Community supports are critical to the positive development of children and youth. While families and schools have the greatest influence on youth development, no one individual or institution can be tasked with sole responsibility. The personal development that must occur, the skills and competencies that must be achieved, also depend upon the resources of the broader community (Blyth, 1992; Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992; Lerner, 1995; Schorr, 1989).

One level of community support for young people is composed of primary supports, those everyday opportunities that are open to all youth and that focus on positive youth development as opposed to treatment-oriented services designed for youth with serious problems. Primary supports enrich young people's lives and supplement the support they receive from their families and schools (Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1997). The 4-H program is one example of a primary support. Libraries, museums, and recreation and sports leagues are others. The benefits of primary supports for all youth are readily recognized. Unfortunately, however, they are not always equally available. Many youth-serving organizations serve primarily youth from advantaged families. Disadvantaged youth, often those most in need of opportunities and supports, are many times not served (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1995).

The 4-H program has long prided itself on the opportunities it offers for all youth, including youth from high-risk backgrounds. However, attracting disadvantaged youth as participants can present a challenge. In many instances these young people are not the ones who readily come forward to enroll in a 4-H club or participate in other 4-H activities.

The study reported here was designed to help 4-H agents learn more about how they might encourage participation of high-risk youth in the 4-H program. Specifically, this study explores the process used by family service consultants to connect high-risk youth with community-based youth programs in three rural Oregon counties.

Data Collection and Analysis

A qualitative research design was employed in the study. Data were collected through personal interviews with eight family service consultants serving three rural Oregon counties. Family service consultants are employed to help families identify their needs and potential community social supports and then to help connect families with those social supports. Five of the consultants were employed by the educational service district that serves the school districts in the three counties. Three of the consultants were employed by community-based family service programs. The eight consultants interviewed represented the total family service consultant staff in the three- county area.

Families were referred to the consultants primarily by local schools in response to youth who were demonstrating significant academic and/or behavior problems. The needs of the families varied from specific to comprehensive, and the time a consultant worked with a family ranged from several weeks to several months. On average, approximately 60 students and their families were annually served by each of the consultants. Half the families required intensive, comprehensive services as opposed to limited, short-term services.

During the 1997-1998 school year, one of the goals of the family service consultants in the tri-county area was to involve every referred youth in at least one positive, community-based youth experience during the time the consultant worked with the family. Data were maintained by the consultants as to whether or not youth participated, and if they did, what the nature of the participation was. A positive youth experience was loosely defined and included one-time events such as participation in a youth summit as well as more ongoing participation with a youth group such as 4-H or a mentoring program. A key characteristic of the experience, however, was that it must target all youth in the community as opposed to one designed for youth with problems.

Consultants were interviewed between May and September of 1998 using a semi-structured format. Interviews lasted between one and two hours. Four general questions guided the interviews:

• Why was involving youth in a positive, community-based youth experience chosen as a primary program objective?

• What was the process used to involve youth?

• What factors presented barriers to involvement?

• What factors facilitated involvement?

Field notes made during the interviews constituted the data base for the study. After all interviews were concluded the data were read, coded, and analyzed inductively. Conclusions were subsequently drawn and verified (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings

Importance of community-based youth activities

All eight of the consultants recognized the important role the larger community plays in supporting youth. Given their daily work with schools and families, consultants were quick to point out that schools and families cannot provide everything youth need. Community resources are also needed to complement and, in some cases, to supplement the support provided by families and schools. Although 1997-1998 marked the first year that the family service consultants specified positive, community-based youth experiences as an outcome of their services, linking youth and families with community-based youth programs was not a new strategy for any of the consultants. The opportunities the programs offered to youth in terms of connecting with caring adults, developing social skills and other competencies, and participating as part of a larger group were all important to the positive development of the youth they served.

Process of connecting youth with activities

Consultants followed a three-step process in making the connections. First, keeping in mind the interests and needs of the youth, available activities were identified. This was accomplished by contacting youth organizations known to the consultant and by talking with representatives of youth-serving agencies who might know of additional opportunities. Because communities change continually, keeping informed of new developments was an ongoing process. This pertained not only to new program opportunities, but changes in the way older programs might be accessed For instance, a program might change its fee scale or participation requirements.

In the second step, consultants met with representatives from potential programs to discuss the special needs of a particular youth, if any, and to confirm that the program was prepared to work with him or her. Needed special accommodations were identified and ranged from finding a baseball glove or money to buy special shoes, to helping youth workers understand the best way to handle any behavior problems that might arise. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure a high probability that the youth would be accepted and be able to successfully participate. Once a good match of youth and activity/program was found, the youth and family were informed of the opportunity.

The third step, and one the consultants found crucial in many cases, consisted of their efforts to make sure families followed through and the youth did participate. While families and youth were supportive verbally of participation, it often took special attention from consultants to actually make participation happen. Consultants made phone calls to encourage youth to attend, to remind families of the time and place of activities, and to help families problem solve when difficulties arose that might prevent participation. In some instances, consultants transported youth to activities when other transportation plans did not work out.

Barriers to involvement

At each step of the process, challenges to successful participation arose. Consultants found identifying potential programs to be problematic and time consuming. Information was scattered with no central source in many of the communities served. In particular it was sometimes difficult to find out who the contact was for some organizations. Another challenge was the availability of programs. While a mix of programs was often available in more populated areas, opportunities in outlying areas were few and inconsistent year to year. In several instances the family service consultant took the responsibility for marshaling community members to develop a needed program.

Once potential programs were identified, other constraining factors surfaced when possibilities were more closely explored. Cost of participation was one barrier. Many families could not afford program fees or the cost of special equipment. If scholarships were not available, youth could not participate. Other activities required parent participation from time to time. Not all parents could or wanted to volunteer.

A lack of transportation posed additional problems. In most areas there was limited, if any, public transportation available, and many families lacked either the time or the vehicle needed to transport their children to activities. Yet another challenge was the problem behaviors some youth presented that were difficult to accommodate in mainstream activities. Unless an organization was prepared to deal with problem behaviors, the chances of these youth succeeding in the program were greatly diminished.

