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

Extension Is Not Just Service, But Service Learning Is Important to Extension

Simpson, Greg

Feature Articles

Creative Approaches to Parenting Education

DeBord, Karen Roseboro, Jacqueline D. Wicker, Karen M.

Money Talks: Documenting the Economic Impact of Extension Personal Finance Programs

O'Neill, Barbara

Beginning Farmer Education in Iowa: Implications to Extension

Trede, Larry D. Whitaker, Scott

Examining Extension's Product Development Dilemma

LaMuth, Jacqueline E.

Research in Brief

Targeting Extension Efforts for the Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices

Drost, Daniel Long, Gilbert Hales, Kimberlee

Youth Entrepreneurship

Lindner, James R. Cox, Kathryn J.

Using H. Stephen Glenn's Developing Capable People Program with Adults in Montana: How Effective Is the Curriculum?

Astroth, Kirk A. Lorbeer, Scott

Extension Master Gardeners Valued by Teachers in School Gardening Programs

DeMarco, Laurie Relf, Diane McDaniel, Alan

Ideas at Work

Using Electronic Media to Convey Timely Information

Siegrist, Howard Labarge, Greg Prochaska, Steven

An Evaluation of Discussion Forums for Generating Public Support

Westendorf, Michael L. Miller, Charles

Converting Qualitative Feedback into Quantifiable Categories

Culp III, Ken Pilat, Mary

Tools of the Trade

A Student's Guide to Keeping the Science in Your Science Projects

Williamson, Robert D. Smoak, Ellen P.

Leadership for Volunteers: The Way It Is and the Way It Could Be

Cummins, Richard

Editor's Page

Dear Reader,

Evaluation and impact are "hot buttons" in today's Extension world and this issue of your Journal of Extension certainly reflects that.

From New Jersey comes an article dealing with money management programs and how to show the impact such programs are having. By the way, the author, Barbara O'Neill, and her colleagues will receive an Epsilon Sigma Phi team award at the 1998 conference for their work in this area.

From Ohio comes some suggestions about how to deal with the open-ended questions included in many surveys.

Several other articles fall somewhere between evaluation and program planning, such as the piece from Utah about targeting Extension efforts for adopting sustainable farming practices, or the one from Iowa about developing educational programs for beginning farmers.

Program planning is probably a better category for another article from Ohio that urges Extension professionals to take a leaf from the private sector in evaluating new educational programs, or the article from New Jersey about using the forum- discussion method in developing program priorities.

Parent education is the focus of two articles. North Carolina shares information about how to get parents involved, while Montana offers a slightly different take. They have been working with adults who serve as "significant others" in the lives of young people.

Persons working with Master Gardener programs should be interested in the article from Virginia. It focuses on Master Gardeners serving as resources to classroom teachers.

Of course, there are other articles of interest to 4-H youth development professionals, about using electronic media to deliver information, and about working with volunteers, among other topics.

Enjoy and learn!

Len 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, President-elect
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
Pat Gailfus, North Dakota, Turtle Mt. Community College, 1994 Institutions
Judith Jones, Virginia, Southern Directors
Jean Justice, Colorado, Member-at-Large
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
Beth Spaugh, New York, Member-at-Large
Ellen Taylor-Powell, Wisconsin, Editorial Committee Chair
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
Sue Buck, University of Wisconsin
Michael Cloughesy, Oregon State University
Angela Corbett, South Carolina State University
Daniel Drost, Utah 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, Committee Chair
Kendra Wells, University of Maryland
Judy Winn, Texas A&M University

Extension Is Not Just Service, But
Service Learning Is Important to Extension

I do not think a uncertain balance or conflict exists if we define the Cooperative Extension Service as a primary service component of the triad mission of the land-grant university: teaching, research, and service. Although it may be true that nowhere in the original legislation or amendments that established the land-grant institutions, experiment stations, and Cooperative Extension Services, does the language indicate that Extension solely or exclusively constitutes the service part of the land-grant mission, Extension should play an important role in providing leadership, partnerships, and opportunities for service learning initiatives within the land-grant system.

Service learning is a teaching/learning method connecting meaningful community service with academic learning, personal growth, and civic responsibility. As a method of educational and informational delivery, the service learning model emphasizes that clients and students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized experiences that meet actual community needs and that are coordinated in on-going collaboration with the school or institution and the community. Schools using the service learning model (as contrasted to volunteerism or community service) integrate the service experiences into the student's academic curriculum or provide structured time for students to reflect and analyze the experiences and the connection of the experience to themes or theory or data, in short to think, talk, or write about what the student did and saw during the actual service activity and how the experience connects to larger issues or projects.

Service learning is designed to provide students and clients with opportunities to use newly acquired skills and knowledge in real life situations in their own communities and to enhance what is taught in school by extending learning beyond the classroom and into the community and thus augmenting or fostering the development of a sense of caring for others.

Service learning blends service and learning goals in such a way that both occur at the same time and are enriched and supported by one another. It is a synergistic approach that combines formal (academic) and informal (experiential or non- academic) educational subject matter with a eye toward making the subject matter service-oriented. Services provided to clientele take into account methods for reflection, analysis, generalization, and make a strong, structured, clear link between application and experienced. This clearly established and defined link often sustains knowledge and services and further understanding of the possible effects, consequences, and outcomes.

Service learning has the potential to be one of those rare education models that enable participants to be winners. It focuses on activism and local control in a structured sense, combining but also because of its structured mission of reflecting, sharing, and working toward an understanding of materials or information and the processes of change or alteration that occur in the community.

Extension often has unique perspectives and relationships formed between institutions of higher learning and K-12 schools and local communities that those using or developing service learning initiatives should be aware of and use. Extension personnel work with volunteers in a wide variety of ways and methods. Extension personnel work in connection with a wide variety of state, local and national governmental agencies, non- profit and profit groups and companies, college and university departments and schools within and outside of the land-grant institutions. Extension personnel research, develop, plan, and initiate substantial, effective, locally-based programs geared toward making community members more self-sufficient, better informed, or more strongly empowered. All of this is valuable and important in terms of strengthening and developing service learning initiatives and programs.

Service learning is not a new idea. John Dewey wrote that actions directed toward the welfare of others stimulate academic and social development (Dewey 1916, 1933, 1938). William Heard Kilpatrick, who coined the term "Project Method," argued that learning should take place in a setting outside of school and involve efforts to meet real community needs (Kilpatrick 1918, 1925). During the "me decade" of the 1980's community service declined or became highly de-emphasized in school environments. With the national legislation of the early 1990s, however, a resurgence of community service, especially community service tied to school curricula, seems to be on the rise. Service learning, in differing forms and degrees, has been an integral element in child-rearing practices in most cultures throughout history.

The provisions of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 encourage schools and institutions to develop service learning programs. Many schools and post-secondary institutions have been able to build upon existing student service activities. By adding a reflection component and more fully integrating community service activities into the curriculum, these schools have transformed their existing volunteer activities into service learning. Others have created new programs. Because Extension is involved in the dissemination of knowledge and expertise in ways that empower and build life-long capacities for growth and development in our constituents, Extension should develop service learning initiatives or strengthen existing service learning programs though partnerships with existing centers and programs.

It has been proven and argued that service learning programs at colleges and universities can and do strengthen relationships between higher education institutions and the communities served. When students and community members are involved as recipients and/or participants in traditional research-based courses, formal or informal, relevant information can be gleamed and learned in the process. When projects and course information result in service experiences, the recipients are forced to use the information to make changes, "to make a difference" and to do something with what they have learned.

We must begin to recognize the potential that service learning may hold for Extension and how Extension can better extend itself toward strengthening service learning initiatives. As a model for engaging clients and volunteers and building and strengthening community relationships and connections, service learning may prove to be an effective and malleable set of techniques and tools.

Abstract: Service learning teaching methods connect meaningful community service to academic curricula. Service learning blends community service goals and formal and informal (standard/academic and experiential/non-standard) educational goals in a manner that benefits participants and recipients. Service learning is a set of techniques and tools that can strengthen community relationships and connections.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 105-352.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1938.

Kilpatrick, W.H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319-335.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Creative Approaches to Parenting Education

     "The parents that need parenting information won't come!"

     "Parents don't have time to come to parenting classes."

     "We need parents to know more about their child's learning,
      but how do we get them interested?"

These statements represent concerns of parenting educators who are sought by social service agencies, court judges, schools, homeless shelters, and others to teach parents about their children and encourage positive relationships. Many curricula and teaching guides exist for parent educators to use in supporting parents' understanding of topics such as a toddler's surging independence or an eight-year old's defiance. Other materials address parental skill building teaching techniques to restore "order" to family life or to use effective discipline strategies.

However, all parents do not have the same needs, nor experience the same problems with child rearing. They have specific problems. Using generic approaches for specific needs may create some group awareness but most likely will not change any specific practices by parents. There is a great deal to consider when designing and evaluating parent education programs.

