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

Commentary

Improving Agent Accountability through Best Management Practices

Taylor, Matt

Feature Articles

Providing Support for Extension Agents: The Rapid Response Center in Kansas

Brannan, Robert Gray, Mary McPhail

Extension Agents' Perceptions of Volunteer Management

King, Jeff Safrit, R. Dale

Factors Influencing Adoption and Educational Outreach of Integrated Pest Management

Alston, Diane G. Reding, Michael E.

Research in Brief

Leadership Skill Development of Teen Leaders

Kleon, Scott Rinehart, Susan

Impact Analysis of Farm Finance Workshops

Hanson, Gregory Parsons, Robert Musser, Wesley Power, Lehan

Understanding Employee Motivation

Lindner, James R.

Extension-Supported School-Age Care Programs Benefit Youth

Locklear, Eddie L. Mustian, R. David

A Model for Integrating Program Development and Evaluation

Brown, J. Lynne Kiernan, Nancy Ellen

Ideas at Work

Determining Needs of Farmers for Management Information

Young, R. Clinton

VICE Is Nice

Archer, Thomas M.

Professional Development for Paraprofessionals: Organizing a One-Day Multi-Agency Conference

Warrix, Marisa

Tools of the Trade

America's Future Revealed?

Etling, Arlen

Publishing Research in Extension

Loveridge, Scott

Dear Reader,

If there is a theme to this issue of your Journal of Extension, it is probably "impact." Do Extension educational programs make a difference? How do you know?

From Penn State comes a study of farm finance workshops and how farmers applied their new knowledge. North Carolina offers a report on school-age care programs. The authors also offer some thoughts about how such studies might be done in the future. Ohio State submits a review of its 4-H Teen Community Leadership College.

Of course, there are other topics well, such as employee motivation, Extension in-service programs, and examples of how you determine educational needs of your clientele.

We like to think that your Journal mirrors some of the concerns, changes in programming, and triumphs of the Extension System.

So happy reading and look for the next issue in late August.

Leonard Calvert, editor

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:

Michael Lambur, President, Virginia, member-at-large
Emmett Fiske, Secretary, Washington, Member-at-Large
Janice Leno, Treasurer, Oregon, site institution representative (editorial)
Tom Archer, Ohio, Editorial Committee Chair
Victor Artero, Guam, Western Directors
Bill Braden, Texas, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Henry Brooks, Maryland, 1890 Institutions
Sorrel Brown, Iowa, North Central Directors
Patricia Dawson, Oregon, National Association of Extension 4-H Agents
Judith Jones, Virginia, Southern Directors
Jim Lemon, Ohio, Agricultural Communicators in Education and site institution representative (technical)
Terry Meisenbach, Washington, D.C., Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Keith Smith, Ohio, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
Joan Thomson, Pennsylvania, North East Directors
Satish Verma, Louisiana, Member-at-Large

Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor
Patrick Robinson, Virginia, Technical Consultant

Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, University of Arizona
Tom Archer, The Ohio State University, Committee Chair
Sue Buck, University of Wisconsin
Michael Cloughesy, Oregon State University
Angela Corbett, South Carolina State University
Henry Findlay, Tuskegee University
Carolyn Gilles, The Pennsylvania State University
Fred Herndon, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Annie Mae Kingston, University of Kentucky
Terry Meisenbach, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Ron Meyer, Colorado State University
Joel Plath, Colorado State University
Rama Radhakrishna, Clemson University
Shirley Rouse, North Carolina A&T University
Janet Schmidt, Washington State University
Ellen Taylor-Powell, University of Wisconsin
Kendra Wells, University of Maryland
Judy Winn, Texas A&M University

What impact have you made in your programming area in the last year? Can you tell by looking at your accountability reports?

Extension agents are accountable to federal, state, and local funding agencies, the community or customers, administration, and finally to himself or herself. Governmental reports on Extension have become the harshest critic. We must manage accountability and regain the role of being the most severe judge of our programs to remain viable as individual agents and as an organization.

In the recent past there have been two national accountability reporting systems in addition to each state's system. The Program Planning and Reporting System, 1992-1997, was plagued by severe data acquisition problems "and lacked valid and complete indicator data" (Bennett, 1996). Last year the GPRA, Government Performance and Results Act, established a new reporting format. The GPRA is major legislation among recent federal management reform initiatives. Its purpose is to increase public confidence and to improve program effectiveness by systematically holding agencies accountable for results. The law requires strategic plans, annual performance plans and annual reports with performance measures linked to the agency's resource allocation" (Bonessa, 1996).

Extension stands at a crossroads. We can either continue to ill report ourselves or we can use GPRA's analysis to showcase our program successes. Now is the time for Extension to adopt Accountability Best Management Practices, BMPs, to guarantee continued success. BMPs are currently being promoted by agents to improve youth education and crop production. Why not listen to our own advice? Accountability BMPs can benefit Extension in many ways:

• Provide for accurate accountability reporting to position Extension as the premier provider of information and educational programs in agriculture, youth development, family and consumer science, and rural and community development;
• Increase agent efficiency and productivity;
• Require the incorporation of the accountability report into the program planning process;
• Increase Extension funding by providing impacts for budget negotiations.

There are five Accountability Best Management Practices that agents should implement: Visioning, Measurability, Programming, Reporting, and Responsibility. This series of practices forms a process that, if followed, will simplify accountability reporting by providing documented impacts. Impact is the value of the Extension program to the client expressed in dollars or non- monetary benefits.

The five step Accountability BMP process begins with visioning what impact you want to achieve. What specific problem(s) are you trying to solve? What knowledge, attitude, skill, or aspiration (KASA) will be the outcome of the educational program? (Bennett, 1975).

The second step is to determine how you can measure the impact. There are many assessment methods that can be used to measure impact. Depending on the circumstance, you might use any of the following tools: existing records, observation, unobtrusive measures, content analysis, testimonials, interviews, questionnaires, tests, and so forth (Richardson, 1996). Select your impact measuring tool(s) carefully because some client groups resist some tools.

After you have decided what you want to accomplish and how you will measure your success, you must supply programming to direct your audience to the envisioned outcome. This is Extension's established area of excellence. Partners at the university can provide us with information tailored to meet clients' needs and we can use this information to achieve outcomes.

The reporting component of the Accountability BMP system implements the measuring tool to evaluate the program and report the results. You answer the question; did the program achieve the envisioned outcome? Which funding partner you are reporting to dictates how you report program outcomes.

Federal and local governments expect reports to address how appropriated money satisfied constituents and provided a positive cost benefit. Administrators demand reports demonstrating appropriate focus on the intended mission of the organization (Richardson, 1996). All these reports might contain the same information, but it must be presented in a way that is desirable to whom you are reporting.

The final Accountability BMP is responsibility. After the report has been completed, ultimately, you are responsible for the program outcomes. If you did not attain the envisioned outcome, how can you adapt the program in the future to attain the goal? You are also responsible for defending the impact you claimed. Documenting the information you get is essential to provide proof of impact to decision makers.

Visioning was to maximize small grain growers' profits by controlling the Cereal Leaf Beetle. The KASA indicator of impact was farmer aspiration to maximize profits by following a Cereal Leaf Beetle Integrated Pest Management Program. Measurability of the outcome was achieved by analyzing cooperator records. Programming was supplied to the target audience through newsletters, small grain producer meetings, and through one-on- one consultations and trainings. The program topics included accurate pest identification, scouting, recordkeeping, and economic thresholds.

One reporting tool used to analyze cooperator production records was the customer focus group. This tool was chosen because it increases program adoption as a result of the extra attention the client receives from the agent. Ten participants from the grower meeting were chosen to be in the focus group. This resulted in necessary records for analyzing impact and documenting the change in profitability. Production records showed that as a result of adopting the Cereal Leaf Beetle IPM strategies the farmers increased profitability by $18.90 per acre, nearly $40,000 for the focus group. These savings resulted from both a reduced number of sprayings and from a reduced amount of insecticide used for insect control. Spraying costs were determined by contacting a local farm supply store that custom sprays for the insect. Responsibility was demonstrated by adapting abnd improving the program to provide more impact. The impacts are being used to persuade other producers to adopt the practice and the system is being used successfully for other programs.

Accountability BMPs can improve Extension programming and reporting. All agents can use these BMPs, whatever their programming area. They will work equally well for agents with agriculture, youth development, family and consumer science, or rural and community development responsibilities.

Bennett, C. (1975).Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 13,7-12.

Bennett, C. (1996). New national program information system of Cooperative Extension: Lessons from experience. Journal of Extension, 34(1), February 1996.

Bonessa, B.L. (1996). The Government Performance and Results Act GPRA: Framework for results oriented management. Internet address: http://www.informs.org/Conf/WA96/TALKS/MA19.1.html.

Richardson, J.G. (1996). Accountability Definitions Audience/Users.Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Richardson, J.G. (1996). Collecting accountability information. Raleigh: North Carolina State Cooperative Extension Service.

Staffing Extension to meet the needs of our clientele is a challenging task. Limited budgets and "rightsizing" the system are topics of much discussion. One important element is support to local Extension programs as they provide information to clients on a daily basis. Harriman and Daugherty (1992) advise that "(Success) will require a clear vision, with careful attention to a market niche within a defined vision." The Family and Consumer Sciences (FACS) Rapid Response Center within the K- State Research and Extension Service was created with these concepts in mind.