Even when a plan for youth participation was worked out, actual participation was sometimes thwarted by a lack of follow-through. For the most part, the youth and families served by the consultants faced a number of social and personal problems, including poor health, limited income, drug and alcohol abuse, and poor personal and family management skills. In some families preoccupation with these problems precluded parent support for youth participation, even if all that was required was to provide a reminder of an upcoming activity. Some youth, themselves, refused to follow through with plans because when the time came to go, they lacked the self-confidence needed to take the steps to initiate participation.

Facilitating factors

The family service consultants identified several factors and strategies that helped make the connection between youth and programs successful. As would seem obvious, the greater the number of available programs, the easier it was to find appropriate placements for youth. Numbers not withstanding, however, connections were also easier to make when information about existing activities was readily available. Two of the communities served produced listings of all activities available for youth during the summer months. The lists included a brief description of the activity as well as a contact telephone number. Consultants commented that having such information year round would be of great assistance not only to themselves but also to families. They further noted that it would be important to include information about any scholarships or sliding fee scales that applied to activities on the list. Parents might be discouraged by fees listed with activities unless they knew that some financial support was possible.

In a number of cases the lack of follow-through by families was overcome by having a volunteer act as a support. The volunteer provided transportation to and from the activity and/or called to remind the youth to attend. In some instances, the volunteer was the adult leader for the activity, but this was not always the case.

Another strategy that helped to encourage youth participation was special outreach to families to introduce them to a particular youth organization. In one town, the English as a Second Language teacher collaborated with the local Boys & Girls Club and hosted a tour of the club for several Hispanic families. Once the families made the visit, they were more encouraging of their children's participation.

Conclusion and Implications for 4-H Agents

The experience of the family service consultants documented in this study provides insight as to how community-based youth organizations might better reach and serve high-risk youth. There are steps that might be taken to increase the availability of programs as well as to support participation once youth become involved. In particular, there are a number of actions that 4-H agents might apply at both the program and community level to foster the successful involvement of high-risk youth in community-based activities.

At the program level, 4-H agents should attempt to communicate regularly with school counselors and social workers as well as youth-serving agencies to be sure professional staff are aware of the opportunities available through the 4-H program. This would facilitate placement of youth from high-risk settings not only after they present problems, but also earlier, when participation in 4-H might provide the support needed to keep a young person on a positive development track.

In-service days held by school districts and interagency trainings involving multiple youth-serving social agencies are two arenas agents might use to provide information. The value of such meetings is not only derived from informing others about 4-H and thus increasing the likelihood that youth will be introduced to 4-H. The meetings also present an opportunity to find out what additional types of youth programs may be needed in the community.

4-H agents should also be ready to work with the case managers of high-risk youth to learn how to support the youth's participation in the 4-H program. For those youth who may present behavior management issues, the case manager will be an important resource in helping the 4-H program choose appropriate activities and structure participation in such a way that success is fostered. Case managers can also help agents develop an understanding of the barriers to participation faced by youth and how the 4-H program can accommodate special needs. For instance, transportation plans may need to be made or a "buddy" chosen for the youth, someone within the club who will call and encourage him to attend the next meeting. Flexibility within the program may also be needed. Not all families can be expected to provide the same level of support as do families from more advantaged circumstances. Camp scholarships may be needed or parent involvement may have to be made optional rather than required for youth participation in some activities.

The 4-H agent's leadership at the community level can also significantly promote the involvement of high-risk youth in youth programs. As an educator, the 4-H agent possesses the skills to help community members understand the importance of youth organizations and the role all adults may play in supporting programs. Increased support and participation by community members should result in an expansion of programs that will benefit all youth.

The 4-H agent can also help increase access to programs by facilitating cooperative efforts among community-based youth organizations. One outcome might be the development of a centralized listing of program opportunities. Another, more involved undertaking, would be finding ways to pool resources for the development of programs to address unmet needs. For instance, many high-risk youth need a daily after-school program to help them productively occupy their time. While the 4-H program may not provide an after-school program itself, 4-H could support a community-based program by helping to train the staff or by providing curriculum materials.

The value of community-based youth organizations, the support they provide and the opportunities they create, extends to all youth. Youth organizations have an obligation to look beyond the question of how their programs meet the needs of those who come forward and join and ask what must be done to attract and support youth from high-risk circumstances who are less apt to participate. As youth development professionals, 4-H agents are in a position to provide the leadership necessary within the 4-H program and within the broader community to make youth programs more accessible to youth from high-risk backgrounds.

References

Blythe, D. (1992). Healthy communities; healthy youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York, NY: Author.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1995). Great transitions: Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York, NY: Author.

Chapin Hall Center for Children. (1997). Projects and publications. Chicago, IL: Author.

Lerner, R. (1995). America's youth in crisis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles M. and Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schorr, L. (1989). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Introduction

Technological change has been the basis for increasing agricultural productivity and promoting agricultural development. Research impacts the productivity of farming systems by generating new technologies which, if appropriate to farmers' circumstances, will be rapidly adopted. Historically, researchers and change agents have been primarily responsible for identifying and incorporating economic and environmental factors in the process of developing and introducing an agricultural innovation. This research/change agent centered process, usually referred to as a Transfer of Technology approach, is typically characterized as a top-down process where researchers develop the innovation, change agents promote its use, and farmers either adopt or reject the innovation (Lanyon, 1994).

In contrast, Participatory Assistance is a farmer/farm-centered process that seeks to ameliorate economic and environmental factors that may influence the behavior of researchers, change agents, and farmers during the development process and to determine the technical knowledge necessary for an innovation's use and adoption (Lanyon, 1994). Researchers, change agents, and farmers can share their perceptions and gain new insight into the development and subsequent use of an innovation.

Consequently, farmers, researchers, and change agents gain a better understanding of the innovation, thereby encouraging its adoption. By using this formative evaluation as part of the participatory process, an end user's satisfaction is likely to be increased (Mattocks & Steele, 1994; Lanyon 1994). In addition, researchers and change agents can obtain more timely feedback concerning an innovation's use, thus being able to learn new ways to modify and/or promote the innovation (Rosenberg, 1972).

Participatory assistance is more than just farmers participating in a disciplinary research project; learning is pursued by a series of experiences that may be repetitive and are based on involvement. This process emphasizes a farmer's participation in research, development, and implementation.

