As we move into the 21st Century, it is a particularly appropriate time for Cooperative Extension to reflect on where it has been and evaluate where it is going. This includes subject matter, audiences, and methods. This article examines individual consultation as a method still appropriate at the turn of the century.

The primary purpose for Extension in the early 1900s was to "take knowledge directly to the farmers" (W. Rasmussen, as cited by Schweider, 1993, p. viii) by working closely with farmers in one-on-one activities and demonstrations on their farms. Historically, one-on-ones were part of Extension agriculture, but became part of Extension to families during the farm crisis years. Over time though, Extension work became more identified with group meetings and use of media to reach large if not mass audiences. This was driven by several factors including efficiency in reaching larger numbers, limited resources, and reliance upon mass media as sources of information.

Particularly vulnerable was support for one-on-one consultations, as they do not have the multiplier effect or reach as large a number of individuals as do group activities or train the trainer methods. This perceived drain on resources is evidenced in Journal of Extension articles regarding evaluation of one-on-one activities. One article suggests that "Apart from using valuable time, these [one-on-one] calls can reduce already scarce funds for travel and other program necessities" (Varner and Levins, 1987, p. 1). When the benefit of the individualized activities is acknowledged, a caveat is often attached. For example, one-on-ones such as farm visits are seen as holding "an important place in Extension education programs" yet in the same breath it is acknowledged that they are "costly and time consuming" (Calderwood, 1997, p. 3).

In this article, we revisit our roots, to the individual consultations that provided the base from which the Cooperative Extension Service grew. We argue that before completely abandoning one-on-one consultations such a decision should be carefully reviewed. Using data gathered from clients' and Extension field specialists' evaluations of one-on-one activities, we maintain that continuing (or re-implementing) these consultations as part of Extension's portfolio for the 21st Century has mutual benefit, both to the client and to Extension.

In 1996, 1997 and 1998, as part of its evaluation efforts, Iowa State University Extension to Agriculture and Natural Resources field (regional) specialists included follow up on their one-on-one activities. Surveys were created for the topic areas of crop management, farm management, livestock, and agricultural engineering. Information was gathered on behavioral changes and economic impacts resulting from the information, quality of the information received, and types of clients Extension serves.

In this article we highlight combined data from three years (1996-1998) of respondents who sought and received individual information regarding crop management (overall n = 462) or livestock (n = 407). Chi-square analysis conducted indicates the three years did not differ statistically. The surveys are given to different clients each year. In a few cases where the same client is served, it is for a different problem; therefore dependency is not an issue in our findings. We also include qualitative data collected from ten field specialists in summer 1999 by telephone or e-mail.

We were first interested in knowing how clients used the information they received from Extension staff and what changes were made as a result of the contact. Table 1 presents the impacts of the Extension recommendations. Nearly half (48%) of those clients seeking information on crop management indicated they made a change in their operation due to the recommendation. Forty-five percent of the respondents indicated they also used the recommendation to confirm their own plan.

These findings are consistent with those who received information on livestock, with 47% of the individuals indicating they made changes in their operation due to the Extension recommendation. In both crop management and livestock, 7% or less of the respondents did not follow the recommendation given by Extension.

These findings indicate in both subject areas a behavioral change was made by a large majority of the respondents. This change was either adoption of the Extension recommendation and/or seeking information to confirm the client's own plan.

Information on the economic value of Extension to client's operations was also obtained (Table 2). Fifty-eight percent of crop management respondents indicated the information saved them $11 an acre or more. Those who sought out livestock information indicated substantial savings as well. For cattle, nearly half (48%) of the respondents reported the information saved them $11 a head or better. For swine and sheep, 54% indicated they were saving at least $1.01 a head. At a time when both crop and livestock prices are at record lows, these savings are crucial to the producer and show the value of Extension information to the producer' operation.

We were also interested in the quality of information provided, especially regarding the timeliness of materials requested, the usefulness of the information, and the effectiveness of the field specialist when communicating ideas or concepts. A very high majority of clients (ranging from 98% to 100%) in both topic areas indicated they were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the information they received (Table 3). Only 2% or fewer of the clients indicated they were "not satisfied" with the information they received.

These findings clearly reveal that one-on-one consultations are of great use to Extension clients, beneficial change is made, and there is an opportunity to have measurable impact. Thus a change in human and financial capital of the client is one benefit that arises with individual consultation.

