Feature Articles

Employers' Perceptions of Welfare Reform: Implications for Cooperative Extension Personnel

Bernice B. Wilson
Extension Urban Specialist, Resource Management
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Alabama A&M University,
Normal, Alabama
Internet address: bbwilson@acesag.auburn.edu

Daisy L. Stewart
Associate Professor
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Internet address: daisys@vt.edu

Welfare in America is based on a system that was brought to this country from England during the colonial period. English colonists brought with them their Poor Laws (Trattner, 1975), which were used by the governing body of England during that time. Between 1900 and 1950, private employers and public officials at both the state and federal levels created the modern American social welfare system.

In formulating this system, employers and government officials interacted and produced strategies for maintaining people's income in times of unemployment and disability and delivering social services (Berkowitz & McQuaid, 1988). Thus, employers' involvement with welfare reform has a long history.

Cooperative Extension's foundation has relationships to the welfare system. Welfare in America began as a reform that involved an end to orphanages and the beginning of direct aid to "parents of worthy character," which allowed children to remain in their homes, or, in time, foster homes (Moyniham, 1996).

On January 25, 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt convened a White House Conference on the Care of Children. This meeting has been credited as the first conference of its kind in American history. Booker T. Washington, president of Tuskegee University at that time, attended the conference. Three years earlier, in 1906, upon Washington's recommendation, T. M. Campbell was appointed the first Negro Farm Demonstration Agent in the United States (Mayberry, 1989).

Both the White House Conference on the Care of Children in 1909 and the agriculture-based programs that had existed since 1906 had implications for Cooperative Extension programs that followed in 1914. Each had emphasis on services for limited-resource individuals and many implications for improving the lives of children.

Welfare reform is an issue that has regularly reappeared since the initiation of public assistance programs. Public pressures resulted in the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. The goal of this federal legislation was to make positive changes in the nation's welfare system in order to promote economic stability and self-sufficiency of welfare recipients through education and adequate employment.

In order for welfare reform to be successful, participation and cooperation of many groups is necessary. Cooperative Extension, state and local social service agencies, employers, and educators all have critical roles to play. The findings of this study have implications for each of these stakeholders as they seek ways to help families become self-sufficient and improve the quality of their lives.

Overview of the Study

The purposes of this study were to examine employers' perceptions of factors related to their participation in a welfare reform program, Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW), and to identify factors that they felt affected the entry of welfare recipients into the workforce.

Employers have a key role in that by employing former welfare recipients, they can provide economic security and contribute to family stability. Cooperative Extension, through its programs in workforce preparation and financial education in particular, could be supportive in welfare reform by helping individuals to secure employment and effectively use their income to contribute to family well-being.

Method

The methodology for this research consisted of personal interviews with 12 Virginia private-sector employers who participated in VIEW. These employers were located in two counties and one small city in rural Southwest Virginia. The key interview questions that were used as a basis for discussion were the following.

• What information and/or materials about welfare reform did you or your staff hear or read that influenced your decision to participate in Virginia's Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW)?
• What were your reasons for hiring VIEW participants?
• What specific incentives do you receive for hiring a welfare recipient?
• What are some things that you think would affect the entry of welfare recipients into the workforce?
• Do you require a person to have a high school diploma or GED before applying for employment in your business?
• Overall how would you describe the job skills of welfare recipients you have hired or considered hiring?
• How would you describe the previous work experiences of welfare recipients you have hired or considered hiring?
• What job training do you provide for your employees?
• How do factors such as childcare and transportation affect employment success of former welfare recipients?
• In what ways do you think VIEW will assist with helping welfare participants enter the workforce?

Analysis and Interpretation of Data

The data in the study were compiled using a categorical aggregation analytic strategy. Categorical aggregation is the process of piecing together bits of information gathered about an issue and organizing it into an orderly research interpretation. A coding procedure was used to mark or denote recurring topics. NUD.IST, a qualitative research computer program, was used in the data coding process.

