The "First Thursday" of each month was devoted to having an educational meeting and dinner. The barn manager and the Extension agents initiated these programs, and the program responsibility has gradually been shifted to the county livestock association directors. This created "new life" in the directors. The association also held its educational seminars at the sale barn prior to the business session of its annual meeting.

Most of the cattle producers have herds of less than 30 brood cows, and many do not have adequate facilities to implement the recommended herd health practices. The morning of the "Second Saturday" of each month was set aside to make available the facilities and equipment of the barn for the producers' use. This included the use of the hydraulic squeeze chute and head gate, as well as the pens. Someone was available to assist in using the equipment and to instruct the producers in recommended techniques, health practices, and procedures.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this descriptive study was to evaluate UT Extension's program delivery methods used in partnering efforts with those of the local livestock market in Fayette County, Tennessee. The new and modern livestock market serves as a focal point where cattle producers come together to share ideas, as well as market their livestock. It is the only livestock market in Fayette County, and, because not all of the adjoining counties have a livestock market, it also serves as a multi-county market. To guide this study, the following objectives were formulated.

Methodology

The population for this study consisted of all of the cattle producers who visited and/or sold livestock at the local livestock market and all of the cattle producers on the cattle mailing list kept at the Fayette County Extension Service (CES) office. The CES mailing list was merged with the livestock market list in 1997 to formulate a comprehensive list. Because some cattle producers from other counties sell livestock at this market, the list contained names of cattle producers from other counties. Currently the list has 504 names.

The convenience sample for this study consisted of 96 names from the list. This sample consisted of those cattle producers who had requested notices of the First Thursday program or who attended one of the sessions. Four of the names were removed because they were commercial industries and did not represent an individual. Thus the final sample consisted of 92 cattle producers.

A cattle producer for this study was defined as any person who had requested information about cattle and whose name had been added to the mailing list. A limitation of this sample was that it was not necessary to own or sell cattle to participate in Extension's educational programs. Permission to use human subjects in this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board, Mississippi State University.

Assurances were made that any information that could identify participants would be kept strictly confidential. Code numbers were used to identify participants and a master list matching code numbers and names were used only for correspondence purposes during the study.

In planning the evaluation, the divergent and convergent phases were used to arrive at the critical questions. The process began with the divergent phase as Worthen, Sanders, and Fitzpatrick (1997) suggest, and the initial step was to define the stakeholders. The stakeholders were divided into the policymakers, managers, specialists, practitioners, and clients, and from these, 12 individuals were identified to be interviewed.

Each person was contacted and told "We are trying to determine if this program is beneficial and would like to know what you would ask the participants to determine if it has been a success." The word "evaluation" was avoided whenever possible. The individuals were very open and interested in the evaluation and were eager to be an involved stakeholder. The evaluation easily became a mutual project, and their enthusiasm generated 19 possible questions.

During the convergent phase, the question matrix by Worthen et al. was used to condense the number of questions determined by the divergent phase into six critical questions, which became the six objectives of the study. Using this method, each of the original 19 critical question was evaluated by the evaluator for duplication, importance of the information, interest to the stakeholders, feasibility of being evaluated, and legality. The evaluator and the key stakeholders cooperatively reviewed the list and mutually agreed on the final list. For these remaining questions, a questionnaire was developed. Students in AEE 8703 Evaluation of Agricultural and Extension Education class at Mississippi State University checked face validity. Corrections were made to the survey.

On April 16, 1999, the survey was mailed to the 92 program participants. A cover letter was included with instructions for completing the survey. Also enclosed was a self-addressed stamped envelope for returning the survey and a requested return date of April 26, 1999. By May 5, 1999, 50 surveys had been returned and analyzed. A follow-up letter was sent on May 6, 1999, to the 42 cattle producers who had not returned the survey. Also, personal contacts were made whenever the opportunity was available to give encouragement and explain the purpose for returning the survey. By May 18, 1999, 62 surveys were returned and were analyzed for the study. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 9 was used to analyze the data. Valid Percentages were used for computation of questions 1-8, 10, and 12-13. For questions 8, 9, and 10, the mean scores were used for reporting.

Results

The smorgasbord of educational programs conducted at the sale barn has been effective in changing production practices used by cattle producers in the local livestock market area of Fayette County, Tennessee. Of the eight educational programs listed in the survey that were conducted during the past 18 months, a low of 47.9% to a high of 72.5% of the participants indicated that they had made changes based on what they had learned.

