Content

Editor's Page

Editor's Page

Commentary

Budget Cutbacks: Some Strategies for Deans, Directors, and the Staff They Lead

Acker, Duane
The economic slow-down that began in 2000 doesn't show signs of abatement. Personnel, equipment, and operating cost increases continue. To maintain or enhance program and staff effectiveness, program cutbacks will likely be required in many organizations. Such cutbacks are not easy, but they are doable. This article outlines a 10-step strategy, based on budget cutback experiences of the author and on principles of human emotion and behavior. It emphasizes timely facing of reality, steps in allocations and decision-making, and the positive outcomes that can result.

Feature Articles

Collaboratively Evaluating Cooperative Extension Educational Interventions

Webb, Debb; Murphy, Dennis J.; Kiernan, Nancy Ellen
Can university researchers and county agents successfully work together to complete experimental program evaluation? The rigors of experimental evaluation and time and workload pressures on county agents are possible impediments that may undermine enthusiasm and good intentions at the start of any project. This article examines the experiences of researchers and agents in a major safety education intervention project in Pennsylvania. Specific lessons were learned for future evaluation research projects. Overall, results suggest that Cooperative Extension can successfully meet the challenge of formal program evaluation when university researchers and county agents work together.

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

McReynolds, Kim H.; Howery, Larry D.
Russian knapweed has been problematic in the Northern U.S. for decades, but only recently found in Southeastern Arizona. Due to its aggressive nature and threat to ecological and agricultural values, a working group was formed to address the problem. A plan of action was developed and implemented. The objectives of the project reported in this article were to: 1) develop a public outreach program to increase awareness of noxious weed impacts, 2) use GPS and GIS technology to map Russian knapweed infestations, and 3) use mapping data to plan and coordinate an integrated management strategy in Cochise County, Arizona. Due to these efforts, Russian knapweed infestations have been reduced and continue to be monitored and treated using an integrated management approach.

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

Nolan, Jill Eversole; Blaine, Thomas W.
As the American population continues to age, identifying alternative housing options for older Americans, particularly those who wish to remain in rural communities, will pose a challenge to families and community leaders. This article presents findings of a survey of residents of seven rural housing cooperatives oriented toward serving older residents. The results reveal that residents were influenced to move to the cooperatives primarily by considerations involving ease of home maintenance and a desire to remain in their communities. The findings also demonstrate that residents believe that living in cooperative housing has had a positive influence on their quality of life. Extension educators should consider prioritizing educational efforts to teach clientele about rural cooperative housing.

Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Training for Youth

Nold, Rosie; Hanson, Dana
To teach youth the significance of providing a wholesome meat product to consumers, a quality assurance program for youth audiences was designed. Objectives were to introduce the responsibilities associated with food animal production and to teach skills necessary to produce safe and wholesome food. Interactive lessons on animal management techniques and practice in ethical decision-making related to food animal production were included. Conclusions were that participants gained skills in animal management techniques and the youths' opinions about consumer expectations were positively influenced. Furthermore, the program provided a successful model for including character education with subject matter education.

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

Thomson, Joan S.; Abel, Jennifer L.; Maretzki, Audrey N.
Edible Connections Changing the way we talk about food, farm, and community is a model that was created to facilitate dialogue on the local food system by involving those whose lives and livelihood are influenced by food. The authors outline the model and offer examples of how it has been used. They also detail how it can benefit Extension educators by enhancing work and community collaboration across Extension's program areas. The authors offer resources to help communities around the country apply the model to their specific situations.

Research in Brief

An Examination of the Relationships Between the Alabama Cooperative Extension System Assessment Center Ratings and Subsequent County Agent-Coordinators' Job Performance Ratings

Rice, D. Ray
The objectives of the reported study were to determine the predictability of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) Assessment Center for County Agent-Coordinator (CAC) candidates based on the performance appraisal ratings of CACs for the first 3 years after being promoted to the position. It considered the relationship between individual skill variables and the overall rating received in the Assessment Center. The findings revealed that the Assessment Center did predict CACs' performance at the .05 level of significance. All 12 of the skill variables, with the exception of assertiveness (9.0879 level), were significant in predicting the overall rating. This study confirms the importance of assessment centers as an evaluative and predictive element of the promotion process.

