Volume 37 Number 6
|
December 1999 Volume 37 Number 6 |
|
|
Editor's PageDear Reader (or should I say Friend?), This is my last issue as editor of your Journal of Extension. It has been an interesting and fun four years, thanks to you. I have been fortunate to work with a splendid board of directors and a great group of reviewers. The reviewers are very thorough in their evaluations and careful in their comments. I hope that authors have learned from them. The work done within the Extension System never ceases to astound and I will miss keeping up with the issues and concerns as reflected by your manuscripts. I will miss dealing with the authors. Although I have never met most of you, I feel that some of us have become acquainted. I will miss getting things from Barbara O'Neill in New Jersey, Rey Santos in Texas, Robert Fetsch and Bart Beaudin in Colorado, Stephen Duncan and Kirk Astroth in Montana, among others. It has been fun working with all of you. I leave knowing you will be in good hands with Laura Hoelscher of Purdue as your new editor. Be patient with her during this change over. There's a lot of detail to learn in this job! I can't stop without saying a big thank you to Patrick Robinson at Virginia Tech and Jim Lemon at Ohio State for their support and help with the technical end of JOE. They have really helped make the editor look good. And I can't forget Barbara Sawer, Oregon 4-H and evaluation specialist emeritus, who was my back-up reader and APA-style guru, who was invaluable. Your Journal of Extension is entering the new century poised for even greater things as this issue demonstrates. In this issue, for the first time since the electronic version was introduced, you will find graphics in two of the articles. This capability will greatly enhance the effectiveness of JOE. Your Journal is receiving more articles each year. This year, the total should reach or exceed 140 articles submitted, which I believe is a record number. JOE published 99 articles in 1999. In a way, this is my second retirement, the first being from 30 years with the Oregon Extension Service. But I will still be involved with Extension; in a moment of weakness I agreed to write a history of the Oregon Extension Service and now I will have the time to devote to that task. Enjoy your December issue of JOE. As usual, it is full of good information about programs, evaluation, program planning, and trends in Extension. Have a happy holiday season and a great new century! Len Calvert, editorExtension 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:
Satish Verma, Louisiana, President, Member-at-Large Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, University of Arizona Extension's Portfolio for the 21st Century: A Place for One-on-One Consultations
Peggy Petrzelka
Steve Padgitt
Wendy Wintersteen
Iowa State University
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). History of Extension Work in Virginia Prior to Smith-Lever
Cathy M. Sutphin
John Hillison 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 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. Providing Program Review for Cooperative Extension Publications
Terrell P. Salmon
Claudia Myers Background Cooperative Extension (CE) resources, including publications, must be focused on the highest priority programmatic needs. Critical decisions regarding publications include deciding what publications to write, the cost of production, and the publication's support of program needs. Like all Extension materials, publications need to be accurate, appropriate for the intended audience, and of high quality. Periodic review of publications in print is needed to insure accuracy in light of current information. In California it is believed that these standards are necessary for a respected and vital CE publication program. With increasing pressure on Extension staff and their budgets, addressing these is more important than ever. In the past, development of most California CE publications by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources internal publication unit required several reviews and approvals to ensure the publications were of high quality. Even with these reviews, however, the publication process was often ignored by potential authors because of slow production, unavailability of specialists in specific areas, unclear decision making (determining which publication to print), and basic unfamiliarity with the process. As a result, the vigor of the publications production system in California CE had declined to the point where many authors had simply stopped using it. Instead, many authors were using desktop publishing and outside sources to produce publications on their own. While this trend made it easier for people to publish and distribute Extension materials, CE review and approval of these publications was inconsistent, despite the fact that many carried the University banner. Addressing the Problem In 1993, the vice president of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which includes Cooperative Extension, recognized the problem with CE publications and appointed an ad hoc committee of CE and external members to address it. This committee, through a facilitated process, addressed the entire communications need of the Division. One of the committee's major recommendations was creation of a complete communications unit by bringing the Publications group together with Visual Media and Agriculture Communications. Another recommendation was to establish a communications advisory board to advise the newly created unit. A significant part of the ad hoc committee's work was the development of a more structured publication review process with the goal of ensuring quality publications that meet high priority program needs of the division. However, it was important that this review process not overburden division staff. The committee members also recognized the need to reward authors and reviewers for using and supporting the review system. The key to the new peer review system is the associate editors who are program-based CE Specialists, Agriculture Experiment Station faculty, or county CE advisors. They are appointed for three-year terms in specific program areas such as natural resources, human development, pomology, 4-H Youth Development, and Spanish language materials, for example. There are 13 overall. They manage anonymous peer review and approve publications and other educational materials such as video or slide set scripts based on programmatic need. The review can be of several levels, depending on the scope of the material. For example, one- to four-page publications are reviewed by one or two reviewers. More reviewers see lengthier publications. When publications are multidisciplinary, reviewers from other disciplines are also included. When appropriate, two or more associate editors work together with one taking the lead in the review process. Once the reviews are completed, the associate editor has the authority to