, etc." may be more effective. Because there is such a detachment from agriculture in the minds' of youth, it is important to help them make connections.

Materials may also emphasize the technical aspects of agriculture and the various career opportunities in these "hi-tech" fields. For example, youth may be interested in genetic engineering, global positioning, or high performance engines.

Educate Early

Because students in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades appear to have already shaped their perceptions of agriculture, it may be best to target new efforts at children in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades.

Measure Your Results

Creation of a pre- and post-test of students' knowledge of agriculture may be an effective evaluation tool. Materials can be modified on an on-going basis to meet students' level of understanding.

The youth in these focus groups have largely shaped their perceptions of agriculture. However, these perceptions, even among rural participants, more often matched a stereotypical "hayseed" view of farming than the realities of a rapidly changing industry. Though farmers were considered important by urban and rural participants, urban youth had little interest in agricultural careers. In fact, all participants equated agriculture with farming rather than the wider industry. These results, though not statistically representative, indicate that commodity groups or others that wish to communicate with Iowa youth should not assume a wide base of awareness about, or interest in, agriculture.

Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

What We Learned about Conducting Focus Groups with Youth

As with any research technique, use staff who have appropriate training to conduct the research. Focus groups don't just happen; they are not just informal discussion groups. They require careful planning and much groundwork. The questioning route, the moderator's leadership, the way the data is captured (e.g., notes, audio tape, or video tape), and a variety of other factors affect the quality of the data.

Get permission from parents or guardians of the youth you want to interview, particularly if you are taping (audio or video) the session. Send permission slips home a few days ahead of your visit so participants can take it home for their parents to sign, then return to school. Arrive at the session early enough so the youth who forgot about the form (there will be some) have time to call home for at least oral permission.

Prepare many questions. You may use two to three times as many questions as you would with adults. But just because you've asked a question and received an answer (or maybe not) don't be afraid of rephrasing the question and asking it again later. Youth will have had time to think about your question and may have more responses.

Not all focus group sessions click. Schedule enough groups (five to seven) so you can afford one or two failures. Then don't pressure yourself to make each group work. Pressure will only make you nervous, which will only make the participants uneasy.

Meet the students on their turf. Go to their school. Sit on the floor. The school environment worked well for us, because it was familiar to the participants but was structured enough that the youth didn't view the focus group as recess. Don't dress up too much. Be comfortable.

Icebreakers are optional. We didn't use them. The students probably wondered what this focus group business was all about, so we got right to the questions and ended the suspense.

Explain that the focus group session is not a quiz. Consider that almost every time an adult asks a young person a question, the adult is looking for either (a) an explanation or justification, or (b) a correct answer. Explain that there are no right or wrong answers and that you just want to know what they think. They may not believe you at first, but you can drive this point home by being nonjudgmental throughout the session.

Interviewing youth is different than interviewing adults. Usually adults will talk a lot, even if they have little to say. They have lots of experiences, wisdom, and opinions that no one ever asks them about. Youth, on the other hand, have had fewer years to acquire all those ideas.

Lead, if necessary. In focus group training, we were taught to avoid asking leading questions. But some youth won't talk if you don't suggest possible responses or play out a scenario (in as neutral a fashion as possible). Participants didn't seem shy about disagreeing with us or offering their own responses if they had something to say. All the same, don't lead any more than you have to.

Push, but do so gently. When interviewing adults, you can draw out the quieter ones by asking them questions directly. Use this approach with care on youth. You can call on individuals, but go easy. Some kids will withdraw even more if you target them. Give lots of opportunities by looking at group members and waiting a few seconds. If no one bites, rephrase the question, or move on. Maybe you can recast the question and ask it again later.

Don't try to act like the youth you're interviewing. You're not a kid. They don't expect you to be. Be friendly, and accepting, and act your age. They can cope.

Don't think that little discussion means you failed. Youth can be succinct. You can learn a lot in a few words.

Working with High-Risk Youth:
A Collaborative Approach

Public schools are centers of youth activity for many rural communities. As such, they represent an ideal setting for collaborative youth-at-risk programming. In an effort to better understand the dynamics of collaborative youth-at-risk programming in schools, factors contributing to the successful development of these types of programs in rural Nevada schools were examined. A qualitative, multicase study approach was used in which rural elementary school principals were interviewed about conditions and factors that contributed to successful youth programs developed with Cooperative Extension. This article presents a brief description of literature and a summary of the study data. Both provide valuable insight into furthering school-Cooperative Extension collaborative efforts.

Collaboration

While the definition for collaboration remains the same in both rural and urban communities, the special needs of rural schools make the need for collaborative programs even more acute (Hale, 1991). Hale (1991) indicates rural school districts are: (a) small and remote, (b) isolated and lack political power, and (c) short on resources. Hale also suggests that a larger proportion of rural children grow up in economically poor communities than do urban children. Many would like to believe that children in rural communities are somehow protected from today's problems. However, the following description fits both urban and rural schools. Guthrie, Scott, Guthrie, and Aronson (1993) state:

     American schools in the 90's are ill-equipped to provide
     services and assistance to meet the needs of students.  The
     stresses of poverty, hunger, family violence and the
     powerful influences of gangs or drugs in the community, are
     taking a terrible toll on children.  Changes in the kinds of
     needs children bring to school have placed additional
     burdens on teachers and other school staff--burdens they are
     unable to bear alone. (p. 5)

The Community Collaboration Manual (1991) lists seven elements to effective collaboration: (a) a shared vision, (b) skilled leadership, (c) process orientation, (d) cultural diversity, (e) a membership-driven agenda, (f) multiple sectors, and (g) accountability. All these factors help develop lasting efforts. Cohen (1991) defines collaboratives as "multilateral efforts that unite organizations and people to achieve common goals that could not be accomplished by any single organization" (pp. 6-17).

Other school literature suggests that in working with schools, time must be allowed for institutionalization to occur. Researchers suggest a holistic systemic approach to cooperation and collaboration that includes strong school administrative support and the presence of at least one highly motivated change agent (Fullan, 1992).

Study Design

A qualitative multicase study design was selected for this study because:

1. the complexity of the issues necessitated an open dialogue to better understand the factors which made the program successful;

2. the collection of affective data does not lend itself to the multiple-choice format of quantitative analysis;

3. there is a lack of baseline information on the central concepts of this study; and

4. there were a small number of schools (n = 10) involved, making for a better qualitative than quantitative study.

