Volume 37, Number 4
|
August 1999 Volume 37, Number 4 |
|
|
Editor's PageDear Readers, One of the many concerns that Extension people have had in the past few years is the funding for Extension work. I recommend the commentaries to you if you are among those concerned. First is a report from the Personnel and Organizational Development Committee of ECOP, followed by a cautionary word from the friendly folks in Ohio. Youth work looms large in this issue, also. How a community organized for safe families is outlined in an article from Florida, while Georgia contributes a piece about preventing skin cancer among farm youth. Florida also tells us about building an asset-based 4-H program, while Oregon talks about increasing 4-H participation among at-risk youth. Other topics come from agriculture, forestry, and community development, among others. For your information, manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Extension thus far in 1999 are on a record pace, which means that authors must wait several months for word about their work. The editorial committee is being expanded, but it still takes time to work through all the articles being submitted. Your patience is appreciated. The Journal of Extension continues to try to bring you information that can help you work smarter or to view your work in a different way. Read on. Len Calvert, editor Extension Journal, Inc.Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers. Board of Directors:
Tom Archer, Ohio, President Ex-officio: Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, University of Arizona Implications of Increased Alternative Revenue for the Cooperative Extension System: Present and Future Strategies for Success
Judith Ann Barth
Barry W. Stryker
Larry R. Arrington
Syraj Syed Alternative revenue is defined by the Personnel and Organizational Development Committee (PODC) of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) as funds that are not directly appropriated to the Cooperative Extension System (CES) or research units by federal, state, or local governments. In 1987, the Futures Task Force raised several questions about alternative funding and offered suggestions regarding funding methods, such as grants, subcontracting with external agencies, and user fees. As is often the case with resource development, the suggestions made by the Futures Task Force also resulted in the identification of numerous problems: Grant funding poses the problem of relinquishing control of program content to the funding source. Subcontracting raises questions about authority. Which agency will have authority? Who will maintain controlling interest? User fees prompt concern that those with the greatest need will not have the financial resources to access the information necessary to address those needs. User fees will place a financial barrier between Cooperative Extension and the target audience. In 1994 and 1995, a report prepared for ECOP and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) titled "Framing the Future: Strategic Framework for a System of Partnerships" listed broadening resource acquisition' as a major issue for CES. Specifically, the report called for the system to "...continue to build partnerships with state and local agencies and private (including non-profit) organizations that result in the allocation of funds to Extension for educational components of collaborative programs, and to develop strategies for contracting and collecting appropriate user fees as additional revenue sources." In 1997, several components were added to the growing debate on alternative funding for CES. Senator Richard Luger, on behalf of the land-grant system, posed the questions, "Who are the primary users and beneficiaries of the Extension Service? Should consideration be given for user fees to be charged for these services?" A Program Resource Ad Hoc Committee, established by ECOP, identified several reasons why Cooperative Extension may need to seek additional funding: Federal funding through USDA has not kept up with inflation over the past several years. The CES mission extends beyond the USDA/CSREES core vision into areas of community-based needs, which may exist outside the parameters of agriculture and land-grant issues. CES is a point of access for many other agencies that want to tap into the pulse of a community. Today's communities and society face issues that require collaborative effort and attention. CES may enhance its potential impact and effect on a community through these collaborations. Thus, a strong need for a dialogue on alternative funding is necessary. As our society approaches the next century, CES must consider its potential to achieve and maintain a diversified portfolio of additional funding. Since 1996, PODC explored the implications of increased alternative revenue in CES. This article suggests a set of guiding principles for an expanding portfolio of alternative funding sources. Decisions on alternative funding also must be made in accordance with appropriate local, state, and federal guidelines. The guiding principles in this article are not intended to supersede any already existing state policies and procedures. In addressing the various issues associated with alternative revenues, it is important that the Extension System operate from a solid philosophical base. The following guiding principles represent fundamental values that form the basis for obtaining and managing alternative revenue:
Late in 1996, PODC conducted a survey of faculty and staff in selected states. Entitled "A Pulse Survey On Alternative Revenue Issues," the effort was designed to measure the reaction of the system to an apparent increase in alternative revenue sources, to determine issues raised by such increases, and to identify strategies used to deal with those issues. A similar survey was conducted in April 1997 with participants from two workshops at the CSREES administrative officers meeting. The surveys identified three major categories of issues associated with alternative funding:
Through these surveys, PODC identified several strategies that help minimize any negative effects alternative revenue may have on CES. The following strategies were suggested:
There is no doubt that as changes occur in public sector support for higher education, including Cooperative Extension, an increased commitment to alternative revenue will be required. Extension must embark upon a new era in resource development--a system-wide endeavor that enlists the efforts of all faculty and staff. This effort will have a formidable impact on Cooperative Extension, as the system builds an expanded alternative revenue base. Extension programs reach countless citizens on an annual basis. People young and old benefit from timely and practical applications of the latest research results. Alternative revenue will help expand Extension programs to successfully address the critical and often complex issues confronting citizens. The guiding principles outlined in this article are intended to provide a basis from which Extension faculty may approach the growing need for alternative funding and some of the potential problems associated with such funds. For more information on this topic, refer to the PODC report by this same name distributed to all Extension Directors. The report will soon be available on the NASULGC web site: http://www.nasulgc.org. When to Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth
Daney G. Jackson
Linda Johnson As traditional funding sources become stagnant or decline, many Extension organizations are looking for gifts, grants, and fees for services to supplement or replace traditional funding sources. At first glance, accepting grants, gifts, and contracts may look very appealing. Accepting funding without a critical analysis of all the issues involved and the greater mission of the organization can result in increased costs rather than increased income. Those costs can be in the form of real money, lost opportunities due to over committed resources, loss of future funding due to delivering a low quality product, loss of focus or direction of current programs, and loss of other cooperators or funders because of controversial funding partners. There are always real costs associated with accepting outside dollars. The questions, are we aware of all the costs, and do the benefits outweigh those costs, should always be considered. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Healy, 1997) explored the growing importance of user fees among Extension organizations. Monies from user fees, grants, and contracts have been the fastest growing source of funds in the last ten years, increasing 64.4% from 1990 to 1996. Total Extension funding increased only 17.3% during the same period. Massachusetts' goal for the next decade, as reported in that article, is to have 50% of Extension funding derived from grants and user fees. The Futures Task Force for the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) (1987) recommended that both federal and state leaders examine alternative funding sources. They also cited the risks associated with each. Dependence on grants could result in the granting agency controlling programming. Subcontracting could result in Extension working for other agencies rather than the clientele it was meant to serve. Users' fees could limit participation of those who most desperately need Extension programs but who are unable to pay. Even after stating those concerns, the Task Force felt that alternative funding should be pursued. Building effective collaborative partnerships are critical to successfully using grant funds. These partnerships can make or break a project. Too often a quick "yes" answer is given before a critical examination of the issues takes place. For example, organization X has offered $50,000 for programs in a specific area in which Extension has expertise. Do we accept the money? Too often the answer has been yes before asking some critical questions. Once these questions are answered, we may rethink our quick "yes" answer. Examine the following questions before accepting funding: How does this program fit within the mission of our organization? Is it a part of our strategic plans or an emerging priority? If our strategic plans are truly our road map for the future, this "opportunity" should be on or very close to our chosen path. Do we have the personnel, space, expertise, or other matching resources to carry out the work? If not, we may have to staff and fund the overhead of the operation. Have all the costs of the program been identified? There may be strings attached. Costs to administer the program must also be taken into consideration. Is this a priority program? Would other programs have to be dropped in order to pick up this program? There could be a real cost of dropping other programs. What are the implications of accepting the gift or