The National Network for Family Resiliency offers the Parenting Evaluation Decision Framework by DeBord, Stivers, Fetsch, Goddard & Ray (1995). The critical first step in designing effective parenting education programs is to assess specific needs of particular audiences. A first step to understanding may be to examine local demographics, such as child abuse rates, school drop-out rates, or other factors that put children or families at risk of not succeeding in school or society. Taking demographics a step further, learn more about the audience, assess their needs more in detail, and seek to plan effective programs in which changes in parenting practice can be evaluated. Conceptual information about this process, can be found at this web site: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/nnfr/pareval.html or http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts.fcs/nnfr.

To test the assessment and planning process and learn more about designing programs that meet the specific needs of parenting audiences, two pilot efforts were conducted in North Carolina's Moore and Columbus counties. County Extension family and consumer science agents volunteered to pilot a process of assessing the needs of targeted parent audiences. They then designed a program to meet the needs of those parents. Each program used different a approach.

Moore County is located in the Sandhills region of North. Carolina and over the past 5-10 years has experienced an influx of Hispanic parents. These families are not migrants, but have chosen to reside in the area to raise their families. The 1990 Census reported the Hispanic population in Moore County was 886 (1.3% of the total population) with 85% of Hispanic families migrating from Mexico, with others from Puerto Rico and other Latin countries. Estimates are that this figure will be considerably higher in the next census. Most of these families work in the northern part of the county in the poultry and manufacturing industry. This area of the county is made up of rural communities with a strong tradition of family and community. In the local elementary school 50% of the children are Hispanic.

The Extension agent in Moore County started by hosting a focus group of Hispanic parents of school-age children, targeting the northern part of the county. Parents were invited to participate through personal invitation by school personnel working with Hispanic school children and through a flier announcing the meeting.

The focus group was held in mid-June with 12 parents and 22 children attending. There were four males and eight females in the parent group. Most had lived in the area for 12-15 years. A few (3) had obtained or were working toward their high school degrees. Eight parents were working in manufacturing jobs. To create comfort during the focus group interview, an evening meal was served, child care was provided, and two interpreters were available.

A state Extension child development specialist designed the questionnaire, then sought the assistance of a rural health Extension specialist, originally from Puerto Rico, who speaks Spanish fluently. He conducted the focus group interview completely in Spanish.

Through the focus group, key issues were identified. First language barriers and communication difficulty was identified. Parents who are not able to read with children nor communicate with teachers, merchants, and health professionals are severely limited in their involvement in schools and community.

Secondly, issues related to children's school success were discussed as problematic. Parents discussed problems with their children having to stand on school buses and not knowing where or how how to advocate for children with special needs, such as a child with kidney problems who needed to urinate frequently. The teacher did not understand the health conditions and parents were not able to clearly communicate these needs to the teacher.

The third concern was community relations. Parents described feelings of discrimination and also noted that the community offered poor transportation services. The community where these parents live is approximately 20-25 miles from the hospital, most department stores, and recreation centers. Most families do not have their own transportation and rely heavily on each other and agencies for support.

Lastly, parents expressed concern about their own parenting skills. They particularly discussed difficulty managing both family and work and coping with teenagers dropping out of school.

Based on these results, a community-based empowerment program was designed for Hispanic families with a focus on school success. A second group session was held with parents and conducted using easel paper with questions written in both Spanish and English to prioritize learning topics suggested as a result of the focus group. The parents discussed each issue and reached a consensus on the topics about which they wanted information to help build their confidence as parents. It was decided to hold four group sessions: Home a place to learn, Communicating with school staff, Locating and using community resources, and Improving relationships with children.

To encourage continued parent involvement and reinforce learning, a resource notebook was developed, child care offered, nutritional snacks provided, and certificates of completion awarded. Additionally, a Spanish/English newsletter was developed and distributed to participating parents and other Spanish- speaking parents in the community.

At the beginning of each of the program sessions, parents were asked to share what they learned from the previous week and to share new parenting skills they had used. Of the parents, 95% reported using at least one new skill or idea each week.

In a written survey after the last class, parents were asked to check responses on what they learned and plan to use. Results indicated that 100% reported that they plan to use positive feedback with their child and that they plan to use new resources in the county. Additionally, 85% reported that they plan to become more active in preparing their children for school.

As a result of this community process, several additional developments have occurred. An on-going community support group for Hispanic parents has been formed. Additionally, a task force has been organized of representatives of various agencies to discuss how to work together in supporting and reaching the Hispanic communities in Moore County

The second pilot study was conducted in Columbus County located in the southern part of North Carolina near the state's southern tip. The population is 57,268 with 67% white, 30% Black, and 2.5% other.

The need for parent education was identified by the Extension Advisory Leadership team and documented by other groups in the county, including a Family Resource Center, the Columbus County Partnership for Children, and Chadbourn Elementary School Advisory Council. Parents of children in the Head Start preschool enrichment program were selected for the pilot project. Head Start cooperated by providing the training site, assisting with recruitment, and transporting parents to any learning sessions that Cooperative Extension could arrange.

The local Extension family and consumer educator recognized the importance of having parents determine their own learning topics to meet specifics needs and interests. One difficulty with this open-ended approach is that parents who need additional information do not have enough knowledge about the range of topics in order to suggest them, so a different approach was recommended.

In early May, the family and consumer Extension educator met with all Head Start parents to discuss topics about which they would like to learn more. The following week, a team of three Extension educators met with a group of 12 parents in the Head Start Center. There were eleven women and one man, all of whom were African-American.

Parents met to complete three brief assessment scales. The scales used were an abbreviated version of the Harter Self- perception scale to assess self-esteem, a Personal Learning Style Inventory, and a 10-item Child Development Knowledge assessment. The child development assessment was constructed using simple child development facts presented as multiple choice. The questions concerned safety, cognition, and stages of social development such as independence and initiative. There were three separate child development knowledge questionnaires - for birth through age 2, age 3-5 and age 6-12. Parents completed a child development assessment corresponding to the developmental age of their child.

A few parents needed considerable assistance with reading and understanding the assessment instruments. Others worked through the instruments rather quickly. There were no complaints about the instruments and some were quite interested in the graphing of profiles based on how they had responded.

Following the assessment, a profile was drawn reflecting each individual's esteem, knowledge of child development, and their preferred learning style. Later in May, an individual conference was held with each parent to discuss their profile and obtain their verification that the results from these tools represented their needs. During this conference, the educator recommended several individual steps to learn more about parenting. Based on their individual learning style, she either left an Extension educational bulletin or suggested materials that parents could use that were supplied to them at a later date.

In addition to working with parents independently, there were indications from the Learning Styles Inventory that these parents would like to learn together in a group. A series of learning sessions were planned based on their gaps in child development knowledge and their needs to boost self-esteem. Parents requested that the group sessions be held from 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. Six group sessions were held at one of the Head Start Centers. Transportation, child care, notebooks, and lunch were provided for participants. The project also provided materials and books for individual participants to check-out.

Group topics included Health and Safety, Learning Through Play, Appropriate Guidance for Young Children, Effective Communication, Child Development, and Community Resources for parents. Following the series, a celebration was held with lunch and a presentation of framed certificates and gift bags with parenting books. The certificate and gift bag were met with a great deal of enthusiasm and appreciation.

Following the educational intervention, the original assessment tools and a questionnaire were mailed to participants with a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. The Extension agent conducted follow-up visits with participants.

Post assessments showed that participants felt more positive about themselves as parents because they better understood what they should expect from their children. They scored a higher number of points on the child development assessments with gain scores between 10 and 30 points. Parents noted that they were putting into practice what they learned in the sessions and were sharing new skills and parenting books with their friends and other family members.

The one male participant's comments summed his experience " I thought the sessions were very educational. I was highly impressed with the quality of information that was taught. I would highly recommend the program to all of my friends with pre- school children. The program was undescribably beneficial to a single father raising a little girl. Everything that was taught was new to me. My whole teaching concept has changed. I have had to completely change my ways of doing things with my daughter. Almost everything I did before is now practiced and planned differently thanks to Mrs. Roseboro. A job well done."

As a follow-up, Head Start has requested a new series with more parents participating and an on-going group session with the original parents has been scheduled. They want additional information about children's development and behavior.

These two case studies are examples of how the Parenting Evaluation Decision Framework (DeBord et al., 1995) can guide parenting educators as they plan effective parenting programs. The process involves parents in their own learning, which appears to serve as motivation to attend and learn. Parents made the decisions with the assistance and guidance of a parenting educator who understood adult learning and was familiar with resources available in the community. Each program occurred over a four-month period and reported several unplanned successes including on-going community support and extended learning sessions requested by parents.

The introductory excerpts that " parents who need the information won't come," or that " the parents don't have time to attend" may be false assumptions based on the fact that parent educators may not have approached parents in a way to include them in their learning and offer what they need based on an assessment. As parenting education increasingly is demanded in communities, learning ways to creatively determine specific needs then planning educational sessions to meet these parenting needs is essential to the success of the program and parental effectiveness with their children.

