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

Results? Behavior Change! A Challenge for Extension Professionals

Clements, Jean
Planning programs that result in clientele making changes in their behavior provides challenges to Extension professionals. These include motivating our clientele to adopt new behaviors, supporting individuals as they make changes, determining what constitutes a behavior change, and measuring the degree of change. Time spent documenting behavior change as required by the Government Reporting Act may result in fewer programs but increased impact of educational efforts. In addition to implications for program staff, administrators, too, are challenged by the need to substantiate practice adoption.

Feature Articles

A Contrast of the Australian and California Extension and Technology Transfer Processes

Murray, Mike
Distinguishing features of the California and Australian Extension programs are identified and discussed. The purpose of this activity was to identify similarities and differences between the two approaches, with an interest in evaluating how privatization or cost-recovery might alter California Extension programs. The commonalities of the Australian programs were determined by in-depth interviews with Extension providers or users in seven states or territories. The conclusions were that fundamental differences in philosophies and objectives of California and Australia make direct comparisons difficult, that there are important similarities and differences between the two approaches and that there are opportunities for both systems to learn from each other or adopt portions of the other's methodology that are appropriate to their respective missions.

Rural Recreation in Illinois: The Illinois Rural Recreation Development Program

Brademas, Jim, Weber, John
This explains how comprehensive summer recreation programs may be introduced into small rural communities. Property tax revenue in small rural communities does not appear to be a viable source of funding for summer recreation programs. While some city funds may be available, this article indicates that there are other multiple sources of possible funding. One of the key components of the Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project is the professional training and the professionalism of the recreation directors who are students in the recreation curricula of several state universities. Professional direction and citizen support contribute to the success of such programs.

Assessing In-Service Education: Identifying Barriers to Success

Mincemoyer, Claudia C., Kelsey, Timothy W.
This study examined Pennsylvania's in-service education process for county Extension educators. All county educators were surveyed to determine preference for in-service delivery, format, and type, perceived amount of voice in determining in-service offerings, and reasons for not attending in-service training. Ways to integrate the in-service process into the plan of work process were also investigated. County Extension educators find it increasingly difficult to commit time to in-service education. They desire more distance-delivered training and an active voice in planning and selecting in-services. Changes made to Pennsylvania's in-service and plan of work processes as a result of this study are discussed.

Readers' Views Regarding the Electronic Journal of Extension: Results of Subscriber Surveys

Verma, Satish, Lambur, Michael, Lemon, James
JOE subscribers were electronically surveyed in 1996 and 1998 to determine use and usefulness of the Journal. Results showed that Web access of the Journal doubled in 1998; that in both years feature articles were accessed the most; and that readers feel the ideas and information in the Journal are useful and will be used some time. Positive features included easy and quick access, archival search, downloading, and networking with authors. It was concluded that the electronic JOE has engaged Extension personnel in scholarship and fills a useful role for the profession.

Development and Design of a "Gateway" to Food Safety Instruction on the Internet for Extension Educators

Taylor, Melissa C., Curtis, Patricia A.
Consumer education is essential to decreasing food borne illness. Extension educators need food safety information that is both accurate and timely. Many are using the Internet as a tool for distance education, as it offers "just in time training" and information retrieval. The North Carolina CES developed a food safety information retrieval system on the Web. Upon completion, the system has received much national attention. It was rated "Among the Best" by Tufts University and featured as one of the top ten Web sites for food safety and nutrition information in a USA Today article.

Research in Brief

Using Video of a Master Farmer to Teach Others

Polson, Jim G.
An inexpensively produced videotape of a master dairy farmer showing how he manages his dairy farm had a significant educational impact on other dairy farmers. A survey of farmers who watched the video showed that every dairy farmer identified something important they learned from watching it. Sixty-nine percent of them adopted one or more new practices in their business. Keys to successful video production were an articulate master farmer who uses innovative production practices; an inquisitive team of university faculty asking questions as they toured the farm, and careful preparation and use of audio and video equipment. Inexpensively produced videos of masters in other fields may have similar impact.

Community Coalitions: Identifying Changes in Coalition Members as a Result of Training

Stevens, Georgia L., Lodl, Kathleen Ann
Educating citizens to be better able to serve on community coalition members is an important role of Cooperative Extension. The purpose of this project was to identify changes community coalition members perceived as a result of training and being a coalition member. Areas measured were changes in: (a) skills in coalition building, (b) actions on public policy, and (c) knowledge of community needs related to youth issues. Results of paired t-tests showed that participants had significantly greater coalition building skills and increased actions on public policy. Implications of these findings and ways to effectively implement coalition member education are discussed.

Ideas at Work

All Foods Can Fit - All People Can Fit: Using Plays about Food to Promote Healthy Eating and Body Image to Young Children

Cason, Katherine L.
A majority of girls and young women struggle with body image, food and weight problems. Extension Educators have utilized "All Foods Can Fit - All People Can Fit," a musical production designed to help address the development of a healthy body image. Children learn that all foods can be a part of a healthy diet, and that regardless of one's physical appearance, all are equal. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods show that the messages of balance, variety, and moderation and healthy body image were received by a majority of the children.

Organizing for Central Business District Revitalization

Davis, Gregory A.
Extension can play an important role in the development of a coordinated central business district revitalization effort. When viewed as an impartial observer without specific personal agendas, Extension is ideally suited to act as an organizing agent in the development of a coordinating committee structure. Communities of all types and sizes possess volunteers interested in revitalizing the central business district. Extension programming enabled these volunteers to realize their potentials and constraints, define their objectives, and develop strategies for action. The relationships that have been developed as a result of the project have been far-reaching and should be long-lasting. The methods that have been successfully employed in this program can be used by others in Extension facing similar tasks.

"Ohio 4-H CARTEENS:" Peer Intervention Safety Program

Cropper, Rebecca J.
The Ohio 4-H CARTEENS is a peer education program designed to reduce the number of second time juvenile traffic offenders. 4-H CARTEENS has been in existence for ten years. The unique aspect of the program is that teens collaborate with the juvenile court system and the Ohio Highway Patrol in 34 counties. The teen presenters utilized court violation data to determine program content. Junior leaders or other teen facilitators plan and run the two-hour safety programs. With guidance from the Ohio Highway Patrol and training by the 4-H Youth professional, the facilitators cover topics such as defensive driving techniques, rural road safety, and overcoming negative peer pressure.

Tools of the Trade

Assessing Your Collaboration: A Self Evaluation Tool

Borden, Lynne M., Perkins, Daniel F.
Many scholars have studied the collaborative process and have suggested that there are several key factors that promote or inhibit the collaborative process. Given the importance of these factors, a self-evaluation tool was developed to assist existing and forming groups. This self-evaluation tool examines thirteen, factors that can influence the collaborative process. The information gained from this tool can provide group members with an understanding of the strengths and challenges they face as they work to reach their goals.

Designing a Farm Resume

Parcell, Joe
Competition for rental acreage is increasing. As demand for renting farmable land increases, producers wanting to rent land must become salesman of their management practices to differentiate themselves from the competition. Rental land may not always go to the highest bidder in either a cash, crop-share, or flexible rent arrangement. Now, environmental factors and communication with the land owner are criteria for gaining the right to farm the land owner's ground. This paper outlines the method whereby producer skills and producer management practices are summarized through development of a farm resume.

Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales

Santos, J. Reynaldo A.
Summated scales are often used in survey instruments to probe underlying constructs that the researcher wants to measure. These may consist of indexed responses to dichotomous or multi-point questionnaires, which are later summed to arrive at a resultant score associated with a particular respondent. Usually, development of such scales is not the end of the research itself, but rather a means to gather predictor variables for use in objective models. However, the question of reliability rises as the function of scales is stretched to encompass the realm of prediction. One of the most popular reliability statistics in use today is Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach's alpha determines the internal consistency or average correlation of items in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability. This paper will illustrate the use of the ALPHA option of the PROC CORR procedure from SAS(R) to assess and improve upon the reliability of variables derived from summated scales.

Dear Readers,

Coalitions and collaborations remain much on the minds of Extension professionals these days as Extension more and more works with other agencies and organizations.

This issue of your Journal of Extension contains several articles that speak to various aspects of this topic. You will find articles discussing rural recreation programs in Illinois, changes in coalition members after training, collaborating to revitalize downtowns, a tool to help you assess your collaboration, and a teen driver safety program.

Other topics in this issue include a comparison between California and Australian Extension systems, the use of Internet technology to deliver food safety information, and using video of a Master Farmer to teach other farmers.

But that is only a sampling. Read for yourself the other interesting and information articles.

Len Calvert, editor

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:

Tom Archer, Ohio, President
Michael Lambur, President, Virginia, member-at-large
Sorrel Brown, Secretary, Iowa, North Central Directors
Janice Leno, Treasurer, Oregon, site institution representative (editorial)
Victor Artero, Guam, Western Directors
Bill Braden, Texas, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Henry Brooks, Maryland, 1890 Institutions
Patricia Dawson, Oregon, National Association of Extension 4-H Agents
Jean Justice, Colorado, Member-at-Large
Michael Lambur, Virginia, Member-at-Large
Jim Lemon, Ohio, site institution representative (technical)
Terry Meisenbach, Washington, D.C., Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Charles L. Norman, Tennessee, Southern Directors
Keith Smith, Ohio, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
Beth Spaugh, New York, Member-at-Large
Ellen Taylor-Powell, Wisconsin, Editorial Committee Chair
Deborah Thomason, South Carolina, National Extension Association of Family and Consumer Science
Joan Thomson, Pennsylvania, North East Directors
Mark Tucker, Ohio, Agricultural Communicators in Education
Satish Verma, Louisiana, Member-at-Large

Ex-officio:

Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor

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

"Knowing and not doing is equal to not knowing." This simple comment, recently found inside my fortune cookie, is the cause of my uneasiness about many of the "one-shot" programs we, as Extension agents, are asked to conduct. A "one-shot" lesson has limited impact if it does not result in some "doing" by the participants. Only then does true "knowing" take place.