Understanding Cancer Risk Among Extension Professionals: A Program Development Perspective

Dresbach, Sereana Howard
The study reported here was predicated on the belief that it is necessary to assess the knowledge level of cancer risk among Extension professionals before programming can be developed as part of the overall educational mission. Extension professionals significantly increased their knowledge level of cancer risk through a pre-test assessment, application of a non-invasive educational intervention, and a post-test follow-up among a random sample of Ohio State University Extension personnel. In the areas of emerging research related to cancer risk, Extension professionals significantly increased their correct response percentage with the intervention. To fully incorporate cancer risk information into Extension education programming, it is essential that Extension professionals are up-to-date in non-traditional, as well as traditional arenas.

Utah Extension Educators' Perceived Satisfaction with and Needs for Agricultural Health and Safety Information

Webster, Jill; Rogers, David L.; Mariger, Stanley L.
The reported descriptive study surveyed the perceptions of Utah Extension personnel on their satisfaction with, and need for, agricultural health and safety information for their clients. The data was developed from a self-administered questionnaire mailed to a census of Utah Extension agents and administrators. The results of the survey indicated that Extension's needs for agricultural health and safety information are not being fully met. In addition, the respondents to the survey indicated that the need for information targeting youth was a greater need than information targeting adults. The results also indicated that the agricultural health and safety needs of minorities were much like those of non-minorities, but that an effort should be made to produce information in Spanish.

Effective Motivators for Master Volunteer Program Development

Wolford, Marjorie; Cox, Kathryn; Culp, III, Ken
Master volunteers provide critical links between clientele and Extension professionals through active partnerships. What motivates them to become involved and stay involved? Descriptive and correlational research data were statistically analyzed from a stratified random sample of 288 Ohio State University Extension master volunteers. Responses from a 28-item mailed questionnaire revealed that achievement was rated as the most important motive for beginning service as a master volunteer. As they continued to volunteer, affiliation became the most important motive. Intrinsic forms of recognition (e.g., receiving compliments) were rated most important. The results are useful for current and future volunteer program development.

An Examination of Customer Satisfaction in the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service

Rennekamp, Roger A.; Warner, Paul D.; Nall, Martha A.; Jacobs, Charlene; Maurer, Richard C.
In response to a growing trend to base funding decisions on customer satisfaction scores, the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service commissioned a study to examine the degree to which it was meeting the needs of Kentuckians. Overall, results were very positive, with more than 90% saying that Extension was a good investment of public funds. The organization received high scores for program quality and customer service, but it scored slightly lower on relevance and usefulness. Infrequent users rated Extension to be less relevant and useful than did frequent users.

Predictors of Women's Success in Achieving Senior-Level Administrative Positions in CSREES

Mayer, Lucille C.
The purpose of the study reported here was to examine the career paths of women directors in the Cooperative State Research Extension Education Service (CSREES) to determine what factors enabled them to rise to the directorship and what factors impeded them along the way. The design employed was a multiple case study, a field study within the Naturalistic Inquiry paradigm. Four major themes that influenced the attainment of executive positions by women in CSREES emerged from the data: organizational factors, building networks and relationships, recognizing opportunities, and gender.

Exploring the Potential of In-Service Training Through Distance Education

Kelsey, Timothy W.; Mincemoyer, Claudia C.
A survey of county Extension staff was used to explore the potential for using distance education technologies for in-service training. County staff cited time- or travel-related reasons as the most common factors preventing them from attending specific in-service programs within the past 12 months. Given a choice about where Extension in-services should be held, they preferred regional locations over any other, though they were receptive to having some county-level in-service programs delivered by distance education. As a result of the survey responses, in the fall of 1997, Penn State Cooperative Extension began a pilot program of quarterly satellite in-services.

Ideas at Work

Ideas to Assist Extension Field Professionals in Building Linkages and Alliances

Longo, Mary F.; Dresbach, Sereana Howard
Extension professionals are sometimes asked to provide education about policy issues, while the hidden agenda of a group is for the professional to advocate for a certain position. This interrelationship of issues and the demand for educational delivery have created a conducive environment for building strategic linkages and alliances. As part of the strategic plan of the Family and Consumer Sciences program of Ohio State University Extension, a series of tools and resources has been developed to assist Extension professionals in building effective linkages and alliances while not compromising their role in delivering research-based, unbiased information.