Both Merriam (1988) and Yin (1989) consider qualitative analysis appropriate in the field of education. Merriam states that case study research is an "ideal design for understanding and interpreting observations of educational phenomena" (p. 2). While the use of qualitative research has been limited in the field of education, it has been used in a number of related social science fields to investigate issues to better understand complex social phenomena (Yin, 1989). This program involved the resource and cultures of two social organizations making the choice of qualitative methodology the most appropriate to understand the real dynamics behind the programs' success.

Qualitative Methodology

In an effort to better understand the dynamics within a school that make it receptive to external involvement, an interview was conducted with each of the ten school principals that had collaborated on a successful youth at-risk program with Nevada Cooperative Extension for at least one year. In preparation for the interviews, an initial review of literature on school change, culture, and qualitative methodology was completed. A preliminary list of nine survey questions was prepared by the authors and a panel of experts reviewed the questions prior to the interviews. The questions were preceded by an opening paragraph explaining the purpose of the interview. The questions were kept short and to the point; for example, "How important was the need to have a program for youth-at-risk at your school?" To determine if our questioning strategies were appropriate, three trial interviews were conducted. They were also reviewed by the panel of experts. The open-ended survey instrument was modified to include the experts' suggestions. At that point the formal interviews were conducted with each principal.

The study design included efforts to insure reliability and validity. Because construct validity is usually the most problematic area in qualitative analysis, a "chain of evidence" was used to increase it (Yin, 1989, p. 42). In this process, each of the principal interviews was tape recorded. The tapes were transcribed and the transcriptions were color coded to distinguish between schools and between questions. The authors then reviewed the transcripts for accuracy. After making sure that the transcripts were accurate, the authors began to read and re-read the transcripts looking for similarities in answers that would help establish that "chain of evidence." To insure reliability, external readers reviewed the transcripts to verify the conclusions drawn by the chain of evidence discovered by the authors.

The data analysis included:

1. data reduction, which is a continuous process of organizing the data to make and verify conclusions;

2. data display, which involves summarizing data; and

3. conclusion drawing/verification, the process where conclusions are made and verified (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

The qualitative analysis provided rich descriptions and quotations gathered in the interviews.

The school principals enumerated six major elements they felt made a difference in building a collaboration to target youth-at-risk: (a) local support provided by Cooperative Extension; (b) targeting of elementary students in prevention programs; (c) community partners in the program; (d) low impact on the school budget; (e) flexibility (i.e., allowing each school to fit the program to its own needs); and (f) giving schools program ownership.

Local Support

School principals revealed there are many opportunities for teacher training in youth-at-risk programs. However, there is limited local support when teachers return to school to initiate the program. If they have a question or problem, there is no source to answer them. Principals acknowledged that this program was developed locally by schools, Cooperative Extension and other educators from the land-grant university. As problems or questions arose, the collaborative group resolved them. "You didn't just come in and say, 'Here's a manual, we'd like you guys to do this' and then drop it in our laps," said one principal.

The program development model included an impact evaluation designed with Cooperative Extension providing technical support. "We want to see the results of the time and energy we put forth and how it has affected the students," related a principal. Other principals told us the documented results are what encourages teachers to continue volunteering their time for the program. Quantitative results based on the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control and observations by parents, teachers and the youth are available from the authors on request (Smith, Hill, D'Andrea & Matranga, 1995).

Targeting High-Risk Youth

Principals indicated a high need for a prevention program for high-risk elementary students. This particular isolated, rural area was experiencing the same youth problems as most urban areas. However, the rural schools did not have the programs or resources to deal with the problems. "One counselor for 752 kids doesn't have time to reach all of these kids," summed up one principal. Other schools had no counselor or programs to assist high-risk youth.

Community Partners

While the main collaborators were Cooperative Extension and local schools, other community groups joined in to expand the program's contact hours. 4-H club members, business people and parents of the high-risk youth provided young people with an opportunity to do a community service project. The high-risk students at each school learned to identify community needs by attending a one-day training session. Under the guidance of the community collaborators, youth put their plans to work. Their projects spanned tree planting to development of a movie theater.

Through training sessions, parents of the high-risk youth learned to reinforce life skills at home. Parents said they learned important skills and felt more capable of helping their children be successful in school. Principals indicated this was one of a few programs that include community and parent components, thus encouraging a long-term influence on the children.

School Budget

The collaborative nature of the program created a low impact on the school budget. Collaborators shared costs so the financial burden was not on any one agency. "There are a lot of neat programs out in the world and we get pamphlets and mailings on all kinds of them," related one principal. He continued, "Programs may be aimed at substance abuse of one kind or another, ...but most of them are very narrow. This is a cooperative program, and that's why it has worked, because there are so many entities involved and they are kept informed. This program has brought to life the true meaning of Cooperative Extension."

School Ownership

The collaboration was flexible and allowed each school to adapt the program to meet its needs. Some schools added leadership councils so the high-risk students had additional opportunities. Other schools added career components to encourage high-risk youth to develop goals toward future education. Many Cooperative Extension professionals have asked us, "How did you get into the schools?" The answer is not easy, but ownership is a key.

This study was conducted to assist Cooperative Extension professionals in working with local schools. The goal was to suggest strategies that, if used, would enhance the likelihood of success when collaborating with public schools. The methodology provided important insights because of the qualitative approach taken in this study. Hopefully, the results will contribute to our understanding of the school context and add to the knowledge base. Extension professionals are encouraged to consider the six elements related to successful collaboration discovered through this study. It is hoped that by increasing the success of collaborative endeavors, we will provide more help to kids and families who need us.

Cohen, D. L. (1991, January). Barriers of poverty and bureaucracy pose challenges to service agencies, families. Education Week, p. 18.

The Community Collaboration Manual. (1991). Washington, DC: National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations, National Collaboration for Youth.

Fullan, M. (1992, October). Getting reform right. Paper presented at Nevada Project Lead Conference, Reno, Nevada.

Guthrie, L. F., Scott, B. L., Guthrie, G. P., & Aronson, J. Z. (1993). Portraits of interagency collaboration. (Special Report Prepared for U.S. Department of Education). San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Hale, S. (1991). School-community collaboration in a rural setting: Sources and profiles (Knowledge Brief #8). San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Smith, M., Hill, G., D'Andrea, L., & Matranga, M. (1995). A community based program for rural youth at-risk. The Rural Educator, (17)2.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Implications for Extension Educators
Regarding the Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile justice, a system separate from criminal justice, is directed by laws and policies that are guided by the doctrine of parens patriae, requiring the state to function as a parent to meet the best interests of the youth whom they serve. This system must respond to the varied needs of youth, functioning simultaneously as caregivers, teachers, protectors, and disciplinarians, as well as ensuring community safety. The parens patriae objectives also require that administrative decisions be tailored to individual children and function away from public view in order to shield children.

