Feature Articles

Background

The 1991 Farm Bill presented a unique outreach education opportunity for farm financial management training (Hanson, 1995). Upon finalization in February 1994 of the regulations for the mandated program "to improve the borrowers' production and financial management ability," the Cooperative Extension System faced the challenge of training U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) farm borrowers to become better business managers (Rules and Regulations, 1993). The catalyst for this unusual educational mandate was the budgetary impact of FSA's $10.2 billion farm loan losses during 1986-90. By comparison, the cooperative Farm Credit System, with more than twice the amount of outstanding loans, experienced only $2.2 billion loan losses in the same time period (USDA: Outlook and Situation, 1999).

The prescribed focus of the borrower training was on financial statements, financial ratios, cash flow budgeting, and strategic financial planning. The suggested guidelines called for approximately 40 hours of instruction, with each farmer-participant graded "pass," "fail," or "more training required" at the end of the session. The serious nature of the training is illustrated by the fact that until a passing grade is received, current borrowers may not receive additional loans or refinancing from FSA.

Initial Workshop Training Approach

The purpose of this study is to present the financial program developed by Penn State Cooperative Extension to enable farmers to meet FSA training requirements. The educators relate their experiences in developing and delivering a challenging financial training program through various media to a widely dispersed FSA borrower population of varying education levels. The data presented in this study are from evaluation surveys completed by Extension agents and participants at the close of individual workshops (1995-99).

The Penn State Cooperative Extension approach to the training included the following five components:

• Instructor presentation of core finance concepts via a satellite uplink
• A 200-page workbook on finance concepts
• Farmer videos discussing their experiences with financial problems
• Quizzes and problem-solving exercises
• Homework assignments developing own-farm financial statements and plans

A substantial number of FSA borrowers are limited resource farmers and/or have limited management expertise. In addition, Pennsylvania borrowers include a sizeable number of Amish and Mennonite farmers with only a primary-level education. This contributed to the ever-present challenge of producing a curriculum with a simplified format that was at the same time sufficiently challenging for participants at all education and experience levels.

To address these challenges a workbook was organized with one concept per page, limited narrative to minimize required reading, and use of FSA's familiar financial statement format. This educational approach worked well in terms of participant satisfaction and the impact of the training (Hanson, Parsons, Musser, & Power, 1998). However, the program coordinators found that the use of satellite uplinks to present the core financial concepts simultaneously to multiple sites (21 sites in 1995, 26 sites in 1996, and 17 sites in 1997) throughout Pennsylvania and neighboring states, had several unforeseen consequences.

Satellite Downlink Versus Pre-Taped Video Presentations

The advantages of the satellite transmission of an instructor's video image to geographically disparate sites were initially viewed to be:

• Efficient use of a live broadcast presentation to numerous geographically separate groups of participants,
• Enhanced logistical coordination through requiring all sites to begin and end training at the same time, and
• Live Q/A feedback through telephone and fax messages of participant questions to a live panel of experts.

Another key reason for selecting satellite communication was the need for consistent presentation of materials at all sites. A number of local Extension agents/site coordinators expressed the concern that they did not possess the financial background to feel competent to instruct a challenging 40-hour finance course. As one expressed it, there is a difference between the expertise needed to assist a farmer one-on-one on financial matters and standing in front of a group of 15 farmers and answering questions related to broad-ranging financial topics.

The decision made was to have the state Extension finance specialist provide satellite-uplink instruction with local assistance by the site coordinators. Participating agents were provided a 2-day workshop to familiarize themselves with the workbook, exercises, and workshop procedures. Thus the satellite communication was seen as a practical method to assure consistency while agents developed their financial expertise.

The program format was developed under the direction of Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences Information Services Satellite Communications. Following their recommendations, site leaders were trained on the use of satellite communications and requirements for selection of local sites. However, following the first round of training workshops, the county agent site leaders identified the following problems as associated with use of satellite downlinks for distance education:

• Interruptions of satellite transmissions
• Difficulties in relocating satellite channels that changed daily
• Satellite format rigidity in terms of time of start, finish, and overall time allocation
• Cost of satellite time
• Inefficiency of live Q/A format for large groups characterized by diverse interests.

Extension agents viewed the satellite downlink Question/Answer sessions and expert panels less favorably than did the borrowers (Table 1, item 1, statistically significant; and item 2). Because of the above-indicated delivery problems with the satellite downlink, the agents were more critical in their mean evaluation scores. The instruction approach of the Extension agents benefited significantly from the use of pre-taped videos of topics such as "Explaining the Balance Sheet," which were viewed beforehand by many of the agents (Table 1, item 3). Use of pre-viewed videotapes contributed to increased knowledge and confidence on the part of the agents in assisting participants with questions on workbook concepts and exercises. From the view of the participants, the agents performed an important role in functioning as the on-site expert.

While the satellite communication format provided a consistent, real-time presentation, there was a desire for knowledgeable on-site experts who could support and help participants digest the material. The participants' response to question four underscores the need for well-prepared workshop leaders at each site. So, despite the concern over limited financial expertise, the pre-workshop orientation provided useful training for the agents to coordinate activities at their individual sites. Consistent with the differences between student and leader opinions shown in Table 1, 21% of borrowers but a much higher 47% of the agents reported technical problems of poor picture quality, poor sound, and difficulties with telephone connections in relation to satellite uplinks.

Table 1.

Question: Satellite seminars can be designed in many ways. How important are the following components of a teleconference to you?*

* Responses scored on a scale of 1 (not very important) to 4 (very important).