DeBord, K., Stivers, W., Fetsch, R.,Goddard, H., & Ray, M. (1995). Evaluation of parenting education programs: A parenting evaluation decision framework. National Network for Family Resiliency. [http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/nnfr/pareval.html].

Money Talks:
Documenting the Economic Impact of
Extension Personal Finance Programs

"Money talks." Right or wrong, these words ring true for many aspects of daily life, including program evaluation within Cooperative Extension. As a result of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and other accountability initiatives, Extension educators are increasingly being requested to quantify the impact of their educational efforts with a dollar figure. As employees of a publicly-supported government entity, answerable to a variety of funders and stakeholders, Extension faculty must demonstrate program effectiveness through performance resulting in positive outcomes.

If a dollar figure can be placed on these outcomes, all the better. Numbers make the presentation of impact data simple. Compared to a narrative report, they can be presented quickly to busy stakeholders in a chart or soundbite (e.g., "500 clients collectively saved $10,000"). When aggregated across a region or state, even small numbers can look impressive. Program funders are increasingly evaluating programs by linking budget allocations to program accomplishments (Boyle, 1997) and determining a "return on investment." When program impact greatly exceeds total dollar inputs, funders are often impressed. What counts, more than anything, is quantifiable results, not "laundry lists" of activities or long descriptions of methodology.

It is no longer "enough" to recount historic achievements or isolated individual success stories (Boyle, 1997). Instead, university administrators, taxpayers, and legislators at all levels of government are demanding recent evidence of the economic impact of Extension programs on the lives of constituents. In other words, an answer to the question "What have you done for us lately?" The key to success in this era of increased accountability is incorporating the collection of economic impact data into the program development process. Contrary to common practice, evaluation instruments and methods of measuring impact should be considered while a program is being developed, as well as during its delivery and completion (Diem, 1997).

This article will describe how a northeast state developed new personal finance programs and evaluation procedures that enabled it to document almost $2 million of economic impact on the lives of clients in less than two years. The potential exists to document billions of dollars of impact resulting from Extension personal finance programs nationwide.

Impact is the difference that Extension educators make in people's lives as a result of educational programs (Diem, 1997). High-impact programs change the attitudes and/or behavior of participants or benefit society in other ways (e.g., reduced pollution, better community leaders, etc.). According to Diem (1997), reasons for documenting program impact include:

• to satisfy the requirements of political bodies and funding agencies
• to justify an investment of time and effort in a program
• to justify the use of public and/or private funds
• to build individual and organizational credibility and support
• to build political credibility and support
• to yield tangible results to serve as the base for scholarly publications
• to earn awards and professional recognition (e.g., promotion and tenure).

To demonstrate the value of an Extension educational program, well-written impact statements should include a clear description of benefits to participating clientele. According to Boyle (1997), an effective impact statement should include the following three components:

• identification of the issue or problem being addressed (e.g., low savings rates, teen pregnancies). Where possible, a national issue should be "localized" to show its effect on the actual clientele being served.

• a brief description of the program or service being evaluated (i.e., number of participants, location, methodology).

• specific impact of a program in terms of its value to people. Of these three components, the latter is clearly the most important. Impact statements should communicate changed lives and/or improved family well-being as a result of Extension programming.

Documenting economic impact is often easier said than done, however. Compared to their agricultural counterparts, many Extension educators in family and consumer sciences and 4-H youth development have found it more difficult to describe their program impact in numerical terms. Perhaps there are fewer numbers (e.g., farm acreage, tons of pesticide, crop yields) to begin with or they've been too busy "doing their jobs" to calculate a dollar impact figure.

Fortunately, in the subject matter area of personal finance, economic impact is easier to quantify. Dollar figures are already a "given." Specific examples of dollar impact that can be documented include: increased savings, decreased debt, reduced household expenses, increased participation in employer retirement savings plans (for example, 401(k)s), and reduced income taxes. When aggregated across a region or state, the economic impact of Extension personal finance education programs can easily dwarf the costs of implementation. Strategies for measuring and aggregating the economic impact of four different programs are discussed below, each with an emphasis on measuring increased savings and reduced debt by Extension clientele.

MONEY 2000 is a five-year campaign developed by Rutgers Cooperative Extension to address the twin financial problems of low savings and high debt experienced by many New Jersey families. Implemented in 1996, and now being replicated by 20 states (with over 20 others planning to do so), the program's objective is to encourage participants to save and/or reduce debt by $2,000 by the end of the year 2000. Each participating individual or household is asked to set their own financial goal (that is, a specific amount of increased savings and/or reduced debt), which can be greater or less than $2,000. To date, these goals have ranged from several hundred dollars to well into six figures.

Participants are provided with information (for example, web site, quarterly newsletters, classes, home study course, statewide conferences, fact sheet, computer analyses) and encouragement (for example, follow-up contact) to reach their individual financial objective. The inspiration for MONEY 2000 was a popular weight loss program where participants also set a goal for themselves and "weighed in" periodically with the sponsor to assess their progress.

As MONEY 2000 was being planned, methods and materials were developed to document its impact on participants. A key component of the program is periodic follow-up with participants to assess progress toward their financial goal. Participants are surveyed about changes in their savings and debt level every six months, beginning with the sixth month following their enrollment.

Only changes in financial status are requested, not the actual amount of participants' income, assets, or debt. All new savings amounts, including 401(k) plan contributions and automated mutual fund deposits, are requested in the survey, as well as the dollar amount of reduction of home equity loans and unsecured debts such as credit cards and student loans. Mortgage principal pre-payments are also counted in the total but not secured loans like mortgages or car payments that consumers are already obligated to pay in order to retain their collateral. Participants are originally contacted in writing and, if necessary, by telephone to obtain this information.

Unlike weight control programs that take objective measurements with a scale, MONEY 2000 relies on self-reported data provided by participants. Admittedly some of those enrolled could inflate their savings and debt reduction figures for a variety of reasons. This is a potential weakness of MONEY 2000 that must be acknowledged. On the other hand, short of actually reviewing participants' financial records (such as, credit card statements, bank books), which would be time-consuming and expensive, self-reports are the only way to obtain needed data. Moreover, when individual behaviors, such as money management, are studied, self-reports are a commonly-used data collection method. MONEY 2000 is believed to be the only savings education program ever launched in the United States to include a behavioral monitoring component over an extended period of time (O'Neill, 1997).

After two years of implementation, the economic impact of MONEY 2000 on the lives of participants has exceeded the $1 million mark. By December 1997, 1,195 New Jersey residents had enrolled and those that had completed follow-up surveys reported $1,285,999 of financial progress ($715,685 of increased savings and $570,314 of decreased debt). This figure nearly doubled from results reported six months earlier.

Adding MONEY 2000 impact data reported by participants in New York and South Carolina (the only other states with follow-up data as this article is being written), there are almost 3,000 participants enrolled who have reported over $1.5 million of increased savings and reduced debt. Never before have such numbers been reported collectively for a single Extension personal finance program.

Since MONEY 2000 is being widely replicated, its collective national impact in a few years could approach the $1 billion mark. The impact data reported represent an increase in the net worth of participants and funds available to fund future financial goals such as a new car or retirement.

Impressive as these MONEY 2000 impact figures are, there is another personal finance teaching method that could perhaps eclipse its dollar impact: computerized financial analyses (for example, debt reduction, savings calculations, retirement planning). A request for reports on the impact of programs using technology prompted the realization that documentation of thousands of dollars of impact was possible if the results of computer analyses are aggregated statewide and recipients are contacted periodically to ascertain their progress. In 1997, Rutgers Cooperative Extension decided to test this premise by purchasing two personal finance software programs, providing in- service education for Extension faculty, and tracking the impact of computer programs on clientele statewide.

The first software program, PowerPay (Miner, Harris, & Bond, 1993), was developed by Utah Cooperative Extension to help users accelerate their repayment of debt, thereby saving months of payments and hundreds, even thousands, of dollars of interest. The principle behind PowerPay is that, as soon as one debt is repaid, the monthly payment from that debt, which is called a powerpayment (for example, $25 to Sears), is applied to other debts in succession until all balances are zero. Debts can be repaid in a variety of sequences including paying those with the smallest balance, the shortest term, and the highest interest rate first.

A PowerPay analysis indicates which sequence of repayments provides the largest cost savings and summarizes the amount of time and money that can potentially be saved by following the program. Each analysis also includes a calendar which indicates the amount of monthly payment due each creditor until all debts are repaid.

Prior to the tracking of statewide impact, PowerPay printouts were simply sent to clients in several counties without aggregation of debt reduction data or follow-up evaluation. Once the potential for impact was realized, tracking forms (to record clients' debt load and time and dollar savings) and a follow-up survey for persons who received PowerPay printouts were developed.

