Volume 39 Number 2
|
April 2001 Volume 39 Number 2 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Skill Variable | T | Significance of T |
| Persuasiveness | 7.351 | .0000 |
| Oral Communication | 3.813 | .0004 |
| Likability | 3.496 | .0010 |
| Planning and Organizing | 3.206 | .0024 |
| Perception | 3.104 | .0032 |
| Collaborativeness | 2.820 | .0070 |
| Written Communication | 2.729 | .0089 |
| Decision Making | 2.629 | .0115 |
| Leadership | 2.585 | .0128 |
| Need for Approval | 2.348 | .0231 |
| Adaptability | 2.298 | .0260 |
| Assertiveness | 1.742 | .0879 |
Table 2 shows that there was a statistically significant relationship between performance appraisal ratings following the first year's performance of CACs and the overall performance ratings they received from Assessment Center raters. There was almost a statistically significant relationship with the second year's performance, but there was no significant relationship with the third year's performance appraisal and the overall rating received from the Assessment Center.
| Year | F | Significance of F | Frequency |
| 1 | 4.238 | .025 | 51 |
| 2 | 3.193 | .056 | 51 |
| 3 | .721 | .495 | 51 |
The data from this study does indicate that the ACES Assessment Center has successfully predicted the administrative performance of these CACs. This is supported by the annual performance appraisal process used by ACES during the first year (at .05 Level), and during the second year (at .056), after appointment to the CAC position.
In the third year there was no significant difference between those who had earlier received a rating of one, the highest rating, and those who received a rating of three, the lowest rating. The results may have been influenced by the fact that those who received a rating of two or three were required to take university classes in the skill areas of weakness identified by the Assessment Center. These classes, along with other effects of on-the-job training received during the first 2 years, may have strengthened individual performance ratings sufficiently to bring them up to the same level as those who received a rating of one when participating in the Assessment Center.
When the 12 variables were analyzed separately, individuals who received higher scores in 11 of the 12 variables consistently received higher overall ratings for the Assessment Center. When investigating the strength of these variables, all were significant at the .05 level, with the exception of assertiveness, significant at the .0804 level. The leadership style promoted by ACES is more one of teamwork than of single-minded leadership. It is, therefore, very probable that assessors view the assertive individual as one who could expect problems in a team environment.
In summary, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System Assessment Center for CACs did predict the performance levels of individuals as measured by their annual performance appraisal during the first year after promotion, significantly predicted the second year, but did not predict performance for the third year after promotion. Eleven of the twelve variables in the Assessment Center did predict the overall score received by the participants in the study.
More studies are needed to determine if these results are being duplicated by other assessment centers. Assessment centers should be used along with other indicators in making the final selection for any position. There was no significant difference in performance appraisal scores of CACs after the second year. One could conclude that the skills identified by the Assessment Center, and subsequent classes taken, were needed by the individuals to perform the administrative tasks of the CAC position. Therefore, it could be said that assessment centers are an excellent way to help identify skills that are weak and the work required to overcome those weaknesses, and thus preparing candidates for future leadership roles. This alone makes assessment centers an excellent tool for administrators to use in selecting first-line supervisors and preparing others for future career opportunities.
Klimoski, R., & Brickner, M. (1987). Why do assessment centers work? The puzzle of assessment center validity. Personnel Psychology, 30, 243-260.
Neidig, R. D., & Neidig, P. J. (1984). Multiple assessment center exercises and job relatedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69. (1), 182-186.
Olshfski, D. F., & Cunningham, R. B. (1986). Establishing assessment center validity: An examination of methodological and theoretical issues. Public Personnel Management, 15(1), 85-96.
Sackett, P. R., & Dreher, G. F. (1984). Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 401-410.
Schneider, J. R., & Schmitt, N. (1992). An exercise design approach to understanding assessment center dimension and exercise constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 32-41.
Cancer risk reduction educational efforts are relatively new in Extension. Thus, a key stakeholder in the educational program must be Extension educators themselves. These are the individuals who are expected, in turn, to convey sound information to the target audiences. Tobacco use and nutrition/diet constitute a major focus in cancer risk reduction. In Extension, however, the educational focus on cancer risk is limited. Healthy lifestyle choices and decision-making processes have been the primary educational foci of other organizations, not exclusive to Extension.
Cancer research indicates that 75-85% of factors contributing to individual risk are lifestyle related, including tobacco use, nutrition, exposure to the sun, lack of exercise, and lack of health screenings (Buckman, 1997; Ward, 1995). These same factors influence a host of other chronic and acute conditions of the human body that, in turn, affect productivity and functionality in the family, on the job, and in general society. However, the perception among the general population is that the primary factors that put one at risk, are those beyond individual control. Therefore, consumers ignore healthy lifestyle practices that can be controlled (DeVita et al., 1993; Merck et al. 1996).
Because the foundation for Extension programming is research-based information, Extension educators themselves need to become informed about the traditional and emerging areas of cancer risk reduction in order to be fully effective in healthy lifestyle education. Extension already has a history of programming for healthy lifestyle choices, including but not limited to, 1) nutrition, 2) various 4-H/Youth Development activities focused on sound decision making, and 3) financial management decisions that impact family economics. Despite this diverse and rich background in educational programs, Extension has few programs specifically focused on health choices such as cancer risk reduction.
As stakeholders, as well as educators, Extension personnel have the ability to deliver research-based information in various formats that can impact the beliefs and attitudes of citizens. For cancer risk reduction education to be an effective Extension program, it must be clear that such a program fits within Extension's educational mission strategy.
For any new program to be a priority for any Extension educator, the relevancy and importance must be established for each individual educator. Relevancy of healthy lifestyle choices as cancer risk reduction efforts must be framed in the context of the Extension educator's program before it can be joined to existing programs and extend the impact to audiences for long-term behavioral changes in the public.
As scientific research about cancer advances, information changes rapidly. Without updates and specialized training, Extension educators' knowledge base can easily become outdated, rendering Extension educators unable to provide recommendations for current practices. Particularly in this technological age, when almost anyone has access to new information, the Extension educator, who normally provides the latest research and innovations, must be current (Seevers et al., 1997). Complicating the effort to advance accurate, current information is the reality that public awareness and attitudes are distorted by media hype and inaccurate or misleading reports (Atkin et al., 1990; Brown & Walsh-Childers, 1994; Weaver, 1994; Bennett, 1996; Nelkin, 1996).
Given these premises, to effectively design cancer risk reduction programs for Extension, it is important to first assess the knowledge of Extension educators regarding cancer risks.
The study reported here had a pre/post control group design. The study used a mail survey with a non-invasive educational intervention. A random sample of Extension field professional staff in Ohio was selected from a total population of 580. The sample population (n=218) was drawn using a random sample digit table, and all participants were mailed a survey of cancer risk questions.
The survey was comprised of eight knowledge questions with multiple choice or multiple answer categories. The questions focused on basic cancer risk accepted by the broad disciplinary base of research and health practices (Khare et al., 1998; Wang et al.. 1998; Greenwald, 1996; Swan & Ford, 1997). All survey participants were notified that there would be a follow-up survey after 4 months to discern if there were any changes in knowledge about cancer risk.
Half of the respondents were selected a priori to receive the intervention. The control half of the respondents did not receive any specific material from Extension, but it is assumed that they may have gotten this information some way from the university, organizations, health care practitioners, or other sources. Responses from these surveys were compared between the intervention group and the control group using a paired t-test.
The non-invasive, educational intervention was a four-page informational fact sheet answering basic questions about cancer risk reduction presented in the original survey. The intervention referenced the first survey and encouraged recipients to read the material to determine correct answers to survey questions. A copy of the original questions was included with the intervention, as well as an answer sheet with correct answers clearly marked.
For several questions related to basic cancer risk education, Extension educators were able to identify correct responses to the questions in a relatively consistent manner. With the intervention, the difference between the pre- and post-test means did not significantly increase in the areas addressing cancer risk related to chemoprevention, lung cancer risk, and nutrition.