approve, ask for revision, or reject the manuscript. The focus of associate editors is on accuracy, appropriateness, and programmatic acceptance. They do not have to deal with issues of layout, style, or grammar. When the review is completed, the associate editor sends the manuscript to the Communications Services unit for editing, design, production and distribution. In some cases, an ad hoc associate editor who deals only with a specific publication can be appointed. In this way, an individual familiar with the subject can spend the time necessary to coordinate review of a large publication, especially one by multiple authors. Creating Flexibility When developing this new review process, it was recognized that many people had gone outside the system for publication editing, design and printing, especially when extramural funds were available. In the new review process, this is still allowed. The associate editors manage the review of these manuscripts and, once accepted, turn them back to the author to produce outside the university system. Nonetheless, these are still University of California publications. They receive a division publication number, are indexed in the publications catalog, and can receive other marketing efforts as appropriate. In the effort to capitalize on success, the communications advisory board can also approve alternate review processes such as those that had been in use prior to the development of the associate editor process. For example, the 4-H Program's curriculum committee looks at 4-H curriculum needs and reviews materials for appropriateness for 4-H. The communications advisory board approved this process because it met the overall goal of anonymous peer review of materials. This support of existing review processes has helped keep people engaged in and supportive of the new review effort. Dealing with Resources Once the technical review of publications is established, the resource issue must be addressed: which publications to publish. The communications advisory board and editorial staff determined the total number of manuscript pages the Communications Services unit could handle in a year. Each associate editor was then given an allotment -- known as a page block -- which consisted of a certain number of manuscript pages that they can approve for publication per year. This forces the associate editors to make priority decisions about which publications to publish. The associate editors have been encouraged to and are working with local program groups to help them make those decisions. Proposals for major publications (larger than 225 manuscript pages) require greater resources and are approved by the advisory board using its page block. After this approval, the manuscripts are sent through peer review by the appropriate associate editor(s). Results of This Process The new review process has been in place for about four years and, by almost all accounts, is working well. The associate editors are well engaged with program staff and decisions are being made according to publication quality and program priorities. There has definitely been a resurgence in large publication activity, which is attributed at least partially to the associate editors' discussions with work groups and others to encourage and discuss publication needs for Extension programs. In addition, because of the page block process, authors have a better sense of when their publications will be done. Another important consequence is that existing publications and materials are being cyclically reviewed for accuracy. This cyclical review solves a long-standing problem because once publications were completed they were often never looked at again. Associate editors have the responsibility for all publications within their program areas, including deciding which to continue. They are also able to deal with publications needing revision in cases where authors have left or are no longer available. They have the authority to remove a publication from circulation or ask others to revise it as necessary. Implications This review process breathed fresh air into the publications program in the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources in California. Its implications are tremendous. Not only has it improved authors' desire to work on written publications, but they are also now contributing to publications for the WWW and for other media such as video, slide tapes, and computer programs. The fact that the publications are peer-reviewed through an editorially managed process gives authors more personal incentive to write because the peer-reviewed publications look better for their merit and promotion package. Work groups and other groups of Extension and Agriculture Experiment Station staff are taking more interest and ownership in publications within their program areas because they have responsibility and control. They are deciding when publications need to be discontinued and are working together to write new publications or other material. One of the most important results of the associate editor review process is the demonstrated commitment by CE administration in the development of quality publications. This has also energized the Communication Services staff and brought them more closely into the programs of CE. The associate editor review process was a major change that substantially turned around the publications program. It is resulting in more and higher quality publications that truly serve the needs of CE. The system is relatively inexpensive to operate and is driven at the programmatic level. It is not perceived as, nor is it, a major bureaucratic step that authors have to go through. There are some rough spots but already issues about how publications money is expended, why the process is what it is, and whether it meets program needs, are all being addressed by the associate editors. The system may sound complex, but it has worked. Acknowledgment The authors want to thank the Communications Ad Hoc Review Committee for their hard work, dedication, and foresight in developing the editorial review process. They also thank Ann Senuta and Sydni Gillette for reviewing early drafts of this manuscript. Taking R&E to the Next Level
Thomas W. Blaine
Stephen Hudkins