grant? For political reasons, there may be some partners who should be avoided. There are also good partners who have expectations of high quality products. We must meet and try to exceed their expectations if we take their money. What messages would be sent to other funders? We should never put our vision and core values up for sale. If this impression is left with other funders, we may face increasing challenges in the future. Also, we don't want our current partners to think their projects have become unimportant. Would the program duplicate those offered by other public agencies or put Extension in a position of competing with other public agencies? Is there a commitment to continue the program when outside funding ends? Programs can sometimes seem to go on forever, even after funding is no longer available. This is a real cost that can rob resources from other parts of the organization, often higher priority programs. What do we offer the grantor that they cannot do for themselves? What is our product? What is our competitive advantage in the marketplace? Sometimes funders don't wish to undertake high risk projects themselves for fear of failure. On the other hand, they may see a competitive advantage in our organization that we haven't recognized. Can we agree or reach consensus on the audience, products, methods, time lines and other items with the parties involved? Are the agreements formalized and well understood by everyone? Solid answers to these questions can resolve potential problems before they arise. Partnering with others can be a great way to multiply the impact of programs. Outside funding can be a way to keep alive very important programs that are integral parts of our strategic plans and to develop new programs for new audiences. Outside funding can also allow us to focus on an area of importance without taking resources away from other programs. Accepting these gifts and grants might serve as a short term gain/win with long term costs. Stick to the niche developed for your unit or organization. Keep customer focus, the people the program is being delivered to and the funding party(ies) who are paying to have the program delivered. Keep in mind the primary customer and don't forget there are secondary customers to satisfy as well. Remember to hold yourself accountable for the outcomes to both. There are, of course, both pros and cons associated with outside funding. Although this article may appear to be rather negative toward the acceptance of outside funding, the intent is raise the reader's consciousness about all issues associated with nontraditional funding sources for Extension. Whiting (1995) identified the paradox associated with external funding--Extension needs to attract external funding but cannot allow that funding to drive programming and jeopardize Extension's reputation for unbiased information. References Healy, P., (1997, September 30). Extension services weigh pros and cons of charging fees to users. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Futures Task Force to the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (1987). Extension in transition: Bridging the gap between vision and reality. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Whiting, L. R. (1995). Ten paradoxical challenges: A philosophical reflection. In J. A. Buford, A. G. Bedeian, & J. R. Lindner (Eds.), Management in Extension (pp. 323-336). Columbus: The Ohio State University. A Research Based Approach to the Development of Educational Programs for Extension Clientele: A Case Study on Land Use Issues in Ohio
Stephen Hudkins
Thomas W. Blaine Introduction and Problem Statement In recent years economic growth has brought expansion of businesses and residential development further and further into the countryside far beyond previous city centers and suburbs, resulting in growing numbers of citizens becoming alarmed about the loss of farmland and open space. The complexity of issues such as this has brought about enormous challenges in program development for Extension educators. To address these complex issues, Extension programs, typically developed through input from clientele committees, must now move beyond traditional approaches in order to provide relevant and timely programming. Application of research generated at the local level has become inextricably linked to the way Extension professionals develop programming (Nieto, Schaffner, & Henderson, 1997). This became very apparent as land use issues began to take center stage in Portage County, Ohio in the mid 1990s. Portage County (PC), located in the midst of the metropolitan areas of Cleveland, Akron-Canton, and Youngstown, is perhaps similar to many areas of the country. In the past, Portage County was primarily an agrarian community. However, with easier access to and from places of employment because of improved highways, along with the increased desire of residents and businesses to move away from the cities, Portage County has experienced severe growth pressures in the past decade. During this period, population grew at the rate of about 6% per year. This resulted in the conversion of approximately 1,000 acres of farmland to non-farm uses per year. The number of dairy farms in the county fell from 150 in 1985 to 45 in 1996 (Ohio Department of Agriculture). As residents observed rapid changes in the landscape, many became alarmed at the encroachment of development on agricultural lands. Township and