Juvenile justice operates with more limited resources and more obscure goals than its criminal justice counterpart. The parens patriae philosophy allows juvenile justice broader discretion, which results in many opportunities for disparate treatment of youth. Included in that discretion is the potential for leaders working within the juvenile justice system and planners of youth programs, such as 4-H, to arrange for meaningful programs for youth at-risk. The inclusion of other seriously committed family- and youth-service organizations in a holistic approach to youth programming can lead to informed discussions within the context of the particular community. As a caring assembly working together, a group can identify current deficiencies in related youth programs, consider recommendations by experts, and apply relevant research to programs that range from prevention to auxiliary treatment. With accurate information, groups can plan policy changes to provide better access for troubled youth and offer them better alternatives in their selections of youth groups with which to identify.

Numerous national commissions and task forces, composed of hundreds of persons considered the most knowledgeable on child- and family-related issues, have produced reports recommending ways to improve various aspects of the lives of children and their families. Juvenile justice is one of the topics addressed by these panels.

The synthesis of these panel recommendations that pertain to juvenile justice was the focus of this study. The results, which combine the conclusions of many people and recent research, have practical as well as theoretical relevance, and equip practitioners with empirically-based information to design programs and to share with legislators and policy makers.

The method used in this study was to review existing reports focusing on children's issues, including juvenile justice, that were published from 1988 to 1992, and were sponsored by foundations, councils, government agencies, Congress, and national organizations or associations. (Several of the reports included disclaimers stating that opinions or conclusions were not necessarily those of the funding sources.) An attempt was made to include all reports that recommended specific actions for improving the lives of children. Fifty-eight reports were located and reviewed, including those with conservative and liberal views, those with recommendations relating to health, mental health, education, social services, labor, and juvenile justice.

The 58 reports reviewed had from one to 133 recommendations, with a total of 1,218 individual recommendations. At least two reports had to make a similar recommendation in order for it to be included in this study. Eighteen recommendations, from four different reports, were related to the topic of juvenile justice.

Each recommendation statement in this section is followed by: (1) the sponsors of the panels that made the recommendation, and (2) research that supports the recommendation.

Recommendation:

Accurately assess each delinquent juvenile's risk to the public, develop innovative measures to deal effectively with first time drug offenders and youth involved in drug-related crimes, assess juveniles' rehabilitative needs, and provide after-care programs.

National Coalition of Advocates for Students (1988)
National Governors Association (1991)

Research support:

1. Differentiates involvement in violations (property, person, drug, and public order violations) (Bishop & Frazier, 1990; Kempf, 1992).

2. Equitably assesses seriousness of offenses (Lockhart, Kurtz, Sutphen & Gauger, 1990; Elliott & Huizinga, 1987).

3. Explains minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice system: not due to greater prevalence of serious delinquency (Eisikovits, Fishman, Guttman, Joe, Krisberg & Schwartz, 1987).

Recommendation:

Develop support by including juvenile justice representatives in planning and implementing community-based programs, by fostering an understanding of the nature of detained youth and alternative programs such as parent training in intergroup relations seminars.

National Governors Association (1991)
National Coalition for Advocates for Students (1988)

Research support:

1. Geographic residence affects case outcomes (Feld, 1991; Kempf, 1992; Kempf, Decker & Bing, 1992).

2. Identifies that less attachment to conventional institutions, weakened family units, and negative peer pressure are more the basis of delinquency than socioeconomic status or community environment (Gottfredson, Gottfredson & McNeil, 1991).

3. Identifies reasons why there is a negative relation between socioeconomic status and delinquency (Agnew, 1990).

4. Finds minority youth (Latino and Native American) more likely to reside outside of metro areas (Pope & Feyerherm, 1991).

Recommendation:

Establish flexible funding and innovative partnerships to offset funding discrepancies.

Children's Defense Fund (1992)
National Coalition for Advocates for Students (1988)
National Governors Association (1991)
White House Conference on a Drug Free America (1988)

Research support:

Defines indicators of expanding underclass population--youth unemployment rates, changing urban structures, decline of urban industry, ethnic transformation, shifting job opportunities (Duster, 1987).

Recommendation:

Compile system-wide state and local data on programs and individuals for the purpose of program analysis and development of youth profiles--include program goal attainment and cost data as well as individual histories and abilities.

National Coalition for Advocates for Students (1988)
National Governors Association (1991)

Research support:

1. Recommends better specification of SES/poverty (Meier & Tittle, 1990; Agnew, 1990; Chesney, Lind & Morash, 1991; Gottfredson et al., 1991; Iovanni & Paternoster, 1989).

2. Notes racial disparity research deficiency and recommends improving studies on disparity in juvenile justice (Pope & Feyerherm, 1991).

Research supports the recommendations made by various national-level panels regarding the topic of juvenile justice. The juvenile justice system needs to be examined and improved for the sake of children as well as society. Since children are facing a growing number of societal problems, youth-serving organizations must re-examine their roles and financial supports, align themselves with the solutions of this new system, and where necessary, reach through all decision making levels to do so.

One report or one piece of research can be too easily ignored. However, the thinking of some of the most knowledgeable human service professionals, business leaders, legislators, and members of advocacy groups in the nation, with the research to support their proposals, demands thoughtful and pragmatic deliberation. Youth organizations, service clubs, and other civic organizations cannot avoid their role in finding solutions for youths' problems and still claim an important place in the lives of today's youth. These local organizations, including Extension, have a special role in contributing to prevention and in providing ways for early intervention and possible auxiliary treatment. Key to this role in prevention and early intervention is the challenge of accessing youth-at-risk and youth who have encountered the family service and juvenile justice system (the courts).

Items to consider include:

• Consider new programming that has meaning to this particular group of youth. Focus on activities that are capable of attracting them to opportunities for healthy social interaction and development.

• Create multi-level teams and collaborations, for programming and for breaking through barriers that exist at various points. Recruit help to solve the challenges of new programs that fit the needs of the changing community.

• rural and urban environments. As families migrate toward larger communities, they have a need for their organizations to move and change accordingly.

• Find creative approaches to use the high level of energy of volunteers. Be ready for powerful people who want to help and who are capable of contributing beyond the stretches of past programming.

All people concerned with the well-being of children need to be informed, active participants in improving the juvenile justice system. The vital, research-supported information in this review, presented in a succinct format, can be shared with contemporary policy makers at the local, state, and federal levels.

Agnew, R. (1990). Adolescent resources and delinquency. Criminology, 28, 535-566.

Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (1990). A study of race and juvenile justice processing in Florida. Technical report prepared for the Florida Supreme Court Racial and Ethnic Bias Study Commission. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Supreme Court.

Chesney, L. M., & Morash, M. (1991). A reformulation and partial test of the power control theory of delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 8, 347-377.

Children's Defense Fund. (1992). The nation's investment in children: An analysis of the President's FY 1993 budget proposals. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 112)

Duster, T. (1987). Crime, youth unemployment, and the black urban underclass. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 300-316.

Eisikovits, Z., Fishman, G., Guttman, E., Joe, K., Krisberg, B., & Schwartz, I. (1987). The incarceration of minority youth. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 173-205.

Elliott, D., & Huizinga, D. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206-223.

Feld, B. (1991). Justice by geography: Urban, suburban, and rural variations in juvenile justice administration. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82(1), 156-210.

Gottfredson, D., Gottfredson, G., & McNeil, R. (1991). Social area influences on delinquency: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 197-226.

Iovanni, L., & Paternoster, R. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359-394.

Kempf, K. (1992). The role of race in juvenile justice in Pennsylvania. Technical report prepared for the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research. Shippensberg: Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research.

Kempf, K., Decker, S., & Bing, R. (1992). An analysis of apparent disparities in the handling of black youth. The Justice Professional, 6(1), 110-133.

Lockhart, L., Kurtz, P., Sutphen, R., & Gauger, K. (1990). Georgia's juvenile justice system: A retrospective investigation of racial disparity. Technical report prepared for the Georgia Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Part 1. Athens: University of Georgia.

Meier, R. F., & Tittle, C. R. (1990). Specifying the SES/delinquency relationship. Criminology, 28, 271-299.

National Coalition of Advocates for Students. (1988). New voices: Immigrant students in U.S. public schools. Boston, MA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 297 063)

National Governors Association. (1991). Kids in trouble: Coordinating social and correctional service systems for youth. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 925)

Pope, C., & Feyerherm, W. (1991). Minorities in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

White House Conference on a Drug Free America. (1988). The White House conference for a drug free America. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 100)

A complete listing of the specific recommendations from each panel reference in this synthesis is available. Contact: RUPRI, University of Missouri-Columbia, 200 Mumford Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.

Special thanks to G.R. Westwood, Youth Development Programs Director at the University of Missouri in Columbia for his contributions in this manuscript.

The Rural Policy Research Institute of the Universities of Arkansas, Iowa State, Missouri, and Nebraska provided support for this research.

Florida's Organic Farmers: A Profile

Extension personnel may want to learn more about organic farmers and their production practices for three main reasons. First, the number of organic producers is growing in many states. In Florida, for example, most organic vegetable producers have been farming organically for less than five years.

Second, an examination of the production practices of organic farmers may help understand how to reduce synthetic inputs, such as pesticides, in conventional farming systems (Stanhill, 1990). Third, organic production systems provide an opportunity to compare alternative production systems without the high costs involved in creating alternative systems.

A survey of commercial organic vegetable and citrus producers was completed with funds provided by the Florida Energy Extension Service in 1993. Personal interviews were conducted with a total of 35 farmers. Despite the small number of farmers, all commercial vegetable and citrus producers in the state with more than one acre in production that could be located using lists available from the state's organic certifying agents were included in the interviews. The survey included 1,269 acres under organic vegetable production and 568 acres of organic citrus.

The objectives of the study were to (a) characterize organic farmers, their farms, their production practices, and their problems; (b) identify production practices used by organic growers that could potentially be applied by conventional producers, especially those that could result in significant reductions in energy use on conventionally managed farms; and (c) identify areas where research and Extension programs could serve the needs of both organic and conventional producers.

Organic Soil Amendments and Energy Use

Organic farmers must use non-synthetic sources of plant nutrients. The three most common sources of nutrients used by organic producers in the survey were: (a) animal, especially chicken, manure; (b) bagged organic fertilizers (also usually based on poultry manure); and (c) fish emulsion with kelp or seaweed. Among citrus producers, over three-fourths (79%) used chicken manure as their primary nutrient source. Among vegetable producers, both chicken manure, used by 38% of the growers, and bagged organic fertilizer, used by 33% of the growers, were popular. Application rates ranged from less than one to 20 tons per acre. Fish emulsion products were also used by most producers. For both citrus and vegetable producers, 71% reported using fish emulsion as a secondary nutrient source.

Organic growers utilize less energy in the form of fertilizer, particularly nitrogen, than do conventional growers. Fluck (1992a) indicates that synthetic nitrogen accounts for an average of 6.3% of direct primary energy use in Florida agriculture. For tomatoes, nitrogen accounts for 6.3% of primary energy inputs in production and for oranges 10.2% (Fluck, 1992c, 1992b). Organic producers replace these inputs with organic sources of nitrogen, potentially saving 5 to 10% of primary energy use, depending on the crop. Neither this study nor Fluck (1992a) include energy used off-farm. For example, energy used to move materials such as fertilizers or pesticides to the farm was not included. These off-farm energy costs could vary between organic and conventional farms, but this study was concerned only with direct, on-farm primary energy use.

However, the true savings of energy inputs are not quite as great as the figures imply. Many organic soil amendments are bulky. At high application rates, more trips across the field are needed than in conventional systems. This will reduce somewhat the total energy savings that come from using organic rather than synthetic nitrogen sources.

Nonetheless, there may be considerable potential for energy savings on conventional farms through the increased use of organic soil amendments, perhaps combined with synthetic fertilizer application. This approach could reduce total non-renewable energy use in citrus and vegetable production. It could also help avoid some of the problems of manure scarcity and rising manure prices mentioned by organic producers.

Pest Management Problems and Practices

It was expected that pest problems would be a major concern for organic producers. However, organic producers did not regard these problems as serious as hypothesized. Interpreting these findings is difficult. One interpretation is that organic producers really do suffer few losses to pests. Another is that growers are unaware of or regard as unimportant the losses caused by pests, although this seems unlikely. Among vegetable producers, larger growers did mention more pests than smaller growers. This may have occurred simply because they recognized more pests, or may be a true result of scale of production. To learn which, if any, of these explanations holds, a greater understanding of the pest management techniques of organic growers and valid measurements of the presence of different pests in their fields is needed.

Organic citrus producers rarely mentioned insects, nematodes, and diseases as problems. Only two pests, beetle grubs and rust mites, were regarded as worth treating and the same treatment, copper and oil sprays, were used for both. Several growers mentioned melanose as a disease in their groves, but most did not regard it as a serious problem. They did not regard nematodes as a problem.