** Mean scores between agents and borrowers are statistically significant at p<0.05 level.

Technical difficulties had also been experienced by other Penn State satellite-based distance education programs. Peterson (1999) notes that the convenience afforded satellite teleconference participants seemed to be in inverse proportion to the complications for the faculty conducting the program. Although satellite systems have become more reliable over time, it is common for technical problems to keep one or more sites from receiving the signal despite competent, experienced staff. This lead to decisions whether to reschedule that site, refund fees, or rely on a video. These complications were compounded with a large number of sites and with multi-session programs (Peterson, 1999).

Other studies have also found scheduling difficulties to be a major problem for satellite transmissions as local Extension agents needed to find a downlink location with availability on the indicated date, adequate capacity for the class size, and a location within reasonable driving distance (Hiel & Herrington, 1997). Site leader concerns about scheduling are illustrated by one agent's problem with scheduling satellite workshops on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the days traditionally used during the winter months for Amish weddings. The same agent had to successively shift site location three times when enrollments increased from 15 to 30 to 45 participants. Use of the more flexible video format allowed this agent to schedule workshops on Wednesdays and to move the workshop from the county Extension office to a hotel meeting room that did not have a downlink capability.

Increased Use of Pre-Taped Videos

In addition to the concerns of Extension agents, two economic components led to a gradual shift from satellite downlinks to pre-taped videos. (Note that all operating costs for the workshops were self-financed.) First, the cost to purchase satellite time during 1995 per borrower-participant was $55, compared to only $25 for workbook materials. Second, the Penn State studio required the services of four to six technicians to mount a satellite uplink session, adding an additional overhead charge to the program.

During the first and second year of the workshops, most presentations of instructors and panels were carried live by satellite. But because of the above concerns and costs, only the satellite segments for two panel sessions were carried the third year. No satellite transmissions were carried the fourth year.

The borrower opinions presented in Table 2 indicate that instructor quality was viewed significantly more positively in years three and four, when the presentation was based on the Extension agent leading with use of the pre-taped videos. This finding, consistent with the heuristic concerns of the agents as indicated above, illustrates that equally successful workshops can be built with reliance on the more flexible video format as compared to live satellite uplinks. The improved ratings were also influenced by the instructors' increasing confidence and experience as they entered their second or third years of instruction. However, overall ratings were lower in 1999, perhaps because five sites were taught by new Extension agents.

Table 2. Borrower Opinions on Instructors

* Means are statistically different between each year at p<0.05 level.

** Means are statistically different between 1996 and 1997 at p<0.05 level.

Categorized Comments of Borrowers from 1999 Workshops

A notable problem found with the continued use of (the same) videotapes is that they can rapidly become dated. Prior to the 1999 workshops, the manual was updated to include several additional and revised exercises. However, the tapes were not redone to reflect the changes in the manual. The workshop participants had difficulty following along with the tapes because the page numbers in their manuals did not correspond to the pages being referenced on the tape. The concern this caused among the participants was shown by their open-ended comments when evaluating the workshop's strong and weak points (Table 3). This comment mentioned by 15% of the participants occurred nearly twice as often as the other negative comments. Criticism that the course was too short does not by itself reflect badly on the instructor, rather on the difficulty of scheduling 5 days for a specialized workshop with busy farmers and Extension agents. Again, the most positive comment recognizes the excellence of the instructors, who, over time, became more in control of the workshop environment with greater reliance on pre-taped videos.

Table 3. Summary of Participants' Written Comments on the Finance Program, 1999*

* Categories with more than 10 comments. Participants were asked to comment on program strengths and weaknesses.

User-Friendly Video Technology for Workshop Leaders

The experience acquired during 4 years of borrower training workshops has contributed to important changes to the instruction approach and overall success of the mandated program. Foremost among these changes has been the gradual transition from satellite to pre-taped video instruction. From an economic perspective, the use of satellite uplinks would be more consistent with regional or national workshops or presentations where the variable and fixed costs of satellite purchase time and studio production costs can be spread over large numbers of participants, or in programs where uplinks can be limited to a few hours instead of several days. Eliminating satellite costs was a major factor in reducing the tuition (excluding meals) from $200 to $90 per participant during 1995-99. The lower tuition costs made the workshops more attractive to farm borrowers, many of whom had experienced low profitability during the 1990's.

Use of pre-taped videos also eliminated the live studio production costs (other than in the year the videos were made). Use of videos rather than satellite uplinks also reduced scheduling issues for Extension specialists. A key workshop delivery issue related to the use of pre-taped presentation videos was enhanced site leader comfort with the teaching structure. Use of videos places the site leader more in control of time-use, scheduling and pace of instruction. This flexibility is highly valued. Further, the videos place more accountability on the site leader who manages their delivery, thus providing an added incentive to become an expert on the subject matter area.

The above-cited drawback regarding the problem of outdatedness or obsolescence of pre-taped videos warrants a final comment. Problems of outdated or inconsistent videos can be reduced by not including specific page numbers in the videos that over time may cease to correspond to the participant manual and by trying to describe general rather than recent economic events. This approach permits making additions to participant manuals without diminishing the videos' usefulness.

Because of joint cost and inflexibility difficulties, satellite uplinks at Penn State Universities are increasingly used for outreach education programs that are fully funded by grant monies and that are directed toward nationwide audiences. As G. Peterson notes, "Penn State's Agricultural Information Service coordinates about 18 satellite video conferences annually. These are all funded by grants or contracts and do not involve collecting fees or complicated distribution of materials" (personal correspondence, July 8, 1999).

The evolution in instructional methods for the borrower training workshops, from use of satellite uplinks to pre-taped videos, illustrates the continued importance of cost-control and flexibility issues in distance education programs despite technological advances. New Internet distance education technology that provides live interaction between Extension specialists and participants may soon fulfill the need for tight cost-control and flexibility in innovative distance education workshops. However, the above experience suggests that the use of videos in providing high-quality educational programs will likely remain a mainstay until more flexible teleconference technology becomes available and familiar to the majority of Extension agents and their clientele (Trede & Whitaker, 1998).