Along with MONEY 2000 data, PowerPay impact figures are collected twice a year from county faculty and summarized for a state impact report. Between July and December 1997, the first six-month period following the in-service, Extension faculty in four counties provided PowerPay analyses for 66 individuals or households with a combined debt load of $2,554,544. Recipients of these analyses had the potential to save $865,683 collectively or an average of about $13,000 apiece.

Of course, PowerPay only illustrates the savings that are possible; that is, potential results. Actual results, based on actions taken by clients, must also be assessed to document impact. Follow-up surveys returned by 23 Powerpay recipients in three counties indicated that about three-quarters (74%) of respondents had both tried to follow their PowerPay plan and were still following it. Seven in ten had decreased their debt load and 43% had eliminated one or more debts. Nine in ten were satisfied with their analysis and 30% said it made a difference in their life.

Specific actions taken by respondents since receiving a printout included: managing debt with increased confidence (74%), making changes in spending habits (52%), referring others to Extension for a PowerPay analysis (43%), paying bills on time (34%), incurring no new debt (30%), and canceling one or more credit cards (26%). Even if only a fraction of PowerPay recipients reply and save only part of the amount listed on their printout, the impact of computer analyses is still impressive.

The second software program with high impact potential is The Banker's Secret (Eisenson, 1991), which calculates the savings possible by pre-paying mortgage principal. Because mortgage debt is long-term debt, the potential interest savings is much greater than that of consumer debts analyzed by PowerPay. Even small principal prepayments can produce substantial savings. For example, a $50 prepayment on an 8%, $100,000 mortgage would save 6 years of monthly payments and almost $40,000. Prepaying $100 a month would cut the loan term by almost 10 years and save over $60,000. Like PowerPay, a Banker's Secret analysis only illustrates the savings that are possible by pre-paying mortgage principal.

Clients need to be surveyed following receipt of a computer printout to determine if they actually made principal prepayments and how much they saved. Once again, however, impact data add up quickly. If 200 principal prepayment analyses are done annually by a state where the mean savings is $40,000, that's an $8 million potential impact. Stated another way, that's $8 million that clients could have spent on mortgage interest, but didn't. When compared to the cost of preparing an analysis (about 10 minutes of staff time and postage), the "return on investment" for an organization providing financial analyses is awesome.

Another personal finance teaching method provided by Extension educators is individual financial counseling. Two common reasons why clients seek financial advice are overextension and a desire to learn more about a specific topic (e.g., mutual funds, long term care insurance). Counseling sessions often take an hour or more and consume valuable professional time. Like computer analyses, they also require follow-up evaluation to determine their impact on the lives of clientele.An instrument was, therefore, developed to query persons who benefited from this service. Among the topics covered are: changes in savings and debt, resolution of the problem/issue, satisfaction with the consultation, and whether or not specific actions were taken as a result of debt counseling sessions or general financial planning sessions. Surveys are sent to clients within six months of a consultation and respondents' self-reported dollar impact is tallied and added to figures reported for other outreach methods.

Two desired outcomes of Extension personal finance classes are the adoption of recommended financial practices by clients and improved financial well-being (for example, increased savings and reduced debt). Follow-up evaluation data, especially behavioral changes over time, are necessary to document the impact of single- and multi-session classes. In order to collect these data, a simple follow-up survey postcard was developed for use with clients attending personal finance seminars.

Postcards are sent to class members within 3 to 4 months of the end of a session. Clients are asked to list on the postcard the total amount of dollar savings and debt reduction, if any, resulting from their participation in a specific personal finance seminar and any other action(s) taken to improve their finances. Postcards are returned to an administrator at Rutgers, rather than county Extension offices, to reduce the "halo effect" that can occur when respondents are more positive than they otherwise might be with people they know. Postcard responses received to date indicate a client's willingness and ability to put a dollar value on actions taken as a result of knowledge gained at Extension personal finance seminars.

Although amounts reported on individual postcards are often low, the total impact quickly multiplies when aggregated across a county. Some quality "soundbite" impact statements have also been generated for use in brochures and annual reports.

The word "accountable" is defined as "answerable" and "bound to give an explanation," in Webster's Dictionary. As public servants accountable to three levels of government, Extension educators are responsible for producing results that meet established objectives. There is also a responsibility to document the impact of programs on the lives of clients. Where possible, dollar impact figures should be obtained, both for their ability to be quickly understood by stakeholders and their aggregation potential across an entire organization. This article has described benefits of documenting program impact, components of high-quality impact statements, and specific programs and methods that have been developed to document the economic impact of Extension personal finance programs. Today, more than ever, money "talks" in Extension evaluation. Incorporating economic impact assessments into program planning should be a high priority for every Extension educator.

Boyle, P. (1997, May/June). What's the impact? Epsilon Sigma Phi Newsletter, No. 68, 1-4.

Diem, K. (1997). Measuring impact of educational programs. (Extension fact sheet FS869), New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Eisenson, M. (1991). The banker's secret. New York: Villard Books.

Miner, F.D., Harris, J., & Bond, L. (1993). PowerPay Version 3.0. Utah State Cooperative Extension Service, Logan, UT.

O'Neill, B. (1997). MONEY 2000: A model for personal finance employee education. Roanoke, VA: Proceedings of the Personal Finance Employee Education Best Practices and Collaborations Conference, 76-80.

Beginning Farmer Education in Iowa:
Implications to Extension

Extension is a major educational provider in adult and continuing education, particularly for agricultural audiences. The advent of computers and the information age has caused a knowledge explosion and created a continuing need for unbiased information available through Extension education.

One of the most important clientele for Extension programs is beginning farmers. Education for beginning farmers has become critical in recent years. Recent census data indicates that an increasing number of beginning farmers will be needed to replace those who exit farming. In Iowa, Lasley (1996) reported that approximately 16,000 new farmers will be needed to replace retiring farmers. Extension, therefore, has the challenge of providing education and information to these beginning farmers.

Future Extension program planning and delivery is expected to place more emphasis on the educational outcomes of its clientele and continuing as a facilitator in the teaching/learning process. Meier (1989) concluded, "In the 1990's [Extension's] emphasis will be shifted to discovery learning, problem-solving, and application skills." Jones (1992) argued that one of the essential needs of Extension clientele is critical thinking that will help them solve problems and make decisions, and that for Extension to continue as a viable adult education organization, it must incorporate critical thinking and problem-solving skills into its curriculum.

Changes in agricultural technology have already altered Extension program delivery methods. The Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) make the latest information available via computers and modems. Even though meetings and on-site instruction have been long time favorites of Extension, these face-to-face contacts as a primary delivery method have diminished. However, there will always be a need for personal interaction. New delivery methods will serve as a supplement to, not a replacement for, proven existing methods. Forest (1989) says that "Perhaps the single most difficult challenge facing Extension with its new clientele, needs, and methods, however, is dealing with the transition itself-that is, getting from the past traditions and expectations to the future."

Seevers, Grahm, Gamon & Conklin (1995) concluded that Extension role's in the future will continue to be one of facilitation and education. They predicted that the major program areas (agriculture, family and consumer, youth, and community) will not change.

This study was designed to determine the educational needs of beginning farmers in Iowa. Data were collected by a self- administered mailed questionnaire sent to 286 randomly selected beginning farmers who had received a beginning farmer loan from the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority (IADA) between 1992 and 1996. Established in 1981, the IADA assists Iowa farmers in financing the purchase of agricultural land, depreciable machinery or equipment, breeding livestock, and buildings. Loan applicants must be at least 18 years old, cannot own more than 30 percent of the county's median farm size, and have a net worth of no more than $200,000.

The survey instrument contained sections dealing with the current and future usefulness of educational providers and educational media, perceptions of beginning farmers with respect to the delivery of beginning farmer education, perceptions of general beginning farmer education topics, and current and future usefulness of selected agricultural topics. Responses were received from 138 beginning farmers for a 48% response rate.

All farm operators were male with an average age of 34 years and 14 years of formal education (high school plus 2 years of college). Sixty-four percent of the farmers responding had at least some college education. More than 50% of the beginning farmers were less than 34 years of age while only 6.5% were over 44 years old. Additionally, 97% were raised on a farm, and over 90% of the respondents' parents were farmers. More than 60% of the beginning farmers were farming with their parents, in-laws, or other relatives. The farm operators averaged 51 hours per week working on the farm and 32.5 hours per week working off the farm. Spouses of the farm operators averaged 18 hours and 37 hours per week, respectively. The predominant business arrangement for the farming operation included owning some land and leasing some land and/or facilities from others (57%). Just over two-thirds of the beginning farmers reported having access to a computer. However, less than 30% reported having a fax machine, using electronic mail, or subscribing to an on-line computer service.

Crops, swine, and beef cattle were the predominant farming enterprises. Nearly 50% of the farmers were farming less than 320 acres; approximately one-fourth were farming more than 640 acres. Forty-two percent of the farmers reported gross sales of less than $100,000 as contrasted to 32% with gross sales of more than $200,000. Approximately 28% of the farm operators reported a gross family income of less than $40,000 per year, and nearly three-fourths reported a gross family income of more than $60,000 per year.