With a staff of 15 FACS specialists supporting 120 FACS county agents serving all 105 Kansas counties, FACS agents felt that they were not always able to make contact with a specialist in time to provide a timely answer to a client's non-routine question. They were not unhappy with the programming provided by specialists, but they were concerned with their ability to provide timely answers to unusual questions that occur on a day- to-day basis. In a recent study of Extension agents' use of information sources, it was found that 77% of agents searched for information that they needed the same day (Radhakrishna and Thomson, 1996).

This study also reported that 94% of agents used information searches to answer a client's inquiry. Information from Kansas FACS agents reflected this desire to provide information to an inquiry within 24 hours, however many felt limited by the level of technology in their local office. If a subject-matter based response system that facilitated information transfer could be put in place to help agents with these information searches, more time could be spent on pro-active programming. These observations, coupled with the frustration that agents felt concerning access to specialists, led the FACS administration to the decision to create the FACS Rapid Response Center, with the primary responsibility of the Center being to provide "timely support" to day-to-day FACS agent inquiries.

Careful planning was needed to develop a center to meet the needs of the county-based Kansas Extension system. County agents are hired by locally-elected Extension Boards and resources are allocated by these same boards. Thus county ownership/identification with the county office is great. Unfortunately, this can lead to an "uneven playing field" from county office to county office. Though Kansas has had success in building state-wide Extension hotlines (Sisk, 1991), the Rapid Response Center was to have a slightly different focus. The FACS administration did not want to inadvertently send the message to Kansas citizens that "better" information could be obtained by calling a university hotline as opposed to contacting a county agent. Thus, access to the Rapid Response Center is limited to FACS County agents and others within the Extension system. While calls from the general public would not be turned away, the center would not be publicized outside the K-State Research and Extension system.

At the state level, Extension Family and Consumer Sciences consists of three major program areas: Foods and Nutrition (F&N), Clothing/Textiles and Interior Design (CTID), and Family Studies and Human Services (FSHS). The decision to hire a coordinator with experience in the F&N area was based on two factors. Partial funding for the center was to come from an existing salary line in F&N and agents indicated that the most frequent consumer requests were in this subject area. A coordinator was hired who has a Master's degree in food science with college, instructional, and food industry experience, and who was competent in and motivated by electronic information retrieval and translation. The initial focus of the center would be to provide Kansas FACS agents with timely information to their inquiries in the Foods and Nutrition area, with resources from other FACS subject-matter areas to be developed over time.

To determine what subject materials were considered vital, interviews were conducted between the center coordinator and each specialist. Once a list was compiled, materials were obtained for the center within the constraints of the initial start-up budget. These materials included hard cover books, periodic literature from reliable sources, software, and Extension and USDA publications.

Although the Rapid Response Center does not have a programming mandate, it was created with the belief that it could have a role to play in program development. One of the advantages of a hotline service is that data generated by a hotline could benefit specialists by pinpointing subject areas of information for possible programming (Molgaard and Phillips, 1991). Although the Rapid Response Center would be more limited in scope than a hotline, it was created with the belief that this aspect of the hotline model could be utilized if a proper database was developed and maintained.

Other responsibilities of the Rapid Response Center as conceived include acquisition and maintenance of database materials, literature reviews, writing informational pieces and contributing to newsletters, and training relating to information retrieval.

The Rapid Response Center became an official component of Extension Family and Consumer Sciences on August 8, 1995. There was an expected lag time in announcing the center to the agents while equipment and resources were acquired and the coordinator oriented. One of the first tasks was to create an advisory committee that included the center coordinator, Extension administrators, state specialists, members of the Information and Educational Technology unit of the Department of Communications, and county FACS agents. The committee meets regularly to review the center's progress and to plan appropriate strategies for marketing and improvements of the center.

The official announcement introducing the Rapid Response Center occurred in September 1995. During the first four months of operation, information requests increased from 52 to 109 inquiries per month. From October 1995 to May 1996 the center averaged over 100 requests per month. This average increased to more than 160 requests during the summer months (June-September 1996). As expected, the average from October 1996 through June 1997 fell, jumped again during the summer of 1997, and fell again in fall 1997.

Data generated from the center shows no significant difference between inquiries from each day of the week or between mornings or afternoons. County Extension staff account for 85 percent of the inquiries, with the remainder from private citizens, other professionals, or specialists. Even though every Kansas county Extension office is equipped with electronic mail, four out of five inquiries are made by telephone, with E-mail accounting for most of the remaining inquiries. To date, the Rapid Response Center has responded to inquiries within 24 hours 90 percent of the time, and almost one in four calls are answered immediately upon receipt. All 105 Kansas counties sent at least one inquiry to the center.

After six months, the advisory committee decided to evaluate the center's effectiveness. An evaluation was developed by the advisory committee and sent electronically to FACS agents in February 1996. Electronic mail surveys have been shown to be as effective as regular mailings as a survey tool (Kawasaki and Raven, 1995). While the survey was delivered by electronic mail via an agent LISTSERV, agents were given the choice of replying electronically or through regular mail. Sixty-two surveys were returned representing 58 Kansas counties (55% of all counties). Of these, 66% were returned electronically, with the remaining 34% returned via regular mail. This return rate is higher than the 61% electronic return rate reported by Kawasaki and Raven.

Ninety-nine percent of the respondents stated that the center usually or always provided them with a usable answer to their inquiry. The data shows that the center has been very helpful to agents in dealing with their day-to-day questions. For example, 68% of agents responding feel more confident in answering questions from clients now that the Rapid Response Center is in place. Furthermore, 79% of respondents indicated that they now provide their clients with information quicker than before the Center was in place.

There was a concerted marketing effort during the first few months of the center's operation to assure agents that they would still have access to specialists and their resources. This effort was proven effective by the evaluation as no agent said that the center was a barrier between agents and specialists. In fact, 93 percent of agents' responses classified the Rapid Response Center as an information clearinghouse or a bridge to FACS specialists information bases. Additionally, 90 percent judged the Rapid Response Center to be a good use of FACS financial resources.

The Rapid Response Center initially supported the foods and nutrition area. In addition to answering inquiries to day-to-day questions, the Center coordinator is involved in many different aspects of F&N, including serving as departmental Web-site coordinator, editor of the departmental newsletter, and contributing to the departmental fact-sheet series. Expansion into the other FACS areas was the next logical step.

The evaluation survey was used to provide input for expansion of the center. When asked "I would like the Rapid Response Center to next add resources in what area?" 54% of agents indicated an expansion into topics related to clothing, textiles, or housing. No other subject matter area received more than 14% of responses. With this information, the Center's advisory committee approved expansion into Clothing/Textiles and Interior Design (CTID) beginning in April 1996. Since the expansion into CTID would require information not in the professional preparation of the coordinator, a modification of the service was needed. Extension textile and housing specialists identified areas of that could most readily be handled by a combination of high quality databases and an information technology facilitator (the center coordinator). The two specialists provided access to database materials to answer specific questions relating to (a) stain removal on clothing, textiles, and on household surfaces; (b) routine care and maintenance of clothing, textiles, and household items; and (c) problems with odors, water damage, smoke damage, and so forth. To date, information requests from CTID account for 15% of all requests.

The third major program area of the Extension FACS system is Family Studies and Human Services (FSHS). This is a much more difficult area to incorporate into a "Rapid Response Center" because most of the information from FSHS does not require a rapid response but just the opposite. For example, many FSHS inquiries involve clinical judgements or value conflict explorations. In addition, expertise in FSHS more often includes a "wise guide" role, rather than a definitive best practice rule based on physical science research. This "wise guide" role is less appropriate for an information technology coordinator to assume. This challenge is one of the manifestations of the high tech/high touch dichotomy in Extension.

However, there are targeted components of FSHS that could be served by the center. For example, the area of family financial management has resource material that could be added to the center and disseminated with specific guidance from specialists. In any case, this area will require creative thought and much more discussion before any implementation can be planned.

The Rapid Response Center is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every state. It was crafted to meet the current needs of the Kansas Extension system as individual counties adjust to new technological innovations. Extension systems looking to better serve agents should consider the Rapid Response model if (a) there is strong county identification/ownership of local Extension activities which translates into differing levels of support from county to county; (b) there is a large discrepancy between the number of agents and supporting specialists; (c) state faculty is in close proximity to the center and willing to identify and share resources; (d) the coordinator is committed to agent requests and is not distracted with travel or programming.

In 1992, Harriman and Daugherty gave us their glimpse into the future of Extension: "Envision Extension information centers that provide immediate access to national subject-matter databases to answer both common and uncommon questions ... Future Extension staffing patterns should reflect the difference between clients' needs for information versus education, and provide for a staff with skills, facilities, and strategies to meet those needs effectively."

The Rapid Response Center is a manifestation of this vision. It is targeted to an appreciative clientele (FACS agents), attends to the day-to-day informational needs of this clientele, and is designed to be adaptable to the changing conditions that exist in the system.

