Feature Articles

Collaboratively Evaluating Cooperative Extension Educational Interventions

Background

Cooperative Extension has been challenged to formally evaluate state and county programs. As Cooperative Extension responds to this challenge, one important question is, "How can university research faculty and county agents better work together to formally evaluate educational programs?"

Several additional questions underlie this basic question. "Can university researchers maintain a specific, rigorous research protocol when implementation of the protocol rests largely with field educators?" "Are agents able to devote adequate time to experimental programs as a part of their routine workload?" And, "Is an agent able to realize significant county-level benefits from participating in a formal research project where the impetus for the research is external to any expressed need of the county?"

This article answers these questions, using the experiences of the Pennsylvania Central Region Farm Safety Pilot Project (PACRFSPP). We begin with a description of the interventions and then examine the role of the agent in the recruitment process and interventions.

The PACRFSPP was an agricultural safety and health project testing three different intervention models to reduce hazards and risks of farm work. The Central Region encompassed 17 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties in 1994. Counties chosen for the study were predominantly rural and typical of Pennsylvania agriculture (Murphy, Kiernan, Hard, & Landsittel, 1998). Other criteria for participation in the project included a sufficient number of farms from which to draw a sample, a minimum number of tractors, PTO-driven machines, buildings and structures, and county offices staffed by experienced Extension professionals with educational responsibilities that matched the intervention models.

The three interventions had 38 common educational objectives from which to choose to help ensure that similar educational programming existed across the three intervention counties (See Appendix). However, agents were neither precluded from using information or conducting educational programs involving non-intervention objectives, nor prohibited from combining intervention and non-intervention educational objectives within the same educational program or activity. The interventions were conducted during 1996 and 1997, with baseline data collected in 1995 and post-intervention data collected early in 1998. A total of 256 farm operations participated in this project.

The primary target of the study was the farm operator, and four areas of farm safety were selected: tractors, power take-off (PTO) driven machines, buildings and structures, and emergency preparation. Farm operators were randomly selected based on screening criteria: the farm operator had to have at least two tractors and three PTO machines, and expect to be farming in 5 years. Baseline data and post-intervention data were collected by a combination of active and recently retired county agents and agricultural educators in the participating counties. Details regarding the project rationale, methods, and baseline data analyses are reported elsewhere (Murphy et al., 1998; Landsittel, Hard, Murphy, & Kiernan, 1998). Reports on post-intervention findings are in progress.

The Three Interventions

Three counties were used for different interventions: 73 farm operations in a self-audit intervention, 30 farm operations in a youth intervention, and 41 farm operations in a community coalition intervention. Two other counties were used as controls, with 72 farm operations and 40 farm operations participating, respectively. In one of the control counties, only post-intervention data was collected to control for bias that may have resulted from participating in the baseline audit.

Intervention A: Farm Hazard Audit Program (FHAP)

The objective of the self-audit intervention was to determine the effectiveness of using hazard self-audits and systematic follow-up by a county agent with farm operators to reduce risk of injury from farm work. Two self-audits by the farm operator were conducted. The first self-audit was conducted between 8 and 9 months after the intervention began, with the second self-audit conducted 8 to 9 months after the first self-audit. The self-audits assessed the farms for the presence and condition of safety protective devices in the four targeted areas. For example, farm operators were asked to assess, among other things:

• The safety condition of rollover protection and master shields on tractors,
• PTO driveline guarding and use of warning signs on machinery,
• Fire extinguisher protection,
• Electrical service covers and housekeeping in buildings, and
• Written directions for emergency service providers for use by family members in an emergency.

The farm operator then mailed the self-audit to the county agent for scoring. After scoring, each farm operator received the results and was encouraged to seek additional assistance from the agent in correcting specific hazards. Hazard scores were marked at three different levels, with a different color indicating a different level of risk. A hazard score marked in red indicated a high risk of injury, a score marked in yellow indicated a moderate level of risk, and a score marked in green indicated a low risk of injury. Farm operators were encouraged to correct high-hazard risks quickly, to develop a management plan for correcting moderate risks in the near future, and to correct low risks whenever possible.

Intervention B: Youth Safety and Health Program (YSHP)

The objective of youth intervention was to target youth ages 7 to 17 as change agents within their own families to help reduce risk of injury from farm work. Minimal requirements for implementing this intervention were that the agent, each year of the intervention, communicate with participants at least quarterly and have two safety and health educational activities.

The communications and activity requirements were far exceeded. Examples of communication contacts include a quarterly newsletter and safety fact sheets distributed through schools. Examples of educational activity programs include farm safety day camps, safe tractor and machinery operation training, and a fire extinguisher give-away program. Thirty farm operations with a total of 64 children participated in this intervention. Several of the contacts and activities included the total farm family.

Intervention C: Community Action for Agricultural Safety and Health (CAASH).

The objective for community coalition intervention was to determine the effectiveness of having Cooperative Extension organize community leaders, organizations, and businesses for the purpose of creating a proactive forum for farm safety and health within the farm community to reduce risk of injury from farm work. The county agent sought to bring together traditional agricultural groups (e.g., farm service organizations and vocational agriculture) and non-traditional community groups, organizations, and key individuals (e.g., local doctors and nurses, insurance agents and bankers) to form an identifiable, self-sustaining community coalition around the single issue of farm safety and health.

The coalition that developed consisted of 17 members: two private citizens, one conservation district manager, four members of farm organizations, four fire co./ emergency medical rescue team members, two Cooperative Extension and outreach representatives, two FFA members, one vocational agricultural teacher, and one insurance company representative. Examples of coalition activities include a cost share program to help farmers purchase rollover protection for tractors and guards for machinery, a youth farm safety day, and distribution of safety fact sheets to all farms in the county.

Intervention Effort

All three interventions involved significant educational effort by county Extension agents that can be categorized as either information only (e.g., newsletters to participants, newspaper articles, radio messages, literature handouts at county fairs) or active (e.g., hands-on demonstrations, fund raising activities, ROPS retrofit campaign), and as targeted toward intervention objectives or non-intervention objectives. (A farm safety program or activity that was conducted by cooperative Extension in the county but that did not include intervention objectives was categorized as involving non-intervention objectives.)

Agents were encouraged to develop objectives, similar to the intervention objectives, for these other programs and activities. An example of a non-intervention objective related to tractors was, "Participants will learn that on all ROPS equipped tractors, the operator should use the seat belt when operating the tractor." An example of a non-intervention objective related to buildings was, "Participants will learn that it is best to store any flammable fuels, oils, lubricants, etc., in separately constructed noncombustible sheds or buildings."

In the self-audit and youth interventions, the level of active programs involving intervention objectives significantly increased during the intervention period. In the community coalition intervention, a significant information program involving the intervention objectives began, and the active programs, while not increasing in total number, did involve many more of the intervention objectives. This was because in the pre-intervention period, the same two programs (with the same objectives) on tractor and PTO safety were presented repeatedly to different school groups, but during the intervention period, a wider range of intervention objectives were involved in the various active programs. The breakdown of the increased effort in all three intervention counties is shown in Table 1.

Although the self-audit intervention shows more overall effort in the 2 years before the intervention (33 efforts vs. 19 efforts), active efforts involving intervention objectives increased during the intervention period (9 efforts vs. 1 effort). Most important, the nature of this intervention means that all nine active efforts targeted to educational objectives included participation by the same group of farm operators. This type of effort runs counter to most safety and health educational programs because most are conducted once-a-year, if even that often.

The nature of interventions in the youth and community coalition interventions do not lend themselves to making such strong and clear statements about safety and health education efforts for those farm operators. Anecdotal records in these counties, however, do indicate that all participating farm operators had much greater exposure, through information and active programs, to the 38 common educational objectives than they had during the preceding 2 years.

Project Problems and Successes

Several problems and successes common to the three interventions and control counties are identified. Both the researchers' perspective and the agents' perspective are given. These problems and successes are best understood by examining issues relating to the recruitment protocol and the ownership agents developed by conducting the interventions.

Recruitment Protocol

Using agents to recruit participants by following a precise protocol was largely successful from the perspective of the researchers but not from the perspective of the agents. The recruitment protocol involved agents telephoning a list of farm operators in their county to ask if they would participate in the project. The researchers generated a list of all farm operators in the county and listed them in random order. The agents were to call farmers in the order they appeared on the list, and they were to speak to the farm operator only (a requirement for informed consent) concerning their potential participation in the project.

Agents were also required to use structured questions to ensure that potential participants were eligible to participate in the project and to standardize the recruitment process. The recruitment for each county was to be completed before any of the baseline data could be collected. All of these techniques are standard research protocols to maximize generalizability of results.

Although the recruitment process took approximately three times longer than originally planned (9 mos. rather than 3 mos.), the researchers' objective of recruitment of a sufficient number of participants that represented farm operators in the participating counties was achieved. An average response rate of 82.7% was achieved in the intervention counties (Murphy et al., 1998)

Agents, however, had a great deal of trouble with this protocol. These problems can be summarized as follows.