Some participants, already motivated to change or improve practices, may take action after a program and make a behavior change. Others may be motivated during a single carefully planned presentation to move toward adopting a new practice. The Extension educator may provide additional information and support to assist these individuals adopt best practices. In both cases, follow up evaluation techniques must be administered in order to determine whether or not knowledge has been transferred into "doing."

Unless we follow up with program participants to determine behavioral change, we cannot show that our programs are successful. Legislators agree that impact means behavior change. The Government Reporting Act requires that each Extension professional document numbers of program participants who have changed their practices. These numbers must be recorded in our yearly report of results.

The requirements of the act should be welcomed by Extension professionals. We are challenged to make time in our schedules to document program impact in terms of numbers of clients moving toward adopting practice change. We have the opportunity to justify reducing the numbers of programs we present in order to prove that those we do undertake are effective. We must build time into our programs to provide support to our clientele as they pursue a particular behavior change. As we provide this support, we will become more personally involved with individuals we serve, and will learn how future programs may be changed to make them more effective in encouraging practice adoption.

If the objective of an Extension program is to help individuals adopt practices that will improve their lives, then presenting a one or two hour program is likely to have minimal impact. Attempts to motivate each participant, explain the steps in a process, provide resources, and allow time to "get started" on each step are not enough to insure behavior change.

Many people need time to collect information relevant to their own situation, apply the knowledge presented and practice the skills learned. Some may need encouragement and support in the form of more information, guided practice, and affirmation that they are making progress as they move toward integrating the new competency into their daily lives. This complete adoption of practice does not usually take place in a "one-shot" presentation or workshop, but instead over a period of time.

The effectiveness of a camp counselor training programs may be judged by observing the performance of counselors during the actual camping experience and comparing it to skills prior to the program. The success of efforts by Extension professionals to insure safe pesticide application practices can be determined by asking those who participated in pesticide applicator training if they used recommended practices new to them the next time they applied pesticides.

If we truly want to determine whether our financial education programs are making an impact, we must document increased savings, or reduced debt, or achievement of another financial goal established at the beginning of the program. The ultimate goal of the Extension educator is to evidence the internalization of practices that we promote.

If the ultimate goal is the habitual performance of a recommended practice, does change only occur when this happens? Does change occur only when a practice has been completely adopted or will evidence of movement toward change count? Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente (1994) suggest six stages of change: precontemplation, contemplation, information gathering, action, adoption and internalization. If we can document movement from one of these stages to another, according to the authors, we have produced behavior change.

For example, a person may move from not considering any change in behavior (precontemplation) to gathering information that will assist in adopting new behavior. The move from one stage of change to another indicates we have made an impact, even though the practice has not been completely internalized. Prochaska et al. provide guidance in developing check charts or questionnaires that can be used to determine where participants are in the progression of the change process at the beginning, at the end and at a period of time after an educational program. Analysis of these charts will determine what change has occurred.

The need for documentation of behavior change has significant programming implications for Extension professionals in all areas of specialization. When designing quality education programs that are intended to encourage adoption of new practices, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

1. What are my priorities for programming? These must be clearly defined and based on our own individual strengths and identified gaps in local programs.

2. Have I clearly stated the objectives for the program so that I know the specific behavior change desired, and the time frame for this change to take place?

3. How will I determine if change in behavior has indeed occurred? Evaluation tools must be developed during program planning. We should consider designing these tools to measure change from one stage to another, for example from information gathering to action.

4. How will I motivate participants to begin to change their behaviors?

5. Will time be needed for participants to collect data necessary to take action?

6. Will a follow-up session be needed before action can be taken or will individual counseling be more useful? Has time been scheduled to provide this support? Our concern must be that without support, some clientele may do nothing at all, diminishing the impact of the program.

7. Has time to administer follow-up evaluation tools been built into program plans? This is often done either by mail or telephone.

8. How many of the clientele in a program can I realistically expect to adopt new practices? It will certainly be fewer than the number of participants in the program. Everyone will not be ready to change. However, our goal should be to begin to move our clientele from one stage of change to another in order to maximize program impact in terms of adoption of best practices.

Numbers of programs conducted may have to be decreased in order to make time to provide support, and determine direction and degree of behavior change.

Administrators must be proactive in assisting Extension professionals with promoting and documenting behavior change.

1. Practice adoption must be defined. Movement toward behavior change must be considered practice adoption. An effort that moves a program participant from contemplating new behavior to gathering information necessary to make the change, shows impact. This definition must be provided before the beginning of the program year in order for effective programs to be designed to promote practice change.

2. Techniques for evaluating behavior change must be part of in service training and support for Extension professionals.

3. Support must be given Extension professionals who reduce the numbers of programs they do whether by dropping programs or refusing invitations to facilitate programs that require time for preparation but that result in little impact.

4. Administrators must accept and even encourage a reduction in the number of face-to-face contacts in turn for an increased number of program participants that report or demonstrate the adoption of or movement toward new practices, thereby improving evidence of the impact of Extension programming.

5. A process must be established to provide Extension professionals the flexibility needed to pursue behavior change or practice adoption rather than new programming.

Many of the suggestions above are already being addressed. They may seem elementary. However, the shift from emphasis on reporting numbers of contacts to reporting measured impact will be a challenge to some of us. Certainly, it has implications as we plan our programs, which should include fewer programs, more follow-up sessions, and specific time dedicated to measuring change. Successful documentation will likely impress legislators and funders and assure the future of Extension programs.

Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C., & DiClemente, C.C. (1994). Changing for good. New York: The Hearst Corporation.

There are many models of public Extension utilized throughout the world. Some interesting contrasts are provided by examining the Australian and California systems. While there are clearly differences in philosophies and practical applications between the seven public Extension providers in the Australian states and the Northern Territory, there are also commonalities among them. Conversely, while there are similarities between California and other U. S. Land-Grant College Extension programs, there are also important differences.

A 4-month study tour in 1996 focused on examining technology transfer, information delivery and Extension methodologies in Australia. During that period, more than 500 interviews were conducted. Producers composed the largest segment of persons interviewed (27%), followed by Extension field officers (20%), private industry representatives or consultants (16%), Ministry of Agriculture researchers (13%), university faculty (10 %) and Extension administrators (10%).

The questions asked of the interviewees were open-ended and not consistent between individuals. Rather, participants were asked to articulate their thoughts about how technology transfer had changed, what they viewed as the strengths or weaknesses of the changes, how the changes had affected them personally and how they would characterize the public Extension programs in their locations. Through these interviews, certain common features of Australian Extension programs continued to surface.

The discussion of the California Extension program is based on 18 years of field and managerial responsibilities with the University of California Cooperative Extension. Additionally, interactions with the National Association of Agricultural County Agents and previous experiences have provided a basis for comparisons of the California and other U. S. Extension programs.

There is no single "right" or "wrong" way of delivering Extension services to clientele, and these types of judgments should not be inferred from the observations discussed here. Many constraints or external forces have precipitated the ways in which various organizations approach Extension. The two models discussed have distinctly different missions and have evolved to address specific needs. The common factor is the desire to help people improve their quality of life and maintain viable, profitable agricultural ventures. The way in which these objectives are accomplished forms the basis for this discussion.

There are at least three aspects of California Extension that immediately distinguish it from most foreign, and to a lessor extent, other Land-Grant Extension programs. While other systems share one or two of these characteristics, none have the same level of commitment to all three. The three factors are Extension program delivery from a university base, delivery of Extension programs through multiple local county offices, and a strong reliance on applied research, at the county level, as an Extension tool.

University Affiliation

California Extension was established 83 years ago as a natural evolution of the Land-Grant College movement (Scheuring, 1988; 1995). Its history is intertwined with the University of California. County-based farm advisors conduct Extension programs in all 58 counties in the state. These advisors are academic staff of the university and provide Extension as an educational function, rather than a routine service. California Extension has been described as "the greatest adult educational effort in the world" (Scheuring, 1988).

Advisors status as university educators greatly influences how, and why, they provide Extension programs. While conducting Extension programs from a university base is the norm for Land-Grant colleges, it is uncommon in the rest of the world.

County-based Delivery of Programs

California Extension is funded through a three-way partnership between the federal, state, and county governments. Each funding partner contributes resources, with approximately 60 percent provided by the state and 20 percent from the federal and county partners. The state's contribution supports advisor salaries, administration and experiment station-based infrastructure (i.e., specialist support, diagnostic laboratories and other county support services). The Federal contribution is received and redistributed by administrative headquarters to counties and experiment stations. The counties, while only supplying an average of 20 percent of the total monies, provide essential support. This consists of office space for advisors, clerical and field support staff, telephones, computers and other communications equipment, automobiles, fuel and maintenance, and general office and research supplies or equipment.

This linkage to the counties results in an important "check and balance" that insures that Extension is responsive to local needs and is delivering programs appropriate to the community. As total demands for county services have exceeded available resources, county officials are demanding that local Extension programs be accountable and document the positive impacts of Extension programs on the quality of life and well-being of county residents. The county Extension support budget is negotiated annually and may be adjusted upward or down, depending on Extension's perceived value to taxpayers.

There is a movement in other states, and abroad, to move toward "regional Extension centers" for program delivery. These are a group of counties or a region of the state that are serviced from a centralized location, with the elimination or substantial downsizing of individual county offices. While this may be attractive from a managerial or fiscal perspective, as it reduces redundancies involved with staffing multiple offices and allows wider use of highly-trained professional staff, the result can be less responsiveness to localized problems or issues. To date, California has avoided this approach, but is susceptible to the same pressures that have caused other Extension providers to embrace it.

Strong Commitment to Applied Research at the County Level

This is, perhaps, the single feature that separates the California Extension programs from many others. External and internal forces have precipitated this situation and they have been discussed previously by Murray (1997). This integration of applied research has important implications for the way in which local Extension programs are developed and delivered.