Insect pests were much more commonly mentioned by vegetable than citrus growers as a problem. Common treatments used to control insect pests included Bacillus thuringiensis (67%), rotenone (38%), release of beneficials (33%), and soap (29%). Vegetable growers mentioned a very wide range of disease problems. While 90% identified one or more specific disease problems, nearly half of these growers (48%) indicated they do not use any specific control measures. This may be due to a lack of effective organic control mechanisms. Even fewer vegetable growers (38%) regarded nematodes as a plant health problem.

Cultural practices play an important role in pest management for organic vegetable producers. Virtually all growers regard applications of fish emulsion as a pest management and nutrient management practice. Growers often mention maintaining good plant nutrition as a key element in pest management. Other important cultural practices included: (a) crop selection to avoid crops with serious pest problems, (b) use of resistant b varieties, (c) the timing of different field operations, and (d) various practices designed to maintain high populations of beneficials.

Weed management was a serious consideration for both citrus and vegetable producers. Nearly all (90%) of the vegetable growers indicated they use some combination of hand hoeing and mechanical cultivation to reduce weed populations. Manual cultivation may occur as many as five or six times during the growing season. Similarly, most citrus producers hire help to hand cultivate at least once per year, and a few hand cultivate up to four times per year.

The potential energy savings from reduced pesticide use on conventional vegetable farms are relatively great. Pesticides account for 12.8% of direct energy use on conventional tomato farms (Fluck, 1992c). Pesticides account for only 3.9% of primary on-farm energy use in orange production (Fluck, 1992b).

Both organic and conventional vegetable producers could benefit from the development of improved weed management techniques. Conventional vegetable growers in Florida practice several control mechanisms. On crops for which there are few or no registered herbicides, they also hand hoe. However, they rely heavily on the use of artificial (plastic) mulch and herbicides for some crops. Both approaches have serious limitations, and the cost-effectiveness of the use of plastic mulch may well decline when application of methyl bromide is eliminated. The effectiveness of plastic mulch is greatly increased by application of a fumigant such as methyl bromide. The use of methyl bromide may soon be eliminated by regulation and it is not clear that using mulch alone will be economically attractive.

Further, disposal of plastic mulch is a problem for many growers and herbicides present potential problems of environmental concern. Both organic and conventional growers could therefore benefit from the development of organic mulches, ground covers, and green manures. The use of leguminous living mulches, ground covers, or green manure crops would also help both conventional and organic producers reduce applications of imported nitrogen. Although weed management is not as serious a consideration for either conventional or organic citrus producers as for vegetable producers, weeds are the number one pest problem for organic citrus growers.

Organic and conventional producers do share some common problems. Weed management for vegetable producers provides an excellent example. Incorporation of some production practices used by organic growers could reduce energy use in conventional production systems. Finally, at least one avenue for research was identified that would benefit both groups of farmers: the development of living mulches, ground covers, and green manure crops for vegetable and citrus production.

Continued interchange between Extension personnel and organic producers can be useful for Extension, for organic producers, and for conventional producers. For too long organic producers have tended to look to other sources than the land- grant institution for help in solving their problems. And perhaps the land-grant institutions have tended to overlook the valuable on-farm experimentation that organic producers can provide. These farms are typical in the sense that they are small operations trying to survive by the development of high value and value added products. Many small farms in the United States face the same general problems. In Florida, for example, 83% of all farms have 50 or fewer acres.

Organic production also raises broader social and economic issues that are worthy of consideration. For example, one reason that organic growers can afford greater pest damage is that the consumers of organic produce, in general, are more tolerant of flaws and blemishes than the general public. There are widely varying estimates about the amount of pesticide use that goes primarily to ensure "cosmetic" appearance in conventional production systems. Whatever that figure may be, the organic model shows the importance of consumer education for reducing potential negative environmental impacts from agriculture. Conventional farmers can only alter their production practices to the degree that the consumer is willing to accept the resulting product.

Organic producers also usually receive a premium for their product. This premium is one reason why they can accept higher levels of losses due to pests. Conventional producers have very low profit margins in most years on most crops. They can ill afford to accept the kind of losses that organic growers frequently experience. Similarly, organic growers can accept generally reduced yields per acre and still have profitable operations because of the premium that their product brings. This shows the relationship between consumer willingness to pay and the kind of practices that farmers can afford to adopt.

Fluck, R. C. (1992a). Energy use in Florida agriculture (Fact Sheet No. 79). (Available from Florida Energy Extension Service, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL)

Fluck, R. C. (1992b). Energy for Florida oranges (Fact Sheet No. 81). (Available from Florida Energy Extension Service, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL)

Fluck, R. C. (1992c). Energy for Florida tomatoes (Fact Sheet No. 85). (Available from Florida Energy Extension Service, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL)

Stanhill, G. (1990). The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 30, 1-26.

Extensionists as Adult Educators:
A Look at Teaching Style Preference

The Cooperative Extension Service is the world's largest publicly supported informal adult education and development organization. It is America's first (and only) national system in adult education (Boone, 1985). As the world's largest adult education organization, it can be assumed that Extension educators posses the knowledge and skills needed to anticipate and recognize adult needs and direct learning activities to adequately address those needs. Based on this assumption, the principles of adult education as the foundation for learning should be evident in the teaching style of Cooperative Extension faculty and program staff.

A historical review of the hiring practices, pre-professional training requirements and the nature of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) in-service offerings indicate this assumption may not be true (Ohio Cooperative Extension Service [OCES], 1989). A look at preprofessional educational requirements, as well as on-the-job staff development opportunities, indicates that most Extension professionals are not trained to assume the role as an adult educator. This article discusses the results of a survey of Ohio Cooperative Extension educators about knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to teaching adults.

A mail questionnaire was administered in the Spring of 1991 to all OCES employees involved in providing some form of adult education (n = 609). The Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) (Conti, 1978) was used to measure employees teaching style preference as either teacher-centered or learner-centered. Two additional measurements of teaching behavior (sensitivity and inclusion) were used. Sensitivity and inclusion as measured by Van Tilburg/Heimlich (1990) measure the degree to which the instructor is sensitive to the needs of students and the degree to which students are included or involved in designing their own learning experiences. Also assessed were knowledge levels of general adult education principles and attitude toward being an adult educator.

Overall, OCES employees exhibited low levels of knowledge related to basic adult education principles and practices. On a 10 item true and false test, the mean score was 4.81, indicating they had responded incorrectly to at least half of the statements. Attitude was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Attitude toward being an adult educator was slightly positive.

