Universities that have an outreach mission need to plan in order to more effectively serve the needs of their increasingly diverse populations. According to Christensen and Wylie (1992) there is a need for new approaches to meet the mandate of Cooperative Extension. Additionally, new modes of information dissemination will be important as interest increases in addressing the needs of culturally diverse audiences (Woodson and Sgamma, 1997).

Ultimately, the goals of outreach are practical and action-oriented, such as planning community action (Peterson, 1995), building coalitions (Richardson, 1991), organizing community committees (Dyer & Williams, 1988), and organizing resources and leadership development (Raftery, 1993). However, it is important in the course of planning for these activities to conduct organized and systematic assessments of community needs (Etling & Maloney, 1995; Gessaman, 1993).

Knowing the public's priorities helps the university meet the needs. This information can guide university outreach program development, maintenance and evolution.

In the present study, the authors inquired about the kinds of information the public perceived as needed from a large land grant university. Additionally, they asked about ways in which the public prefers to have access to this information.

Data were collected via a telephone survey of 950 residents of the state of Michigan. The sample was randomly selected and is considered to be representative of Michigan and its regions. Extensive demographic information was recorded as well. The statewide overall sampling error was ±3.2%.

The survey was conducted by Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) in the late summer and early fall of 1998. The present investigators, working with IPPSR, included in this interview items concerning children, youth, families, and communities in Michigan. Respondents were asked about the role of universities in their communities, and whether "having more information and help from Michigan State University with each of these is a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority in your community."

Then they were asked, with respect to each of several methods of information dissemination, whether they highly preferred, somewhat preferred, or did not prefer, that Michigan State University use each method.

Approximately 47% of the respondents were men and 53% women. Whites composed 84.3% of the sample; 12.4% were African-Americans; and 3.4% were other. About 58% of respondents' households had two adults; 15% had only one adult, and the remainder had three or more adults. More than half (55%) had no children 18 and under in the household, and 81% had no children under five years of age. Approximately 35% had less than a high school education or were high school graduates, and 64% had more than a high school education. Almost two-thirds (61.6%) were married; about 1 in 5 (21.4%) were single - never married; and 17% were characterized as "other" in marital status.

The items and their ratings are reported in Table 1.

Michigan citizens were most concerned with protecting children and youth from violence in schools and at home (75%). Treating people equally was also an issue about which citizens wanted more help and information from the university. Health concerns comprised most of the next highest priorities (70 to 74%). Citizens expressed a need for more information about affordable health care and prevention of drug abuse and domestic violence. Seven topics earned more than 70 percent high priority ratings, while only four earned less than 50 percent high priority ratings.

There is rather large variation in the degree to which respondents expressed a high preference for the six sources of information. Public schools were highly preferred most frequently and not preferred least frequently. Schools were preferred as the conduit for information (75%). In addition, a surprising proportion (nearly 50% ) preferred the Internet with television (48%) and MSU Extension (47%) following closely behind. Information dissemination ratings are shown in Table 2.

Preferences for information sources were examined in six MSU Extension (MSUE) regions: Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, West Central, Southwest, and Southeast Urban. Tables 3 - 7 show the preferences for the seven sources of information by region.

There were some notable regional differences between "highly prefer" and "not highly prefer." For radio, the largest difference was in the Upper Peninsula; for television, in the West Central region; for schools, in the Southwest region; for pamphlets, in the Southwest; for the Internet, in the Upper Peninsula; and for MSU Extension, in the East Central region.

These findings suggest critical aspects of public opinion concerning the role of a university in providing information about children, families, and communities. There are prevailing opinions that can serve as a basis for assessing and shaping university programs. In order to be responsive to opinions such as these, university programs need to be flexible. They must evolve in pace with the flow of public opinion. Indeed, the most effective adaptive strategies anticipate probable future modifications in public views. Such projections begin with current public opinion. They are shaped by short-term demographic, technological, and political projections. These perspectives are then examined with regard to probabilities of medium-range periodical and cyclical environmental events. For universities, the consequence of this strategic approach to planning is useful and adaptive.