References

Hanson, G. (1995). A distance-learning approach to borrower training. Agricultural Finance Review 55, 133-146.

Hanson, G., Parsons, R., Musser, W., & Power, L. (1998). Impact analysis of farm finance workshops. Journal of Extension [Online]. 36(3). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb2.html.>

Hiel, E., & Herrington, D. (1997). Plausible uses and limitations of videoconferencing as a tool for achieving technology transfer. Journal of Extension [Online]. 35(4). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1997august/rb1.html>.

Rules and Regulations. (1993). Federal Register. 58 (no. 249) 30 December:16190-98.

Trede, L., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Beginning farmer education in Iowa: Implications to Extension. Journal of Extension [Online]. 36(5). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.html>.

USDA: Situation and outlook report. (1999). Lenders' financial performance strong. Agricultural Income and Finance. AIS-71 (February: 9).

Introduction

During the past decade, the Cooperative Extension System, like most public and private organizations and agencies, has faced an era of economic scarcity. In addition, the rapid development of a global economy and increasingly complex and changing social, economic, and environmental conditions at the local, community, and state level have produced several external factors impacting its ability to carry out its mission and purpose. These external factors include:

• Accelerated rate of technological change,
• Changing demographics of the people to be served,
• Increased competition for public funding,
• Shifting sources of support for teaching, research, and Extension, and
• Accessibility of world's knowledge base to whomever has the technology to access it.

In addition to the changing concerns and priorities of local communities and states, the rapid expansion and distribution of the world's knowledge base are bringing profound and interconnected changes that are producing internal challenges. These internal challenges include:

• Becoming more customer driven,
• Ensuring cost effective approaches to make the most of limited budgets,
• Becoming fast and flexible to meet changing customer needs, and
• Continuing to improve to satisfy customer expectations.

Because of the speed at which change is occurring, state Cooperative Extension Systems, as well as other organizations, are at various stages of organizational transformation designed to enable them to respond quickly to change as needed.

Organizations that respond to the changing nature of work and authority relationships are learning organizations (Senge, 1990). The transition to a learning organization, however, is not easy. A major concern is that employees and supervisors often are expected to address problems and issues for which they have limited experience, and they must do so using authority-influence relationships for which they have little or no preparation. For these organizations to excel in the future, they must discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn as well as

involve people at all levels in the organization (Senge, 1990).

A second challenge facing Cooperative Extension is the emergence of the information technology era. This new era has brought radical changes to organizational function and structure. Extension systems that control and channel information solely through hierarchical structures may have great difficulty being competitive in the information-rich global market place. The management principles and leadership styles followed in these institutions/hierarchical structures are often no longer appropriate. New management competencies and leadership styles will be needed.

A third challenge impacting the transition to a learning organization is that few Extension administrators are professionally trained in management competencies and styles of leadership appropriate for learning organizations. Rather, they have been promoted to administration because they excelled in their subject-matter discipline, and they learn their new craft by emulating those who proceeded them. While this practice is commonplace throughout the industrialized world, these administrators often lack the necessary managerial and leadership competence necessary to truly transform their organizations to compete in the information technology era (Patterson, 1998).

Southern Extension Leadership Development (SELD)

In response to the growing need to understand and cope with the many changes currently and potentially impacting the Extension System, Cooperative Extension Directors and Administrators of the Southern Region called for the establishment of a regional leadership development program. The result was the formation of Southern Extension Leadership Development (SELD). An advisory committee composed of representatives of four Southern states with expertise in several disciplines, including participants of the National Extension Leadership Development--NELD, helped formulate the program.

SELD is a virtual organization that knows no state boundaries. Its formation followed the principles of collective leadership in that it was developed as an informal system whose support from each of the Directors and Administrators of Cooperative Extension in the Southern Region was based on their level of participation in SELD. SELD is supported by user fees, and the individuals who serve as resources for SELD are involved in leadership activities within their respective states.

The SELD program is unique in that the competency-based approach builds around the skills individuals and groups in Cooperative Extension need to be effective in the future. With such knowledge, Extension educators can design professional development plans that are relevant, useful, and customized to their needs.

The centerpiece of SELD is the Managerial Assessment of Proficiency (MAP), developed by Training House, Inc. of Princeton, NJ. MAP is a video-driven, competency-based, computer-scored simulation consisting of 200 items that assesses a participant's proficiency in 12 competencies, 2 leadership styles, and 8 values/drives. Validation studies employing rank order correlation analysis relating performance on the job with performance on MAP were conducted by Training House, Inc. with over 250 managers and supervisors in several organizations. Correlations between these two measures were high, ranging between .75 to .92. Split-half reliability was reported between .75 and .76 for the various competency scales (Measuring Competency, 1986). Individual scores are compared to those of over 62,000 individuals from over 500 organizations worldwide who have taken MAP.

Training House firmly believes that one manages tasks and leads people. Therefore, the 12 competencies upon which SELD participants are assessed are divided into two main categories: managing tasks and leading people.

Relating to Others	Thinking Clearly
Listening and Organizing	Identifying and Solving Problems
Giving Clear Information	Making Decisions, Weighing Risk
Getting Unbiased Information	Thinking Clearly and Analytically

How Extension Compares

The first SELD workshop was held in April, 1994, at the Kentucky 4-H Center. Since its inception, 900+ participants have gone through SELD. Participants have come primarily from Cooperative Extension Systems and the Land Grant University System of the Southern Region of the United States. They include vice-presidents, directors of Cooperative Extension and Experiment Stations, deans, center directors, department heads, district and county directors, county Extension agents, and faculty from the 13 Southern states and Delaware.