The following table shows the questions and possible answers, percentage correct (pre and post), and significance between control and experimental groups.
| Question | Pre-Test Mean |
Post-Test Mean |
Significance of t |
| Of the new cancer diagnoses each year, what percentage of
cases is related to lifestyle choices (tobacco use, nutrition,
exposure to UV, screenings, etc)? A. 35-45% B. 75-85% C. 10-20% D. 50-60% |
0.38 | 0.66 | 0.003 |
| Chemopreventive agents, such as nutraceuticals and phytochemicals. A. Are toxic to the body and should be avoided B. May be beneficial in helping prevent and treat disease C. Increase the occurrence of cancer in humans D. Are highly expensive and extremely dangerous |
0.94 | 0.90 | 0.420 |
| By age twenty, the average American receives what percentage of their lifetime ultraviolet radiation exposure? A. Less than 10% B. 20-40% C. 50-80% D. 90-99% |
0.45 | 0.64 | 0.040 |
| Of the newly diagnosed cases of cancer each year (approximately 1,000,000), what percentage is estimated to be preventable? A. 15% B. 30% C. 65% D. 90% |
0.51 | 0.60 | 0.200 |
| The leading contributor to lung cancer among Americans is: A. Radon B. Asbestos C. Tobacco use D. Environmental tobacco smoke |
0.82 | 0.92 | 0.133 |
| To reduce cancer risk, the National Cancer Institute's minimum recommended daily consumption is: A. 5 or more fruits and vegetables B. 5 or more servings of pasta C. 6 or more servings of dairy products D. 5 or more servings of meat or protein |
0.96 | 1.00 | 0.159 |
| Check all that you believe are correct. | 0.6635 | 0.8125 | 0.002 |
| Cancer is: | |||
| Characterized by uncontrolled cell growth | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.322 |
| Over 100 different types of malignant tumors | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.017 |
| Characterized by the ability of cells to invade or metastasize | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.083 |
| Caused by three main categories: Chemicals, Viruses, and Irradiation | 0.23 | 0.48 | 0.011 |
| Check all that you believe are correct. | 0.9038 | 0.9444 | 0.138 |
| Which of the following are uncontrollable cancer risk factors? | |||
| Age | 0.79 | 0.98 | 0.032 |
| Tobacco use | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.659 |
| Gender | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.083 |
| Nutrition/diet | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.659 |
| Tanning bed use | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.322 |
| Ethnicity | 0.77 | 0.90 | 0.051 |
| Vitamin supplements | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.322 |
| Genetics | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.083 |
| Geographic location | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.168 |
| Total Gain Score | 0.69 | 0.77 | 0.000 |
Of those who received intervention, the correct response rates increased significantly on three questions and as a total gain score. A significant increase was noted between the pre- and post-tests as to the percentage of new cancer cases that had a relationship to lifestyle choices (p=.003).
A comparison of the pre-test and post-test answers indicated a significant increase in those who correctly responded to the question addressing age that the average American receives the majority of lifetime ultraviolet radiation exposure (p=.040). More remarkable differences between the pre- and post-tests were the increase in those able to correctly identify the four components of the definition of cancer (p=.02).
When the multiple response questions were broken out to identify increases, there were significant increases in correct answers when identifying two components: tumor ability to invade (p=.017) and causation by chemicals, viruses, and irradiation (p=.011). When participants were asked to identify uncontrollable risk factors, the correct responses were consistent between the pre-and post-tests, but the participants identified age (p=.032) at a significantly higher rate on the post-test. A total gain score was calculated between the pre- and post-test groups, and the difference of the means indicated significant difference (p=.000).
These findings indicate that certain fallacies were held by Extension professionals, such as understanding the role of lifestyle choices in cancer risk. The areas where there was a consistency in correct answers tended to align with disciplines in which Extension has a strong history of education delivery, agricultural health and safety, nutrition, and tobacco risks. Consistent with other literature, Extension professionals did not fully identify the relationship between age and amount of ultraviolet radiation exposure as a cancer risk, nor did they correctly respond to the definition of cancer.
To develop and implement a comprehensive cancer education program, all the components of cancer risk must be identified and integrated, not just the areas in which Extension has had a traditional presence. Further, Extension professionals must comprehend and consciously recognize that cancer risk education must include all aspects of lifestyle choices, not only the areas related to nutrition or tobacco use. This contention reflects the concept that Extension educators are stakeholders and can influence programming. If they don't understand risks, they will not see programming as important.
Basic cancer risk education can be enhanced through non-invasive intervention, as demonstrated by the significant increase in correct responses by the Extension professionals. These gains appeared in both specific cancer risk areas and overall cancer risk knowledge. Extension professionals did not initially identify some cancer risks, but after the intervention, they were able to significantly increase the correct responses.
As Extension professionals increase awareness of cancer risk research, they will be able to use their skills as educators to better define where this programming can be used effectively in their community.
This initial study of Ohio Extension professionals was a starting point to facilitate discussion of where cancer risk education can be integrated into current programming. Consistent with the literature, field professionals are stakeholders who influence programming at the grass-roots level of Extension, and, if they do not comprehend the importance of cancer risk education, it will not be viewed as compatible with current programming. If Extension is to be consistent with its mission to deliver up-to-date information, field professionals must first be aware of the risks and second be aware of risk reduction strategies for improved health decisions.
Atkin, C., & Wallach, L. (1990). Mass communication and public health: complexities and conflicts. Newbury Park, VA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bennet, W. L. (1996). News: The Politics of Illusion. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Brown, J., & Walsh-Childers, K. (1994). Effects of Media on Personal and Public Health. Media effects. Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buckman, R. (1997). What you really need to know about cancer. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
DeVita V., Hellman, S., & Rosenberg, S. (1993). 4th ed. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Greenwald, P. (1996). Chemoprevention of Cancer. Scientific American. Sept: 96-99.
Khare, L., Sabourin, C. L. K., Wagner, B. A., & Stoner, G. D. (1998). Alterations in the expression of alpha 6 beta 4 integrin and p21/WAF1/Cip1 in N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine induced rat esophageal tumorigenesis. Molecular Carcinogenesis. 21:185-193.
Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. (1996). Rahway, N.J.: Merck, Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories.
Nelkin, D. (1996). An Uneasy Relationship: the Tensions Between Medicine and the Media. The Lancet. Volume 347:1600-03. June 8.
Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative Extension. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.
Swan, D., and Ford, B. (1997). A Chemoprevention of Cancer: Review of the Literature. @ ONF 24(4): 719-727.
Heimlich, J. E., and Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wang, H., Spillare, E. A., Wang, Q-S., Sabourin, C. L. K., & Stoner, G. D. (1998). P53-independent down-regulation of cyclin D1 and p21waf1 in the process of immortalization of human esophageal epithelial cells. International Journal of Oncolology. 12:325-328.
Ward, D. (1995). The cancer handbook. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Weaver, P. H. (1994). News and the culture of lying. New York: The Free Press.
Jill Webster
Assistant Professor
Internet Address: jillweb@cc.usu.edu
David L. Rogers
Extension Community Development Specialist
Stanley C. Mariger
Graduate Assistant
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
Agriculture is one of most dangerous occupations in the United States. Nationally, an agricultural worker is five times as likely as the average American worker to experience a disabling injury (National Safety Council, 1989). The characteristics of agriculture as an industry magnify associated health and safety hazards through repeated exposure to hazards such as machinery and livestock. These hazards, in turn, impact children on the farm who are exposed to many of the same risks (Egbert, 1992). Agriculturists and others in an agricultural environment are at high risk for mortality and morbidity associated with exposure to animals, machinery, and chemicals.
Educating individuals about the hazards of agriculture should be an obvious response to the high rate of accidents (Egbert, 1992). It is believed that 95% of work-related accidents could have been prevented if proper safety precautions were taken (Jacobs & Turner, 1981). Unfortunately, there appear to be several barriers to delivery of comprehensive agricultural health and safety education programs.
The first of the barriers is the low interest in Utah for agricultural health and safety training programs that target adults. To date, research has not been conducted concerning adults' or minorities' needs for safety materials, although Extension agents have reported some interest in training programs for youth. Concerns about the quality and availability of youth health and safety information in the Utah agricultural community are well founded. Utah youth ages 0-16 experienced 29.8% (n=1,125) of the agricultural injuries requiring treatment in an emergency room (Joerger, Ferguson, & Hendricks, 1999).
Limited resources are a second serious barrier to delivering health and safety information in Utah. Reduced levels of funding for agricultural health and safety issues over the last 20 years have necessitated a decline in agricultural health and safety information dissemination nation-wide (Murphy, 1992).
Finally, the need to address these serious problems leads to an environment of crisis management within the agricultural health and safety community. This, in turn, means a more limited focus on agricultural health and safety research and on education efforts. In spite of the identified need for safety education, many county Extension agents fail to include this type of comprehensive education in their programs as a result of these barriers.
To develop an effective educational program, agricultural researchers and Extension educators should collaborate in developing useful information and identifying the appropriate channels to reach the target audience (Sulaiman, Baggett, & Yoder, 1993).
The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the beliefs and perceptions of Utah Extension educators about agricultural health and safety information needs. The specific objectives of the study were as follows.
The population of respondents for this study consisted of all Utah Extension educators and administrators at the county, regional, and state level. The questionnaire used in the study consisted of five sections: adult safety needs, youth safety needs, minority safety needs, health and safety information formats, and respondent demographics.