Several other advantages also accrue from one-on-one activities for Extension staff. These include providing on-the-job training that keeps staff current in their subject area and helps them establish credibility, making staff more effective change agents. On-the job training includes augmenting needs assessments and providing an opportunity for "in the field" situations from which specialists learn. Keeping current and obtaining information on "real" problems also enhances credibility of the specialist. These benefits to Extension staff are evident in the field specialists' comments regarding one-on-ones.

As one livestock specialist noted, "I have viewed one-on-one consultations as 'on the job training and in-service for me.' They allow for keeping current of the real problems facing producers. If a producer asks for assistance, the suggestion I make will involve [my] seeking answers to the problem and researching for ideas and/or technology that will hopefully solve the problem." That is, the seeking and researching of the problem increases the knowledge base of this field specialist.

The visits also provide opportunities, if the specialists so choose, for their own research, as noted by this crop specialist: "The visits are an excellent learning experience. They provide an opportunity to see what is working and what is not working under various conditions. Thus, when we are 'up in front of people,' we can speak from a perspective of personal observation as well as theory."

Extension staff also utilize the individual activities to conduct needs assessment. "I monitor the types of questions I get and use them as a basis for potential areas of programming. For instance, a couple of years ago, I received a number of questions about grazing. This led to a winter grazing conference," noted a livestock field specialist. Additional livestock specialists commented that the information gained from the consultations allowed them to do more precise needs assessments. "I use individual consultations to double check priority issues. The agricultural press does a good job of identifying national issues for beef producers, but I use individual consultations to pinpoint which of these issues are a priority for Iowa beef producers."

Simply put by another specialist, "Keeping current on what is happening in the field is very important. The best way to do this is to make visits to producers to know the challenges that are facing them." That is, individual consultations assist Extension field specialists with a better connection with what is happening in the real world.

The personal observation that one-on-ones allow also lends itself to gaining or increasing credibility with clients. "In short," notes field staff, "'being there' is a tremendous learning opportunity, providing insights and credibility that could not be achieved in any other way."

A crops specialist summed up many of the benefits of one-on-one consultations when they commented, "I use part of these conversations to help develop views of what is needed by crop producers, and that shapes much of what I am able to cover in many programs the next summer. Also, I use these surveys to alter recommendations I make in the future sometimes, and to insure that I am giving good advice to producers. It makes a person a lot more trustworthy when you can say, 'Last year, when I made this recommendation to a producer about not replanting his beans after hail and they looked very similar to these, he reported that his yields were seven bushels better than his neighbor's-who replanted.'"

The specialist continued, "Not only do you have the research to back you up, you also have a little bit of 'testimonial' type of information, which can help you 'sell' the farmer on the idea, too. After all," he concluded, "we are trying to influence the producer to use research data to make decisions, and salesmanship is a part of that."

Most individuals do not make major behavior change based on mass media information. The promise of the information age is tailored to the individual and people are demanding information to be specific. Although Extension evaluation data shows meetings contribute to some behavior change, large scale, significant behavior changes may be more likely in one-on-one contacts. Individual consultations provide a teachable moment allowing one to take advantage of the opportunity for a substantial change. The feedback data from ISU's one-on-one evaluations show that, when working individually, there is considerable and beneficial change. These impact not only the specific problem addressed, but also strengthen the thought process the clients underwent before, during, and after making the change. That is, the overall learning process is impacted.

The questions then become; (a) when are one-on-ones appropriate, and (b) are they in competition with the private sector. Peter Bloome (1996) discusses both of these issues in his work Extension's Contract with Society. Bloome proposes what Extension should, and should not be involved in. A primary reason for involvement is when the interaction is an exchange relationship, where both the Extension client and Extension specialist are learning from and with each other. Extension should not be involved in offering services that do not involve learning for Extension or program participants, or doing for others what they or other agencies can do (to which we add better). These criteria offer direction for when individual consultations are appropriate and clarification on how they differ from private sector activities.

The previous comments by field specialists reveal that an exchange relationship is clearly a feature in the one-on-ones they are conducting. Their comments strongly suggest that one-on-one consultations may result in benefits far beyond the cost. These consultations provide professional development for Extension staff as well as marketing for Extension overall, as they demonstrate Extension's credibility and competence. The impacts of individual consultation to Extension staff are not as easily measured or quantified, yet the benefits derived from them are unmistakable.

Our findings clearly show one-on-one consultations produce results. These results include an economic and educational value for clients. Moreover, the findings from the surveys have been used extensively by the director of agriculture and natural resources in supporting the work Extension Agriculture has done in Iowa. The results are shared with local Extension councils, commodity groups, policy makers and legislators and show that the public dollars invested in Extension result in improved decision-making by producers that increase profits and reduce losses. Consultations produce results for field specialists by providing them with information on what is happening in the field (both literally and figuratively); providing opportunities for on-going research; and assisting in building credibility.