Some researchers (Emadi & Woog, 1994; Alonge & Martin, 1993) have suggested that other process-oriented educational methods should be considered where multifaceted problems have been associated with the Transfer of Technology. Alonge and Martin (1993) have also suggested that farmer involvement in technology development can promote an innovation's adoption, especially when dealing with the needs of resource-poor producers.

The Participatory Assistance process was applied to study an Extension education program conducted by Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension Service (PSCE), Pennsylvania Crop Management Association (PCMA), and an agricultural consultant (AC) promoting the adoption of a soil nitrogen test innovation for corn called the Pre-Sidedress Nitrogen Test (PSNT).

Purpose and Objectives

This research describes and assesses the results of an Extension education program that promoted the adoption of the PSNT. Objectives were to: (a) identify factors and variables associated with use of the PSNT, (b) identify educational strategies associated with the adoption of the PSNT, and (c) describe a multi-faceted farmer decision-making model and its relationship to the participatory assistance approach based on factors associated with the use and adoption of PSNT.

Methodology

A total of 26 farmers comprised three focus groups. Participants were identified by three different information sources used to disseminate educational programs about the PSNT: Penn State Cooperative Extension (PSCE); Pennsylvania Crop Management Association (PCMA); and a private agronomic consultant (AC). Focus group questions were based on Rogers' and Shoemaker's model of adoption (trialability, complexity, observability, relative advantage, and compatibility) (Rogers, 1983) and examined for content and face validity by five faculty members in the College of Agricultural Sciences. Participants in all groups were either adopters or nonadopters of the PSNT and were selected by respective change agents (PSCE, PCMA, AC) based on their representativeness of farming within their geographical areas.

Results of the focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using HyperQual[TM]. This computer software provided data analysis by utilizing an approach similar to factor analysis for organizing, and identifying qualitative data by theory, concepts, parameters, variables, attributes, commonality, ideals, and other modeling considerations (Padilla, 1991).

Descriptive survey research methodology was used to measure economic, technical, and social variables associated with the adoption and diffusion of the PSNT. The qualitative data from the three focus group interviews were used extensively in the design of the mailed survey that used multiple choice and scale type questions in order to identify and assess farmer's experiences, skills, attitudes, and knowledge of the PSNT.

The survey instrument was examined for content and face validity by five faculty members in the College of Agricultural Sciences. A pilot test (n = 14) of the instrument resulted in a Cronbach's alpha of .92 for experience, skills, and attitude scales, and .90 for information and knowledge scales.

For the mail survey, a random sample of 220 farmers was drawn from 515 adopters and non-adopters of the PSNT from 37 central and south central Pennsylvania counties. Three successive mailings of the survey resulted in a response of 61%. Six questionnaires were either undeliverable or unusable for an adjusted usable response rate of 58% (total responses = 127). Responses were statistically compared on key variables relating to demographic and adopter characteristics and no statistical differences (p > .05) were found between the respondents to the three mailings nor between the first mailing with the combination of second and third mailings.

Results and Discussion

Objective 1: Describe Factors and Variables Associated with Users of the PSNT.

Farmers' ages ranged from 24-75 years with a mean of 45 years. Virtually all of the farmers were male and almost half (45%) had completed high school; 10% had less than a high school education while the remainder had some post secondary education. Farming experience ranged from 5-60 years with a mean of 23 years. Sixty-two percent of the farmers had herds averaging 58 milking head with an average of 47 heifers. Sixty-five percent of the farmers did not have off-farm jobs. Almost 85% of the farmers were responsible for making their own major management decisions concerning the land they owned and operated. About 80% reported that they planted corn for grain on an average of 81 acres. About half of the farmers applied their own nitrogen and almost one-third indicated most of their nitrogen applications were made while side dressing.

All 127 farmers in the sample had used the PSNT. Based on a multiple response question (total responses = 352) which solicited farmers' preferences for using the PSNT, the top five preferences were: the ability to test and fine tune nitrogen applications (19%); saving money (18%); as a management tool to prevent nitrogen pollution in ground water (14%); the PSNT was inexpensive (14%); and PSNT reduced uncertainty about growing good crops (13%).

A multiple response question (total responses = 234) asked farmers why they did not like using the PSNT. Farmers reported that: reliability of the PSNT was questionable (23%); timing of the PSNT conflicted with other production practices (22%); taking soil samples was too difficult (12.5%); soil samples had to be dried (11%); and/or the PSNT did not reduce uncertainty (8.5%).

Data revealed that more than 75% of the farmers had not adhered to the following requirements for using the PSNT: soil samples were taken at improper depths (68%) or were taken from fields poorly drained (66%); soil samples were dried too late (53%); PSNT was performed when corn was taller than 12 inches (43%), or in fields injected with manure (13%).

Objective 2: Identify Strategies for Educational Program to Promote Adoption/Diffusion of PSNT.

Table 1 reveals farmers' responses to six questions that attribute six descriptors to the information sources used for fertilizer application decisions, techniques, and products. Each question had a total of 100 usable responses that were converted to percentages in order to aid in the interpretation of the data. The most trustworthy source of information was university specialists (28%), followed closely by crop management consultants (21%), private consultants, and local dealers (12% each).

The most knowledgeable source of information was university specialists, with crop management consultants and county Extension agents scoring equally as the next most knowledgeable source. Agricultural chemical representatives (Ciba, Dupont, etc.) and local fertilizer dealers followed closely. The two information sources rated most available and convenient by farmers were the local dealer (36%) and crop management consultants (28%). University specialists (25%), local dealers (19%), and consultants (19%)were ranked as the top three up-to-date sources of information.

In summary, local dealers, county Extension agents, and crop management consultants were the most locally relevant sources of information. Crop management consultants were the most preferred source of information. The second most preferred source of information came from farmers' own experience and knowledge, followed by local dealers, county Extension agents, and university specialists.

Objective 3: Multi-faceted Farmer Decision Making Model.

The Participatory Assistance process was applied to both focus group and survey data. It revealed a conceptual model with seven multi-faceted variables, each possessing several dimensions of divergence where the decision-making process to adopt the technology could have a common point but extend in different directions. Rogers' and Shoemaker's (Rogers, 1983) model lacked a sufficient template to describe a complex and multi-faceted problem. The seven factors impacting the adoption decision were: (a) observability, (b) nitrogen usage, (c) opportunity costs, (d) production practices, (e) risk, (f) communication networks, and (g) technical efficiency. All factors varied in their magnitude and direction as to how the adoption decision was made. Therefore, multiple solutions arose as to the adoption decision.

