April 2002
Volume 40 Number 2

Features

A Systems Approach: Maximizing Individual Career Potential and Organizational Success

Linda M. Kutilek
Associate Professor and Leader, New Personnel Development
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: kutilek.1@osu.edu

Gail J. Gunderson
Leader, Organization Development
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: gunderson.1@osu.edu

Nikki L. Conklin
Associate Professor and Leader, Training & Development Team
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: conklin.1@osu.edu

In today's world of work, organizational restructuring and technological changes are the norm. Career paths have shifted from climbing the corporate ladder to traversing the corporate landscape in search of job enrichment and satisfaction. In the search for career fulfillment, individuals may no longer plan to spend their entire work lives in one organization. Maximizing an individual's career potential to enhance the success of the organization calls for a systems approach in career development.

Systems approaches are characterized by an inter-relationship among parts, all of which are working together toward a defined goal. The parts of the system depend on each other for input and output, and the entire system uses feedback to determine if desired goal(s) have been reached (Kowalski, 1988). Systems approaches are implemented in a manner that enables the individual to enter and exit the model at the point most appropriate to the situation. As we examine and foster career growth and development, the model is responsive to the needs of the individuals throughout their tenure with an organization, not just in the early years of their career.

Ohio State University (OSU) Extension uses professional development strategies to support personnel based upon a four-part model (Dalton, Thompson, & Price, 1997; Rennekamp, 1988). The components include the:

1. Entry stage,
2. Colleague stage,
3. Counselor stage, and
4. Advisor stage.

The model was adapted for use by the authors (Table 1). Though some individuals may benefit from following the model in a stepwise fashion, others may move among the stages differently, depending upon prior career experience and the career track in the organization. For example, an individual may be at the advisor stage in one job role and then shift to the entry stage when their job role changes.

Table 1.
Systems Approach: Professional Development Model: Ohio State University Extension

Continuing professional development for employees is critical to meet the demands and expectations of the evolving workplace. This article provides an overview of the professional development model used by Ohio State University Extension in a systems context and its application in changing organizations. The model is applicable in examining the professional development provided by an organization for all personnel, while the types of development may vary based upon job roles.

The Entry Stage

The entry stage can be characterized as the initial phase of employment, when the essential motivators for development include understanding the organization, the organizational structure and culture, and skills essential to perform the job. Organizations are frustrated by the seemingly inordinate amount of time required to supervise newcomers (Beeler, 1994). New employees may feel overwhelmed with all the information regarding the organization, their job duties, and the operational policies and procedures. Focus should be placed on developing easy-to-use tools for managers and new employees to help them do their jobs. Extension wants new employees to develop skills quickly to a level at which they can perform their work efficiently and effectively.

Ohio State University Extension has developed a multi-layered structure to address initial professional development needs. This program structure includes a peer mentoring program, identification of professional support teams, leadership coaching, and orientation/job training programs.

Peer Mentoring Program

The peer mentoring program has been designed by Extension employees for their co-workers. A mentor is defined as a trusted adviser, friend, and teacher, and should be a peer who is a non-evaluator. All potential mentors are required to participate in a training session prior to being selected. Critical to the mentor/protégé relationship is an early start after hiring, having similar jobs, and developing familiarity with each other, agreed-upon goals, mutual trust, and confidentiality.

To help in creating mentoring pairs, each potential mentor/protégé is asked to complete a bio-sketch form that includes information about background, experience, work-related interests, non-work interests, specializations, hobbies, family, etc. An evaluation is conducted at 3- and 12-month intervals to assess satisfaction with the pairing and the process.

One of the biggest struggles for county mentoring participants has been the distance between mentor and protégé. Others mention difficulty with the time commitment, although the majority of pairs indicate they meet six or more times during the year.

Within the last 4 years, more than one hundred mentor/protégé partnerships have been created. Although the mentoring pair is established for the first year of an employee's career, many of the relationships have continued beyond that point. New staff members indicate that the experience provides temporary support until they are able to become more familiar with other co-workers and find links to personally chosen mentors within the organization.

Professional Support Teams

OSU Extension has a formal structure of support for each county Extension agent. This support team consists of:

• A District Director,
• One or more District Specialists, and
• The County Chair. The county chair has fiscal, administrative, personnel supervision, and overall educational program responsibilities for the county's Extension educational program.

The county agent's support team has responsibilities to:

• Provide an environment for motivation,
• Provide recognition of successes,
• Identify areas for change or improvement,
• Set goals for future performance,
• Identify training and professional development needs, and
• Collaborate to evaluate performance.

District support teams have additional roles related to the Extension mentoring program, including the selection and training of the initial mentor pool and the pairing of a mentor with a protégé.

Leadership Coaching

County Extension agents have the opportunity to participate in an Action Leadership Retreat, which is a 2-day program designed for individuals with 1 to 3 years of experience. This assessment workshop is a developmental experience for these employees focused on 12 behavioral anchors. The behavioral anchors include:

• Organizational skills,
• Interpersonal skills,
• Sensitivity,
• Communication skills,
• Change-management skills,
• Diplomacy,
• Decision-making skills,
• Conflict-management skills,
• Collaborativeness,
• Self directedness,
• Visionary skills, and
• Assertiveness.

Peer coaches have been assigned to individuals who have participated in the Action Leadership Retreat. The coaches assist in keeping employees focused on the professional development plans made during the retreat, serve as a sounding board, and provide the employees with a set time to focus on each of the behavioral anchors and themselves as professionals. The coaches work with the staff member for a 14-month year period. Performance is assessed with a 360-degree feedback process at the beginning and end of that time to identify areas of growth.

Orientation/Job Training

The current methods of orientation include presentations of information about the organization and employee roles through written materials, statewide orientation sessions, and on-going core training workshops. Training programs are also offered in core job skill areas of:

• Effective teaching,
• Program development and evaluation,
• Team building,
• Individual development, and
• Volunteer program management.