Many other states utilize on-farm demonstrations to encourage adoption of agricultural research that has been developed elsewhere or as a learning tool. However, they do not typically encourage or reward county staff for conducting original research or performing research at the expense of the more traditional Extension methodologies of group contacts, production meetings and mass communication. It should be clear that California advisors utilize these other techniques, as well, but often as supplementary delivery methods for distributing the results of their own individual applied research programs.

Generalizations on the Australian Extension Programs

The priorities and objectives of the various Australian Extension and research providers are well described in publications prepared by the respective organizations, and will not be individually reported here (Department of Agriculture, New South Wales, 1987; Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries-Tasmania, 1994; Northern Territory Government, 1994; Office of the Minister of Primary Industry-Western Australia, 1995; Primary Industries, South Australia, 1995; Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 1990; South Australia Research and Development Institute, 1995; Watson, et al, 1992). Rather, the discussion will focus on twelve factors that appear to be common and recurring themes.

1. Programs are conducted by the state departments of agriculture and include regulatory and other ancillary responsibilities. Extension is only one element of the department and is not linked to educational institutions. One result of this structure is the potential for politicians to use Extension programs as pawns for their own personal agendas. Politicians appear to routinely utilize Extension to garner visibility on an issue that they want to promote, at the expense of other activities perceived as higher priority by field staff. A related issue is that Extension organizational priorities or programs may change, depending on which political party is in power at the moment. That makes medium - and long-term priority-setting - difficult, at best. Additionally, there are barriers to gaining the trust and respect of clientele when an Extension field officer is functioning as both educator and regulatory agent. The two duties are often incompatible.

2. A reduction in publicly-supported resources, with commensurate increases in external funding. While this is not a problem unique to Australia, it seems to be more pronounced. In some cases (for instance, Tasmania), decreases in funding have resulted in staff reductions below a "critical mass" and the Extension programs are largely non-functional. This has led to attempts to augment the funding through cost-recovery, fee-for-service, and other ways, which will be discussed in more detail later. External funding sources usually require that they also participate in establishing priorities or activities. Their priorities may be inconsistent with the larger objectives of the Extension organization.

3. Separation of Extension and applied research functions. Historically, some of the Extension programs have had a degree of integration of the two functions. This has changed in South Australia, where Primary Industries South Australia (PISA) performs the Extension functions and South Australia Research and Development Corporation (SARDI) conducts the research. Victoria is currently in the process of establishing separate corporations to conduct applied research and Extension.

This inevitably leads to decreased communications between the researcher and field officer, redundancies, and other obstacles to effective technology transfer. It is ironic that after time has passed, some research agencies have "reinvented" ways to get the research results out to the end-user (technology transfer). This is currently a topic of much concern and debate within the Australian Research and Development Corporations.

There are Extension programs where this movement is not as prevalent. Queensland and the Northern Territory, in particular, have managed to maintain strong linkages between research and Extension and, in some cases, encourage integration of the two functions.

Typically, applied research or Extension programs are delivered through regional research institutes or Extension centers.

4. Separation of the purchaser and provider functions. Many of the state departments of agriculture share a belief that potential conflicts of interest arise when the same persons decide both what activities are going to be funded (purchaser) and perform the task (provider). They suggest that when these functions are integrated there is a perception that it is in the provider's best interest to continue historical funding. This may result in an unjustifiably optimistic view of the value of that activity.

Separating the activities has resulted in decreased abilities for project managers to control or prioritize funds and has created competition between entities, within the same department, for limited funding. This can precipitate the partitioning of Extension and applied research activities into separate corporations, as noted above. When the functions are separated, the purchaser makes independent non-biased decisions about where they will get the greatest return on investment. Additionally, the service provider becomes more competitive and innovative, as they may be only one of several public or private entities vieing for funds.

5. Poor or non-existent relationships between Extension/applied research and universities. There appear to be few examples of institutional collaborative efforts involving Extension or applied research providers and the universities. There are examples where individuals have developed collaborations and excellent communication, but this does not extend to the organizational level. Staff from both the local universities and Extension/applied research programs may be working on similar problems, in isolation from each other. Redundancies could be reduced and progress enhanced if communication was improved.

6. Movement from one-on-one services to group facilitation. The current emphasis is away from individual services toward encouraging farmer self-help and discussion groups. The rationale is that individuals profiting from public advisory services should rightfully pay for that service. Conversely, bringing groups of information users together to collectively solve their own problems and generate funding to support ancillary activities is perceived to be in the best interests of the larger society.

Some farmers feel that Extension is abdicating its responsibilities to assist former clientele and that they no longer have access to non-biased information. This is especially pronounced in lower profit-margin enterprises, such as pastoral crops or sheep operations. On the other hand, some of the longer established or better functioning groups feel that there are advantages associated with not being as dependent on public agencies.

7. Problems with staff recruitment and retention. Field Officer staff appear to have serious morale problems. The instability of funding, relatively low entry and top-end compensation, constant changes in organizational directions, and general instability are cited as reasons. It appears that public Extension programs are becoming training grounds for industry, where recent college graduates go to get some experience and leave after 2-5 years for a perceived better job in the private sector. This is to be causing complications with program continuities and delivery of long-term Extension programs (such as Land Care).

8. Disregard or apathy from farmers/industry toward public Extension and applied research. As both the quantity and quality of services for primary producers or industry diminish, former clientele are withdrawing their support for continuation of those services. Many clientele feel that public Extension programs are no longer relevant to their needs and "the quicker the agencies take the next step of totally eliminating the services, the better".

9. A sociological approach toward Extension and technology transfer. The public Extension agencies spend a significant amount of time considering the sociological ramifications of issues such as urban unemployment, land/resource degradation, the impacts of cropping patterns and environmental stewardship. The emphasis has shifted from individual profitability and survival to larger societal concerns. A good coverage of this aspect is provided by Vanclay and Lawrence (1995). There is a greater emphasis on group interactions, dynamics and facilitation, compared to the technological concerns common in many foreign Extension systems.

10. Production of high-quality, user-friendly learning materials. Concurrent with the movement away from individual assistance is a recognition of a need for learning tools to fill that void. There are numerous examples of the development of computer software, brochures and other learning aids throughout the Extension programs. Queensland was especially committed to this endeavor and has developed comfortable "learning centres" to facilitate clientele self-education activities.

11. A belief that it is all right for farmers to fail. Most of the Extension agencies share a feeling that farming should not be viewed differently than any other free enterprise venture. They realize that some farmers are better businessmen than others. As in other small businesses, those that are inefficient and resistant to change will fail, while those that are progressive and embrace improved technologies will succeed and prosper. Many agencies are putting their efforts into helping unsuccessful farmers make a graceful exit from farming, rather than artificially keeping them in business.

12. Trends toward cost-recovery, fee-for-service, and privatization. State agencies are frantically investigating all possible ways of enhancing their income or shifting functions to the private sector. These efforts have been successful to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the specific circumstances. There does not seem to be great resistance to full-recovery pricing for training sessions or high-quality learning aides. However, there are few examples of successful fee-for-service options. When farmers are faced with the decision of paying comparable rates for public agency advice or private consultants, they typically favor the private sector, which they view as being more technically competent and competitive.

Almost all of the agencies are privatizing some services, with mixed results. The Tasmanian Extension program has gone further in this direction, for a longer period of time, than any others. Bloome (1993) concluded that the Tasmanian experience has failed to meet its intended outcome: "After ten years of the policy, fees don't total five percent of annual departmental revenues" (p 24-25).

Direct comparisons of the California and Australian Extension models are inappropriate, as they have evolved to meet different mandates or needs. However, contrasting the two models is enlightening and identifies both strengths and weaknesses. Some of the perceived strengths of the California model would be identified as weaknesses by those having philosophically differing views of the appropriate functions of Extension. Likewise, the emphasis of the Australian model on public-good activities, the concurrent de-emphasis on individual service, and the ultimate goal to privatize Extension is poorly understood by Land-Grant Extension faculty.

Hopefully, one can learn from the successes and failures of each other, and apply those portions that are relevant to their own specific situations. As stated earlier, the two models share many common objectives; they have just decided to "skin-the-cat" differently.

Bloome, P. (1993). Privatization lessons for U. S. Extension from New Zealand and Tasmania. Journal of Extension International. 31(1) 24-25.

Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales (1987). Organization and structure.

Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries--Tasmania (1994). Hobart: Strategic directions--1994-96 strategic plan.

Murray, M. (1997). The integration of county-based Extension and applied research functions: The California experience. Proceedings of the 2nd Australiasia Pacific Extension Conference, (65-71), Albury, NSW.

Northern Territory Government (1994). Darwin: Rural industries in the Northern Territory--Future directions.

Office of the Minister for Primary Industry--Western Australia (1995). Perth: Primary directions---Supporting professional and profitable agriculture in Western Australia.

Primary Industries, South Australia (1995). Adelaide: PISA'S service delivery policy---New directions.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries (1990). Brisbane: QDPI Extension policy review--1990.

Scheuring, A. F. (1988). A sustaining comradeship---The story of the University of California Cooperative Extension, 1913-1988. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California.

Scheuring, A. F. (1995). Science and service---A history of the land-grant university and agriculture in California. Oakland: ANR Publications, University of California.

South Australia Research and Development Institute (1995). Adelaide: SARDI annual report--1994-95.

Vanclay, F. & Lawrence, G. (1995). The environmental perspective (eco-social concerns for Australian agriculture). Rockhampton: Central Queensland University Press.

Watson, A., Hely, R., O'Keeffe, M., Cary, J., Clark, N;, Allen, J. (1992). Review of field-based services in the Victorian Department of Food and Agriculture. Agmedia.

The State of Illinois enjoys a reputation for providing top quality park and recreation services on the local level. Such services are provided primarily by special districts called park districts, which are autonomous units of local government governed by elected boards with their own taxing and bonding powers and separate from other forms of local government. Park district boards of commissioners are concerned solely with providing park and recreation services to their citizens without being encumbered with financing police, fire, health, and other services, which are the responsibility of city governments.