Each MAP workshop is 2 days in length. It begins with an evening session to introduce individuals to the conceptual framework of SELD. Day one is devoted to assessing the 12 competencies. The assessment is based on wrong/right answers. The second day focuses on interpretation of results and discusses leadership in a changing organization. Participants also develop a learning plan to increase their leadership and managerial knowledge and skills. These learning plans provide the foundation for follow-up seminars on the 12 competencies.

As a result of these workshops, participants have reported significant (p<.001) increases in their understanding of competencies needed for effective decision-making, their individual level of competency attainment in each area, and their need for improvement.

Table 1 reflects the managerial assessment of proficiency group composite assessment for the nearly 900 who have participated in SELD. Overall, participants scored at the 54th percentile when compared to the 62,000 individuals in the MAP database.

As a group, Extension's strengths are in the competencies of:

• "Planning and Scheduling Work" (62^nd percentile),
• "Identifying and Solving Problems" (59^th percentile),
• "Making Decisions, Weighing Risks" (58^th percentile),
• "Giving Clear Information" (56^th percentile), and
• "Training, Coaching and Delegating" (58^th percentile).

These are important competencies that Extension workers must have to design and implement educational programs that meet customer needs or to assist clients with answers to questions in a timely and efficient manner. These competencies will become even more important as resources and staff become more limited. The use of para-professionals, work teams, and volunteers may help us to deliver more programs or more effectively use our resources; however, Extension staff will need the skills to effectively utilize these human resources.

Several competencies will need strengthening if Extension staff are to design and implement customer-driven programs that are cost effective and satisfy customer expectations. These include:

• "Setting Goals and Standards,"
• "Getting Unbiased Information,"
• "Time Management and Prioritizing,"
• "Appraising People and Performance," and
• "Disciplining and Counseling."

Our participant group scores were average or slightly above average (50^th - 53^rd percentile) for these competencies. Federal and state governments as well as clientele groups are requiring increased accountability for the resources we use. Such accountability often takes the form of requiring public agencies to set measurable goals and standards. To meet organizational goals and standards, individual goals and standards must be set. This requires that Extension professionals have the ability to manage activities and projects toward measurable goals, manage their own and other's time effectively, and obtain unbiased information about the quality of the program being delivered and those delivering it.

The weaker competency areas were "Thinking Clearly and Analytically" (42^nd percentile) and "Listening and Organizing" (48^th percentile). As educators, we are constantly interpreting situations and information, much of it in the form of raw data, before deciding what action to take. This requires operating with a sound database identifying valid premises and drawing logical conclusions from them. The quality of these decisions is also related to the quality of information we receive and how we understand, organize, and analyze information. This process is directly related to our skill in listening to the facts and feelings of others. It should be noted that in the world of work, one's performance in one competency area may be correlated to performance in another competency area. In MAP, however, each of the competencies is scored independently of all other competencies.

Table 1.

Group Composite Managerial Assessment of Proficiency for SELD Participants (N=906)

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

HHHHHHHHHHH

Faculty completing the SELD workshops were asked to rate their knowledge on 20 items related to their decision-making skills using a pretest/posttest measure. This measure consisted of a five-point scale (1 = poor to 5 = excellent). The results were summated and statistically analyzed. Significant increases (p < .001 for matched pair t-test) occurred in their decision-making skills. Extension staff attributed those increases to the SELD workshop. Using the same five-point scale, participants also rated the relevance of the materials (4.3), the quality of the program content (4.3), usefulness in support of professional development (4.5), and feedback from the assessment instrument (4.7).

Development of the Learning Organization

Faculty, to be successful in this new era, must be able to manage tasks and lead people. They must have competencies in working in teams, interdisciplinary communications, and use of results assessments based on performance rather than activity. The long-range objective of Southern Extension Leadership Development (SELD) is to prepare existing and potential leaders in Extension, research, and teaching in the USDA-Land Grant University System for the transition to the learning organization. To effectively make the transition from a functional hierarchy to a learning organization that utilizes an information technology structure requires a three-pronged approach.

A systematic training program designed to develop leadership and managerial capacity, communications proficiency, and team skills should be provided to existing and potential leaders in Extension. Organizations in the information technology era will increasingly rely on self-designed, self-managed teams. Because MAP provides an objective measure of managerial competencies, participants have a better understanding of their individual strengths and weaknesses. As a consequence, participants are able to target areas for improvement.

Follow-up seminars are being provided to participants wanting to improve in one or more of the 12 competencies for which they were tested. Each seminar lasts about 4 hours. Participants view analyses of episodes drawn from MAP. Working interactively with video and workbook, participants identify basic skills and techniques. They then apply their new learning in a variety of hands-on exercises: case method, role play, script analysis, games/simulations, and self-inventories. Participants also develop action plans to guide their managerial development.

Extension administrators should continually assess their knowledge of and skills in utilizing leadership and management principles required of a learning organization. While the command and control principles served the system well in the industrial era, the speed and complexity of information transfer requires leadership and management principles and organizational structures that tap people's commitment and capacity to learn at all levels of the learning organization. Executive development programs should be developed for Extension administrators to help them ensure an organizational structure that is 1) customer driven, 2) cost effective, 3) fast and flexible, and 4) continually improving.

Many individuals have completed professional development programs on collective leadership and institutional change. This core group could provide opportunities for new connections and greater communications on performance development of the individual and of the learning organization.

References

Committee on the Future of Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. (1995). Colleges of agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A profile. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Management Assessment of Proficiency (MAP). (1995). Training House, Princeton, NJ.

Patterson, T. J. (1998). Commentary II: A new paradigm for Extension administration. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(1). Available: < http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/comm1.html>.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: A Currency Book, Published by Doubleday.