The adult and youth sections of the survey consisted of 40 Likert-type items, with a five-point scale that ranged from very satisfactory to very unsatisfactory. The key in the questionnaire defined the scale rankings in the following way:
For each of the 40 items, respondents were asked to rate the item using the scale described above. These items were identical in both the adult and youth sections, with the exception of one item that was age related. Agricultural health and safety topics covered in the items were diverse and developed from a review of relevant literature. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the scale items in the instrument. The reliabilities were .88 for youth and .92 for adults.
Parts one, two, and three of the survey also included an open-ended question that asked respondents to record what they felt were the most important agricultural health and safety issues for adults, youth, and minorities. Part three also included a question about languages other than English in which there was a need to develop and deliver agricultural health and safety information. Part four included a ranking of 11 information media or formats for agricultural health and safety information. Part five was the respondent demographic section.
The questionnaire was sent to all respondents, along with a cover letter explaining the objectives of the study. Each survey packet included a self-addressed return postage envelope. Dillman's procedures were used throughout the survey process. Follow-up was done by mail and telephone at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week intervals after the initial mailing. Thirty-nine of the forty-seven completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 83%.
Demographic Profile of Respondents
The demographic data collected from the respondents indicated that the age of the respondents ranged from 31 to 64, with the mean age of 46.8 years. The respondent population consisted of 32 males and 6 females. The primary work assignment of respondents were 64.1% agricultural or agribusiness agents, 12.8% Extension administrators, 10.3% 4H agents, and 7.7% home agents. (The remaining 5.1% failed to report their work assignment.)
Objective 1- Description of Health and Safety Information
Table 1 demonstrates that some of the agricultural health and safety topics have mean scores that were very low when compared to the scale. The topics that the Extension agents indicated as least satisfactory among adults and that therefore may need more attention were zoonosis, mental health, stress management, and repetitive motion injury prevention.
Table 1.
Selected Adult Health and Safety Topics Receiving Low Mean Scores
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Mean |
| Zoonosis (diseases passed from animals to man) | 2.4571 |
| Mental Health and Stress Management | 2.5405 |
| Repetitive Motion Injury Prevention | 2.5882 |
| Designing Safe Livestock Facilities | 2.6111 |
| Respiratory Hazards and Air Quality | 2.6286 |
Although the agricultural health and safety topics for youth were almost identical to the topics covered in the adult section, the areas perceived as least satisfactory and perhaps needing the most improvement for youth were different than those for adults. The respondents felt that childproofing the farm, confined spaces, and farm vehicle operation were the least satisfactory areas in terms of the information currently available (Table 2).
Table 2.
Selected Youth Health and Safety Topics Receiving Low Mean Scores
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Mean |
| Childproofing the Farm | 2.2000 |
| Confined Spaces Hazards | 2.3714 |
| Farm Vehicle Operation (off road) | 2.3714 |
| Zoonosis (diseases passed from animals to man) | 2.3824 |
| Silage Equipment Safety | 2.4848 |
While none of the topics in the survey received mean scores very much above adequate, some did have higher mean rankings. Table 3 indicates that respondents rated pesticide handling, pesticide storage, and tractor safety information as most adequate for adults. Table 4 shows that tractor safety, horse handling, and horsemanship information was perceived as being most adequate for youth.
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Mean |
| Pesticide Handling | 3.2895 |
| Pesticide Storage | 3.2162 |
| Tractor Safety | 3.1622 |
| Drinking Water Supply Hazards (contamination) | 3.0857 |
| Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) | 3.0526 |
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Mean |
| Tractor Safety | 2.9189 |
| Horse Handling Safety | 2.9189 |
| Horsemanship and Riding Safety | 2.9189 |
| Designing Safe Livestock Facilities | 2.7879 |
| All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety | 2.7568 |
Objective 2- Identification of Important Issues
Part of the questionnaire consisted of open-ended responses to the following question: "In the following spaces please write in the specific health and safety issues or topics that are of the greatest importance for farmers, ranchers, and farm workers in Utah. The topic you write in does not have to come from the topics listed above or may be a sub topic of one of the above topics."
Fifty-nine percent (n=23) of the respondents answered the question. Table 5 shows the most frequently reported safety need using the open-ended method was for information on pesticide safety. Farm equipment and all terrain vehicles (ATV) were also important safety needs for adults, followed by livestock, horses, and tractors. Using the same technique, respondents were also asked to list the most important agricultural health and safety issues for youth. The most frequently identified youth agricultural health and safety needs included information on farm equipment, tractors, and pesticides (Table 6).
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Frequency | Mean |
| Pesticide Handling and Storage | 10 | 43.48% |
| Farm Equipment Safety | 8 | 34.78% |
| All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety | 5 | 21.74% |
| Livestock Handling Safety | 4 | 17.39% |
| Horse Safety | 3 | 13.04% |
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Frequency | Mean |
| Farm Equipment Safety | 10 | 50.0% |
| Pesticide Safety | 8 | 40.0% |
| Farm Tractor Safety | 7 | 35.0% |
| All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety | 6 | 30.0% |
| Animal and Livestock Safety | 5 | 25.0% |
In addition, respondents were asked to indicate what they felt were the most important agricultural health and safety issues for non-English speaking individuals in Utah. Eighty percent of the respondents reported that information on various types of farm equipment was most important. Other needs listed were for pesticides (72%), livestock (32%), and safety (Table 7).
| Agricultural Health & Safety Topic | Frequency | Mean |
| Farm Equipment Operation and Safety | 20 | 80.0% |
| Pesticides | 18 | 72.0% |
| Tractor and PTO Safety | 9 | 36.0% |
| Livestock Safety | 8 | 32.0% |
| Manure Handling and Storage | 4 | 16.0% |
Objective 3- Languages Other Than English
Part three of the questionnaire asked the respondents to list the agricultural health and safety needs of non-English speaking minorities in Utah and in what language(s) they felt agricultural health and safety information should be developed. The overwhelming response was Spanish (97%, n=34). Other responses included Navajo, Asian, and Portuguese.
Objective 4- Information Delivery Media / Formats
Part four of the questionnaire gathered data concerning the format and means of delivery of agricultural health and safety information. Respondents were asked to rank 11 different delivery formats, and additional spaces were provided for respondents to fill in their own choices. Based on a ranking of mean scores, videotapes was the most frequently highly ranked format, followed by fact sheets, safety demonstrations, safety checklists, and newsletters (Table 8).
| Format | Mean | Rank |
| Videotape | 3.5926 | 1 |
| Fact Sheets | 3.8000 | 2 |
| Safety Demonstrations | 4.7500 | 3 |
| Safety Checklists | 5.0714 | 4 |
| Health & Safety Newsletter | 5.1034 | 5 |
Survey results clearly indicate a need to develop agricultural health and safety materials that target Utah youth. Extension agents and administrators reported most important to youth in Utah are farm equipment, pesticides, tractors, all terrain vehicles (ATV), and livestock safety. However, they reported the topics that were least satisfactorily covered and perhaps in the greatest need of improvement were information on childproofing the farm, confined spaces, farm vehicle operation, zoonosis, and farm equipment safety.
The findings of this study are consistent with those of prior research conducted in Utah that concluded that there was a need for increased youth safety training (Egbert, 1993; Joerger, Ferguson, & Hendricks, 1999). This repeated finding should encourage safety educators to push for greater youth safety programming. Extension agents need programs and materials they can disseminate to youth. The development of safety information that targets youth should be among the first priorities for agricultural health and safety researchers and educators.
Survey results further suggest that adult needs are similar to those of youth; however, the areas most in need of improvement are different. Zoonosis, mental health, repetitive motion injury, livestock, and respiratory hazards top the list of topics that need improvement for adults. Most of the issues that Extension agents and administrators indicated need to be improved are chronic health issues. This suggests that these have become a problem over time for adults and should also be addressed, starting with youth audiences, acting proactively rather than reactively.
The needs of minority workers and their families were also a concern of the Extension agents and administrators. Most respondents reported agricultural health and safety information should be developed in Spanish for both youth and adults.
Regardless of the expressed need, safety materials will not be used if they are delivered in an unusable form. Griffin (1994) underscored the importance of providing information that is user friendly. He concluded that safety professionals sought information providers that were accessible and familiar, with 70% stating that they were more likely to use an information source with which they had had a positive previous experience. The results of this survey suggest that efforts should be made to develop and disseminate agricultural health and safety information using videotapes, fact sheets, safety demonstrations, and safety checklists.
This study serves as a valuable resource to agricultural safety and health educators who work in an era of reduced funding and limited time. Awareness of specific needs for information can aid educators in developing their budgets and plans of work. While Extension agents are a valuable source of information regarding agricultural safety and health needs, similar studies should be conducted with agriculturists, agricultural youth, and minority farm workers, and the results of such studies should be used to supplement agricultural safety and health educators curriculum. Although the data in this study were collected from Utah Extension educators and administrators, many items could be used by agents, farmers, ranchers, other educators, and agricultural business owners in other states.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Egbert, P. (1992). Investigation of agricultural accidents among Utah rural children. Unpublished master's thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Gall, Borg, & Gall. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
Griffin, J. E. (1994). Information-seeking behaviors of occupational safety and health professionals. The Ohio Division of Safety and Hygiene. Ohio: Kent State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401932).