Developing the New York City Watershed Model Forests: Working Laboratories to Study and Demonstrate Sustainable Forestry

Germain, René H.; Schwartz, John J.; Parrish, Jamie
This article describes how the integration of scientific research, continuing education, and public outreach at the New York City (NYC) Watershed Model Forests presents an ideal opportunity for developing, monitoring, and demonstrating the principles of sustainable forestry in the context of a large-scale working landscape over broad temporal terms. As a long-term institutional resource for local stakeholders and others interested in the nation's highest profile watershed, the NYC Watershed Model Forests will provide unprecedented opportunities for these audiences to better understand and support the multiple values associated with their local natural resources.

Developing a Simple Four-Step Marketing Plan for Extension Programs

Nehiley, James M.
To develop an effective marketing plan, you must match the needs of the various audience subgroups with the attributes of whatever you are trying to promote. We are all familiar with the benefits of advertising, but advertising is only part of a promotional plan. The idea behind marketing is to lead the consumer through the four stages that lead to purchase: awareness, interest, knowledge, and behavior. To successfully do this, you must (1) conduct an audience inventory, (2) define your goals and specify your objectives, (3) decide on the nature of your message, and (4) decide on the appropriate media.

Charting a Course Through the Culture Storms: A Cautionary Tale

Brosnahan, Ann; Lee, Faye C.H.
In our increasingly multicultural national and global societies, teaching about multiculturalism remains controversial and challenging. Based on experiences working with California's diverse population and current research in intercultural understanding, the authors describe an interactive diversity-training workshop for professionals and volunteers who work with children and youth. The workshop includes current research about intercultural understanding, an exploration of American cultural assumptions, and an opportunity for participants to identify strategies to improve their intercultural interactions. The model is based on sound adult learning theory, focuses on our capabilities rather than deficits, emphasizes our similarities rather than differences, and employs an ecological conception of culture.

Gap Analysis: A Tool for Community Economic Development

Barta, Suzette D.; Woods, Mike D.
The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service has responded to a need for reliable retail sales data and analysis through the use of a retail trends report or "gap analysis." This article describes the analysis and the impact of the gap analysis report on the communities that have used it in the last year. Emphasis is placed on describing the methodology. In an attempt to evaluate the usefulness of the information, a survey was conducted among users of the report. The results of the survey indicate that gap analysis has been quite useful to communities actively engaged in economic development.

Tomato IPM Field Demonstrations in Alabama

Sikora, Edward J.; Zehnder, Geoffrey W.; Kemble, Joseph M.; Goodman, Robert; Andrianifahanana, Mahefatiana; Bauske, Ellen M.; Murphy, John F.
The Alabama Tomato IPM Program was evaluated through several on-farm demonstrations. Our objective was to provide growers with a clear vision of the benefits of a tomato IPM program. The IPM program consisted of a biweekly insect/disease scouting service combined with a weather-based fungicide spray program. Growers saved $34.12/acre when using the IPM program due to a reduction in pesticide applications. Growers made four fewer insecticide and four fewer fungicide applications following the IPM program versus their conventional program. The participating growers were enthusiastic about the IPM program and requested availability of this approach on an annual basis.

Tools of the Trade

County Agent–A Book Review

Scholl, Jan
County Agent, a book published more than 30 years ago, tells the story of the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of home economics graduate Lisa Merrill, as she grows into her position as a "home demonstration agent" in a rural county in the Adirondacks. Although originally intended as a "career romance for young moderns," the is more interesting today for what it might tell us about the evolving image of Extension and of women in popular culture

First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently–A Book Review

Peterson, Bob
First, Break All the Rules highlights the core characteristics of great managers and great work places. They are the culmination of two studies completed over a 20-year time frame by the Gallup Organization. During this study more than 400 companies were involved and more than 80,000 managers and more than one million employees were interviewed. This book will challenge 4-H Extension educators and other Extension educators to rethink how they manage volunteers.

Recommended Energy Studies in the Food Processing and Packaging Industry: Identifying Opportunities for Conservation and Efficiency

Barron, Felix; Burcham, Joel
The food processing industry provides about 60% of the foods consumed by U.S. households. The energy used to process these foods is a significant part of the total price. Energy conservation and efficiency studies are necessary, because these measures are not generally applied in a systematic manner by small food processors. Extension professionals, consultants, and small food processors should work together to study the use of energy in processing plants and to identify factors affecting process efficiency. These studies will result in the development of applicable educational materials, training workshops and ultimately cost savings.