Charles R. Taylor Introduction and Purpose Since the 1970s, business retention and expansion (R&E) programs have comprised an important component of economic development work in many communities throughout the U.S. Initiatives aimed at keeping businesses in a community, and in facilitating ways for them to expand, have been shown to be extremely effective economic development tools, as compared to efforts at attraction of new industry. Studies have shown that approximately 80% of new jobs are created by firms already located within a community (Kraybill, 1995). The formalized R&E program in particular has been demonstrated to be successful in helping communities to achieve their economic goals (Smith, Morse, and Lobao, 1992). The purpose of this article is to describe the standard R&E program as it has been applied in Ohio and how this program has been adapted recently, with a specific look at the experience in Portage County. History and Description of R&E Extension educators have a substantial history of involvement with R&E, which has constituted one of the core segments of Extension community development programming over the past two decades. Ohio State University Extension began development of an R&E program in 1977, and in 1986 entered into a 10-year partnership with the Ohio Department of Development to conduct R&E programs in communities throughout the state (Rohrer, 1998). Between 1986 and 1995, a total of 65 communities in Ohio completed an R&E program. Each program is initiated by community members, usually a mix of business and civic leaders, who submit an application and then attend a one-day workshop conducted by a team of Extension specialists. A local R&E task force is established and an individual selected as coordinator. The coordinator's responsibilities include laying out a time line and checking to see that all parts of the program are completed in accordance with it. At the center of the program is a series of volunteer visits by members of the task force to a number (usually between 50 and 70) of businesses. The primary objective of the visits is to ascertain from business representatives their concerns in continuing to do business in the community as well as what they see as barriers to expansion. Businesses may be targeted on the basis of several criteria, including size, perceived likelihood of leaving the community or expanding within it, type of business, and location within the community. Since most R&E programs are undertaken at the county level, it is usually appropriate to include task force representation and businesses visited from across a wide geographic range in order to ensure strong community support. Some communities choose to restrict visits to businesses of one type, such as manufacturing, retail, or tourism-related. Volunteers receive training about how to conduct interviews with the representatives of the firms they visit. Once the visits are complete, a series of action planning sessions is held, where issues are discussed. Task force members, in consultation with Extension specialists, prepare a final report, which includes recommendations for future work designed to address the concerns expressed by employers. The final report is released at a widely advertised public meeting, with community and business leaders invited. Typically, this meeting is well covered by local media and serves as an important focal point for the community's economic development efforts. From inception to completion, the average length of an R&E program is 12-18 months. In the early 1990s, as the national economy was struggling, many communities were eager to sign up for the R&E program. OSU's capacity limits were constantly reached, with five new programs established every six months. As the economic recovery, starting in 1992, turned into a nationwide economic expansion in the mid-1990s, fewer communities expressed interest. As the national unemployment rate fell from more than 9% in 1991 to less than 5% in 1996, the goals of many community leaders began to change. This was particularly true in many areas of Northeast Ohio, where unemployment rates dropped to around 3%. Many business leaders began expressing concerns that they were unable to find labor to meet existing needs. At the same time, numerous civic leaders were expressing concerns about the effect that continued growth was having on communities, such as urban sprawl. In such an environment, discussion of expanding businesses seemed inappropriate to many. The number of communities applying to the program continued to dwindle, until what had been the most active Extension Community Development program was, by 1997, virtually nonexistent. At about this time, however, several members of previous R&E task forces from throughout the state began calling Extension offices for assistance. In Portage County, task force members made it clear that they were not interested in duplicating or repeating the R&E program done in 1993-94, but rather in conducting some applied research in follow-up to that program. As in many R&E programs, the Portage County report placed a great deal of emphasis on labor force development. The report noted that it appeared likely that finding employees with adequate job skills would pose a significant challenge for businesses in the future. The report included the following recommendations:
In 1997, Portage County Task Force members requested that Ohio State University Extension assist them in conducting a survey of businesses in the county in order to follow up on the recommendations that had been produced in the final report. Specifically, the members wished to examine employers' views on labor force preparedness and educational/vocational needs in the community. The survey developed was designed to (a) measure employers' views of employee skills and attitudes, and (b) determine whether these views varied significantly based upon factors such as wage rates and opportunities for advancement within the firms. Survey Design and Method A mail survey was designed following techniques described by Dillman (1978) and sent to 176 manufacturing businesses in January 1998. Letters accompanying the surveys were addressed to the president or general manager of each of the firms including the 65 firms that had been visited in 1994. Respondents were presented with a series of statements and asked to respond on a Likert scale, with 1=strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3=uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Next, respondents were asked to provide some information about their employees such as beginning wage rates, length of employment with the firm, and average length of commute. Respondents were asked to restrict their consideration to production line employees, as opposed to management employees or secretarial staff. Initially, 34 firms responded with usable completed surveys. A second mailing was conducted among non-respondents that yielded another 19 usable surveys. A third mailing resulted in an additional 9 responses, bringing the total number of usable surveys to 62, for an overall response rate of 35%. In order to account for non-response bias, an assumption was made that late respondents were similar to non-respondents (Miller and Smith, 1983). The responses to the first mailing (early respondents) were compared with those obtained from the second and third mailings. F tests were used with criteria p<.10 to compare means for all of the variables examined in the study. No statistical difference was found at this level, indicating that at the 90% level of confidence, non-response bias was not evident in this study. Results Table 1 contains the summaries of the responses on the Likert scale statements.