Clearly one of the future demands the Center will need to meet is how to better equip agents to perform data searches on their own. How much of this function can be assumed by the county agent and how much this "new vision" demands a new professional role that blends technology and subject matter expertise is a challenge to all systems. Indeed, it is the Extension version of the paradigm change in higher education.

Harriman, L.C. & Daugherty, R.A. (1992). Staffing Extension for the 21st century. Journal of Extension, 30(4).

Kawasaki, J.L. & Raven, M.R. (1995). Computer-administered surveys in Extension. Journal of Extension, 33(3).

Molgaard, V,K, & Phillips, F. (1991). Telephone hotline programming: serving many people on multiple issues. Journal of Extension, 29(4).

Radhakrishna, R.B. & Thomson, J.S. (1996). Extension agents' use of information sources. Journal of Extension, 34(1).

Sisk, E.J. (1991). Responding to clients. Journal of Extension, 29(2).

Engaging volunteers as active partners of Ohio State University (OSU) Extension is integral to its mission of helping people improve their lives through an educational process using scientific knowledge focused on identified issues and needs (OSU Extension, 1991, p. 2). Volunteers are identified as a part of the organizational vision by stating that Extension educators recruit, and develop volunteers to multiply Extension's efforts. The Ohio 4-H Youth Development strategic plan identifies volunteerism as fundamental to achieving its mission and fulfilling its vision.

During 1996, more than 31,000 volunteers contributed time, energies, and/or talents toward planning, implementing, and evaluating Ohio 4-H Youth Development programs. Adults and youth served as community and project club advisors, middle managers/key leaders, school enrichment volunteers, special emphasis volunteers, and committee members. County Extension 4-H Youth Development agents, supported by district and state program and administrative units, are responsible for effectively involving and managing volunteers.

Positive perceptions of OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents toward the importance of and their mastery of volunteer management competencies are critical to enhanced skills and abilities as volunteer managers. Ultimately, OSU Extension agents who are highly skilled in volunteer management will be more likely to have greater positive youth and community impact as a result of volunteer-delivered 4-H Youth Development programs.

The purpose of this descriptive-correlational study was to determine OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents' perceptions of the importance of and their perceived competence with selected volunteer management competencies.

Population

The study used a census to collect data from the population of the 100 Extension agents, 4-H Youth Development, who were employed by Ohio State University Extension on October 1, 1996.

Instrumentation

The researchers developed a study questionnaire consisting of three parts. Section I gathered information from respondents related to their perceptions regarding the importance of (on a four-point scale of not important, little importance, somewhat important, and very important) and their competence with (on a four-point scale of not competent, little competence, somewhat competent, and very competent) selected volunteer management competencies. The competencies were identifying 4-H volunteer opportunities, and recruiting, selecting, orienting, training, utilizing, supervising, recognizing, and evaluating 4-H volunteers

Section II gathered data about personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. Section III gathered data on respondents' participation in volunteerism-related professional development opportunities during the past 24 months.

The researchers established face and content validity through two panels of experts. Reliability was established utilizing the test-re-test method. Internal consistency was established by calculating Cronbach's alphas of the selected volunteer management constructs and analyzed from the first step of test-retest ranging between .76 and .92. Reliability coefficients of the selected volunteer management competencies ranged between .64 and .80; participation in volunteer-related professional development opportunities ranged between .68 and .90. Nunnally (1967, p. 226) states ".50 to .60 reliability may suffice in early stages of research in a domain when determining its dimensions."

Collection and analysis

Eighty-four percent of the agents responded to the initial survey questionnaire. A second questionnaire was sent to those not responding after three weeks; an additional 13% responded. After an additional two weeks a third mailing was done and resulted in an additional 1%. The overall study response rate was 98%. No further follow-up was done with the two individuals not completing the questionnaire.

Data were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Hierarchical and stepwise linear regression analysis was used to measure the proportion of variance in agents' perception of the importance of and their competence with the selected volunteer management competencies that could be explained by the personal and professional characteristics and participation in professional development opportunities.

The assumptions for multiple regression were checked by examining the residuals. This was done by the overall plot, normal probability, and comparison against dependent variables and each significant independent variable. In examining the overall plot, residuals resembled observations from a normal distribution with a mean of zero; plotting the normal probability of the residuals resulted in residuals falling approximately on a straight line. The plotting of residuals of the predicted dependent variables against each significant independent variable satisfied the overall impression of a horizontal band of residuals.

Perceptions regarding the importance of selected volunteer management competencies

OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents identified all nine of the volunteer management competencies as either somewhat important or very important. Respondents identified three competencies as very important. These were utilizing, supervising, and recognizing 4-H volunteers. Competencies identified as somewhat important were identifying 4-H volunteer opportunities, and recruiting, selecting, orienting, training, and evaluating 4-H volunteers.

The researchers suggest some overall issues that may affect agent perceptions of the importance of the respective components of an effective volunteer management system.

First, local communities and clientele often evaluate the success or failure of OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents on criteria such as accomplishments of 4-H members, a smoothly run event/activity, a successful livestock sale, a large dairy show, and so on, rather than on a successful volunteer management system that supports programming initiatives and activities for 4 -H members. Local pressures on 4-H agents may cause them to carry -out responsibilities in a way most acceptable to those working closest with them (local volunteers).

Secondly, some district directors, district 4-H Youth Development specialists, and county Extension chairs (all providing components of administrative and programmatic support to 4-H Youth Development agents) may not fully recognize a 4-H agent's innovative and effective volunteer management system or role as volunteer manager. These individuals bring a variety of experiences and expertise to the situation. Individuals who have not been 4-H agents may not fully recognize the contemporary volunteer management skills needed to manage and nurture an expanded county 4-H Youth Development program; therefore, not encouraging their development or enhancement. Furthermore, some may also conform to what local volunteers, clientele, and legislators believe is the role of OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents.

Thirdly, state 4-H faculty and administrative and professional staff may not emphasize a volunteer management system as a critical component of new and on-going programming efforts. Many programs currently conducted by agents could be implemented by volunteers if a volunteer implementation strategy would be included as an integral component of the program or activity. This could include: (a) volunteer job descriptions, (b) recruitment techniques, (c) program orientation and training materials, and (d) pre-developed program and volunteer evaluation forms.

Perceptions towards agents' current level of competence with selected volunteer management

Respondents indicated they were somewhat competent with each of the nine selected volunteer management competencies. However, they indicated that while three of the competencies were very important, six were only somewhat important. The researchers would argue that if OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents only believe the competencies to be somewhat important, then they are not likely to be motivated to become very competent in each area. The researchers suggest that a conceptual gap exists between agents' perceptions of the importance of and their competence with them. This gap provides critical insight into volunteer developing training needs for OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents.

Secondly, over the past ten years, volunteer management expertise may not have been consistently assessed as potential agents are interviewed and hired for 4-H positions. Hiring new agents involves the assistant director, district directors, district specialists, county agents, and county volunteers. Representatives of these groups have a wide variety of volunteer management experience that may lead to differing philosophies concerning the level of competence needed with management competencies.

Thirdly, the professional field of volunteer management/administration is a relatively young profession. Therefore, limited research and scholarly work exists regarding OSU Extension 4-H Youth Development agents as volunteer managers.

Relationships between agents' perception of the importance of and their competence with selected volunteer management competencies

There were numerous strong and substantial associations between the agents' perceptions towards the importance of the respective volunteer management competencies and their perceptions towards their level of competency with the competencies. The study findings indicate negligible-to-low associations (Davis, 1971) between the agents' perception of the importance of and competence with the respective nine volunteer management competencies.

The strong and substantial associations between agents' perceptions of the importance of selected volunteer management competencies and their perceptions of their ability with management competencies support the strength of the construct validity of the research topic (that is, individual competency builders identified for each specific volunteer management competency are substantially related to one another). Thus, the nine respective volunteer management competencies provide a valid and reliable conceptual framework to use in developing contemporary 4-H Youth Development agents volunteer management abilities.

Furthermore, the study findings support the use of the ISOTURE model of volunteer leadership development (identifying, selecting orienting, training, utilizing, recognizing, and evaluating volunteers), which is the basis of B.L.A.S.T., a current Ohio 4-H Youth Development curricula. The Ohio 4-H B.L.A.S.T. (Building Leadership and Skills Together) curriculum provides Extension agents with a valuable volunteer orientation and training tool. The B.L.A.S.T. curriculum is applicable to managing and supporting volunteers in conducting 4-H programs and should be utilized by both new and tenured 4-H Youth Development agents. The curriculum also provides a research base to investigate and develop new materials to support OSU Extension 4- H Youth Development agents; on-going efforts in managing and supporting volunteers.

The strongest Extension programs result from a balance of program ownership and responsibility between Extension professionals and key volunteers (Snider, 1985). It also suggests that the development of volunteers is an integral component of leadership development and that the professional Extension educator should serve as the facilitator of that development (Safrit, Smith, and Cutler, 1992). Ellis and Noyes (1990) believed that volunteers cannot fully and successfully contribute to an organization without visibility and management attention from the paid staff and the organization. According to Walker and Youg, "Volunteers contribute much, in areas such as hours, knowledge, skill, and teaching, but coordination and motivation and management are needed" (Walker and Young, 1989, p. 19). The direction of volunteerism in the next decade will be significantly affected by the ability of staff and volunteers to work together productively (Mausner, 1988).