county-wide organizations sought the assistance of Ohio State University Extension to help them understand what was happening to their community. One of the first steps was to obtain a systematic summary of the views of members of the community at large, since the views of traditional Extension clientele do not necessarily reflect those of the overall public. Research has shown that residents' views on land use issues vary from community to community (Lembeck, Willits, & Crider, 1991; Kline & Wichelns, 1996). The purpose of the study undertaken was to determine the attitudes of residents about the importance of preserving agriculture in the county. The basic research questions addressed were (a) whether residents of Portage County believe that the loss of farmland and open space are significant problems, (b) what steps they believe are appropriate in dealing with land use issues, and (c) whether these views and opinions vary based upon important demographic factors such as length of residence in the county and occupation. Survey Design Mail surveys were sent to a sample of 1,854 residents of six townships in Portage County. The sample was taken randomly from a list provided by Americalist, obtained by Haines and Co. of North Canton, OH. Sampling procedures were undertaken following techniques described by Dillman, (1978). A total of 649 usable responses were returned, for a response rate of 35%. One of the key questions that inevitably arises in survey research is whether those who responded differ significantly from non-respondents (non-response bias). Miller and Smith (1983) developed a well known procedure to test for this phenomenon, and it was employed in this study. A random sample of 70 of the non-respondents were telephoned, and their answers tested for statistical differences with the responses of those who had returned usable mail surveys. An F test with criteria of p<.05 was used. No differences were found at this level. Thus the authors can say with 95% confidence that non-response bias was not a problem in this survey. Respondents were presented with a series of statements regarding agriculture and land use in PC. The survey incorporated a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 5 = strong agreement, 4 = agreement, 3 = no opinion, 2 = disagreement, and 1 = strong disagreement. Respondents were also asked about their occupation, and then categorized as one of the following: full-time farming, part-time farming, and non-farming residents. They were asked about how long they had lived in the county, and grouped again: less than five years, between five and ten years, and more than ten years. Results and Discussion The frequencies for the responses to the statements in the survey are presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows all three of the cases where statistical differences were found among groups.
Statement 1: We need to preserve agriculture in Portage County. A total of 90% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. This result demonstrates that there is a strong consensus among the residents of Portage County that agriculture should be preserved. No significant differences existed among groups. Not a single respondent strongly disagreed with this statement. Statement 2: New people who move to Portage County want to preserve agriculture. Only 33% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. While virtually all respondents want to preserve agriculture, there is not a consensus that newcomers are of a like mind on this, even though they (new residents) expressed this desire in statement one above. Here again there was no statistical difference between groups, which indicates that even the residents of less than five years themselves are saying that residents who just moved to the county do not want to preserve agriculture. Evidently what they mean is that new residents other than themselves are not interested in preserving agriculture. Statement 3: Agriculture is a major contributor to the economic base in Portage County. The high rate of agreement on this statement across all groups reveals that respondents value agriculture not only for aesthetic reasons, but also as a viable industry with important economic impact in the community. Statement 4: People move to Portage County for rural character. This result, with over 90% in agreement or strong agreement, demonstrates that the residents recognize the role of rural character in making Portage County an attractive community in which to live. Residents of 10 years or less were more likely to agree with this than longer terms residents (Table 2).
Statement 5: Portage County is a farming community. Here there was an extremely strong level of statistical difference between farm and non-farm groups. Non-farms residents were much more likely than part-time or full-time farmers (p<.05) to agree that Portage County is a farming community (Table 3). This demonstrates that there is a major difference in the way that the county is perceived by the different groups, and probably means that the conceptions of what it is that constitutes a farming community are radically different between farmers and non-farmers. It is interesting to note that a statistical difference was not observed here regarding length of residence, since often perceptions of community character differ between those who have witnessed changes such as growth and those who never knew the community prior to this growth.