Jacobs, C. O., & Turner, J. H. (1981). Developing shop safety skills. American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials. Athens GA.
Joerger, R., Ferguson, J., & Hendricks, R. (1999). A comparison of stakeholder beliefs concerning the farm safety training needs of Utah youth. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference. Corpus Christy TX.
Murphy, D. J. (1992). Safety and health for production agriculture. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI.
National Safety Council. (1989). Accident facts: 1989 Edition. Chicago, IL.
Sulaiman, F., Baggett, C. D., & Yoder, E. P. (1993). An analysis of information sources used in dairy reproductive management. Proceedings of the 20th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Nashville, TN.
Marjorie Wolford
Extension Agent, Family and Consumer Sciences
Ohio State University Extension, Pickaway County
Circleville, Ohio
Internet Address: wolford.3@osu.edu
Kathryn Cox
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, 4-H Youth Development
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: cox.5@osu.edu
Ken Culp, III
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Volunteerism
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
Internet Address: kculp@ca.uky.edu
Historically, Extension has extended its educational outreach to clientele through the use of volunteers. Laughlin (1990) found that volunteers provided greater diversity of Extension contacts to targeted groups who might not be reached by other methods. Volunteers can coach or mentor clients with problems needing attention. Extension professionals can be assured of greater program visibility and positive image-building activities through the use of volunteers.
Volunteers can increase the depth and continuity of basic Extension programs by relieving Extension professionals to teach other subject matter of a more advanced nature (Feather, 1990). Volunteers interact with other learners and volunteers to gain information and develop new skills. They can gain self-satisfaction by expanding knowledge of new subject matter and by sharing their knowledge with learners in a teaching situation (Erwin et al., 1996). Beneficial support and pride are fostered by the contributions of Extension volunteers as they improve the knowledge base of individuals in homes, businesses, and the community at large.
During the 1960's, master volunteer programs were instituted in Extension education efforts throughout the United States. These master volunteer programs were first developed for the lowest priority programs for Extension agent involvement, such as home horticulture and crafts. Since the late 1980's, master volunteer programs have focused on problems such as family financial management (Steele, Finley, & Edgerton, 1989).
Laughlin and Schmidt (1995) found that the master volunteer program provided several advantages as a program delivery method by multiplying expertise in a subject area; building a strong support base; permitting the agent to have time for in-depth programming; enabling Extension professionals to devote resources to issue based programs; increasing self-esteem for the participants; and providing for volunteer hour support to Extension programming.
The purpose of the study reported here was to identify and describe the relationship of motivational factors and incentives with certain demographics of four different types of master volunteers in Ohio State University Extension. Furthermore, the study provided a basis for future master volunteer recruitment, recognition, and retention. Atkinson and Birch's model, Motivation = f (Motive x Expectancy x Incentive) provided the construct upon which the research was built (1978). Atkinson and Birch described achievement motives as those which influenced the individual to take pride in accomplishment and a desire for excellence. Affiliation motives influenced people to be concerned about their relationship with others. Power motives were defined as needs indicating a desire for control and influence.
A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions designed to measure reasons for initial volunteering and continuing to volunteer, attitudes about different types of recognition and rewards, and demographic information among four groups of master volunteers. A six-point Likert type scale (6 = very important to 1 = very unimportant) was used to rate the importance of motivational factors (achievement, affiliation, and power) and types of recognition (formal or informal and extrinsic or intrinsic).
The questionnaire was pilot tested for reliability with a group of 36 Extension volunteers. Crombach's alpha scales ranged from .54 to .83 for reliability. Items were revised to increase the reliability before administering the questionnaire to the selected master volunteer population. A panel of experts, including Extension specialists and the leader of program development and evaluation, reviewed the survey instrument for content validity.
The sample was selected from four groups of Ohio State University Extension master volunteers: Master Money Managers, Master Food Preservers, Master Gardeners, and 4-H International County Coordinators. A table for determining sample size from a given population was used to arrive at the appropriate random sample (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). A stratified random sample of 288 master volunteers who were currently active and/or had been trained was selected from the population of 797. A total of 200 useable responses were received, for a response rate of 69.4%.
Data from the returned surveys were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program, 7.0 for Windows (1995) version. Frequencies, percentages, and means were calculated for the demographic items, the motivational factors, and the incentive/reward factors among the four groups of master volunteers.
Scales were run for interval, including means and variances. Pearson product-moment correlation was run for ratio data. T-tests were used to measure significant differences between the means for items with two categories. One way ANOVA was used to compare means with more than two categories and to test for significant differences. A level of p<.05 was established a priori as the condition for significance.
Respondents were predominantly white (96%), female (72.5%), married (82%), professionals (37.5%),who had completed an undergraduate degree (33.8%) and had a median income of $50,000 to $60,000. They had an average age of 50.6 years, lived in a suburb/metro area of more than 40,000 (25.8%), volunteered an average of 2.2 hours per week, worked for pay outside the home an average of 21.2 hours per week, and volunteered for an average number of 2.6 organizations outside Extension. Master volunteers rated achievement the highest for beginning service, with a group mean of 18.7 (see Table 1). Affiliation was rated the highest for continuing service. with a group mean of 19.8 (see Table 2).
| N | Mean | SD | |
| Achievement Learn new things Contribution to community Use of leisure time Formal/informal recognition Lead to employment Total |
200 200 200 198 200 200 |
5.61 4.80 4.50 1.99 1.84 18.71 |
.81 1.18 1.59 1.18 1.24 3.33 |
|
Affiliation Extension good organization Meet other volunteers Family encouraged me Friend was involved People like me Total |
199 200 198 197 200 200 |
5.11 4.33 2.60 2.14 2.12 16.21 |
1.07 1.45 1.70 1.55 1.28 4.24 |
|
Power Do my own thing Being in leadership role Responsible for volunteer program Influence over others Receive status Total |
200 196 199 199 199 200 |
3.88 2.98 2.96 2.23 1.94 13.87 |
1.64 1.55 1.55 1.36 1.19 5.17 |
| N | Mean | SD | |
|
Achievement Learn new things Challenge Obligation to community Formal/informal recognition Lead to employment Total |
197 197 198 196 197 198 |
5.41 4.64 4.01 2.12 1.75 17.84 |
1.04 1.21 1.49 1.21 1.21 3.82 |
|
Affiliation Extension good organization Help people Meet other volunteers Family encourages Friend involved Total |
198 198 198 197 195 198 |
5.25 4.88 4.53 2.85 2.31 19.77 |
1.12 1.55 1.41 1.72 1.53 4.58 |
|
Power Do my own thing Responsible for volunteer program Be in leadership role Influence over others Status in community Total |
196 196 196 195 197 198 |
3.85 3.11 2.93 2.15 2.11 14.01 |
1.65 1.56 1.57 1.43 1.23 5.40 |
Significant differences were found between groups for affiliation for beginning and continuing volunteer service. The significance level was p<.05 (see Table 3).
No significant differences were found between groups for initial or continuing motivations related to achievement. Nor were any significant differences found between groups for initial or continuing motives related to power (see Table 3).
| N | Mean | SD | ANOVA p value |
|
|
Affiliation as an Initiating Motive International County Coordinators Master Gardeners Combination Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Total |
19 143 2 23 11 198 |
18.63 16.30 15.50 14.70 14.00 16.20 |
4.07 4.17 2.12 3.14 5.33 4.21 |
.013 |
|
Affiliation as a Continuing Motive International County Coordinators Combination Master Gardeners Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Total |
19 2 142 23 10 196 |
22.47 20.50 19.81 18.00 17.70 19.76 |
3.81 .71 4.50 4.17 5.64 4.55 |
.014 |
Intrinsic forms of recognition were rated most important with a group mean of 17 and home visits were the least valued with a group mean of 8.4 (see Table 4).