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Ellis, S. J., & Noyes, K. H. (1990). By the people: A history of Americans as volunteers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mausner, C. (1988). The underlying dynamics of staff- volunteer relationships. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, Summer, 5-9.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Ohio State University Extension. (1991). Annual Report. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.

Safrit, R. d., Smith, W., & Cutler, L. (1992). The Ohio 4-H B.L.A.S.T.! program. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.

Snider, A. (1985). The dynamic tension: Professional and volunteers. Journal of Extension, Vol. 23, fall, 7-10.

Walker K. & Young C. (1989). Volunteer leadership development: Changing paradigms. (Eric Document Reproductionn Service No. 234-493)

Successful Extension education outreach programs are based on a solid understanding of the needs of the targeted audience and the use of appropriate techniques to disseminate the needed information. This study was undertaken to assist the Utah integrated pest management (IPM) program with effectively targeting its outreach efforts. We needed to determine key producer/farm background characteristics that may influence adoption, current use of IPM, perceived impediments to adoption, and preference for education delivery techniques. Data were obtained from surveys mailed to two agricultural producer groups (tree fruits and small grains) during 1996.

IPM is defined as a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks (National Coalition on Integrated Pest Management, 1994). The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) IPM initiative has set a goal of implementing IPM on 75% of the U.S. crop lands by the year 2000. USDA has charged state Extension IPM coordinators with the tasks of promoting and measuring IPM adoption of agricultural producers and practitioners in an attempt to reach this goal.

The crops surveyed were selected based on their regional importance, differences in history of Utah Extension involvement in IPM efforts, and intensity of pest problems. The project was conducted as part of a northwestern region IPM survey effort in which economically important crops to this region were selected for study. In Utah, tree fruits have been the focus of Extension IPM efforts for about 15 years, have numerous pests which require intensive management, and have a well developed industry organization. In contrast, small grains have not been a focus of Utah IPM education, do not have an organized state industry association, and in general, have less pest pressure.

One questionnaire was mailed to 260 Utah tree fruit growers on 1 March, 1996 and a second was mailed to 1,700 Utah field crops producers from late November to early December, 1996. Tree fruit survey respondents provided information on 1994 and 1995 growing seasons, and small grains producers responded for 1995 and 1996 seasons. Results are presented as percentage of survey respondents. Statistical comparisons (Proc Freq in SAS: Chisquare, P=0.05) (SAS Institute, version 6.10) were made for some responses between major source of income groups (on-farm versus off-farm) and between size classes of grain acreage produced (< or >100 acres of wheat and barley).

The response rate for the tree fruit survey was 26.5%, however, total acres reported represented 48% of the state's total bearing tree fruit acreage. The response rate for the small grains survey was 15.5% which represented 19% of the harvested small grain acres (Utah Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997).

The major producer and/or farm characteristics obtained from the survey that may influence IPM adoption are reported in Table 1. Comparisons between primary source of income groups revealed that a significantly greater percentage of full-time than part- time fruit survey respondents marketed their fruit out-of-state (44% with primarily on-farm income versus 16% with primarily off- farm income) and sold wholesale (70% on-farm versus 25% off- farm). There were no differences in product marketing (in- versus out-of-state and processing, feed or seed) between income groups for small grains producers responding to the survey.

Insects and weeds were the most economically important pests for tree fruit and small grain survey respondents, respectively. Numerous chemical and non-chemical pest management practices were used by both groups. Practices that were used three or more times per season by more than 50% of the tree fruit survey respondents were insecticides (92%), pest scouting (65%), and orchard sanitation (62%; e.g., pruning, flailing dropped fruit). In addition, 46% of fruit survey respondents used pest phenology models (temperature- and pest activity-based models) to time controls for their most important pests. Although significantly more full-time fruit growers considered some pests (diseases, mites, weeds, and vertebrate pests), of greater importance than part-time growers, more full-time fruit growers used non- and low -chemical tactics (pest scouting, spot chemical treatments, ground covers to enhance beneficials, and resistant varieties).than part-time growers.

Pest management practices used at least two times per season by more than 50% of respondents to the small grains survey were field scouting (65%) and deep tilling/cultivation (57%). When targeting their most important pests, the majority of respondents used crop rotation (94%), certified seed (74%), and chemicals (70%). Chemical controls were not used more than once per season by most grain growers. The most frequently applied grain pesticides were pre-emergent herbicides. Farm size influenced the perception of survey respondents to severity of pests. Wheat and barley survey respondents who produced >100 acres considered diseases and insects more frequent problems than producers of smaller acreage; however, there were few differences in use of pest management practices between farm size and source of income groups.

Most fruit and grain survey respondents perceived numerous impediments to using non-chemical tactics for pest management (Table 2). Fruit grower respondents rated all obstacles provided in the survey as a problem more frequently than grain growers. Despite the high perception of impediments by all survey respondents, the majority were interested in using non-chemical tactics (Table 2), and many do as presented above. Survey respondents with primary income from off-farm sources perceived some impediments (difficulty of use, lack of knowledge, lower level of control, and shorter protection) more frequently than full-time growers.

The local Extension agent or office was the preferred source of pest management information for all respondents to both surveys (Table 3). In addition to Extension, all survey respondents frequently used other growers, themselves or a trained employee for information. Grain growers also relied heavily on agricultural chemical dealers, more so than fruit growers. Few respondents in either survey used private crop consultants or commodity/packing house representatives. Significantly more part-time than full-time fruit growers responding to the survey used chemical dealers as a source of information, whereas this relationship was reversed for grain survey respondents.

Survey respondents showed a preference for the format in which pest management information was made available (Table 4). For on-going educational programs, Extension and industry publications and workshops and conferences were the preferred formats for respondents to both surveys. For quick access to pest advisory information, Extension publications were again preferred. Fruit survey respondents rated a telephone-tip-service as their second preference. Computer access and radio and television programs were the least preferred formats for obtaining information.

Impediments to accessing information on pests were not perceived as a problem by most survey respondents (Table 5). Tree fruit survey respondents were more aware of IPM programs than grain survey respondents. However, 22% of tree fruit survey respondents reported a lack of confidence in information as compared to only 8% of grain growers.

Some important characteristics of producers and farms that likely influence adoption of IPM and participation in educational programs are major source of income (on-farm or off-farm), market destination, farm size, and diversity of crops produced. In addition, the past intensity of Extension IPM outreach efforts and development of commodity organizations also likely influence grower perceptions of Extension and IPM programs.

In this study, all survey respondents relied heavily on Extension sources for pest management information, although tree fruit respondents were more aware of IPM programs and information than small grain respondents. Grain growers also obtained information from agricultural chemical dealers almost as frequently as from Extension. In Utah, the tree fruit industry has been targeted with Extension IPM programs for about 15 years, whereas, IPM has not been the emphasis in Extension small grains programs. In addition, many Utah grain farms are in rural counties where contacts with Extension and industry organizations may not be as frequent as for fruit growers who are concentrated in more urban counties.

Major source of income and farm size (analyzed for grain producers only) had an influence on perceptions of survey respondents to severity of pest problems and use of IPM. In general, full-time producers and larger grain producers (>100 acres wheat and barley) who responded to the survey considered more pests as economically important than part-time and smaller producers. However, full-time fruit survey respondents used non- and low-chemical pest management tactics more frequently than part-time respondents, including pest scouting (87% for full-time growers versus 54% for part-time growers). Producers who receive their major income from the farm likely put greater effort into pest management education, are more exposed to Extension and industry information, conduct more economic analysis of pest management choices, and scout for pests more frequently. Thus, full-time growers may perceive pests as a greater economic drain on their resources than do part-time growers.

Market destination and crop value also likely influence adoption of IPM. Although numerous non-chemical tactics were used by the majority of tree fruit and small grain survey respondents, 92% of fruit respondents still applied three or more insecticide treatments per season to their orchards. This finding likely reflects the intensity and severity of many fruit pests, the relatively high crop value ($2,288 per acre for apples versus $183 per acre for wheat in 1996) (Utah Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997), the perennial nature of fruit trees, and the perceived or real expectations for high fruit quality demands at the market. Such concerns were also evident in strong perceptions of impediments to use of non-chemical tactics by fruit survey respondents (by > 95% of respondents), such as high cost and risk, lower level of control, and shorter protection interval. Less frequent use of pesticides and greater use of non-chemical tactics, along with less concerns about use of non-chemical options were observed for small grains survey respondents.

In conclusion, in our efforts to reach grower audiences with Extension IPM education programs, greater consideration should be given to grower and farm background, perceptions of pest problems, current use of IPM practices, and preferences for educational formats. Growers in both survey groups responded positively to IPM and data suggest that comprehensive IPM programs targeting other commodities should be received favorably by the majority of producers. Information gathered in this study will assist with design of future IPM outreach programs.

National Coalition on Integrated Pest Management. (1994). Toward a goal of 75 percent cropland under IPM by 2000. Austin, TX.

Utah Agricultural Statistics Service. (1997). 1997 Utah agricultural statistics and Utah department of agriculture and food annual report. Salt Lake City, UT.