The first factor, observability, is assessed by either peer pressure, profit (money) and/or productivity (yield). Peer pressure in this case emanated from the competitiveness that existed among and between farmers to have the best looking corn regardless of profit and/or productivity. Both profit and productivity were easily measured by check books or weigh wagons.

The second factor, nitrogen usage, was composed of either farmer attitudes, attempts to increase and secure profits, social responsibility, and/or threat of regulation. Most farmers varied widely in the magnitude and direction of these attributes and at times were inconsistent with their beliefs concerning the use of nitrogen. However, many farmers were concerned about how the community was perceiving their production practices and wanted to be deemed environmentally friendly.

The third factor, opportunity costs, was composed of labor and alternative crops. Often times the PSNT required labor to be expended on soil sampling and side dressing during a time when labor needed to be devoted to cutting, raking and baling hay or milking cows.

The fourth factor, production practices, was mainly composed of equipment availability, whether or not the farmer was set up to pre-apply or post-apply nitrogen, manure management practices, and soil type. Some farmers were either unaware of how to side dress or did not know how to incorporate side dressing in their production practices. In addition, some farmers were locked in as to their production practices and were unable to incorporate side dressing techniques.

The fifth factor, risk, included perceptions about feed supply, weather conditions, price, size of operation, debt, and attitude. Farmers indicated the need for securing a stable feed supply for their animals, while others were willing to make up potential crop losses by purchasing supplemental feed with cost savings. In addition, smaller farm operations tended to more risk averse than large operations. However, young farmers of small size operations tended to take on very risky practices in an attempt to quickly build equity.

The sixth factor, communication networks, often impacted the adoption decision. Farmers weighed information sources heavily for both reliability and content. Farmers tended to seek out information from a variety of sources which often affected their assessment of the previous five factors.

Finally, technical efficiency was a key factor that impacted all of the previous factors. Once the technology was trialed, it needed to perform as expected. Often times, the technology did not meet the expectations that farmers had established, such as increasing crop yields or increasing profit.

Conclusions and Implications

Farmers lacked economic information about the PSNT and this adversely impacted adoption decisions. Both focus group and survey results indicated that farmers rely on economic criteria for making an adoption decision. Many farmers based their assessment of the PSNT's economic usefulness on observable results, such as "saving me money" or "it was inexpensive to use." The PSNT did not always provide immediate and observable economic results in the field. Many farmers were skeptical that information about nitrogen usage leads to a reduction in their risk for growing a corn crop.

Inappropriate use of the technology and inadequate soil sampling skills resulted in poor credibility and reliability ratings (lack of technical inefficiency) of the PSNT and adversely impacted the adoption decision. This information was quickly conveyed throughout a farmer's communication networks. Many farmers indicated that the PSNT tended to give results contrary to their expectations. This outcome was primarily due to farmers lacking the necessary knowledge and skills for correctly using the PSNT.

Communication networks impacted the adoption decision. Farmers tended to seek a variety of information sources before and during the adoption decision. Previous research (Sulaiman, Baggett & Yoder, 1993) indicates that information sources tend to significantly impact a farmer's adoption decision. Crop management consultants, local dealers, and private consultants were deemed as trustworthy sources of information and played a critical role in promoting the adoption of this agricultural innovation.

Besides crop management consultants, farmers preferred their own experiences and knowledge. Many times, farmers' experiences and knowledge are expanded due to interactions with other farmers. Consequently, improving communications networks among and between farmers may prove to have a significant impact on enhancing the efficacy of the adoption decision as well (Drost, Long, & Hales, 1998).

The PSNT resulted in "farm" effects that necessitated major changes in production practices for many farmers. Farmers had to be either engaged in compatible practices or make significant changes to adopt the PSNT. Due to the timing requirements of the PSNT, labor for soil sampling and testing was scarce. Had researchers known this, the innovation may have been developed to account for labor availability and the need to change production practices.

When confronted with a multi-faceted decision making problem, farmers engage in a holistic process in order to make an adoption decision. Lanyon (1994) supports this conclusion and also suggests that this holistic process of adoption tends to be largely ignored by researchers. To account for this holistic process, researchers may want to consider forming partnerships with farmers and change agents when developing and introducing an innovation. This could be done through many methods such as the use of advisory committees and one-on-one meetings with respective partners. When appropriate, these meetings and interactions could take place on farms or at sites where an innovation is to be considered for adoption. Consequently, the adoption of the innovation would likely be enhanced due to an increased understanding of farmers' needs and circumstances.

References

Alonge, A., & Martin, R. (1993). An assessment of the farming systems research/Extension approach to technology transfer among resource-poor farmers in the middle-belt region of Nigeria. In J. Diamond (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education. Arlington, VA.

Drost, D., Long, G., & Hales, K. (1998). Targeting Extension efforts for the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Journal of Extension, 36(5). Available on-line at http://www.joe.org

Emadi, M., & Woog, R. (1994). Technology transfer or issue management: A case study with Iranian nomads. In R. Steele (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education. Arlington, VA.

Lanyon, L. E. (1994). Participatory assistance: An alternative to transfer of technology for promoting change on farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(3), 136-142.

Mattocks, D., & Steele, R. (1994). NGO-government paradigms in agricultural development: A relationship of competition or collaboration? Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, l(l), 54-61.

Padilla, R.V. (1991). Using computers to develop concept models of social situations. Qualitative Sociology, 14(3), 263-274.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History 13 (Fall), 3-33.

Sulaiman, F., Baggett, C. D., & Yoder, E. P. (1993). An analysis of information sources used in dairy reproductive management. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 20, 165-172.

Overview

University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, like so many other institutions, is relying more then ever on Master Gardener volunteers. Many of the Master Gardener programs in the state have become quite large with an average of 57 volunteers per county. During 1998, the Pinellas County Master Gardener Program had 132 volunteers.

In previous years, drop-out rates during training were high. This study was designed to determine if a mentor program would reduce trainee drop-out during the basic training session and to determine what component(s) of the program were most important to trainees.