Using Pre- and Post-Tests to Evaluate the Achievement of Short Course Learning Objectives

Cloughesy, Mike; Zahler, David; Rellergert, Mary
A week-long forestry workshop was designed in Oregon to help K-12 classroom teachers understand the management of forest resources and to share with them materials and activities they can use in their own classrooms. Although the workshop was deemed a success by both instructors and participants, there were no real measure of how well the workshops educational goals had been achieved. A new curriculum was developed with clearly defined learning objectives. Achievement of learning objectives was successfully shown using a pre-test and post-test.

Questions & Answers for Authors

Q&A for Authors

Submission Instructions

Instructions for Submitting Articles

Review and Evaluation Process

Review and Evaluation Process

Editorial Committees and Board

Board

Editorial Committee

Pre-Review Reviews

Some of you who've submitted articles in 2001 know that I've started doing editorial reviews of submitted articles before I accept them as ready for the formal JOE review process.

I do this for two reasons.

First, it helps authors. It helps them make their articles stronger, and that, in turn, increases the chance that they will ultimately be accepted for publication.

When I get an article that needs strengthening, I e-mail the submitting author, explaining what I see as the problems and suggesting ways to solve them.

Sometimes, the solution is simply to follow the JOE Submission Guidelines http://www.joe.org/sub1.html. Some authors don't include abstracts, for instance. Others haven't paid sufficient attention to the differences among the article categories, so their articles don't fit in any of them.

Sometimes, the problems are a little more deep-seated. A fairly common one, for example, is not answering the "so what?" question, not addressing the implications of whatever's being written about. (You'll see more about this in my June "Editor's Page.")

Of the 54 submissions I've received so far this year, I've "returned" 26 to their authors for improvement. Many have already been resubmitted and are now ready for review. Four of them, in fact, appear in this issue.

This "pre-review review" does not guarantee publication in JOE. (For one thing, I'm no methodology maven and so can't address problems of that nature.) What it can do, however, is "clear the decks" for JOE reviewers so that they can focus on methodology, recognize authors' intentions and the implications of their work, and make suggestions that may well lead to publication.

The second reason I do them? To make JOE a better journal. Why? Reread the first Commentary in the February issue http://www.joe.o rg/joe/2001february/comm1.html.

This Month's Issue

The April issue is a particularly rich one.

We have a Commentary by the president emeritus of Kansas State University offering 10-step strategy based on his "budget cutback experience" and on "principles of human emotion and behavior."

We have an article that asks, "Can university researchers and county agents work together to complete experimental program evaluation?" (The answer's "yes.")

We have three articles that touch or focus on diversity: "Utah Extension Educators' Perceived Satisfaction with and Needs for Agricultural Health and Safety Information," "Predictors of Women's Success in Achieving Senior-Level Administrative Positions in CSREES," and "Charting a Course Through the Culture Storms: A Cautionary Tale."

We have an article on a model to build community collaboration and one on a community economic development tool. Two other articles address volunteers and how to treat them.

Then there's "County Agent–A Book Review." Read it, and revisit the film review by the same author in December's JOE http://www.joe.org /joe/2000december/tt6.html. Images of Extension in popular culture. Depictions of "home demonstration agents" and what they say about the perceived role of women. I swear there's at least one dissertation topic in there somewhere.

And that's fewer than half the articles. See what I mean about "rich"?

Laura Hoelscher, Editor

Budget Cutbacks: Some Strategies for Deans, Directors, and the Staff They Lead

It's the fourth month of a new fiscal year. State revenues are well below projections, the state cannot go into debt, and the governor announces a 5% current year budget reduction for all state agencies and programs. Your university president decides that every university unit will share equally in the reduction. Your College, the Experiment Station, and the Extension Service must each find that 5% in the next 8 months.

Or the legislature dictates a 6% salary increase for all university staff, health insurance costs will be up 10%, and the state legislature provides only a 2% increase in appropriations. The regents approve a tuition increase to protect the instruction budget, but that doesn't help the Experiment Station or Extension.

What is your strategy?

The New York Times recently (March 9) reported that current tax revenues are below expectations in 18 states and that the education budget in 9 states is in specific difficulty. The economic slow-down that began in 2000 doesn't show signs of abatement, appropriations for the next fiscal year will be cautious in most states, and reductions are forecast in some.

As a director, dean, university president, or government agency head, I've had to cut back operating budgets or programs five times. I've watched other university units and government agencies struggle with budget reductions. More recently, my budget work has been in the private sector. But I am on an Extension Advisory Council in a state where revenue growth is far below projections, and I am working with an Experiment Station in another state facing a serious and immediate cutback in state funds. I've learned some lessons on both strategy and the human principles that should influence strategy.