It is interesting to note the differences in the extent to which respondents preferred certain modes of receiving information, and that these views vary across areas of the state. Given the findings concerning the popularity of the Internet in northern regions of Michigan, current interest in using the Internet to publish Extension documents and more effectively facilitate outreach (Tennessen, PonTell, Romine & Motheral, 1997) is supported. It may be useful to examine other regional preferences for similarly useful information.

Christensen, R.L., & Wylie, N. (1992). The New England Cooperative Extension consortium project: A synopsis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council on Interinstitutional Leadership (Charlotte, NC, October 2.

Dyer, D.A., & Williams, O.M. (1988). Developing effective and efficient local committees. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

Etling, A., & Maloney, T. (1995). Needs assessment for Extension agents and other nonformal educators. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

Gessaman, P.H.(1993). Surveying community needs and priorities: A community needs assessment tool kit. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Cooperative Extension Service.

Peterson, M. (1995). Harnessing the power of vision. Ten steps to creating a strategic vision and action plan for your community. Preparing your community for the 21st century series. Little Rock: University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service.

Raftery, S.R. (1993). Community leadership development for sustainable Alabama communities. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Cooperative Extension Service.

Richardson, J.G. (1991). Networking: Opportunities to build effective extension programs. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

Tennessen, D.J., PonTell, S., Romine, V., & Motheral, S.W. (1997). Opportunities for Cooperative Extension and local communities in the information age. Journal of Extension, 35(5). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Woodson, J., & Sgamma, L. (1997). The challenge of reaching a culturally diverse audience. Journal of Extension, 35(3). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Athens County, a rural county in the Appalachian foothills in Southeast Ohio had a 1997 population was 61,276 (Pritchard & Bolton, 1998), which included the population of Ohio University with more than 17,000 students. The university is the largest employer in the county. The county poverty rate for 1992 was 32% (Crawford & Bentley, 1994). With a diverse population of residents ranging from the very poor to affluent, and 510 farms averaging 160 acres, farmers have an opportunity to capitalize farm production with local markets.

Expanding agricultural production, processing, and marketing programs has long been a high priority for Ohio State University Extension in Athens County. Based on a 1992 program review, new and improved markets for farmers was considered a priority. Other organizations in the county such as Community Food Initiatives and Rural Action also have a focus on marketing.

Ohio State University Extension, Rural Action, and Community Food Initiatives collaborated to assess the marketing needs and opportunities in Athens County. In 1995, community leaders perceived that agricultural production, processing, and marketing opportunities would change substantially in the future. A committee representing these agencies met together to develop an instrument to assess the needs of farmers.

The purpose of the study was to determine needs related to: farming status, perceived needs and interests, and processing and marketing options of farmers and agricultural landowners in Athens County. The first objective was to identify satisfaction with current markets and determine market voids. Objective two was to explore farmer perceptions of processing and marketing opportunities. The final objective was to develop a framework to fulfill these needs.

A mail questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire was pilot-tested by twelve volunteers representing the intended audience to check questions for readability and applicability to the population and appropriate changes were made. In 1996, 510 farms were in the county (Pritchard & Bolton, 1998). A population of farmers and agricultural landowners identified from the mailing lists of Ohio State University Extension, Rural Action, Athens County Farm Bureau, and Community Food Initiatives.

The questionnaire was sent to 509 residents and owners determined to be involved with farming in Athens County on April 10, 1995. Accompanying the questionnaire was a hand-signed cover letter explaining the rationale of the study and a stamped return envelop. Follow-up cards were mailed ten days later.

One hundred-twenty questionnaires were returned for a 24% response rate. Twenty-nine respondents farmed full-time, 47 part-time, and 19 were retired. Forty-five (37.5%) needed improved or expanded markets and 33 (27.5%) indicated that they could use assistance for locating improved markets. The greatest area of marketing interest was for cattle, 29 (24.2%), followed by hay 17 (14.1%), and vegetables 17 (14.1%). There was also interest in processed foods, other livestock, fruit, bedding and nursery plants, and forest products.

