The United States as a society can be described as ignorant about agriculture. As the world's population increases, agricultural industries remain important if the world is to sustain a growing population. With the need for increased agriculture production comes the need for agricultural literacy.

People in the United States generally do not worry about the supply of high quality, low cost agricultural products. Americans are becoming increasingly suburban, with less direct contact with the agricultural industry (Sorenson, 1987).

Perhaps a greater problem is that many people perceive agriculture as only farming and ranching. This perception is evident in children. Elementary school children interpret the industry as the farmer, the cow, the tractor, the rancher, and many other stereotypes (DeWerff, 1989). Many times children have the idea that food simply comes from the store.

Swan and Donaldson (1970) pointed out that many misconceptions existing about farms, plants, animals, and other aspects of agriculture and life can be corrected when children are taught about agriculture. The AgriFood Education Program of the Texas A&M University Agriculture Program is trying to combat those misconceptions. The mission is to provide experiential and outdoor learning events on agriculture, natural resources, biotechnology, food, and environmental topics. These learning events are generically known as Ag Science Fairs.

An Ag Science Fair is a one-time outdoor experiential learning event planned and implemented by county Extension agents and community volunteers. The event features ten to twelve educational stations demonstrating how animals and plants are grown and processed for food and fiber. An Ag Science Fair also illustrates the link agriculture has to social and economic factors as well as to human health and environmental quality. The hands-on program supplements the agricultural curriculum that fulfills the Texas Education Agency's essential knowledge and skills requirement.

An Ag Science Fair gives elementary school children the opportunity to learn about the agricultural industry in their particular area. In 1997, 30 Texas counties hosted Ag Science Fair events reaching approximately 39,000 youths. There was a 100% increase in counties participating in agricultural literacy in 1998. Sixty counties hosted Ag Science Fairs reaching over 100,000 youth. That number is expected to increase in 1999.

The idea of teaching children about agriculture is not new. Educational philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, Pestalozzi, Rousseau, Comenius and Benjamin Franklin all recognized the value of a child's learning about agriculture (Snowden & Shoemake, 1973). Teaching elementary-age children may help develop a better understanding and perception of agriculture as they grow older. McReynolds (1985) proposed that the earlier in life information about agriculture is presented to children, the more receptive they are to accepting and applying wholesome concepts about the topic the rest of their lives.

Ag Science Fairs are vehicles to bring agricultural literacy to children. Many states have a required curriculum that must be followed. Often, teachers, due to requirements and time constraints, are unable to teach beyond the required curriculum. Balschweid, Thompson and Cole (1997) concluded that "teachers felt the greatest barriers to implementing agriculture into existing lessons were the time necessary for curricula changes and access to necessary supplies/materials/information" (p. 41).

Teachers are required to follow a specific curriculum set by the state and must teach certain objectives and accomplish certain goals during the school year. In Texas, where the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) determines the fate of many schools, teachers have little opportunity to teach outside the TAAS curriculum. Hence, the students are not taught about agriculture unless it is touched on in geography or state history. An Ag Science Fair brings the children out of the classroom and allows the community the opportunity to educate them about agriculture in their area and the impact it has on everyone.

References

Balschweid, M. A., Thompson, G. W., & Cole, R.L. (1997). The effects of an agricultural literacy treatment on participating K-12 teachers and their curricula. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1997 National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

DeWerff, W. (1989). Education in agriculture: Not just a high school matter. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62, (1), 14-15.

McReynolds, G. (1985). Mr. Jay and farmland. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 58(4), 17-18.

Snowden, O. L. & Shoemake, R. G. (1973). Elementary programs for career education in agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 45, (7), 149-150, 153.

Sorenson. D. D. (1987). How to keep 'em up on the farm and farming. The American School Board Journal, 174, 6-28.

Swan, M. D. & Donaldson, G. W. (1970). The agricultural educator's role in helping elementary pupils learn about agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 42, (11), 282-283.

In 1993, a Poinsettia Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program was initiated at the University of Connecticut. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) uses of a variety of pest control methods designed to produce high quality crops with the most judicious use of pesticides. The goal of this educational program was to provide intensive training so that growers obtain the knowledge, skills and confidence to use IPM techniques while producing a high quality poinsettia crop.

Training sessions focus on the identification and biology of key insects and diseases, scouting techniques, and pest management decision-making. Pre- and post-season questionnaires were used to evaluate the program's training materials.

A scouting manual was developed to address the biological, identification, and management concerns among others. This 30-page reference manual was divided into four chapters for organizational purposes and to facilitate finding information quickly. The identification, biology, life cycle and scouting techniques are covered in the chapter on insect and mite pests. Favorable conditions for disease development, scouting, and management tactics are included in the chapter on key diseases and disorders. To aid in prompt diagnosis, an insert lists the soil testing and diagnostic laboratories within New England.

Twenty-five color photographs show key insects and their life stages plus key diseases. Overviews of the scouting process are included as tables for quick reference. The sample scouting forms can be duplicated as needed.

This manual, reviewed by colleagues in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, was produced by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service. Production was made possible in part by a grant from the New England Greenhouse Conference Awards Committee.

New England Integrated Pest Management for Poinsettias - A Manual for Growers and Scouts, is available for $10.00 per copy (U.S. funds) from the University of Connecticut, Office of Communications and Information Technology, U-35, 1376 Storrs Road, Storrs CT 06269-4035.

As recipients of public funding, Extension faculty are accountable to government leaders and stakeholders for reporting program impact. Government-supported programs must demonstrate sufficient public benefits to make them worthy of continuing financial support (Richardson, 1996). Historical contributions or testimony about the past are of little value (Boyle, 1997). Neither are reports of "how hard I worked" or the number of participants in programs. Instead, the focus must be on documenting specific outcomes and the impact of programs on constituents' lives (O'Neill, 1997, 1998).