Currently there are over 300 park districts in Illinois with 2,000 elected commissioners. In addition, there are some 2,000 professionals serving as directors, superintendents, supervisors, and leaders operating a myriad of recreation programs. Because these districts are financed primarily with local property tax funds, as well as fees and charges, districts must have a substantial tax base upon which to rely. Very few park districts are found in small towns or rural areas simply because the tax base is not there to finance operations.

Residents in urban areas in Illinois have benefited for years from year-round comprehensive recreation programs directed toward all age groups. In rural areas, however, there is, in addition to financial constraints, a lack of coordination of resources and professional leadership for the provision of general recreation resources.

The Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project (IRRDP) was established by the Office of Recreation and Tourism Development (ORTD) in the Department of Leisure Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The ORTD is the principal link among the University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, the Department of Leisure Studies, and the public in the area of leisure services. The primary goal of the ORTD is to provide park and recreation-related research, education, and service programs that enhance the provision of leisure services to all citizens in Illinois. Since the introduction of the project in 1995, thirteen different cities have participated.

The Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project is designed to assist rural communities develop their recreation potential. The mission is to address the immediate unmet need for comprehensive summer recreation programs leading to long-term development for recreation services. The project is patterned after similar efforts by the University of Colorado and by Clemson University.

Some of the objectives of the project include:

• To help rural Illinois communities meet immediate recreation needs and plan for long-term recreation development.
• To open new opportunities for philanthropy among local business and community groups.
• To provide significant opportunities for volunteer experience to citizens of all ages.
• To provide work and career development assistance to local community youth interested in the recreation field.
• To provide educational experiences to university students receiving degrees in recreation.
• To find the most effective ways to deliver recreation services to rural communities.

One of the goals of the project is to have cities accept full responsibility for conducting their programs without financial assistance from the university. Since the inception of the program in 1995, three cities are now operating on their own.

The basic criteria for participation in the project includes:

• Local approval by the city council
• The establishment of a citizen's recreation advisory committee.
• General liability insurance for staff and participants.
• Acceptable furnished housing for the recreation director for 11 weeks.
• Adequate office facilities, including telephone, word processor and fax.
• A cash contribution.
• Approval to conduct needs assessment surveys.

Summer recreation directors are recruited from the several universities in Illinois offing recreation curricula. The education, experience, and dedication these students bring to the program are major factors in the success of the project. Based on anticipated registration, an average of three youth between the ages of 14 and 17 are recruited from each town. They are trained on the University of Illinois campus for four days as youth recreation leaders and are required to work a minimum of fifteen hours each week for a modest honorarium. The summer recreation program would not be successful without the enthusiasm and dedication of these young people.

A major component of the project is the Summer Daze Youth Program. Programs are offered three mornings each week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for children 6 to 13 years of age. Each week is highlighted with a theme: Circus, Earth, Independence, Wacky Water, Food Fun, Fitness and Safety, Nature, Western, and Community Pride. Daily activities include arts and crafts, sports, and games. Special activities include field trips, hiking, swimming, visits to nursing homes, trips to theme parks, and professional baseball games scheduled for afternoons and evenings. Afternoon activities are open to children of all ages.

Evening activities include overnight camping, potluck dinners, ice cream socials, and street dances. One special activity was the introduction of professional artists who conducted programs on puppetry, storytelling, music and dance. The artists were funded through a grant provided by the Illinois Arts Council. The registration cost for the entire eight week program is a modest $10 to $40. Special events are funded on a break-even cost basis.

Citizen's Recreation Advisory Committees

Each city is required to form a citizen's recreation advisory committee to monitor the progress of the program and advise the recreation director on the availability of local facilities, civic clubs, current programs, and volunteers. One member of the committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring all revenue and expenditures.

Over the past three summers, a total of 107 different individuals have served on the committees. The makeup of the committees includes bankers, teachers, insurance agents, ministers, secretaries, social workers, homemakers, travel agents, salespeople, coaches, school principals, farmers, newspaper editors and reporters, and representatives of other walks of life.

The diversity of partnerships generated through the rural recreation program has been impressive in every small community. Over 100 different civic clubs, agencies, businesses, and public departments such as police, fire, street, and water, and individuals have contributed time, money, services, and products to the program.

One of the early obligations of the citizen's committee is to prepare a recreation assessment prior to the beginning of the program. The assessment includes the following:

Community Background: Names of city council members; names, professions, addresses and phone numbers of all members of the citizen's advisory committee; names and phone numbers of potential volunteers and the skills they have to contribute to the program; names, addresses and phone numbers of all forms of media serving the city; names of all community organizations, associations, and committees that might be helpful to the program.

Recreation Facility and Program Inventory: This section lists the recreation facilities available including: community buildings, passive outdoor areas, active recreation areas, special natural and historical sites, and man-made attractions. Also listed are any recreation activities or programs already in existence such as library and church programs, Little League, 4th of July celebrations, festivals, and county fairs. The intention of the rural recreation program is to not duplicate existing programs. Indeed, directors have been asked to lend their expertise in assisting in these local activities.

Community Recreation Needs and Interests: The final part of the assessment asks for a statement of the community's recreation needs and interests.

This assessment is shared with the recreation director, who studies the assessment before moving to their towns where they spend nine days before the program begins. During this period, the director becomes familiar with the total environment of the community and begins to bond with the three youth recreation leaders who have been selected by the citizen's committee to assist the director during the summer. At the conclusion of this period, the youth leaders come to the campus of the University of Illinois for four days of training led by the recreation directors.

External funding of the Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project is critical to its success. Cities range from 980 to 4,400 and do not have sufficient resources to fund the entire program. Each city makes a modest cash contribution and provides housing for the recreation director. External partnerships for funding have been made with a number of different entities. Over the four summers (including 1998) funding has been received from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, University of Illinois Provost, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Governor's Rural Affairs Council, the Cooperative Extension Service, College of Applied Life Studies, Carle Center for Rural Health and Safety, Illinois Association of Park Districts, Illinois Park and Recreation Association, the AT&T Corporation, and the Illinois Arts Council.

Virtually everything related to the rural recreation program is based on partnerships built on mutual trust, respect, and, most of all, on performance. The concepts of trust and respect on the part of the city councils, which must approve the program by formal vote, residents, businesses, civic clubs, and foundations is due primarily to the prestige of the University of Illinois, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Department of Leisure Studies.

Among the many testimonials received on the program from partners, perhaps the most eloquent was the following from Mayor Rex Peterson of Momence, Illinois to Jim Brademas.

"I wanted to personally write and tell you that our Recreation Director has been an outstanding addition to our community. She has been well received by our residents, parents and children. Her organizational skills are exceptional and her enthusiasm is contagious. She has published a newsletter and brought the program to the attention of the public in virtually any way you can think of. She has appeared and made reports to the city council that were informative and very professional. We never asked if she was supposed to be graded on the program, and if she is, I can personally tell you that she deserves an A+. She has done an outstanding job. The fact that the University of Illinois has programs that teach young people like her to perform so well, speaks highly of you and your program. Thank you again for permitting this exceptional young lady to work with us this summer."

It is in the conduct of the program and the performance of the recreation directors and youth recreation leaders that establishes the project for the future in every city in which there has been programs.

Community surveys have been conducted each year (1995, 1996, 1997) to measure residents' satisfaction with the Summer Daze Youth Program, recreation awareness, and satisfaction with seven elements of community life. The seven elements of community life included physical surroundings, leisure opportunities, economic conditions, educational opportunities, social opportunities, government and public services, and medical facilities.

The surveys were randomly distributed systematically to the households of each community by the recreation directors and youth leaders using the drop-off, pick-up method. Return rates in each community varied from a low of 14% to a high of 94%. The overall return rate for each year was 45% - 47%.

One of the most interesting results, consistent each year, was related to recreation awareness. Six separate questions were asked to measure awareness. The six questions measured the respondents' agreement or disagreement regarding how beneficial recreation programs are to the household and respondent, if there are sufficient recreation opportunities available in the community, if recreation programs bring a community closer together, if recreation improves the quality of life in the community, if more money should be spent on recreation in the community, and if the community should hire a full-time recreation director.

In all communities the survey results indicated that the respondents strongly agreed that recreation programs were very beneficial to their household and themselves, that there were not sufficient recreation opportunities available in their community, that recreation programs bring a community closer together and improves the quality of life in the community, that more money should be spent on recreation in the community, and that the community should hire a full-time recreation director.

However, when the crucial question was asked "Would you be willing to pay a modest increase in property taxes to fund recreation programs in your community?" the results were almost evenly split. The results indicate that although the respondents are very much aware of the benefits of recreation programs to themselves, the community, and the overall quality of life, they are not as willing to fund recreation programs through the conventional method of property taxes.

These results, in conjunction with how the different communities fund their cash contribution to the project, indicate a variety of funding sources should be explored in financing recreation programs. Communities that participated in the 1997 Project were required to contribute $4,500 in cash and provide adequate furnished housing for the Recreation Director. Cash contributions came from a variety of sources. In one community the city council approved the entire amount from the general revenue fund. In other communities a variety of funding sources were used, including civic organizations such as the Lions club, local business associations, church associations, and private citizen donations.

Through the experience of the Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project, and based on the community surveys and related factors, it is unlikely that a small rural community would support the funding of a full-time recreation director through traditional methods. Additionally, it is very unlikely that non-traditional methods would be adequate to support a year round comprehensive recreation department. However, it has been proven that through non-traditional funding sources a comprehensive summer recreation program can be supported. This would lead to a logical conclusion that non-traditional funding for selected programs on a seasonal basis could realistically be developed.