Some of the teaching methods were more effective than others. The First Thursday meetings were well received and influenced cattle producers to seek more information from other sources, including Extension. The check stub tips were effective in that 67.8% indicated that they read the information and 37.5% indicated that it also influenced them to seek additional information. The educational programs held on sale day influenced 28.3% to seek additional information.

The Second Saturday cattle working program and the Tennessee Value Added Calf (TENN-VAC) cards were less effective in influencing cattle producers to seek additional information. Few (4.9% and 7.7%, respectively) producers have participated in the Second Saturday and may not have seen a need for these services. The TENN-VAC cards were unfamiliar to the cattle producers. They received this card with their checks but may not have been associating the name with the card.

Extension agents' and the sale barn manager's observations have clearly indicated that contacts were made with producers who did not normally participate in the traditional educational meetings. The First Thursday meeting consistently had 20 to 30 participants at each meeting, and only 10 of those could be found on the Extension Service's mailing list, which made new audience participation quite evident.

Overall, the quality of the programs presented at the First Thursday meetings judged to be good. On a scale of 1 = poor to 5 = excellent, the range of the means was 3.59 to 4.42. Remarks made at the end of the survey revealed that producers liked this type of program, believed that it was productive for the cattle producers and to the economy of the county, and would like to see it continued.

The survey revealed that the First Thursday program and the check stub tips were the most effective of the teaching methods used. It was also revealed that cattle producers seek information at close to the same level from other cattle producers, Extension agents, veterinarians, local farm supply/coop, and the livestock market operator.

The smorgasbord of programs at the sale barn generated enthusiasm and created a sense of cohesion among the cattle producers. This interest provided an opportunity for members of the board of directors and the state cattle producers' association to solicit new members. As the education program evolved, the membership in the Livestock Association increased from 31 in 1997 to 113 in 1998. Although the data do not show a direct relationship, it appeared that the leadership developed a renewed sense of purpose and enthusiasm. Producers appeared to be getting something useful from the program and wanted to be a member of the association.

Implications

This survey reveals that cattle producers receive a lot of information from other cattle producers on sale day, from veterinarians, from local farm supply/coops, and from the livestock market operator, as well as from Extension. Because Extension is the educational arm for adult agricultural instruction of the university, it is suggested that Extension consider these other sources as major clientele. Extension was recognized as a partner with the sale barn and values the cooperative efforts. Other implications derived include the following.

Recommendations

Check stub tips should be continued as a method of getting information to producers. Information about where additional information can be obtained should be included with the tips. Extension agents should be more creative with the cattle tips and use some method(s) to give credit to Extension for writing them. Producer meetings and the check stub teaching methods seem to create interaction with Extension.

Emphasis should be placed on educational meetings that are held at a time when producers can attend (e.g., First Thursday). Speakers for these sessions should be "unbiased professionals" as often as possible.

TENN-VAC cards provide quality information to producers. Innovative and creative efforts need to be made to promote their use by producers. These cards are secondary to the check that comes in the mail and appear to have been discarded. Maybe a reference to the card should be placed on the check stub.

Because the data show that producers use veterinarians, local supply stores, and sale barn operators as major sources of information, more effort should be made to keep them updated and to provide them with information to share with producers. This emphasizes the importance of networking. More collaboration could be accomplished by making personal contacts to ensure that potential partners know what is happening and to offer them a chance to be a part of it. Potential partners could also be asked to participate in the programs or asked to provide displays. They could also be made aware that when producers adopt a practice, they, too, will receive the benefits. This awareness might cause them to be more inclined to buy in on the educational efforts. Historically, Extension agents have had longstanding relationship with many agribusiness groups and have provided assistance and guidance to them.

The telephone is an effective means for producers to get specific information about a practice. However, it may not be feasible or practical to use the telephone as an educational teaching method to get information to producers.

Non-contact educational materials (publications, newsletters, etc.) should be used to supplement educational programs. Direct contact with producers through meetings will continue to be required to get information to producers.

Educational programs must be presented at times that are convenient to the producers. With the high percentage of beef producers being part-time, conventional meetings held during the day should be limited.

Many opportunities exist for implementing effective Extension programs at the weekly auction markets in conjunction with marketing activities.

In a time of limited resources, when Extension staff must nevertheless reach more people and more diverse groups in more ways than ever before, partnerships such as the ones evaluated in this study can help them meet that challenge.

References

Cobourn, J., & Donaldson, S. (1997). Reaching a new audience. Journal of Extension [Online]. 35(1). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/a3.html>.