Training sessions are provided for professional staff during the first 2 years on the job to assist them in developing these core competencies. In addition, all staff are provided with training in their subject-matter area and in computer technology.

Another on-the-job training program, Learning the Ropes, has been developed for the first 2 weeks of an agent's job. The training topics were identified through surveying new and experienced agents. During this training program, new professionals meet with support team members to:

• Clarify expectations and goals of performance,
• Shadow experienced trainer-agents for insight into role performance, and
• Learn from co-workers the short- and long-term needs of their community.

Ohio State University Extension will continue to support new employees through this multi-layered structure. Initial experiences with these processes have demonstrated that this support helps to meet the employees' need to be successful--and to be recognized for that success.

The Colleague Stage

The second component of the model is the colleague stage. During this stage, the individual grows in professional knowledge, independence, and autonomy in carrying out the job role. Individuals seek to build at least one area of expertise for which he or she is recognized by colleagues and shares through service on committees or by assuming special assignments or tasks. The individual may seek further development in this stage through formal educational training, such as enrollment in a 2-year degree program, undergraduate program, or graduate school (Rennekamp & Nall, 1993).

Personnel may remain in this developmental stage for many years, particularly if their job role remains consistent. Some additional motivators for these individuals include:

• Independent contribution to problem resolutions,
• Gaining membership and identity in a professional community,
• Increasing efficiency and effectiveness in performing job functions, and
• Expanding creativity and innovation (Rennekamp & Nall, 1993).

Knowle's concept of andragogy assumes that adults desire self direction and tend to be self directed as they mature (Knowles, 1980). Tough and other adult educators have identified that many adults pursue self-directed learning projects throughout their lives related to both job roles and personal interests. Some research also indicates that though adults may practice self direction in some aspects of their lives, they may not always carry it over to learning (Kerka, 1994). Thus, as professional development is designed within an organization, planners cannot rely simply on self-directed learning to achieve individual development or organizational effectiveness.

In-Service Education

OSU Extension has expanded in-service training substantially in the last 10 years to respond to the rapidly changing needs of employees for specialized development. In order to effectively meet the needs of the public, the individual professional must have a higher level of technical expertise now than was needed previously. In the early 1980's, 25 in-service programs were provided annually by the organization, generally ranging from 1 to 3 days in length.

In 1998, OSU Extension offered over 75 highly specialized in-service programs. Each in-service was coordinated by an individual or team of professionals from within the organization. Coordinators are encouraged to use a sounding board or committee of individuals who are potential participants to insure relevance of the program. Though content experts from OSU or other universities often present in-service programs, many of the programs include sessions based upon peer sharing or peer teaching. Sometimes this is accomplished by providing unstructured time for networking, dialogue, and problem solving among participants.

New delivery approaches include:

• Internet training with on-line chat rooms,
• Telephone conference groups supported with reading materials and Internet dialogue,
• Study tours, and
• Interactive satellite television.

Examples of training conducted in 1998 include:

• Design for Learning, a 10-week program on designing effective adult learning programs;
• A Work/Life study tour for professionals who conduct programming on healthy work/life balance for individuals and businesses;
• Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, an Internet-based course offered for academic credit to enhance technical expertise of individuals working in Agriculture and Natural Resources; and
• Spanish Skill Building and Hispanic Cultural Awareness workshops for individuals with significant Hispanic populations within the communities in which they work.

Professional Development Funding

Several types of funding support have been provided to enable self-directed learners to identify developmental needs and to obtain resources to participate in external development programs. Some examples include:

Specialization Funds

$65,000 is available annually to support individualized professional development plans focused on enhancement of specialized areas. Responsibilities include the development of educational programs, materials, and reciprocal teaching among peers within a close geographical area. To receive funding, individuals must submit plans that are reviewed by an administrative team.

Support for Professional Association Involvement

Under this plan, individual unit administrators are encouraged to allocate a minimum of $500-700 per individual annually to attend a national/international professional association meeting. If the faculty/staff member is presenting a workshop, an additional $300 is available once a year to support participation. Individuals may use work time to participate in professional association annual meetings. State associations provide $2000 annually on a competitive basis for individually proposed professional development.

The concept of providing professional association support has also been extended to office support personnel. They have developed their own professional association, Chi Epsilon Sigma, and through fund raising, have established professional development scholarships. Extension Administration provides $7500 in competitive funds annually to fund individual or team proposals outlining plans for professional development. A committee of support staff with the assistance of staff development professionals review the proposals and award the funds.

Formal Education

As employees of the university, all personnel are eligible to enroll in undergraduate or graduate education with a fee waiver. OSU Extension implements policies providing flextime and flexible scheduling as well as short term sabbaticals to enable employees to take advantage of this benefit.

The Counselor and Advisor Stages

Professionals who reach the counselor and advisor stages are often ready to assume additional responsibility for others in the organization. To accommodate these developmental needs, individuals often seek to develop areas of expertise beyond those they currently possess. Characteristics of these stages include movement from independent contribution to a focus on interdependence and the ability to work through others.

Other outcomes include greater responsibility in decision making and problem solving and the ability to represent the organization both internally and externally. They often seek self renewal and enhanced training, opportunity to serve in formal training roles, job enrichment, career counseling, and temporary assignment to special projects. They may also chair committees or assume other leadership roles in order to use their expertise and influence.

In order to tap individuals' expertise and desire to contribute to the organization, OSU Extension has developed several opportunities for professionals in these career stages. To address the development needs within these stages, career development retreats, an assessment center for leadership, mentoring and trainer roles, and organizational sounding boards have been used.

Life and Career Renewal Retreats

It is common for individuals to experience "peaks and valleys" throughout their careers. Hagberg (1982) describes this journey using a Job Lives Model. This model demonstrates the experiences and choices individuals face through skill building, career change, job change, self renewal, treading water, and inner kill. Organizations that recognize the need to maintain a healthy workforce often provide opportunities for employees to reflect and dialogue about their career progress and satisfaction.