Beginning farmers expressed a high level of agreement for experiential learning, production agriculture skill development, and hands-on problem-solving. Respondents also agreed that problem-solving involving mental activities (critical thinking) should be used and that a variety of teaching methods should be incorporated into their education.

Respondents supported lifelong learning and thought that a variety of information sources should be consulted to solve complex farming problems. Regarding the delivery of beginning farmer education, they supported the idea of on-site instruction, single-issue meetings, and consulting public institutions for unbiased information. However, beginning farmers preferred not to travel more than one hour for educational meetings and they did not prefer educational meetings taught by fiber optic, satellite, or similar communications systems.

Several different types of educational providers and media were identified. Table 1 shows the respondents' perceptions regarding the future usefulness of these media and providers. Respondents indicated a strong desire to receive information from parents, siblings, and relatives, followed by Extension. Beginning farmers felt that agricultural consultants, farm organizations and agribusiness and commercial firms would be useful to them in the future.

For educational media, they rated radio as being the most useful in the future, followed by informational services. Marketing services and newspapers were also considered to be important as future educational media.

Beginning farmers rated forty-seven agricultural program topics as to their current and future importance to them in their farming and agricultural careers (Table 2).

Record-keeping and management systems analysis were rated highest for both current and future importance. Farm markets/marketing strategies also rated highest in future importance. Soil fertility/tillage practices and weed/pest/disease management were ranked second and third in terms of current importance, while farm markets and marketing strategies and soil fertility rated third in future importance. In fact, the top five topics in current importance were also the top five topics in future importance.

It is interesting to note that many of the highly rated current and future important program topics dealt with the "business side" of farming rather than the production technologies. This demonstrates the need for programming in farm business analysis and planning.

Even though swine and beef cattle were the predominant livestock enterprises on these farms, program topics related to livestock were not rated nearly as high as those related to crops and management. The beginning farmers rated technology transfer and new innovations in agriculture as having some importance to them in the future. Likewise, they felt that soil and water conservation and environmental concerns were important current and future topics.

From this study, several conclusions and implications for Extension can be made regarding beginning farmer education in Iowa and Extension's role in the delivery of beginning farmer education:

1. Beginning farmers rely heavily upon parents, siblings, and relatives as a source of information. Extension has an opportunity to provide educational activities involving both groups in one setting.

2. Beginning farmers looked positively towards Extension as an educational provider; therefore, Extension should consider expanding its educational services to this group.

3. Beginning farmers rely upon agricultural consultants, farm organizations, and agribusiness firms for information. Extension, traditionally, has collaborated with these providers and should continue to do so since beginning farmers are being reached by these providers.

4. Radio and informational services were highly rated as future educational media useful to beginning farmers. Up-to-date and timely information has traditionally been provided by Extension using these media and should continue in the future.

5. Beginning farmers preferred a variety of instructional methods used by educational providers. They also prefer single- issue meetings, and not traveling more than one hour to receive educational information. These preferences stress the importance of strong Extension programs delivered at the local level.

6. Beginning farmers stressed the importance of experiential learning, hands-on problem-solving, and critical thinking skills. These findings strongly support the conclusions of Jones(1992) and Meir (1989) regarding Extension program planning and delivery.

7. This study indicates that beginning farmers would rather receive information verbally (radio, TV, and information services) rather than in printed form (pamphlets, study guides, etc.). Allocating more Extension resources to instantaneous information might be more appropriate for many of the agricultural program topics identified by beginning farmers.

8. Because beginning farmers expressed "no opinion" on the future usefulness of cutting edge instructional technologies, Extension, particularly at the local level, should develop programs that explain and demonstrate the use of the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW), on-line computer services, satellite dishes, and the fiber optics network.

9. Current research indicates that face-to-face contact and/or on-site instruction has diminished as the primary Extension delivery method. Extension staff members will be challenged in the future on how to deliver agricultural program topics rated as highly important using these new cutting-edge technologies.

10. Because this study shows the importance of Extension as an educational provider, Extension program planning processes should include the educational needs, as identified by beginning farmers, in that process as programs are being planned.

11. Marketing services were also important to beginning farmers as an educational source. Extension should explore additional opportunities to work cooperatively with these sources in the delivery of farm marketing and marketing strategies information.

12. Beginning farmers rated agricultural program topics related to the "business of farming" as being important or highly important. For Extension, this points out the need for strong educational programming in such areas as record-keeping, farm marketing, financial and credit planning, retirement planning, and estate planning.

This research shows that Extension can have a dominant role in the planning and delivery of education for beginning farmers. Working with this clientele presents a challenge to Extension in terms of using cutting edge instructional technologies in the delivery of programs at the local level.

Forest, L. (1989). The Cooperative Extension Service. (In S. Merriam & P. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp.332- 343). Washington, DC: American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.

Jones, J. (1992). Teaching clientele what or how to think- Strategies to foster critical thinking in clientele. Journal of Extension, 30(1) 4 pages. [Online]. Available: http://www.joe.org/00/joe/1992spring/a2.

Lasley, P. (1996). Iowa farm and rural life poll. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology.

Meier, H.A. (1989) Extension trends and directions- Historical patterns with future necessary changes. Journal of Extension, 27(3) 5 pages. [Online]. Available: http://www.joe.org/00/joe/1989fall/a3.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., and Conklin, N. (1995). Education through Cooperative Extension. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.

*Journal paper No. J-17791 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project No. 3374, and supported by the Hatch Act and State of Iowa funds.

Examining Extension's Product Development Dilemma

As U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials watched the 1904 cotton crop and the economy of Texas and neighboring states being devastated by the boll weevil, they decided they needed to take action. Researchers for the USDA, land-grant colleges, and agricultural experiment stations had developed an effective control measure, but there was no way to get that information to the farmers who needed it. USDA hired 20 agents who demonstrated the knowledge to their target audience. Farmers gradually tried the new approach and it worked as promised (Vines & Anderson 1976).

Since the time when Extension agents "sold" a single product to a very specific target audience, Congress, state legislatures, and Extension agents have added educational programs and services to Extension's product portfolio each year. This portfolio includes a product line that is both wide and deep. It includes educational workshops, classes, fact sheets, bulletins, displays, and presentations grounded in science-based information. The target audience has broadened from cotton farmers to include just about everyone.

Agents work to meet the endless needs of their community audiences by adding more and more projects and programs, often occur without much thought of how each fits with the organization's mission, how many resources are required, or if the targeted audience is large enough to merit the investment of resources. Agents typically fail to think carefully and strategically about the process of selecting and developing new products. Adopting an organized product development model could help agents make better choices and, perhaps, improve the numbers of participants who utilize their products.

For-profit companies that make money directly from the kinds of products Extension typically offers do not make decisions or changes without significant customer analysis and survey work. They know they risk losing their business by making decisions without adequate information. Similarly, Extension risks losing its credibility, audiences, and local funding if it makes too many poor choices (King, 1993). Extension needs to know if it is making the best product choices it can. To do this, agents must be aware of who their local competition is. Agents can study and learn from competitors who offer better products.

Ideas for local Extension products come from many sources including national and state partners. Local advisory committees help agents identify relevant issues by providing firsthand knowledge and ideas of real problems. They offer insights of why those problems exist(Vines & Anderson, 1976).

Different kinds of program agents use different methods to determine which products they will offer. Some rely on discussions with current participants (Scholl, 1989). Most, however, base their product decisions on personal knowledge of community resources and people. Regardless of how thorough the process of generating new products is, some agents refuse to believe anything that challenges their personal opinion of what local residents need. For example, a Nebraska Extension study looked at how agents determine programming needs. It found agents had difficulty accepting that the greatest concerns of an agricultural county, were problems that extended beyond its own economic interest areas related to agriculture (Adelaine & Foster, 1990).

Extension products are influenced by current events, new research, and requests from local organizations and agencies. Agents believe they are being responsive to community needs. There is some evidence that this may not be the case, however. Nebraska Extension administrators believed they had been receiving exemplary comprehensive clientele input throughout their state. They were surprised at the results of a 1990 study, "Who Really Influences Extension Direction?" That study revealed that the primary audiences of Nebraska Extension perceived that they had only "slight influence" on Extension program direction. The clientele believed that faculty and staff had the most influence on program direction and planning.

Sadly, this is a common scenario. Extension products continue to be offered without trying to learn if there is a demonstrated need. Dwindling demand is seldom acknowledged or even noticed. But, warehouses filled with unused printed materials and poorly attended and sometimes canceled meetings are evidence of a lack of demand for Extension products. So much is wasted. In addition to the lost resources of time, postage, energy, printing, travel, and supplies, agents experience disappointment and sense of failure.