Laughlin, K., & Schmidt, J. (1995). Maximizing program delivery in Extension: Lessons from leadership for transformation. Journal of Extension [Online]. 33(4). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/a4.html>.

Obahayujie, J., & Hillison, J. (1988). Now hear this! Journal of Extension [Online]. 26(1). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/a6.html>.

Patterson, T. (1991) Tomorrow's Extension-learner, communicator, systemicist. Journal of Extension [Online]. 29(1). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1991spring/fut1.html>.

Rasmussen, W. (1989). Taking the university to the people. Ames, Iowa: Iowa state University Press.

Worthen, B., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2^nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Youth-serving organizations such as 4-H, scouting, and FFA have a useful role in society. In theory, they should enable young people to develop as individuals and contribute to society. Whether this happens in practice in a specific youth group depends on contextual, organizational, and individual factors. Knowledge of success at the specific group level is important for those who organize and support a group endeavor and for those who participate. At a system level, as well, this information is useful for accountability and program improvement purposes.

It can be argued that a youth organization that is successful in reaching its goals has worth (or value) and would be attractive to young people. Worth can be a proxy of success and a "worthy youth organization" equated with a successful youth organization. Using this logic, success could be determined by using an assessment tool to measure an organization's worth. We used this rationale to study youth development literature, and designed and tested an assessment tool containing criteria for measuring the worth of a youth organization. We suggest that the tool can be used to determine if a specific youth organization meets the established criteria.

Literature Review

Youth development literature reveals three interweaving themes related to worth. The themes considered in designing the assessment tool were (a) preparing youth to be contributing members of society, (b) providing family support, and (c) satisfying developmental needs of youth.

Making a contribution to society is a moral imperative of all youth-serving organizations. For example, the 4-H pledge emphasizes civic duty, and the scout motto stresses helping others. These organizations value ideals of goodness and purity, a purposeful life, learning through work experiences, realistic goal-setting, and career choices. Exposure to these experiences is good preparation for the world of work and fulfilling societal roles.

Research shows that family support, particularly parental, is essential for youth to actively participate in and get the most out of the youth groups to which they belong. A sampling of 4-H youth studies revealed that parental support, including positive parent role models, was associated with completion of 4-H projects (Scott, Clark, & Reagan, 1990); youth involvement and satisfaction with 4-H (Norland & Bennett, 1993); and the learning of life skills by adolescents (Collins, 1996). Ritchie and Resler (1993) found that one of the important reasons for members dropping out of the 4-H program was that their parents seldom helped them with club activities.

Meeting the different developmental needs of youth as they advance through age-related growth stages is a challenge for the youth development professional. Educational psychologists have identified adolescent developmental needs and the tasks associated with these needs. These tasks involve learning and fulfilling physical, social, and intellectual roles.

Havighurst (1952) posited that, at this stage, the demands of society are gaining ascendancy over the internal needs of the adolescent and that the developmental tasks required to be undertaken during this period help prepare the adolescent for adulthood. Erikson (1985) described the adolescent stage as one of seeking identity in the midst of role confusion. He maintained that youth are concerned with the question of connecting roles and skills already acquired with adult occupational prototypes which they will enter, and how they appear in the eyes of others. In a similar vein, Cobb (1998) speaks of identity formation, in which adolescents move beyond a simple identification with their personal childhood image of parents to synthesizing elements of this earlier identity into a new whole, one that bears their personal interests and values. Research in this area shows that individual maturity and life satisfaction come as one's developmental needs are satisfied.

Developing the Assessment Tool and Collecting Data

The assessment tool was developed in two steps. First, based on the themes found in the literature, a "worthy youth organization" was defined as an entity that:

1. Prepares youth to become intelligent, contributing members of society through the encouragement of civic duty and pride in work;

2. Encourages parents to support their children in accomplishing personal and youth organization goals; and

3. Focuses on the developmental needs of young children and youth.

In the second step, 20 characteristics matching these three theme categories--(A) Prepares youth for adulthood, (B) Encourages family support, and (C) Meets youth developmental needs--were derived from the literature. There were nine characteristics in Category A, four in Category B, and seven in Category C.

Positive statements describing these characteristics were developed. One statement in Category B and three statements in Category C were reversed to check for response bias. No bias was found in a field test of the positive and negative statements. Therefore, the final assessment tool included the 20 positively stated characteristics. A 5-point Likert type response scale: strongly agree (1), agree (2), neutral (3), disagree (4) strongly disagree (5), was associated with each characteristic.