Research funding for this study was provided by USDA CSREES IPM Special Project funds and Smith-Lever 3(d) formula funds for Utah. The authors would like to acknowledge Drs. Sherman V. Thomson, Jay B. Karren, Steven A. Dewey, Howard M. Deer, and Anthony H. Hatch, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, for assistance with development of survey questions.

The Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College originated from the Ohio State University's Family Community Leadership Program (FCL) - a program designed to help adults become more effective in representing family concerns in the public decision- making process. Teens had not been offered this learning experience. Those involved in the origination of the Teen Leadership program believed participating teenagers would show higher level changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations than they had shown as a result of existing leadership programs (Hodson, 1992).

The objectives of the program are as follows:

1. To train teens in the areas of communication, leadership, conflict management, decision making, time management, and leadership styles
2. To teach teens they have the ability to achieve and are responsible for their own lives
3. To empower teens by teaching them how to develop their positive attributes, enabling them to be self-confident and independent thinkers
4. To allow teens to actively participate in the community and pass their skills and values on to other teens through volunteerism
5. To promote the volunteer ethic among teens, which includes serving as ambassadors for furthering 4-H youth development

Since the start of the program in 1989, 130 teens have received extensive training in leadership skills that they are using to teach other youth and adults (Rinehart & Kleon, 1996).

One of the most pressing issues facing the United States and its youth serving organizations today is how to best facilitate the development of our youth. The future of the nation, and the future of world civilization, will soon rest in the hands of today's youth. To become productive and contributing individuals who can be effective and proactive in determining the course of tomorrow's world, today's youth must develop positive leadership knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations. Preparing today's youth for their roles as tomorrow's leaders is a challenge we all face (Cox, 1996).

Leadership means different things to different people. There are numerous definitions. Stodgill (1974, p. 259) concluded that "there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept."

The term "leadership" is often confusing because of imprecise terms used such as power, authority, management, administration, control and supervision to describe the same phenomena (Yukl, 1979). Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves an influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by the leader over followers. It is difficult to determine a single definition and depends on the objective and purpose of the researcher. The purpose of the assessment center is to determine the leadership effectiveness and managerial skills of the participants.

Stodgill (1974) suggested eleven perspectives of leadership. Leadership may be defined as (a) personality or effectiveness of personality, (b) the art of inducing compliance, (c) the exercise of influence, (d) a function of group process, (e) a form of persuasion, (f) a set of acts or behavior, (g) a power of relationship, (h) an instrument of goal achievement, (i) an effective interaction, (j) a differentiated role, and (k) the initiation of structure.

Any one of these meanings may apply to a certain circumstance, but no single definition is universally accepted; however, leadership is clearly a role that leads toward goal achievement, involves interaction of influence, and usually results in some form of changed structure or behavior of groups, organizations or communities (Lassey, 1976).

The expectations of the individuals making the judgment of leadership effectiveness are also highly important. Molding the expectations of those enabled to make such a judgment may be a prime function of leadership. Persons, because of their own concept of leadership, may consider a leader good and effective even when the leader has performed poorly and ineffectively (Herman, Snyder, Cunningham, 1980).

An age old question is "Are successful leaders born or made?" Prior to the 1930s it was believed that leadership was a property of the individual, that a limited number of people were uniquely endowed with abilities and traits which made it possible for them to become leaders. These abilities and traits were believed to be inherited rather than acquired (McGregor, 1974).

Leadership development is a process that extends over many years. The realities of life require selection and training that occur early in the individual's career, but that is only the first step. Leadership development calls for repeated assessments and repeated opportunities for training. All talent develops through interplay - sometimes over many years - between native gifts on the one hand and opportunities and challenges on the other (Gardner, 1990).

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College on the participants. Specifically the study measured the participant's perception of their leadership skills before and after participating in the program.

Objectives of the study were (a) to determine perceptions of Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College participants of their leadership skills acquired as a result of participating in the program and (b) to compare perceptions of Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College participants of their leadership skills before and after participating in the program.

This study was ex post facto in nature and was designed to gather data comparing variables prior to respondents' participation in the Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College (TCLC) to the same variables after respondents graduation from the college.

The population of this study consisted of 95 teens who participated in the Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College. This was a census of all teens who participated in the Ohio 4-H TCLC between 1989 and 1994. The teens were selected to participate by high school administrators, guidance counselors and Extension professionals. Selected teens had already demonstrated higher than normal leadership skill behavior as qualitatively evaluated by the school and Extension professionals who selected them.

Data were collected using a variation of the mailing procedures recommended by Dillman (1978). Non-respondents were mailed a second questionnaire. Usable data were received from 64 of the 95 participants for a response rate of 64%. A comparison of early responses to late responses showed no significant difference in demographics. Also, late responses were not significantly different than early responses. The data were collected between February and April 1996.

Respondents answered questions about their perceived leadership development as a result of their participation in the Teen College. Perception was measured by adapting a questionnaire developed by Rinehart (1992) which measured eleven dimensions of leadership. The dimensions were oral communication, leadership, initiative, planning/organizing, decision making/judgment, behavioral flexibility, assertiveness, objectivity, perception, sensitivity, and collaborativeness.

Participants indicated their perception of their leadership skill as related to the dimensions before participation in the program and after graduating.

By the nature of the program it was expected that teen participants would rate themselves high on the variables prior to their participation in the program since teens were selected to participate based on leadership skills they already possessed. Changes in scores were not expected to be high.

Mean scores of the participant's perceptions of their leadership skills after participating in the Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College ranged from 4.2 - 4.5. A t-test analysis revealed that Ohio 4-H TCLC graduates perception of their leadership skills after completing the program were significantly higher than their perception before participation in the program (alpha = .05). Based on the findings, the participants' perception of their leadership skills improved as a result of their participation. As a group, participants' highest mean scores were on the dimensions "perception" and "collaborativeness" (m = 4.5). There lowest mean scores were on the dimensions "initiative," "assertiveness," and "objectivity" (m = 4.2).

Participants were given the opportunity to provide written comments about their Ohio 4-H TCLC experience.

Based on the findings in this study, the Ohio 4-H Teen Community Leadership College had a positive impact on participants' perceived leadership skill development. Longitudinal studies should be continued. Ohio 4-H TCLC participants should be given the research instrument prior to their participation in the program and again in one to three years.

The results of this study helped the program leaders understand the impact that the Ohio 4-H TCLC program is having on participants. The overall impact has been positive as is evident in the findings. The lowest mean scores, although high (4.2), were in the areas of initiative, assertiveness and objectivity. This would indicate that perhaps additional emphasis should be placed in these areas for future programming. Further research may also be helpful in identifying the reasons for the lower scores on these dimensions.

Cox, K., (1996). Youth leadership development and implications for non-formal educational programming research and literature update. The Ohio State University, February 1996.

Gardner, J.W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Herman, Snyder & Cunningham,(1980, Spring). Leadership: some trends, challenges, and opportunities. Quarterly Report, The Ohio State University.

Hodson, S. H., "Teen community leadership college", Journal of Extension, Winter, 1992.

Lassey, W. (1976). Leadership and social change. California: University Associates.

Rinehart S. (1992). Leadership and managerial skills of county commissioners as perceived by county commissioners, Ohio State University Extension chairs and Assessment Center assessors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Columbus.

Rinehart, S, H., Kleon, S. "Ohio 4-H teen community leadership college: teaching youth and adults" Journal of Extension, Winter, 1996.

Stodgill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership; a survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press.

Yukl G. (1979). Managerial traits and skills. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

The 1980s and early 1990s were characterized by detrimental financial pressures and low profitability on many family farms throughout the U.S. In an effort to increase farmer financial management skills, the 1995 farm bill required all farmers financed by the U.S. Deparment of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA-formerly the Farmers Home Administration) to achieve a competency knowledge level of basic financial management (Hansen & Cunningham, 1995). A coordinated program of farm finance workshops was offered in Pennsylvania in 1995 to assist FSA borrowers and other interested farmers. The program expanded in 1996 to include Maryland and New York. The six-day workshops were conducted by Extension agents at 20 sites across the three states. Course materials included pre-taped video presentations linked to workbook reference material and workshop exercises. Three 45-minute satellite downlinks were utilized to motivate farmers enrolled in the course, maintain consistency and training deadlines among the 20 workshop locations, and provide an opportunity for participants to direct questions to an Extension specialist via fax and telephone calls to the uplink television studio at Pennsylvania State University.

At the close of the 1996 workshop farmers received a pass/fail grade. The grade was based on workshop participation and completion of four in-depth homework assignments: a 1995 balance sheet, a 1995 accrual income statement, a 1996 projected monthly farm and family cash flow budget, and a projected farm production and finance plan for 1996-99.

The workshops were evaluated by two separate instruments. All 1995 and 1996 participants were asked to complete an USDA\FSA program evaluation form that asked categorical questions on aspects of the course (Table 1). A second evaluation form was completed by farmers at most locations involved with the 1996 workshops. This form asked for information on the participant's level of financial knowledge prior to and after the workshop, farm sales, profits, and expected change in net worth resulting from the workshop (Tables 2 and 3).