| N | Mean | SD | |
|
Intrinsic Achieve personal goal Others seek opinion Part of a group Compliments Total |
199 200 199 199 200 |
5.24 4.10 3.94 3.85 17.06 |
.98 2.40 1.48 1.47 4.54 |
|
Thank You Notes Extension professional Program participant Another volunteer Family member Total |
193 190 187 185 195 |
3.77 3.44 2.98 2.75 12.55 |
1.57 1.63 1.50 1.56 5.33 |
|
Phone Calls Extension professional Program participant Another volunteer Family member Total |
194 190 192 188 196 |
3.58 3.25 3.04 2.65 12.21 |
1.59 1.58 1.48 1.45 5.22 |
|
Extrinsic County recognition banquet Plaque, pin, certificate District, multi-county banquet State recognition banquet Total |
197 198 193 192 199 |
2.99 2.89 2.54 2.48 10.69 |
1.63 1.59 1.51 1.48 5.46 |
|
Home Visit Extension professional Another volunteer Program participant Family member Total |
186 185 185 182 187 |
2.35 2.19 2.08 1.90 8.41 |
1.52 1.38 1.36 1.21 4.96 |
Significant differences were found between groups for types of recognition/incentives. The significance level was p<.05. (See Table 5.)
| N | Mean | SD | ANOVA p value |
|
|
Thank You Notes International County Coordinators Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Combination Master Gardeners Total |
18 23 11 2 140 194 |
17.17 12.57 12.55 12.00 11.91 12.51 |
3.07 4.99 6.02 4.24 5.32 5.32 |
.003 |
|
Phone Calls International County Coordinators Combination Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Master Gardeners Total |
18 2 23 11 140 194 |
15.77 15.00 12.30 11.91 11.70 12.20 |
5.41 1.41 4.35 6.77 5.11 5.24 |
.03 |
|
Home Visit Combination International County Coordinators Master Money Managers Master Gardeners Master Food Preservers Total |
2 18 22 132 11 185 |
14.00 11.89 8.41 7.88 7.45 8.37 |
2.83 5.71 4.39 6.61 5.96 4.91 |
.01 |
Atkinson, J., & Birch, D. (1978). An introduction to motivation. New York: Litton Education Publishing, Inc.
Erwin, S., McNeely, NM., Safrit R.D., & Schwartz, V. (1996). Volunteers and Ohio State University Extension: A winning team. Columbus: Authors.
Feather, B. (1990). Volunteers as teachers. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 28(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1990fall/a9.html
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. In Educational and Psychological Measurement (1970) 30, 607-610.
Laughlin, K.M., & Schmidt, J.L. (1995). Maximizing program delivery in Extension: Lessons from leadership for transformation. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 33(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/jo e/1995august/a4.html
Laughlin, S. (1990), The challenge of working with extenders. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 28(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1990fall/f1.html
SPSS 7.0 for windows [Computer software]. (1995). SPSS Inc. Micro Products.
Steele, S., Finley, C., & Edgerton, C. (1989). Partners for action: The roles of key volunteers. The Cooperative Extension system and University of Wisconsin-Madison: Author
Roger A. Rennekamp
Associate Extension Professor
Internet Address: rrenneka@ca.uky.edu
Paul D. Warner
Extension Professor
Martha A. Nall
Extension Professor
Charlene Jacobs
Area Program Director
Richard C. Maurer
Extension Professor
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
Public institutions are operating in a new climate of accountability. Decision-makers want more than accurate ledger sheets and a summary of what was done with their appropriations. They want information that communicates worth or value of programs.
One way of producing evidence of worth or value is to measure how well an institution's programs are producing their intended outcomes. Such outcome measurement is characteristic of several results-based accountability initiatives that have been implemented recently across the nation. Without question, outcome measurement has become the predominant theme in the accountability arena for the past several years.
Now, however, more attention is being paid to customer satisfaction as funding decisions are made. Even when an agency meets its outcome-based performance goals, few taxpayers want to fund an agency if its programs are viewed as irrelevant or staff are perceived as rude or unresponsive. Hatry (1999) categorizes customer satisfaction as an outcome of program activity, but most analysts agree that, while customer satisfaction is indeed an indicator of program worth, it is not the same as an outcome that reflects the benefit to society produced by a program.
Since 1994, the University of Michigan Business School, in partnership with Arthur Anderson, and the American Society for Quality, have conducted quarterly reviews of customer satisfaction for 164 private-sector companies using the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Much of the current emphasis on measuring public satisfaction with government services can be traced back to 1993, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12862 (The White House, 1993) requiring "all executive departments and agencies that provide significant services directly to the public, to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services."
The desire to compare public-sector satisfaction data with data from the private sector led to the selection of the ACSI methodology being used to measure the public's satisfaction with services provided by 29 different federal agencies. Overall, the weighted satisfaction score for government was slightly less than that for the private sector, but the results were encouraging. Agencies that have considerable contact with the public received high marks for courtesy and professionalism. Information-providing agencies were found to be accessible, useful, and of high quality (University of Michigan, 1999, December 13).
In addition to the national initiative to measure customer satisfaction, several state legislatures have passed measures that require public agencies in those states to conduct periodic assessments of customer satisfaction.
Recognizing the importance that customer satisfaction scores are likely to play in future funding decisions, a study was commissioned by the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service to examine how well it was meeting the needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Although the Kentucky legislature does not require an assessment of customer satisfaction, data that document how clients view the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service and its programs are a valuable supplement to the outcome-based accountability data the organization has been collecting for several years.
An examination of the various customer satisfaction studies that had been conducted within the Extension system revealed four key concepts that comprised the overall construct of customer satisfaction (Cummings & Ladewig, 1998; Israel & Fugate, 1998; Holmes, 1999). These were relevance, quality, usefulness, and customer service. Research questions were developed to guide inquiry for each dimension.
These four dimensions of customer satisfaction were used as a framework for both the collection and presentation of data.
Information was collected through a series of public meetings held in 14 Kentucky counties during the summer of 1999. Because it was unlikely that a random sample of counties would result in a truly representative sample of Kentucky's 120 counties, counties were purposefully selected to achieve maximum diversity across the state. Two of the counties represented heavily populated urban areas of the state. Four of the counties contained cities that serve as regional commerce centers. Two counties were "bedroom communities" of major metropolitan areas, while the remaining six were rural.
Extension staff from the 14 counties participated in one of three regional orientation sessions designed to help them gain a clearer understanding of their responsibilities with the study. Local staff were responsible for securing a meeting facility, inviting local citizens to participate, and welcoming those who attended. The staff were instructed to invite a representative cross-section of the county's population to the meeting, with the understanding that at least one-third of those invited would be either infrequent or non-users of Extension.
Each meeting was conducted by a team of facilitators from outside the county. Each team included a representative of Extension's Program and Staff Development Unit, an Area Program Director, an Extension specialist, and a county Extension agent. Teams used both quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data from the participants.
Upon arriving, each participant completed a 29-item questionnaire. Six of the items on the questionnaire related to relevance, six to quality, six to usefulness, and six to customer service. For these 24 questions, participants used a five-point Likert-type rating scale to indicate the degree to which they agreed with a statement provided for their reaction (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree).
A single question was used to measure overall level of satisfaction with Extension programs and services. Again, a five-point Likert-type rating scale was used to measure overall satisfaction but with anchors representing levels of satisfaction (1=highly dissatisfied; 5=satisfied) rather than degrees of agreement.
The remaining four questions were used to gather data from the participants regarding frequency of Extension use, age, race, and gender.
Frequency distributions were prepared for all items. Means were calculated for all items except those used to collect demographic information. Composite means were calculated for each of the six-item sub-scales (relevance, quality, usefulness, and customer service).
After completing the questionnaires, participants discussed the same four dimensions of relevance, quality, usefulness, and customer service in facilitated focus groups. Ideas generated in the small group discussions were recorded on flip chart paper. Content analysis of comments written on flip charts during the small group meetings was used to identify key themes related to the four areas.
A total of 384 individuals participated in the 14 public meetings held across the state, for an average of 27 participants per site. Fifty-seven percent of participants were female. Ninety-three percent of participants were white, and seven percent identified themselves as non-white.
Twenty-eight percent of participants described themselves as infrequent users of Extension, while the remainder classified their use as frequent. Forty percent of participants were 21 to 49 years of age, and thirty-seven percent were 50 to 64. Nineteen percent were 65 and older. Four percent were under 21.
Overall Satisfaction
Participants were highly satisfied with the programs and services of the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. The mean score for overall satisfaction was 4.6 on a five-point scale. A score of five corresponded to being "very satisfied." Specifically, 91.7 percent said they were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied."
Relevance
Six items on the questionnaire related to relevance of Extension programs and services. The mean score for all items related to relevance was 4.2. Although a score of 4.2 on a five-point scale represents a relatively high level of perceived relevance, the score for the relevance domain was the lowest of the four domains. Figure 1 shows both the means and the percent of individuals who responded "strongly agree" for each of the six statements related to relevance. The respondents felt that Extension does a good job of seeking citizen input, but not everyone in the community is aware of Extension programs and services. Infrequent users tended to rate the relevance of Extension programs lower than did frequent users (p<.05).