To minimize unproductive outcomes, it makes sense to learn why product failure occurred. Agents should ask themselves, "Was the presentation of the program appropriate? Was it carried out as prescribed? Or, did it differ from the plan? Were expectations of outcomes/impacts unrealistic and therefore, unattainable? Was the underlying program design faulty?" Extension needs to be more careful and precise in articulating program models and be more willing to hold these models up for scrutiny by peers (Decker, 1990). When agents take the time to develop a prototype during the planning stages, they are better prepared to customize the delivery and content for a specific audience when they actually present the program.

There are always plenty of good ideas for new programs. In The New Products Workshop, Barry Feig (1993) explains how for- profit businesses select new products. He recommends starting any idea generating session by stating the organization's mission statement, and then repeating it again and again throughout the session. It is important for an organization with a quality focus to include customers in the search for new ideas. Among the techniques for generating new ideas, several fit easily with the way agents work specifically, the Delphi, unique properties, benefit analysis and use analysis. The Delphi has been recommended to Extension professionals on several occasions as an effective way to assess needs and analyze future offerings (Gamon, 1991) (Gross, 1981).

Feig says, "If you can't sell the product in a single sentence, you really don't have a product, no matter how excited the developers get. When it takes more than that you actually dilute the message. Having five mediocre product benefits is not as effective as having one strong one." (1993, p 129). To determine a product's potential, answer a few simple questions.

• Who is the product for? What will the product do for their consumer?
• Why would the consumer want it?
• When should that person use it?
• Where should the product be used?
• Where can the consumer find it (which store? Which section?)
• How does it work?
• How will it affect the purchaser's life?

After many ideas have been generated, agents need to evaluate them. They should consider several questions:

• Does pursuing the idea makes wise use of the rganization's strengths?
• Is the idea within or outside Extension's area of expertise?
• Is the idea within the scope of its mission statement?
• Would a developing a strategic alliance with another firm be worthwhile? Extension has learned the value of partnerships and cooperative teaching and participates frequently.

If the new product is similar to something presently offered, its impact on already existing ones should be critically considered. This is seldom done, however, because there is no effective way to compare several ideas. The Extension Product/Program Checklist, adapted from Product Innovation and Development, presents factors that agents might use to assess a program's potential by analyzing it and comparing it to others.

Ideas that survive the evaluation stage must be subjected to further testing and analysis. The costs of developing and launching the idea as a new product must be quantified. Agents can use the Extension Product Checklist to compare several products ideas and aid in deciding which products to develop and deliver.

A for-profit company does not tie up resources that are being used effectively to launch a new product. It "buys" or "borrows" the technology/knowledge from somewhere else. Extension should do the same. Even with agent specialization, an agent can not know everything about a specific program area and be instantly ready to teach. Rather than spend countless hours preparing for a single presentation or writing a bulletin, it makes more sense for an agent to secure an outside resource person who already possesses the knowledge/ technology (Feig 1993). Costs must be carefully calculated when real dollars will be spent "hiring" experts to handle certain functions. When the product has a somewhat predictable track record, the technology/ knowledge can be brought inside.

Agents must have some idea of how large the potential market is for the new product being considered. They should ask:

• Is the market potential big enough to make the new product investment worthwhile.
• Is the new product concept going to be attractive to these potential buyers?

Trying to put themselves in the shoes of their potential customers could give agents insight into the idea's real potential. Concept testing could be used with advisory committee members and individuals who identify themselves as wanting that kind of product. If potential audiences can be easily identified, they could be asked to assist. Their reactions to the product idea could be used to modify and improve it while it is in the development stage.

No product should subsidize another. Estimate the number of customers who will pay for the product and the price they will pay. The estimated costs of room rental, meal charges, speaker fees, and handouts needed for the product need to be included. Expenses such as facilities, salaries, and some free publications included in the product should be estimated even if they are not included in the price that is charged.

Part of the evaluation of a program's viability is noting the balance between the price that can be collected based on who the target audience is and what the program will do, and the price that should be charged to cover the out-of-pocket costs (Allen, 1993).

• Has a similar concept worked elsewhere?
• Is expert knowledge available (people, research, designs)?
• What has been the time and cost for previous comparable projects?
• What is rough estimate of the main tasks and resources required?
• What are the risks? The unknown features?
• What experimentation is needed to prove them?
• What tasks are likely to require more than one try? (Berridge, 1997).

Extension is learning a team effort during product development can be beneficial. Teams add special skills and knowledge to the creative process. The careful and critical involvement of a multilevel team increases the chances that the organization's production resources will be utilized efficiently.

Extension does not generally test market its products because of the expense and time it requires. When it is done, agents usually think of it as practice teaching or program rehearsals for large programs. A few products such as videos and other interactive teaching materials are occasionally previewed by small audiences for their reactions before the videos are completed.

Extension favors two methods of launching its products: full-scale production and a gradual phase-in. Seasonal products are commonly evaluated after they have been utilized and the information is used to make changes in next year's products.

As agents consider adding a new product, they would find it helpful to follow the steps of the new product development process. Doing so would allow them to gather and organize important information, provide a clearer profile of each idea's merits and deficiencies, and make it easier to compare ideas more equitably. Each of the steps when applied, even in a general way, can help the agent stay focused on their organization's mission as it guides them along a logical course that goes from general concepts to specific details. It offers a standardized approach that could be applied formally or informally depending upon the potential magnitude of the proposed product.

Generating new ideas and narrowing the possibilities based on pre-selected criteria would allow them to concentrate their resources on products that have a greater chance of being successful both in quantity and quality of participation. Conducting systematic evaluations of the better ideas would provide a mechanism for them to use to reject and/or set aside projects that would not further the various components of the organization's mission.

Involving potential customers, other professionals and knowledgeable people in this process would bring greater depth to the evaluation step and increase the chances of finding weak spots that need further definition or clarification before continuing. Thinking about the potential target audience as the agent forecasts "sales" and predicts costs associated with developing and delivering a particular product would provide details that could help them design a more affordable product. Working in a team setting and correcting deficiencies during the development process would bring a better product to the target audience faster (Churchill & Peter, 1995). For bigger, riskier products, it would be appropriate to actually develop a prototype or test the market by practice teaching with reviewers, or send a final draft of printed materials for peer or audience review.

There is every reason to think that the number and range of offers and requests for Extension programming will continue to increase. Agents will continue to be approached and urged by community organizations and individuals to deliver products that may or may not be fit into Extension's mission. They will continue to be pulled by their desire to accommodate the public they serve. They will continue to face the dilemma of not being able to do everything and of needing to make choices. Even if the rate and range of opportunities were to decrease there would still be strong justification for agents to utilize the new product development process as they select ideas. It would help them make more informed choices and would increase the likelihood that resources would be allocated for efforts falling within the organization's focus.

     The following checklist is adapted from a commonly used
product development checklist. It contains items that represent
items or elements of a new product that affect how many resources
an organization utilizes during that product's development. Each
item has two opposing qualifiers that represent resources that
will be needed.

     1. Determine the weighted value or importance of an item.
Look at each item and determine how much influence or weight it
should have on an agent's decision to proceed with a new idea.
Choose 1 if it is not very important, 2 if it has some
importance, and 3 if it is very important.

     2. Underline the qualifier and the number beside it that
best describes how that item will be used or needed. For example:
For item A on the checklist, if the idea will be aimed at a new
audience, circle 1. For item B, if the idea is not clearly within
Extension's priorities, circle 2.

     3. Multiply the weighted value you have circled for that
item times the number of the qualifier you have selected. This is
the weighted value of that item for that product idea.

     4. After marking all items, total the weighted values for
all the items to find the summed score.

     5. The higher the total score, the more important the item
is and the fewer resources it will require.

     6. Compare this idea's total score with the total scores of
other ideas to aid in the selection of products that maximize
Extension's impact relative to the resources used.


                    Potential total audience size

A.   The potential audience for this idea will be
     Existing   (1)                    New   (2)
     weighted value (x1 2 or 3               Item score _______

B    Relevant to Extension priorities, this idea is
     Not within priorities   1    Within priorities   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______


C.   Expertise needed to implement this idea
     Staff needs new knowledge   1  Staff has knowledge   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______


D.   The personnel needed to implement this idea will be
     New staff must be hired   1      Existing staff   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

E.   The equipment needed for this idea is
     Must be purchased or rented   1  On-hand/available   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

F.   The supplies and equipment needed are
     Unfamiliar               1    Familiar                   2
     Weighted value   1    2     3           Item score _______

G.   To introduce this idea, we will need a
     Long lead time   1      Short lead time   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

H.   Regarding the life of this product, it will be used
     Once   1                Many times   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

I.   On-going work in the office will be
     Interrupted   1        Unaffected   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

J.   Competition for the audience
     Others are doing it   1    No one else is doing it   2
     Weighted value 1  2  3                  Item score _______

                         Total Score              _____________

Action to be taken
          Continue _______                Discontinue ________

Comments

Adelaine, M. & Foster, R. (1990). Who really influences Extension direction? Journal of Extension 28(2) Available on-line at http://www.joe.org

Allen, D. (1993). Developing successful new products London: Pitman Publishing.