Preliminary evaluation indicated that three fourths of the farmer participants did not attend any Cooperative Extension meetings in the year prior to the workshop. Workshop attendees also had relatively high debt-to-asset ratios consistent with FSA's acknowledged role as the lender of last resort for financially weak farmers. The typical farmer enrolled in the workshops was likely to produce milk (70%) and averaged farm commodity sales of about $180,000. Approximately one half had annual off-farm income of about $14,000 per year, and 13 farms had poultry and/or horticulture contract income averaging about $48,000 annually.

Results from an FSA evaluation form for 1995 and 1996 indicate broad satisfaction with the workshops (Table 1). The participants that responded to the most unfavorable category of each question, for example, "no," "poor," "too easy," "too short," or "too little," ranged from 0-6% in 1995 and from 0-4% in 1996. For all questions other than one and eight, responses to the most positive response category increased 4-19 percentage points between 1995 and 1996.

The percentage of farmers rating the instructor as excellent doubled from 1995 to 1996. County agents indicated that part of the improvement in participant approval of the workshops was due to the agents' increased familiarity and working knowledge of the course materials in the second year of the program. The participants strongly approved the topics covered, level of the course, course length, and amount of outside work. This indicates that the rigorous course format, including the requirement that all work be completed for a passing grade, was successful.

The wide diversity in participant education levels and farm size, in combination with the in-depth, structured format provided an opportunity to assess workshop impacts. Impact analysis is a useful accountability measure for investments in learning in much the same manner as benefit/cost analysis is used to analyze the impact of investments in business. To this end an impact evaluation of the 1996 workshops was completed by 180 participants (one per farm).

Participants' response to Question 1 in Table 2 provided a dollar value of the workshops educational impact: Your application of the budgeting, analysis and farm planning skills taught in the workshop will likely increase your farm net worth by $_______ in a typical year? The 67 farm operators that left question one blank had commodity sales, profits, age, and years managing farm within 2% of the overall sample average. Thus non- response to the impact value question was not believed to be biased by farm size, economic performance or key demographic variables of the participants.

The average response to Question 1 from the 113 remaining farmers was $7,490, or about 4% of gross farm and non-farm income. Break-points of $5,000 and $10,000 were used to distribute the responses among three specific categories for further examination. The workshop impacts averaged $1,023, $5,317, and $14,716 for the three groups and were significantly different.

Participants were asked in the questionnaire to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from "minimal" to "excellent" their knowledge of financial statements and planning both prior to and upon completion of the workshop. Then the pre-workshop score was subtracted from the post-workshop score. Between 84-98% of the participants indicated an increase in their knowledge level of financial statements. Similarly, 78-100% of the participants indicated an increase in knowledge of financial planning. The highest percentage of participants indicating an increase in questions 2-3 was in the $10,000 or more category of dollar value of impact in Question 1. While the percentage of participants recording an increase regarding the "view of the importance of finance management" was greater than 70% for all categories of question 4, the difference was not significantly related to the dollar value of impact. Nor was presence of a college degree significantly related to the dollar value of educational impact.

However, the remaining questions (6-9) in Table 2 indicate that higher farm sales and profits, more frequent attendance of Extension outreach sessions, and higher satisfaction with the workshop were all significantly related to a higher dollar value of workshop impact. Conclusions from Table 2 are that the educational impact of the workshops were large and significantly different dependent upon socioeconomic variables including farm profit and size. Educational level was not significant.

The unexpected result that impacts were not related to completion of college suggested further exploration of the role of education on workshop impact (Table 3). When survey responses were arrayed by primary, high school and college education, the dollar value of impact or profit level were not significantly related to different education levels (Questions 1 and 8). Only the knowledge of financial statements, among the educational impact Questions 2-4, was significantly related to education level of the participant (note that the average numerical increases on a 5-point qualitative scale are shown in these questions). As expected, higher educational achievement was significantly related to increased age, more years farming, higher farm sales and attendance at other Extension meetings.

An encouraging conclusion from these results is that the workshops achieved substantial impact at all levels of educational attainment. The fact that participants with only primary education registered the highest overall gains in knowledge level from completion of the workshops stems from painstaking efforts to develop straight-forward workshop education materials. The financial knowledge base of this group was also more limited, resulting in a more sharply sloped learning curve. It should be noted that a sizeable number of the primary education group are members of ethnic religious groups that generally embrace agriculture but avoid attending meetings and discourage higher education.

INCORPORATING OWN-FARM HOMEWORK INDIVIDUALIZES COURSE MATERIALS

About 90% of the respondents found the amount of outside work was appropriate. Linking classroom instruction to analysis of the participants' own farm businesses made application of the coursework meaningful in a learning-by-doing framework.

COURSE RIGOR CAN BE HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO THE WORKSHOP EXPERIENCE

The integration of classroom exercises, exams, and grading, with the requirement that all materials be completed in order to pass the course, contributed to favorable participant evaluations.

IN-DEPTH MULTI-DAY FORMAT A KEY TO OUTREACH IMPACT

Previous experience with 1-day finance workshops has been found to be disappointing (Hanson, Delavan & Power, 1996). The "length" of the 6-day course was viewed to be appropriate by 89% of the participants in 1996.

DOLLAR VALUE OF EDUCATIONAL IMPACTS CAN BE LARGE

Educational impact values averaging about 4% of gross sales and ranging to more than $10,000 indicate the benefit/cost ratio from application of workshop tools can be substantial.

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AT ALL EDUCATION AND FARM SIZE LEVELS

Workshop participants with primary school education consistently showed the highest post-workshop increase in knowledge gained. The dollar value of educational impact was proportionately largest, 6% of gross sales of about $100,000, for those with only a primary school education.

A key implication of the impact analysis is that investment in outreach education can result in a large payback in terms of providing farmers useful financial management tools for competing successfully in agriculture. Outreach efforts can be made more meaningful and personally satisfying for both county agents and workshop participants when evidence of educational impacts are found to be substantial. Finally, impact assessment can be useful in other outreach programs, for example, in assessing tax savings resulting from participation in tax management workshops.

Hanson, G.D., & Cunningham, L.C. (1995). A distance learning approach to borrower training. Agricultural Finance Review 55 (1995):August.

Hanson, G.D., Delavan, W. & Power, L. (1996). "Mandated borrower training for FSA/USDA farm borrowers. Journal of Extension 34 (2).

At one time, employees were considered just another input into the production of goods and services. What perhaps changed this way of thinking about employees was research, referred to as the Hawthorne Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 (Dickson, 1973). This study found employees are not motivated solely by money and employee behavior is linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973). The Hawthorne Studies began the human relations approach to management, whereby the needs and motivation of employees become the primary focus of managers (Bedeian, 1993).

Understanding what motivated employees and how they were motivated was the focus of many researchers following the publication of the Hawthorne Study results (Terpstra, 1979). Five major approaches that have led to our understanding of motivation are Maslow's need-hierarchy theory, Herzberg's two- factor theory, Vroom's expectancy theory, Adams' equity theory, and Skinner's reinforcement theory.

According to Maslow, employees have five levels of needs (Maslow, 1943): physiological, safety, social, ego, and self- actualizing. Maslow argued that lower level needs had to be satisfied before the next higher level need would motivate employees. Herzberg's work categorized motivation into two factors: motivators and hygienes (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, produce job satisfaction. Hygiene or extrinsic factors, such as pay and job security, produce job dissatisfaction.

Vroom's theory is based on the belief that employee effort will lead to performance and performance will lead to rewards (Vroom, 1964). Rewards may be either positive or negative. The more positive the reward the more likely the employee will be highly motivated. Conversely, the more negative the reward the less likely the employee will be motivated.

Adams' theory states that employees strive for equity between themselves and other workers. Equity is achieved when the ratio of employee outcomes over inputs is equal to other employee outcomes over inputs (Adams, 1965).

Skinner's theory simply states those employees' behaviors that lead to positive outcomes will be repeated and behaviors that lead to negative outcomes will not be repeated (Skinner, 1953). Managers should positively reinforce employee behaviors that lead to positive outcomes. Managers should negatively reinforce employee behavior that leads to negative outcomes.

Many contemporary authors have also defined the concept of motivation. Motivation has been defined as: the psychological process that gives behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); an internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); and the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993). For this paper, motivation is operationally defined as the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals.

Why do we need motivated employees? The answer is survival (Smith, 1994). Motivated employees are needed in our rapidly changing workplaces. Motivated employees help organizations survive. Motivated employees are more productive. To be effective, managers need to understand what motivates employees within the context of the roles they perform. Of all the functions a manager performs, motivating employees is arguably the most complex. This is due, in part, to the fact that what motivates employees changes constantly (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). For example, research suggests that as employees' income increases, money becomes less of a motivator (Kovach, 1987). Also, as employees get older, interesting work becomes more of a motivator.

The purpose of this study was to describe the importance of certain factors in motivating employees at the Piketon Research and Extension Center and Enterprise Center. Specifically, the study sought to describe the ranked importance of the following ten motivating factors: (a) job security, (b) sympathetic help with personal problems, (c) personal loyalty to employees, (d) interesting work, (e) good working conditions, (f) tactful discipline, (g) good wages, (h) promotions and growth in the organization, (i) feeling of being in on things, and (j) full appreciation of work done. A secondary purpose of the study was to compare the results of this study with the study results from other populations.