Statements recorded during the small group discussions indicated that participants felt that traditional Extension programs meet the needs of audiences they serve. But they also realized that these programs tend to serve a rather narrow segment of the population. They felt that many of those who needed Extension's help the most were not aware of what it had to offer. While some said that programs needed to be updated to reflect a more contemporary image, others said relevance could be increased by focusing on issues of wide public concern.
Quality
Six items on the questionnaire related to quality of Extension programs and services. The mean score for all items related to relevance was 4.5 on a five-point scale. Figure 2 shows both the means and the percent of individuals who responded "strongly agree" for each of the six statements related to quality. The respondents felt that information citizens receive from Extension is perceived to be unbiased and that presenters of information are knowledgeable of their subject.
Statements recorded during the small group discussions indicated that clientele place a great deal of confidence in the information they receive from Extension. They felt that educational materials they receive are of high quality and that information is easy to understand.
Usefulness
Six items on the questionnaire related to the usefulness of Extension programs and services. The mean score for all items related to usefulness was 4.5 on a five-point scale. By circling either "agree" or strongly agree" on their questionnaires, 92% of respondents felt that their community was better off because of Extension and more than 90% said that Extension is a good investment of public funds. Figure 3 shows both the means and the percent of individuals who responded "strongly agree" for each of the six statements related to usefulness. Infrequent users tended to rate the usefulness of Extension programs lower than did frequent users (p<.05).
Comments recorded in the small groups sessions also affirmed Extension's worth to the community. Participants liked the fact that Extension services were free and available to all people. However, comments by participants suggested that for Extension to be most effective it must not only deliver information, but help people use the information to make decisions. They liked having a local Extension agent help them interpret and apply information in their particular setting.
Customer Service
Six items on the questionnaire related to customer service. The mean score for the items related to customer service was 4.7 on a five-point scale. The mean score for customer service was the highest of the four domains. Figure 4 shows both the means and the percent of individuals who responded "strongly agree" for each of the six statements related to customer service. Extension received high scores for the way Extension staff interact with clientele, with 96.3% saying they either agree or strongly agree with the statement that "Extension staff are friendly and courteous."
Comments recorded during the small group discussions also suggested that Extension staff are friendly and courteous. Participants truly valued the dedication and commitment of their local Extension agents. They felt that Extension agents "go the extra mile" to serve customers.
Although customer service was an area where Extension excelled, participants in the meetings did have some suggestions for improvement. For instance, they suggested that Extension should take a serious look at office hours and adjust them to meet the needs of working customers. Others suggestions included using the Internet to disseminate information to customers. However, participants were not willing to give up the personalized service and access to agents afforded by having an Extension Office in each county.
Based on the data collected through both the questionnaires and small group discussions, the following recommendations were developed.
Continue to Emphasize Local Program Development
Participants in the public meetings linked Extension's success to its grass-roots program development process. This process enables Extension staff to build strong ties to the people and thus be cognizant of their needs. If Extension is to remain relevant, it must continue to employ program development processes that focus on the identification of local issues and needs.
Explore New Options for Program Delivery
In Extension, one size does not fit all. Some users of Extension value written materials that they can take home and study. Others prefer one-on-one consultation with a staff member. Still others value the interaction that occurs in group settings. For Extension to remain successful, it must continue to recognize the diversity that exists among potential clients and use a variety of program delivery methods.
Build on a History of Success
People know about and place a high value on traditional Extension programs delivered through 4-H, Extension Homemaker clubs, and on-farm technical consultation. And participants in these traditional programs are among the most satisfied with the service they receive. As a mainstay of the organization's programming for many years, they are seen as being a vital part of Extension's future, as well. But Extension must continually examine existing programs to make sure they are relevant to today's society. New programs will be needed to address emerging contemporary issues.
Capitalize on a Reputation for Objectivity
Because of its linkage to the land-grant university system, information clients receive from Extension is seen as being credible, accurate, and unbiased. As a result, Extension is viewed as impartial and objective. As society enters the information age, citizens will have an increased need for agencies and organizations that can help them navigate endless streams of data. Extension should capitalize on its reputation for objectivity and focus on helping people make decisions using the information available to them.
Maintain Friendly and Courteous Service
Ninety-six percent of those surveyed said they receive friendly and courteous service from the staff of the Cooperative Extension Service. Comments recorded during the small group discussions supported the high quantitative assessment. In the words of one user, "Extension isn't your typical government agency. No questions are viewed as trivial or insignificant, answers are provided in a timely manner, and people are treated with dignity and respect." Extension must maintain this customer-centered approach to doing business.
Increase Awareness of Extension
Participants in the meetings suggested that far too many people are still unaware of the programs and services of the Cooperative Extension Service. Some lamented the fact that many of the people who could benefit most from what Extension has to offer were not aware of the service. Some participants suggested that Extension expand the use of newspaper, radio, and television to increase overall awareness of the Cooperative Extension Service as a whole. Others cited a need to better publicize individual programs that are offered.
Reach Out to New Audiences
Participants in the small group discussions communicated a strong need for Extension to actively reach out to new audiences. Some suggested that this could be done by aggressively taking existing programs to locations where underserved audiences live and work. Others, however, suggested that many programs need to be redesigned to make them more appealing to new audiences. Some suggested that office hours need to be adjusted to accommodate today's lifestyles.
Use Technology to Meet Customer Needs
A major concern of many individuals was what they perceived to be a lack of organizational presence on the World Wide Web. Most frequently mentioned were failure to use the Internet to deliver information to the public and a lack of maintenance of county web sites. While technology was seen as a way to enhance program delivery, participants were adamant about retention of the personal service they receive from their local county Extension office. They felt that having a local professional in the county to help them interpret and apply information was essential.
Cummings, S. R., & Ladewig, H. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction: How to get the most of Extension programs. Unpublished Paper. College Station: Texas A&M University Agricultural Extension Service.
Hatry, H. P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 23.
Holmes, D. L. (1999). What our Customers are saying about us [On-line]. Logan, UT: Utah State University Extension. Retrieved March 10, 2000 at: http://www.ext.us u/evaluate/surve99.index.htm
Israel, G.D., & Fugate, A.M. (1998). Extension helps residents: Customer satisfaction high [On-line].. Fact Sheet PDE-98-05. Program Development and Evaluation Center, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved April 9, 1998 at: http://www.ifas. ufl.edu/~peodweb/wx00900.htm
University of Michigan (1999, December 13). ACSI commentary, special report on government services [On-line]. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Available: http://www .bus.umich.edu/research/nqrc/govt-key.html
The White House (1993, September 11) Executive Order 12862: Setting customer service standards [On-line]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 21, 2000 at: http://www.n pr.gov/library/direct/orders/2222.html
Lucille C. Mayer
Department of Education Leadership and Policy Analysis
University of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri
Internet Address: MayerL@missouri.edu
While progress has been made by women in achieving senior-level administrative positions in the Cooperative State Research Extension Education Service (CSREES), they remain under-represented in the position of state director. During the 85-year history of this national organization, only one woman has reached the position of National Director. The CSREES has been even slower than universities to promote women to senior-level administrative positions (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1996; ECOP, 1997; Maddy, 1992). Although the number of women directors in CSREES has fluctuated (in 1997 6 of 74 directors, or 8%, were women, see Table 1), there is a discrepancy between the number of women in CSREES state-based director positions and the number of women who are qualified. (Qualified women include associate and assistant directors, assistants to the directors, and regional directors.)
| Directors | Associate Directors |
Assistant Directors |
Assistant to Director |
Regional Directors |
|
| Total | 74 | 64 | 92 | 11 | 195 |
| Male | 68 (92%) | 48 (75%) | 69 (75%) | 9 (82%) | 148 (76%) |
| Female | 6 (8%) | 16 (25%) | 23 (25%) | 2 (18%) | 47 (24%) |
Until now, no studies have specifically dealt with career progressions of either men or women in CSREES, and none have addressed the attainment of senior-level administrative and state directorship positions by women within the Cooperative Extension System at land-grant universities. As more women pursue these senior-level administrative careers, there arises a need to better understand how an aspiring female professional develops a career as an administrator. The purpose of the study reported here was to identify important factors in achieving state directorships that might help other women reach this level and beyond.
This study was guided by the following question: What major influences and experiences helped or hindered women in CSREES from becoming directors of state-based Cooperative Extension systems? More specific research questions included the following.
This study used a multiple case study design through which the researcher generated an intensive, holistic description of women's career progression in CSREES administration. Four women directors of CSREES served as subjects in the study. Data were collected through: in-depth, semi-structured, individual interviews with each subject; the gathering of pertinent documents related to each woman's career progression; and on-site observations. Data were analyzed as materials, and information was collected. Inductive data analysis was employed to identify emergent themes.
Consistent with accepted qualitative research methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), trustworthiness of the data was ensured through a variety of means, including in-depth, detailed, rich, thick descriptions based on each woman's personal perspectives and experiences via the use of her own language. This study provided for the triangulation of data through interviews, document analyses, and observation. Peer examination and member checks were used to provide confirmation of the researcher's thematic analysis.