A 2-day life and career renewal retreat was developed for self-exploration, discovery, and personal reflection on work/life issues. The goals of this program are to:

• Provide a framework and strategies to assist people in examining their specific career/life issues;
• Provide a relaxed environment conducive to exploration and reflection;
• Communicate the shared responsibility for career development within the organization, and
• Provide tools for employees to develop action plans for both personal and professional renewal.

The retreat includes:

• Presentations,
• Group discussions,
• Individual thinking,
• Reflecting, and
• Planning and dialoguing with the facilitators and group participants.

During the last 5 years, approximately 150 program and support professionals have chosen to participate. Some participants leave with a confirmation that things are good as they are, while others begin to take steps to enhance or alter their career direction and satisfaction.

Mentoring and Trainer Agent Roles 

A unique feature of the formal mentoring program is the District Mentoring Contact. The District Contact helps to facilitate and monitor the progress of each mentor/protégé pair in his or her 16-19 Extension units. Contacts are responsible for:

• Maintaining regular communication with the pairs,
• Providing follow-up with protégés 2 weeks and 3 months after pairing, and
• Serving on the state mentoring developmental committee.

Mentoring Contacts work to assist mentors with information about upcoming events and programs to share with their protégés and to become aware of problem situations as they arise.

The protégé/mentor can inform the District Contact if the process isn't working, and a new mentor will be assigned. When a new mentor has been selected, the District Contact is informed of the new pairing. The process of initial contact and periodic monitoring will begin again with the new pair.

Many individuals in the counselor and advisor stages voluntarily serve as trainer agents in on-the-job training and internship programs. They use their experiences and effectiveness as partners with human resources and administration to guide and direct new employees.

Assessment Center for Leadership 

An assessment center is a comprehensive, standardized procedure in which situational exercises and job simulations are used to evaluate individual employees for various job roles (Thornton, 1992). Individuals are evaluated on their performance on the exercise by a team of trained assessors.

In 1985, OSU Extension developed an assessment center to assist in the analysis of current managerial abilities and future training needs of Extension county chairs. The assessment center incorporates seven exercises that enable participants to demonstrate skills on the fifteen job-related dimensions of:

1. Oral communication,
2. Written communication,
3. Leadership,
4. Initiative,
5. Planning/organizing,
6. Decision making/judgment,
7. Development of coworkers,
8. Behavioral flexibility,
9. Organizational sensitivity,
10. Assertiveness,
11. Objectivity,
12. Perception,
13. Sensitivity,
14. Management control, and
15. Collaborativeness.

Assessor selection and training is an essential part of the assessment center process. Experienced professionals who have reached the counselor and advisor stages often have the knowledge and are very capable and willing to serve as assessors. The assessor not only observes and evaluates participants, but assists the participants in integrating the results into their daily work environment and in developing a professional development plan based upon the behavioral dimensions and potential learning opportunities.

The emphasis of this assessment center has been developmental. Individuals participate in this process within the first 6 months of their appointment to the county chair role. The center has gained national recognition, with more than 400 individuals participating from 25 different states.

Organizational Sounding Boards 

It is often difficult to gain employee input in large, complex organizations. OSU Extension has chosen to develop sounding boards. The sounding boards provide an opportunity for employees, in the counselor and advisor stages to:

• Make suggestions,
• Provide feedback and
• Communicate regarding decisions and organizational direction.

A county chair sounding board is comprised of five county administrative leaders who are in the later stages of their career. They meet via teleconference several times annually with a state human resource leader to discuss processes and procedures that affect employees and to determine effective marketing and communication strategies.

Conclusion

The synergy of this model as implemented by OSU Extension is evident in the manner in which peer teaching, mentoring, dialogue, sharing, and coaching contribute to the growth of others while at the same time encouraging personal growth. Though traditionally the organization has dedicated proportionately more resources to the Colleague stage, priority attention is being placed upon the entry stage, counselor, and advisor stages to aid in assimilation and retention of personnel. As new employees are hired with prior career experience, emphasis needs to be given to support systems and processes for identification of professional development needs and subsequent guidance to appropriate developmental opportunities.

References

Beeler, C. (1994). Roll out the welcome wagon: Structuring new employee orientations. Public Management. August, pp. 13-17.

Dalton, G., Thompson, P., & Price (1977). The four stages of professional careers: a new look at performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, 6 (1):23.

Grimm, J. (1996). Orientation: The first important thing you do. The American editor. April-May, pp.12-14.

Hagberg, J. & Leider, R. (1982). The inventurers: excursions in life and career renewal. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Kerka, S. (1994). Self directed learning. Myths and realities series. Columbus, OH: ERIC clearinghouse on adult, career and vocational education.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. (2^nd edition). New York: Cambridge Books.

Kowalski, T. (1988). The organization and planning of adult education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rennekamp, R. (1988). A career development model for 4-H professionals. A final report of the 4-H professional research and knowledge base projects. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, p.24-54.

Rennekamp, R. & Nall, M. (1993). Professional growth: A guide for professional development. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Publication IP-34.

Thornton, G. C. III (1992). Assessment centers in human resource management. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Designing Professional Development Systems for Parenting Educators

Karen DeBord
Associate Professor
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Internet Address: Karen_Debord@ncsu.edu

Mary Ann Matta
Graduate Student
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina

Background

Parent education is an essential component of Extension family life programs (Merkowitz, Jelley, Collins, & Arkin, 1997) and has been a part of Extension programming for many years. But the demand for parenting education is growing in communities and has been identified as an important national priority (Kagan, 1995). Although parenting education been a field of study and practice for decades, the professionalization of parenting education is gaining attention as questions arise such as:

• "What qualifies one to be a parent educator?"
• "What sort of background do parent educators have?"
• "Is there a pertinent degree in parenting education that I can seek when hiring?"

