The Cooperative Extension System today is a unique achievement in education. It is an organization for change and for problem solving, a catalyst for both individual and group action with a history of more than eighty years of public service. The system itself includes professionals in America's 1862 Land Grant institutions in each of the fifty states, as well as the District of Columbia, Tuskegee University, 16 1890 Land Grant institutions, and 29 Tribal institutions.

Keeping an organization as large and complex as the Cooperative Extension System operating smoothly requires effective and efficient management. The structure of a typical Extension organization contributes significantly to the need for effective management. Fragmented both geographically and programmatically, the organization must rely on managers at several levels to effectively utilize human, economic, and material resources to address specific as well as general issues. These managers must perform these management functions while remaining within the parameters of the organization's mission, vision, and values.

The largest group of managers in Extension and among the most critical are the first line managers who give leadership to the more than 3,100 county Extension offices throughout the country. There is ample literature about the functions of management, much of it in the field of business. A smaller body of literature pertaining to Extension exists, as well. However, there has been little effort to determine the competence levels of Extension county chairs nationally with regard to specific abilities and behavioral skills identified as necessary for probable success as an Extension administrator. Nor has there been research to determine levels of professional development or changes in behaviors by county chairs to correct or improve administrative skills when deficiencies are identified.

Methodology

The population for this study was the Extension professionals who completed the Assessing Supervisory and Management Skills Assessment Center at the Minnesota Extension Summer School and the Ohio State University Extension County Chair Assessment Center for the years 1989-1995 (N = 150). The population included participants from 22 states. The Ohio State assessment centers and the Minnesota assessment centers were conducted by the Ohio State University assessment center management team, and both were similar experiences. Of the 150 participants who participated in the assessment centers, 127 were still employed with the Cooperative Extension System. All 127 were included in the study.

During the assessment centers, participants were observed by a team of three trained assessors who observed their behaviors in 15 supervisory/management competencies, including oral communication, planning/organizing, leadership, decision-making/judgment, initiative, objectivity, development of coworkers, perception, sensitivity, management control, collaborativeness, written communication, behavioral flexibility, organizational sensitivity, and assertiveness.

Immediately following the assessment center observations, the assessment team engaged in collaborative consensus to reach inter-rater agreement, and participants were scored 1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (average), 4 (very good), or 5 (excellent) on each of the observed behaviors during their assessment center experience. Scores were collected from records at The Ohio State University.

A two-part questionnaire was developed by the researcher to collect data through the mail from Extension professionals who had completed an Extension assessment center. Internal validity concerns were addressed by submitting the instrument to a panel of six experts to verify content validity. The expert panel consisted of Ohio State University faculty who have a long association with the development and conducting of Extension assessment centers. The instrument was also piloted with 30 individuals who had participated in Extension assessment centers to establish reliability. External validity was not a concern because the study results were not generalized beyond the target population.

Part 1 of the survey asked participants to report steps or actions taken to improve behaviors identified as needing improvement during the assessment center process. Response choices included workshop or seminar, formal class work, self-directed learning, shadowing or mentoring, other, or none. A second question in Part 1 was open ended and asked participants to report changes they had made in the way they applied their skills related to each of the 15 behaviors observed in the assessment center. An example of the open-ended questions was: What changes have you made in the way you apply you skills in oral communication?

Part 2 of the questionnaire was used to collect data on selected demographic characteristics of each participant, including gender, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in a supervisory/management position, and primary program area at the time of participation in the assessment center. Program area choices included Agriculture/Natural Resources, 4-H/Youth Development, Family and Consumer Sciences, Community Development, Economic Development, Administration, and Other.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and organize the data. Discriminant analysis was used to examine the impact of the demographic variables on each of supervisory/management behaviors.

Discriminant analysis was used because of the categorical nature of the variables and tested for differences between the groups who demonstrated above average strengths in the supervisory/management competencies and the groups who demonstrated average or below average strengths. Responses to the open-ended questions were summarized and categorized as they related to each of the supervisory/management behaviors. The data were organized into categorical and conceptual groupings for each behavior to determine patterns and themes reported by participants.