1. The structured telephone recruitment process was not a comfortable fit for the way agents normally interact with farm operators. They strongly preferred unstructured, naturally occurring face-to-face contacts with farmers whom they knew to be supportive of Cooperative Extension within their county.

2. Participant farm operators had to be contacted twice, once for the initial recruitment and then a second time to schedule baseline data collection. This proved to be a very time-consuming process. Agents preferred to make only one contact.

3. Because of the difficulty of making telephone contact with eligible farm operators and the need to make a second contact to schedule baseline data collection, agents felt they were not sufficiently informed of the amount of time this part of the project might take from their regular Extension work. Additionally, because the recruitment and baseline data collection took much more timethan expected, the activities stretched across busy farming periods for the farmers. Agents did not appreciate having to contact farmers during some of the farmers' busiest times of the year.

Intervention Ownership

The researchers felt that intervention ownership was best achieved by–in addition to recruiting participants–having agents collect baseline data, conduct the interventions, select intervention objectives, and keep good records of their intervention efforts. Agents were able to identify three positive results of their participation in collecting the baseline data.

• First, collecting the baseline data gave agents an opportunity to either meet new farmers in their county or visit those they already knew, at their farms.
• Second, face to face contact with their clients helped gain support for other programming efforts and activities.
• Third, the hazard audit portion of the baseline data helped the agents define common problem areas throughout their county and assisted in program planning.

The audits also increased the agents' understanding of safety issues and increased their knowledge of the dangers in their county that are not receiving sufficient attention.

From the researchers' perspective, the baseline data collection process was successful. All agents participated in a program where researchers explained the data collection process and provided training for conducting the hazard audit. Agents then demonstrated their competency in conducting hazard audits (a Kendall's reliability score of .94 was achieved). A review by the researchers of data forms as they were received showed that data was collected and returned to the researchers according to protocol.

Agents did identify the time required to keep the detailed records for the project as a problem. Agents also felt that they did not receive a timely benefit from the record-keeping activity. As is often the case in research projects, the researchers were content to wait until the end of the project to compile and analyze the data. Agents, on the other hand, are required to show results and impacts of major program commitments to county constituents and administrators at the end of each program year.

Agents identified several positive side effects of their involvement with the interventions. For instance, agents observed that groups other than county Extension began to sponsor or conduct safety programs that they had not sponsored or conducted before the implementation of the interventions. Examples are Young Farmers' groups working with machinery dealers to do safety demonstrations, schools requesting agents to do safety demonstrations, and groups initiating First on the Scene for Farm Families training. While these additional programs and activities cannot be directly linked to the implementation of the interventions, it is reasonable to suggest that the interventions heightened the awareness of, and concern for, safety issues in the counties, and that these non-Extension groups were responding to this heightened awareness and concern

Agents in the intervention counties independently came to the conclusion, based on their experiences conducting the interventions, that farm safety activities should be targeted to the whole family for maximum participation. They found much greater participation in farm safety programs and activities when the parents and children attended safety days together, participated in hands-on activities at home together, or were involved at county fairs or 4-H activities as a family. This finding was not expected.

Summary and Conclusions

The Pennsylvania Central Region Farm Safety Pilot Program (PACRFSPP) provided an opportunity to explore several questions regarding university researchers and county agents working together to design, implement, and evaluate a multifaceted education evaluation project. All agents felt that their county's intervention was successful, and that, perhaps most important, they would continue to pursue using that intervention in future programming. They plan on expanding their safety programming in the future, using the information obtained from the intervention activities. Thus the question "Can county Extension benefit from participation in a formal university research project?" is answered in a very positive way.

On the other hand, none of the agents would willingly become involved in another research project if the same recruitment process were used. Although the researchers and agents agree that farmers are generally more receptive to the request of a familiar county agent than to that of an unknown university researcher, the experience from this project suggests that recruitment of participants should remain the responsibility of researchers.

Closely related to this is the issue of time commitment to the research project. Although all agents did spend the time necessary to successfully complete the project, it was not achieved without considerable sacrifice of other work responsibilities and without the researchers allowing considerable more time for activity completion. Thus the questions "Can university researchers maintain a specific, rigorous research protocol when implementation of the protocol rests largely with field educators?" and "Are agents able to devote adequate time to experimental programs as a part of their routine work load" were affirmed, but in a much less satisfactory manner.

In the final analysis, despite some difficulties, researchers and agents did accomplish the primary goal of the research project, namely, to scientifically evaluate models of safety education. This result suggests that the Cooperative Extension System can successfully meet the challenge of formal program evaluation when university researchers and county agents work together.

References

Murphy, D. J., Kiernan, N. E., Hard, D. L., & Landsittel, D. (1998). The Pennsylvania central region farm safety pilot project: Part I-rationale and baseline results. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 4(1), 25-41.

Landsittel, D., Hard, D. L., Murphy, D. J., & Kiernan, N. E. (1998) The Pennsylvania central region farm safety pilot project: Part II-Baseline data associations between approach-to-safety and hazard conditions. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, Special Issue No.1, 21-28.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the creativity and commitment to the scientific demands required in such a study demonstrated by the agents who delivered the three interventions over the 2-year period: Robert J. Brown, William R. Hosler, and Walter E. Whitmer. The authors would also like to acknowledge the effort made by other agents in implementing the evaluation process in both the intervention and control counties.

Appendix: Common Educational Objectives

Intervention Objectives

Participants will learn that:

1. It is best if all tractors are equipped with, in order of preference, a full cab ROPS, a 4-post ROPS, or a 2-post ROPS.
2. All tractors should be equipped with a PTO master shield.
3. It is best if all tractors are equipped with two working headlights and warning flashers, and an SMV emblem in good condition.
4. All tractors should have two rear wheel fenders.
5. All tractors should have a bypass starter cover and warning decal on all easily accessible starter motors.
6. All tractors should have a seat that is in good condition, and has a back rest, arm rests, and a good suspension system.
7. All tractors should have clean and cleared mounting steps and operator station platforms.
8. All machinery PTO driveline shafts should be guarded.
9. There should be a machine master shield on all PTO driven machinery.
10. A PTO driveline guard should be rotated to test its effectiveness after the PTO is hooked to the tractor.
11. All PTO driven machinery should have PTO hazard warning decals placed on or in the immediate vicinity of PTO driveline guards.
12. A fully charged, mounted, ABC type fire extinguisher should be located within 50 feet of all farm shops.
13. Storage of flammable fuels, oils, lubricants, etc., in farm shops should be in U.L. approved fire safety containers.
14. Good housekeeping practices in farm shops will minimize tripping, falling and fire hazards.
15. Is best to store any flammable fuels, oils, lubricants, etc., in separately constructed noncombustible sheds or buildings.
16. A fully charged, mounted, ABC type fire extinguisher should be located within 50 feet of all silo unloading rooms/areas.
17. Good housekeeping practices in silo unloading rooms/areas will minimize tripping and falling hazards.
18. Good housekeeping practices in silo unloading rooms/areas will minimize electrical shock and fire hazards.
19. Hazard warning signs/decals should be placed at all entrances to silos.
20. A fully charged, mounted, ABC type fire extinguisher should be located on each level of a two-story bank barn.
21. Good housekeeping practices in two-story bank barns will minimize electrical shock and fire hazards.
22. Hay/feed drop openings in two-story bank barns should be provided-with fixed ladders, access handholds, and a cover over the opening.
23. If pesticides are stored on the farm, the pesticides should be in a separate, lockable structure in original containers with labels intact, decontamination equipment and supplies should be stationed in the immediate area, and hazard warnings should be posted at the entrance to the storage structure.
24. Hazard warning signs/decals should be placed at all entrances to grain bins.
25. Access to a manure storage pond or structure should be restricted and that hazard warning sign should be visible from all accessible sides.
26. Hazard warning signs/decals should be placed at all entrances of manure storage structures.
27. Directions to the farm and guidelines for how to report farm emergencies should be written down and posted by a telephone.
28. The rescuer's safety takes precedence over the accident victim's safety.

Non-Intervention Objectives

Participants will learn that:

29. On all ROPS equipped tractors, the operator should use the seatbelt when operating the tractor.
30. Centrifugal force, rear axle torque, improper hitching and center of gravity cause tractor instability and rollover.
31. Teenagers are injured more often as extra riders on tractors than they are as tractor operators.
32. There is no safe place to ride on a tractor other than in the operator's seat.
33. Tractor headlights and warning flashers should always be on when operating on a public road.
34. You should never jump-start a tractor from the ground.
35. Operators should face the tractor when mounting and dismounting tractors.
36. Tractor accidents are the most common and serious type of farm accident.
37. A person should never step over a rotating PTO machine driveline.
38. Most PTO accidents involve: an operator becoming entangled by an unshielded PTO driveline; the initial contacts with the machine's first universal joint; occur while the tractor and machine are stationary; and are not usually fatal to the victim.