The assessment tool was field tested with a group of high school 4-H club members in a Louisiana parish (county). Of a total of 155 enrolled members in the parish program, 132 responded in two ways, 37 at the regular club meetings in one month and the remaining 95 through a mailed survey conducted subsequently. Dillman's Total Design Method for mailed surveys was used. A response rate of 85% was obtained.

The data collection instrument featured the characteristics of a "worthy youth organization" and solicited 4-H club members' reactions to the statements on the Likert scale. Respondents were also asked to indicate how they felt about the Parish 4-H Club Program with regard to the same sample/characteristics. We decided that a mean score of 3.0 or less for any statement meant that that particular characteristic reflected a worthy youth organization and should be included as an assessment criterion. A similar interpretation was made regarding the worth of the Parish 4-H Program.

Findings

The assessment tool had a high reliability coefficient of .887 as measured by Cronbach alpha. All characteristics met the standard (mean score of 3.0 or less) of a worthy youth organization.

Means and standard deviations of respondents' perceptions of the several statements reflecting a worthy youth organization are shown in Table 1. Also included in the table are similar measures of perceptions of the Parish 4-H Program. t-tests were run to see if there were any significant differences between the perceptions of the respondents of a worthy youth organization and the Parish 4-H Program. These are also included in the table.

The data in Table 1 for a worthy youth organization show a greater range in respondents' perceptions of the several characteristics in Category A (mean range=1.76-2.85) and Category C (mean range=1.76-2.62) compared with the characteristics in Category B (mean range=1.99-2.34). A similar trend is observed in perceptions of the Parish 4-H Program.

This variation in perceptions suggests that respondents view certain criteria as more valuable in estimating worth of an organization than other criteria. For example, in Category A, in a given organization, teaching young people how to become leaders is perceived to have more worth than teaching young people about political viewpoints. Likewise, in Category C, teaching young people to be honest is perceived to be more worthwhile than teaching young people the value of money.

The data also show that the Parish 4-H Program was perceived to have greater value than a worthy youth organization in 14 of the 20 characteristics studied. In the case of these characteristics, the mean perception scores of respondents with regard to the Parish 4-H Program were lower than the scores for a worthy youth organization. For 7 of these 14 characteristics, the differences favoring the Parish 4-H Program over the worthy youth organization were statistically significant.

Table 1.

Comparison of a Worthy Youth Organization with a Parish 4-H Youth Program on Characteristics Perceived by Members as Signifying Worth

a: Response scale: 1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neutral; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

*p < .05; **p < .01

Conclusions

A worthy youth organization as perceived by high school students satisfies adolescent development needs and encourages leadership, community service, enthusiasm, morality, dignity of work, mature relationships, economic security, family life, health, and independence from parents.

The assessment tool developed in this study can be useful in determining the worth of a youth-serving organization. Depending on the evaluator's goal, the tool can be used to assess how an organization is doing in one, two, or all three categories. The flexibility to do shorter evaluations can be valuable where time and resources are limited or in meeting specific assessment goals.

Results of such assessments can be used to celebrate successes and market the value of youth groups/programs in meeting the needs of youth. Also, results can be useful in pinpointing specific areas that do not measure up to standards and in taking necessary steps to rectify shortcomings.

The assessment tool should be tested in different youth groups and varying contexts to increase its robustness as a valid and reliable measure of group performance and also reviewed by youth development specialists to suggest refinements in the criteria.

The Parish 4-H Program that was assessed in this study was perceived by high school 4-H club members to possess all characteristics of a worthy youth organization and, in fact, to exceed their estimate of worth on a majority of the characteristics. This finding should be publicized among local governing bodies to enhance their ongoing support of the 4-H program.

References

Cobb, N. J. (1998). Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Collins, O. P. (1986). Who's the real teacher? Journal of Extension. 24, 11-13.

Erikson, E. H. (1985) Childhood and society (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.

Havighurst, R. J. (1952). Developmental tasks and education. Toronto, Canada: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc.

Norland, E., & Bennett, M. B. (1993). Youth participation. Journal of Extension [Online]. 31(1). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/a5.html>

Richie, R. M., & Resler, K. M. (1993). Why youth dropped out of 4-H. Journal of Extension [Online]. 31(1). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/rb3.html>.

Scott, D. H., Clark, V. L., & Reagan, S. (1990). Helping participants complete what they start. Journal of Extension [Online]. 28(3). Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/1990fall/a6.html>.

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