Findings

Fifty-two percent of the participants in Extension assessment centers were male, 48 percent were female. The population ranged in age from 28 to 60, with a mean age of 45. The average tenure in Extension was 16 years. The average tenure in a supervisory/management position was 7 years. Of the participants, 22.2% were from agriculture/natural resources, 16.7% from 4-H/Youth Development, 20.4% from Family and Consumer Sciences, 3.7% from Community/Economic Development, 13% from Administration, 15.7% from multi-programs, and 8.3% from other.

The participants had modal rates of average to very good in all 15 supervisory/management competencies observed in the assessment center process (Table 1). However, the group that possessed above-average strength in leadership had more tenure in Extension and contained fewer members from 4-H, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Community Development than the group rated as average or below. Further, the group demonstrating above-average strength in development of coworkers had more tenure in Extension and more tenure in a supervisory position, and contained fewer members from Agriculture, fewer members from 4-H, and fewer members from Community Development than the group rated as average or below. Finally, the group demonstrating above-average strength in behavioral flexibility contained more females and fewer members from Community Development than the group rated as average or below. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to the demographic characteristics in the remaining 12 behavioral competencies observed.

Table 1
Assessor Scores in Assessment Center

Since completing the assessment center experience, all 127 participants have taken steps to improve their skills in one or more or the 15 competencies observed in the assessment center. Leadership was the most frequently addressed competency, while perception was the least frequently addressed. The most common method of skill improvement was self-directed learning, with 597 occurrences reported by participants. Workshops or seminars were the next most common methods, with 483 occurrences reported. Formal class work was the least used method of professional development, with 71 occurrences reported.

Participants also reported positive changes in supervisory or management behaviors as a result of the feedback and insight they received from their participation in the assessment center. Several themes and patterns emerged in each of the 15 competencies observed.

Conclusions

Extension county chairs who had completed an Extension assessment center demonstrated average to very good strength in 15 supervisory/management competencies identified as necessary for success as an Extension administrator.

Participants in Extension assessment centers took positive steps to improve their skills in areas identified as needing development during the assessment center process.

Participants in Extension assessment centers have made positive behavior changes in response to feedback and insight they received as a result of their participation.

Demographic characteristics had a significant impact on the competencies of leadership, development of coworkers, and behavioral flexibility among participants in Extension assessment centers.

References

Bart, L.A. (1986). The role of the assessee in development assessment centers: A field experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Buford, J.A.,Bedeian, A.G., & Lindner, J.R. (1995). Management in Extension. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. (C. Storrs, Trans.). London: Pitman, 19.

Haynes, B.R. (1997). Factors affecting supervisory and management competencies of participants in extension assessment centers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Ishaya, J.B. (1991). Relationships between psychological types and assessment center performance of Ohio Cooperative Extension agents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Kreitner, R.(1989). Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taking the university to the people. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Volunteers are an integral part of Oregon State University Extension educational program delivery. Evaluation data collected over the years document the impact of Extension volunteer programs on youth and adults in Oregon. Evaluation efforts, however, have not examined the impact of Extension's volunteer programs on the volunteers themselves. What benefits do volunteers receive as a result of their Extension volunteer activities? Do Extension's volunteer programs enable participants to more confidently do volunteer work? Are personal, economic, and community benefits provided?

Partners in Action Survey assessed the personal, economic, and community benefits Oregon volunteers received as a result of their involvement with Extension volunteer programs. The survey also assessed the volunteers' perceptions of the costs of volunteering. Documenting volunteers' perceptions can help Extension faculty tailor programs to meet volunteers' needs, identify areas in volunteer training and management that need strengthening, and promote the value of the Extension Service to decision makers. A review of literature revealed no similar survey in Oregon. The most current national survey was more than 10 years old.