The Florida Master Gardener Mentor Program was designed according to the basic format of that outlined by Butler (1997) of Oregon State University. Additional information was referenced from other mentor programs at Oregon State (Rogers, 1997). The formal mentor program at the University of Florida was begun in January 1998, one month prior to the first day of the Master Gardener basic training. This allowed time for mentor orientation training as well as time for mentors to contact trainees prior to the first class. Each mentor was allowed to determine how many trainees they were comfortable advising. Two to four trainees were assigned randomly to each mentor. Mentors remained in contact throughout the entire training period and into post-training volunteer activities.

Program Outline

The Florida Master Gardener Mentor is an active veteran Master Gardener with one or more years of service (100+ hours). A mentor is a volunteer who assists new Master Gardeners to obtain answers to technical questions and provides suggestions, recommendations, and operational advice. Mentors maintain monthly contacts (a minimum) with Master Gardener trainees to advise and assist them throughout basic training. Each mentor is provided with a "contact sheet" on which they record contacts with trainees. Mentors are not required to settle conflicts or answer legal questions. When these situations arise they are to be turned over to the supervising Extension agent.

To be a mentor, one must agree to attend a basic training class, the first day of Master Gardener training, two volunteer work days, and the final exam/graduation luncheon. Once the formal training is complete, mentors act as informal advisors to all new Master Gardeners. This responsibility does not require keeping a record of contact, but is a means for Master Gardeners to get needed assistance. Mentors are distinguished from other Master Gardeners by gold inscribed mentor name tags.

The responsibilities of the mentor are divided among three basic time periods: prior to the training, during the training, and after completing training. While each phase requires mentors to perform different duties, the overall program objective remains the same. The key role of the mentor is to be the first personal contact that the new volunteer has with the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Master Gardener Program.

Prior to the beginning of training, mentors establish contact with trainees to give them an idea of what is to be expected of them. The "initial contact" outline lists topics that need to be covered in the first phone call. The categories of information that these topics include are mentor introduction, insight into the Master Gardener program, logistics of the basic training, and expectations of trainees after the basic training. Mentors are encouraged to add any information that they feel would be helpful to the trainees.

To establish on-going dialogue, mentors provide trainee with their names, home telephone numbers, and times that trainees can call. During the 13-weeks of class, mentors remain in contact with trainees by phone and in person before, during, and after class. Once training is complete, mentors remain in contact on an informal basis.

To maintain on-going communication with the supervising Extension agent, Master Gardener Mentors meet as a formal group four times throughout the basic training. Meetings take place at the time of: (a) the mentor orientation training, (b) the first and second volunteer training days, and (c) the final exam/graduation luncheon.

Results

Drop-out rates for the three annual Master Gardener basic training programs prior to the Mentor program were 26%, 17%, and 27% for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, respectively. While the 1998 class in Pinellas County was one-third smaller then the previous years, the trainee drop-out rate for basic training program was 2%

Surveys were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the mentor program from the perspective of the mentors as well as the trainees. When trainees were asked to rank their mentors on a scale of 1 to 6 (1 = poor, 6 = excellent), 53% of the class rated their mentor as excellent (6) while 90% rated their mentors as good to excellent (4-6). However, when trainees were asked to rate (using the same scale) how much their mentor influenced them to remain active in the training program, 25% responded "very much a factor" (6) and 25% responded "not at all" (1) a factor. The remaining 50% were equally spread between the extremes.

When asked the same question using the same scale, 73% of the mentors responded that they thought the Mentor Program was a factor (5-6) in trainee retention. When trainees were asked to rate their mentor's performance in areas such as accessibility, horticultural and Cooperative Extension Service knowledge, friendliness, leadership, and willingness to listen, the category with the most responses of excellent (6) was friendliness (6). When both groups were asked if the program should continue in its present form, 100% of the mentors and 98% of the trainees responded positively.

Summary

During this field study, trainee drop-out rate was twelve times less than that for the mean of the previous three years. This may be attributed in part to a smaller class size in 1998, however, the differences in the resulting data are quite large. Overall, participants in the program responded positively to the Master Gardener Mentor Program. Trainees viewed mentors as important to the program, but did not perceive them as the single important factor in trainee retention. This may be a result of the Mentor Program becoming so integrated in the Master Gardener training program that it was difficult for respondents to separate its effects.

This may be exemplified in the response to the question regarding mentor performance. While only 25% of the trainees responded that the Mentor Program was key in their remaining active, 80% rated their mentors as friendly. This being the case, it would seem that while the assistance of the mentors was useful to the trainees, a friendly person with which a feeling of comradery could be developed was more important. Indeed, the important role that a friendly relationship plays in the mentor/trainee association has been found to facilitate the transformation from trainee to peer (Mincemoyer & Thomson,1998).

This could be an area of the Master Gardener Program that Extension professionals may need to step aside and allow mentor volunteers to develop. Relationships such as these often are the difficult to measure intangibles that only mentors can bring to programs such as the Florida Master Gardener Program. Future studies with this pilot group will include long term retention rate of trainees and mentors, as well as overall progress of the mentor program.

References

Butler, J. (1997) A Master Gardener mentor program handbook. Oregon State University Extension Service Master Gardener Program, Multnomah County Chapter, Portland, OR.

Mincemoyer, C., & Thomson, J. (1998) Establishing effective mentoring relationships for individual and organizational success. Journal of Extension, 36,(2). Available on-line at http:///www.joe.org

Rogers, B. (1997) Developing a successful mentoring program for volunteer training. Journal of Extension, 35,(5). Available on-line at http://www.joe.org

Abstract

The Master Gardener Mentor Program study was designed to determine if volunteer mentors would help reduce trainee drop out during basic training, and to determine what component(s) of the program were most important to trainees. Data were gathered from the Master Gardener Program without a mentor program (1995, 1996, and 1997) and with a mentor program (1998). The drop out rates without the program were 26%, 17%,and 27%, respectively, while with the program it was only 2%. This low percentage could have been influenced by the smaller class (1998) however differences in the resulting data were quite large. Survey results focus on friendship gained from the program as the most important factor.

Introduction

In any successful Extension program, two components are key: awareness of constituent needs and cooperation between service groups. Awareness of constituent needs produces a timely and practical Extension program, while cooperation between service groups extends the scope of the program. Keeping this in mind, the forest products Extension programs at the University of Minnesota, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and Oregon State University faced the following question: were their respective Extension programs meeting their current constituent's needs?