Four major themes emerged from the data collected from four women directors through interviews and examination of written materials. As expected, not every respondent fit into every theme. However, many commonalties existed. Because many factors and variables influence and shape women's professional careers in the Cooperative Extension System, eight subthemes emerged that were associated with the four themes.
Organizational Factors
The first theme emerging from the study was organizational factors, and its two subthemes were 1) agricultural background as norm and 2) gender issues associated with male-dominated hiring practices. Even though there are many women in higher education administration, they are concentrated in middle-management positions rather than at senior-levels.
Women interviewed for this study noted they had entered "a primarily male-dominated field" and in most states had to break a long-held tradition of "men only" in top leadership positions. Each woman in the study had to show how agriculture was a part of her background through degrees and/or experiences.
This study found that the traditionally male occupation of agriculture is the traditional background for an Extension director. The non-stated normative expectation of an agriculture background appears to be a barrier for women, because so few women have such a background. The study participants chose careers considered non-traditional and entered "traditionally hierarchical agriculture" positions in Extension that were dominated by men.
Building Networks and Relationships
Building networks and relationships was the second theme arising from this study, with the three subthemes of 1) role models, 2) mentors, and 3) political acumen. All the women in the study built a variety of local and regional networks that supported their rise to higher levels of administration. Networking was important to the women in this study. The women described building strong partnerships with key external constituents in their states. Participants described themselves as having formed strong peer networks of communication and support in their respective states and across the country with others in similar positions prior to becoming senior-level administrators and while in these positions.
Participants defined a role model as someone in greater authority in whom they "saw things that were strong" that they "wanted to emulate" and who also played an important role in their careers. Role models demonstrated valued behavior. One participant stated, "I watched how they handled situations and learned from them." Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) and Douvan (1976) identified the lack of female role models in nontraditional professional and senior-level administrative positions as a significant barrier to women's career development, impeding women from pursing nontraditional careers. Finding few female role models in CSREES, the women in this study had to find role models in other fields or turn to male mentors in CSREES.
This study clearly showed that participants benefited from mentoring relationships. Mentors affirm potential, recognize skills and talents, and encourage professional development. All four women identified at least one person who was critical to her career development and decision-making; they also identified relationships with friends and colleagues as important sources of mentoring. The mentors in this study were both male and female, and affirmed their protégés' potential, encouraged them to take risks, participated in conversations in which there was an open exchange of ideas, listened to them, and helped them define career goals.
Being politically aware and astute was also key to the success of the participating women's careers. When the women interviewed for the state director position, they were familiar with the politics of the system and with the hierarchical nature of Extension. They learned to negotiate within the system, following the rules and procedures of the organization.
Recognizing Opportunities
The third major theme of the study was recognizing opportunities, and the two associated subthemes were 1) academic credentials, along with connections to academic departments, and 2) positioning for career advancement. Kanter (1993), in her research extensively examining the organizational environment for understanding how women function in an organization, concluded that career success depends on such matters as organizational conditions and access to challenges to increase skills and rewards. Kanter further concluded that the structure of the organization should provide opportunities for women to attain experiences in the organization and prepare them for attaining administrative positions.
Participants in the present study stated that being recognized and given opportunities to advance and to increase their skills in administration were key to their career advancement. McGee's (1994) study of women CSREES directors identified and described early life experiences up to and including early careers. This study included the participants' early careers and described their seizing opportunities and achieving career success to senior-level administrative positions in Extension.
Women in the study found having the correct credentials and being connected to an academic department were critical to career success. Maddy's (1992) study found that academic training and work histories varied greatly, but all CSREES women in her study had the required credentials and competencies, and the appropriate terminal degree that allowed them to pursue career opportunities.
A connection to an academic department early as young professionals was important to participants in this present study, because it allowed them to gain credibility in their work and become known. Most women administrators began their careers along the most familiar route, the academic track, holding a faculty position in an academic department (Ironside, 1981; Touchton, Shavlik, & Davis, 1993; Warner, Brazzell, Allen, Bostick, & Marin, 1988).
For the women in this study, as each new experience heightened their desire to move to the next step, to become an Extension leader, they learned to position themselves for advancement. Professional development was also key to their achievements. However, participants found "touting your own accomplishments" was a "stumbling block for women." One specifically stated, "women are socialized not to tout their own accomplishments and that is why it is such a 'double edged sword'; [they] almost subconsciously hide their light under a barrel as they are socialized that it's better to be pretty than to be smart." This statement is consistent with the findings of Tierney and Bensimon (1996) related to socialization of women in academe.
Gender
The fourth major theme emerging from the present study was gender, with its subtheme, balancing personal and professional issues. Participants in this study found that being a woman was an issue in interviewing, in being hired, and, at times, in working. They found it was easier to move up into a recognized administrative position in their own states, where colleagues, clientele, and stakeholders, as well as those who had the power of making hiring decisions, knew and trusted them, were familiar with their work, were comfortable with them, and accepted them "as one of us." (This finding is contrary to studies of women administrators in higher education, who have tended to build their careers by moving between institutions [Johnsrud, 1991; Moore, 1983; Sagria, 1988].)
Personal contacts and nominations by men appear to be important to women in the search process and in the selection of women as senior-level administrators in Extension at land-grant universities. Shaw's (1994) research with women administrators found that "women as a group have not experienced the advantage of the 'old boy' network and that women do not operate from a power base made up of other women." This is especially true in CSREES, where there are very few women administrators at the director level.
This study indicates that there may be the start of a paradigm shift as the women in the study have formed peer advisory mentorships with males. A few participants were beginning to find acceptance and were being nominated and recruited for senior-level administrative positions.
Balancing personal and professional issues was not a major concern for participants until they had children. At that point, the balance became much more difficult. Betz and Fitzgerald's (1985) research shows that women who have achieved positions of leadership have made personal choices about career and family. Women in the present study have been flexible and adaptable; they have shifted and changed as their life circumstances have changed and have made deliberate choices related to their career progression.
The general conclusion of this study was that a woman's advancement to a directorship in Extension administration is a complex combination of factors, such as positioning, networking, matching organizational norms, and taking advantage of mentoring. This combination manifests itself in individualized career paths that have led to the top for these participants.
The following implications are based on the findings and suggest that Extension organizations need to encourage women who desire a state directorship or senior-level leadership position in CSREES do the following.
Recommendations for future research include the need to explore further:
A research study is also needed to identify the career progression of women CSREES administrators at 1890s land-grant universities and the gender-related differences between male and female state directors, what they are, and how they affect career progression.
The career progression of male CSREES directors and administrators at 1862 (Traditionally White), 1890 (Historically Black), and 1995s (Native American) land-grant universities should also be compared with the results of this study to identify differing factors. And a research study is needed to examine the organizational norms of Extension; to determine which norms are barriers to women and which are advantages; and how these operate.
Betz, N., & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando. FL: Academic Press.
Cooperative Extension System (1996). County agent directory 1995-1996. 74th edition. Niles, IL: Century Communications Corp.
Cooperative Extension System (1998). County agent directory 1998-1999. 75th edition. Niles, IL: Century Communications Corp.
Douvan, E. 1976). The role models in women's professional development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 5-20.
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy and Extension Services-CSREES. (1997). Report on Extension. Washington, D.C: United States Department of Agriculture.
lronside, E. M. (1981). Uncommon women/common themes: Career paths of upper-level women administrators in higher education institutions. (Report No. HE 014 704). Charlotte, N.C.: Southern Association for Institutional Research. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 212 218).
Johnsrud, L. K. (1991). Mentoring between academic women: The capacity for interdependence. Initiatives, 54, 7-17.
Kanter, R. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. 2nd Ed.) New York: Basic Books.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maddy, D. J. (1992). Women who shattered the glass ceiling: Postpositivist inquiry into the aspirations values motives and actions of women serving as CEOs of Cooperative Extension Systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
McGee, B. D. (1994). Women CEOs in the Cooperative Extension system: Seeking connection between early life experiences and leadership development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station.
Moore, K. M. (1983). The top line: A report on presidents', provosts' and deans' careers. Center for the Study of Higher Education Report No. 83-711, Leaders in transition: A national study of higher education administrators. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Digest of education statistics 1996, NCES No. 96-133. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Sagaria, M. (1988). Administrative mobility and sender: Patterns and processes in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59, (3), 305-326.
Shaw, H. E. (1994) Elite women in Canada: A study of women in the key positions of the corporate and political sectors of Canadian society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community socialization in academe. SUNY Series: Frontiers in Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Touchton, J. G., Shavlik, D., & Davis, L. (1993). Women in presidencies. Office of Women in Education. Washington, D.C: American Council on Education.