Methods

Volunteers were identified from all volunteer programs available within Oregon's Extension Service programs. The number of different volunteer programs operating within a county varied from county to county. Volunteer programs in Oregon included:

• Master Gardeners
• 4-H Youth
• Family Community Education (study groups)
• Master Food Preservers
• Family Community Leadership
• Food and Nutrition Educators
• Master Recyclers
• Master Woodland Managers
• Parent Educators
• Master Anglers
• County Advisory Councils

Seven counties representing the diverse areas of the state were selected based on geographic location, scope of volunteer programs, and number of volunteers per program. Staff in each selected county provided a list of persons who had volunteered in the last two to three years. A random sample was selected from those lists.

Smaller volunteer programs such as Master Food Preservers, Master Woodland Managers, Master Anglers, Master Recyclers, Food and Nutrition Educators, and Parent Educators were over-sampled to make sure these volunteers were appropriately represented in the sample. An initial survey was field-tested with a small group of volunteers in an urban county. The survey instrument was revised based on the field test input.

The selected random sample consisted of 2,552 volunteers. The self-administered survey was mailed to selected volunteers in May 1997. On the survey instrument, volunteers were informed they would be entered into a drawing for a $100 savings bond if they completed and returned the survey by May 15, 1997. A follow-up postcard reminder was sent out May 10, 1997. The survey was completed in June 1997, with 969 total useable surveys, representing a response rate of 39.3%.

Of the 969 respondents, 80% were female. Only Master Woodland Managers were predominantly male. All other volunteer programs were 75% to 94% female. The majority (95%) identified themselves as "white, non-Hispanic." The typical responder was 53 years of age and had some college education. Thirty-four percent of the respondents worked full-time, 16% worked part-time, and 28% were retired. Respondents lived in their present community for an average of 23 years, with almost half living in a city and 41% living in rural Oregon.

Table 1 describes the numbers of volunteers in Oregon Extension programs and how they responded to the survey. Although there were 969 respondents, some volunteers were involved in more than one program area, increasing the total frequency to 1,106.

Table 1
Respondents by Extension Volunteer by Program Area

There were 13,144 total volunteers active in the Oregon State University Extension Service volunteer programs. The 4-H youth program had the most volunteers, with 7,200, or 55% of the total. Response rates varied by program area. Only 20% of the 4-H volunteer sample responded, compared to 34% of the Master Gardener sample. Reasons for the lower response rate by the 4-H volunteers are not known.

Survey and Analysis

A survey instrument was designed to evaluate outcomes measuring the personal, community, and economic benefits experienced by volunteers participating in Oregon State University Extension Service volunteer programs (C.C. Pratt, Oregon State University, personal interviews on designing surveys, 1997). Along with descriptive statistics, the data were analyzed using factor analysis and ANOVA procedures. Factor analysis determined whether the various measures for a particular outcome could be represented in terms of a single scaled variable (knowledge and skills gained, for example.) The six outcome scales were: gaining knowledge and skills, personal growth, family interaction and involvement, economic benefits, community involvement, and negative impacts of volunteering. The respondents rated each question on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal). Each of these six outcome scales included six to eight questions.

General Results

Overall, most volunteers indicated they received personal, community, and economic benefits (Table 2). The greatest benefits were personal

Table 2
Mean Ratings* of Benefits and Costs of Extension Volunteering (n = 969)

Benefits
How much has being an Extension Volunteer helped you gain:
Personal Growth	2.7
Knowledge and Skills	2.5
Family Interactions	2.0
Community Involvement	2.0
Economic Benefits	1.5
Costs
How much has your volunteer work had some negative affects?
Adverse affects	1.5
*range: 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal)

Personal Benefits

Mean responses (scale 1 to 4) for the three areas of personal benefits were knowledge and skills (2.5), personal growth (2.7), and family involvement (2.0). Most respondents noted benefits in more than one area. The percentage of volunteers rating benefits as 3 (quite a lot) to 4 (a great deal) ranged from 34% to 18%. Gains in personal growth were reported by 34% of the responders; 30.7% accumulated substantial knowledge and skills, and almost 18% experienced benefits for their families.