Berridge, T. (1977). Product innovation and development London: Business Books Limited.

Churchill, G.A. & Peter, J.P. (1995) Marketing: Creating value for customers. Homewood, IL: Austin Press.

Decker, D. J. (Fall 1990) Analyzing program 'failure.' Journal of Extension 28(5) Available on-line at http://www.joe.org

Feig, B. (1993) New Products Workshop: Hands-on tools for developing winners. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 129

Gamon, J.A. (1995) The Delphi An Evaluation Tool. Journal of Extension 33(1) Available on line at http:///www/joe.org

Gross, J. G. (1981) Delphi: A Program Planning Technique. Journal of Extension, 19(2) pp. 23-28.

King, D. (1993) Facing the Image Deficit Journal of Extension 31(5) Available on line at http://www.joe.org.

O'Neill, B. M. (Summer 1993) Gaining 'Repeat Customers' for Extension Journal of Extension 31(4) Available on-line at http://www.joe.org

Scholl, J. (1989) Influencing Program Planning: What determines What you do? Journal of Extension 27(3) Available on line at http://www/joe.org

Vines, C.A. & Anderson, M.A. (Eds.) (1976) Heritage Horizons: Extension's commitment to people. Journal of Extension 14 pp. 59, 54-55.

Targeting Extension Efforts for the Adoption of
Sustainable Farming Practices

Researchers often compare conventional farms to sustainable farms; unfortunately, the classification schemes used to differentiate farming systems depends on who classifies the farm operation (Lockeretz, 1990). When trying to compare the two, what one asks and how one measures a farming operation makes a difference in whether that farm is considered conventional or sustainable. An earlier study (Drost, Long, Wilson, Miller & Campbell, 1996) noted that most farmers consider themselves sustainable while researchers question this classification. Because farms and farming systems vary, emphasis must be placed on developing farming practices that fit the specific biophysical and socioeconomic environments of each farm, rather than getting too detailed in farm classifications.

Some have questioned whether sustainable agricultural research will make any contribution to small farm development if it continues to emphasize technology and investments that try to dominate the environment and focus on large farms (Francis and Hildebrand, 1989). While some diffusion of information occurs from progressive farmers to small, part-time farmers, targeting outreach efforts to representatives of homogeneous subgroups can increase the speed of the diffusion process (Roling, 1988). To be successful, sustainable farming systems must be adapted to the conditions of each site (Lockeretz & Anderson, 1993), because success depends on the farmer's observation and implementation within the constraints of each farm and its environment. The objectives of this study were to determine future educational needs by determining the differences between onion and sweet corn growers' use of sustainable farming practices.

Telephone and mail surveys were used to gain information about the crops, field operations, nutrient management, and integrated pest management (IPM) practices of vegetable growers in Utah. From 310 possible vegetable growers, a random sample of 170 was drawn of which 99 were producers on a commercial scale. Seventy growers (71%) responded to the telephone survey and 50 (51%) returned the follow-up mail survey. A complete breakdown of all crops grown and growers' demographics can be found in Drost et al. (1997). Of the vegetables grown, 34% of respondents grew onions and 33% grew sweet corn as their primary vegetable. Therefore, our comments will focus on the similarities and differences between these two groups of growers and their use of sustainable practices.

To assess a farmer's knowledge and attitude toward selected sustainable practices, a perceptual index was designed. A detailed reporting of this index can be found in Drost, Long & Hales (1997). In addition, a farming index representing the cultural practices used by each respondent was also formulated (Drost et al., 1997). The farming index weighed various cultural practices in an attempt to help determine if existing farming practices were reasonable. The farming index, together with the actual practices used by growers, serves as baseline data and will help determine if future Extension and research efforts are being utilized by these growers.

Pearson's correlation was used to compare the perceptual and farming indices to characteristics of the farm and farmer. Analysis of variance was performed and t-tests used to determine differences in indices for onion (n=24) and sweet corn (n=23) growers based on land ownership (owners or renters), education level (high school or college), acres farmed (more or less than 35 acres) and income generated from vegetable farming (more or less than 35%). This list was not exhaustive, but included several indices that have been used in past research (Francis, King, DeWitt, Bushnell & Lucas, 1990; Young, Goreham & Watt, 1991).

Onion Growers: Field operations, nutrient management and IPM, years farming, age, and education level were not correlated with the onion grower's perception of sustainable agriculture (Table 1). Thus, the perceptual index cannot be used to assess a farmer's actual practice without further refinement. This is not surprising since in an earlier study (Drost et al., 1996), many farmers already consider themselves to be sustainable.

The use of IPM practices was negatively correlated with a grower's education level (Table 1). Those onion growers with more education used fewer IPM practices than growers with less education (r=-0.49; P0.01). In addition, better educated growers earned a lower percentage of their income from onion farming. Successful IPM use requires accurate pest identification, continual field monitoring, control action guidelines, and methods of prevention and control of the problem when identified (Schwartz & Bartolo, 1995). Because more educated growers appear to spend more time off farm, it seems reasonable to assume that they have less time to practice principles of IPM. Instead, they apply pest management practices that will do the job in the least amount of time.

This does not suggest that they would not apply IPM practices if they were available or if they secured a greater proportion of their income from onions. Onion growers in Utah believe there are few effective IPM methods available for use, the steps are hard to follow and deemed less effective than using traditional control methods. In addition, urban growth in Utah's traditional onion growing areas means crop rotation, a recommended IPM practice, is not always a viable option.

Onion growers were further evaluated by looking at ownership, education, acres farmed and income earned from farming practices (Table 2). Land ownership, acres farmed and income earned did not influence field preparation, nutrient or pest management practices. However, farmers with less education tended to apply more IPM practices than those with college education. This difference is attributed to more farm experience, spending more time on-farm, and better time management that results in better crop management. While owners grow fewer acres than renters, they earn more of their income from the crop. In addition, farmers with high school education earn roughly 59% of their income from onions while farmers with some college education earn about 37% from onions. Farmers who earn a greater proportion of their income from farming also use consultant and Extension advice more often than those who earn less income on farm (Drost et al, 1997).

Because educated farmers tend to work off-farm, they may lack access to the information available from consultants and extension and have less farm experience (Drost et al., 1997), putting them at a disadvantage. Information availability and experience, two keys to successful farming, may partially explain why full-time onion farmers use practice IPM more than part-time farmers. Increasing a grower's involvement in the gathering and transfer of information should speed up adoption (Stroup, Hilderbrand & Francis, 1993). The challenge now is to increase the involvement of these less-experienced, part-time farmers in the research and Extension effort.

Sweet Corn Growers: There was a significant correlation between the perception of sustainable agriculture and the use of IPM practices by sweet corn growers (Table 3). Growers with positive feelings about sustainable agricultural practices tend to be more receptive to and practice more IPM techniques. Research and Extension efforts on IPM with corn earworm in four northern Utah counties appear to be paying dividends. In addition, if farmers employ IPM practices, they also are more aware of issues related to nutrient management (r=0.55; P0.01). It is believed that if similar research or extension efforts were made in the areas of field operations and nutrient management, additional positive results would be measured.

It is believed this is the case because the longer a sweet corn grower has farmed the more conservation tillage practices he employs (r=0.49; P0.01). However, more educated farmers tend to use more field operations than less educated farmers (r=-0.57; P0.01). More experienced, less-educated farmers practice field operations that are necessary and timely and therefore considered more sustainable than sweet corn growers with less farm experience (r=-0.56; P0.01).

In addition, without the exposure to available information on the long term effects of excessive tillage on soils, less experienced farmers may not realize the impact of their actions on long term productivity. Rather then letting less experienced farmers learn by their mistakes, research and Extension efforts should be directed to improve the cooperation between those practicing conservation tillage and those needing to learn about those practices.

Closer evaluation of sweet corn land owners and renters indicates that owners are the ones practicing IPM on their farms (Table 4). However, while owners tend to grow less sweet corn than renters (18 vs. 49 acres), they also have less land to scout for insects, diseases and weeds. Better educated sweet corn growers use more field operations in growing the crop than less- educated growers. Since less-educated growers earn more income on farm and are not constrained by time, they perform field operations that are timely and necessary.

In addition, growers with more than 35 acres of sweet corn also use fewer field operations than smaller farms. With more acres to manage, only those field operations deemed necessary are performed since time and costs keep operations to a minimum

These data suggest that a blanketed research and Extension effort may not meet the needs of different farmer groups. This study shows that there are unique differences between the cultural practices of onion and sweet corn growers, thus a targeted extension approach to each crop seems warranted (Francis & Hildebrand, 1989; Lockeretz & Anderson, 1993). This targeting within each crop however, needs to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the subgroups. Research and Extension efforts have to be tailored to the needs of the less-experienced educated farmer differently than to the less-educated experienced farmer. The challenge to extension is getting these growers to participate in extensions educational activities.