Warner, R.L., Brazzell, I., Allen, R., Bostick, S., & Marin, P. (1988). Career paths in higher education administration. (Report No. HE 021 480). Washington: D.C: American Council on Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 294 506).
Timothy W. Kelsey
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
Internet Address: tkelsey@psu.edu
Claudia C. Mincemoyer
Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
Internet Address: cmincemoyer@psu.edu
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Cooperative Extension, an outreach program of land-grant universities, brings university-based information to local communities. It is a partnership among federal, state, and local governments, with close (and necessary) linkages between university-based faculty and county- or local-based staff. Maintaining communication between state and local personnel is important because that link provides university-based faculty with the information they need to develop and support Extension programs relevant to community needs and county staff with the information and knowledge they need to implement those programs. Training of county staff, usually called "in-services," is vital.
Penn State Cooperative Extension, the Cooperative Extension program at The Pennsylvania State University, relies heavily on in-service training of county staff. The majority of in-services are held in University Park, which is centrally located in the state. The large number of in-services, combined with the large size of Pennsylvania (which can lead to 3- to 4-hour trips from county locations), means county Extension staff can spend much time getting to or from training. Anecdotal evidence suggested travel and time could be an impediment to training, or at least a drain on programming time.
In 1997, a committee of Extension staff and faculty at Penn State were asked to examine in-service education, and make suggestions for enhancing the system. The committee focused much of their attention on new technologies and on distance education methods, which have the potential to save travel and staff time, and travel costs, while increasing productivity.
Despite increasing academic attention on distance education, it was unclear how receptive county Extension staff would be to receiving education from such methods. It also was unclear what mix of distance education, face to face, and other educational techniques were favored by county staff, or for which issues. Results from this evaluation were to be provided to administrators, and faculty and staff, for use in improving in-service education. The study also included attention to ways of improving existing in-services (as reported in Mincemoyer & Kelsey, 1999).
A number of states have used distance education-based training for Extension educators, including Alabama (Stuempler et al., 1997), Nebraska (Mescher, 1995), Virginia (Murphy, 1987), Pennsylvania (Escott et al., 1996), Texas (Hiel & Herrington, 1997), South Carolina and Georgia (Lippert et al., 1998), Oklahoma (Stewart & Soliah, 1987), and Oregon (Patterson & Wykes, 1992). Distance education clearly has time- and cost-saving benefits, and is most cost-effective when used to teach a large number of widely separated sites (Boland, 1988). A videoconference produced by Oklahoma State University and received at 24 sites across Oklahoma, for example, cost only $2.91 per person, compared to $9.13 per person if it had been delivered in-person (Stewart & Soliah, 1987).
Department heads in the agricultural sciences are supportive of using distance education (Bowen & Thomson, 1995). Many agricultural faculty members want to learn how to better use distance education techniques, including models of effective teaching and designing instruction for credit courses, yet have a much lower interest in designing distance education-based instruction for non-formal groups, such as Extension audiences (Miller & Carr, 1997).
In some instances, distance education methods are viewed more favorably by Extension educators than face-to-face sessions. Participants in a Nebraska leader training program, for example, preferred satellite delivery over in-person training, 63% to 35% (Mesecher, 1995). Those results might suffer from self-selection bias, however, because the survey focused on participants in the satellite-based program. Extension educators who prefer in-person training might simply have chosen not have participate in the program because it was distance education-based.
It was unclear how receptive Extension educators in Pennsylvania would be to distance education-based in-services and what mix of in-person and distance education they would prefer.
To answer these and other questions, a mail survey was sent to all full-time county Extension staff in Pennsylvania (N=269). Responses were received from 85% of the staff (N=228) with no follow-up reminder. The instrument included open- and closed-ended questions relating to in-service education in Penn State Cooperative Extension.
The survey focused on issues such as the reasons they may have missed or decided not to attend a specific in-service, the ideal geographic location for in-services, and how receptive respondents would be to in-service programs delivered via distance education methods. Responses were analyzed by entering the responses into a computer and using statistics software.
County Extension staff in Pennsylvania reported spending an average of 8.9 days on in-service education every year. Staff attended an average of two in-services at a regional location, with the rest of the in-service days being spent at statewide locations. Staff reported making an average of 3.8 trips to University Park for these other in-services. With 269 full-time county Extension staff, this translates to more than 1000 trips to University Park each year for in-service education. Staff reported time or travel-related reasons most often for why they did not attend specific in-services in the past 12 months.
Given a choice about where Extension in-services should be held, county staff preferred regional locations over any other location (Table 1). County locations (using distance technology) generally were viewed less favorably than any other option, except by youth development staff, family living staff, and county Extension directors, who viewed such locations as slightly preferable to University Park.
It is important to note that many of the youth development and family living staff are actively involved in an Extension program that uses video satellite uplinks extensively, so they might simply be more familiar with distance education techniques than other county staff. In addition, even though satellite delivery has been used with clientele in Pennsylvania, it has been used infrequently for staff training, so many staff have not experienced it directly.
| County Extension Staff by Major Responsibility | County Extension Directors (N=51) | |||||
| All (N=228*) | Agriculture (N=83) | Youth Development (N=75) | Family Living (N=60) | Community Development (N=6) | ||
| University Park | 2.46 | 2.25 | 2.76 | 2.62 | 1.60 | 2.50 |
| Regional Location | 1.86 | 1.82 | 1.86 | 1.78 | 2.20 | 1.88 |
| County Location (using Distance Education) | 2.59 | 2.60 | 2.44 | 2.61 | 3.20 | 2.40 |
| Combination of Above | 2.41 | 2.53 | 2.25 | 2.55 | 2.60 | 2.15 |
| *Major responsibility breakdown does not include 4 staff with "Other" responsibility. | ||||||
These preferences towards distance education contrast with the Extension educators in Nebraska surveyed by Mesecher (1995), who preferred satellite delivery (65%) over in-person training (35%). The difference between responses in Pennsylvania and Nebraska could be due to differences in travel distance, direct staff experience with distance technologies, how the questions were asked (such as the number of options from which to choose), or (as discussed previously) from self-selection bias in the Nebraska study.
Despite this seeming hesitance by many Pennsylvania county staff towards county-level in-services using distance education, the vast majority of county staff said they were receptive to having some in-service programs delivered by distance education (Table 2). Several respondents indicated that relying entirely upon distance education methods makes it harder for county staff to get to know other county staff working in similar topic areas. Face-to-face in-services also provide an opportunity for county staff to visit the campus, allowing them to accomplish other tasks during their visit. Responses indicated that the appropriateness of distance education-based in-service education clearly depends upon the subject matter and content of the in-services.
Table 2.
Staff Receptivity to Having Some In-Service Programs
Delivered Using Distance Education Technologies (e.g., satellite,
video, PICTel, World Wide Web)
| County Extension Staff by Major Responsibility | County Extension Directors (N=51) | |||||
| All (N=228*) | Agriculture (N=83) | Youth Development (N=75) | Family Living (N=60) | Community Development (N=6) | ||
| Yes | 91.7% | 92.8% | 88% | 95% | 100% | 100% |
| No | 5.7 | 4.8 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| *Major responsibility breakdown does not include 4 staff with "Other" responsibility. | ||||||
Distance education can entail different costs than more traditional in-services (and who pays those costs may be an issue). The major costs of on-campus in-services include travel time and transportation for county staff to get to the meeting site, and the staff time needed to attend. In Pennsylvania, travel costs are borne by each county office. Distance education can dramatically reduce these county-level costs by eliminating the need for county staff to travel, but (at least with satellite-based programming) it also increases the costs to the in-service providers (costs such as uplink and video production expenses and greater program development time for specialists).
County Extension directors were asked if they would be willing to share these costs of delivering distance education, in recognition that their staff would save travel time and expense. About 88% of the Extension directors said they would be willing to pay for such distance education programs. Six percent said they would not.
County staff were also asked their opinion on the ideal length of an in-service delivered via distance education. Across all county staff, the mean ideal length was about 2 hours, 40 minutes (Table 3). Community development staff generally wanted longer distance education in-services than did other staff, but the time differences between content areas were not large. The survey also explored the delivery formats of email- and Web-based in-services, including one-time sessions, multiple sessions held at regular intervals (such as once a week), or some other combination.
| Mean Hours (County Extension Staff by Major Responsibility) | County Extension Directors (N=51) | |||||
| All (N=228*) | Agriculture (N=83) | Youth Development (N=75) | Family Living (N=60) | Community Development (N=6) | ||
| Videotape, audiotape, satellite | 2:40 hours | 2:49 hours | 2:29 hours | 2:37 hours | 3:00 hours | 2:50 hours |
| E-mail/WWW | Percent Favoring | |||||
| 1 day | 1 | |||||