The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. The target population of this study included employees at the Piketon Research and Extension Center and Enterprise Center (centers). The sample size included all 25 employees of the target population. Twenty-three of the 25 employees participated in the survey for a participation rate of 92%. The centers are in Piketon, Ohio.

The mission of the Enterprise Center is to facilitate individual and community leader awareness and provide assistance in preparing and accessing economic opportunities in southern Ohio. The Enterprise Center has three programs: alternatives in agriculture, small business development, and women's business development. The mission of the Piketon Research and Extension Center is to conduct research and educational programs designed to enhance economic development in southern Ohio. The Piketon Research and Extension Center has five programs: aquaculture, community economic development, horticulture, forestry, and soil and water resources.

From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991; Harpaz, 1990; Kovach, 1987). Data was collected through use of a written questionnaire hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox. The questionnaire asked participants to rank the importance of ten factors that motivated them in doing their work: 1=most important . . . 10=least important. Face and content validity for the instrument were established using two administrative and professional employees at The Ohio State University. The instrument was pilot tested with three similarly situated employees within the university. As a result of the pilot test, minor changes in word selection and instructions were made to the questionnaire.

The ranked order of motivating factors were: (a) interesting work, (b) good wages, (c) full appreciation of work done, (d) job security, (e) good working conditions, (f) promotions and growth in the organization, (g) feeling of being in on things, (h) personal loyalty to employees, (i) tactful discipline, and (j) sympathetic help with personal problems.

A comparison of these results to Maslow's need-hierarchy theory provides some interesting insight into employee motivation. The number one ranked motivator, interesting work, is a self-actualizing factor. The number two ranked motivator, good wages, is a physiological factor. The number three ranked motivator, full appreciation of work done, is an esteem factor. The number four ranked motivator, job security, is a safety factor. Therefore, according to Maslow (1943), if managers wish to address the most important motivational factor of Centers' employees, interesting work, physiological, safety, social, and esteem factors must first be satisfied. If managers wished to address the second most important motivational factor of centers' employees, good pay, increased pay would suffice. Contrary to what Maslow's theory suggests, the range of motivational factors are mixed in this study. Maslow's conclusions that lower level motivational factors must be met before ascending to the next level were not confirmed by this study.

The following example compares the highest ranked motivational factor (interesting work) to Vroom's expectancy theory. Assume that a Centers employee just attended a staff meeting where he/she learned a major emphasis would be placed on seeking additional external program funds. Additionally, employees who are successful in securing funds will be given more opportunities to explore their own research and extension interests (interesting work). Employees who do not secure additional funds will be required to work on research and extension programs identified by the director. The employee realizes that the more research he/she does regarding funding sources and the more proposals he/she writes, the greater the likelihood he/she will receive external funding.

Because the state legislature has not increased appropriations to the centers for the next two years (funds for independent research and extension projects will be scaled back), the employee sees a direct relationship between performance (obtaining external funds) and rewards (independent research and Extension projects). Further, the employee went to work for the centers, in part, because of the opportunity to conduct independent research and extension projects. The employee will be motivated if he/she is successful in obtaining external funds and given the opportunity to conduct independent research and extension projects. On the other hand, motivation will be diminished if the employee is successful in obtaining external funds and the director denies the request to conduct independent research and Extension projects.

The following example compares the third highest ranked motivational factor (full appreciation of work done) to Adams's equity theory. If an employee at the centers feels that there is a lack of appreciation for work done, as being too low relative to another employee, an inequity may exist and the employee will be dis-motivated. Further, if all the employees at the centers feel that there is a lack of appreciation for work done, inequity may exist. Adams (1965) stated employees will attempt to restore equity through various means, some of which may be counter- productive to organizational goals and objectives. For instance, employees who feel their work is not being appreciated may work less or undervalue the work of other employees.

This final example compares the two highest motivational factors to Herzberg's two-factor theory. The highest ranked motivator, interesting work, is a motivator factor. The second ranked motivator, good wages is a hygiene factor. Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman (1959) stated that to the degree that motivators are present in a job, motivation will occur. The absence of motivators does not lead to dissatisfaction. Further, they stated that to the degree that hygienes are absent from a job, dissatisfaction will occur. When present, hygienes prevent dissatisfaction, but do not lead to satisfaction. In our example, the lack of interesting work (motivator) for the centers' employees would not lead to dissatisfaction. Paying centers' employees lower wages (hygiene) than what they believe to be fair may lead to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, employees will be motivated when they are doing interesting work and but will not necessarily be motivated by higher pay.

The discussion above, about the ranked importance of motivational factors as related to motivational theory, is only part of the picture. The other part is how these rankings compare with related research. A study of industrial employees, conducted by Kovach (1987), yielded the following ranked order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) full appreciation of work done, and (c) feeling of being in on things. Another study of employees, conducted by Harpaz (1990), yielded the following ranked order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) good wages, and (c) job security.

In this study and the two cited above, interesting work ranked as the most important motivational factor. Pay was not ranked as one of the most important motivational factors by Kovach (1987), but was ranked second in this research and by Harpaz (1990). Full appreciation of work done was not ranked as one of the most important motivational factors by Harpaz (1990), but was ranked second in this research and by Kovach (1987). The discrepancies in these research findings supports the idea that what motivates employees differs given the context in which the employee works. What is clear, however, is that employees rank interesting work as the most important motivational factor.

The ranked importance of motivational factors of employees at the centers provides useful information for the centers' director and employees. Knowing how to use this information in motivating centers' employees is complex. The strategy for motivating centers' employees depends on which motivation theories are used as a reference point. If Hertzberg's theory is followed, management should begin by focusing on pay and job security (hygiene factors) before focusing on interesting work and full appreciation of work done (motivator factors). If Adams' equity theory is followed, management should begin by focusing on areas where there may be perceived inequities (pay and full appreciation of work done) before focusing on interesting work and job security. If Vroom's theory is followed, management should begin by focusing on rewarding (pay and interesting work) employee effort in achieving organizational goals and objectives.

Regardless of which theory is followed, interesting work and employee pay appear to be important links to higher motivation of centers' employees. Options such as job enlargement, job enrichment, promotions, internal and external stipends, monetary, and non-monetary compensation should be considered. Job enlargement can be used (by managers) to make work more interesting (for employees) by increasing the number and variety of activities performed. Job enrichment can used to make work more interesting and increase pay by adding higher level responsibilities to a job and providing monetary compensation (raise or stipend) to employees for accepting this responsibility. These are just two examples of an infinite number of methods to increase motivation of employees at the centers. The key to motivating centers' employees is to know what motivates them and designing a motivation program based on those needs.

The results presented in this paper also have implications for the entire Cooperative Extension Sysyem. The effectiveness of Extension is dependent upon the motivation of its employees (Chesney, 1992; Buford, 1990; Smith, 1990). Knowing what motivates employees and incorporating this knowledge into the reward system will help Extension identify, recruit, employ, train, and retain a productive workforce. Motivating Extension employees requires both managers and employees working together (Buford, 1993). Extension employees must be willing to let managers know what motivates them, and managers must be willing to design reward systems that motivate employees. Survey results, like those presented here, are useful in helping Extension managers determine what motivates employees (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). If properly designed reward systems are not implemented, however, employees will not be motivated.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.

Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2). 16-22.

Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in Extension (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.

Buford, J. A., Jr. (1990). Extension management in the information age. Journal of Extension, 28 (1).

Buford, J. A., Jr. (1993). Be your own boss. Journal of Extension, 31 (1).

Chesney, C. E. (1992). Work force 2000: is Extension agriculture ready? Journal of Extension, 30 (2).

Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (ed.), The encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: an international perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 21. 75-93.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Higgins, J. M. (1994). The management challenge (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, July 1943. 370-396.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Smith, G. P. (1994). Motivation. In W. Tracey (ed.), Human resources management and development handbook (2nd ed.).

Smith, K. L. (1990). The future of leaders in Extension. Journal of Extension, 28 (1).

Terpstra, D. E. (1979). Theories of motivation: borrowing the best. Personnel Journal, 58. 376.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Before and after school care, or school-age care, as it is commonly called, has become a way-of-life for most families in America. Due to economic conditions, there has been a tremendous increase in families where both parents are in the work force. What are the benefits of quality school-age care programs? Are youths showing any positive changes as a result of their involvement in school-age care programs? Do Extension-supported school-age care programs benefit youth? This study is designed to answer these questions.

Educators realize that there are benefits associated with quality school-age care programs. According to Posner and Vandell (cited in National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1993), after school programs help improve children's self-esteem, social skills, and academic performance. Locklear, Riley, Steinberg, Todd, Junge, and McClain (1994), in a national study of 76 Extension-supported school-age care programs in 16 states, found similar results. According to Locklear, et al. (1994), youth involved with school-age care programs supported by Cooperative Extension showed improvements in social skills, academic performance, and a decrease of negative behavior problems. Similar benefits were found in an inner-city Baltimore program (Allen, Brown, Finlay, 1994). A study of a New York City after-school program during 1985-86 found that homework completion and the quality of homework increased (Locklear, 1992, p.11).