The data were organized and sorted as gathered to facilitate progress and coherence based on each issue. The data were analyzed using analytic categories in keeping with McCracken's (1988) philosophy, which allows the investigator to account for all of the formal characteristic of the topic under discussion. The results are reported using assertions.

Discussion of the Findings

The findings from this study suggested that most of the factors that emerged from the data were similar to those identified in the review of literature. Interviewing 12 employers who had participated in welfare reform provided insight into their perceptions of factors that encouraged them to participate in VIEW and factors that affected the entry of welfare recipients into the workforce.

Because this study was conducted with only 12 employers, all of whom had participated in VIEW, the findings cannot be generalized to other employers who participate in welfare reform. They are even less relevant to those who have not chosen to participate.

Factors Encouraging Employer Participation

The first section of the interviews related to factors that encouraged employers to participate in a welfare reform effort. The themes that emerged from employers' responses were:

• Mass media,
• Social services agencies,
• Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), and
• Other relevant observations by employers.

The methods most often used to notify employers about welfare programs were coordinated by the federal and state governments. In this study, employers indicated that they learned about VIEW through state and local agencies, but also from other sources.

Mass Media

Most of the employers in this study became familiar with VIEW through mass media, which had a major influence in encouraging employers to participate in VIEW. Most often, employers learned of the VIEW program via television, radio, or newspapers.

Social Services Agencies

Positive interaction between social services agencies, the Virginia Employment Commission, and temporary agencies, and the desire to be supportive of welfare reform efforts played an important role in encouraging employers to participate in VIEW.

Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)

Respondents indicated that the VEC sometimes distributed information to them about VIEW. Knowledge gained by reading this information motivated the employers to participate in this welfare reform program. Previously, employers were not familiar enough with VIEW to employ welfare recipients through this program.

Other Relevant Observations by Employers

Education and knowledge about VIEW encouraged employers to participate. Other items mentioned were a desire to help the welfare reform initiative and a need for workers. Respondents indicated that some employers may benefit from sensitivity training to help them become aware of the value welfare recipients can bring to their business. Only two respondents indicated that tax credits encouraged them to participate, so it is likely that some employers were not aware of their eligibility for tax credits.

Factors Affecting Workforce Entry

The second section of the interviews involved factors that these selected employers felt affected the entry of welfare recipients into the workforce. This study's results and the review of literature (Block & Noakes, 1988; Martin & Tolson, 1985; Wilson, 1987) indicated that welfare recipients can make good employees. The employers who were interviewed for this research reported that the following characteristics affected welfare recipients'successful participation in the work force:

• Qualifications,
• Employability skills,
• Work experience,
• Education and training,
• Support system or monitoring plan,
• Welfare policies,
• Childcare, and
• Lack of funds for transportation and appropriate clothing.

Qualifications

Many employers participated in VIEW because the program involved qualified people who had the prerequisites for the available jobs that employers needed to fill. Findings from this study further indicated that employers realized that some former welfare recipients were good workers despite the fact that their skills were limited. This paralleled the statement of the National Alliance of Business (1997) that the greatest barrier to work for welfare recipients is skill deficits.

Employability Skills

The findings from this study support the review of literature in noting that employability skills (such as interpersonal abilities, attendance, work ethic, appearance, attitude, and behavior) can affect the entry of welfare recipients' into the workforce. Vobejda (1996) indicated that employability skills of welfare recipients often leave something to be desired and gave as examples the frequent lack of positive attitudes, ability to deal with office politics, and capacity to handle workplace conflicts.

Employers want people who are committed to work to the extent that they not only come to work, but also report on time and are appropriately dressed. The attitude and behavior demonstrated to an employer by a person who is seeking a job weigh heavily in the employer's decision to hire that individual.

Work Experience

Employers will hire welfare recipients who have no work experience, but they naturally prefer an individual who has a successful work history. If the individual is committed to wanting to work, employers will waive the work experience requirement in lieu of a positive attitude.