While our discussion here has been limited to Extension Agriculture, we believe one-on-ones are an essential form of delivery for all components of Extension. Even in a high-tech information age, there is still a critical role for personal interaction. Therefore, a place must be made for one-on-one consultations in Extension's portfolio for the new millennium.

We would like to acknowledge the ISU Extension to Agriculture and Natural Resource Field Specialists who participated in this study. Thanks also to Renea Miller, ISU Sociology Extension Administrative Assistant. Journal Paper No. J-18533 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project No.9999, and supported by Hatch Act and State of Iowa funds.

Bloome, P.D. (1996). Extension's contract with society, Paper presented at the National Workshop for Extension Agricultural and Natural Resource Program Leaders. Overland Park, KS. January 28-31.

Calderwood, L.H. (1997). Survey of dollar value and importance of farm visits to Eastern Vermont dairy farmers. Journal of Extension, 35(2), On-line at www.joe.org.

Schweider, D. (1993). 75 Years of Service, Cooperative Extension in Iowa", by Dorothy Schwieder. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Varner, M.A., & Levins, R.A. (1987). EXPERT/R. Journal of Extension, 25(4).

Most historical accounts of Extension work start with the writing and passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. This approach, however, ignores much of the foundational development of Extension as we know it today. The roots of Extension work in Virginia can be found by examining Congressional district agricultural schools, which were established in 1908 and lasted until full implementation of the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act. A historical study was conducted in order to document this important era in the development of Virginia Cooperative Extension.

Congressional district agricultural schools were state and locally-funded schools, which had the primary purpose of teaching secondary students agriculture and home economics. Alabama and Georgia also established such schools. In Virginia, a school was established in each Congressional district and typically had a farm or experiment station attached as well as a dormitory.

There was a strong relationship between the development of the Congressional district schools and the beginning of Extension work in the state. In fact the principal, who also served as an agriculture teacher at the school, carried on a great deal of Extension work. The principal supervised home projects of his students, organized boys' and girls' clubs, organized farmers' institutes, offered responses to farmers and homeowners making agricultural requests, set up farm experiments and farm demonstrations, and traveled to other schools and community meetings to provide educational programming (Lane, 1915).

Each of the 11 Congressional district agricultural schools in Virginia carried on some form of Extension work. The success of the Extension programming efforts at these schools helped lay the groundwork for Extension programming in the traditional areas of agriculture, home economics, and youth development. By doing so, the Congressional district agricultural schools contributed significantly to the ultimate success of the Extension program in Virginia.

Once established, the schools almost immediately began Extension-type work. The school farms were used to establish experimental plots and to provide practical experience for the agriculture students. The schools encouraged a hands-on approach to learning and, therefore, began organizing agricultural clubs.

In 1908, T.O. Sandy, Virginia's first Extension demonstrator, and Joseph Eggleston, Jr., Virginia Tech president and the first elected state superintendent of public instruction, requested funds from the Virginia General Assembly to initiate boys' and girls' club work (Eggleston, 1940). The first corn clubs were organized the next year through the Congressional district agricultural schools at Burkeville and Chester (Epsilon Sigma Phi, 1940). In 1909, the Chester Corn Club enrolled 25 boys and won the state corn championship. Each member of the club conducted a demonstration by growing an acre of corn. The stated purpose of the club was to create interest in practical farming among boys (Chester Agricultural High School Catalogue, 1911).

In 1910, Ella Agnew, state agent, Girls Tomato Clubs, started the first tomato clubs in Nottoway County through the Haytokah Agricultural High School. The purpose of the tomato club was to teach girls better methods of canning for family use and to make it possible for them to earn money from the sale of their product (Epsilon Sigma Phi, 1987). The Haytokah Agricultural High School also organized a poultry club for girls and boys.

Another Virginia Congressional district agricultural high school, New London Academy, had an active corn club from 1909 until it was converted into a 4-H club in the 1920s. The club was selected as the Virginia state champion corn club in 1913. At that time there were 23 members. The school also had poultry and livestock clubs as well as a canning club (Siddons, 1994).

The agricultural clubs offered by the Congressional district agricultural schools were open to any youth. While most of the members were students of the school, several youth in the local community also joined the clubs (Third Annual Catalogue, 1912).