The benefits associated with after-school care are prompting many principals to begin to offer school-age care programs. According to Seligson (cited in Locklear, 1992), more and more schools are realizing the benefits of quality school-age care programs and many schools are providing school-age care for children. "In a 1988 NAESP survey, 84 percent of 1,175 responding principals said children in their communities need supervision before and after school, and two-thirds felt that public schools should provide that care" (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1993, p.1). School teachers also understand the benefits for children in school-age care programs. A 1987 Harris opinion poll found that many teachers felt that student difficulties in school are associated with then being "left on their own after school" (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1993, p.1). The benefits of the school-age care programs prompted the North Carolina 4-H School-Age Care Project to study three after-school care programs to determine if youths actually benefited from quality after-school care programs.

This study was designed to determine if school-age care programs supported by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service provided positive benefits to school-age children. Cooperative Extension personnel provided training and technical assistance to the programs involved with this study. Training was provided to school-age care staff who work directly with children. Extension staff worked directly with school-age care staff to help improve the quality of school-age care programs through visits to providers' sites.

Data for this research study were collected at public schools serving K-2, K-8, and middle school youth in three North Carolina counties. With a quasi-experimental design, students in the 4-H school-age care programs served as the experimental group and were matched with students in the schools with similar demographic and performance factors to serve as a control group.

Data on academic performance, attendance, and tardiness for the first and third school periods (nine weeks in a period and four periods in the school year) were provided by the school principal from student school files.

Structured pre- and post-questionnaires were used to obtain data from school-age child care providers, teachers, parents, and the principal, with respect to both program and control group students' attitudes toward school, learning behaviors, and character education. Character education in this study was defined as decision-making skills, leadership skills, citizenship, responsibility, community service, and other behaviors reflecting the character of the young person.

Differences in pre- and post-scores between the experimental (program youth) and control groups were analyzed with the student t-test or z scores. An .05 level of significance was used throughout the study.

The research design was executed as planned with completed questionnaires from parents, teachers, principals, and SACC providers for both the program and control groups. Data from the K-2 and middle schools were not complete and were not used in this analysis. Therefore, only data from the K-8 school were used in this study. Data on academic performance were available for the first and third school quarters.

Data from the questionnaires were summarized by computing means for each scale item. Respondents reported their perceptions on a ten-point scale. In reviewing the mean responses from parents in both the program and control groups, it is noted that changes in the scale items were not significant for either group or in comparing the two groups. It is interesting to note that parents perceived changes in the predicted direction for the most part, that is, the mean response for "talking about what the student was learning in school with parents" rose from 7.52 to 7.68. Similar changes were reported for "cooperate with parents", "ask to participate", "participate on teams and in the neighborhood", "do homework on own", "takes responsibility", "develops interests in new topics","join in group activities", "demonstrates self discipline","handles anger by talking", and "shows good judgment". Equally important were decreases in mean scores in behaviors such as: "express anger by hitting ", "get into trouble", and "associate with people with negative behavior".

Parents in the control group tended to give higher ratings for their children at the beginning of the school year, but reported lower scores on the post-questionnaires. This decrease many represent an overstatement of behaviors at the first data collection point.

Questionnaire results from teachers were similar to those from parents. Direction of predicted changes were observed for responses of "cooperation with adults and teachers", "show high level of interest in learning", "show high level of interest in school", "join group activities", "share with others", "demonstrate self discipline", "show respect", and "show good judgment". Significant changes were reported for program participants in "handling anger by talking" and "doing homework on their own". Data from the principal mirror the results from teachers. The principal reported significant changes in "handling anger by talking" and "doing homework on their own" for program youth.

School-age child care providers reported more significant changes in program participants (Table 1). Significant changes that the providers reported included: "talking about what the students were learning in school", "youth cooperating with provider", "youth cooperating with others", "showing a high level of interest in learning", "handling anger by talking", "participating in team and neighborhood activities", "doing homework on their own", "showing a high level of interest in school work", "developing interest in new topics","joining in group activities", "showing responsibility", and "sharing with students". Providers reported significantly decreased cases of "associating with friends with negative behavior".

On the pre-questionnaire to parents in both the program and control groups, parents reported higher scores at the beginning of the school year than on the last data collection instrument. The lower scores at the end of the year may reflect a better measurement of where the youth were actually in their behaviors. While there were no changes in the parents' scores of their children, changes were in the predicted direction, that is, parents gave higher scores on the post-questionnaire items such as talking about what the youth were learning in school and lower scores to items such as handle their anger by hitting.

For teachers and the principal, the same observations are drawn about their perceptions of the young people. However, for these respondents, there were two significant differences in scores. Both teachers and principal reported significant positive changes in the items of "handle their anger by talking" and "doing their homework on their own." There were a number of significant changes in the scores reported by the SAC providers between the pre- and post-questionnaires. There were significant changes in school-related behaviors such as "talking about what they were learning in their schools", "handling their anger by talking", and "doing their homework on their own". The providers also reported significant changes in the youth's character items such as increased "cooperation with others","joining in more activities", "sharing with others", and "showing responsibility".

This research project was plagued with many of the problems associated with social research. The original design involved working with three school principals to conduct the research with a wide range of school-age children. The three schools included children in: K-2, middle school, and K-8 grades. Although an incentive was provided to each principal, a computer for their after school program, only the K-8 school principal followed through on the research. The K-2 school principal had a decrease of interest in the after school program and eventually closed the program. The middle school principal failed to distribute and collect the evaluation instruments in a timely manner.

The project was also on a tight time line that may have prevented enough time lapse to obtain significant change in youth behavior. The evaluation project was funded with a grant. Since the grant was for one year, the project had to fit within the 12- month time period. Given that contract negotiations and processing of necessary forms took several weeks to complete, the evaluation occurred over a seven-month period. Perhaps using a similar design over a period of two or three years would show more conclusive evidence of change.

Individuals completing the evaluation surveys may have limited the results of the study. Respondents were the principal, school teachers, parents, and school-age care providers. Based on feedback from the principal, it became clear that principals are not in a position to provide feedback on individual children's behavior. Unless the children were sent to the principal's office for negative behavior, the principal may never have any interaction with the children in the after-school program. One of the objectives of after-school programs was to prevent children from engaging in negative behavior. Therefore, principals would have limited interaction with these children.

Another group, parents, provided conflicting information. In some cases, parents reported worse scores for their children on the post-test than they did on the pre-test. Parents' responses made it difficult to ascertain if the program had a negative impact or if parents did not pay close attention to any changes that may have occurred during the study period. Any small changes in children s homework habits, behavior, or other factors included in the study may have been missed by parents. Since parents are using the services of an after school program, perhaps their work and family schedules are so hectic that small changes were missed.

Teachers, another group of respondents, tended to have stronger indications of children's behavior. But some of the indicators that measured behavior during non-school hours may have been missed by teachers. An instrument dealing with academic behavior may be more appropriate for teachers to use to give feedback on after-school programs designed to improve academic achievement.

One group, the school-age care providers, provided good information concerning behavioral changes. This situation may be attributable to the amount of time providers spend with the school-age children. On the average, the provider spends about three hours per day, five days a week with the children. This level of involvement may have allowed the providers to see a change in children, even during a short period of seven months.

Several lessons were learned from the study. First, a generic instrument which tries to capture all pertinent information concerning the impact of after-school programs is not appropriate for different respondents. Instruments should be designed around specific behavior that can be observed by specific audiences. Two primary instruments used to evaluate school-age care programs, the School-Age Care Environmental Rating Scale (SACERS) and the standards used by the National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA), are designed to evaluate the school-age care environment rather than the impact the program has directly on children. Additional work is needed to design an instrument which will help measure the impact of quality school- age care programs on children's behavior.

Another important lesson is that principals may not have enough information about individual children to provide adequate feedback. With principals, an instrument to evaluate the group of children may be more appropriate. The quasi-experimental design used in this study may be too difficult to implement with principals as a major point for distribution and collection. Given the busy schedules of principals, perhaps another contact in the school will provide more attention to the details needed to manage the experimental design.

Previous research efforts on studying school-age child care have employed, for the most part, an observational design where observers use a checklist of cultural and environmental factors to rate children's behavior during the observational period. Checklists have been long and observational periods short. This study sought to try an innovative approach. The primary tool was a structured rating scale where four groups of respondents rated the child's behavior.

With these points, it is important to note that programs did produce changes in perceived youth behavior among the program participants. SACC providers, who perhaps saw more of the identified behaviors in the youth whom they worked with daily, reported significant changes among the program youth. The impact and success of this program design require further testing, for these preliminary results are indicative of a program that can make a difference in the lives of young people who are at-risk in this ever-changing society. Furthermore, with GPRA (Government Performance Results Act, 1993) requiring Cooperative Extension to be more accountable, it is imperative that Extension identify methods to measure the impact of school-age care programs supported by Cooperative Extension resources.

Further studies may consider collecting data from children, themselves. It will be important also for data to be collected on academic performance where a quality curriculum can theoretically and practically be articulated to quantified measures of performance.

Allen, M., Brown, P., & Finlay, B. (1994) Helping children by strengthening families. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund.

Locklear, E.L., Riley, D., Steinberg, J., Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing problem behaviors and raising academic performance in North Carolina children: The impacts of school age child care programs supported by the University Extension Service. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Locklear, E.L. (1992). The impact of the 4-H system manager training on child care provider s perceptions of quality school- age child care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1993). Standards for quality school-age child care. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.