A good strategy can result in good decisions, protect faculty morale, and safeguard relationships with clientele. It can also strengthen your organization for the years ahead.

A Good Setting

How difficult the task you face in a budget cutback depends on your current College, Experiment Station, or Extension setting. A good setting is characterized by the following.

• Your financial data system allows quick disclosure of fund allocations and expenditures, current and cumulative, by budget unit and by expense category.

• Personnel costs, including fringes, are at or below 70% of total budget for an Experiment Station, 80% for Extension or the College instruction program.

• Personnel commitments that depend on an external grant are for no longer than the grant.

• 3 to 5% of the annual budget is held in reserve.

• There exists a clear set of specific and directional College, Experiment Station, or Extension goals/priorities, such as "increase beef cow productivity" or "enhance nutritional status of teen-agers."

• Unit heads carry an appropriate delegated responsibility for budget allocation and accountability.

• There exists a good record of the output and impact of each unit, project, and program, especially where the record is open to all staff. Such could be on an internal Web site, updated annually.

• Both the university president and unit and program heads recognize that the dean or director's job is to provide both intellectual leadership on the priorities most important and most achievable and management leadership in focusing resources on those priorities.

• External clientele have been kept well acquainted with programs, priorities and productivity of your organization and, specifically, of their favorite unit or program.

If the setting is good, your job will be less difficult–not easy, but doable.

A Good Setting Is Not Common

In most of higher education, such good settings aren't common! In many cases, both internal and external pressures have worked to maintain or even increase staff numbers in years when state appropriations failed to match cost increases, and personnel costs exceed the 70 or 80% rule. There has been reluctance to close projects or programs, in hopes that "next year will be better."

Often, goals and priorities are either not stated or are non-specific and non-directional. Examples of the latter: "To be the source of technology for the state's major industry" or "To be in the top 20% of universities in our disciplines." Such statements may be impressive, but they don't help much when budget choices must be faced.

I've also seen cases where the university president implies the dean or director's main job is to protect that office or the regents from political pressure and where unit or program heads suggest their main job is to protect or increase their current budget.

However, there is a job to be done. Budget constraints are reality. Issues are to be faced, decisions made, results communicated, and clientele served. The sooner the job is done, the better the result, especially in the case of a current fiscal year problem.

A Strategy in 10 Steps

A leadership strategy is needed, and that strategy needs to be thought through, in terms of specific steps and their consequences. I suggest a 10-step strategy, and I cite the human traits that make such steps logical and productive.

1. Establish within yourself and convey to key colleagues a positive, constructive attitude, an attitude that you all have a job to do and that you have confidence in your collective ability to do it. Believe and convey that, when the job is done, your College, Experiment Station, or Extension Service can be more productive, more adaptable, and stronger for the years ahead. Your staff can be more productive and gain more satisfaction because the projects and programs retained will be well funded and will deserve continuing support.
   • A positive, confident leadership attitude is valuable and contagious.

2. Establish an assumed budget level for the next 2 or 3 fiscal years, based on realistic projections of tax revenue and legislative behavior.
   • This will illustrate that simply "tightening the belt" on travel or operating expense one more time won't solve the problem.

3. Provide the financial facts to all, including off-campus staff, technicians, clerical staff, and graduate assistants. E-mail allows rapid dissemination, but also schedule several open meetings, so any person can ask questions and hear explanations. Show dollar sources and dollar commitment for the current FY by budget unit and expense category. Show the size of the budget shortfall relative to the total budget or the categories. Be open, accurate, and credible.
   • People are more afraid of the unknown than of the known. And the sooner they know the magnitude of the problem, the sooner they can think about solutions.

4. Do the same with clientele, including students, if the instruction program is involved. Don't mislead. If you face a 6% salary increase with only 2% more money, don't call it a "budget cut." That's not credible. Call it a "program cut."
   • If they know and believe the plight, they are more likely to support actions to solve it.

5. Seek suggestions from key staff–the solid, respected thinkers, both staff and administrative–regarding unit-wide or major programs that should be considered for reduction or closing.
   • They'll be more likely to give suggestions in a one-on-one setting.

6. Consult with key staff on organization-wide guidelines to be followed in making budget reductions. Example issues: incentives for early retirement or shifting to part time employment or minimum travel and operating budget per senior staff.
   • Open discussion and compromise help each unit leader to better explain these guidelines to staff, and they'll be more likely be consistently followed.