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 began a systematic process of linking budget allocations to program accomplishments (Boyle, 1997). As a result, Extension faculty will be increasingly asked to document specific outcomes (such as, "what have you done lately?") and compare them to financial investments in a program (Richardson & Phillips, 1995). This article will describe cost-benefit analysis as a technique for comparing program outcomes (benefits) to inputs (costs) to demonstrate accountability. It will also illustrate the cost-benefit concept with specific examples.

There are two parts to a cost-benefit analysis: costs and benefits. Costs can be determined by placing a dollar value on resources required to plan, implement, and complete a program. Examples of costs are the prorated portion of salaries for personnel who plan and implement a program and direct costs such as travel, publications, supplies, printing, postage, phone calls, equipment, and facilities charges (Richardson & Phillips, 1995). Costs that are not directly borne by Cooperative Extension, such a volunteer time and participant fees, should not be included in an analysis.

Benefits are positive outcomes that can be reasonably identified as change resulting from an Extension program (Richardson & Phillips, 1995). Some outcomes (such as, dollars saved, debt reduced) are easy to assign a dollar value to while others (such as, future impact of 4-H leadership development programs in reducing crime rates or encouraging youth to continue their education) may only be ascribed a monetary value indirectly. Techniques for doing this include shadow pricing (for example, valuing the cost of incarceration or the increased earnings with a college degree and making reasonable estimates) and opportunity costs (for example, estimating the costs of poor decisions or resources that were wasted by not receiving Extension information or services) (Richardson & Phillips, 1995). A complete description of alternative ways to value program benefits can be found in the publication Developing Cost and Benefit Estimates on the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Web site http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/resources/education.

Once program costs and benefits are tallied, a cost-benefit analysis is simply a matter of math. As a result, Extension faculty are able to state that they returned $x in benefits to farmers or consumers for every $1 that was invested in a program. Obviously, it is to Extension's benefit if it can be shown that benefits to clientele greatly exceed the cost of implementing a program. The larger the dollar value of benefits relative to program costs (for example, a 20:1 multiple versus a 5:1 multiple), the better.

Two examples of cost-benefit analysis follow:

In North Carolina, county agricultural agents wanted to reduce production costs for corn by teaching farmers to use soil tests as a means of developing correct fertilizer application rates. An educational program was developed that included meetings, a publication, soil samples, farm visits, collection of data from participating farms, and a report of results. The costs to implement the program were as follows:

The total cost to implement the program was $10,500. On the benefit side, 25 farmers reported reducing fertilizer use by 100 pounds per acre on 3,500 acres of corn. The applied cost per pound averages $.15. Thus, the direct benefit of the program can be estimated at 3,500 x 100 x $.15 or $52,500. A case could also be made for valuing secondary benefits resulting from reduced environmental damage caused by unnecessary fertilizer use. Using just the direct benefits, however, the program cost-benefit impact is a savings by farmers of $5 for every $1 spent to implement the program ($52,500 divided by $10,500). With secondary benefits included, cost-benefit multiples would be even larger (Richardson & Phillips, 1995).

In New Jersey, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted of the MONEY 2000[TM] program. MONEY 2000[TM] is a five-year campaign (1996-2000) developed to improve the financial well-being of New Jersey residents (O'Neill, 1998). Upon enrollment, participants set a personal savings and/or debt reduction goal. They are then surveyed every six months to report their progress.

Participants are provided a free quarterly newsletter, debt reduction computer analyses, classes, semi-annual state conferences, a Web site, and a home study course by Extension family and consumer sciences educators (FCSEs). During the first four years of development and implementation (1995-98), the costs associated with MONEY 2000[TM] were as follows:

The total cost to implement MONEY 2000[TM] was $120,000. The largest item, time spent by 20 Extension faculty and staff, used a blended salary rate and an average amount of time per year devoted to the program. Some FCSEs or their staff spent more and others spent less.

As of December 1998, 1,664 New Jerseyans were enrolled in MONEY 2000[TM]. Those who provided data about changes in their financial status reported $1,772,301 of increased savings and $1,274,674 of reduced debt or a total improvement in net worth of $3,046,975. Comparing costs with benefits, over $25 of benefit to participants was reported for every $1 of program costs. Better still, the cost-benefit multiple is expected to increase because most of the costs were incurred "up front" and benefits to participants will continue to accrue.

This article described the process of developing cost-benefit estimates to document the impact and value of Extension programs. This technique involves valuing program costs and outcomes and dividing benefits by costs. The process of valuing program impacts can be relatively easy or difficult, depending upon the impact being assessed. Also, it must be understood that, while primary benefits may be ascribed, there are many mitigating secondary variables that may have influenced outcomes as well. Therefore, it is important to recognize that limitations do exist in the development of cost-benefit estimates.

Even with limitations, however, such estimates can be exceedingly valuable for program accountability purposes because they describe, in an understandable manner, benefits that result from Extension programming. Use of cost-benefit analysis as an accountability tool is recommended for use by all Extension professionals.

References

Boyle, P. (1997, May/June). Where's the impact? Epsilon Sigma Phi Newsletter, Number 68, 1-4.

O'Neill, B. (1997). Documenting the economic impact of financial counseling and planning education programs: Some exploratory strategies. In J. Xiao (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education, (pp.100-109).

O'Neill, B. (1998). Money talks: Documenting the economic impact of Extension personal finance programs. Journal of Extension, 36(5).

Richardson, J. (1996). Extension accountability. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service fact sheet AEE 96-02.

Richardson, J. & Phillips, R. (1995). Developing cost and benefit estimates. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service fact sheet SD-8.

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