The questionnaire included a section asking for additional programs or services needed by the respondents. Agencies could then focus and prioritize efforts based on the results. Improved markets was the number one area of interest, with nearly one-third of the respondents expressing interest, followed by livestock production (30%), farm management (27.5%), natural resource management (23.3%), and extending the grazing season for ruminant livestock (22.5%).

Once the study was completed and results tabulated, plans were developed to meet the needs of area farmers responding to the survey. A cooperator-owned retail store (Farms-Plenty) that features locally grown foods was established as a result of the study. The store sells bedding plants, perennials, fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy, poultry, and meat products produced by local farmers. Value-added products are now being marketed through this cooperative in the form of processed meats, pies, fruits and vegetables through a kitchen and deli. Ohio State University Extension provided information and support during the planning and building of the store.

In addition, sales at the local farmers' market increased by more than 30% in 1998 and a new satellite market was established in 1998 through the leadership of Rural Action. Community Foods Initiative houses community food kitchens to provide start-up businesses facilities to manufacture food products such as salsa and baked goods.

Ohio State University Extension has provided leadership in the area of marketing cattle. Direct marketing of feeder calves has allowed local farmers to add value and increase income from their operation. The local agricultural and natural resource agent provided names of feedlots throughout Ohio looking for fresh calves. The agent helps organize and group calves so they can be sold in large groups. Since 1996, over 1,000 feeder calves have been marketed directly to feedlots in Northern Ohio as a result of these contacts.

Increasing selling price is one way to improve profitability, but lowering costs of production is another. Considerable effort has been provided to area grazing councils to help farmers more efficiently utilize forages and lower overhead costs in order to become more competitive in the marketplace. Many of the educational meeting held also included topics on how to market products, whether it be through the farmers' market, feeder calf pools, local food stores, or direct marketing to consumers. Grazing councils are provided with discussions on direct and niche marketing on a monthly basis.

In addition, the agriculture and natural resource agent has worked with the grazing program leader and Extension agents and specialists on research projects to extend the grazing season for ruminant livestock. A new publication, Maximizing Fall and Winter Grazing of Beef Cows and Stocker Cattle (Boyles, 1998) has been published as a result of this work to help farmers address the issue of extending the grazing season. The Athens County agriculture and natural resource agent also works with the local woodland interest group to develop forestry and wildlife related programs, including income through non-timber sources.

Plans are underway to work with the grazing program leader and the district agriculture and natural resource specialist to provide farm analysis programs utilizing the FINPACK program developed by the University of Minnesota. This program will help potential farmers develop a business program and current farmers expand or start a new enterprise.

Collaboration will continue with Rural Action to assist in the growth of the new satellite farmers' market and the local woodland interest group with the marketing of non-timber products. Leadership will be provided to the Ohio State University Extension, Athens County Master Gardeners as a new project is initiated to develop markets for herbs and flowers.

Marketing has become a higher priority for most farmers in the area. Advertising, improved markets, and cooperation have improved profitability. Many producers are realizing that success can be attained through cooperation with their neighbors.

Boyles, S. L.; Vollborn, E.M.; Penrose, C.D.; Bartholomew, H.M.; & Hendershot, R.L. (1998). Maximizing fall and winter grazing of beef cows and stocker cattle. Bulletin 872, Ohio State University Extension.

Crawford, S., & Bentley, L. (1994). Athens County agriculture profile. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.

Pritch, T. and Bolton, L. (1998). Athens County profile. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.

*At the time of this study, Amy Slonim was a specialist and assistant professor, Michigan State University Extension.

In response to the evolving needs of Children, Youth and Family county Extension agents and statewide resource allocation challenges, the Michigan State University (MSU) Extension food, nutrition and health campus-based staff conducted a needs assessment of home economics agents. The methods used to collect these data were a personal telephone interview with each of the 62 county home economics agents and a follow-up written questionnaire.