The results show that respondents believe that neither current employees nor new hires are adequately trained in mathematics. Not a single respondent strongly agreed with either of the first two statements concerning math skills. But a significant difference was found in the evaluation of employees and new applicants, indicating that new applicants' math skills are well below the expectations of employers. The statements on written communications revealed that employers are not satisfied with the skills employees have in this area either. Again, applicants were rated lower than current employees. Half of the respondents stated that their firms offered training opportunities in math to their employees. However, a substantial number of respondents did not circle any response on this (16 of 62, or 26% of the sample). This indicates that there is some unwillingness either to recognize training opportunities or to reveal information on these opportunities on the survey. Technical training was offered by 85% of the firms, and approximately 75% stated that employees have access to local vocational training relevant to their job skills. Relatively high percentages of respondents believe that employees understand instructions on the job, have opportunities for advancement, are involved in decision making on ways to improve their job, and have a positive work ethic. The findings also reveal that the outlook for labor demand in the community will remain high. Only seven firms indicated they had to lay off employees in the six months prior to the administration of the survey, while 43 were in the process of seeking employees to expand production. These results, along with local trends demonstrating continued decreases in the unemployment rate (Ohio Department of Development, 1999) indicate that the tightness in the labor market is likely to continue, and that the challenge of finding skilled labor in the community will only become more severe in the future. A set of statistical tests was used in order to determine whether factors such as wage rates and opportunities for advancement within the firm influenced employers' perceptions of the skill levels or work ethic of employees. Not a single one of these revealed a statistically significant association (F, p<.10), indicating that the results appear to be similar across the entire spectrum of production jobs in the county. Conclusions and Recommendations The history of the R&E program in Ohio demonstrates a few important lessons for Extension educators. Foremost among these is that the demand for Extension programs is cyclical in nature. Regarding R&E specifically, clientele interest tends to be higher when the economy is weak. As economic growth proceeds and unemployment falls, the demand for the traditional R&E program declines, but requests for technical assistance from clientele relating to issues addressed in the R&E programs previously completed continue to be significant. Extension educators need to be aware of how changes in economic conditions in their communities contribute to changes in program needs. As a supplier of programming resources, they must recognize changes in clientele needs, and adapt their programs to meet those needs. The result of this should be an on-going program evaluation process designed to supply the type of program desired by clientele at any given time. In the case of Portage County's R&E program, the 1998 survey of businesses on labor force development served an important function in taking R&E to this next level, with a highly structured and extremely successful program being adapted to meet current, narrowly defined objectives. Since many of the R&E task forces that were formed in the 1980s and 90s are still in place, Extension educators have opportunities to access a clientele base in order to offer support to assist communities in achieving their goals. This is critical, because the future well being of the community, and eventually the nation, is at stake. In this particular example, one sees a situation where the labor force in general is not meeting the expectations of employers. Moreover, employers state that the problem is even worse for new hires and applicants than for those already employed. This phenomenon is not localized (Fenn, 1996). As the economy of the U.S. continues to become more linked with the world wide economy, the competitiveness of the American work force will have a major impact upon the standard of living of the country. It is highly appropriate for community development professionals to play a role in this issue. In Portage County, the development of a community partnership of community educators, business leaders, and elected officials was recommended to find solutions to the problems of deficient skills of labor force participants. Based upon the survey results, resources for improved training are available locally. Business leaders, in conjunction with elected officials and community educators, must explore ways to encourage their employees to take advantage of these opportunities in order to improve their skills. An environment where life long learning is cultivated and rewarded must be created. A partnership designed to achieve these objectives needs to be formalized in order to be effective. In Canada, labor force development boards have emerged in the 1990s in order to bridge training gaps such as those identified in this study (Sharpe & Haddow, 1997). The creation of these boards represents an innovation that appears to be cutting edge. Promotion of these organizations locally offers an excellent opportunity for Extension as it continues to strive to be pro-active in economic development issues in the future. Directing Extension resources away from traditional R&E programs and into the creation and facilitation of labor force development boards is an appropriate step in taking R&E to the next level. References Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fenn, D. (1996, August). Benchmark: The growing labor challenge. Inc. Magazine. Kraybill, D.S. (1995). Retention and expansion first: An investment of resources in existing businesses reaps top-ranking job growth. Ohio's Challenge, 7(1), 4-7. Miller, L.E., & K.E. Smith. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 21 (Sept/Oct). Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research, (1999). Columbus: 1998 Estimates of Ohio's population, cities and villages, counties, and state. Rohrer, J.D. (1998). The practitioner-educator in community economic development. The Gazebo: Community Development Newsletter, Ohio State University Extension, 1(2), 1-8. Sharp, A., & Haddow, R. (1997). Social partnerships for training: Canada's experiment with labour force development boards. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Smith, T.R., Morse, G.W., & Lobao, L.M., (1992). Measuring impacts of business retention and expansion visitation programs. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23(1), 123-143. MONEY 2000 Participants: Who Are They?