Public Education, Mapping, and Early Action to Control Russian Knapweed in Southeastern Arizona

Introduction

Noxious weeds are non-native plant species capable of doing great harm to agriculture, navigation, fish, wildlife, and public health (Federal Noxious Weed Act 1975). The spread of noxious weeds has literally caused an ecological and economic disaster in some areas in the United States and Canada (Beck, 1993). Noxious weeds have detrimental effects on soil and water resources, reduce forage production for wildlife and livestock, reduce biodiversity, reduce land values, reduce net returns, and negatively impact local and regional economies (Olson, 1999). The Bureau of Land Management estimates that noxious weeds consume, on average, about 4,600 acres a day on Western wildlands (Rumburg, 1995). The annual cost of noxious weeds in the United States is estimated in excess of $20 billion a year (Cramer, 1995).

Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) is a perennial, exotic, cool-season dicot first introduced into the United States around 1898 from Eurasia (Whitson et al., 1992). It has since invaded over 1.4 million acres in the United States and Canada (Lacey & Olson, 1991). Russian knapweed has been problematic in the Northern United States for decades; however, a small infestation was recently reported in Southeastern Arizona in 1993, near the town of San Simon, Cochise County.

Cochise County is bordered on the east by New Mexico and on the south by the Republic of Mexico. It is approximately 80 miles square and contains 4,003,840 acres. Agriculture is a major contributor to the economy of the county. Cash receipts in 1995 from crops harvested in Cochise County were $39.2 million, and livestock were $18.5 million (Clark et al., 1997). The threat of Russian knapweed to the economic stability of Cochise County therefore has the potential for great impact. A recent Montana study estimated the economic cost of 3 knapweed species (spotted, diffuse, and Russian) exceeded $42 million on grazing (carrying capacity), wildlife habitat, and watershed capacity, which could support 518 jobs in Montana's economy (Olson, 1999).

Methods

The principal aim was to follow the cornerstones of weed management set forth by the Federal Interagency Committee (1998), including:

• Public education and awareness,
• Prevention and early detection,
• Inventory and mapping,
• Planning and coordination,
• Application of integrated weed management practices (including mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical methods), and
• Monitoring and follow-up.

In 1996, the Arizona Department of Agriculture met with Cochise County Cooperative Extension concerning Russian knapweed infestations in Southeastern Arizona. This meeting initiated the formation of a working group to take action against the growing Russian knapweed problem in Cochise County.

The working group was comprised of representatives from the Arizona Department of Agriculture, The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Arizona Department of Transportation, and National Park Service. These agencies and institutions are responsible for:

• Regulation of noxious plants in Arizona,
• Encouraging partnerships with public and private sectors,
• Providing services to land owners for conserving, improving, and sustaining natural resources and the environment,
• Managing vegetation along Arizona's state highway right-of-ways, and
• Extending the benefits of natural and cultural resource preservation and outdoor recreation, respectively.

The working group's membership represented both public and private interests for noxious weed management in southeastern Arizona.

The primary objectives of the working group were to:

1. Develop an educational public outreach program to increase awareness of noxious weed impacts,
2. Use global positioning system and geographic information system technology to map Russian knapweed infestations, and
3. Use mapping data to plan and coordinate an integrated management strategy for noxious weed infestations in Cochise County, Arizona.

To begin, the working group sponsored a "Noxious Weeds on Farms and Rangelands" workshop as one of the sessions offered at the annual Ag Day in Southeastern Arizona in February, 1997. This event brings together several hundred people who have direct and indirect interests in agriculture. The workshop was general in nature and covered the following topics:

• What noxious weeds are,
• Ecology of invasive species,
• Five noxious weed species that threaten southeastern Arizona,
• Ecological and economic impacts of noxious weeds, and
• Integrated weed management.

The next step was to locate and map any additional populations of Russian knapweed beyond the infestation identified in 1993. Russian knapweed infestations were mapped in Cochise County while the plant was in full bloom, and therefore easier to detect, during July-August 1997. Cochise County was selected because there was an opportunity to eradicate or at least contain and control Russian knapweed due to its limited distribution reported in 1993. Also, there were no reports of populations of this weed in adjacent counties.

Observers were trained to operate hand-held global positioning systems and to identify Russian knapweed. They reconnoitered state, county, and city roads, searching for the weed. Russian knapweed coordinates were downloaded into the Arizona Department of Agriculture's geographic information system, which was used to generate a color map.

Following the mapping effort during the summer of 1997, we sent a letter and noxious weed literature to private landowners and farm and ranch managers in Cochise County who were on Cooperative Extension mailing lists. The letter explained why Russian knapweed and other noxious weeds are a concern in Arizona and extended an invitation to attend a second noxious weed workshop held during Ag Day in February 1998.

The purpose of the second workshop was to update landowners, farmers, ranchers, and the general public about the status of Russian knapweed and other noxious weeds in southeastern Arizona. Part of the workshop was an interactive session with participants to identify an integrated management strategy to address the Russian knapweed infestations detected by our mapping efforts.

Results

Education/Outreach

Forty-five people attended the first noxious weed workshop in February of 1997. One hundred percent of participants found the workshop useful and stated that they had learned something at the workshop. Seventy-five percent said they learned "a lot" about the five species of noxious weeds that threaten Southeastern Arizona. Participants also stated that they increased their knowledge of the ecology of invasive species and integrated management options for the control of noxious weeds.

During the second workshop held in 1998, participants identified the following as priorities for future action:

• Provide more educational opportunities to involve additional stakeholders,
• Enhance cooperation with state, county, and federal agencies, and
• Prioritize and manage noxious weeds across jurisdictional boundaries.

An important product of the 1998 workshop was a newspaper article that was published in two Cochise County newspapers. The article specifically addressed Russian knapweed as a local concern and encouraged people to become more aware of noxious weeds and their potential negative impacts.

Mapping and Management

We detected 77 Russian knapweed infestations in 1997 in addition to the original infestation reported near San Simon in 1993. Most of the infestations were in roadside right-of-ways, were less than 1 acre, and had not yet spread onto adjacent farmland or rangelands. It is unknown whether the 1997 infestations were already present in 1993, or if they had spread from the San Simon infestation. The small size of the majority of infestations detected suggested there was still an opportunity to effectively contain Russian knapweed infestations in Cochise County.

The map was made available to all working group participants and the interested public. It was also used by the Arizona Department of Transportation in 1998 to locate and treat Russian knapweed along state highways and county roads, using integrated weed management tactics such as selective herbicide application, and encouraging desirable plant growth and competition. The Arizona Department of Transportation incorporated the 1998 mapping data into their geographic information system and continues to monitor and treat Russian knapweed infestations within their jurisdiction as needed.

Implications and Conclusions

The spread of noxious weed infestations in the Western United States is often compared to an unwanted wildland fire (Dewey, 1997). Both wildfires and weed infestations start out small and spread relatively slowly. After a period of time, however, they begin to grow exponentially, and management becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. One major difference between wildfires and weed infestations, however, is that with wildfires, the land often can recover. With weed infestations, on the other hand, the land is irreparably damaged. This is why public education, mapping, and early action are critical for controlling noxious weed infestations in the initial stages.

By acting early, when Russian knapweed populations were small in size, control efforts have been minimized in Cochise County, preventing large-scale problems. Monitoring of known population sites for seedlings and re-sprouts continues. Perennial weeds require perennial solutions. Cooperative Extension will continue to play a major role in offering public education programs on Russian knapweed and other noxious weeds that threaten Arizona.

References

Beck, K. G. (1993). How do weeds affect us all? In: An explosion in slow motion: noxious weeds and invasive alien plants on grazing lands. 8th Forum. Washington D. C.

Federal interagency committee for management of noxious and exotic weeds. (1998). Pulling together: A national strategy for management of invasive plants. 2nd edition. U. S. Government Printing Office. 22 pages.

Clark, L., Dunn, D, McReynolds, K., & Call, R. (1997). Cochise County Agriculture. Cochise County Cooperative Extension.

Cramer, G. C. (1995). Analysis of the implementation of noxious weed policy on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands in Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Arizona.

Dewey, S. (1997). Noxious weeds: a biological wildfire raging out of control. Utah State University Cooperative Extension Service. 18-minute video tape.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1975). Title 7 - Agriculture. Chapter 61 - Noxious weeds.

Lacey, J. R., & Olson, B. E. (1991). Environmental and economic impacts of noxious range weeds. In: Noxious range weeds. James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., & Child, R. D., editors. Westview Press.

Olson, B. E. (1999). Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 4-18 in Biology and Management of Noxious rangeland weeds. R. L. Sheley and J. K. Petroff (Eds.). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Rumburg, B. (1995). The west grapples with weeds and livestock grazing. Society for Range Management Trailboss. September 1995.