The objective of this research was to obtain information to drive strategic priority setting and resource allocation decision making. Specifically, there was a need to document current and planned program activities and resource usage so that priorities for future resource development and training could be effectively established. Another objective was to build rapport and communication between county and campus-based staff members.

Several campus-based Extension food, nutrition and health program leaders and a specialist formed the research team to develop two assessment tools - a structured survey that would be completed in a telephone interview and a 10-page follow-up questionnaire. Both the telephone interview survey and the follow-up questionnaire were reviewed and revised by members of the Extension Food, Nutrition and Health Program Development Committee (consisting of both campus and county Extension staff members) and an evaluation specialist before they were used.

The telephone survey was designed to elicit general information about current program priorities, usefulness of existing resources, preferred type and frequency of training for professional agents and paraprofessional staff members, and preferred delivery methods for receiving information and resources from campus. The research team conducted individual telephone interviews over a three-month period with all 62 home economics agents with food, nutrition and health responsibilities in the six MSU Extension regions of the state.

The in-depth telephone interviews gave county home economics agents the opportunity to elaborate on their responses and enabled campus-based staff members to build rapport with county agents. The follow-up questionnaire was mailed to these agents after the telephone interview. This questionnaire was designed to obtain detailed information on current and future programs, priorities and resources. Forty-five (73%) of the agents returned completed surveys.

Home economics agents have multiple responsibilities in food, nutrition and health. These responsibilities vary among agents and might include managing the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and/or the Family Nutrition Program (FNP), also known as the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program, in their counties; responding to questions from the community; conducting programs outside of EFNEP and FNP; writing newspaper and newsletter articles; writing grant proposals; and/or doing radio and television programs. Both the telephone interview and follow-up questionnaire focused primarily on responsibilities outside of EFNEP and FNP management because those responsibilities had already been established.

Home economics agents reported that they determine the content and target group for program priorities outside of EFNEP and FNP based on client requests, community group needs, and their involvement with community agencies. Their current foci for food, nutrition and health programs outside of EFNEP and FNP were: food safety (18%), dietary changes to reduce risks for chronic diseases (11%), general nutrition (10%), the 5-A-Day for Better Health program (8%), reading food labels (6%), meal planning using the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Guide Pyramid (6%), weight management (6%), and prenatal nutrition along with feeding infants and young children (6%).

Resources considered by most agents to be "vital" and the preferred methods for sending them were: background information and recommendations for issues that "hit the news" (85%) sent via e-mail (84%); updates on current food and nutrition research (75%) sent via e-mail (57%); seasonal camera-ready articles (62%) sent to counties through MSU Extension's county mail system (66%); program ideas shared at meetings that involve staff training (47%) sent through CYF newsletters (21%); and updates on new teaching materials (46%) sent via MSU Extension's county mail system (37%). Resources not considered useful were summaries of journal articles and answers to questions that were frequently asked by individuals using the resource hotline.

Home economics agents reported that they rely on books, such as "The Joy of Cooking" and college textbooks for introductory nutrition, and newsletters, such as the Tufts Newsletter, in their offices first when they get a consumer question they can't answer or need information for a program. Agents turn to the campus staff using the telephone and e-mail hotline on an average of 2.2 times per month to obtain information on food preservation, food safety, and current hot topics and for answers to difficult questions.

Other resources used by home economists were (in descending order of frequency):

• MSU databases, such as preserving food safely and the hotlines database for frequently asked questions,
• Other home economists,
• The USDA canning guidelines,
• Their own files,
• Toll-free telephone numbers such as the American Dietetic Association resource line, and
• Bulletins.

The telephone interview and the follow-up questionnaire included several items asking agents to indicate the value of existing resources and identify future needs. Home economists indicated that keeping MSU Extension bulletins up-to-date and available through the MSU Extension bulletin office is a top priority because they were used to prepare presentations and as handouts, sent to clients in response to telephone calls, and used to update their own knowledge.