PALS is a summated 6-point Likert-type scale in which respondents indicated the frequency in which they practiced items described in 44 statements. Scores on PALS indicated that OCES faculty and program staff have a more teacher-centered behavior pattern than the norm.

In addition to measuring an overall pattern of behavior, the PALS instrument contains seven separate constructs: learner-centered activities, personalizing instruction, relating to experience, assessing student needs, climate building, participation in the learning process, and flexibility for personal development. Scores for six of the seven constructs fell below the norm for the instrument. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the best combination of variance to predict, "teaching style as measured by PALS." Sensitivity and inclusion, number of adult education classes taken, and attitude were found to predict 16% of the variance.

When looking at individual characteristics, most OCES employees reported their academic major in their highest educational degree area was in a technical subject-matter area, not in education. Additionally, more than half of all employees had never taken a formal class in adult education. The number of individuals reporting prior teaching experience outside of CES was only slightly lower than those with no experience; however, of those with previous experience, most had their experience with youth and not adult audiences.

Daily, Cooperative Extension Service faculty and program staff provide educational programs and learning opportunities for the clientele it serves. Understanding and recognizing differences in teaching style can help individuals and the organization make decisions about the personal and professional development of employees, as well as help develop policies and guidelines for the hiring and retention of Extension professionals. As a result of this assessment, in-service opportunities were designed for faculty and program staff of all levels and program areas.

Boone, E. J. (1985). Developing programs in adult education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. (1989). [Detailed employee record]. Unpublished raw data.

Conti, G. J. (1978). Principles of adult learning scale: An instrument for measuring teacher behavior related to the collaborative teaching-learning mode. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Van Tilburg, E., & Heimlich, J. (1990). Clarifying theory through operationalizing constructs: A look at sensitivity and inclusion in adult teaching style. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Adult Education Research Conference pp. 237-248. Athens: University of Georgia.

Computer-administered Surveys in Extension

The Extension Service (ES) has always been in the business of getting people to apply new knowledge and make use of information. However, it was reported in the Future Application of Communication Technology report (Extension Service-United States Department of Agriculture & Extension Committee on Organization and Policy [ES-USDA & ECOP], 1992) that there is a need to increase staff knowledge and skills in communication and information technologies. Computers are here to stay; they will become an important tool to help the ES assimilate as well as disseminate knowledge. Shill (1992) noted that:

     The agriculture information dissemination infrastructure is
     in a state of significant transition.  Traditional
     institutions, such as the state agricultural Extension
     services, have been forced to adapt to the emergence of
     electronic dissemination channels while still making active
     use of print and face-to-face communication mechanisms (p.
     313).

Computer-administered surveys are an example of an information technology that agents, specialists, and other Extension educators could use to gather data currently collected using mailed questionnaires. Electronic surveys can be used to reveal the behavior of people who use computers as a communication mode. Most of the literature focuses on surveys programmed on one computer terminal that one person uses at a time. However, some researchers have used a computer-administered survey which is sent simultaneously by e-mail to multiple computer users (Sproull, 1986).

Sproull (1986) found that an e-mail survey produced higher response rates at a lower cost than either paper questionnaires or one-on-one interviews. The average time for responses to electronic surveys was half as long as conventional surveys. Sproull recommended sending letters before the survey with a signature endorsement on letterhead to improve status and legitimacy. Follow-ups were sent via e-mail instead of the traditional mail postcards. One drawback Sproull encountered was that in an e-mail survey, respondents must be motivated to respond. Kiesler and Sproull (1986) found that electronic surveys lacked social context information. Another drawback discovered by Sproull (1986), Kiesler and Sproull (1986), Rosenfeld, Booth-Kewley, and Edwards (1993), as well as Rosenfeld, Doherty, Vicino, Kantor, and Greaves (1989) was that computer-administered surveys are limited by organizational locations, computer equipment, and different networks. The respondents must be familiar with and have access to an electronic mail system.

Rosenfeld et al. (1993) felt that if an organization was linked to an existing e-mail system such as BITNET or the Internet, then it would be possible to conduct a low-cost electronic survey. They recommended computer surveys as a preferred mode for sample sizes of 500 or less. Additionally, the response rate of surveys administered either by computer or paper were nearly identical, and the reliability of psychological and organizational scales was internally consistent.

Rosenfeld et al. (1989) studied three different microcomputer systems effects on an electronic survey. They found that a computerized survey "administered on virtually any type of computer in general use today can produce...responses at least as reliable and valid as would be obtained if paper and pencil were used" (p. 153).

The literature clearly provides support for the use of computer-administered surveys. The electronic survey will be a future research methodology. However, the use of computer-administered surveys with Extension Service studies and audiences has not been investigated. The question arises: Can computer-administered surveys be used to collect data from agents, specialists, and other ES stakeholders regarding Extension related issues.

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a computer-administered survey to gather data from ES personnel. The following research questions were identified.

1. Were there differences by demographic factors of Montana Extension Service (MES) professionals in their method of returning the survey (e-mail or regular mail)?

2. Were there differences between response dates by method of returning the survey (e-mail or regular mail)?

3. Were there differences between MES agents and specialists in their comfort level in answering an electronic survey?

Population and Sample

The population for this descriptive census study consisted of specialists and county agents employed by the Montana Extension Service during the 1993-94 academic year (N = 116). The population frame was determined by using the County Extension Agents Directory, printed by the MES Office of the Director in September 1993.

Instrument Design

The basic design for the survey instrument followed Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method (TDM). Because Dillman's TDM deals with mailed surveys and not computer-administered surveys, trial surveys were sent by e-mail to members of the researcher's graduate committee to determine procedures that would be needed. Another trial test was conducted with Reference Librarians at the Montana State University Library. The librarians all use e-mail, but with a range of e-mail skills among the group. Both first and second trial tests helped to determine format and layout of the instrument as well as face and content validity.

The format of the instrument consisted of rating the e-mail related competencies' importance on the left-hand side of the computer screen and rating respondent's knowledge of the competency on the right-hand side of the computer screen using a five-point Likert-type scale. This structure was based on Borich's (1980) needs assessment model. Importance ratings minus knowledge ratings yields a discrepancy score for each competency from each respondent. The discrepancy scores were then weighted by multiplying the average level of importance by the discrepancy score of each competency. Demographic questions included gender, age, position, education level, and professional experience. The instrument was pilot tested with 12 participants (four were specialists, and eight were agents). Reliability coefficients were calculated for appropriate sections of the instrument. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .98 to .91.