Parenting education is "an organized, programmatic effort to change or enhance the child-rearing knowledge and skills of a family system or a child care system (Arcus, 1993). Even with "organized programmatic efforts," however, a coherent system of family-oriented services and a broad public and institutional commitment to strengthen families is needed (Weiss, 1990). In 1996, Nick Carter's report, See How We Grow, provided a comprehensive overview of the complexity of parenting education. Carter suggested that parenting education needs an "infrastructure to help the field move forward."

On at least two occasions, researchers have suggested a sequence of steps critical in the development of the professional status of a field of study (East, 1980; Czaplewski & Jorgensen, 1993). These steps can be applied to the professionalization of parenting education. The steps are:

1. The activity becomes a full-time paid occupation.
2. Training schools and curricula are established.
3. Those who are trained establish a professional association.
4. A name, standards of admission, a core body of knowledge, and competencies for practice are developed.
5. Internal conflict within the group and external conflicts from other professions with similar concerns lead to a unique role definition.
6. The public served expresses some acceptance of the expertise of those practicing the occupation.
7. Certification and licensure are the legal sign that a group is sanctioned for particular service to society and that it is self-regulated.
8. A code of ethics is developed to eliminate unethical practice to protect the public.

Parenting education, as a profession, is challenged by several unique factors. First, parenting education is not a single field of study. It is embedded in many fields of study (psychology, human development, nursing, education, ministry, medicine). Second, because of the embeddedness of the literature, there is not a centrally agreed upon body of knowledge or set of competencies for parenting educators. And third, a professional preparation system does not exist that prepares parenting educators (NPEN, 2000).

There have been many discussions about the knowledge base for parenting education, but not until recently has anyone introduced a framework (DeBord, Bowers, Goddard, Kirby, Kobbe, Mulroy, Myers-Walls, & Ozretich, 2001) to edge the field towards recognized competencies. The most recent framework recognizes six content and six process areas. The content areas parallel the National Extension Parenting Education Model. They include an in-depth knowledge in the areas of:

• Guide,
• Motivate,
• Nurture,
• Understand,
• Advocate, and
• Care for self (Smith, Cudabeck, Goddard, Myers-Walls, 1994).

The process areas presented by DeBord et al., include:

• Grow, which pertains to one's personal professional growth;
• Frame, which pertains to understanding theoretical frameworks that guide the field;
• Embrace, which deals with understanding diversity of family, race, and ethnicity;
• Develop, which includes the development process for educational programs;
• Educate, which includes various teaching and outreach methods; and
• Build, which includes networking and partnering with others in the field of parenting education.

A few national organizations (National Council on Family Relations, Family Support America, and the National Parenting Education Network) have been exploring the professionalization of the field of parenting education. However, one approach has not been forwarded as the best method to build the field.

Several states lead the nation in defining parenting educator competencies and the systems that support the profession. One of these is Minnesota, which has a 75-year history of developing quality parenting educators (Palm, personal communication, 1999) and requires an advanced degree as a qualification to become a parent educator.

Texas features a system called "Texas ROPER" (Texas Registry of Parenting Education Resources). ROPER has identified core competencies and has posted a Web site with self-learning modules for parenting educators <http://www.unt.edu/cpe/module1/pre.htm>.

North Carolina has formed consortia of over 30 parenting education organizations and agencies, and is seeking to understand what parenting educators need in the form of a professional credential. As part of the work of the North Carolina Parenting Education Network (NCPEN), there is great interest the systems that support high-quality parenting education.

In building the field of parenting education, it is critical to recognize that there are many other systems that influence policy and changes to the profession. The term "systems" is used here to describe large infrastructures (national, state, or local) that either work with one another or separately to deliver services and programs to children and families. In working to shape the field of parenting education, the first overarching question becomes: How can multiple systems work together to prepare competent parenting educators and employ the most competent to work with parents?

Defined Professional Development Systems Framework

Identifying multiple systems that affect parenting education is the first step toward a systemic professionalization of the field and the step that was selected as a starting point when conducting the research described here. To develop a system for preparing competent parenting educators, it is important to analyze the functions of the parenting educator and the relationships among the various organizations within a system.

NCPEN identified several components that frame a system of professional parenting educator preparation (DeBord, Sloop, & Bazemore, 2001). These are depicted in Figure 1. The components include:

• A shared knowledge base of competencies for parenting educators,
• A shared understanding of the complexities and scope of the field,
• A shared vision for parenting education,
• A shared understanding of the complexities of and the current trends that affect the field,
• An infrastructure of community partners that support parenting education,
• Networking of statewide and national systems that affect the profession, and
• Meeting the specific needs of families (parents in particular).
  

Figure 1.
Parenting Educators System for Professional Development

DeBord, K., Sloop, S., & Bazemore, S. (2001). Professional Development Systems for Parenting Education. North Carolina Partnership for Children Annual Smart Start Conference.

To further investigate professional development linkages and systems of parenting education, an exploration of the idea and concerns of parent educators in North Carolina was undertaken.

Using the framework depicted in Figure 1, it was anticipated that the shared insights of parenting educators could help refine the systems approach and provide direction for researchers and policy makers working to assure high-quality parenting education for all families. With a defined professional development systems framework, researchers and practitioners can work to move the field forward while designing systems that can meet the needs of professionals in parenting education.

Method

Parenting educators from six locations across North Carolina were assembled into focus groups to discuss key needs for parenting educators. Using a list of volunteers from a statewide Fatherhood Conference, contacts through Head Start, and Cooperative Extension Family and Consumer Educators, counties were identified based on their willingness to host a focus group within the given time frame with an emphasis on recruiting three separate rural and three urban. Identified group leaders sent invitations to other parent educators in their community networks and scheduled a comfortable site in which to gather.