Barbara O'Neill
Barbara Bristow
Patricia Q. Brennan
More than three dozen state Cooperative Extension organizations have launched, or soon will, the MONEY 2000 program as a method to increase the financial well-being of consumers. The objective of MONEY 2000 is that participants will set a goal to increase savings and/or reduce debt by the end of the year 2000 or later (O'Neill, 1997). A goal of $2,000 of savings increase and/or debt reduction by December 31, 2000, is suggested.
MONEY 2000 was launched by Rutgers Cooperative Extension in New Jersey in 1996. New York also initiated a MONEY 2000 campaign in 1996. Other states have followed suit as the program has gained momentum. To date, more than 1,600 New Jersey participants have increased their net worth by about $3 million. Nationwide, about 8,000 participants are enrolled and have increased savings or reduced debt by over $5 million. MONEY 2000 is believed to be the only savings education program ever launched in the U.S. with a behavioral monitoring component over an extended period of time.
As the MONEY 2000 program has expanded, interest by state and national media and Extension stakeholders has increased. Common questions asked by reporters, Extension funding agencies, and administrators are "What are the characteristics of program participants?", and "Who are they and are they any different than the general adult population?"
This study was conducted to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between MONEY 2000 participants and others interested in personal finance with respect to five demographic characteristics and various financial behaviors. Data for this study were collected at three all-day MONEY 2000 conferences held in the New York metropolitan area in November 1997. The sample consists of 124 MONEY 2000 program participants and 101 others who attended one of the sessions. Sample
A convenience sample of 248 conference participants completed questionnaires for this study at three conference sites in two states. Incentives were used to encourage participation. Of those responding, 23 did not indicate whether or not they were a MONEY 2000 participant, thereby reducing the number of usable surveys for this analysis to 225. Slightly more than half (55.1%) of respondents were enrolled in MONEY 2000 at the time the data were collected. Demographic data about the sample are as follows:
Clearly, this is a more affluent sample than national averages, with two-thirds of respondents earning more than $45,000, compared to a 1997 national median income of $37,005 (Schlesinger, 1998). It is also more highly educated, with 64% of respondents holding a 4-year college degree or higher, compared with 23.6% of all Americans ("Statistical Abstract," 1997), and over 90% with some post-high school education. Ethnicity and marital status, on the other hand, more closely track national averages and, like the country as a whole, there is a large block of middle-aged baby boomers in the 34-44 and 45-54 age categories. The one thing all respondents had in common was an interest in personal finance. Everyone devoted a Saturday to attend one of the conferences and, in some cases, drove a distance to get there. In the larger sampling frame of 248 respondents, the primary reasons given for attending the conference were interest in workshop topics (36.7%), desire to increase savings (36.3%), desire to reduce debt (22.6%), interest in hearing the keynote speaker (12.9%), and other (12.9%). These percentages exceed 100% because multiple responses were given to this question. Methodology Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine if differences exist between MONEY 2000 participants and others interested in personal finance with respect to age, ethnicity, education, income, and marital status. Chi-square is a nonparametric test used as a measure of association between categorical variables. It is a test of independence used to either accept or reject the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between an observed number and an expected number of responses falling in each category. The null hypothesis for this study was that there is no difference between MONEY 2000 participants and others with respect to the five demographic characteristics. A second analysis was conducted to determine if differences exist between MONEY 2000 participants and others with respect to 11 items that describe actions taken or planned to manage personal finances. These items were based on the transtheorethical model of behavior change (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). The premise of this theory is that self-change is a gradual process that occurs in defined stages based on an individual's readiness to change. The model is called transtheoretical because it has been shown that individuals appear to move predictably from stage to stage. Specific theories or treatment methods are applicable at different stages of the change process. The six stages of change are: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Each stage entails certain mental and even physical changes to be completed. Prochaska et al (1992) have developed an assessment method using statements about whether and when behavioral change is planned. Additionally, there seem to be specific teaching or facilitating strategies that may be employed at different stages that assist an individual in moving to the next level of readiness for change (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1994, Bristow, 1997). The rationale for studying differences with respect to readiness for change is that enrollment in MONEY 2000 involves a commitment toward personal behavior change. MONEY 2000 participants may be in the action stage of change while those not enrolled may at the contemplation or preparation stages. The final test in this study was done to determine if differences exist between MONEY 2000 participants and others with respect to 20 items that describe current financial practices. Again, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between MONEY 2000 participants and other respondents. Results Of the 36 tests performed to address the research questions listed above, only three were shown to be statistically significant: two items pertaining to actions taken or planned and one current financial practice item. As indicated in Table 2, there were no statistically significant differences found between MONEY 2000 participants and other conference attendees with respect to four of the five demographic characteristics noted above. The test for ethnicity was also not significant but over half of the cells had counts less than 5, making chi-square an unreliable test.