Findings from this study also suggest that employers want employees who do not present a high level of risk; frequent employee turnover costs employers money. Because of this, employers are somewhat hesitant about hiring people who have a limited or sporadic work history.

Education and Training

Employers need people who are willing to participate in training to become qualified for the jobs that are available. Findings also suggested that employers are willing to provide necessary training and most often have to make it available for new hires.

Employers believe that more training programs are needed to help welfare recipients enter the workforce. For instance, employers requested that Cooperative Extension, social services, or other agencies teach the necessary employability skills before these individuals are required to seek employment.

Support System or Monitoring Plan

Employers in this study indicated that a support system or monitoring plan should be provided by social services agencies, possibly in partnership with Cooperative Extension, to follow up participants once they are on the job. Employers cited cases in which this has been a positive factor in making a smooth transition from welfare and work. Other community agencies or institutions could also be involved in providing this service.

Welfare Policies

Employers in this study indicated that, based on their experiences, current welfare policies may effectively prevent participants from working full-time, yet that full-time work is needed if the participants expect to reach a level of self-sufficiency.

The administration of the welfare policies seems to acquire different interpretations and meanings as the policies are implemented. If welfare recipients periodically leave jobs to prevent a loss of benefits such as health care, they lose the opportunity to acquire work experience and possibly training that would help them progress beyond entry-level, minimum-wage positions.

Childcare

Gabe and Falk (1995) stated the cost of childcare may deter some mothers on welfare from taking a job. The findings from this study supported this information from the review of literature.

The consensus among all employers in this study was that the limited availability of affordable childcare was the most serious factor affecting the entry of welfare recipients into the workforce. One employer speculated that the government should encourage employers to provide an on-site or subsidized childcare center by granting some type of incentive to employers who do so.

Lack of Funds

Several employers interviewed for this study indicated that a lack of funds could inhibit the ability of welfare recipients to work regularly by limiting their options regarding transportation and appropriate clothing for the job. The findings from this study showed an almost equal division of opinions among employers relative to the transportation issue.

A transportation system was available to welfare recipients in one locality included in this study, but some respondents indicated that this system was not reliable. Some employers reported having to provide transportation for employees in or der to ensure their attendance to carry out the day-to-day operations on the job. Other respondents indicated that welfare recipients did not have the money to buy job-related clothing such as uniforms.

Other Findings

Employers in this study did not specifically mention the loss of government-provided health care benefits due to employment. It is questionable, however, whether employers will pay the cost of health insurance for minimum-wage or entry-level employees, or pay wages sufficient to offset loss of these benefits.

Based on the review of literature, many employers of former welfare recipients are paying between $5.75 and $6.00 an hour (Churchill, 1995; National Alliance of Business, 1997). Employers in the predominantly rural area included in this study paid wages that were somewhat lower than this. One employer in this study stated, "Nobody can live on $5.25 an hour, especially if they are a single parent."

Assertions

The respondents in this research were interviewed at length, and certain responses that were made repeatedly were considered to be themes. In this section, assertions that might be drawn from those themes are discussed.

Based on the interviews conducted for this study, it can be asserted that employers need workers and are committed to hiring welfare recipients if sufficient support is rendered once the recipients are hired. The support may come from Cooperative Extension, social services, the employment commission, or other institutions or agencies.

Employers are willing to provide some education and training to welfare recipients if they demonstrate good employability skills. Though employers prefer workers who have had work experience, they will hire welfare recipients who have had limited workforce participation.

This study's employers believe that welfare policies that govern welfare recipients' employment and benefits hinder the ability of these individuals to achieve self-sufficiency for themselves and their families.

Important barriers to successful employment for welfare recipients include lack of affordable childcare and funds for transportation and appropriate clothing.

Implications for Cooperative Extension Professionals

The relationships among the welfare system, Cooperative Extension, and employers are longstanding, but continually need attention to be successful. The review of literature indicated that research about employers' attitudes toward welfare reform is very limited. One of Cooperative Extension's supporting roles could be that of conveying research-based information about welfare reform to employers.