When volunteers were asked what benefits in personal growth they received, helping others and making new friends were the two most important gains noted. When asked about gains in knowledge and skills, respondents indicated technical expertise and skills for working with others. About 70% of respondents said that their volunteer experience improved the health and safety of their families.

Results also showed differences in benefits among various groups. Women reported greater personal growth than did men. When evaluating personal growth and family involvement, volunteers aged 65 or older experienced greater benefits than did those between 15-44 years of age and those 45-64 years of age. Volunteers living in rural areas rated benefits in personal growth and family involvement higher than did volunteers living in urban areas. For personal growth, greater benefits were found for volunteers in Family Community Leadership and Food and Nutrition Educator programs.

Community Involvement Benefits

When respondents were asked how much their volunteer experience helped them as community members, 66% indicated they received a little to a great deal of benefit (22% quite a lot and 9% a great deal of benefit). Of the nine percent who reported a great deal of benefit, almost half felt the most important benefits were a better understanding of their community and the use of community facilities and services. Women and volunteers aged 65 or older were among those who benefited most from their community involvement. Volunteers reported almost no benefit related to running for elected office and little benefit in helping them better understand other cultures and races.

Economic Benefits

Although only 37% of the volunteers reported any economic benefit from their volunteer work, 5% indicated they gained substantial economic benefits. There was benefit related to work efficiency and networking potential, with 57% of respondents indicating some benefit in these two areas and 9% reporting substantial benefit. Volunteers at retirement age (65 and older) were less likely to receive economic benefits from being an Oregon Extension volunteer than those between the ages of 15-64. Greater economic benefits were found among Family Community Leadership volunteers than volunteers from the other Extension volunteer programs.

"Costs" of Volunteering

On the 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal) scale, a mean rating of 1.5 was found for adverse effects of volunteering. While less common than perceptions of benefits, these perceptions of costs are important. The most common costs noted were time, feelings of frustration, conflicts with other responsibilities, and fatigue.

Implications

Volunteer Profile

Most Extension volunteers (68%) are over 45 years of age or older. Over 81% reported some college to advanced degrees. The majority of respondents (80%) were female. Extension volunteers are either employed or retired. Volunteer recruitment, training, and payback opportunities should accommodate older, educated, and working volunteers. Special effort is needed to recruit males and younger volunteers.

Training, payback, and recognition events that are scheduled only during weekdays cause volunteers to be underutilized. Volunteers addressed these issues in their comments.

• "Since I am employed, advance notice of planned activities is essential. It helps to know dates . . . in advance."
• "I have to work 40 hours a week to live, and volunteer time is only during work hours."
• "It seemed geared to retired people, and I was not given a full year to do the work. I felt rushed."

Volunteer Benefits

Volunteers reported gaining the following benefits:

• access to research information, technical knowledge, and computer skills (286);
• ability to help others and satisfaction from helping others, contributing to the community (162);
• connections, networking, social contacts, and friendships (135);
• other personal benefits, including gaining self-confidence, self-improvement, self-esteem, working with youth, spending time with own children and other youth, helping kids learn, and meeting people with same interests (205).

Although volunteers value the technical, informational, and skill-building benefits received from Extension, the personal satisfaction benefits outweigh the technical and informational gains. Extension faculty needs to recognize the value of helping volunteers feel good about helping others. Volunteers appear to be motivated primarily by desires to contribute and to feel good about themselves rather than by extrinsic benefits. In addition to perceived benefits, Extension faculty need to be aware that volunteers feel there are "costs" associated with volunteering, such as fatigue, time constraints, conflict with other volunteers and faculty, and frustration.

Training and Support

Overall, 62% of respondents indicated the training and support they received, from Extension, was better than the training and support from other volunteer activities. When asked about the most important way Extension faculty could support volunteers, most said they wanted the faculty to be available to answer questions, give advice, and help solve problems. Others commented on the need for ongoing training, encouragement, and support; communication about opportunities and events; and updates on new information and changes.