The Mission of Cooperative Extension Service

When the Cooperative Extension Service was first established in the early 1900's, Cooperative Extension agents represented the state's Land Grant University in each of the counties throughout a particular state. A Cooperative Extension agent primarily served as an instructor in both agriculture and home economics. The agent provided assistance ranging from educational training to farmers throughout the county, to providing youth development opportunities throughout rural America. In most cases only one agent was assigned to a particular county.

That one agent handled all of the responsibilities mandated to the Cooperative Extension Service under the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. The mission mandated by the Smith-Lever Act was "to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics, and to encourage the application of the same." This mission has evolved somewhat through the years to now state that "Extension shall enable people to improve the lives and communities through learning partnerships that put knowledge to work" (Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1995).

The mission of the Cooperative Extension Service was eventually interpreted so that educational training and assistance was provided in four areas. These four areas are Agriculture, Home Economics, or what is now referred to as Family and Consumer Sciences, 4 H-Youth Development, and Community Development. As the years went on, agent positions were created for each of these subject areas. Many counties throughout the Cooperative Extension System have agents teaching in one or more of these categories.

In Ohio, The Ohio State University is designated as the state's Land Grant University. The Ohio State University provides Cooperative Extension programs and services through the Ohio State University Extension Service. Offices are located in each of Ohio's 88 counties. Agents provide instruction in the four categories previously mentioned.

The Role of Community Development Agents in Ohio

The Community Development Division of the Ohio State University Extension Service helps individuals and communities to identify and meet local needs with useful information, educational programming, planning, and practical implementation through collaborative efforts with individuals, organizations, and groups to enhance the wellbeing of communities. In Ohio agents work in two areas: Community Development and Community Economic Development. A Community Development Agent works on programming activities related to the overall wellbeing of a community. A Community Economic Development Agent works on programming focused on improving the local economy.

In 1994, the Ohio State University Extension, Community Development Division developed a 5-year strategic plan for carrying out programming activities. The division identified four critical services that Community Development and Community Economic Development Agents were to perform in developing county programs:

1. Provide a perspective on local development issues.
2. Increase the knowledge base for individual and community decisions.
3. Develop the skills necessary to achieve individual and community goals.
4. Help to shape the decision-making environment.

Each agent assigned to a county is asked to develop a program for either Community Development or Community Economic Development or both. This depends on the focus that was desired by a particular county when its agent position was developed.

Economic Development in Huron County, Ohio

Huron County, Ohio, is located in rural North Central Ohio, between the Cleveland and Toledo metropolitan areas. The city of Norwalk is the county seat. With 3 cities, 7 villages, and 19 townships, the county has a variety of political subdivisions.

While the county is primarily agricultural, its population centers are home to numerous, sizeable industrial plants, including national manufacturers R. R. Donnelly and Sons, an international publishing house; Pepperidge Farm, Inc., makers of brand-name cookies and biscuits; and Midwest Industries, a nationally known manufacturer of lawn and garden equipment. Also located in the county are homegrown companies such as Norwalk Furniture Company and Geotrac, Inc. a flood plain mapping company. Other manufacturers include Janesville Products Company and Industrial Powder Coatings, Inc., two auto-related industries. Two railroads operate regional yard operations in the county. In the city of Willard there is the CSX railroad, and in Bellevue there is the Norfolk Southern operations. Huron County is also on the southern fringe of the Lake Erie vacation area.

Huron County is primarily rural in nature, with an estimated population of 58,000 located throughout a land area consisting of approximately 500 square miles. Despite all of the advantages mentioned above, the county has suffered from chronically high unemployment. The latest figure on the unemployment rate is 6.5%. This figure is higher than the rate for any of the neighboring counties and is also one of the highest throughout Ohio. 1990 Census Data information indicates the median household income in 1990 for Huron County was $27,401. Although this figure increased since 1980, it was $1,305 less than the statewide median of $28,706.

Before a Cooperative Extension agent was assigned to Huron County, the economic development program for the county was in disarray. The countywide economic development organization called itself "HECDEC," or The Huron County Educational and Economic Development Council. This organization was created in 1983 by county political leaders, including the Huron County Commissioners.

At the time of its creation, HECDEC was an organization whose intentions were good; however, eventually things went wrong. HECDEC always had problems with funding and credibility. Economic development was new to a lot of people in the county. Political and civic leaders had difficulty buying into the concept of a countywide economic development organization. The organization was established as a partnership among communities, businesses, and industries throughout the county. However, a number of key players in the county failed to buy into the concept.

The financial structure of HECDEC was directly tied to the need for all of the communities throughout Huron County participating and contributing financially to the organization. Because several of the communities failed to contribute, HECDEC had difficulty raising funds that were necessary to run an effective economic development organization.

Because of the lack of funding, HECDEC could not pay for a full-time director. What ensued was a series of part-time directors operating on "shoe string" budgets that weren't very successful in supporting economic development services throughout the county. This was especially trying because during the 1980's the local economy had suffered several major losses, with plant closings and other service-type establishments closing doors. HECDEC finally reached a low point in 1992, when several of the utility companies and lending institutions pulled funding from the organization because of concerns relating to the effectiveness of the operation. The executive director eventually resigned to seek other employment opportunities, and HECDEC began losing members.

In 1993, HECDEC was down to 12 members. At an organizational meeting, one of the utility company representatives began an effort to restructure the organization. This individual was a graduate of The Ohio State University and was aware of the services that were provided by the Ohio State University Extension Service. After working with the chairman of the Huron County Extension Office and other representatives of Ohio State University Extension, a partnership was developed among HECDEC, the Huron County Commissioners, and the university.