At present, few onion growers limit field operations, practice IPM or have effective nutrient management strategies. Adoption of different farm practices result in trade-offs on- farm. For example, decreasing chemical inputs (herbicides) could increase the number of field operations (cultivations) which may not be acceptable to growers.

Extension and research efforts at Utah State University are beginning to address these and other farmer concerns. Some of the broader research priorities have been determined by onion growers during 1996 winter meetings. Growers identified water and nutrient management, IPM approaches to controlling onion pests, and crop establishment as issues needing investigation. Having set these priorities, a team effort between irrigation, soil, entomology, pathology, and physiology researchers and Extension personnel with strong input and cooperation from farmers will create a more sustainable onion production system (Stroup, Hildebrand & Francis, 1993). However, in order for these changes to be adopted, researchers need to listen to the farmer, provide materials that are relevant to their needs, and ensure that they are kept abreast of and involved in the information gathering effort.

The adoption of IPM practices in sweet corn shows that a small effort on the part of research and Extension can go a long way toward achieving more sustainable production. However, more effort is needed to address the questions that sweet corn growers have related to nutrient management and field operations. A focused research and Extension approach to homogeneous sub-groups of farmers can result in more effective diffusion within the group (Roling, 1988). Farmers have been shown to look to other farmers with similar problems and needs for advice (Drost et al., 1997). To the extent that the collaboration begun in this project continues those farmers will also include Extension as sources of information.

While most farmers surveyed indicated they understood what was best for their land, their actual practices (measured by the farming index) indicated the reality of earning a living in the face of shrinking profit margins. Only a few of the part-time farmers have the contact with research and Extension needed to benefit from the advances made in today's agriculture. Rather than letting these less experienced farmers learn by their mistakes, research and Extension efforts should be directed to improve cooperation between those farmers practicing sustainable agriculture and those needing to learn these practices. Targeting extension efforts toward these homogeneous sub- groups will insure that appropriate information on field operations, nutrient management and IPM use will be shared by all members of the group.

Drost, D., Long, G. & and Hales, K. (1997). Utah's vegetable growers: assessing sustainable agriculture. HortTech. 7(4):445- 450.

Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B. and W. Campbell, W. (1996). Barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Journal of Extension [on line serial], 34(6). Available at http://www.joe.org joe december 1996 feature 1.

Francis, C.A. and Hildebrand, P. E. (1989). Farming systems research-Extension and the concepts of sustainability. Proceedings International Farming Systems Symposium, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Francis, C., King, J., DeWitt, J., Bushnell, J., & Lucas, L. (1990). Participatory strategies for information exchange. Amererican Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5(4):153-162.

Lockeretz, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal Soil and Water Conservation. 45:517-523.

Lockeretz, W. and M.D. Anderson. (1993). Agricultural research alternatives. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Roling, N. (1988). Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Schwartz, H.F. and M.E. Bartolo. (1995). Colorado onion production and integrated pest management. Colorado State University. Extension Bulletin 547A.

Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand, and C.A. Francis. (1993). Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. In: J. Ragland & R. Lal (eds.) Technologies for sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, pp.153-186.

Young, G.A., Goreham, G. A., & Watt, D. L. (1991). Classifying conventional and sustainable farmers: Does it matter how to measure? Journal Sustainable Agriculture 2(2):91-115.

Funding for this study was provided by the Utah Department of Agriculture, PO Box 146500, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 and Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4810 (journal paper no. 6082). The study was entitled "Utah Vegetable Producers: Attitudes Toward and Use of Conservation Practices".

Youth Entrepreneurship

Employment of adolescents is commonplace. Adolescents work for a variety of reasons: helping with family expenses, earning spending money, saving for college or vocational education, and paying personal bills. Additionally, businesses rely on adolescent employees to produce, package, and sell their goods and services. Thus, a symbiotic relationship has been formed between adolescents and employers.

Much research has been conducted on the effects of adolescent employment. Some negative effects of adolescent employment include reduction in the likelihood of getting enough sleep, eating breakfast, and exercising; increased problem behaviors; decreased leisure time (Bachman, & Schulenberg, 1993); increased conflict with parents and family discord (Steinberg, Fegley, & Dornbusch, 1993; Manning, 1990); and poorer school performance (Steinber, et al. 1993; High, & Collins, 1991). Some positive effects of adolescent employment include increased personal responsibility and earning power; development of social skills; improved grades and participation in school-related activities (Kablaoui, & Pautler, 1991); higher self-esteem (Hardesty, & Hirsch, 1992); and increased self-direction and independence (Shanahan, Finch, Mortimer, & Ryu, 1991).

Further, research suggests that detrimental effects of working long hours can be offset by the quality of work being performed (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 1995). Worley (1995) found that adolescents who work in non-structured work environments have higher grades than those who did not work or worked in a structured work environment.

Youth entrepreneurship has been touted by educators and employers as an alternative means for acquiring skills and attitudes necessary for entering the workforce (Tweeten, 1992; Bishop, 1991). Sexton and Bowman-Upton (1991) define entrepreneurship as the process of identifying opportunities, gathering resources, and exploiting these opportunities through action. For the purpose of this paper youth entrepreneurship is defined as adolescents using this process by working in non- structured (for example, babysitting, yard work) and semi- structured (such as, paper courier, contract worker) work environments.

The purpose of this study was to determine differences between youth entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Specifically, the study sought to determine differences between youth entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs by type of work structure, income derived from employment, age, gender, grade level, grade point average, health and fitness habits, and social skills.

The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. A questionnaire was developed following a literature review. The target population included participants at Ohio State University Extension's 4-H Leadership Camp. Data were collected through a written questionnaire administered during camp registration. The survey was divided into three sections. The first section was designed to gather data demographic data on the target population. The second and third sections were designed to gather data, using a five-point Likert-type scale, related to specific objectives of this study. Content and face validity were established by a panel of experts consisting of faculty and research associates at The Ohio State University. Instrument reliability was estimated by calculating a Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Overall reliability for the instrument was .88. The sample size included the entire target population or 144 youth. One hundred forty camp participants returned their surveys for a response rate of 97%.

The analysis of variance procedure was used to test seven null hypotheses of no difference between type of work structure and income derived from employment (Ho1), age (Ho2), grade level (Ho3), gender (Ho4), grade point average (Ho5), health and fitness habits (Ho6), and social skills (Ho7). The analysis of variance procedure can be used to test for the equality of population means. The alpha level for statistical significance was set a priori at .05. The analysis were done with the Minitab Statistical Program.

The first hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by income derived from employment. At an alpha level of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F (2, 76) = 1.12, and it was concluded that type of work structure was not significantly related to income derived from employment.

The second hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by age. At an alpha level of .05, the null hypothesis was rejected, F (4, 135) = 5.59. Hence, age was significant and it was concluded that age was significantly related to type of work structure. The younger the adolescent, the more likely they were to be youth entrepreneurs.

The third hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by grade level. At an alpha of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F (4, 132) = 2.36, and it was concluded that grade level was not significantly related to type of work structure.

The fourth hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by gender. At an alpha of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F (1, 137) = 2.24, and it was concluded that gender was not significantly related to type of work structure.

The fifth hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by grade point average. At an alpha of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F (3, 128) = 0.77, and it was concluded that type of work structure was not significantly related to grade point average.

The sixth hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by health and fitness habits. At an alpha of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F(3, 136) = 0.46, and it was concluded that type of work structure was not significantly related to health and fitness habits. Subsequently, nine alternative null hypothesis were tested. At an alpha of .05, the alternative hypotheses of no difference between type of work structure, and personal organization and time management was rejected, F (3, 136) = 2.85. It was concluded that type of work structure was significantly related to personal organization and time management. Youth entrepreneurs tended to rate their organization and time- management skills lower than non entrepreneurs. No other alternative null hypothesis showed a significant effect.

The seventh hypothesis in this study was to test for the significant differences in type of work structure by social skills. At an alpha of .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, F (3, 136) = 1.07, and it was concluded that type of work structure was not significantly related to social skills. Subsequently, 18 alternative null hypothesis were tested. At an alpha of .05, the alternative hypothesis of no difference between type of work structure and helping with community service projects was rejected, F (3, 136) = 2.77. It was concluded that type of work structure was significantly related to helping with community service projects.

Youth entrepreneurs tended to say they helped more with community service projects than non entrepreneurs. At an alpha of .05, the alternative hypothesis of no difference between type of work structure and personal leadership assessment was rejected, F (3, 136) = 2.83. It was concluded that type of work structure was significantly related to personal leadership assessment. Youth entrepreneurs tended to rate their leadership skills lower than non entrepreneurs. At an alpha of .05, the alternative hypothesis of no difference between type of work structure and getting along with siblings was rejected, F (3, 136) = 1.28. It was concluded that type of work structure was significantly related to getting along with siblings. Youth entrepreneurs tended to say they did not get along as well with their siblings as did non entrepreneurs. No other alternative null hypothesis showed a significant effect.

The world is changing rapidly and education is facing new challenges it we moves into the 21st centu