In all focus groups, parenting educators were invited for the purpose of providing insight and information about the needs of parenting educators in North Carolina. A graduate student and an Extension professor conducted the focus groups with these convenient samples over a 2-month period in the fall of 2000. Each focus group lasted approximately 1 1/2 hours, with an informal discussion according to the themes suggested in Figure 1. The questions that were posed are based on Figure 1 and include dimensions of each component.

Scope

1. How do you define parenting education? What all is involved in parenting education?
   
   
2. Describe how you see the field of parenting education.

Collective Vision

3. If you were to dream a bit with us, what would your vision of parenting education be?
   
   
4. How could we collectively work towards this?

Knowledge and Trends

5. What has affected parenting education over time? Now? How do you keep up with the developments and new resources?

Partnerships and Networking (Systems)

6. You probably make referrals within your community. Who do you refer to? For what reasons? What other ways should we nurture partnerships to be beneficial for parents? How else do you use your networks?

Professional Development

7. One suggestion to advance our field is to develop a parenting education credential for parent educators. How do you feel about this concept?

Community Collaboration, Diversity of Systems, People

8. In communities, how do you figure out what parents need? How do you provide education while recognizing the many diversities in families?

Families

9. What do families need? How do families need information we have? How long is/should be your association with parents?
   
   
10. What are the biggest challenges in your work? What has been most valuable to your work?

Results

Across the six focus group locations, a total of 59 parenting educators participated in the voluntary groups. Every participant who attended was female. The participants were employed by various agencies, including Head Start, Cooperative Extension, child abuse organizations, Parents as Teachers, community colleges, Family Resource Centers, preschool programs, and literacy programs. Three of the locations were urban, and three of the locations were rural. Most were active parenting educators, and a few (4) were supervisors who hire parenting educators.

Their comments are summarized by the themes associated with the posed questions based on the model (Figure 1) as essential components to building a parenting education system. What emerged was an integration of the components as opposed to a hierarchy of components.

Scope of the Field

Parenting educators described parents with phrases such as: "There is a stigma attached to parenting education, and parents see parenting education as something they need when they have done something wrong."

When probed about how people in the community perceive and understand parenting education, participants defined the complexity of what they do with comments such as: "There is so much to be addressed (like insurance, budgeting, child support, taking care of the home, etc.) to make families self-sufficient . . . so many related issues that it is overwhelming . . . and there are so many partners."

Collective Vision

When asked to discuss a vision for parenting education, the focus turned to their immediate needs and their experiences during their daily work. This resulted in a practical vision to make the public aware more that parenting education is available, to get more community organizations involved, to recognize parenting educators, and to evaluate parenting education more effectively.

Advertising to create larger awareness about parenting education was noted repeatedly as a key tactic. Participants noted that marketing programs is made more difficult by the challenge of reaching "illiterate and Spanish-speaking families."

To encourage greater participation by parents, educators suggested that, "We need incentives for parents to enroll in and attend parenting education. Perhaps a coupon or voucher for free child care and then eventually a voucher for college tuition for their child would be a 'carrot' to offer." To collectively work towards such a vision, groups said that we need to overcome some of the obstacles parents experience now such as transportation by offering a "one-stop location with all the agencies in one place, or a mobile service van."

One group offered a vision of recognizing people in the field as parenting educators who have related degrees such as psychology, education, child development, and sociology. Coupled with this, it was their feeling that we need to recognize experience with children and families, and recognize those who are parents, "Like a mom who has successfully raised five kids may be very astute [as a parenting educator]." In working towards this vision, participants said, "We need some criteria for parenting educators that includes experience and ongoing training. Training should include information on adult learners, learning styles, management of learning groups, group dynamics, strategies for how to teach, teaching 'tricks,' and how to use group rules."

One group of participants called for more evaluations concerning the effectiveness of parenting education. For example, they suggested that educators ask parents how often they have used the principles they learned.

When asked how parenting educators could work collectively toward the visions, participants focused on training for parent educators, especially regarding adult learning. Some indicated a need for more tools to work with different parent personalities, some wanted to learn more about group dynamics, and others wanted to know how to keep the attention of a diverse group of people. Other participants mentioned making parenting education a state policy so that more funding would be available to parenting education or for parenting education to be mandated, for example, in cases in which parents are getting divorced.

Knowledge and Trends

Parenting educators said that they keep their professional knowledge current through:

• On-site conferences and teleconferences,
• Workshops,
• In-service training,
• Peer mentoring,
• Professional networking,
• Joining mailing lists,
• Searching the Internet, and
• Reading research-based materials, newspapers, and magazines.

Even with this degree of ongoing learning, parenting educators said they need more information that pertains to particular cultures of parents, such as Spanish-speaking, hearing impaired, illiterate, and those with children with special needs. Similarly, they noted the need for videotapes that were reality-based and multi-cultural, and dealt with other areas such as adolescence or ADHD.

Partnerships and Networking

Participants agreed that networking within their community is critical to their work. Several parenting educators attend other meetings that link to their work; however, they noted that this degree of networking is time consuming but imperative to their work. They indicated that networking helps to:

• Obtain joint funding,
• Share much needed resources,
• Recruit parents, and
• Provide information to parents at public gatherings.

Professional Development

When asked how to prepare parenting educators for this profession, participants almost always emphasized the combination of experience and education. They made positive comments regarding a parenting educator credential. One person stated the value as, "I could use a credential as a way to hire people." Another said that having a credentialing process is "one way to monitor what is going on." Another said, "There are so many credentialing systems, but I like one that focuses on parenting education."

Participants seemed interested in a parenting educator credential, hoping it would bring them professional recognition, affect their pay scale, or help them obtain benefits from their employers such as health and retirement plans. One person commented "tie this to a [salary] compensation modeling [it] after T.E.A.C.H, an educational scholarship program for child care providers that provides bonuses upon course completion." Another suggested: "There could be a testing out system for those who are already doing this." Pointing to the need to bring entities together into a total system for professional development, one person commented: "NCPEN needs to be aware of other initiatives already out there but which are disjointed."