The Huron County Commissioners agreed to provide office space for the organization and to fund an additional agent position through the county Extension office. Ohio State University Extension agreed to provide secretarial services and a professionally trained Community Economic Development Agent to the county. The remaining members of HECDEC agreed to provide additional funding to get the operation running again. In July of 1994, a full-time Community Economic Development Agent was hired by the university to provide educational programming to the county.

A New Beginning for Economic Development in Huron County

On July 1, 1994, the new Community Economic Development Agent came on board. The agent's assignment was to take over the reigns of the countywide economic development agency by serving as its executive director. The mission of the agent was to increase HECDEC membership, raise operating funds, and develop an economic development program for Huron County.

After spending time getting to know some of the players, organizing the office, and learning the geography of the county, the agent got to work developing a program. The agent met with HECDEC members at a general meeting and identified immediate needs of the organization, things that needed to be accomplished over the next six months, and longer-term goals that needed to be completed over a period of 1 to 3 years. Input and suggestions were also obtained from the board members. What resulted was the development of a strategic plan for the organization that was to be reviewed on an annual basis.

One of the first things done was to rename the organization to eliminate the negative connotations that had developed through the years around the old HECDEC logo and name. The new name of the organization was the Huron County Development Council, or HCDC. The members of the organization decided that new marketing materials would be developed to establish the new identity. A color scheme of scarlet and grey was to be utilized in all of the marketing material to reflect the partnership that had been established with the Ohio State University Extension Service, whose colors are scarlet and grey.

A new financial structure was established. The structure called for all of the communities to contribute on a per capita basis. A fee of $.25 per resident of the city or village based on recent census data was to be charged on an annual basis to each participating community. A fee of $.50 per resident was charged to the county. Participating townships were charged a $.10 per person fee. The banks and utility companies were charged $500 a year for a seat on the board, as were companies, individuals, and organizations. Chambers of Commerce, Community Improvement Corporations, and Development Corporations were charged $100 a year. Anyone else who wanted to be affiliated with the organization could pay an annual fee of $100.00; however, they would not have a seat on the board and thus have a vote on any economic development policies or programs.

Program activities were placed in four categories. These categories were identified as 1) Marketing, 2) Business Retention and Expansion, 3) Data Compilation , and 4) Assistance to Communities. As a result, the agent established a full-fledged economic development organization with a myriad of responsibilities and duties. This program was presented at a public meeting that was sponsored by the member financial institutions and utility companies and attended by 95 political and civic leaders from throughout Huron County. The program was very well received. As a result, the Community Economic Development Agent went to work immediately on the various projects that were identified.

Immediate credibility was established for the organization once the Community Economic Development Agent was introduced to the community. People throughout the community now realized that a full-time, professionally trained economic development professional would be working in the county. The affiliation with a major, world-renowned university also helped in this regard. The Ohio State University Extension Service had a reputation for providing excellent educational services to the citizens of Huron County through the years. This same type of service was expected in areas of Community and Community Economic Development.

During the first year of operation, all of the communities within Huron County, along with area Chambers of Commerce and the county commissioners, agreed to contribute. Some of the communities were rather reluctant, but a "try and see" approach was taken. Eventually all of the utility companies became members, and eventually all of the financial organizations came into the fold. HCDC now has a solid membership of 50. An operating budget of $65,000 a year is used to manage the program. This budget is maintained by membership fees and by grant administration work undertaken by the agent.

Quantitative Impacts

A common way to measure success of programming activities, whether it is related to Cooperative Extension work or another type of work, is to use quantitative impacts. In the field of economic development, if jobs are not being created, if unemployment numbers are not decreasing, if businesses are not growing or locating in a community, then economic development programming efforts are not having a positive impact in the community.

In the case of the economic development programming efforts in Huron County, Ohio, other numbers were also relevant to the success or failure of the work of the Community Economic Development Agent. These numbers were related to membership of the Huron County Development Council and to funds raised by the agent to operate the economic development program. In all of the quantitative categories mentioned above, there were significant measures of improvement.

• Since July of 1994, the Community Economic Development Agent has been able to verify a net job growth of close to 1,000 new jobs created in the county.
• Over 30 different expansions by industries already located in the county have occurred during the 6 years that the economic development program has been in place.
• Huron County has seen an investment of over $100 million by business and industry in new plants and equipment.
• The unemployment figures have been reduced to the lowest rate in 19 years.

All of these items are positive quantitative measures of the improvement that has occurred in the local economy.

Conclusion

In addition to these quantitative measures, membership and funding for the Huron County Development Council has stabilized to the point where HCDC is known and respected as the economic development organization for the county. Now, whenever a business, industry, or organization needs economic development assistance they know they can contact the Community Economic Development Agent in Huron County to get the help they need, whether it is:

• Educating members of the Huron County Development Council on economic development programs,
• Conducting a business retention and expansion survey throughout the county to assist a company on its expansion plans,
• Providing marketing data to prospective industries, or
• Facilitating an incentive program for a local company to allow it to expand.

The mission of the Huron County Development Council is to work on improving the Huron County economy. The Community Economic Development Agent in Huron County and the Ohio State University Extension Service have had a significant impact on this mission.

References

Severs, F., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative Extension. New York: Delmar Publishers.

Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. (Oct. 1998). Ohio labor market information: Labor force estimates.

Ohio Department of Development. (1995). Ohio county profiles.

The Ohio State University Extension Service. Community development: Professional training programs for state, businesses, educators and community organizations.

The Ohio State University Extension Service. Community Development. (Nov. 1994). A strategic plan for involvement 1995-2000.

Introduction

Since the early 1900's, Cooperative Extension has had a long and successful history of providing educational resources for agriculture as well as other disciplines. But in the past decade, in the Northeast and elsewhere, there is a growing need for Cooperative Extension to shift the focus towards a stronger emphasis on natural resource management. This need arises due to several factors in the landscape and society' s interactions with this landscape.