Yet funding is not the sole consideration in the development of recreation programs in rural communities. One of the key components of the Illinois Rural Recreation Development Project is the professional training and professionalism of the recreation directors. The IRRDP has never assumed that there were no recreation opportunities in a rural community. The IRRDP model is based on the belief that, although there are recreation opportunities available, the opportunities are not coordinated nor are they comprehensive in scope. So the key to developing comprehensive recreation programs in rural communities is not so much the lack of funding sources as it is the leadership to develop and coordinate the recreation resources in the community.

A consortium of the eight universities in the State of Illinois, that offer recreation curricula, has been formed to expand the project statewide. The basic idea is to have all eight universities program in small towns in their respective geographical areas. A project of such magnitude depends on substantial external funding. While efforts are being made to secure funding, the future of the project remains in doubt.

In-service education has been defined as education delivered in a structured setting that enables one to become more competent professionally, that is, to further develop technical subject matter competencies to keep abreast of and, if possible, ahead of change, and to explore educational and technological content and processes in varying depth and to extend personal competencies. (National Policy Guidelines for Staff Development, 1977; Smith, 1995). Much of the recent research on Extension in-service processes focuses on delivery method alternatives (Shih & Evans, 1991, Agnew, 1991, Smith & Wolford, 1997; Hiel & Herrington, 1997; Hermann, 1991).

Because faculty with Extension responsibilities are one of the primary sources of information for county faculty (Radhakrishna & Thomson, 1996; Shih and Evans, 1976), it is important that faculty understand the in-service needs of county staff and be inclusive in their in-service and plan of work development. State Extension faculty may not fully understand their role in the Extension programming process, especially as it relates to development of resource materials, providing in-service training, and in evaluation of program (Baker and Villalobos, 1997).

In-service training is used extensively in Pennsylvania State (Penn State) University's Cooperative Extension program. In fiscal year 1997, there were 166 in-services conducted through the Staff Development office, with over 2,700 attendees. The vast majority of these in-services were held at University Park, which is centrally located in the state. The Extension Staff Development Unit organized two general three-day in-service weeks each year (one in the fall and one in the spring) during which most of these in-services were held. In-services for all program areas were held during the same two weeks. There are approximately 269 county-based Extension staff, and 116 university-based faculty who have greater than 10 percent Extension appointments.

Because the time and travel expenses associated with in-service education are relatively large, in 1997 a committee of Extension staff and faculty at Penn State was asked to evaluate how in-services are used, what could be done to make them more effective, and to determine what types of in-services county Extension staff find most useful. Results from this evaluation were to be provided to administrators and faculty and staff with Extension appointments for use in fine tuning in-service education in Pennsylvania.

A mailed questionnaire was sent to the population of full-time county Extension staff in Pennsylvania (N = 269). An 85% response (n = 228) rate was realized with no follow-up reminder. The instrument included 24 questions utilizing both open and closed-ended questions relating to in-service education in Penn State Cooperative Extension. After initial development of the instrument, an expert panel of faculty, county Extension staff, and program support staff was used to establish content and face validity of the instrument. Descriptive statistics including means, percentages, and frequencies were used to describe responses.

Description of the sample

Respondents self-reported those program areas in which they had major programming responsibilities. Respondents were able to report more than one program area.

Type of in-service

Participants in the study were asked how interested they were in four types of in-service education. A Likert-type scale was used to assess participant interest in the major types of in-service training: 5. very interested, 4. interested; 3. somewhat interested; 2. not interested; and 1. not sure. Responses were then sorted by program area and are reported below.

Overall, agents were most interested in in-services which focused on technical subject matter updates and technical skills development. This held true for agricultural agents; however, youth agents were slightly more interested in program sharing and ideas as an in-service. Family living agents were interested in technical skills development and program sharing, but still were most interested in technical subject matter updates. Community development agents were equally interested in all three types of in-service.

Days and Number of In-Services Attended

During the last year, 61% of the respondents attended up to five in-services, 32% attended between six and ten in-services, and 6% attended between 11-15 in-services. The mean number of days spent on in-service during the last year by participants was 8.9 days.

Ideal Length

More than half (60%) of the participants agreed that the most desirable length for an in-service would be a full-day program; however, many responded (n = 44) that length is dependent on the content, depth, and topic to be covered.

Reasons for Not Attending In-Service

The top reasons that prevented county-based Extension educators from attending or helped them decide not to attend specific in-service programs during the last year were (a) previous commitments (56%); (b) too much time away from the office (53%); (c) conflict with local programming (45%); (d) conflict with another in-service (43%); (e) work/family conflicts (42%); and, (f) in-service not relevant to programs in county (41%).

Problems or Issues Resulting in Less than Ideal In-Service Experience

The top three problems or issues which occurred that resulted in a less than ideal educational in-service during the last year for all agents were (a) the in-service lacked sufficient content-depth (36%); (b) agents already knew the information being presented (33%); and, (c) poor instructors (23%).

Structure of In-Service Groupings

All agents preferred that groupings of in-services be organized around either a state plan of work, group of plans of work (45%), or major program areas (26%). The current integrated approach used in Pennsylvania, where in-services for all program areas are held during the same week, was preferred by the least percentage of agents (21%). Fifty percent of all agents responding felt that a combination of in-service weeks and stand-alone offerings would be best.

Agent Voice in In-Service and POW Planning

Sixty four percent of all staff responding felt they did not have enough voice in what in-services were offered in the previous year. Those who felt they did not have enough voice suggested ways input could be obtained. The top two methods cited were to: (a) ask agents, and (b) coordination by those involved in the plan of work (POW). Similarly, 62% of all staff responding felt they did not have enough voice in the development of content for in-services. Methods suggested most frequently by respondents to obtain input were: (a) to ask agents; (b) form advisory committees to specialists; (c) have POW leaders provide coordination; and, (d) solicit regional feedback. Over 90% of all staff responding felt county staff should be involved in in-service planning and development. Just over half (51%) of those responding felt they did not have enough voice in POW planning and implementation.

County-based Extension educators, regardless of their major program assignment, are finding it increasingly difficult to commit time to in-service education. When they do commit to attend training, Extension educators want the training to meet their program needs and be applicable to local issues and programming. County educators also desire an active voice in the planning and selection of in-services. Integration of in-service education into the plan of work process was also desired by county staff.

As a result of the findings from this study, several changes were made in the in-service and plan of work process in Pennsylvania.

1. Prior to 1998, in-service RFPs were requested annually each fall. Faculty with Extension appointments were requested to update their annual plans of work during the spring. County Extension educators write their personal job objectives based on state plans of work in the fall of each year, before they see the in-service offerings. The survey identified the disconnect between these three processes. As a result, the in-service RFPs are now requested from faculty with their plan of work update so that the two processes are linked. Also, the annual in-service calendar will now be published in the summer so that Extension educators will have access to it while drafting their personal job objectives for the coming year. Professional development can now be incorporated into their job objectives.

2. As a result of the survey, a pilot satellite-delivered in-service initiative was introduced. In-service programs are being delivered by Extension faculty to county-based Extension educators and the results evaluated. Offering a combination of satellite and traditional in-person in-services addresses the concern of time away from family and the office as expressed by many respondents. Five Pennsylvania-specific satellite in-service programs have been offered since 1997: (number of staff participating)

From the pilots, it is known that that an average of $65.00 in travel costs and an average of 5 hours of travel time for each participant is being saved.

3. Previously, statewide in-services featured individual in-services on any topic from any of the major program areas. This structure was changed. Three major statewide in-services, each with a theme to reflect the major program areas in Pennsylvania now are conducted: (a) Children, Youth, and Families; (b) Agriculture and Natural Resources; and, (c) Community and Economic Development. Faculty with Extension appointments may offer in-services during one or more of the statewide in-services coordinated by the staff development unit. In-service topics that cross program boundaries are offered during all three in-services (such as computer-related training, conflict management, program evaluation)

4. Results of the survey were distributed to all faculty with Extension appointments and county-based Extension educators. Several members of the faculty are initiating efforts to involve county-based educators in the planning and implementation of their in-services.

In-service education is a two-way process, between university- and county-based educators. This study of county staff perceptions of and reactions to in-service education has helped Penn State strengthen its in-service education by identifying barriers to the educational process. It has provided university-based faculty and administrators with a better understanding of the needs of county staff and better ideas on how to organize in-service education.

Agnew, D. (1991). Extension program delivery trends. Journal of Extension, 29(2). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Baker, M., & Villalobos, H. (1997). Perceptions of county faculty of the professional development needs of specialists. Journal of Extension, 35(4). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Herman, J. (1991). Satellite videoconferences for training. Journal of Extension, 29(4). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Hiel, E., & Herrington, D. (1997). Plausible uses and limitations of videoconferencing as a tool for achieving technology transfer. Journal of Extension, 35(4). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Radhakrishna, R.B., & Thomson, J.S. (1996). Extension agent's use of information sources. Journal of Extension, 34(1). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

National policy guidelines for staff development. (1977). Durham: University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Extension Service.

Shih, W., & Evans, J.F. (1991). Where field staff get information--approaching the electronic times. Journal of Extension, 29(3), 16-19. Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Smith, J., & Wolford, M. (1997). Agent in-service alternative provides multiple benefits. Journal of Extension, 35(3). Available on-line at www.joe.org.

Smith, K. (1985). Does in-service make a difference? Journal of Extension, 23 (4), 5-7.

The Journal of Extension began publishing in electronic format in June 1994. There were compelling economic and technological reasons for this move. The printed version, which had endured for 30 years, became increasingly difficult to sustain economically through subscriptions, either individual or group. An electronic text-based journal distributed via the Internet appeared to offer a viable and less expensive alternative. Following a successful one-year pilot phase, the decision was made to go electronic. Financial support was based on a strategy of voluntary subscriptions by state Extension services (1862 and 1890).

In theory, an electronic journal that is accessible through Internet-based information systems offers Extension professionals (and other consumers) the opportunity to engage in scholarship that can make them more effective and efficient in their work and improve the quality of their programs. In September 1996, two years into electronic publication, a survey of Journal subscribers was conducted to determine use and perceived usefulness. A second survey was done in July-August 1998 using the same items as in the 1996 survey for comparison purposes.