Past forest products Extension programs centered around production and manufacturing topics. A changing raw material base, as well as changes and restrictions on harvesting timber, have challenged the forest products industry with new obstacles. Questions that deserved attention were: what were these new obstacles, and did these new obstacles require different programs from the Extension service? Working together to answer these questions, Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia surveyed the forest products companies in their states as a first step toward improving their service to the public.

This paper details a methodology for determining Extension constituent needs. Methods for collecting data, segmenting an industry, comparing by state, and identifying appropriate training media are explained. These methods could be applied across many Extension disciplines.

Beforte this work, few specific needs assessment studies of the forest products industry exist. Bratkovich and Miller (1993) examined the educational needs of 32 innovative Ohio sawmill operators. They followed Borich's (1980) needs discrepancy model in a mail questionnaire to determine need. This model consists of an importance rating and a knowledge rating: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance). Bratkovich and Miller's questionnaire contained 67 forest products related questions with a discrepancy scale of one to five for importance and for knowledge. Their results showed that the areas of forest products marketing and environmental awareness had the highest need. Specific categories in these areas include lumber prices, environmental laws, exporting lumber, motivating personnel, and sawmill waste.

Training methods were also examined by Bratkovish and Millert (1993). Their results showed 50% of the respondents preferred one-on-one training, 28% preferred group training, and 22% preferred self training. In a related industry, Riesenberg and Gor (1989) found that the agriculture industry also prefers training with personal interaction.

Research in Oregon examined the educational needs of Oregon's sawmills. Respondents stated that training was important to a skilled workforce, increasing productivity, and producing management qualified people. The survey categories that ranked the highest included quality control, safety, manager training, and maintenance. Respondents also suggested that training programs be targeted at all levels of the workforce including hourly workers, foremen, and managers (Brown & Niemiec, 1997).

This paper builds on past studies in several key areas. First, needs assessment is necessary to determine the gap between what information and training is available to the forest products industry and what information and training should be available to the forest products industry. Second, information and training media must be considered when developing and offering information and training to Extension constituents. Finally, given Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon's different geographical locations and differing forest products industries, how are the needs of each state different or similar?

Objectives

The research projects undertaken in Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia were built upon two main objectives (a) identify the educational needs of the forest products industry in Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon, and (b) evaluate the current training methods of the forest industry.

Methods

Questionnaire Design

With the objectives in mind, a mail survey was designed for distribution to forest products companies in each state. The questionnaire was in four major sections: demographics, production and marketing/management, information and training media, and outside influences. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire was examined by pre-testing the questionnaire with Extension professionals and with forest products companies within each state.

The first section involved company product type and company demographics. It contained questions pertaining to company size (number of employees) and the company's primary product line. These questions were important for categorization. Companies were divided into small and large producers. Small producers had fewer than twenty employees while large producers had twenty or more employees. Companies were also broken into primary and secondary producers. The study defined primary producers as those companies that produce veneer, lumber, ties, timbers, or panel products. Secondary producers had product lines such as furniture, windows, and doors. The questions pertaining to product type were modified between states to best reflect the industry in each state.

The second section, identical for all three states, contained questions related to production, marketing, and management. Replication was incorporated to facilitate direct comparison of results from each state. This section contained 33 subjects pertaining to production and marketing/management issues (Table 1). The importance of this section lies in a two-part design. Using two 5-point Likert scales, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of a topic as well as their knowledge of the topic (scale of 1 to 5, 1 being low and 5 being high). This two part scaling allowed for the calculation of an educational need score for each topic using the following equation: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance)

It is important to note that the educational need rating is a perceived rating from the respondents' point of view. In other words, it is their perception of need.

The Minnesota and Virginia studies included a section on information and training media. Using a five point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate the type of information and training media by its importance to their training needs. Example of information and training media include short courses, newsletters, trade magazines, and Internet or on-line computers.

In addition to the media section, the Minnesota and Virginia studies included a section on outside influences that affect the forest products industry. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate a list of outside influences as important or unimportant. Examples of outside influences included domestic economy, environmental concerns, and international competition.

Survey Procedure

After the design and pre-testing of the questionnaire in the spring of 1995, the Oregon and Virginia questionnaires were mailed. The Minnesota questionnaire followed in the spring of 1996. Questionnaires were mailed to 1,286, 630, and 903 companies in Oregon, Virginia, and Minnesota, respectively. The companies were randomly selected from each state's forest products industry directory. The surveys were managed under Dillman's Total Design Method, which consists of an initial mailing and cover letter with return postage prepaid (Salant and Dillman, 1994). The initial mailing was followed by a reminder postcard. The reminder postcard was followed by a second copy of the questionnaire and a new cover letter explaining the importance of the survey.

Results

Oregon received 441 responses out of 1286 mailed with an adjusted response rate of 34%. Virginia received 243 responses out of 630 mailed with an adjusted response rate of 42%. Minnesota received 335 responses out of 903 mailed with as adjusted response rate of 31%. The data are further broken down by producer type and company size in Table 2.

Non-response bias was checked in Oregon and Virginia through follow-up phone calls. One-way ANOVA's were used to check for differences between respondent questionnaire answers and non-respondent follow-up phone call answers to selected questions. No significant differences were found between respondents and non-respondents. Non-respondents were also called in Minnesota. In addition, early versus late respondents were compared. No significant differences were found.

As mentioned earlier, section two of the questionnaire consisted of an importance rating and a knowledge rating of production and marketing/management subjects. From these two ratings, an educational need score was generated using the following equation: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance).

Safety regulations fell in the top five importance and knowledge ratings for all three states but did not score high under the educational need formula. This demonstrates the utility of the formula by scoring need low when knowledge is already high. Product pricing also ranked high in importance and knowledge in all three states, but it had a very high rating in importance. This resulted in a high educational need rating.

Interestingly, the top five educational need categories in Minnesota and Oregon fell into the marketing/management subject areas. Four of the top five educational need categories in Virginia fell into the marketing/management subject areas. The top five importance, knowledge, and educational need ratings (based on Minnesota's top five) are listed in Table 3. Statistical comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA tests.