In addition to organizing agricultural clubs, the schools conducted youth work at rural elementary schools within the district in which the school was located. The principal of Manassas Agricultural High School, Professor Button, wrote the following concerning the in-school Extension programming which he was conducting (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913):

Another successful line of work has been in the rural schools. As 75 per cent of the school children and practically all of the next generation of farmers attend the one-room rural schools, I have endeavored to reach them by such methods as would quickly interest them and were at the same time within reach of my very limited resources. My efforts to improve these schools are along two lines, the schools themselves and the future teachers who are now in the normal training class.

As all farmers keep cows and raise corn, I chose milk testing and seed-corn selection as the best topics for my work in the schools. I borrowed a Babcock milk tester from the dairy division of the United States Department of Agriculture, and with a small exhibit of choice seed corn I visit a country school each week. If the lesson is to be on milk testing, the pupils bring samples of milk and with these I instruct both pupils and teacher in the operation of the test. (p 74-76)

It is interesting that the Appomattox Agricultural High Schools' song and the current 4-H pledge both use the words "head, heart, and hands." Following is the school song as remembered by Mary Inge, a graduate of the Appomattox Agricultural High School (Hillison, 1988):

Girded by a circling hill
Stands a high school proud and wide
The pride of every boy and girl
For she's known throughout the land
Highest purposes to stand
For the enlightenment of the head, heart, and hand

In his 1914 annual report of farmers cooperative demonstration and Extension work, Joseph Eggleston made the following statement concerning corn club work (Eggleston, 1914):

"There is not a single reason why an intelligent, patriotic teacher or superintendent of schools should not give this work his enthusiastic support, while there is every reason that he should. The corn clubs should be organized by the teachers, and in most cases the agent should give his instruction through field meetings on the demonstration plots. I believe that in the future the work will have to be done this way." (p. 37)

There was also evidence of the expansion of home economics programming at the Congressional district agricultural schools in addition to the gardening, tomato, canning, and sewing clubs. The Haytokah Agricultural High School organized home demonstration clubs, which met at the high school and included both students and adult women (J. F. Fletcher, Eggleston collection, February 19, 1916).

In 1913, the principal of the Manassas Agricultural High School reported that the school had organized groups for women (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913). These educational groups met on the same day that the farmers' institute met. Men and women would gather for a general session followed by lunch, which was prepared and served by domestic science students. After lunch the men would engage in educational interaction with an agricultural expert while the women did likewise with an expert in domestic science (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913). Both groups received awards annually. Boys and men received corn awards and the women and girls received awards for sewing and cooking (Round, 1911).

The Congressional district agricultural schools conducted a wide variety of agricultural Extension work. Most of the schools organized and conducted farmers' institutes which were typically one or two days in length. Farmers gathered at the Congressional district agricultural school and participated in educational programs conducted by faculty of the state agricultural college and other agricultural experts (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913). In addition, the farmers' groups often took field trips for on-farm demonstrations and frequently successful farmers shared information during the farmers' institutes (Siddons, 1994). The Manassas Agricultural High School organized the first farmers' institute for their school in 1908 and after three years had an average attendance of 75 farmers (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913).

The high school agriculture classes attended the institutes and students wrote reports which served as material for both English and agriculture classes. According to the principal of the Manassas Agricultural High School, the reports on the farmers' institutes were the best English papers turned in at the school (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913).

As valuable as the information given by the speakers was, the social interaction was even more valuable. Rural citizens at that time were isolated by bad roads and by the lack of community spirit, due in part to the rapid turnover in ownership patterns of farmland in the late 1800s (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913). The Congressional district agricultural school helped alleviate this isolation through the organization of farmers' institutes. Farmers and their wives attended the meetings and time was provided for social interaction.

Another area of agricultural programming conducted through the Congressional district agricultural schools was the winter short course program which was modeled after the short course offered by the agricultural college. Each short course concentrated on an agricultural topic of interest to the local community (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913). The target audience consisted of the sons of farmers. The youth did not have to attend the Congressional district agricultural school to participate in the short courses (Siddons, 1994).

The principal/agriculture teacher at the Congressional district agricultural schools also responded to requests for agricultural information, tested milk and seeds, carried out experiments on the school farm and with cooperating farmers, figured feed rations, and calculated fertilizer formulas ("Chartered in 1795", 1913). In addition, the agricultural teacher spoke to farmer groups, on road trips, and at other schools. Further, he visited the farms of his students during the summer to assist them in conducting their projects (Davis, 1981).