Statement 6: Agriculture in Portage County is on the way out. On this statement, opinions diverged greatly, but with relatively few respondents in strong agreement. This indicates that while most respondents are deeply concerned about the future of agriculture in Portage County, they believe that there is time to take action to preserve it. Even farmers who, in statement five, indicated that they no longer see Portage County as a farming community, were not significantly different from non-farmers in terms of believing that agriculture will vanish from the county. Statement 7: Free market economics should determine the use of land. A total of 60% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Only 2% strongly agreed with it. This probably bears on the reactions to statement one. Residents see the changes taking place in the county, the loss of agricultural land in particular, and are aware that market forces that are driving land use. The primary question that emerges from this is, if the market should not be the driving force behind land use, what should? Typically, remedies are divided between regulations (such as zoning,) and incentive programs which involve subsidies or tax breaks. Most subsidy programs (such as purchase of development rights) require financing, which is usually obtained from some type of taxation. Statement 8: There should be a tax to help pay to preserve agriculture. The tax idea met with fairly strong opposition. Only 28% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this position, while 60% opposed it. Another 12% expressed no opinion. Ironically, the opposition was slightly greater among farmers (although not statistically significant with p<.05). Perhaps the opposition here, and particularly among farmers, is a lack of understanding as to how such a tax might be generated and the revenue distributed. It may also be due to the general dislike for taxation. Statement 9: Portage County should enact legislation to preserve farmland. This idea had a broad range of support, with two-thirds of the sample either agreeing or strongly agreeing. Typically, farmers may object to this type of approach for fear that it will hinder their choices as to how they use their own land. That sentiment was noticeably absent from this sample, which indicates that members of the farming community in Portage County would be willing to make sacrifices on their land in order to keep it in agriculture. Statement 10: Farmers in Portage County should receive tax breaks on their land so that we can preserve agriculture. Tax breaks received a great deal of support across the board, with 89% of respondents in agreement or strong agreement. Despite the strength of support, a statistical difference was noted between groups (p<.05), not surprisingly with non-farm residents less likely to support or strongly support this type of remedy (Table 3). Statement 11: We in Portage County are well enough informed to make prudent land use decisions. This result presents the greatest challenge to Extension educators. A total of 55% of respondents were either unsure, disagreed or strongly disagreed that members of the community are well enough informed to address the issue of land use. Given the degree of importance respondents placed on agricultural preservation, along with an unwillingness to allow market forces alone to determine land use, this finding could be interpreted as a "cry for help" from the public. Conclusions Land use in this study was identified by local clientele as an important issue that needed to be addressed. OSU Extension personnel had the knowledge base to address the topic, but were not aware of where the citizens of the county were on the "learning curve" related to land use. Initially, an effort was made to develop educational programs related to the importance of the value of agriculture to the local economy. The survey results revealed that the community was already keenly aware of the importance of agriculture to the economy as well as to the rural character of the community. Therefore, to expend efforts in educational programming directed at this aspect of the land use topic would have been superfluous. On the other hand, most respondents are unconvinced that the community is prepared, in terms of information, to address the land use issues which confront the county. Taken together, these results indicate that the appropriate role for Extension would be to teach members of the community about which land use tools have been utilized in other areas of the country, how they were implemented, and what the impacts have been. Regardless of what tools (if any) are adopted in Portage County, if a survey taken in the future reveals that Extension helped to bridge this significant information gap, then the Extension mission will have been accomplished. The land use education program launched by Ohio State University Extension professionals consisted primarily of the following efforts: 1) Hosting local round tables where residents were invited to share their concerns about land use trends. This enabled residents to learn about their neighbors' views, to discover how widespread their own concerns were, and to break down misconceptions such as those discussed under statements two and four in the survey. 