7. Decide and announce specific reductions in the dean/director's office budget.
   • Leaders don't ask others to do what they won't.

8. Assign to each unit or program head a budget target for each of the next 2 or 3 fiscal years. Tell them they'll be judged in part on how their cutbacks mesh with organization goals/priorities and insure a solid base for their unit's future. This also recognizes that some program and personnel reductions can't or shouldn't be implemented immediately.
   • Unit and program heads need to carry their responsibility and also feel some "control."

9. Set deadlines for unit reduction plans, perhaps 24 or 48 hours for a preliminary and a week for complete recommendations. This is enough time for thoughtful consideration but not for procrastination.
   • Most staff will believe their program or their position is in jeopardy and will fear the worst. The sooner they know the outcome, the sooner they can plan their next task or begin rationalizing their future.

10. Identify some new and creative opportunities that can capture the imagination and enthusiasm of all staff and clientele. For example, if the judgment is to close down a $400,000 program, assign $75,000 to that sector, and name a staff/clientele committee to identify and plan the program that would serve the sector best.
    • Several of these in the College, Experiment Station, and/or Extension will help the total staff feel positive about the future.

Human Emotion and Behavior

These strategy and steps are based on several basic principles of human emotion and behavior that are usually more pronounced in faculty and industry leaders than in society as a whole.

• The unknown magnifies fear and encourages rumors, usually rumors that are more draconian than fact. Not knowing the magnitude of a problem increases frustration; one can neither estimate its impact nor begin to seek solutions.

• Pride needs to be satisfied. Attention to and investment in "my program" or "my industry" are highly important to a program, project, or industry leader. Quick identification of a "new venture fund" let's them know that they, their discipline, and their industry have attention and respect.

• Having some control of one's program or unit destiny minimizes frustration. Otherwise, the unit or program leader is but a victim. The worst situation for a leader is to have responsibility for absorbing cuts without having some say in the process.

• Satisfaction is the major reward. Few will get a big salary increase in these circumstances, and there'll be few "atta boys" to deans and directors from staff or clientele for decisions made, but when the job is done, each wants to feel he or she has played a constructive role.

• The human mind wants to rationalize. And rationalization begins sooner and progresses more quickly when facts are known, decisions are made, and there can be focus on some opportunity ahead.

• Distant targets seem more reasonable. If you were told today to train for a 26-mile marathon scheduled Sunday, you'd likely see only pain, exhaustion, and failure. The task seems impossible; frustration reigns. Were the marathon 12 months hence, you could lose 20 pounds, plan your training, and schedule time to achieve it–and you may be ready in 6 months. Once a known target is set, most will say, "If we are to do it, let's do it now."

Conclusion

Budget cutbacks are not easy. But they can be done. Beyond that, if handled well, budget cutbacks can provide opportunity to close programs that have "done their job" and to redirect resources. Because all know of the budget reality, difficult decisions can be more readily accepted and rationalized by staff and clientele.

A well-considered strategy, including specific steps based on budget reality and consideration of human emotion and behavior, can serve you and your organization well.

Collaboratively Evaluating Cooperative Extension Educational Interventions

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Three Interventions

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

Intervention A: Farm Hazard Audit Program (FHAP)

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

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

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

Intervention B: Youth Safety and Health Program (YSHP)

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

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

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

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

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

Intervention Effort

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

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

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

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

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

Project Problems and Successes

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

Recruitment Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intervention Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Appendix: Common Educational Objectives

Intervention Objectives

Participants will learn that:

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

Non-Intervention Objectives

Participants will learn that:

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary objectives of the working group were to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results

Education/Outreach

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

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

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

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

Mapping and Management

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

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

Implications and Conclusions

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

Introduction and Problem Statement

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

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

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

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

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

Rural Cooperative Housing

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

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

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

Survey Design, Method, and Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Suggestions for Extension Educators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Training for Youth

Background

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

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

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

Materials and Methods

Materials

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

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

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

The characteristics of older youth that were considered were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing Procedure

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

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

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

* Indicates correct answer.

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

Statistical Analyses

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

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

Results

Opinions

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

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

Quality Assurance Knowledge

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

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

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

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

*Indicates correct answer

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

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

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

* Indicates correct answer

Summary and Implications

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

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

The increase in knowledge of quality assurance practices for all the ages of youth provides strong support for the value of hands-on educational experiences and for cross-age training. The variety of topics available and the use of the experiential learni