Comparable items in the 1996 and 1998 surveys were (a) Extension responsibility, (b) location, (c) how the Journal was accessed, and (d) Journal section last accessed. One other item was slightly different although the intent was similar, namely perceived usefulness of the article last accessed in Extension work (1996)/perceived usefulness of the Journal in Extension work (1998).

The 1996 survey instrument was e-mailed to all electronic IDs on the Journal's subscription list (N = 2,037 subscribers). Response options were e-mail, fax or surface mail. Therefore, the responses had to be individually entered into a database for analysis. The 1998 survey instrument, in contrast to the 1996 survey, was placed on the JOE home page for electronic response and instant tabulation. All electronic IDs on the Journal subscription list as of July 10, 1998 (N = 2,777 subscribers) were notified and requested to complete the survey by August 15. A reminder was issued on August 11. This simplified procedure was more user-friendly and made data entry and analysis easier.

Data from the two surveys are presented in Table 1. The number and percent of responses in item categories are indicated. Almost the same number of subscribers responded: 534 in 1996; 526 in 1998. These numbers represent 26% and 19% of the total numbers of subscribers in 1996 and 1998, respectively. The smaller percentage of responses in 1998 is due to a larger subscriber base.

Responsibility

There were fewer categories offered in the 1996 survey instrument than the 1998 instrument. Agents and specialists accounted for about two-thirds of the responses to both surveys. Nearly one-tenth of the responses in 1996 and over one-fifth of the responses in 1998 were from administrators. Respondents in 1998 also included program leaders, paraprofessionals, and volunteers. The other category includes non-Extension respondents.

Table 1
Subscribers' Responses to Surveys of the Electronic Journal of Extension.

Location

Responses to the surveys came from 47 states, selected union territories, and several foreign countries, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Uruguay.

Method of Access

Progress toward web access of the Journal is seen from the near doubling of this method in 1998 (63%) over 1996 (32.9%). Almanac was a significant access mode (30%) in 1998. In contrast, e-mail dropped from 29.5% in 1996 to zero in 1998, and Gopher from 11.1% to 0.8%. The local bulletin board is a low-use method and declining.

Journal Section Last Accessed

The feature articles section continues to be accessed the most, with over one-half of respondents reporting it as their last access. The differences in distribution of responses among the other sections suggest a range of reader interests.

Perceived Usefulness of Article Last Accessed/Journal

This item had a slightly different intent in the two surveys. In 1996, the focus was on finding out usefulness of the article last accessed, while in 1998 this was changed to a focus on the Journal per se. Therefore, the responses to item categories, which were not changed, have a different connotation - specific versus global. However, as a general barometer of usefulness, the responses suggest that readers think the ideas and information in the Journal are generally useful and will be used in the future in their work. Less value is placed on immediate use of Journal information.

Comments by 203 respondents in the 1996 survey indicated that 72.9% liked the electronic Journal and used it, 20.2% didn't like it and didn't use it, and 6.9% lacked the capability to use it.

The 1998 survey included an open-ended item asking for comments and suggestions about the Journal. Thirty-six subscribers responded. Some interesting points were brought out.

1. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents felt the electronic version of the Journal had several positive features such as easy and quick access, archives search, and downloading to disk or print for convenient storage, reference, and reading. Electronic contacts with authors and professionals connected with the Journal were also a distinct advantage. Some subscribers commended the instant feedback feature of the survey results as innovative and gratifying to respondents, giving them a feeling of inclusiveness and reward for participation.
2. Eleven respondents, on the other hand, indicated continuing preference for the printed version of the Journal and said they were not reading or utilizing the electronic version at all or very little. Principal reasons included convenience of scanning and reading a printed copy at one's leisure, in different situations (home, travel, etc.), and whenever they found time.
3. Four responses were from Australia (2), New Zealand (1) and Brazil (1). All were complimentary of the Journal. One of them indicated e-mailing the Journal to eight colleagues, and felt that they were doing the same.
4. A master gardener/woodland manager volunteer who also served as the county office's computer person indicated scanning every issue and extracting what was useful.
5. One respondent felt the Journal provided readers a sense of the national scope and diversity of Extension programs.
6. One respondent suggested linking JOE articles to search services such as Psychinfo and Education Index and Electronic Journal Center. This would enhance the Journal's prestige, engage a wider and larger readership, and result in citations and use by other professionals.

The results of these surveys suggest that the JOE is fairly well accessed and used by Extension personnel and others in the U.S. and selected foreign countries, and is perceived as useful in Extension work. It is difficult to gauge the true value and utility of the Journal from limited studies of this nature. However, it can be said that the electronic version of the Journal has had a positive impact in engaging Extension personnel in scholarship and continues to fill a useful role for the profession.

Considerable research by government, academia, and the private sector is directed toward improving the safety and quality of food products. Despite these efforts, the findings are not adequately disseminated and fully adopted by consumers. Extension educators need to continually enhance their capacity to communicate research-based knowledge, which may have a great effect on the general public. Extension educators are constantly in need of training and updating their skills as well as needing dependable and readily accessible resources.

Consumer education in basic food safety principles is essential to decreasing the incidence of food borne illness in the United States. As academia, government, and industry step up their food safety activities, consumers need to understand their responsibilities as the last line of defense in assuring the safety of the foods they prepare and consume. Data on common food handling practices in the home show that, in many cases, consumer food handling practices pose greater risk for food borne disease than those introduced by the food and food service industry (Gravini, 1997). Studies show that over half of all consumers eat raw or undercooked eggs, 23% eat undercooked hamburger, 17% consume raw clams and oysters, and 26% do not wash cutting boards after using them for raw meat or poultry (Hingley, 1997).

As part of North Carolina's Food Safety and Quality Cooperative Extension Major Program (CEMP), a food safety information retrieval system was developed for Extension educators to promote food safety in North Carolina and beyond (Taylor, 1998). This award-winning effort has had local and national acclaim. The goal is to provide agents with an interactive computer system to address important food safety questions. The popularity and accessibility of the Internet made it an excellent choice for this educational effort. The objectives were to (a) design and develop this interactive system, (b) place the food safety information on the World Wide Web (WWW), and (c) evaluate the effectiveness of the system for agents answering food safety-related questions.

Developers of the food safety information retrieval system did not want to recreate existing information, but instead wanted to be a "gateway" for the multitude of food safety information available on the Internet. With the Internet growing daily, coupled with the complexity of food safety issues, the goal was to have a simple, user-friendly design. Eight main sections were chosen as modules. They are meat, poultry, eggs, fish and seafood, fruits, vegetables, dairy, and "hot topics". The information was gathered through an extensive search of the Web and placed into the appropriate modules. All modules except the "hot topics" section have the same backbone. Each section includes a main page, with four choices for the user, (a) a section listing food safety organisms of concern specific to that commodity,(b) links to consumer publications, (c) research and industry information, and (d) related organizations relevant to the commodity.

The design is simple. The layout allows the user to retrieve information in a rapid and efficient way that can also be fun. Users can easily become familiar with the site and feel comfortable no matter what type of question they have or where they begin their search. The consumer publications section is also broken down according to the types of information available for specific areas. The "hot topics" section currently has eighteen topic areas and was too large to be designed with the same four-choice format as the other modules.

Navigational buttons were created and placed on every page in the system to serve several purposes. They identify the system as a unique database and recognize the author and the institution. They also allow the user to navigate throughout the system with little confusion. From any page within the system, the user can return to the current module home page, return to the system main page, or use resources available in addition to the system modules. These resources include consumer hot lines, available workshops, press releases and product recalls, numerous food safety resources for educators and direct links to the sponsoring group. For legal purposes, a disclaimer is linked to all materials.

The information used to create the system consists of over 580 external links to publications and fact sheets already available on the Web, and over 125 links to other useful Web sites. The author (Taylor) developed over 100 Web sites within the database.

The Internet is cutting edge technology and can be used to reach agents answering important food safety questions with timely information and educational tools. The information available in the food safety information retrieval system spans a broad spectrum of food safety issues and assists in achieving other goals of North Carolina's Food Safety and Quality CEMP, as well.

Family and Consumer Sciences county Extension educators were surveyed at the 1996 and 1997 state Extension staff conference. Issues ranged from general computer knowledge and use to expectations for the Internet's use as a tool for food safety education. Educators indicated they would like to see the following in a system -- 100% wanted to see fact sheets, 96% wanted answers to frequently asked questions, 92% desired Extension bulletins, and 72% indicated they would like to be aware of upcoming workshops. These needs are met by the completed food safety information retrieval system.

After a short hands-on demonstration of the first phase of the system, county educators were given the opportunity to evaluate the first module. Sixty eight percent rated the information excellent, while the remaining 32% felt it was good. All agreed the system was user friendly and designed for any level of computer skills. In a recent survey of the completed system, approximately 75% of educators indicated that they have been using the system. Those that have not indicated an interest in beginning to use the system after seeing the finished product. Those surveyed thought the system was easily accessible and had more detail than other programs available.

Because of information related to holiday food safety in the system, specifically how to properly cook poultry, a local television station featured the system during the holidays and set up a link from their Web site. The Web site was also discussed on a local talk radio show, informing the public of this available resource. In addition, the system has been demonstrated and promoted at various conferences and national meetings such as the National Educational Forum for Food Safety Issues (NEFFSI) and the first annual National Food Safety Education Conference (Taylor and Curtis, 1997).

The Web site has also received national recognition. An article in USA Today featured the system as one of the top ten Web sites for food safety and nutrition information (Oldenburg, 1998). Tufts University developed a rating system for nutrition-related Web sites, known as the Nutrition Navigator, and in a recent review of more than 200 Web sites, the Nutrition Navigator rated the food safety information system "among the best" in the world by the review panel. The system earned perfect scores for timeliness, accuracy and depth of information provided and was placed in the top six of all sites reviewed. "Among the Best" ratings are awarded only to Web sites that serve as outstanding resources and maintain a high level of integrity and nutrition reporting," said Jeanne Goldberg, director of the Tufts University Center on Nutrition Communication. "The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service is definitely a leader in the electronic delivery of food safety and nutrition information" (Goldberg, 1998).