Eleven tests were done to determine differences in readiness for behavioral change between MONEY 2000 participants and other respondents. For each of the 11 items that were tested, respondents were asked to indicate, on a five-part Likert-type scale, whether a specific financial management task (such as making a spending plan) was not a problem/challenge or had been addressed previously, action was taken to address the issue within the last six months, action was planned within the next month, action was planned within the next six months, or no action/change was planned. Two items were statistically significant at the .05 level of significance: investing funds wisely (x2 = 11.462, DF = 4, p = .022) and setting financial goals and objectives (x2 = 11.299, DF = 4, p = .023). The latter is not surprising, since setting a personal savings and/or debt reduction goal is a feature of MONEY 2000 and requested of participants upon enrollment. Deciding to enroll in MONEY 2000 and commit to the establishment of a financial goal is an action step toward behavioral change. Of the 218 respondents who completed the question on investing, 50 of 123 (40.7%) MONEY 2000 participants and 31 of 95 (32.6%) others indicated that investing wisely was not a problem or that they had taken action within the past six months to address this issue. Another 48 (39%) and 56 (58.9%) of MONEY 2000 participants and others, respectively, planned behavioral changes within one or six months. Of the 216 respondents who completed the question on goal-setting, 57 of 120 (47.5%) MONEY 2000 participants and 28 of 96 (29.2%) others indicated that setting financial goals was not a problem or that they had taken action within the past six months. Interestingly, 47 (39.2%) of MONEY 2000 participants said they planned to take action within the next one or six months, although presumably they had done this upon enrollment. Perhaps this response indicated a desire to further define or change a previously-set MONEY 2000 objective. Another possibility is that participants may have entered the program before they were ready to set an initial financial goal. Of the other respondents not participating in MONEY 2000, 58 (60.4%) planned to set financial goals within six months. According to the transtheoretical model of change, these individuals are in the preparation stage of behavioral change. Table 3 contains the chi-square statistics for the 11 behavioral change items. The scale used for responses to these items was based on previous empirical studies of the transtheoretical model of behavior change (Prochaska et al, 1992, 1994), which has been tested extensively for behavioral change related to weight loss, smoking cessation, and substance abuse. Recently, this model has been suggested for use in studying changes in financial management behavior (Kerkman, 1998, Bristow, 1997).
The final analysis tested for differences between MONEY 2000 participants and others with respect to 20 common financial practices (for example, "I set financial goals"). Respondents were asked to indicate, using a five-part Likert-type scale, whether they performed these practices almost always, always, sometimes, seldom, or almost never. The only item that was statistically significant at the .05 level was "I pay more than the minimum due on credit card bills each month" (x2 = 10.562, DF= 4, p = .032). Of 119 MONEY 2000 participants who completed this item, 81 (68.1%) indicated "almost always" or "often", compared to 76 of 99 (76.8%) non-participants. The item "I set aside money for a retirement plan (e.g., IRA)" was significant at the .10 level of significance (x2 = 7.79, DF =4, p = .100). Table 4 contains the chi-square statistics for the 20 items.