2) Publishing a fact sheet series on land use. This series consisted of 11 fact sheets which primarily focus on tools that state and local governments, property owners, and developers can utilize to manage growth while preserving farmland and rural character. These tools include tax breaks for agriculture (statement 10), purchase of development rights, agricultural districts, agricultural zoning, comprehensive planning, and cluster development. Copies of the fact sheets have been posted on the Web at htpp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~landuse. 3) Conducting a series of workshops, seminars, and conferences on land use education. These programs featured a variety of speakers, including public officials and farmers from numerous states where land use has been a dominant issue for considerably longer than in Ohio. The speakers addressed how they had adopted land use tools in their areas, which tools they believed had been most successful, and how they might proceed differently if starting over today. Since Extension educational resources are scarce, it is far more efficient to conduct survey research of clientele to ascertain their knowledge base and view of a subject than it is to develop programs without an understanding of where potential audiences are in terms of their views and knowledge. The survey results presented in this study were extremely beneficial to Extension educators involved in the land use issue in Portage County and helped to lay the foundation for land use educational programming that was developed and presented throughout much of the state as the issue continued to emerge in the late 1990s. References Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996). Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation. Land Economics, 72(2). Lembeck, S. M., Willits, F. K., & Crider, D. M. (1991). Public attitudes toward farmland preservation in Pennsylvania: Analysis of a statewide survey. University Park: Report 226, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University. Miller, L.E. and Smith, K. E. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 21 (Sept/Oct). Nieto, R.D., Schaffner, D., & Henderson, J. L. (1997). Examining community needs through a capacity assessment. Journal of Extension, 35(3). Ohio Department of Agriculture. Ohio Agricultural Statistics and Ohio Department of Agriculture Annual Reports, various years. Columbus: Author. Building an Asset-based Program for 4-H
Daniel F. Perkins
Judith R. Butterfield "In our desire to rear healthy productive youth, our policies and actions should not be restricted to prevention or cures but should include cultivating skills and meeting needs" (Pittman & Cahill, 1992). 4-H youth development programs have a long and successful history of enhancing the lives of the youth they serve. 4-H programs can be categorized as prevention programs, that is, they are designed to help keep young people from engaging in risky, health-compromising behavior. However, 4-H is more than prevention; it embraces positive youth development. 4-H is designed to help young people develop the kinds of skills needed to make positive, healthy decisions, now and in the future. Problem-free youth are not necessarily fully prepared youth. Addressing problems facing youth (alcohol and substance abuse, antisocial behavior, early sexual activity, and teenage pregnancy) requires an emphasis on positive youth development strategies as well as problem prevention and intervention strategies (Perkins, Haas, & Keith, 1997). Both human and capital investments, must be made to create opportunities for youth to expand their own capacities as they journey to adulthood, and to prepare them to be productive citizens in the next millennium. The aim of this article is to examine the assets of youth in Duval County 4-H (the city of Jacksonville, Florida). This article presents a composite look at the attitudes and behaviors of these youth and presents a plan for programming in Duval County 4-H to help youth develop assets reported as being low. Sample Characteristics The data for this study were gathered from a survey administered to 4-H'ers in Duval County. The survey instrument was developed using the Search Institute's Attitudes and Behaviors Survey (Benson, 1990) and a specialized 4-H survey. In order to maximize the sample size, clubs with ten or more members were targeted for this study. A total of 167 youth from eleven 4-H clubs completed surveys. Of these, 151 surveys were suitable for analysis. The other sixteen surveys were considered invalid because they were missing too much information or had a high score on the lie assessment scale within the survey. Overall the respondents consisted of slightly more females (52%) than males (48%). The majority of the youth sampled were seventh graders (35%), followed by tenth (27%), sixth (20%), and eighth graders (18%). It is important to note that ninth, tenth, and eleventh graders were combined into the tenth grade category to create an adequate size category for statistical analyses. The respondents included European American youth (66%), African American youth(22%), multi-racial youth (9%), Hispanic youth (3%), and American Indian youth (1%). Three quarters of the youth were from the suburbs of Jacksonville while 25% were from the inner city. Twenty-five percent of youth were home schoolers and 25% were part of Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Youth who completed this study had been involved with 4-H for over two years. For approximately one-third of youth who completed the survey, 4-H was their only activity; that is, they were not involved in any after-school clubs, sports programs, or religious groups. Nineteen percent of the youth involved in 4-H were also involved in both after-school clubs and sports programs. Some