Whitson, T. D., Burrill, L. C., Dewey, S. A., Cudney, D. W., Nelson, B. E., Lee, R. D., & Parker, R. (1992). Weeds of the west. The Western Society of Weed Science.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by an Arizona Cooperative Extension Program Enhancement Grant. In addition to the authors, project members include: Everett L. Hall, Arizona Department of Agriculture (Retired); Clifton Taylor, Arizona Department of Transportation; Walt Saenger, National Park Service (Retired); and Dave Fisher, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Rural Cooperative Housing for Older Adults: An Emerging Challenge for Extension Educators

Introduction and Problem Statement

The aging of the American population is well documented. The over-65 age cohort continues to be the fastest growing group in the country and is expected to climb from 36 million (13% of the adult population) in 2000 to over 60 million (22% of the adult population) in 2030 (Bureau of the Census, 1999). Moreover, the most significant increase is expected to be among those over the age of 85.

As the number of older adults continues to increase, finding housing opportunities that offer affordable, comfortable, and high-quality living will pose a challenge to families and community developers. Many of those interested in improving the quality of life of older adults have a history of looking to Extension educators for assistance (Duncan & Foster, 1996; Frazier, Collins, & Rhodes, 1991; Pollak & DiGregario, 1988; White, 1987; Nelson, 1987).

Extension Services across the country have established teams or programs to address issues affecting the older population. These include HOST (Housing Options for Seniors Today) in New York (Pollak & DiGregorio, 1988) and IAT (Interdisciplinary Aging Team) in Alabama (Duncan & Foster, 1996). Pollak and DiGregario (1988) offered an inventory of housing options for seniors. Despite these efforts, finding viable, functional housing options for older adults, particularly in rural areas, continues to present a serious problem both for older adults making housing decisions and communities involved in planning and policy making.

Older rural adults are more likely to live in poor-quality housing than their urban counterparts (Bull, 1993). Maintenance and rehabilitation of these dwellings are often beyond the means of the residents, who express a desire to remain in their communities, but have very limited housing options (Golant, 1992).

In the early 1990s rural cooperative housing for older adults emerged as an important alternative. Although the National Association of Housing Cooperatives was established in 1950, this alternative was largely overlooked by the public until relatively recently, and had never been undertaken for older adults specifically until 1991. This article: (a) describes the rural cooperative housing concept; (b) reports on a survey of residents of rural cooperative housing; and (c) poses questions to Extension educators on how they might help clientele understand this new housing option.

Rural Cooperative Housing

A cooperative is a business controlled by the people who use it. It is a democratic organization whose earnings and assets belong to its members. By patronizing and becoming active members of a cooperative, individuals vest themselves with the power to shape the business (USDA, 1988). Rural cooperative housing units vary from small, family-size homes to large, multi-story apartment buildings. They typically include the provision of services designed for their inhabitants.

HOMESTEAD Cooperatives, the focus of this study, includes full-sized apartment homes with kitchens, extensive community facilities, storage, attached garages, and gardens. They range from 16 to 31 homes, and are located in seven rural communities in Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Local organizations and individuals interested in improving housing choices for older adults sponsor each cooperative. Cooperative members, as shareholders, are the owners of the buildings and grounds, and govern their operation.

The primary benefits to those living in a housing cooperative include: a sense of privacy in one's own living space, access to peers in close proximity and in community areas, security, convenience, and maintaining equity in one's housing investment. Housing cooperatives can benefit the community as well by freeing up existing housing for younger residents and by increasing the local tax base.

Survey Design, Method, and Results

A mail survey was sent to the 163 rural Minnesota and Iowa residents of HOMESTEAD Cooperatives. Prior to mailing, the survey instrument was reviewed by a panel of eight Extension specialists and Agricultural Education faculty members for content validity. Recommendations by the panel were incorporated into instrument revisions, and unclear items were deleted from the final version.

The instrument was tested for stability by test-retest reliability to determine if the same results were obtained from the same subjects over a period of time. Sixteen residents initially completed a pilot version of the survey. After a period of 2 weeks, all 16 responded to the survey a second time. Reliability coefficients were calculated in the manner described by Dillman (1978). The coefficients ranged from .65 to 1.0, with an average of .88 indicating an acceptable level of content reliability.

Respondents were presented with 12 factors that might have influenced their decision to move to the housing cooperative and asked to respond on a 3-point Likert scale, with 1= did not influence me, 2 = somewhat influenced me, and 3 = influenced me (see Table 1).

Four "waves" of mailings provided a total final response rate of 93% (151 usable surveys). To obtain the highest possible response rate, the questionnaire was age-sensitive, using large fonts, light-colored paper, and simple response options, and was short in length. A booklet-style questionnaire (8 1/2 x 11) was designed to accommodate the dexterity of older adults. The questionnaire, a cover letter, a stamped self-addressed envelope, and a gift incentive were sent to non-respondents in each wave cycle.

Wanted an easier maintained home	Did not influence me	3
	Somewhat influenced me	17
	Influenced me	80
Wanted to stay in community	Did not influence me	14
	Somewhat influenced me	12
	Influenced me	75
Wanted handicapped accessible	Did not influence me	17
	Somewhat influenced me	34
	Influenced me	49
Better financial investment	Did not influence me	28
	Somewhat influenced me	24
	Influenced me	47
Wanted a voice in home operation	Did not influence me	27
	Somewhat influenced me	27
	Influenced me	46
Wanted help close by	Did not influence me	22
	Somewhat influenced me	39
	Influenced me	39
Difficulty with home maintenance	Did not influence me	32
	Somewhat influenced me	36
	Influenced me	32
Wanted to live closer to friends	Did not influence me	40
	Somewhat influenced me	28
	Influenced me	31
Children wanted the move	Did not influence me	50
	Somewhat influenced me	21
	Influenced me	28
Wanted to live close to town	Did not influence me	67
	Somewhat influenced me	12
	Influenced me	21
Felt isolated	Did not influence me	63
	Somewhat influenced me	24
	Influenced me	12
Difficulty getting around house	Did not influence me	60
	Somewhat influenced me	30
	Influenced me	11

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

The two major factors that emerged as the most influential were ease of home maintenance and a desire to remain in the community. Note that an apparent asymmetry in these results arises in the observation that roughly one third of the respondents stated that " difficulty with home maintenance" did not influence their decision. This implies that even among those older adults who are not currently having difficulty maintaining their home, a desire for easier home maintenance is still likely to be a major contributing factor in deciding to relocate to cooperative housing.

A second tier of influential factors was: desire for handicapped accessible living quarters, better financial investment, having a voice in the operation of the home, and having help close by. Factors with little or no influence on the housing decision were: difficulty in getting around the house, feeling isolated in previous living quarters, and a desire to live closer to town. These results tend to corroborate previous findings concerning housing decisions for an aging population (Bull, 1993; Stevens-Long & Commons, 1992; Coward & Lee, 1985; Rowles, 1983, Lawton & Hoover, 1981).

Respondents were also asked to respond to 9-Likert scale statements on what effect living in the rural cooperative had on them. These were scored 1= negative effect, 2 = no effect, and 3 = positive effect (see Table 2).

Variable	Effect	Percentage
Ease of maintaining home	Negative effect	0
	No effect	7
	Positive effect	93
Ability to live independently	Negative effect	0
	No effect	16
	Positive effect	84
Personal safety	Negative effect	1
	No effect	17
	Positive effect	82
Life satisfaction	Negative effect	2
	No effect	18
	Positive effect	80
Access to activities, entertainment	Negative effect	1
	No effect	23
	Positive effect	77
Happiness	Negative effect	2
	No effect	20
	Positive effect	77
Amount of contact with friends	Negative effect	3
	No effect	20
	Positive effect	77
Personal privacy	Negative effect	2
	No effect	31
	Positive effect	67
Physical health	Negative effect	1
	No effect	34
	Positive effect	63

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Respondents overwhelmingly believed that living in the housing cooperative had a positive impact on all nine aspects of living included in the questionnaire. Not a single respondent stated that moving to the cooperative had negatively influenced their ability to live independently or the ease of maintaining their home.

The demographic profile of residents of HOMESTEAD (see Table 3) is typical of older residents of the rural Midwest in most respects, with females being slightly over-represented (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999).

Variable	Effect	Percentage
Gender	Male	32
	Female	68
Age	under 65	6
	65-74	21
	75-84	51
	85+	22
Marital	Married	46
	Widowed/Divorce	51
	Never Married	3
Race/Ethnic	Caucasian	90
	African American	1
	Other	9
Education	Elementary	22
	Some High School	8
	High School Diploma	28
	Post High School	27
	College Degree	10
	Beyond B.S.	5
Income	Less than $9,999	10
	$10,000 - $19,999	31
	$20,000 - $29,999	26
	$30,000 - $39,999	17
	$40,000 - $49,999	6
	More than $50,000	10

Correlation coefficients were calculated to measure relationships among the demographic variables (see Table 3), factors influencing the decision to move (see Table 1), and effects of living in HOMESTEAD (see Table 2). No statistically significant relationships were found, indicating that factors influencing the decision to move to the cooperatives and perceptions of the quality of life did not differ along demographic lines. This is in contrast to previous research, which has shown that gender differences typically influence the housing decision process (Teaford, 1992); Lawton & Hoover, 1981).