A second, more powerful, test called the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square was also used to study differences between MONEY 2000 participants and others. While chi-square tests for any differences between groups, the Mantel-Haenszel test looks for increasing or decreasing trends among categories of ordinal data. None of the significant differences reported above were significant at the .05 level using the Mantel-Haenszel test. This indicates that there was not a consistent pattern to the five responses, although there was a significant difference between the two groups. The only item that tested significantly using Mantel-Haenszel chi-square was "I pay bills on time" (x2 = 3.880, DF = 4, p = .049). Fewer MONEY 2000 participants (83.5%) than others (91%) answered "almost always" or "often" to this item. Another item relating to action planned or taken regarding "Evaluating my financial situation" was significant at the .10 level of significance (x2 = 3.602, DF = 4, p = .058). Conclusions and Implications This study was conducted to determine whether or not significant differences exist between MONEY 2000 participants and other adults who indicated an interest in personal finance by attending a Cooperative Extension conference open to MONEY 2000 participants and the general public. While generalization of results is limited due to data that were drawn from a non-random sample in a small geographic area, MONEY 2000 participants in this study did not differ demographically from other adults interested in personal finance. Thus, there may be factors other than demographic differences which lead some individuals to enroll in a program such as MONEY 2000 while others do not. While this sample, as a whole, had relatively high incomes and educational levels, MONEY 2000 participants did not differ significantly from other respondents. Where MONEY 2000 participants did differ significantly from others was in readiness to make behavior change, specifically actions taken and planned to invest wisely and set financial goals. For both investing wisely and goal-setting, a greater percentage of MONEY 2000 participants than others had taken action on these issues or indicated that they were not a problem. Conversely, more of the non-participants planned future behavioral changes related to investing and goal-setting. With respect to the question on goal-setting, the difference between the two groups of respondents is probably at least partially explained by the fact that setting a savings and/or debt reduction goal is an entrance requirement of the MONEY 2000 program. For those coordinating MONEY 2000 outreach efforts, sensitivity to participants' readiness for behavioral change is important. Individuals in the preparation and action stages of change will probably be more attracted to enrollment in MONEY 2000 and utilization of educational services than others who are not ready for change. Continued marketing and outreach activities may reach those who have yet to realize the need to change, moving them to the contemplation stage. At that point, program delivery strategies such as seminars, newsletters, and Web sites can help these individuals decide that a change is in order, thus leading to the preparation stage. Additional Extension programming covering investing and financial goal-setting is advisable to meet the needs of those with planned behavior changes (such as the purchase of stock) and those who have yet to realize the need to change (for example, set specific financial goals). In a previous study (O'Neill, 1998) utilizing the entire sampling frame, strong interest in investment topics and retirement planning was indicated by respondents. Joo and Garman (1998) also found these topics to be of greatest interest in a study of workplace financial education needs. The third behavior where there was a significant difference between MONEY 2000 participants and others was paying more than the minimum due on credit cards. The higher percentage of non-participants than MONEY 2000 enrollees repaying more than the minimum due on debts is not surprising since debt reduction is a stated objective of MONEY 2000. Persons experiencing financial difficulty may have enrolled in MONEY 2000 as a way to address this concern. It is also possible that those motivated to join MONEY 2000 are in more serious financial difficulty than those who have not enrolled. On the other hand, similar low percentages of respondents in both groups said they "seldom" or "almost never" pay more than the minimum due. This indicates that a majority of those sampled were taking action to accelerate debt repayment. Results of the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square indicated significant differences with respect to paying bills on time. A high percentage of respondents in both groups met their obligations in a timely manner, however, indicating that this personal finance behavior has already been addressed. This study is the first empirical investigation of participants in the MONEY 2000 program and how they compare with others interested in personal finance. Clearly, there are complex issues involved in changing personal financial management behaviors and this study has only begun to address them. With increasing numbers of Extension personnel involved in the MONEY 2000 program, questions about the characteristics of program participants are more likely from media, stakeholders, and potential participants. Results of this study can help answer questions posed by interested parties and inform future personal finance education initiatives. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Tebbie Clift and Martha Shortlidge for assistance with the collection of data and the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences for their financial support of this study through the 1997 Ruth O'Brien Project Grant.
Bristow, B. J. (1997). Promoting financial well-being: Running a successful MONEY 2000 campaign. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension. Joo, S. & Garman, E.T. (1998). Workers want more than retirement education at their workplace: A report of findings. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 2(2), 156-161. Kerkman, B.C. (1998). Motivation and stages of change in financial counseling: An application of a transtheoretical model from counseling psychology. Financial Counseling and Planning, 9(1), 13-20. O'Neill, B. (1998). Yes, Americans can save, and smart employers can help. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 2(1), 59-67. O'Neill, B. (1997). MONEY 2000: A model for personal finance employee education. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 1(1), 76-80. Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & Diclemente, C. (1994). Changing for good. New York: Avon Books. Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C., & Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114. Schlesinger, J. (1998, Sept. 25). Finally, U.S. median income approaches old heights. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997 (1997). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Defining Your Customer Profile - An Essential ToolMartha Bazik Dave Feltes To succeed in business, decision makers must keep abreast of the continuously changing wants and needs of clientele, and motivate them to purchase their product. While Extension does not market tangible goods, the products we deliver are educational programs and services. The information we purvey is intended to increase customers' knowledge and ability to make informed decisions, and improve their lives. Given this significant role, can Extension staff be any less informed about client needs and wants than business? Can we afford to be any less sophisticated than business in motivating clients to take advantage of what we offer? Probably not, but identifying constituents' needs and motivating them to attend an educational program is a formidable challenge. Defining the wants and needs of their customer base was an important priority for counties in the Quad Cities Extension Cluster. Historically, the group had classified agricultural customers in broad terms as livestock producers (beef, dairy, pork or other species) and as crop producers (wheat, hay, corn or soybeans). Recognizing that farming operations today are becoming increasingly specialized and complex, Extension personnel determined to change strategies to meet these new realities. For example, mailing lists used for advertising educational programs were usually general and not defined enough to do targeted mailings. As a result attendance at educational programs was declining annually even though current issues important to agriculture were being discussed. Two questions raised by staff were:
To answer the above two questions, a group of Extension personnel from the Quad Cities Extension Cluster began a collaborative effort to develop a tool for profiling customers. The Customer Profile requested information in the following areas:
The Customer Profile was administered at all agricultural related meetings. Data was entered into a database management program. The program development process was greatly enhanced as a result of the utilization of this tool. We now had the capability to analyze the wants and needs of our customer, a basic building block to developing strategies to build client desire to attend educational programs. Staff felt that motivation to attend Extension programs is fostered by addressing the current issues facing agricultural producers. The Profile is a perfect vehicle for soliciting unbiased information on the current issues, and anticipating future challenges. It also facilitates clarification of or honing in on current issues through the administration of random surveys. This is especially useful for planning groups such as Extension Councils and their program sub-committees. Targeting producers with certain enterprises is another means of identifying program needs especially when that particular group is not represented on the Extension Council. The ability to develop effective marketing strategies is another key benefit of utilizing the Customer Profile. Target marketing is possible, for example, as it is designed to ascertain the nature of a farm operation. Staff can identify producers that have a cow-calf operation, farrow to finish, grow corn or soybeans, or combinations of any of the categories included on the profile. As a result we can query the database and disseminate information only to those producers who would benefit from it. Recently we honored a request for a targeted mailing to cow-calf producers. In addition, information derived from the profile can be used to assist Extension staff in making decisions about where to offer programs. For example, if one county in the group has the largest populations of beef finishers, the program designed for that audience would be offered there with other producers from surrounding areas invited to attend. A database query might also indicate that there is not a sufficient population within the multi-county group to offer any program to a specific targeted audience. If that is the case, a regional or statewide approach to programming might be considered. An important benefit of having the ability to understand the critical mass available for a particular educational programs and services results in more cost-effective and cooperative programming. Fiscal and human resources are efficiently deployed as counties or regions unite through joint programming efforts to reach targeted audiences. Critical to effective marketing is understanding how customers prefer to receive information. Extension personnel can avoid costly mistakes made as a result of using a delivery method that is not likely to be user friendly. See (Table 1 ). The Profile revealed that a preferred method identified by producers for receiving information was reading. Based on this, our multi-county group developed a newsletter in 1995 designed to provide information about research based initiatives. Recent evaluation of this publication shows that the newsletter is an effective vehicle for disseminating research-based information. 
TABLE 1 A zip code analysis provides information about areas of the county served and identifies undeserved areas. This enables us to focus attention on underrepresented geographic areas should the size of the population warrant it. Zip code analysis allows staff to tap into other databases available through outside sources. By using GIS software, we can plot the zip codes in our database to visualize physical distribution or demographic characteristics of populations living in a selected zip-code area. A frequently overlooked marketing strategy in Extension is to gain knowledge
of the competition. The Ag Profile has a section which provides the producers
an opportunity to identify sources of information they rely on in making
management decisions. (See Table 2 ). 
TABLE 2 One fact apparent from Table 2 was that we had serious competition from chemical and seed dealers. As a result of this discovery, we decided to gain more information about the nature of the competition from seed dealers. A small survey has been sent to a random sample of the producers in the profile to acquire additional details. It is intended that the results will be utilized in future marketing and program planning efforts. Increasingly, county-based Extension offices have been asked to provide stakeholders such as county boards and local funders with evidence that the money provided to Extension is a wise investment. As noted above, instruments such as the Customer Profile are important tools that enable us to develop a strong rationale for our existence. Staff members can report to supporters that they are making wise and cost effective decisions based upon data, rather that feelings or assumptions. Through targeted marketing, we can eliminate unnecessary materials and staff costs utilizing a multi-county approach to programming and better understanding of how our customers like to receive information. We can also report to interested parties important information about the vitality of our operations. For example, information in our database shows us that we are not just serving the 60+ producers who have been our audience for years. The majority our clients are between 31-60 years of age. (See Table 3). Additionally, producers between 20 and 30 years of age are using Extension's programs and services. From this data, we can infer that we are successfully serving all age categories of producers, and not just the 60+ who may be soon retiring. 
TABLE 3 As we move into the 21st Century, we believe that increased demands will be made upon Extension by stakeholders, University administrations and other interested constitue | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