Data Collection and Analysis

Following recommendations made by Sproull (1986), Rosenfeld et al. (1993), Booth-Kewley, Edwards, and Rosenfeld (1992), and Rosenfeld et al. (1989), the researcher sent a hard copy of the cover letter with relevant signatures and a set of directions to the survey population. The e-mail survey followed three days later. Assurance of the needed return rate was provided through two follow-up e-mail messages to non-respondents. The double dip technique was employed to assure non-respondents were no different than other respondents. Of the non-respondents, 10% were pooled, which came to two people. One person was chosen from the agents stratum and one from the specialists stratum. There was no difference between respondents and double dip non-respondents statistically.

Responses from the survey were entered into a database using DBASE III. The personal computer version of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+) was used for analyses (Norusis & SPSS, 1988). Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were run for the weighted discrepancy (WD) scores of each e-mail competency for each stratum. Because the study was a census, only descriptive statistics were used.

Method of Return by Demographics

The data showed that the agent stratum had 40 (60.6%) respondents return the survey via e-mail and 26 (39.4%) through regular postal mail. In contrast the specialists returned 13 (43.3%) of the surveys via e-mail and 17 (56.7%) by regular mail. Age, gender, education level, or professional experience did not influence the method used by MES agents or specialists returning the survey.

Method of Return by Response Date

Respondents were classified as early, middle, or late respondents. Of the early respondents, prior to any follow-up messages, 28 (68.3%) surveys were returned through e-mail and 13 (31.7%) surveys arrived by postal mail. The middle returns (surveys received between the two follow-ups) had 18 (51.5%) come back through e-mail and 17 (48.5%) return by regular mail. Late returns (after the follow-ups) included seven (35%) surveys by e- mail and 13 (65%) by postal mail. For the purpose of this study the late returns included the double dip respondents.

Comfort Level

One-third of the total respondents (32) were not comfortable responding to an electronic survey. One-third of the agents (22) as well as one-third of the specialists (10) were not comfortable responding to the survey via electronic means. Approximately one-third of the agents (21) and specialists (9) were less to somewhat comfortable with the electronic survey. A third of the agents (23) and specialists (11) were more to very comfortable responding to the survey through e-mail. The mean of respondent's comfort level was 2.81 on a scale of 1 to 5 (2.81 for the agents and 2.8 for the specialists), which indicates overall respondents were less comfortable using e-mail.

Even though MES professionals had prior e-mail training, the data suggest they need more training. This conclusion is based on the number of surveys (45%) returned through postal mail. Additionally, one-third were not comfortable answering the survey via e-mail. Surprisingly, campus specialists who have easier and less costly access to e-mail returned the surveys by e-mail less readily than agents. In addition, a much smaller percentage of surveys were returned by postal mail and there was no difference between respondents based on the method of returning the survey. These conclusions support the Future Application of Communication Technology's report findings (ES-USDA & ECOP, 1992). Further training in e-mail competencies is a must for MES professionals to be successful with electronic correspondence.

Early respondents used e-mail more readily than late respondents. By percentage, the early and late respondents reversed the method of returning the survey. One might assume that the late respondents represent the "Laggards" of adopting e- mail correspondence. The Extension Administrators could mandate that certain types of correspondence be done only via e-mail among the Extension professionals. This would increase the amount of time "Laggards" use e-mail, thus becoming more familiar with the e-mail system.

More training would increase the comfort level in answering an electronic survey. Training needs to focus on different topics such as system protocols, e-mail etiquette, potential uses of e-mail other than the basic memo or letter correspondence, and security concerns.

Further research is needed in the development of training and update sessions for Extension professionals to use e-mail. For example, even though the personnel in this study all had previous e-mail training, one-third were still uncomfortable with this technology. Additionally, studies need to be conducted with Extension clientele to determine if e-mail could be used by the Extension Service to collect data to help plan programs.

The findings support the conclusions of Sproull (1986), Rosenfeld et al. (1989), Booth-Kewley et al. (1992), and Rosenfeld et al. (1993) that electronic surveys did not adversely effect the return rate or responses. A majority of surveys in this study were returned via e-mail. Additionally, e-mail responses were similar to postal responses (Kawasaki, 1994). Computer-administered surveys are a cost effective, speedy, and highly accurate method of collecting data that should be utilized by the Cooperative Extension Service.

Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 562-566.

Borich, G. D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 39-42.

County Extension Agents. (1993). Bozeman, MT: Extension Service, Office of the Director, Montana State University.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone survey: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

Extension Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture, & Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (1992). F-A-C-T future application of communication technology: Strategic information plan for the Cooperative Extension system. Washington, DC: Extension Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture, Communication, Information & Technology.

Kawasaki, J. L. (1994). Information-related competencies for Montana Extension Service professionals. Unpublished master's thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.

Norusis, M. J., & SPSS, Inc. (1988). SPSS/PC+ V2.0 Base Manual for the IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2 [computer program manual]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., & Edwards, J. E. (1993). Computer-administered surveys in organizational settings: Alternatives, advantages, and applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(4), 485-511.

Rosenfeld, P., Doherty, L. M., Vicino, S. M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1989). Attitude assessment in organizations: Testing three microcomputer-based survey systems. Journal of General Psychology, 116(2), 145-154.

Shill, H. B. (1992). Information 'publics' and equitable access to electronic government information: The case of agriculture. Government Information Quarterly, 9(3), 305-322.

Sproull, L. S. (1986). Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 156-169.

Organizational Renewal in the
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service

In a previous article, "Will Cooperative Extension Survive in the 90s?," it was stated that today's smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable Cooperative Extension was not caused by federal, state, and local deficits alone but by complacency and a fear of change (Graf, 1993). In response to the very issues brought to light in Graf's article regarding complacency and resistance to change, the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service (ACES) sought to undertake a tactic of "no fear" in addressing the issue of strategic change. Much as the business sector has reevaluated, realigned, and reorganized, ACES has also embarked upon a process of organizational renewal to meet the needs of the citizens of Alabama today and tomorrow. The following describes how ACES has gone about this transformation.

Closely following his inauguration as Auburn University's 15th president, Dr. William V. Muse appointed a broad-based Twenty-first Century Commission to review the university's operations--including Extension--in order to position Auburn for the upcoming millennium. In response to the recommendations made by the Commission in February of 1993, ACES set the wheels in motion for an organizational renewal process. A total quality management approach was the basis for the review of operations. Thirty ACES employees--broadly representative of the unit--were selected to review the organization's mission and values and to set goals and strategies to carry ACES into the future. It was deemed crucial to receive input from all areas and all levels. District agents, county agents, specialists, and administration alike were incorporated into the renewal process.