In order to access the overall perception of HOMESTEAD living, respondents were asked whether they liked HOMESTEAD housing better than their previous housing, 95% answered " about the same" or " better." A total of 94% indicated they would recommend HOMESTEAD to others; 98% concluded that if they had to make the choice again, they would move to HOMESTEAD; and 99% believed older adults need a cooperative living housing option in their community.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Extension Educators

Housing decisions for older Americans will continue to be an issue of increasing importance for families and communities across the United States. Although cooperative housing has been around for half a century, only a few cooperative housing units designed to meet the needs of older rural Americans currently exist in the country. All of these are currently located in a few Midwestern states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Iowa.

Although Extension educators have played an important role in acquainting clientele with issues facing older citizens, including housing, they have not pointed to the rural cooperative housing concept as a viable alternative. This could be due to the fact that rural cooperative housing is not an easily available option and/or that educators are themselves unaware of this potential alternative. In either case, rural cooperative housing offers Extension educators the opportunity and challenge to develop curricula and programs describing the concept to clientele, including potential residents, their families, and community leaders.

Extension professionals, gerontologists, community developers, and older adults sometimes disagree among themselves as to the model living arrangement for the aging population, but they all tend to agree that certain characteristics for older adult housing are necessary for the improved quality of living in their home communities. The results of this study show that rural cooperative housing, as achieved by HOMESTEAD Cooperatives, has helped its members reach their housing goals and meet needs that are important to them.

Will cooperative housing for the older adult be the wave of the future in rural America? Perhaps not. But to many HOMESTEAD residents, it provides the quality of living they had hoped for in their aging years. Reasons to move often center around concern with one's ability to continue to cope with the demands of regular housing. In other words, the cooperative housing concept attracts individuals or couples because what it offers to rural communities is not generally available elsewhere. Safety, security, social interaction, independence, and freedom from maintenance chores are predominant benefits gained from cooperative housing.

The central finding in this study is that, yes, there is a positive quality of life among the older adults living in rural cooperative housing. This housing option does satisfy some very important physical, social, and psychological needs for this segment of the older adult population.

A key question that emerges from the study is why so few rural communities have adopted cooperative housing. Identifying barriers to the creation of this housing option remains a potential and much needed focus of research in the future.

Will cooperative living facilitate satisfying retirement years for older adults? When the rural dimension is introduced, will the issue of where to house rural older adults come into play? These questions will be concerns older adults, Extension professionals, gerontologists, community developers, and policy makers will need to explore in integrating rural older adults to local communities, increasing the quality of life, maintaining social structures, encouraging independence, and preserving "rurality."

References

Bull, C. N. (1993). Aging in rural America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Coward, R., & Lee, G. (1985). The elderly in rural society: every fourth elder. New York: Springer.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Duncan, S. F., & Foster, R. (1996). Promoting programs in aging through interdisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 34(1). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996february/a4.html

Frazier, B. H., Collins, B. W., & Rhodes, J.W. (1991). Reaching isolated rural elderly. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 29(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991fall/iw3.html

Golant, S.M. (1992). Housing America's elderly: many possibilities, few choices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lawton, M., & Hoover, S. (1981). Community housing choices for older Americans. New York: Springer.

Nelson, P. T. (1987). Graying of America. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 25(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987winter/rb3.html

Pollak, P. B., & DiGregario, D. A. (1988). Aging-in-place. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 26(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988winter/a2.html

Rowles, G. D. (1983). Between worlds: a relocation dilemma for the Appalachian elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 17(4).

Stevens-Long, J., & Commons, N. L. (1992). Adult life. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Teaford, M. H. (1992). Predictors of older widows' intentions to move and actual relocation. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Annual population reports. Washington, D.C.

U.S.D.A., Agricultural Cooperative Service. (1988). Cooperative organization and structure. Cooperative Information Report 1, Section 6. Washington, D.C.

White, B.A. (1987). Older rural adult learners. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 25(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987winter/rb1.html

Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Training for Youth

Background

When young people begin a project where the final product is food, they also assume a legal and moral obligation to produce a quality, wholesome, and safe product for consumers. It is critical that young producers are consciously aware of these responsibilities and understand their implications. Only with such an understanding will they deliberately adopt practices and procedures that allow them to fulfill their obligations to consumers.

Because of a desire to instill this understanding in youth, quality assurance education has become a major focus of the Nebraska 4-H Livestock Program. As youth learn to implement quality assurance practices, they will develop an awareness and skills that will affect their current projects. In addition, they will develop an appreciation for food safety and responsibility that will form the foundation for their future contributions as producers, consumers, or both.

Numerous quality assurance programs and training materials exist for adult audiences, such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program, the Pork Quality Assurance manual from the National Pork Producers Council, and the Milk and Dairy Beef Residue Prevention Protocol manual from Dairy Quality Assurance (DQA) Center, Inc. However, these materials have a strong emphasis on technical knowledge, with little discussion on responsibilities. In addition, these materials were designed for adult audiences and consist of lengthy manuals and lecture programs. These characteristics make the existing materials difficult to use with youth audiences. Hence, the goal of this project was to develop a more age-appropriate quality assurance training program for youth.

Materials and Methods

Materials

Existing adult materials were modified to be more relevant and interactive. In order to accommodate the entire span of ages in 4-H (from 8 to 18) the materials were designed to appeal to characteristics of 9 to 11 year olds, as well as to some of the characteristics of older youth. Research identifying the needs for each age group was used in developing program content and design.

For example, characteristics of 9 to 11 year old youth that were considered included:

1. Are more interested when actively involved in making or doing something,
2. Enjoy working in groups, and
3. Are beginning to accept responsibility for their own actions.

The characteristics of older youth that were considered were:

1. Can take responsibility in evaluating their own work,
2. Are beginning to develop a community consciousness, and
3. Are developing a growing concern for the well-being of others (Karns & Myers-Walls, 1996).

Considering these characteristics, the materials included numerous hands-on activities and interactive discussions where younger and older youth worked together. Furthermore, using the Character Counts! (Josephson Institute of Ethics, 1992) model as a framework, hypothetical situations applicable to quality assurance and livestock projects were developed. The situations emphasized responsibilities involved in producing food and exhibiting animals, including the ultimate responsibility of producing safe food for consumers.

The quality assurance educational program is an appropriate setting for character education because it provides a number of the critical elements that must be present for character education to be effective (Antes & Norton, 1994). These elements include:

1. Relates educational experiences to students' lives,
2. Provides opportunities for student to share their points of view,
3. Uses day-to-day activities as opportunities to deal with values and ethics, and
4. Uses opportunities for students to be responsible to each other by providing cross-age groupings.

Youth in 4-H Swine Projects were the first youth targeted to receive quality assurance training. The materials developed sufficiently covered quality assurance practices so that youth who completed training would be certified in Pork Quality Assurance at the Level III standard used by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC, 1997).

For ease of use, all materials were combined into a "kit" that was used by county Extension staff. Items in the kit included a reference manual of technical knowledge, teaching methods, posters, stuffed pigs for use in practicing quality assurance procedures, hypothetical drug labels, and syringes with various needle sizes.

To provide continuity among county programs across the state, inservice sessions were delivered to Extension educators and assistants. Once trained, these staff delivered programs across the state, often with the assistance of local veterinarians. Over 3,500 youth were trained and certified in Pork Quality Assurance during the 5-month period from March 1999 to July 1999.

Testing Procedure

To determine the impact of the training on youths' opinions about and knowledge of quality assurance practices, pre- and post-tests were completed by youth who attended the training sessions. The instrument for youth ages 12 and over included five statements to evaluate their opinions toward quality assurance and consumers of pork or meat products, and five questions to test their knowledge of quality assurance practices. Because youth younger than age 12 have generally not yet developed a community consciousness (Karns & Myers-Walls, 1996), the instrument for youth ages 8 to 11 included only questions designed to test their knowledge of quality assurance practices and responsibilities.

To evaluate the knowledge of quality assurance practices, multiple choice tests were used. The test for the 8 to 11 age group included six questions, with multiple correct answers per question. Questions regarding injection sites and needle usage used pictures rather than words as choices. The test for the 12 and over age group included only five questions, but also with multiple correct answers per questions. A summary of question topics and possible answers is presented in Table 1.