Employers in this study expressed commitment to hiring welfare recipients if adequate support is available once welfare recipients are hired. Extension personnel can play an active role in promoting partnerships relative to welfare reform with other agencies, businesses, industries, and volunteers, and where applicable can develop partnerships with other states.

The results of this study provide direction for mentoring and training programs that can be offered through Cooperative Extension, public education, and other agencies to assist welfare recipients in becoming productive members of the workforce and successful in all aspects of their family responsibilities. Examples of program content suggested by the results include financial management, decision making, parenting, and human relationships for the workplace.

Cooperative Extension could work with other community groups to sponsor educational and discussion sessions for employers regarding their role in welfare reform. Professionals from Cooperative Extension and job training agencies should develop ongoing interaction and collaboration with employers as they plan programs and curricula to prepare welfare recipients for employment. Employers can help with planning, developing, and improving job training and educational programs for welfare recipients.

Where employers do not have resources to create training programs of their own, communities are going to have to coordinate efforts to prepare people for work. Cooperative Extension can be the catalyst to making this happen. Cooperative Extension and employers could establish partnership training programs for welfare recipients. Employer/Cooperative Extension partnership training programs could be inclusive of employers related to various areas of Extension programming.

Findings from this study can provide useful information to help prepare people for the world of work. Cooperative Extension, through its financial management education programs, could serve the wishes of employers in helping their employees improve their use of financial resources, thus reducing stress that can limit productivity.

Workforce-preparation programs can enhance the qualifications and employability skills that employers identified as influencing welfare recipients' successful participation in the workforce. Extension programs that focus on family and youth could be supportive to employers by strengthening the support system that employers indicated would be important in helping welfare recipients make a smooth transition between welfare and work.

Additionally, Cooperative Extension can develop a partnership with social services agencies to provide work experience through its volunteer program. Welfare recipients who have not been successful in securing paid employment could do volunteer work in Cooperative Extension facilities and programs to gain valuable work experience that will make them more employable.

Extension personnel can educate legislators and others about Cooperative Extension's accomplishments and educational programs relative to financial management, survival skills, job preparedness, job enhancement skills, and career development. This could result in opportunities for the increased support and funding for both urban and rural Extension programs.

Cooperative Extension can also inform legislators of employers' concerns about welfare policies as it educates them about other issues affecting the American people. Professionals should develop a continuing education plan through which Cooperative Extension can provide to its constituencies the information needed to make informed decisions to enhance the well-being of individuals, families, and the society.

References

Berkowitz, E., & McQuaid, K. (1988). Creating the welfare state. New York: Praeger.

Block, F., & Noakes, J. (1998). The politics of new-style workfare. Socialist Review, 18(3), 31-58.

Churchill, N. (1995). Ending welfare as we know it: A case study in urban anthropology and public policy. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 24(1), 5-35.

Gabe, T., & Falk, G. (1995). Welfare reform: Implications for work and welfare, the role of work incentives and work requirements. Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America.

Martin, J.H., & Tolson, D.J. (1985). Changing job skills in Virginia: The employer's view. Charlottesville: Tayloe Murphy Institute, the University of Virginia and the Virginia Occupational Information Coordinating Committee.

Mayberry, B.D. (1989). The role of Tuskegee University in the origin, growth and development of the Negro Cooperative Extension System 1881-1990. Tuskegee Institute, AL: Brown Printing Company.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

National Alliance of Business. (1997, March). Washington Legislative Update. Washington, DC: Author.

Trattner, W.I. (1975). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Vobejda, B. (1996, September 22). Welfare's next challenge: Sustained employment. Washington Post, p. A1, A2, A12.