The following quote provides insight as to the similarities between the daily work of the Congressional district school principal and that of an agricultural Extension agent of today (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913, p. 76):

In the village I am constantly called upon to prescribe for the ailments of flowers, trees, shrubs, and to destroy scales, plant lice, caterpillars, and miscellaneous bugs. Outside the village I am more and more frequently called on for expert advice on alfalfa, drainage, locations for orchards, sick cows, sick trees, and the like.

In the same article Professor Button, Principal of the Manassas Agricultural High School, explained that he wrote an article for the two newspapers each week. Button kept abreast of the latest research at the land-grant college and read current scientific publications in order to provide information to farmers.

The development of Extension work at the Congressional district agricultural high schools led to the initiation of shared funding sources for Extension programming. Several Congressional school principals simultaneously served as the county demonstrator. This was true of at least two of the Congressional district agricultural schools: Turbeville Agricultural High School ("Coming home," 1978), and New London Academy ("Chartered in 1795", 1913). During the 1914-15 school session, W. G. Wysor was teaching at the Lebanon agricultural high school two days a week and as the county demonstrator four days a week. Wysor was being paid $750 from federal and state funds and $750 from the county government (J. D. Eggleston, Jr., Eggleston collection, June 17, 1915). Several principals were employed for twelve months, nine months at the school and three months as a county demonstrator (W. S. Green, Eggleston collection, August 18, 1917).

Later the schools had a more formalized relationship as evidenced by school letterhead, which included Extension farm and home demonstrators as faculty members (B. K. Watson, Eggleston collection, March 13, 1917). Another example was found at the Elk Creek Training School. In a letter to Dr. Eggleston, dated August 24, 1916, Principal Charles Graham requested $300 for the school's part of the county demonstrator's salary and an additional $250 for organizing girls' clubs.

It appears that the school principal led a very hectic, fast-paced lifestyle as is the case with Extension agents today. Professor Button, Principal at the Manassas Agricultural High School, made the following recommendation to those seeking to conduct Extension work (Agricultural Instruction in High Schools, 1913).

"Let no one who values comfort undertake this type of Extension work, for there are long rides through deep mud, hurried starts, late returns, and cold returns as the usual accompaniments of the trips." (p. 76)

The Congressional district agricultural schools led Virginia in the development of Extension work and thus secured an interest among localities in such work. The schools proved that a shared funding scheme could be beneficial to everyone involved. The schools in cooperation with the land-grant college developed the traditional Extension programming areas of youth development, home economics, and agriculture. In developing such areas Virginia was prepared for the passage of the 1914 Smith-Lever Act.

Agricultural instruction in high schools. (1913). U.S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin Number 6. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Chartered in 1795: A brief history of New London Academy. (1913, July 6). The Lynchburg News, pp. 1, 4.

Chester Agricultural High School catalogue, 1911-1912. (1911). Chester, VA: Chester Agricultural High School.

Coming home: Old grads return for reunion. (1978, July 10). The Gazette Virginian, pp. 1, 10.

Davis, I. H. (1981). Long glances back: A little history of Middletown Agriculture High School. Stephens City, VA: Commercial Press.

Eggleston, J. D., Jr. (1914). Annual report, farmers cooperative demonstration and Extension work 1914, Extension bulletin, No. 2. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Eggleston, J. D., Jr. (1940). An appraisal of Extension work in Virginia. In Extension work in Virginia: A Brief history 1907-1940. Blacksburg, VA: Epsilon Sigma Phi, Alpha Gamma Chapter.

Epsilon Sigma Phi (1940). Extension work in Virginia: A brief history 1907-1940. Blacksburg, VA: Epsilon Sigma Phi, Alpha Gamma Chapter.

Epsilon Sigma Phi. (1987). College of the fields. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Cooperative Extension.

Hillison, J. (1988). Interview with Mary Inge, graduate of Appomattox Congressional Agriculture School. Blacksburg: Division of Vocational Technical Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Lane, C. H. (1915). High school Extension in agriculture. In Journal of proceedings and addresses of the fifty-third annual meeting of the National Educational Association of the United States, pp. 1132-1136. Ann Arbor, MI: National Educational Association.

Round, G. C. (December, 1911). The agricultural high school legislation needed. The Southern Planter, 74, (2), pp. 150-151, 172.

Siddons, J. (1994). The spirit of New London Academy: The two-hundred year history of a Virginia educational landmark. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books.

Third annual catalogue of the tenth Congressional district agricultural high school. (1912). Appomattox, VA: Appomattox Agricultural High School.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/1999december/ent-co.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.