Because Oregon Extension takes great pride in its volunteer programs, some effort might be directed toward improving volunteer training and support. Faculty availability was a recurring theme in the comments volunteers made. There were some unhappy voices, and frustration was evident in some of the comments. "A visit to our group meeting by the faculty would boost morale," wrote one respondent. Another wanted "more consistent leadership from the Extension Office." One respondent commented that " one needs a pat on the back occasionally." Others mentioned a desire for more ongoing training after the basics, updates on new information and changes, and the need for continuous support and encouragement.

Volunteer Experience

A clear majority of Oregon Extension Volunteers (91%) were happy with their volunteer experience. Extension provides many opportunities for volunteers to not only improve their skills, but also to help others. All in all, Extension provides an excellent experience for volunteers.

Conclusion

Oregon State University Extension Service does a good job of training volunteers. Volunteers value their experience and perceive many benefits. Improvements in training and support would expand benefits for volunteers and further strengthen programs they deliver.

References

Steele, S., Project Director (1983-1987). Implications of volunteerism in the Cooperative Extension Service, USDA-ES and Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service. Department of Continuing and Vocational Education of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Quality childcare has become an important national issue. As a response to this critical issue, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) has undertaken a new national childcare initiative. The goal of the initiative is to increase the quality, affordability, accessibility, and sustainability of childcare programs through federal, state, and local partnerships that tap the expertise and assets of local communities. Virginia Cooperative Extension has been conducting childcare provider training opportunities under its childcare objective, which is to educate individuals, families, and childcare providers to gain knowledge, develop skills, and implement caregiving practices based on child development theory and best practices to improve the quality of the caregiving environment for children.

Local Need

The Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing (VADSS) requires state DSS licensed center-based childcare providers to attend 8 hours of training annually, in addition to First Aid training and center orientation (VADSS, 1998). State licensed home-based childcare providers are required to attend 6 hours of training annually, in addition to First Aid training, including rescue breathing and choking (VADSS, 1993). There is no uniform training requirement for local DSS agency-approved home care providers, though some individual local DSS agencies are requiring a minimum of 2 hours of training or strongly encouraging training for unregulated providers who receive agency funds for providing childcare.

The Virginia Department of Social Services Piedmont Region Licensing Specialist cites the need for training of childcare providers, both center-based and home-based, in the areas of general environmental safety, playground safety, child development, age-appropriate activities, behavior management, and the signs of abuse and neglect. The Virginia Department of Social Services Piedmont Region Day Care Coordinator states the need for training of childcare providers in caring for children with behavior problems.

The Council of Community Services KARE Line childcare resource and referral agency survey of requested training needs are (by topic):

• First Aid/CPR
• Age Appropriate Activities
• Discipline and Behavior Management
• Recreational Activities
• Healthy and Safety
• Tax Prep and Record Keeping
• Recognizing and Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect
• Communicating with Parents
• Nutrition

Evaluations from the March 21, 1998 Extension sponsored "Potpourri for Providers" workshop requested training in the following areas:

• Topics for Home Providers
• Creative Teaching Ideas
• Hands-on Projects
• Discipline
• Working with Parents
• Arts and Crafts
• Infants and Toddlers
• Physical Room Arrangement
• Science Experiments
• Literature for PreSchool

Interdisciplinary Program Delivery

In order to meet the training needs of childcare providers, Virginia Cooperative Extension Central District's Family and Human Development specialty agents sponsored a series of childcare workshops designed to increase the knowledge of childcare professionals. The interdisciplinary teaching team consisted of Family and Consumer Science, 4-H/Youth Development, and Agriculture and Natural Resources agents.