Question Topic	Possible Answers for 8 to 11 Age Group	Possible Answers for 12 and Over Age Group
Proper injection sites	A. Neck*	A. Neck*
	B. Loin	B. Elbow*
	C. Rump	C. Loin
	D. Ham	D. Ham
Needle usage	A. 16 gauge, 1 1/2 inches	Same as 8 to 11 age group
	B. 18 gauge, 1/2 inch*
	C. Burred
	D. 18 gauge, 1 inch, bent
Records information	A. Pig ear notch*	Same as 8 to 11 age group
	B. Amount of drug*
	C. Withdrawal time*
	D. Date given*
Drug misuse consequences	A. Monetary*	Same as 8 to 11 age group
	B. Livestock show reputation*
	C. 4-H'er reputation*
	D. Consumer confidence*
Proper handling	A. Sorting panels*	Not asked
	B. Electric prods
	C. Slapping ham
	D. Working with before show*
Responsibilities as exhibitor	A. Feed & water*	Same as 8 to 11 age group
	B. Proper handling*
	C. Profit
	D. Safe product for consumers*
	E. Purple ribbon showmanship

* Indicates correct answer.

To determine opinions toward quality assurance and consumers of meat products, participants were asked to circle one of the following: "Strongly agree," "Slightly agree," "Slightly disagree," or "Strongly disagree," for each of the five statements listed in Table 2 (below).

Statistical Analyses

Chi square analyses were used to determine if there was a difference in the outcomes between pre- and post-tests in the opinions of youth participating in the training. Because the quality assurance knowledge questions had more than one possible correct answer, the percentage of responses was calculated for each possible answer. The difference in the probability of having a response on the pre-test versus the probability of having the same response on the post-test was calculated and compared using a 95% confidence interval.

The sample consisted of 1,054 pre-tests and 1,040 post-tests for the 12 and over age group and 584 pre-tests and 612 post-tests for the 8 to 11 age group. The sample sizes for statistical analyses were lower than the actual number of youth participating in the training because of the need to have parental consent forms signed before youth could respond to the pre- and post-tests.

Results

Opinions

Chi square analyses showed changes (P < .001) in opinions for all statements. For questions 1, 3, and 4, the most desirable opinion, based on quality assurance principles, would be "Strongly Agree." The percentage of individuals who slightly or strongly agreed with statements 1, 3, and 4 in the pre-test was quite high, but a shift toward even stronger agreement was seen in the post-test. Similarly, for questions 2 and 4, for which the most desirable answer would be "Strongly Disagree," from pre- to post-test there was shift toward more "Slightly Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" opinions. Results are shown in Table 2.

Statement		Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Chi Square
Consumers have a right to expect the pork they eat is safe and wholesome.	Pre-test	91.7	7.4	.6	.3	< .001
	Post-test	97.0	2.4	.4	.2
Most consumers don't care about how pigs are treated and handled.	Pre-test	5.2	28.1	29.3	37.4	<.001
	Post-test	4.2	12.5	19.0	64.3
It is the responsibility of every hog producer and exhibitor to produce a safe and wholesome product.	Pre-test	86.5	11.4	1.5	.6	<.001
	Post-test	94.5	4.0	1.1	.4
If a 4-H member forgets to record a drug injection...drug residue...4-H member viewed as irresponsible.	Pre-test	50.7	36.1	10.0	3.2	<.001
	Post-test	79.7	15.4	2.4	2.5
Using a tranquilizer ...calm wild steer...is responsible because protecting public.	Pre-test	13.2	29.1	24.2	33.5	<.001
	Post-test	9.3	15.4	17.0	58.3

Quality Assurance Knowledge

Between pre- and post-tests, there were significant increases in correct answers for every knowledge-based question for the 12 and over group. For all except one of the questions that also had distinctly incorrect answers, there were significant decreases in the percentage of incorrect answers. For questions where all possible answers were correct, there were increases in the percentage of correct responses for all possible responses. Especially obvious differences were seen in recognition of the ham as an incorrect place for injections and the elbow pocket as an appropriate place for injections (Question 1), and recognition of information, particularly withdrawal times, that should be included in records (Question 2).

Correct responses from nearly 90% or more of the youth for injection site placement (Question 1), information necessary in records (Question 2), proper needle usage (Question 3), and responsibilities of a producer (Question 5)indicate a good overall understanding of quality assurance by this group of youth. The only question for which there was an increase in incorrect responses was Question 5. This may be due an overall increase in knowledge about pork production and the accompanying responsibilities.

An increase in overall awareness of pork production could lead the youth to view the answers about profit and ribbons as correct answers. Furthermore, the low hog prices of 1999 led to discussions about profit in many different situations. The presence of these discussions by adults during or near the time of the PQA sessions may have influenced the youths' answers. In addition, the program's emphasis on responsibility may have led the youth to believe that increased responsibilities should also bring increased rewards, such as profit and ribbons at a fair. Complete results are shown in Table 3.

Question Topic & Answers	% Response		Difference	Std. Err. (95% Conf.)
	Pre-Test	Post-Test
Injection Sites
A. Neck*	84.7	96.7	+ 12.0	2.5
B. Elbow*	30.7	79.4	+ 48.7	3.7
C. Loin	4.8	.6	- 4.2	1.4
D. Ham	37.3	5.3	- 32.0	3.3
Records Information
A. Pig ear notch*	63.2	87.5	+ 24.3	3.6
B. Amount of drug*	74.7	93.9	+ 19.2	3.0
C. Withdrawal time*	42.9	91.8	+ 48.9	3.4
D. Date given*	86.6	93.9	+7.3	2.5
Needle Usage
A. 16 gauge, 1 1/2 inches	28.9	14.3	- 14.6	3.4
B. 18 gauge, 1/2 inch*	71.5	89.9	+ 18.4	3.3
C. Burred	1.6	.4	- 1.2	.9
D. 18 gauge, 1 inch, bent	3.3	2.2	- 1.1	1.4
Drug Misuse Consequences
A. Monetary*	45.2	67.3	+ 22.1	4.2
B. Livestock show reputation*	56.8	80.3	+ 23.5	3.9
C. 4-H'er reputation*	63.1	82.6	+ 19.5	3.7
D. Consumer confidence*	73.3	82.3	+ 9.0	3.6
Responsibilities
A. Feed & water*	89.2	95.8	+ 6.6	2.2
B. Proper handling*	77.2	90.8	+ 13.6	3.1
C. Profit	20.6	29.4	+ 8.8	3.7
D. Safe product for consumers*	78.3	89.6	+ 11.3	3.1
E. Purple ribbon showmanship	14.1	20.9	+ 6.8	3.3

*Indicates correct answer

Results for the 8 to 11 age group also showed significant increases in correct answers for all questions. Of special note are differences seen in recognition of the ham as an incorrect place for injections (Question 1); the recognition of information, particularly withdrawal times, that should be included in records(Question 3); and recognition of the possible consequences of drug misuse (Question 4).

Following training, nearly 100% of youth recognized the neck as the proper site for injections (Question 1), over 95% correctly answered questions about needle usage (Question 2), and over 85% recognized at least three items that should be included in records (Question 3), proper hog handling techniques (Question 5), and the responsibilities of a swine producer (Question 6). As with the 12 and over age group, the only question for which there was an increase in incorrect responses was the final question related to responsibilities. We speculate that the same reasoning may apply here as for the other age group. Complete results are shown in Table 4.

Question Topic & Answers	% Response		Difference	Std. Err. (95% Conf.)
	Pre-Test	Post-Test
Injection Sites
A. Neck*	81.8	99.8	+ 18.0	3.1
B. Loin	9.6	2.8	- 6.8	2.7
C. Rump	13.4	3.0	- 10.4	3.1
D. Ham	41.8	14.8	- 27.0	4.9
Needle Usage
A. 16 gauge, 1 1/2 inches	30.5	26.8	- 3.7	5.1
B. 18 gauge, 1/2 inch*	88.7	95.6	+ 6.9	3.0
C. Burred	1.9	.5	- 1.4	1.2
D. 18 gauge, 1 inch, bent	4.4	.2	- 4.2	1.7
Records Information
A. Pig ear notch*	68.7	80.8	+ 12.1	4.9
B. Amount of drug*	71.6	88.0	+ 16.4	4.5
C. Withdrawal time*	36.0	78.9	+ 42.9	5.0
D. Date given*	83.9	91.0	+ 7.1	3.7
Drug Misuse Consequences
A. Monetary*	40.9	59.6	+ 18.7	5.6
B. Livestock show reputation*	41.2	64.4	+ 23.2	5.5
C. 4-H'er reputation*	45.0	66.4	+ 21.4	5.5
D. Consumer confidence*	54.6	77.6	+ 23.0	5.2
Hog Handling
A. Sorting panels*	68.9	86.5	+ 17.6	4.7
B. Electric prods	4.2	3.5	- .7	2.2
C. Slapping ham	21.3	11.3	- 10.0	4.2
D. Working with before show *	90.3	94.0	+ 3.7	3.1
Responsibilities
A. Feed and water*	96.2	97.8	+ 1.6	2.0
B. Proper handling *	87.1	94.3	+ 7.2	3.3
C. Profit	22.1	31.8	+ 9.7	5.0
D. Safe product for consumers*	74.6	89.4	+ 14.8	4.3
E. Purple ribbon showmanship	20.2	24.3	+ 4.1	4.7

* Indicates correct answer

Summary and Implications

Quality assurance training had an impact on youths' opinions about quality assurance and consumers, and on youth's knowledge of quality assurance practices. Emphasis on character development and decision-making skills translated into positive responses about the responsibilities of a livestock producer, both to the animals and to consumers. While most youth understood at least some of their responsibilities prior to completing the training, the quality assurance training served to reinforce the understanding of those youth and also to help all youth recognize the breadth of the responsibilities that they have as livestock producers.