When companies are considered by size, differences emerge in their educational need ratings. Consider Table 4: while sales abilities and product pricing were rated important for small and large companies, motivating personnel was rated very high only among large companies. In addition, a significant difference was found between states in product pricing (alpha = 0.05). Much of Oregon's forest products industry at the time of the study was based in commodity products where pricing is more standardized.

Differences also emerge when companies are compared as primary and secondary producers. Table 5 shows that sales abilities, product pricing, and identifying new markets rated high for primary and secondary producers. However, significant differences do emerge between states. Product pricing was less of an issue in Oregon's commodity environment. Identifying new markets rated very high in Oregon given a trend from primary to secondary production.

Differences were also observed when specific producer categories were considered. Selected category examples including hardwood lumber manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, and pallet/container manufacturers are shown in Table 6. In the hardwood lumber manufacturer category, product promotion ranked high in Minnesota but low in Virginia and Oregon. In the furniture manufacturer category, motivating personnel ranked high in Minnesota, but low in Virginia and Oregon. Finally, in the pallet/container manufacturer category, sawing and cutting technology ranked high in Minnesota with low rankings in Virginia and Oregon.

Despite large differences between states in certain product categories, the overall study found few differences between states. Generally, the top five ranked categories in one state fell into the top ten ranked categories in the other two states.

Minnesota and Virginia also included questions about information and training media in their surveys. "Short Courses" ranked number one while "Electronic Transfer" ranked last in both states (Table 7). Despite the present push for incorporating electronic media into Extension programs.

Minnesota and Virginia also included questions about outside business influences in their surveys. Domestic Economy ranked first while International Competition ranked last in both states (Table 8).

Implications

Several important findings from the studies deserve reiteration. First, the overall findings were similar by state despite differences between the forest products industry in each state. Second, educational need was different by company size and manufacturer type. Third, the highest ranked educational need was concentrated in the marketing and management areas. Finally, short courses ranked first in respondent preference while electronic media ranked last.

This study showed that different segments of the forest products industry (small & large producers and primary & secondary manufacturers) often had different needs. Within any Extension discipline, it is important to identify the different types of customers within the service area. Segmenting by customer type is a common practice in the business environment and is essential in any Extension needs assessment program.

From these findings, the needs of the forest products industry in Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon are described. If it is assumed that Minnesota is representative of the Lake States region, Virginia is representative of the Appalachian and Southern region, and Oregon is representative of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, these collaborative studies describe the needs of the forest products industry as a whole. From the similar findings between states, it is possible to further generalize that needs of the forest products industry across the nation are similar.

The higher ratings of the marketing and management subject over the production subjects may indicate a shift from a production mentality to a marketing and management mentality. At least, the studies findings indicate an increased perceived importance in marketing and management activities.

To date, Virginia and Oregon have offered new short courses focusing on marketing and sales issues in the forest products industry. These short courses have been well received. In addition, Minnesota has received an additional grant to develop training manuals for the sawmill industry. This adds further support to continued efforts in short courses and training materials.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participating companies for their cooperation. This paper was developed from a presentation given at the First National Natural Resources Extension Conference: Strengthening Extension Natural Resource Programs Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration, May 1998, Deerwood, Minnesota.

References

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

Bratkovich, S.M., & Miller, L.E. (1993). Perceived Educational Needs of Innovative Ohio Sawmill Operators. Forest Products Journal, 43(3), 35-40.

Brown, T.D., & Niemiec, S.S. (1997). Survey of the training needs in Oregon's lumber manufacturing industry. Forest Products Journal, 47(1), 29-32.

Riesenberg, L.E., & Gor, C.O. (1989). Farmers' preferences for methods of receiving information on new or innovative farming practices. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Fall 1989.

Salant, P.A., & Dillman, D.A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.137-148.

Introduction

Are today's Extension professionals and their local programs becoming global in character? What barriers prevent Extension professionals from incorporating global perspectives into programs and offerings to clientele? The world in general, and the educational world in particular, are in a period of change. Jack Welch, in an interview indicated: "The Jack Welch of the future cannot be like me. I spent my entire career in the United States. The next head of General Electric will be somebody who spent time in Bombay, in Hong Kong, in Buenos Aires. We have to send our best and brightest overseas and make sure that they have training that will allow them to be the global leaders who will make GE flourish in the future." (Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998, p. 22).

Likewise, Extension leaders are being challenged to increase their local county professionals' ability to function in a world that includes Global Positioning Systems, Internet access to all points of the globe, and an era where Sesame Street reaches seven million homes per week, helping children in more than 140 countries learn their letters, numbers, and shapes. It is also a world where the chasm between rich and poor grows as Rosenberg (1998) points out citing a United Nations Development Report.

In the summer of 1997 a study of all Extension professionals in a midwestern U.S. state was undertaken. The goal was to determine the current level of activity and interest of Extension professionals relative to globalization of programs for local clientele. The study also sought to identify barriers that may limit professionals ability to incorporate global perspectives into local programming. A 1998 report by the International Agriculture Section of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges presents an Agenda for U.S. land-grant universities and indicates, "we urgently need to find ways to increase the level of engagement of our resident teaching faculty, research scientists, and Extension agents in addressing global dimension" (Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America, 1998, p. 1).

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study was to identify Extension professionals, activities, and attitudes toward three international dimensions. It examined current involvement in international programming activities, interest in incorporating international dimensions into future Extension programming, and barriers which exist.

Methodology

The target population consisted of 823 Extension professionals employed by Ohio State University in May 1997. The population included all faculty and non-faculty program professionals and administrators with an Ohio State University Extension assignment.

A mail survey instrument was developed. Content validity was established by a panel of experts. To help control measurement error, the instrument was pilot tested and field tested using 26 Extension professionals. Test-re-test reliability (1 month) was assessed. Reliability coefficients met criteria (Nunnally, 1967) established for reliability. A five point Likert-type scale was used to measure the level of interest in incorporating an international dimension into future Extension efforts. Fifteen barriers were identified through a review of literature and interviews with Extension faculty and professionals.

The questionnaire and a personalized cover letter were sent by campus mail to all program professionals. Questionnaires were coded to identify early and late respondents. Non-response error as assessed using late respondents as a surrogate for non-respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983). Using a t-test at the .05 alpha level, no significant differences were found between early (n = 562 ) and late respondents (n = 92) on the domains of interest.