After the initial task force met, additional groups representing different districts and specialties held meetings to determine whether the initial document met ACES' needs for the future. After nearly seven months of gathering input and redefining goals and strategies, ACES produced an internal document, "Meeting the Needs of Alabama Today and Tomorrow," as a guide. Six key goals were set forth in the document:

• employ and develop a competent Extension staff;
• promote creativity and enhance performance of staff;
• formulate programs that focus on relevant needs;
• improve public credibility and visibility;
• increase effectiveness and efficiency; and
• build a sense of community, trust, and open communication.

For each of these key goals, step-by-step strategies were identified, timetables were established, and appropriate individuals and groups were identified to implement the strategies.

While the preparation of this document was a feat of exceptional teamwork, it has also set the stage for additional efforts. By adopting an ongoing process of organizational renewal, ACES now must meet the challenge of actually implementing the strategies and accomplishing the goals. To that end, internal steering committees and task force groups have been assigned.

With key leadership endorsement of this process, ACES is challenged to remain committed to its initial efforts and to effectuate its desired outcomes. ACES has a great challenge ahead since, "there's nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things" (Machiavelli as quoted in Schmidt & Finnigan, 1992, p. 148). However, the first essential step in the journey--overcoming resistance to change and planning for organizational renewal--has been taken. We will provide further progress reports as the process continues to unfold.

Graf, K. W. (1993). Will Cooperative Extension survive in the 90s? Journal of Extension, Winter, 30-31.

Meeting the needs of Alabama today and tomorrow: A plan for organizational renewal. (1994). Auburn, AL: Auburn University.

Schmidt, W. H., & Finnigan, J. P. (1992). A race without a finish line: America's quest for total quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Building External Linkages for Extension Programs

During the first 70 to 80 years of Extension programming, the nearly exclusive linkage with land-grant institutions provided a sound resource base for state, district, and county Extension programs. The colleges of agriculture and home economics, 4-H program staffs, and other affiliated academic departments within the land-grant system traditionally provided researched based information and supported field staff needs as they conducted Extension programs.

In the past 10 years, we have seen this traditional resource base down-sized, reorganized, and readjusted in response to financial shortfalls and changing academic priorities. Thus, as field staff face new issues, audiences, and program demands, they have found these traditional academic divisions struggling to shift their focus while at times neither equipped nor appropriately staffed to provide all the research based information or technical support demanded by this new wave of issue-based programs.

During this period of change, some Extension staff have looked outside the land-grant system for help. They have often found people, resources, and facilities readily available. In this age of coalitions, collaborations, cooperation, and working relationships, some non-land-grant academic institutions have become partners who have greatly enhanced the ability of Extension to more fully achieve its mission and goals.

A successful 4-H program called "Ohio 4-H Aerospace Adventure Camp" has proven to be an excellent example of how creating a positive working relationship with a non-traditional partner can provide benefits to youth participants in the Ohio 4-H program. The partner in this successful program was Ohio Northern University (ONU), a liberal arts university with enrollment of approximately 2,800 graduate and undergraduate students located in Ada, Ohio.

From its beginning, "4-H Aerospace Adventure Camp" had four basic objectives.

1. To provide an exciting learning experience for middle school aged youth where they would learn about space and flight in a fun atmosphere.

2. To expand and enhance the image of the 4-H program in Ohio so that it would include a broader perspective of current youth development efforts.

3. To develop an educational package that could be repeated in other locations throughout the State of Ohio.

4. To develop a positive teaching relationship with a privately funded university.

The educational focus of the camp was hands-on exploration and personal growth. Participants were given a chance to explore and experience science through a variety of aerospace based components during a three-day residential camp held on the ONU campus. The actual camp program was developed by working directly with the Dean of ONU's College of Engineering. This linkage helped provide access to the civil engineering, industrial technology, and computer departments and to interested faculty and staff.

As partners in the camp, the university provided facilities that were perfect for the action-oriented focus of the camp. A state of the art computer lab allowed freedom to teach computer skills and explore space flight through simulation exercises. Available engineering labs and equipment meant campers could participate directly in demonstrations highlighting concepts related to flight.

The staff of the university also provided technical expertise Extension staff could not provide. Faculty and staff with engineering, biology, computer science, and industrial technology training were instrumental in planning and conducting subject matter sessions.

To date, 240 youth have participated in five camps. Evaluations indicate campers found the experience both personally and educationally exciting. It also showed the 4-H "Learning by Doing" format of experiential education is a viable method for exciting young people about science education.

Through cooperatively organizing this camp, a long-lasting relationship has been built between Ohio State University Extension and Ohio Northern University. It is hoped that this program will serve as a model for other relationships built outside the present land-grant system.

Looking for More Than New Knowledge

Most of us are familiar with the Evaluation Hierarchy which includes learning gains or KASA (Knowledge, Attitude, Skill and Aspiration) (Bennett, 1975). However, many times knowledge gain is examined only in terms of the amount of new knowledge acquired by program participants. This definition of knowledge change comes straight out of formal education (kindergarten-college) where it is assumed the young person knows nothing about the subject and the expert or teacher knows everything. That is often not the case with adults.

We short change the potential value of our programs when we look at knowledge change only in terms of the number of people acquiring new knowledge. Adults who know something about a topic are most likely to voluntarily come to a session. In these days of easy access to multiple information sources and increased educational levels, adults are picking up bits and pieces of both practical and technical information from a variety of sources. They are seldom starting from base zero.

It is important, therefore, to give participants an opportunity to indicate other changes in knowledge that occur, at least in part, as a result of participating in an Extension program. Here is a partial list of other knowledge gains which may give ideas about other kinds of results programs may be stimulating.

• Expanded my understanding of the topic.
• Gained greater insight into what I already knew.
• Clarified some things that I had heard.
• Refocused my attention on the topic.
• Helped me put together pieces of information I had heard.
• Helped me better understand why I believed something.
• Reinforced something I had learned from experience.
• Challenged me to rethink something.
• Helped me develop an answer to a problem.
• Provided interest in learning more about the subject.
• Stimulated me to think about the topic/problem in a new way.
• Provided ammunition to use in an argument.
• Triggered ideas based on the information.
• Provided confidence in what I already knew.
• Helped me apply something I knew to a new situation.
• Encouraged me to act on what I already knew.
• Provided confidence to tell someone else what I believed.
• Helped me understand myself better.

When you begin to think about how hearing information one already knows might be useful, you will come up with other possibilities. Some of these alternative outcomes can be especially useful in attempting to determine the value of Extension public policy and issue programming.

The most frequently indicated gains are often surprising. For example, a video program aimed at "top" farmers badly underestimated its audience. Only 17 out of 75 farmers said they gained new information, but 44 said they were challe