youth were involved in 4-H and sports programs (18%) while others were involved in 4-H and after-school clubs (11%). Twenty-eight percent of the youth did not answer that question. However, these results indicate the importance of 4-H as the only activity for 33% of this sample. Importance of Adults: We All Need to Respond In addition to positive relationships with their parents, youth need positive relationships with other adults. Numerous "resiliency" studies (Bogenschnieder & Olson, 1998; Seita, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1992) have demonstrated that one key factor in a youth's life is a supportive, mentoring relationship with a non-related adult, such as a volunteer leader from a youth development program like 4-H. Fifty-three percent of the responding 4-H'ers in Duval County reported support from three or more non-parental adults. In 4-H clubs, youth have the opportunity to interact positively with adult leaders. Indeed, the majority of youth in this study reported that adults in their 4-H club make them feel important (65%) and listen to them (64%). In addition, most youth reported that their volunteer leader does pay attention to them (74%). Thus, youth involved in Duval County 4-H report that at least one adult, their 4-H leader, who cares about them. Positive youth development is most likely to occur in settings that provide an atmosphere of caring and nurturance. According to this data, then, 4-H clubs are providing a setting that is caring and nurturing. However, fewer than half the youth (43%) reported having a conversation with a 4-H adult that lasted 10 minutes or more. Only 32% of the youth reported having two or more conversations with a 4-H adult for 10 minutes or more. Similarly, 43% of the youth reported feeling comfortable talking to their 4-H leader about an important issue. According to this finding, 4-H youth do not converse with their 4-H leaders as much as might be expected or hoped. Thus, volunteer training may need to spend more time emphasizing the importance of adult-youth conversations. Assets Assets are factors promoting positive youth development. The asset-based approach is grounded in the literature on "risk and resiliency." Several factors within this literature appear to protect young people from experiencing severe, long-term damage as a result of adverse conditions (Benard, 1991; Blyth, 1993; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Keith & Perkins, 1995; Lerner, 1995; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1992). These assets may result from "external" factors such as positive relationships in families, friendship groups, schools, and the community, or they may result from "internal" factors reflecting the teenager's convictions, values, and attitudes (Benson, 1990). The assets, as presented in Tables 1 and 2, can equip adolescents to make wise choices. Among surveyed 4-Hers in Duval County, some assets are encouragingly common; 75% or more reported having family support, religious community (constructive use of time category), integrity, and positive view of personal future (see Tables 1 and 2). In general, a higher percentage of Duval County 4-Hers report possessing each asset than did youth from the Search Institute sample. The Search Institute sample includes over 100,000 youth surveyed from 213 community across the United States. While the samples are comparable, the Duval County sample is proportionally more ethnically diverse than the Search Institute sample.
However, fewer 4-H youth in Duval County reported feeling safe than did youth from the Search Institute study (42% and 55%, respectively). Compared to youth from the Search Institute study, fewer 4-H youth in Duval County reported planning and decision-making skills, peaceful conflict resolution skills, and personal power. Moreover, other assets are alarmingly rare among Duval County 4-H'ers. For example, 30% or fewer reported engaging in creative activities and having planning and decision-making skills. As youth get older and face tougher choices, the number of assets tends to decrease in all the categories except the external asset category of constructive time use. The average 4-H respondent in Duval County reported 53% of the external assets and 55% of the internal assets. On average, 4-H'ers in Duval County had 22 of the 40 assets. This average is higher than the average for the large sample of youth (18 of the 40 assets) collected by Search Institute. Programming Response Educational youth development programs like 4-H have a three-fold focus: (a) to afford youth interactions with positive adult role models, (b) to provide youth opportunities to build the skills and competencies necessary for them to be productive, contributing members of society, and, thus, (c) to prevent youth from engaging in problem behaviors. This investigation furnishes important information about assets that provide direction for future programming. Generally, Duval County 4-H youth are doing well in most asset categories. However as noted earlier, one category, social competencies, contains the lowest number of reported assets among the Duval County 4-H youth surveyed. As such, specific programming is needed to provide 4-H'ers opportunities to build and enhance their social competencies. In order to address this issue, 4-H in Duval County has developed and is currently piloting an asset-building program within four clubs. Three assets from the social competency category (such as, decision-making, cultural competency, and peaceful conflict resolution