Using 4-H project areas as a framework may be an effective method of character education. The 4-H project meeting provides an environment in which the youth are at ease, are interested in the subject matter, and have interested, caring adults present. These are all elements of an environment that are conducive to learning, the presence of which will make character education more effective (Kohn, 1997). The use of hypothetical situations related to the 4-H project provides other critical elements of effective character education, such as giving youth opportunities to share their point of view and using what is happening in the youths' lives as opportunities to deal with values and ethics (Antes & Norton, 1994).

The increase in knowledge of quality assurance practices for all the ages of youth provides strong support for the value of hands-on educational experiences and for cross-age training. The variety of topics available and the use of the experiential learning model for 4-H programming provide youth with the opportunity for significant learning in many subject areas.

Organizing content along an experiential path and establishing a relationship between content and experience are the first two essential elements that the National Science Foundation has recommended in development of science based curriculum (Horton & Hutchinson, 1999). These elements are common to most 4-H curricula. Using these elements will not only help youth learn the subject matter, but will help prepare them to use the skills they learn in their daily lives, engage them in intelligent decision-making, and orient them toward rewarding life opportunities (Harms & Kahle, 1978).

Educating youth about quality assurance will also benefit the livestock industry. The youths' knowledge of quality assurance practices will strengthen the livestock industry's standards for producing safe and wholesome food products, both currently and in the future. While the livestock produced by these youth may not represent a large proportion of today's livestock industry, the youth themselves represent the future of the livestock industry. Only a small proportion may be directly involved in production and use their skills in that manner, but all will be consumers.

Food safety has been and will continue to be an issue to consumers. These youth will be consumers and should have a better appreciation and understanding of the measures that livestock producers take to ensure a safe, high-quality, and wholesome food supply.

References

Antes, R. L., & Norton, M. L. (1994). Another view of school reform: Values and ethics restored. Counseling and Values, 38, 215-222.

Harmes, N. C., & Kahle, J. (1978). The status and needs of pre-college science education: Report of project synthesis (Final Report to NSF for Grant, SED 77-19001). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Horton, R. L., & Hutchinson, S. (1999). Nurturing scientific literacy among youth through experientially based curriculum materials. National Network for Science and Technology Home Page [On-line]. Available: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~youth4h/expedu/

Karns, J., & Myers-Walls, J. A. (1996). Ages and stages of child and youth development: A guide for 4-H leaders. North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 292.

Kohn, A. (1997). How not to teach values: A critical look at character education. In: Studies in Moral Development and Education Home Page [On-line]. Available: http://www.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/index.html

Josephson Institute of Ethics(1992). Available: http://www.charactercounts.org

National Pork Producers Council (1997). Pork Quality Assurance: Levels I, II, and III. Des Moines: National Pork Producers Council.

Edible Connections: A Model to Facilitate Citizen Dialogue and Build Community Collaboration

Introduction

Hunger. Economic development. Job creation. Farmland and open space preservation. Proper nutrition of children and adults. All of these are issues that concern communities throughout the country and on which Extension seeks to have an impact through its programs. Whether or not they are major concerns for a community depends in large part on the strength of its local food system, or "the process by which food is produced (grown, raised, harvested, or caught), transformed by processing, made available for purchase, and eventually discarded," (Harmon et al., 1999).

Citizens often have different views on how best to address these concerns. These differences can lead to conflicts that can limit discussion, identification, or implementation of strategies to address community problems. Moving from individual conversations to community forums can help local residents define their environment within their own context. Over time, through such discussion consensus should evolve. "Citizen dialogue can play an important part in helping community members shape their common vision and resolve their common problems by providing an opportunity for them to come together to share their views, learn from each other, and prepare themselves to be able to make more informed decisions and choices" (Smith & Maretzki, 2000).

In Pennsylvania, both county and municipal planners (Abel, 2000) have indicated that incorporating food system issues into the planning process is likely to occur only through government mandates, citizen pressure, or expanded funding. Thus, the quality of individual and community life can be significantly influenced by individual and public actions at the local level.

Edible Connections: Changing the way we talk about food, farm, and community is a food communications forum that brings together the media, the public, and many food system stakeholders from within the community. The intent of the forums is to increase awareness and understanding of the local food system, strengthen connections among food system stakeholders, and initiate programs and activities to address food system problems identified by a given community.

The Edible Connections model, developed in 1998, has been used by diverse groups to initiate conversations about and to take action on critical food issues. The Edible Connections model is designed to generate changes at both an individual and community level. Evaluations of forums held indicate that many who participated now consider the impacts their buying decisions have on their local food system. Several groups have subsequently made plans to explore ideas raised at the forums. This article details the components of the model and its usefulness to Cooperative Extension.

Why Is Edible Connections Useful for Extension Educators?

Because of the variety of programs Extension carries out with children, youth, and families, as well as with businesses and community organizations, Extension educators have a unique perspective on the needs of a community and its members. Many Extension programs are related in some way to the food system. Thus, the action plans and ideas that emerge from Edible Connections forums can strengthen Extension's community programming in agriculture, natural resources, nutrition, economic development, workforce development, 4-H, family and consumer sciences, and horticulture programs.

In addition, by bringing together such a diverse array of individuals via an Edible Connections forum, Extension educators can establish collaborations with organizations and individuals to develop joint strategies to address community food system issues. Such collaborations can be useful to attract funding for projects focused on alleviating hunger, supporting local economic development initiatives, or supporting family farms.

Edible Connections addresses several of the current National Initiatives of USDA's Research, Education, and Extension programs. For example, the Workforce Preparation Initiative seeks to address communities' workforce issues by focusing on community strengths and partnerships among federal, state, and local agencies and organizations (USDA, 1999e). Edible Connections forums can focus on ways to connect the jobless with local food businesses.

Forums can also be used to address a community's food safety concerns (Food Safety and Quality Initiative) or to empower youth to take leadership roles in their communities, for example, through community-wide gardening projects that could lead to food donation or marketing initiatives (Children, Youth and Families at Risk Initiative). Probably the national initiative that Edible Connections addresses best is Healthy People...Healthy Communities because of the forums' focus on the local food system, health, economic development, broad-based community initiatives, collaboration, and strengthening leadership (USDA, 1999d).

Plans of work, through which the national initiatives are realized, provide the mechanism for incorporating the Edible Connections model into state programs. In Pennsylvania, Edible Connections was initially integrated into the 1999 plan of work, The Pennsylvania Food System: In Search of Our Common Wealth. This plan of work seeks to meet the following educational goal: "Enable people to reach informed public judgments on complex issues by fostering public dialogue" (Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, 1998). Meeting this goal is precisely what Edible Connections is designed to do. In the 2000-2004 plans of work for Pennsylvania, Edible Connections is incorporated into the Forces of Change–Improving Public Understanding of the Food, Fiber & Forest Products System plan of work (Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, 1999).

What Is Edible Connections?

Edible Connections, developed through collaboration among university faculty and citizen groups, was created as a model for communities to use to help formulate solutions to food access, hunger, open space preservation, economic development, and other food system-related issues. Involving a broad cross-section of the community–consumers, the media, agricultural producers, food retailers and wholesalers, educators, nonprofit organizations, and local government–is the foundation on which to build dialogue on local food system issues. Edible Connections forums also help develop local leaders who can spearhead actions around ideas that emerge from the forums.

The forum, typically a 1-day event, includes six elements.

• Setting the Table defines the goals of the forum and the topics that will be addressed. This element also presents an overview of the state of the local food system and how it has changed over time.
• Food as Lifestyle is a segment that focuses on how participants interact with the food system as consumers and members of families and organizations. The topics that can be covered during this segment include diet and health, time pressures, ethnic diversity, food as ritual, hunger and food security, food as a part of celebrations, and nourishment and learning (Nunnery et al., 2000).
• Food as Livelihood is a segment that attempts to show that the food system represents a point of common connection for many workers in a community. This element highlights the way those in different food-related professions communicate within and among the professions and with the public.
• Food as Connection explores how food connects consumers to "the local environment, the local food system, and to each other" (Nunnery et al., 2000, p. 6). The topics that can be discussed in this segment include the diversity of agricultural production in the region; building linkages among people of different ethnicities, economic backgrounds and ages through food-based activities; and what role media can play in helping to foster such linkages (Nunnery et al., 2000).
• A Town Meeting allows forum participants, via a facilitated discussion, to generate ideas about local actions that can strengthen the local food system. The goal of this element is to answer the question "What could be done by the media as well as by stakeholders in the local food system to bring the many stories of food to the attention of the citizens of this community?" (Nunnery et al., 2000).
• A Celebration of Local Foods features locally grown and processed foods and allows participants to continue the dialogue begun during the forum (Nunnery et al., 2000).