A recent review determined that the site receives an average of 2,124 hits per day and in the eight month period from January to August 1998 received over half a million hits. One example that indicates the impact the site is having locally is when a hurricane hit the North Carolina coast in late August 1998. The developer sent an e-mail, reminding county agents of the special section within "Hot Topics" entitled "What to do after a natural disaster strikes." As a result, the site received over 40,000 visits in just one day. Food safety inquiries are received almost daily, from all over the world, to foodsafety@ncsu.edu (the address on all Web pages in the system).

The system has far surpassed the original objectives, as it has received much attention outside of North Carolina. This is good news and further justifies the need for the creation and continued existence of the system. With food safety consistently in the news and its rapidly increasing popularity among consumers, the system will keep users abreast of the latest information in the most timely manner.

Goldberg, J. (1998). Personal e-mail communication (2/4/98). Director, Center on Nutrition Communication, Tufts University.

Gravini, R. B. (1997). Coordinated approach to food safety education is needed. Food Technology 51(7),160.

Hingley, A. (1997, September-October). Focus on food safety - Initiative calls on government, industry, consumers to stop food related illnesses. FDA Consumer Magazine.

Oldenburg, A. (1998, January 6). Web sites give much food for thought. USA TODAY, 16(79).

Taylor, M. C. (1998). Food safety education through the design and implementation of an interactive food safety information retrieval system on the World Wide Web. Unpublished masters thesis. North Carolina State University Raleigh.

Taylor, M. C. & Curtis, P. A. (1997). Food safety education through the design and implementation of an interactive food safety information retrieval system on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the Center for Disease Control conference, USDA/FDA, Washington, D.C. 54.

Many enjoy visiting with a "master" of something in which they are intensely interested. Chances are, this "master" had their rapt attention. If they were fortunate, this person took them under his or her wing and told them their trade secrets. Some of the advice may have stayed with them throughout their lives. Unfortunately much of what is shared orally is lost. Until recently it hasn't been easy to capture such experiences in their entirety and pass them on to others.

A team of Ohio Extension agents and specialists recently spent a morning with a "master" farmer. His 600 cows produce as much milk per cow as any herd in the country. He has not always been a milk producer. He has adopted a number of practices that many traditional producers have never considered. He lives in a remote area of northern New York which makes it difficult for others to see firsthand what he is doing. Fortunately, a specialist captured the entire interview using a video camera and wireless microphone. He did some minor editing to the video, duplicated it, and shared it with a number of Ohio milk producers with surprising results.

The reaction of Ohio milk producers to the video greatly exceeded expectations. Sixty-nine percent of the producers who borrowed the video adopted one or more new practices they saw on it. Every milk producer was able to identify an important piece of information learned as a result of watching it. Several weeks after they watched it almost three-fourths of the producers were still able to identify additional specific practices they were considering adopting. More than half of the producers watched the entire two hour video twice or more.

Annually since 1992, a team of Ohio State University Extension agents and specialists has visited and interviewed farmers setting dairy industry trends. The 1997 study trip included stops with leading farmers, Extension workers, and industry representatives in western and upstate New York. Although interviews were recorded on video every year, poor audio quality worked against sharing the video with others. In August 1997, each person meeting with the group was asked to wear a wireless microphone that fed sound directly into the video camera. This dramatically improved the audio and produced a video product that could share with others.

It is important to note that these interviews were spontaneous, casual, and unstructured. The taking of video was clearly secondary, if not incidental, to the visits with these people. The only exception was when a faculty member would approach the person and ask him or her if they would wear the wireless microphone. None seemed bothered by the microphone or video camera.

The interaction of the master farmer and the faculty team was crucial to the quality and success of the video discussed here. The keen interest of team members in what was said and depth of carefully chosen questions drew out the "master." The faculty also went out of their way to "make room" for the videographer.

Phil Helfter, a milk producer in Potsdam, NY, was featured on the video. Much of his credibility comes from the fact that his 600 cows produce 32,000 to 34,000 pounds of milk per cow per year, which makes his herd one of the highest producing dairy herds in the United States.

Helfter hasn't always been a milk producer. He previously worked as manager of John Wayne's beef cattle herd. Coming to dairy farming from the outside, he wasn't bound by traditional thinking and traditional ways of doing things. Helfter looks at things from a different perspective and tries approaches others might not even consider. He enjoys the challenges of managing a large dairy herd. Barker (1989) says, people who create new paradigms are usually outsiders. They are not part of the established paradigm community. To find the new paradigms developing in your field, look beyond the center to the fringes, because almost always, the new rules are written at the edge.

Helfter is widely read and articulate. He spoke with considerable authority and tended to the dramatic to make his points. He reported, "reading the Journal of Dairy Science forwards and backwards."

Most of the literature on producing and editing educational video focuses on producing highly structured video incorporating certain educational components. Beaudin and Quick (1993) did an extensive literature review and developed a 15 point instrument to aid the reviewer in evaluating an instructional video's content, instructional plan and technical production. Ludlow & Duff (1997) list important steps in creating original video production. The video produced is significant because, while the producers did not follow many of the guidelines in those studies, the video still was an effective teaching tool. That is important because this type of video is easier and considerably less expensive.

Generally, the amateur videographer "let the camera run" hoping not to miss anything important. He was as inconspicuous as possible, keeping a comfortable distance from the producer, and frequently holding the camera in front of his chest rather than in front of his face.

The camera was an 8mm camera with Hi8 capability and image stabilization. The camera was handheld during the three hours that the visiting team walked around the farm and interviewed the producer. In the future, the picture should be sabilized with a monopod. The team member selected what to edit, but editing and duplication were done by university professionals.

Each person was asked to wear a wireless microphone that fed sound directly into the video camera. Permission was obtained from Helfter before duplicating and sharing the video. The three hours of video was edited to just under two hours, five copies made, and offered to farmers.

In December 1997, a small note was included in a quarterly newsletter sent to 300 milk producers telling them about the video and how to borrow it. Those borrowing it were asked to return it with a check for $3 to cover mailing costs.

Seven requests were quickly received and five copies of the video were sent. Borrowers were asked to return the tape within three weeks, along with a check. The other two producers were placed on a waiting list. Feedback about the video started immediately. Several Extension agents reported, "Producers really enjoyed the video." The response that alerted the team that the video might be something special was a call from a milk producer's wife. She said, "Can we keep the video a little longer? My husband has been showing it to all his friends . . . I am not even sure where it is . . . it is the hottest thing going out here right now." Sometime later, one county agent sent an e-mail regarding the video that said, "Hats off to you. It appears you have done something that really flipped the switch of our dairymen!"

Soon "the grapevine" was generating requests from producers and others who had not received the newsletter announcement about the video. Six additional copies of the video were made and all were placed in circulation with the originals. Because people were still waiting, another five copies (16 total) were made and distributed. The video was not publicized again after the original announcement. By the middle of April, field work began and the groundswell of requests died down. Although interest and activity around the video was known, it was unknown what kind of educational impact the video had. In all, 21 people borrowed one of the 16 copies of the videotape.

A 10 question survey instrument was developed to evaluate the educational impact of the video. A panel of Extension faculty reviewers assessed face and content validity. "Bennett's Hierarchy of Events" (Bennett, 1982) was used to guide development of the questions.

"Bennett's Hierarchy" as shown in Table 1, is a logical ordering of educational inputs and outputs. At the highest level, "7. End Results", participants' personal and working lives change as a result of participating in the educational activity. At level 6 participants' change a practice as a result of participation in the educational activity. As one goes down the hierarchy the degree of change in the participants lessens. Also, there is a shift from the "outcomes" of the learner to the "inputs" of the educator. At the first and lowest level, educators commit "inputs" of time, money and other resources. It usually is more difficult and requires more resources to engage participants in educational activities that make changes at the upper level of the hierarchy.

Table 1
Bennett's Hierarchy of Events

Questions were designed to determine the level of change based on Bennett's Hierarchy. The highest level of change anticipated was level 6. To determine that, "What practices, if any, have you adopted as a result of watching the video?" was asked. Three questions were asked to measure changes in knowledge, attitudes and aspirations as a result of watching the video: "What was the one most important piece of information you got. . .? "Did you change your attitude about any of your current practices . . .? "What new goals, if any, have you set . . .?"

The survey was sent to the 21 people who had borrowed the video between January and March 1998. Nine non-respondents were contacted by telephone. Twenty-one usable surveys wrre received: 16 milk producers, 2 dairy farm employees, 2 dairy nutrition consultants and 1 Extension agent for a 100% return rate.

Sixty-nine percent of the producers who borrowed the video specifically named one or more practice changes they adopted as a result of watching it. Several weeks after watching the video, three-fourths of the producers identified additional specific practices they were still considering adopting.

Three questions were designed to identify level 5, KASA (knowledge, attitude, skills or aspirations) changes on Bennett's hierarchy. Every producer watched the entire video once or more and identified "an important" piece of information they got from watching the video. Thus, 100% of the milk producers made a level 5 change based on a gain in knowledge.

In addition, eight of the 16 producers changed their "attitude" about some of their current practices as a result of watching the video. Eight also listed specific goals (aspirations) they set as a result of the video. Interestingly, only two producers changed both their attitude and set specific goals. Therefore, fourteen different producers (88%) changed an "attitude," "goal," or both. Thus, the video made a major impact on level 5 changes in knowledge, attitude and aspirations. No attempt to measure "skill" changes was made.

Sixty percent of the producers reported watching the entire two hour video more than once. This is particularly interesting considering that milk producers frequently work 60 hours a week or more.