skills) will be targeted in a club curriculum. Within the curriculum are brief learning sessions and experiential activities designed to afford youth opportunities to learn about and build their decision-making skills, peaceful resolution skills, and cultural competencies. The county 4-H faculty are providing training and technical assistance to the adult leaders within the participating clubs. There are ten learning sessions that are being conducted in each club over a five-month period (February 1998-July 1998). An evaluation of the program is being conducted to assess the effectiveness of the curriculum in increasing these particular assets. The evaluation design consists of a brief paper-and-pencil instrument to be conducted as a pretest, post-test, and as a six-month follow-up. A comparison group, comprised of 4-Hers in a Duval County 4-H club that is not implementing the curriculum has been established. The data from clubs participating in the curriculum and the non-participating club will provide a solid foundation for assessing the impact of the curriculum. In addition, information from the formative evaluation will be used to revise the curriculum and prepare it for voluntary use in all of Florida's 4-H clubs. The Dynamics of Positive Youth Development Even when youth are not plagued with problems, positive youth development does not occur naturally. Positive youth development involves acting in ways and doing things that build and develop youth's assets. The history of 4-H is one of positive youth development programming. A two-pronged approach "to prevent at-risk behaviors and to promote assets" is necessary to alter the frequency with which adolescents make choices that compromise their health or jeopardize their future (Perkins, Haas, & Keith, 1997). It is important to note that the assets discussed in this study are powerful in predicting at-risk behavior but do not fully explain at-risk behavior. Other factors are likely to play a role, including family support, specific family discipline styles, family income, school dynamics other than climate, and exposure to particular kinds of prevention programs. Further research is needed to learn more about these relationships. At the same time, it should be noted that broad social and cultural factors might be at work, each of which is beyond the capacity of families and communities to alter. Conclusion This article demonstrates the importance of employing strategies that incorporate data about the needs and desires of their target audience. In addition, using a theoretical framework (i.e., the asset model)for program development is useful not only in guiding in the collection of information, but also in providing a systematic plan for program design. Finally, although not addressed in this article, the employment of a theoretical framework affords the potential for sound evaluation of objectives derived from that framework. Positive youth development, then, is most likely to happen in a program where there is an extraordinary commitment to children and youth. Programs that focus their attention on increasing the assets of young people are most likely to succeed in building strong and resourceful youth. In turn, these programs are decreasing the number of youth who become involved in at-risk behaviors and the resulting loss of human potential. Duval County 4-H offers quality youth development programming. Currently, 4-H is enhancing its ability to meet the challenges facing youth by including targeted asset-based programming as presented here. References Benson, P. L. (1990). The troubled journey: A portrait of 6th-12th grade youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Far West Laboratory. Blyth, D. A. (1993). Healthy communities, Healthy youth: How communities contribute to positive youth development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Bogenschneider, K., & Olsen, J. (1998). Building resiliency and reducing risk: What youth need from families and communities. Madison: Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report. Furstenberg, F., Jr., & Hughes, M., E. (1995). Social capital and successful development among at-risk youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 580-592. Keith, J. G., & Perkins, D. F. (1995). 13,000 adolescents speak: A profile of Michigan Youth. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Children, Youth, and Families. Lerner, R. M. (1995). America's youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. Perkins, D. F., Haas, B., & Keith, J. G. (1997). An integration of positive youth development within the runaway youth and homeless shelter system. New Designs for Youth Development, 13, 36-41. Pittman, K. J., & Cahill, M. (1992). Youth and caring. Center for Youth Development. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331. Seita, J. (1994, Summer). Children on the edge: Resiliency from the other side of the desk. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 15-18. Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Increasing the 4-H Participation of Youth from High-Risk Environments
Beverly B. Hobbs 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:
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. An Evaluation of an Agricultural Innovation: Justification for Participatory Assistance
Robert N. King
Timothy J. Rollins 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. Florida Master Gardener Mentor Program: A Case Study
William Phillips, II
Joan Bradshaw 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