The educational goals based on the identified training needs were to increase knowledge in 1.) childcare management, 2.) child development, 3.) health and safety, and 4.) professional development. To accomplish this, 16 different content workshops were developed by the team and offered to participants. The workshops included training in the following categories:

• Child Care Management
• Learning Through Play
• The Peaceful Classroom

• Child Development
• Reading to Children
• Building Resilient Children I
• Building Resilient Children II
• Exploring the Great Outdoors
• Developmentally Age Appropriate Activities
• Brain Development

• Health and Safety
• CPR
• Food Safety
• Eggstravaganza
• Food Production
• Children's Nutrition

• Professional Development
• Stress Management
• Time Management
• Child Care Ethical Dilemmas

Program Delivery

Program delivery involved an interdisciplinary team of agents representing Family and Consumer Science, 4-H/Youth Development, and Agriculture and Natural Resources. Each team member was required to develop a research-based educational program to meet the needs of childcare professionals and to include pre- and post-test measures to assess the knowledge gain of the participants. The enrollment in the program was open to childcare professionals for a minimal fee of $5-$23.

A total of 171 childcare providers attended the trainings. Individuals completed workshops in one to four content areas per childcare provider training, totaling 586 cases. Participants were administered pre-tests at the beginning of each session and post-tests at the end of each session. At the conclusion of the program, participants received a certificate indicating their completion of the educational programs and documenting the number of training hours earned. Upon verification of participation in the educational programs, Continuing Education units certified by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University were mailed to participants upon request.

Technique of Data Analysis

Frequencies were run on each test question to determine the change between pre- and post-test scores. Analysis and feedback regarding mean scores of test items will assist the test creators in selecting and improving test-retest questions for future trainings.

A paired-samples t-test was used to analyze the data. A paired- samples test compares sample means by calculating Student's t and test the significance of the difference between the means (Ott, 1993). In this study, pre- and post-test scores for childcare providers were compared.

Results

The results of the test question frequencies reveal that some test questions might need to be changed or improved. For example, the pre-test mean score on Learning Through Play, item # 1, was 92%, while the post-test score was 94%. This result indicates that the question may not be a good discriminator of knowledge and may need to be changed or that a new question should be created that would better discriminate knowledge gained due to the educational intervention. Each test item was analyzed, and feedback to the test creator was furnished.

Sixteen different pre- and post-test childcare content areas were analyzed. Results of the analysis indicate that participants increased their childcare knowledge overall by 29%. Pre-test scores increased from 56% correct answers to post-test scores of 85% correct answers. In addition, paired t-tests on the 16 separate tests representing 586 cases at the .05 level of significance were administered to detect statistically significant differences between the pre and post-tests. The results indicate that a statistically significant change in childcare training knowledge occurred on all 16 content areas as a result of the educational intervention.

More specifically, in the area of Professional Development, participants improved their pre-test scores by 28% from an average of 58% on pre-test to 86% on post-test. Scores on Childcare Management improved from a pre-test average of 74% to a post-test average of 91%, an increase of 17%. Health and Safety saw a 34% increase in participant knowledge gain, from average pre-test scores of 48% to post-test scores of 88%. Increased knowledge in Child Development was also evident. Scores on the pre-tests averaged 48%, while the post-tests scores averaged 80%, a 32% change.

Discussion

The key to quality childcare is a well-trained provider. The results of the study reveal that childcare providers increased their knowledge substantially in four key childcare content training areas and that the difference was statistically significant at the .05 level. The program's success was due to establishing the educational need of childcare providers and to the involvement of the interdisciplinary team concept, in which agents from Family and Consumer Science, 4- H/Youth Development, and Agriculture and Natural Resources assisted in program development and delivery. The training successfully met the educational needs of childcare providers in the district. The interdisciplinary concept proved to be a successful method to deliver programs and could serve as a model for other Extension professionals.

Furthermore, the analysis of each test item will improve the content of the pre- and post-tests by allowing the test creator to improve the test items and better discriminate potential knowledge gain by participants. Once the improvements are made, the 16 childcare content training areas with pre- and post-test measures could be utilized by other districts within Virginia Cooperative Extension.

References

Ott, R., L. (1993). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing. Minimum Standards for Licensed Family Day Homes, (1993). Standard 2.6.

Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing. Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers. (1998). Standard 22VAC15-30-310C.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000april/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.