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farm Growth Next to a Large City: Opportunities for Extension Education

Randall E. James
Extension Agent
Ohio State University Extension
Burton, Ohio
Internet address: james.7@osu.edu

Barbara H. James
Extension Agent
Ohio State University Extension
Burton, Ohio
Internet address: james.186@osu.edu

Thomas W. Blaine
District Specialist
Ohio State University Extension
Wooster, Ohio
Internet address: blaine.17@osu.edu

Introduction

In recent years, much attention has been paid to farmland retention issues. Virtually all areas of the country view farmland retention as a valid policy issue (Libby, 1998; Prindle, 1998). Therefore, it was not surprising that public officials in Geauga County, Ohio were also concerned that growth from Cleveland, whose downtown is only 15 miles from Geauga's western border, would soon drive farms out of their county.

In 1996, a group of county officials and community leaders asked their local Extension staff to find ways to work with farmers to maintain their economic viability and therefore the rural nature of the county. An extremely valuable first step was to learn how the county's agricultural community was changing.

The local Extension Agents agreed to review the available literature and then conduct a study to document changes in the local agricultural industry. While the study was conducted at the request of local officials, the Extension Agents took the opportunity to structure the study as a comprehensive and in-depth needs assessment. The unexpected results of the study surprised public officials and the farm community and have caused County Extension Agents to redirect programming resources.

Methodology

Each of Geauga County's 16 Boards of Township Trustees contacted a group of farmers whom they felt best represented agriculture in their community and invited them to participate in a focus group meeting in their township. Participation ranged from 5 to 16 farmers per township for a total of 147 (mean = 9). No incentive was given for participation. At the beginning of each of the 16 township meetings, a Geauga County Extension Agent explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following issues:

• How agricultural land is being used in the township.
• How agriculture is changing in the township.
• How farmers feel about land use and property rights.
• How the economic viability of the agricultural community can be maintained.

The agents led each group through an exercise in which group members identified farms and the commodities they produced in 1990 and located these farms on a township map. Group members next identified farms that were lost/gained, changes in commodities produced between 1990 and 1997, and any vacant parcels of land that could be brought into production. The 1992 United States Census of Agriculture definition of a farm/farmers was used in the identification process. It specifies anyone producing over $1,000 in gross agricultural sales per year.

Horses are a major part of the county's agricultural community, but the Census of Agriculture did not include units that were exclusively used for commercial stables or horse production in their definition of a farm. The Census did include a category of on-farm horses, which counts horses that are kept on farms producing other agricultural products (United States Department of Agriculture, 1992). Horses will be included in the next Census of Agriculture.

Both the Internal Revenue Service and the Ohio Revised Code, in the zoning exemption for agriculture, do recognize stables and horse production as farms. (The Farmers Tax Guide, 1996 and ORC 303.01). In this study, the researchers included stables and commercial horse production, as farms.

Rented agricultural land was considered part of the farm of the operator who rented the farmland. If a farm had previously been operated by the owner, but was at the time of the study being rented to another farmer, it was counted as a farm loss. Farms, commodities, and vacant land were identified based solely on the knowledge, memory, and estimates of the individuals in the group.

One discussion leader (agent) then presented a series of questions, allowing ample time for discussion of each question. The other agent served as the recorder capturing highlights of the discussion on a laptop computer. After the discussion, the agent/recorder read back the notes for group members to approve or amend (Archer, 1987).

After all 16 township meetings were completed, the agents reviewed the records of each meeting, compiled simple descriptive statistics, prepared a synopsis of the discussion, and made individual township recommendations. Township reports were then mailed to township trustees and participants.

Concurrent to the focus group interviews, the agents reviewed and summarized a number of available and pertinent county statistics, such as housing starts per township, average farm size, farm parcels, gross farm sales, etc. A report was then compiled that provided officials, farm organizations, and farmers with a synopsis of county and township statistics, focus group results, and agent recommendations.

Results

As part of the review of existing statistics, it was found that in 1992, approximately 25% of Geauga County's total landmass was being used for agriculture, and approximately 46% of the total landmass was in woodland. The total number of farms in the county fell through the 1960's to an all-time low in 1974. The number of farms generally increased throughout the late 1970's and early 80's, declined in the late 80's, and from 1992 to 1997, again increased.