Community Collaboration, Diversity of Systems and People

Although participants described a variety of methods to determine parents' needs (parent surveys, checklists, reviewing evaluation data, monitoring progress), to be effective with parents, they emphasized that building rapport is an essential component. One focus group noted that diversity among parents can be a strength of the parenting education program. They emphasized respecting parents for who they are. One participant noted, "You can't be judgmental. There are no right or wrong parents."

Families

Logistics such as transportation, time and resources, personal safety, and supporting parents in meeting their goals are among the greatest challenges parent educators identified. Moving a parent toward his or her own goals and creating a sense of personal empowerment is difficult, particularly "when one parent wants to learn and the other doesn't, [and] when parents argue [the challenge is even greater]."

Other noted areas of parenting education included:

• Funding and resources,
• Evaluation and accountability,
• Policy (local, state and federal),
• Opportunity to self-assess and self-study,
• Language barriers,
• Specific needs of fathers,
• Leadership,
• Corporate partnerships,
• Community integration and team-building, and
• Desire to attend an annual professional conference for parenting educators.

Discussion

Parenting educators involved in focus groups concentrated their comments on their daily work with parents. They rarely noted or had seriously considered the larger picture of parenting education. They were aware of some efforts being made in the area of professional development of parent educators, but perceived that they were disjointed. There was a common fervor among participants about the possibility of grounding the profession in a set of shared competencies and a networked system to assure that parents are guided by sound information and skilled trainers.

Based on their comments and their focus on family needs as their center, Figure 1 was revised. The revision depicts the interrelatedness of the systems (Figure 2). Families are supported by competent professionals and integrated systems shaped by supportive policy, a shared vision, professional ethics, and committed leaders in the profession. Figure 2 is meant to reflect a greater integration of components of the system.

Figure 2.
Components in Building a Professional Parenting Education System

DeBord, K. & Matta, M. A. (2001)

Participants' answers to discussion questions correspond closely with the principles of family life education (Arcus, Schvaneveldt, & Moss, 1993). These principles emphasize meeting the needs of the family throughout the life span. They also focus on use of many professions necessary to work together to meet the needs of families. These principles further emphasize that qualified educators are crucial to the successful realization of the goals of family life education.

Empirically, there are clear implications for the field of parenting education and its development into a licensed, professional discipline. Clearly, parenting education as a professionally recognized discipline is still emerging. There are few, if any, institutions of higher education that offer degrees in parenting education. There are few resources supporting the development of a professional development credential for parenting educators.

Parenting educators contribute long hours with little pay or benefits, but steps need to be taken to assure that educators are recognized as having professional status. The first of these steps is to continue to include parenting educators in shaping the field. Doherty (2000) emphasizes a collaborative model whereby input is generated from families and communities regarding their needs in building bodies of knowledge. Subsequent steps may be to move parenting education toward East's (1980) and Czaplewski and Jorgensen's (1993) model of professional development while getting input all along the way from practitioners as well as families.

Cooperative Extension is in a prime and unique position to advance the field of parenting education. Extension, already fully integrated in over 3500 counties throughout the nation, can use this information to locally affect parenting educational programming by ensuring that they are developing an integrated system to serve families and that attention is paid to those who serve in the parenting educator role.

Many Extension Family and Consumer Educators are beginning to form local parent educator networks to build their local infrastructures to support parents as well as the professionals delivering services. Together, those who currently work with families can build the field while monitoring those ensuring that they have qualifications to address individual needs, appropriately refer families for needed services, and teach parents using multiple outreach methods while applying research-based literature about child and family development.

One approach is to work collectively through Extension to build the infrastructure and capacity of the Extension educator workforce. Applying some of these recommendations in a system as large as extension can be the first step towards a total system across the nation. Some recommendations to consider include:

1. Explore a credentialing process for parenting educators by gathering feedback through parenting networks as a system is built. Consider a multi-level approach, with both college and non-college entry points using both educational and experiential information to guide the process.
   
   
2. Build educational programs for parenting educators that are undergirded by a common core of knowledge expanding upon the DeBord, et al. (2001) work.
   
   
3. Integrate systems by ensuring that parenting education organizations pay for or reimburse employees for the credentialing application fee and appropriately compensate educators once credentialed.
   
   
4. Professionalize the field by improving the working conditions of parenting educators, addressing such constraints as those regarding time, money, facilities, and safety issues.
   
   
5. Build a network among parent educators to ensure that educators are linked to share ideas and stay current with the developments in the field. Encourage parenting educators to develop and work towards a shared vision.
   
   
6. Design public awareness campaigns to inform communities about the value of parenting education.
   
   
7. Encourage parenting networks to collectively ensure that newly instituted policies affecting parenting education are grounded in a core knowledge base to assure quality outreach to all parents.

References

Arcus, M. E., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Moss, J.J. (1993). The nature of family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.

Czaplewski, S. R. & Jorgensen, S. R. (1993). The professionalization of family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.

DeBord, K., Bowers, D. Goddard, W., Kobbe, A. M., Kirby, J., Mulroy, M., Myers-Walls, J., Ozretich, R. (2001). Preparing parenting educators: The complexities, the competencies, and the challenges. Rochester, NY: National Council on Family Relations.

DeBord, K., Sloop, S., Bazemore, S. (2001). Professional development systems for parenting education. North Carolina Partnership for Children Annual Smart Start Conference.

Doherty, W.J. (2000). Family sciences and family citizenship: Toward a model of community partnership with families. Family Relations, 49, 319-325.

East, M. (1980). Home economics: Past, present, and future. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hildreth, G. J. & Sugawara, A. I. (1993). Ethnicity and diversity in family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.