First, there is an expanded land base in natural land cover types (e.g., woodlands, abandoned fields, wetlands) and associated changes in economic opportunities as former agricultural lands have gone out of traditional production and into natural land cover types (Stanton & Bills, 1996). For example, recent studies indicate that the extent of forested land cover has increased from 37% to over 60% in the last four decades in New York (Alerich & Drake, 1993), with similar findings in other Northeastern states (Birch, 1996). These now maturing woodlands provide greater opportunities for commodity production such as sawtimber and amenity values such as recreational use and the need for conserving related natural resources such as water quality, as the woodlands become more frequently and intensively used.

A second factor is the changing needs of the audience(s) served by Cooperative Extension. This audience continues to include the traditional farmers who have used their woodlands for fuel and periodic income. However, with increased economic constraints and public scrutiny on farmers, many are looking for ways to more efficiently use all their resources, including woodlots. The Extension audiences also must expand to embrace the now abundant private forest landowners who number in the millions throughout the Northeast (Birch, 1996). Private forest landowners are now dominated by retirees and white and blue collar workers who are frequently urban-oriented and less knowledgeable about options for land management. These landowners have interests both in generating revenue and in recreational uses of lands they may have owned for decades but not fully utilized.

A final but equally important factor has been the dramatic increase in public awareness of environmental issues and the complementary vast array of state and federal regulations designed to ensure environmental protection. Farmers and nonfarming rural landowners, as well as youth, municipal planners, professionals, and urban residents are audiences with a tremendous need to understand environmental issues that impact their lives. In particular, the long-term protection of water quality and quantity has been identified as a universal issue of concern for the next several decades.

It is the mandate and mission of Cooperative Extension to address public educational needs, and Cooperative Extension is uniquely capable of developing research-based educational programs for private rural landowners in natural resource management. In New York, the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) system provides a powerful network that links the university and county personnel to relevant audiences and issues statewide.

Extension educators within each county understand local perspectives and politics, provide site-specific expertise, and act as an interface between county residents and Cornell University. It is therefore important to assess the awareness and perspectives of these Extension educators regarding critical issues in natural resource management before relevant programs can be developed.

The overall goal of the research described here was to evaluate the Extension educators' view of important programming topics in natural resource management, specifically within the areas of water and forestry resources.

Methods

A mail survey was conducted in September and October, 1996, with surveys sent to 233 agents in New York's 57 counties and New York City boroughs. The 1996 Cornell telephone directory was used as the source for agent names and position descriptions.

The selection of agents for the survey focused primarily on agents with program responsibilities categorized as "environmental stewardship" or "natural resources management." Agents were also included with responsibilities in vegetable and fruit crops, dairy and livestock, horticulture, and 4-H youth programming, particularly in the 17 counties that did not have agents listed with these programming responsibilities, because these programming responsibilities often incorporate components of natural resource management. Additional surveys were sent to the executive directors of each county association to inform them of the survey and to include them if they had relevant programming responsibilities.

Surveys were individually addressed to the selected agents. The surveys were sent once for most of the state. However, a repeat request for survey responses was done in the 10 counties comprising the Catskills and Lower Hudson River region as part of our invitation and advertisement for agent participation at a subsequent inservice workshop.

The survey requested the following information from each agent: name, county, responsibilities by percent time in categories defined by the agent, and an indication of the importance of 12 water resource topics and 16 forest management topics (Table 1). These topic areas were initially selected by the authors as representing the most important and recognizable issues in New York and fundamental to any related programming.

Importance was indicated by the respondents independently ranking each of the 28 categories. Ranking was on a scale where 5 was of most interest and 1 was of least interest for receiving educational programming information. Additional space in the survey was provided to allow other comments or suggested topics.

Table 1.

List of Water Resource and Forestry Topics Evaluated by Extension Educators

Completed surveys were separated into four groups based on the primary programming responsibility identified by the agent and included: 1) Environment (including natural resources, water quality, environmental stewardship, forestry), 2) Agriculture (including row crops, dairy, and livestock), 3) Horticulture, and 4) Other (e.g., administration, economic vitality, etc.). This division is useful although somewhat artificial because many agents had multiple responsibility areas encompassing more than one of the four groups.

To determine the general interest in topics, a weighted rank score for each of the 28 topics was calculated by summing the rank score responses overall and in each category and dividing by the number of respondents. To determine topics of major interest area for programming, we identified those that 50% or more of the Extension educators ranked as 4 or 5. In several instances, respondents did not provide rankings for topics "not relevant to their programming," and by default, these were ranked as 1. The percentages of Extension educators that ranked each topic as a major interest were tabulated separately for water and forest resources.

Results

Overall, 112 surveys from 52 separate counties were completed and returned. This response represents input from 91% of the 57 county Extension associations statewide and 65% of the agents surveyed whose position descriptions included responsibilities in environmental stewardship or natural resource management. However, only 21% of the participants had this topic as their primary job responsibility; other educators were primarily focused on Agriculture ( 29.5%), Horticulture (20%), and Other topics (29.5%). The overall return rate was 49%, and this rate was higher (62%) in the Catskill region, where counties were sent repeat surveys, and in selected other counties. These higher rates of return from selected counties are not controlled for in the following summary.

There was greater interest in water resource topics than in forest management topics by agents overall. The overall average weighted ranked score for water resource topics was 2.8, compared to 2.5 for forest management topics. In water resource issues, 5 of the 12 topics were ranked a 4 or 5 by at least 50% of the Extension educators in one or more areas of programming responsibility.

The four topics rated overall as most useful for receiving water resource programming were:

1) "Protection of local and regional groundwater",
2) 2"Farm practices and water quality,"
3) "Watershed management for water quality", and
4) "Aquatic weed management for ponds and lakes."