While they had the video, almost three-fourths of the producers showed it to others. Those reporting shared the tape with four additional people, including two employees. Thus approximately 70 people watched the video.

To learn more about producers' decision-making process, this question was asked: "If you changed practices, who did you discuss the changes with prior to adopting them?" Eight of the 11 persons (74%) who had adopted a new practice discussed it with someone else prior to adopting it. A ninth person identified "vet" as someone he had discussed a practice with but he did not indicate making any change in a practice so perhaps after discussions with his "vet" he decided not to adopt the practice.

"What one or two changes in the video would have made it more useful to you?" was another question asked. None of the producers said anything about the two hour length or the quality of the video (picture) even though it was shot using a handheld camera and distributed with very little editing. Five people felt the sound needed to be improved. Part of this was caused by 20 minutes or so of our interview being conducted near a milk parlor where a very noisy compressor was running. Also, with the producer wearing a wireless microphone it was frequently difficult to hear the questions and comments of those interviewing him. In the future, a character generator to write out hard to hear questions and comments will be used, so people can read them at the bottom of the picture.

Eleven of the 16 producers identified one or more practices they adopted as a result of watching the video. Most adopted one or two practices, but altogether they adopted 7-8 different new practices. That is a lot of different practices for one producer to explain on one video to the point that others would choose to adopt the practices.

Not everything a "master" does or says is scientifically based. This is a dilemma the team faced in reproducing and sharing the video. For example, contrary to many research studies, Phil Helfter uses bulls with some of his animals and the video clearly showed that he runs bulls through his milk parlor. Thus, it is not surprising that one milk producer's practice change was, "Started using a clean-up bull to lower calving interval." Another producer wrote, "Use of herd bull does not hurt genetics." The first producer may not encounter problems, but the statement of the second producer is clearly contrary to research. (Troyer, 1990; Cassel, 1993)

Phil Helfter's system works for him and with his industry leading production it is hard to argue that what he is doing is inappropriate. But it is very unlikely that all his practices will work for others. One does need to be careful not to explicitly or implicitly endorse "masters" who make recommendations or are using practices that may mislead or cause harm to others.

There are "masters" in many fields who have important things to share and teach. Miller and Honeyman (1994, p. 47) reported that the most important individual item in the effectiveness of a video is, "real-world application of content is stressed by the instructor." A video of a master explaining his or her trade should excel in practical application.

It is highly desirable to have two or three knowledgeable and interested people interact with the primary subject. They put the person at ease and provide the stimulus to draw out the primary subject, so he freely shares what he knows. This video involved eight faculty members. That is a large group for shooting a video and only worked because the group was very cooperative.

Having a large group means that some questions will come from people a distance from the subject wearing the microphone, significantly reducing the quality of the audio. In response, the videotape has been reviewed and questions identified that are hard to hear. A character generator will be used to insert those questions on the bottom of the picture and make new tapes so people can read what is being asked. Others may want to capture more of the audio on the original tape by using multiple microphones or different kinds of microphones.

This study shows it is not necessary to be a professional videographer or have expensive equipment to shoot video that is potentially useful for educational purposes. However, it is important to have some experience shooting video and follow some basics of video production. It also is helpful to have a camera that is a "step above" typical consumer VHS or VHS-C. A camera with at least Hi-8 or S-VHS capabilities is desirable.

Other key production items include an abundant supply of high quality videotape, plentiful batteries for the camera and microphone, and a wireless microphone, or other means of getting quality audio. A monopod or tripod may also be helpful. Ludlow (1997, P. 204) makes a key point: "Careful planning is definitely essential when preparing to videotape a one-time-only situation that cannot be reproduced . . . or when using a location that requires a considerable travel time and distance."

This experience has shown that a video can impact viewers. Additional study is needed to determine how best to market such videos. This example shows also that a simply produced video of a master in a field can have a major impact on the lives of those who view it. However, one must have the equipment "in hand," and know how to use it or the time of gleaning from a master will be lost in the winds of time.

Barker, J. (1989). The business of paradigms. (Video) 2nd ed. Burnesville, MN: Charthouse Learning Corporation.

Beaudin, B. and Quick, D. (1993). Instructional video evaluation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366308).

Bennett, C. (1982). Reflective appraisal of programs (RAP): An approach to studying clientele-perceived results of cooperative Extension programs-rationale, Guide, Workbook. Ithaca, N.Y.: Media Services, Cornell University.

Cassel, B. (1993). Research herds verify genetic theory. Hoard's Dairyman. Aug. 25, 1993. p 611.

Ludlow, B., & Duff, M.. (1997) Creating and using video segments for rural teacher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406106).

Miller, G., & Honeyman, M. (1994). Videotape utilization and effective videotape instructional practices in an off-campus agriculture degree program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(1), 43-48.

Troyer, B. (1990). Effect of knowledge of due date on subsequent lactation yield, and economic comparisons of various ratios of AI to non-AI matings within herds. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University. East Lansing.

A coalition is broadly defined as an effort to bring individuals and organizations together to work for a common purpose. Coalition building is appropriate when an individual or group recognizes that they alone do not have the technical capability or people power to effect a real impact on an issue (Stevens, 1990). As people work together, they expand their individual views of issues to a broadened perspective influenced by their coalition companions. In order to effectively carry out coalition work, community members often need training in both the process of public policy and the content of the issues to be addressed.

Gratto's (1973) model of issue evolution provides the foundation for supporting a community coalition. The model helps people to identify problems, examine alternatives and consequences, understand how a choice is made and how it will be implemented. Hahn (1988) expanded this educational intervention model by guiding educators with desirable outcomes and possible indicators that allow coalition members to evaluate their progress before moving to the next stage.

Stevens, Rockwell, Daberkow, and Furgason (1992) identified factors that enhance coalition development in rural areas of the Midwestern United States. Three themes developed. The first two themes occur in sequence and the third is continuous, or at least a recurring activity, throughout coalition building. First is foundation building, a time for getting acquainted and providing a base for functioning. Second is implementation, a time for putting plans into action. Third are the on-going processes, the management factors that enhance coalition formation and the outcomes of coalition work.

Study of the value of training citizens for more active roles in the community has developed over the last twenty years (Doble & Johnson, 1991, Mathews, 1994, Rich & Garino, 1979, Seltzer & Clugston, 1977). With the need for more sophisticated competencies at the local coalition level, training strategies must also be created to meet the needs of leaders from a variety of backgrounds facing a myriad of issues (Slotnik et al., 1979, Weaver, 1979). One example of a training plan for coalition members has been implemented in KIDS' TEAM.

KIDS' TEAM is a five-year project of University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension funded by a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture. The project's goal is to empower local communities to form coalitions which address the needs of youths and families at risk.

Coalition Training

KIDS' TEAM designed a coalition development and training program to create and sustain community coalitions throughout Nebraska's rural Third Congressional District, which covers the western two-thirds of the state. This training program was based on Hahn's Educational Intervention Model (1988). Hahn's process was used for training because it details a fundamental model for examining how issues evolve in a community and how a local coalition can empower itself to take action. Another strength of Hahn's process is that it ties decision making to citizen action on public policies. This is the foundation of viable community coalitions that address complex issues. The steps of Hahn's model as they relate to the KIDS' TEAM process follow:

Step 1: Recognize and express concern about the problem. Assess local needs to verify the extent of youth at risk issues.

Step 2: Become involved and identify all players. Community coalitions are encouraged to be inclusive and expand their membership base by partnering with businesses, schools, parents, and youth.

Step 3: Clarify the issue. Learn the extent of the problem and consider all sides. Remain open to new ideas by setting aside personal biases.

Step 4: Consider alternative solutions. Examine all alternatives and encourage coalition members to identify existing solutions and brainstorm new ones.

Step 5: Consider consequences for each alternative. Explore the positive and negative consequences for people on all sides of the issue. Doing nothing is an alternative.

Step 6: Inform others of the choice. Learn how public decisions are made, who makes them, and how citizens can participate in the process.

Step 7: Activate the choice. Provide input to policy makers, or carry out the plan.

Step 8: Evaluate the choice. Evaluation occurs informally throughout the process. Formal evaluation at the end of the project may lead the coalition into new concerns and problems.

To facilitate coalition development, Extension educators served as area coordinators to recruit, train, and provide overall management of the community coalitions. The coordinators were trained via six hands-on workshops focusing on the Hahn model. After training, area coordinators were expected to train potential coalition members in their own communities. Once local coalitions were established and began to function, additional training was provided. For example, interactive satellite conferences provided content on various concepts of interest to coalitions. Topics included:

• approaches for addressing youth at risk issues,
• school-age child care,
• family communication,
• public policy involvement and
• sustaining coalitions through grant-writing.

In addition, newsletters were mailed to each coalition member to apprise them of what was happening in coalitions across the state and of overall project goals. Monthly conference calls among area coordinators linked geographically-distanced coalitions and their projects. This allowed for personal dialogue on the trials and successes being experienced in local communities. Additional resource materials, including coalition building fact sheets, videotapes, and lists of potential coalition members were used to supplement the training.

An evaluation study was designed to assess whether this method of coalition member training was effective. This study was designed to measure changes in coalition members in three areas related to youth-at-risk coalitions: (a) skills in coalition building, (b) actions on public policy, and (c) knowledge of community needs related to youth issues.

The Design

To measure the success of the coalition building process, a quantitative study was conducted using post- then pre-design methodology (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). In the post- then pre-design, the participant answers two questions. The first question asks about behavior as a result of the program. This is the post-test question. Then the participant is asked to report what the behavior had been before the program. This second question is really the pre-test question, but it is asked after the program when the participant has sufficient knowledge to answer the question validly. That is why this approach is called post- then pre-. This method is especially adaptable with learners exploring new or complex issues (Chapman-Novakofski et al., 1977; Duncan & Goddard, 1997 Rockwell & Stevens, 1992).

The retrospective pre-test at the end of the program is more accurate because it is answered in the same frame of reference