Kagan, S. L. (1995). The changing face of parenting education. Adapted from: On building parental competence: The nature of contracts and commitments. The challenge of parenting in the 90's. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed382406.html

Merkowitz, R. F., Jelley, K., Collins, E, Arkin, C. F. (1997). Backpack buddies: A newsletter series for parents. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 35(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/iw3.html

NPEN (2000). National Parenting Education Network [On-line]. Available at: http://www.npen.org/

Weiss, H. B. (1990). Beyond parens patriae: Building policies and programs to care for our own and others' children. Children and Youth Services Review, 12, 269-284.

Zoline, S. S. & Jason, L. A. (1985). Preventive parent education for high school students. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14(2), 119-123.

Building Successful Campus and Field Faculty Teams

Okechukwu M. Ukaga
Executive Director
Northeast Minnesota Sustainable Development Partnership
University of Minnesota
Cloquet, Minnesota
Internet Address: ukaga001@tc.umn.edu

Mike R. Reichenbach
Extension Educator and Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Departments of Forest Resources and Wood and Paper Science
Cloquet Forestry Center
Cloquet, Minnesota

Charles R. Blinn
Extension Specialist and Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Department of Forest Resources
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota

Deborah M. Zak
District Director, NW District
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Crookston, Minnesota

William D. Hutchison
Professor and Extension Entomologist
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Department of Entomology
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota

Nancy J. Hegland
Extension Educator and Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Faribault, Minnesota

Introduction

In its 1999 report, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities recommended that universities organize their resources to better engage and serve their clientele. "In the end, the clear evidence is that, with the resources and superbly qualified professors and staff on our campuses, we can organize our institutions to serve needs in a more coherent and effective way; …we can do better" (Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999). This call is particularly relevant to the Cooperative Extension Service, given its long history of public outreach, engagement and service (Phipps & Osborne, 1989; Lansdale, 1986; Cochrane, 1979).

One challenge Extension faces in addressing this issue is a dichotomy that often exists between campus-based and field-based faculty. This includes differences in approaches for determining clientele needs, areas of focus, operational support mechanisms, and procedures for reporting to and evaluation by administrators. In this article, "campus-based faculty" refers to faculty with and without formal Extension appointments, but who all have strong ties to, and greater identification with, the university through departments. "Field-based faculty" refers to faculty with ties to the university through county or local Extension partners.

Beginning in the spring of 1998, the University of Minnesota Extension Service began an in-depth process to revisit its purpose and impact, and to identify organizational changes that should be made to create a more effective educational delivery system (Casey, C., letter to University of Minnesota Extension faculty and staff from the Interim Dean and Director of the University of Minnesota Extension Service, July 24, 1999). Within this context, a major issue addressed was how to build successful campus and field faculty teams in order to better meet clientele needs.

This question is not only of interest to the Extension Service, but also within many other settings at several universities. For example, at separate multi-university workshops hosted by the University of Nebraska and by the North Dakota State University, participants wrestled with the issue of building successful campus-field faculty teams (Ukaga, personal communication, January 6, 2000). Oregon State University created an institutional framework for building campus-field faculty teams by redefining scholarship, giving field faculty professional academic ranks, and adopting the same promotion and tenure process for both campus and field faculty (Schauber et al., 1998; Weiser, 1994).

This article explores the educational and research roles of campus and field faculty at the University of Minnesota and the unique attributes and obstacles of their respective working environments and identifies opportunities for building appropriate teams to more effectively address educational needs. We believe that similar opportunities exist elsewhere within the United States.

Methods

The issues, challenges, and benefits associated with creating campus-field faculty teams were identified from the following Minnesota sources:

1. Individual interviews,
2. Telephone survey of field faculty, and
3. Focus group interviews/discussions.

Information from the campus faculty perspective was initially collected in 1999 through individual face-to-face interviews of selected campus faculty. The interviewees were asked in an open-ended fashion to provide their thoughts on unique differences between campus and field environments ("What is it about the environment for campus faculty that field faculty may not understand?"). A summary of all ideas was generated and given to several campus faculty reviewers to critique and comment on. Based on input from the reviewers, the summary was revised.

Information about the field faculty environment was summarized based on data collected through a telephone survey of 84 Extension field faculty by Extension Administrative Fellows (Hutchison & Hegland, 1999). Both summaries were combined into a white paper reviewed by a focus group of campus and field faculty participating in a University of Minnesota professional development workshop. Information from the focused discussions was used to crosscheck and augment data from the previous interviews and surveys.

Results

Data revealed some interesting commonalities and differences among campus- and field-based faculty with regard to their working environment (Table 1). These observations have implications for how we build and maintain successful campus-field faculty teams.

While both campus- and field-based faculty are interested in solving problems, factors such as the types of staff hired, work responsibilities, and evaluation systems result in different approaches to the development and dissemination of knowledge.

Table 1.
Summary of Responses from University of Minnesota Campus- and Field-Based Faculty Regarding Factors Associated with Their Respective Work Environments

Making the Connection

Field Faculty

Results from the 1999 telephone survey of field faculty (n=84) indicated, that for the majority of the discipline-based specializations, there was a healthy relationship between most field-based Extension educators and their respective campus faculty contacts (Hutchison & Hegland, 1999). Several field-based faculty also mentioned good working relationships with faculty at regional research and outreach centers in Minnesota

Of the three organizational features that support programming efforts at the county level, interaction with campus faculty ranked highest, followed by specialization support (i.e., discipline specialty group) and regional clusters (i.e., partnerships with nearby counties to pool educator resources). In response to an open-ended question, "What factor or resource in Extension best supports your work?," campus-based faculty and field-based Extension educator colleagues were mentioned equally as often. Other factors frequently mentioned included research-based information and specialization training, both of which also rely on campus faculty involvement.

Campus Faculty

The survey of campus faculty provides additional insights into how successful campus-field faculty interactions can be developed and the following ideas about how to build a good working relationship with field faculty:

1. Respect for the ability and skills of field-based Extension educators,
2. Common goals build relationship,
3. Initiative to make and build the connection between campus and field faculty,
4. Mutual respect, and
5. Working on enterprises of mutual interest whose success depends on close professional relationships.