The acreage per farm fell from 105 acres in 1992 to 90 acres in 1997. "Land in Farms" in the county as defined by the Census of Agriculture has fluctuated between roughly 74,000 acres and 59,000 acres for the past 30 years (Table 1) (United States Department of Agriculture, 1964-1997).

Table 1: Number of Farms in Geauga County, Ohio
Year	Number of Farms	Land in Farms (Acres)
1969	578	70,000
1974	544	65,000
1978	591	69,000
1982	753	74,000
1987	702	73,000
1992	622	66,000
1997	661	59,000

The 1992 Census of Agriculture and a North Carolina State Extension horse budget were used to estimate average gross farm sales. Farms producing nursery and greenhouse crops, and commercial horse stables had much larger annual gross farm sales than other farms in the county (Table 2) (Census of Agriculture 1992)(Mowrey, Barnette, & Neuman,1995).

Table 2: Geauga County Average Gross Farm Sales by Agricultural Products Sold in 1992
	Average Gross Sales per Farm ($)
All Farms	25,862
Dairy	39,164
Nursery and Greenhouse Crops	85,513
Other Horticulture Crops*	10,159
Horse Stables **	106,000
*Includes vegetables, sweet corn, melons, fruit, nuts, and berries. ** Calculations based on a Horse Boarding and Training Budget prepared by North Carolina State University Extension (Mowrey, Barnett, & Neuman, 1995), and assume a stable boarding 20 horses, training 16 horses per year, and providing both group and private lessons.

The agents found that five of the seven townships in the western half of the county (those closest to Cleveland) experienced a net gain in the number of farms. Eight of the nine townships in the eastern half (most rural townships) experienced a net loss of farms between 1990 and 1997.

Due to the historic township boundaries, county townships are set up in a grid-like fashion, with each being a 5-mile square containing 25 square miles. Therefore, townships can be grouped according to their distance from the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) line.

The townships closest to Cuyahoga County had a mean net increase in farms per township. The townships farthest from Cuyahoga County had a mean net decrease in farms per township. Those townships in the most rural half of the county tended to be losing farms, while those townships closer to Cleveland tended to be gaining farms (Table 3).

Table 3: Mean Net Change in Number of Farms from 1990-1997 in Relation to Distance from Cuyahoga County Line (Cleveland)
Township Location in Miles from Cuyahoga County Line	Mean Net Change in Farm Numbers per Township
0 - 05	+ 2.00
05 - 10	+ 3.25
10 - 15	- 4.75
15 - 20	- 3.80

Table 4 contains correlation coefficients on housing starts, net farm change, and land values for the period 1990-1997.

Table 4: Correlation Coefficients: Housing Starts, Land Rates, & Net Change in Farms from 1990 — 1997
	Housing Starts	Land Values	Net Change in Farms
Housing Starts	1.00	-	-
Land Values	.61 (.01)*	1.00	-
Net Change In Farms	.45 (.08)	.46 (.07)	1.00
* Numbers in parenthesis are p values.

Contrary to what might be expected, a moderate positive correlation (r=.45, P<0.10) was found between the number of housing starts per township and the net increase in farms per township. In other words, those townships that experienced the greatest increase in residential development (housing starts) also tended to have the greatest increase in number of farms.

In addition, a moderate positive correlation (r=0.46, P<0.10) was found between the market value of farmland per acre by township (as established by the Geauga County Auditor) and the net increase in farms per township. In other words, those townships with the most expensive land tended to gain farms, while those townships with the least expensive land tended to lose farms from 1990 to 1997.

Between 1990 and 1997, Geauga County farms shifted toward agricultural products and services that are normally sold directly to the consumer (e.g., as horses, nursery/greenhouse crops, and vegetables) and away from those agricultural products and services that are sold through wholesale markets (e.g., dairy, cash grain, and beef) (Table 5).