Topics for program materials needed by home economics agents for use with Extension clientele and the percent selecting are: meal planning the low-fat, 5 a Day way (51%); fast food choices (44%); nutrition and aging (42%); making food-related behavior changes (40%); nutrition facts and fiction (36%); feeding your children (31%); nutrition and heart disease (29%); safe food handling (29%); weight management (29%); eating the high-fiber way (27%). Home economics agents indicated in the written questionnaire that they would like camera-ready handouts, fact sheets, overhead transparencies and activity ideas combined in an educational "kit" for identified topics.

Agents were also asked to identify what they considered training topic priorities for both new and experienced paraprofessional staff members. Agents stated that the MSU campus staff should provide new paraprofessional staff members with training in these primary areas: the content of the curriculum used in Michigan's EFNEP and FNP, Eating Right is Basic (third edition) (27%); how to teach participants (21%); program delivery (16%); basic nutrition (16%); how to conduct a home visit (15%); and Extension procedures and philosophy (11%). The majority of the agents stated that MSU campus staff members should provide training on updates and timely topics for experienced paraprofessional staff members. Seventy-three percent of the agents felt that existing in-service opportunities met the needs of experienced paraprofessional staff members.

Agents suggested that the MSU campus staff provide training for all paraprofessionals on improving presentation skills (69%), nutrition recommendations for children (42%), basic review of nutrients (36%), adapting programs to a particular audience (31%), low-fat meal planning that includes at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily (29%), distinguishing nutrition facts from fiction (29%), and how to evaluate programs (24%).

Home economics agents were presented with a list of 25 training topics and asked to select up to five from which they would most benefit. The ten most commonly requested topics, in descending order of popularity, are critical thinking related to fact and fiction in the media, how to evaluate programs, changing nutritional needs with age, applying behavior change theories in program implementation, biotechnology, current research on nutrition and heart disease, current research on nutrition and cancer, improving presentation skills, nutrition recommendations for children, and nutrition and drug interactions.

Topics that were not considered high priorities for training for home economists or paraprofessional staff members included nutrition and athletic performance, eating more fiber, weight management, nutrition during pregnancy, breast-feeding basics, handling wild game safely, infant feeding, and immunization education. Breast-feeding basics and immunization may not have been considered training priorities because they are covered in existing training. Respondents did not explain why they considered other topics low priority. Respondents preferred that training be offered regionally or via satellite rather than on campus.

Agents were asked their perception of priority roles for campus-based food, nutrition and health program leaders and specialists. Generally, responses related to these responsibilities:

1. Provide timely, accurate, easy-to-use updates and background information on research and issues that "hit the news" to help county agents be on the cutting edge regarding food and nutrition information.

2. Develop easy-to-use teaching kits including fact sheets with background information, camera-ready handouts and activities ideas. Develop one-page bulletins and update them regularly. Maintain MSU Extension food, nutrition and health databases.

3. Write grants, especially for funding periods longer than one year.

4. Provide training that can be easily applied.

Application of the Findings

Although this project was time intensive, it supplied a wealth of information about county agents' perceived priorities and resource and training needs to assist campus-based staff members in developing strategies and priorities to meet these needs. It also succeeded in increasing communication links between county home economics agents and campus-based staff members. The questionnaires from and results of this study could be used as a starting point for other states interested in conducting a similar needs assessment process.

The development of resources and training to decrease the gap between what exists and what staff members need is an on-going process. The MSU Extension food, nutrition and health campus-based staff used the needs assessment to develop initial priorities for food, nutrition and health programs. Next an action plan for training, developing and revising materials and meeting critical county needs through technology such as e-mail and databases accessible through the Internet was put into place. The Home Economics Food, Nutrition and Health Program Development Committee helped to refine the action plan. In 1999, campus-based staff members are continuing to implement the action plan and adapting it to current county needs.

The authors would like to thank Chris Flood for her contribution to data analysis and the county home economics agents who contributed their time and thoughtful responses.

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

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