In contrast, only two of the 16 forestry topics were ranked as 4 or 5 by a majority of the educators. The four topics ranked highest for future forest-management programming needs were:

1) "Farm woodlot management",
2) "Forest management for wildlife habitat and biodiversity",
3) "Tree identification," and
4) "Best management practices for forestry."

Extension educators with different programming responsibilities predictably tended to rank topics differently. In water resources, highest rankings were assigned by Agriculture educators. The highest forest management ranks were consistently given by educators having Horticulture responsibilities. "Protection of local and regional groundwater" was the first or second issue of major interest by Extension educators from all four groups (Table 2). And among forest management topics, "Forest management for wildlife habitat and biodiversity" was ranked as the topic of greatest interest by Extension educators programming in the categories of Environment, Horticulture, and Other (Table 3).

Compared to the water resource topics, there was less consistency for the ranking of forest management topics among the four areas of Extension educator programming responsibility. The lowest rankings for water resource topics generally were assigned by the Other category of educators, but in forest management the low rankings varied with the topic.

Table 2.

Ranking of Water Resource Topics Among Extension Educators Having Different Primary Areas of Programming Responsibility

* Percentages represent the number of Extension educators within a programming category who ranked the topic 4 or 5.

Table 3.

Ranking of Forest Management Topics Among Extension Educators Having Different Primary Areas of Programming Responsibility

* Percentages represent the number of Extension educators within a programming category who ranked the topic 4 or 5.

Discussion

The results of this survey have provided a valuable tool for understanding both the interests of Extension educators and their awareness of current critical issues in the management of New York's natural resources. Surprisingly, the greatest insights were provided not just by the list of highest ranked topics but also by the types of topics that were considered less important.

Water resource topics were consistently ranked as important and worthy of additional programming effort by most of the educators. This interest reflects the nationwide focus on water quality improvement for the past three decades. Under this topic, issues such as "protection of groundwater" and "handling of residential hazardous wastes" are currently well covered by campus-based staff at Cornell University and do not warrant additional effort from Department of Natural Resource faculty.

However, several new areas were highlighted for which there is no current Extension programming. For example, aquatic plant management in New York's more than 1,500 lakes is an area of growing concern, with lakeshore owners and municipal planners as key audiences, but educators have limited resources to provide community support. Additionally, streamside management and restoration are major tools being used by USDA and resource managers to improve water quality in watersheds statewide and are the focus of considerable federal and state funding. Although there are important outreach activities and audiences associated with streamside management, Cornell extension educators currently have little involvement in this issue. Both these topics have been targeted as areas of program development as a result of this survey.

In contrast to the water resource topics, most forest management topics were not rated as highly, even by educators with major Environment responsibilities. Only in one area of Extension educator programming responsibility, Horticulture, was there consistently strong interest in forest management topics. This lack of interest from Extension educators was surprising given the general conversion of New York from an agriculture- to forest-dominated landscape, the growing audience who need outreach on forestry-related topics, and the economic incentives associated with increasing timber prices over the last decade. This conversion indicates the need for a greater focus on private farm and small woodlot management. However, the overall educator rankings for conducting a timber sale and estimating the value of standing timber were the lowest of all the topical areas.

The unexpected lack of interest in critical forestry topics by the network of county educators is an important finding. One interpretation of this pattern results from the long tradition of agriculture-based extension in New York. Many educators have a human ecology or agricultural background and are not trained with a background of natural resources. The national focus on water has resulted in a greater awareness by extension staff of water quality issues, but not of forestry. The conversion of the landscape from agriculture to forestry has occurred over many decades, with a majority of the forest land recently become mature enough for harvesting. There is thus a lag period during which Extension programming and services are not in synchrony with the new needs of the New York communities.

The results of this survey highlight an important role of campus-based faculty in the Extension system. These faculty should have an awareness of future programming needs based on trends in the issues and use of natural resources. Using this awareness and the county educator knowledge of client needs, the longer-term identification, definition, and direction can be developed for statewide programming. The faculty have the expertise to identify and define the longer-term directions for statewide programming that are needed to meet changes across New York.

Surveys such as this one are a powerful tool for identifying these needs. Once identified, the faculty can then develop educational materials and also provide the training to build the natural resource capacity of the county educators.

Application and Impacts

The results of this survey have been a valuable resource both for short-term and long-term program development. Since the completion of this survey, we have developed statewide programs for forestry for non-industrial private landowners, aquatic plant management, and streamside protection (Stand By Your Stream(reg)). Resources for these programs include fact sheets, slide shows, satellite videoconferences, and other outreach resources.

These programs have formed the basis for multi-county, natural resource inservice training workshops conducted statewide annually. Each workshop has been attended by 25 or more educators. While building capacity among the educators to do natural resource outreach, we have also used these programs to directly increase awareness among rural landowners, farmers, and other target audiences. We have conducted approximately 15 multi-county workshops, with most workshops focusing on absentee landowners in major urban areas. These workshops cover a broad topic base to include forestry, wildlife, and wetlands, and typically have attracted several hundred participants, each of whom owns over 50 acres.

We conclude that the Extension educator survey provided a powerful tool for directing the development of programs in Cooperative Extension for natural resource management in New York and that it can be used as a model for similar efforts in other states.

References

Alerich, C. L., & Drake, D. A. (1993). Forest statistics for New York: 1980 and 1993. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Resource Bulletin NE 132. 249 pp.

Birch, T. W. (1996). Private forest-land owners of the northern United States, 1994. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin Res. Bull. NE 136. 293 pp.

Stanton, B. F., & Bills, N. L. (1996). The return of agricultural land to forest--Changing land use in the twentieth century. Cornell University, Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Ithaca, NY. Report No. E.B. 96-03. 132 pp.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000june/ent-a.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.