Further, during the farmer focus groups, farmers were asked about the impacts of residential development on their townships and their farms. In general, those farmers on the eastern side of the county (more rural), most of whom were involved in production of wholesale products, tended to focus on the many problems (e.g., trespassing and increased traffic) associated with residential growth. Those farmers in townships on the western side of the county (more developed), many of whom were producing for the retail market, acknowledged the difficulties in coping with residential development, but focused on the market potential of those new residents.

Table 5: Number of Farms Producing Various Agricultural Products
	1990	1997	Net Change
Horse	159	171	+12
Dairy	208	154	-54
Cash Grains/Hay	145	142	-3
Beef	104	100	-4
Maple Syrup	89	89	0
Nursery/Greenhouse	73	85	+12
Vegetable/Herbs	52	60	+8
Sheep	27	33	+6
Fruit	36	28	-8
Swine	28	23	-5
Dairy Heifers	5	12	+7
Poultry	10	11	+1
Specialty Commodities*	38	46	+8
*Commodities include: Goat, Deer, Ostrich/Emu, Llamas/Alpacas, Rabbits, Bees/Honey, Fish, Buffalo, Donkey, Game Birds, & Veal

Discussion of Importance to Extension Educators

This study revealed a surprising picture of the changes in Geauga County's agricultural community in the 1990's and reveals some exciting opportunities for agricultural growth near cities.

While some townships are losing farms, other townships are gaining farms. These new farms are likely to be located in the most densely populated and rapidly developing western townships on some of the most expensive land in the county. Farms in these townships most often produce horse and horticultural products and services that are marketed directly to the consumer. These farms are likely to be financially larger than the farms that are being lost in the eastern, least developed townships in the county.

As might be expected, the study was initially viewed with some skepticism from farmers, government leaders, and colleagues. Before any information was released, the study was reviewed by a panel of faculty members in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Ohio State University. This confirmed its scientific validity and thus helped defend the findings.

The local agricultural community is now using the results. For example, a local fruit and vegetable producer with a roadside market cited the study as the reason that he chose to expand at his present site rather than sell out and move elsewhere.

The information in this study was recently presented to a group of approximately 40 Ohio Extension Agents and State and District Specialists. Comments from the participants in response to the findings of the study included:

• "This study challenges conventional wisdom."
• "Mind blowing."
• "Stimulated a lot of thought."

A number of the Extension participants requested additional information on the study, and subsequently a 1-day tour of the county was conducted for 12 Extension professionals. Several county, state, and district Extension workers are now planning additional research as a follow-up to the original study.

The Geauga County Extension Office is now targeting more of its energy and resources toward assisting the dynamic growth occurring in the horse and horticultural farm industries. The surprising agricultural opportunities found in this study have changed the way we view urban sprawl and farmland retention. Extension educators in other Ohio counties that border major cities are challenged to examine the portions of their counties where similar transitions are being made and to assist members of the agricultural industry to maintain and grow their businesses.

References

Archer, T. (1987). Focus group interview. Edge Guide to Evaluation Fact Sheet. The Ohio State University Extension.

Banks-Baldwin Law Publishing Company. (1994). Ohio Revised Code, Annotated. 303.01.

Internal Revenue Service. (1996). Farmers tax guide, Publication 225. Department of the Treasury.

Libby, L.W. (1998). Introduction. The performance of state programs for farmland retention conference proceeding. The Ohio State University.

Likert R., Roslow, S., & Murphy, G. (1993). A simple and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone Scales. Personal Psychology 46(3):639-690.

Mowrey, R.A., Barnette, D.T., & Neuman, D.F. (1995). North Carolina State University Extension, Horse Boarding and Training.

Prindle, A.M. (1998). State level farmland protection policy: History, purpose, approaches. The performance of state programs for farmland retention conference proceedings. Otterbien College.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1964-1997). Census of agriculture, Ohio state and county profiles. Washington, D.C.

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