For the Food as Lifestyle, Livelihood, and Connection segments, food system professionals, activists, and the media are invited from within the community to serve as panelists. Following the panel discussions, audience members join the panelists in a Town Meeting to explore ideas that address food system problems in their communities and to consider how food serves to connect people within the community.

At the Celebration of Local Foods at the end of the forum, participants have the opportunity to continue their discussions informally and to sample the region's food bounty. Maintaining the order and integrity of the six elements is important to "create a basis for changing the way people in local communities talk about food, farm and community" (Nunnery et al., 2000).

Edible Connections forums can serve as the foundation on which community food projects are built, providing the opportunity to define pressing food system problems, to involve the groups and individuals that can address these problems, and to devise a strategy to work together toward solutions.

Edible Connections forums can also help foster community leadership. According to the National Extension Task Force on Community Leadership, "Community leadership is that which involves influence, power, and input into public decision-making over one or more spheres of activity" (Langone, 1992).

Building the leadership capacity of members of a community can energize people to generate action plans and direct change. "Leadership capacity extends beyond the skills necessary to maintain a social service and/or activities organization. The leadership skills include those necessary for public decision-making, policy development, program implementation, and organizational maintenance" (Langone, 1992). Edible Connections is a useful means to identify potential leaders in a community, providing them the opportunity to develop their leadership skills by managing follow-on activities after the forums.

Edible Connections and Community Food Security

Edible Connections is a timely tool, given a current initiative of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The Community Food Security Initiative, announced in February 1999, seeks to reduce hunger in the U.S. by half by the year 2015. Food security is "when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a healthy and productive life," (USDA, 1999c). In 1998, close to 10 million people in the U.S., more than one third of them children, lived in households where at least some members experienced hunger during the year (USDA, 1999c).

The Community Food Security Initiative is based on collaborations among the USDA and other federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, states, and municipalities (Trivers & Paschal, 1999). The work of the Initiative is built around seven action areas. One of the action areas, "increase education and awareness," relates to each of Extension's national base programs:

• Nutrition, Diet, and Health
• Community Resources and Economic Development
• Natural Resources and Environmental Management
• 4-H and Youth Development
• Agriculture
• Leadership and Volunteer Development
• Family Development and Resource Management

The Initiative is grounded in the idea that solutions to hunger and food insecurity must be generated at the local level. One way that Extension educators are already contributing to finding local solutions is through the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program, one component of the Initiative. Since 1996, $8.4 million have been awarded to support 69 projects "designed to increase food security in communities by bringing the whole food system together to assess strengths, establish linkages, and create systems that improve the self-reliance of community members over their food needs," (USDA, 1999b).

Of 20 community food projects funded in 1999, six involved Cooperative Extension. These projects are in New Mexico, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Kansas. The projects range from efforts linking local farmers with a public service agency to develop nutrition programs for the elderly, to increasing the consumption of locally produced foods through community gardening, mobile farmstands, and youth-led marketing (USDA, 1999a). Edible Connections forums can help Extension educators address food insecurity issues in a community by making it possible to identify potential collaborators and activities.

Examples from Past Forums

In almost all of the forums that have been held since the creation of the model, Extension has played a major role but did not necessarily take the lead in organizing the forum. A hunger action coalition, a regional food policy council, and a faith-based community food system organization each led forums of their own in cooperation with local Extension offices.

After the initial forum (in October, 1998), which was planned and conducted by Edible Connections creators to demonstrate the model, the forums maintained the model's elements while being tailored to address the issues relevant to their communities. At one forum, leaders facilitated discussions about how people can work to ensure food security in their neighborhoods. Another community focused its forum on the choices and challenges of preserving our nation's most productive farmland.

In another example of the application of the Edible Connections model, an Extension educator took a different approach, creating hands-on after-school programs for first through fifth graders at two schools and two gardens. Through games, arts and crafts activities, cooking, planting exercises, and demonstrations at a county-wide health fair, children learned about the diversity of foods that are grown in their region.

As the forum topics and structures have varied, so too have the resulting activities. In the case of the forum where participants learned about how to ensure food security in their neighborhoods, they indicated that the event encouraged them to commit to buying more locally grown produce, become involved with gardening projects, and educate children about where their food is grown (Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, 1999). In the forum where farmland preservation took center stage, forum participants agreed to organize a yearly event to continue educating people about the region's food system (Javor, 1999). And the Extension educator who organized youth projects continues to educate children about their local food system through gardening programs. These forums occurred in both urban and rural areas, thus showing that Edible Connections can be used in a variety of community settings.

To more accurately assess the results of forums and what changes, if any, occurred in participants' attitudes and practices in relation to the food system, a telephone survey was conducted 8 months after the first forum. This forum was organized by the creators of the model to demonstrate its purpose.

Just over 20% of the participants (N=15) who could be reached by telephone during a 2-week period in July 1999 were interviewed. They identified a broad range of concerns about the food system and actions they have taken to increase their knowledge or change their food-buying habits (see Table 1). Over one half (60%) talked to others regarding their concerns about the food system (DiGiovanni et al., 1999). At least one third (40%) listened to radio programs on food topics as well as contributed to food-related charities (33%). More than half of those interviewed indicated they had taken more than one action (DiGiovanni et al., 1999). These results illustrate that the Edible Connections model can be used in a variety of settings to generate real behavior changes and action plans.

Activity	No. of people	Percent
Talked to others about food system concerns	9	60
Look for and prefer local produce	9	60
Listened to radio shows	6	40
Contributed to food-related charities	5	33
Visited web sites	3	20
Watched TV program on forum-related topic	1	7
*n=15

Resources

To aid communities in organizing their own Edible Connections forums, a guidebook and video have been developed (Nunnery et al., 2000). The guidebook discusses the elements of the model and outlines the steps involved in planning and conducting a forum. These steps include creating a program planning and implementation team, choosing a site for the forum, marketing and public relations, recruiting speakers and panelists, and conducting and evaluating the forum. The video provides visual examples of how panel and town meeting discussions can be facilitated and how each of the elements flows and builds on those that came before it.

Conclusion

Experience in Pennsylvania has shown that the Edible Connections model can be used to encourage people to support local agriculture, educate others about the local food system, commit to meeting further to address the issues brought to light at the forum, as well as to work with children to help them learn about how food is grown and from where their food comes. The forum model is meant to be molded to the specific conditions in a particular community. Through creative and community-appropriate approaches, Edible Connections can be used to create a unified strategy to address food access, economic development, and other food system-related issues in a community.

References

Abel, J. L. (2000). Assessing the involvement of Pennsylvania professional planners in food system activities. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

DiGiovanni, L., Thomson, J. S., & Stringer, S. B. (1999). How do we talk about food. University Park, PA: Governor's School for the Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University.

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger. (1999, August 19). Community food security forum results. Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger newsletter, 4-5.

Harmon, A., Harmon, R., & Maretzki, A. N. (1999). The food system: Building youth awareness through involvement. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Javor, C. (1999). Follow-up report for Edible Connections media workshop. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Langone, C. A. (1992). Building Community Leadership. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 20(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a7.html

Nunnery, S., Thomson, J. S., & Maretzki, A. N. (2000). Edible Connections: Changing the way we talk about food, farm, and community: A planning guide and video for conducting a food communications forum. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. (1999). Cooperative extension plans of work FY 2000-2004 [On-line]. Available: http://pow.cas.psu.edu/Titles.html

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. (1998). Cooperative extension annual action plans FY 1999. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Smith, J., & Maretzki, A. N. (2000). Citizen dialogue: A guidebook. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Trivers, L., & Paschal, J. (1999). Glickman Announces Summit, Action Plan for Community Food Security Initiative. Release No. 0325.99 [On-line]. Available: http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/08/0325

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999a). Community food projects awarded in 1999 [On-line]. Available: http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/awarded99.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999b). Community food projects competitive grants program [On-line]. Available: http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999c). USDA's community food security initiative action plan. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999d). CSREES National Initiatives [On-line]. Available: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/programs/init.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999e). CSREES Workforce Preparation Overview [On-line]. Available: http://www.reeusda.gov/wfp/overview.htm

Funding

Edible Connections was developed with support from the Keystone 21 Food System Professions Education Project, an initiative of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. To be funded by Keystone 21, projects need to address the initiatives of improving interdisciplinary learning and information sharing, establishing collaborative partnerships, developing learner-centered education programs, and developing leadership skills. Funding from Keystone 21 also provided minigrants that were awarded to three groups to conduct their own local forums.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001february/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.