Results and Conclusions

Six hundred fifty four of the survey instruments returned were usable. An additional 65 were insufficiently completed to be used in the study or were returned with a notation that the individual was no longer an Extension employee. This represents a total return rate of 87%. Responses were coded for computer analysis using SPSS (Norusis, 1993). Descriptive statistics were used.

Who Responded?

All administrators and all employees with program assignments including state specialists, agents, program assistants, EFNEP educators, and Extension Associates were surveyed. Of the total respondents, 42% were male and 58% were female. Extension professionals working at county or district locations represented 70% of the respondents while state-based professionals represented 30%. Returns by primary program assignment closely approximated the proportions in the population: 25% agriculture, 24% family and consumer science, 21% 4-H, 5% community development, and 4% administration. The highest level of education reported by each respondent showed that 17% did not have a college degree, 23% had a bachelor's degree, 43% had a master's degree and 17% had earned a doctorate. Twenty three percent (151) of the professionals had lived or worked outside of the United States. Vacation travel was not included in the results reported.

Current Involvement

Fourteen different types of activities were identified. Most activities involve contact with individuals from another country, but only limited evidence of program (teaching) activities or curriculum development by Extension professionals was evident. One hundred sixty one (25%) professionals reported they were currently incorporating an international dimension into programming efforts. Within the past eight years, 415 (63%) of the professionals reported international activities ranging from hosting an international visitor (25%) to involving clientele in international activities. Twenty-five percent have communicated by e-mail with an international colleague in another country, 21% have served as a communication link between people from different countries. Only 10% could recall creating an Extension program based on an international issue.

Interest in Globalizing Programming for Local Audiences

Four hundred and twenty five professionals (65%) would like to in incorporate an international dimension into future Extension efforts. A Likert-type scale was used to assess level of interest. Scores ranged from 1-5, with 1 indicating slight interest and 5 indicating high interest. The distribution of ratings had a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.16) which indicated moderate interest. Over one third expressed high interest in globalizing programming for local audiences.

Barriers

Fifteen potential barriers were listed on the instrument and respondents were asked to identify the three which were most likely to prevent them from incorporating an international dimension into future Extension efforts. The most frequently identified barrier was lack of time, which was reported by 40% of the participants, 35% did not see incorporating an international dimension as a programming priority, and 28% identified a lack of experience as a barrier. Least mentioned barriers included fear of negative career impacts (3%), lack of reward in annual performance appraisal (4%), not recognized in promotion criteria (4%), and cultural barriers (4%).

A Few Implications

Although the study focused on one state, the implications have wider significance. Ohio State University Extension for the past ten years, with the help of an Extension International Committee and supportive administrators, has developed an atmosphere and culture that enables interested faculty and staff to move forward with globalizing opportunities. Other states may want to assess their current situation as they engage in futuring and strategic planning activities for the coming century.

This points to the need for Extension program leaders to continue to communicate the importance of incorporating global perspectives into ongoing Extension programs. Issues related to world food supply, environmental quality, and knowledge that at current growth rates trade between nations will exceed total commerce within nations by 2015 (Daft, 1997) provide a rationale for globalizing programs in U.S. Colleges of Agriculture. Extension, as a major part of a university's outreach component, needs to examine its response to this challenge. Change requires new approaches and re-examination of past decisions.

If Extension educators have the responsibility to help clientele develop a better understanding of the complexity of global issues, a variety of strategies to effectively develop global leadership skills in Extension professionals should be considered. Based on recommendations of the GASEPA task force, professional development opportunities might focus on enhancing global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Because of Extension's close tie with the agricultural sector, development and dissemination of information about markets, trade, and business opportunities should be encouraged. Promotion of trade, global economic development, establishing mutually beneficial global partnerships, and creating a greater awareness and understanding of global environmental concerns are also suggested by the Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America (GASEPA) task force.

Initiating the concept of leadership development in a global context and human capacity building might start with traveling outside the U.S. Foreign travel has the ability to immerse future leaders in a new culture, particularly if the traveler takes detours by staying in non-western hotels and visiting rural areas, markets, schools and homes.

Overseas travel may be one approach, but creating cross-cultural competency and understanding through local activities may be more practical for many Extension systems. Invite international visitors and students into a local community, arranging for local families to serve as hosts. Pre-plan a visit by an international guest to a farming operation to be more than a "show and tell" experience. Incorporate an opportunity for dialogue with local advisory committees, community leaders and educators about issues of shared interest and concern.

Increasing the level of engagement between international visitors, local Extension agents and constituents is achievable and will have long-term benefits for both. International visitors often ask questions that challenge paradigms and stimulate people to look at what they take for granted in new and different ways. Partnerships between institutions are the result of relationship building between individuals. Campus faculty and county agents must work together to facilitate these opportunities.

In-service education programs involving action learning projects to challenge participants to look beyond the local situation are needed. As Extension professionals begin meeting and hosting international experts, the impetus to participate in workshops and other development opportunities to improve cross-cultural competency or increase expertise in global economics and decision making will occur. With changing U.S. demographics, learning how to work in teams with individuals from diverse backgrounds is essential. Developing the necessary sensitivity and skills to lead multi-cultural teams requires both additional experience and training.

Extension educators incorporating global perspectives into ongoing programs requires more than a brief study tour to another country or a single workshop. Having small grants available to foster individual development or the infusion of international modules into existing programming is suggested. Policy mechanisms that support travel abroad, professional leaves, participation in Fulbright programs, and international assignments will further enhance efforts to internationalize the curriculum. Recognition and reward of achievements must become an integral components. The new millennium will offer many challenges to Extension. Recognition of the global community we inhabit and share with partners around the world will become an increasing priority.

References

Daft, R. (1997). Management. New York: Dryden.

Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs For America Task Force (1998). International Agriculture Section, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Washington D.C.: Author

Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (Fall, 1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review., pp. 21-32.

Miller, L.E., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling nonresponse issue. Journal of Extension 21(45).

Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows: Base systems user's guide (release 6.0). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Nunally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Rosenberg, J. (1998). Winning the global game: a strategy for linking people and profits. Free Press.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/1999august/ent-rb.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.