In response to, "What changes would improve the relationship with field faculty?," campus faculty suggested the following strategies:

1. Establish formal methods to link campus and field-based staff,
2. Create opportunities to mix, mingle, share, and discuss ideas, needs, research, and scheduling,
3. Improve communication linkages,
4. Provide a program-planning process that involves both campus and field faculty to address both crisis issues and to develop programs that address emerging needs,
5. Offer orientation for new faculty and re-orientation for existing faculty, especially on who to contact and where to make connections, and
6. Examine reward systems and institutional structure. There is a need for creating more formal ties through institutional change.

Additional focus groups and personal interviews with campus faculty provided several suggestions that field faculty can use to build successful one-time or long-term relationships with campus faculty:

1. Involve campus faculty early in most activities rather than calling them at the 11^th hour so that they can place relevant dates on their calendar and provide input about the program, speakers, handouts, and budget. As most campus-based faculty do not have Extension appointments and outreach may be just one of their many responsibilities, be flexible when making a request.
   
   
2. Make initial contacts via e-mail, and then follow up through a phone call.
   
   
3. Have a specific role in mind when making the contact with a campus-based faculty member. Rather than ask, "I would like you to come speak at the upcoming XYZ meeting," provide some background about the meeting, audience, and other presentations, and ask "I would like you to speak about the topic ABC at upcoming meeting XYZ because your topic fits in the following ways."
   
   
4. Try to target inquiries. Most campus departments have Web pages that list faculty and their expertise. If you are unsure whom to contact, check the appropriate Web site or directory to make sure you are contacting the right person.
   
   
5. Recognize that travel support may be needed to get campus-based faculty off-campus.
   
   
6. Be willing to convene and facilitate local groups, pulling in campus expertise where needed. Recognize that it may be difficult to get campus faculty to travel to the field for multiple planning sessions. Serving as the link back to campus can be very helpful.
   
   
7. When on-campus, stop by appropriate campus units, and develop/maintain contacts with relevant campus faculty.
   
   
8. Remember that a campus faculty member with whom you have worked successfully in one area may be willing and able to help facilitate contacts in another.
   
   
9. Employ telephone conference calls as a convenient way for campus faculty to participate in planning committees.
   
   
10. When conducting a broad-based educational needs assessment, involve faculty from the relevant college(s) to help design the assessment so that all potential audiences that might be served by Extension are recognized.

Discussion

Our results indicate that both campus faculty and field faculty will continue to benefit by working together. The roles for the two faculty groups are very complementary, and, by working together, they can create much stronger research and outreach programs. Successful working relationships can be formed and maintained by recognizing the many ways in which faculty are complementary while also being aware of each other's constraints.

Field faculty can be a significant link for campus faculty in identifying current and emerging research needs through their vast network of contacts and day-to-day association with on-the-ground clients. In addition to identifying the "needs," field faculty know who is most interested locally in the work being done (which can help with the process of identifying cooperators and potential sources of funding). They can also help make contacts that can provide input to campus faculty to steer the research direction to make sure that it meets local needs.

Field faculty can help facilitate local groups, which can be very difficult for campus faculty to do because of factors such as distance, time conflicts, and travel budget constraints. Keeping campus faculty member(s) informed and involved makes it easier for them to participate in those projects. In many cases, they could not participate otherwise.

A primary role of field faculty is to work in teams to provide educational leadership for programs that meet significant needs of youth and adults in communities. These field faculty work primarily with locally identified programs based on local needs. The success of these programs often depends on the involvement of campus faculty in providing research-based information, program design and delivery.

Whether the goal is to bring field needs to campus faculty or to seek local assistance for delivering campus programs, communication between the supervisors of campus and field faculty can help build field-campus faculty teams. This means that universities should include a connection between those supervisors. This is happening at the University of Minnesota through monthly meetings of Department Heads and Extension District Directors.

Recently, the Department Heads for Forest Resources and Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology suggested that field-based faculty should be experts in one or more subject areas related to their work (Ek & Perry, 2000). Building this depth of expertise will help field faculty increase opportunities for interaction with campus faculty. Further, Perry suggested that field faculty should seek out those campus faculty who are "synthetic" By synthetic, he meant faculty who have demonstrated scholarship ability or expressed interest in areas of integration and application (Boyer, 1990). This may make it easier to develop effective campus-field faculty teams.

In summary, regardless of a university's current organizational structure, improved campus and field faculty interaction can be achieved if all faculty:

• Are proactive in identifying common objectives,
• Take initiative in identifying mutually beneficial work, and
• Are diligent in creating a body of work that is recognized in both field and campus-based cultures.

Ultimately, the success of the collaborative effort will depend in large part on the degree to which there is a shared vision for the organization (Senge, 1990; Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). After all, "a shared vision is an organization's foresight that is bound together by a common purpose or goal," and "an organization's visioning process can slow down or stop if diverse views overcome the programming focus and cause conflict" (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000).

References

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Special report. Princeton, NJ, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The development of American agriculture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Ek, A. & J. Perry (2000). Outreach Program Retreat, University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources, Jun 19-20, 2000. Cloquet Forestry Center, Cloquet, MN.

Hutchison, W. D. & N. J. Hegland (1999) Extension educator telephone survey-1999. Unpublished Memo, 25 pp. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999). Returning to our roots: the engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington DC.

Lansdale, B. M. (1986). Master farmer: Teaching small farmers management. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Minarovic, R. E. & J. P. Mueller (2000). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 38(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html

Phipps, L. J. & Osborne, E. (1989). Handbook on agricultural education in public schools. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. Doubleday, NY.

Schauber, A., Aldrich-Markham, S., Olsen, J., Gredler, G, Olsen, P.,& & Reichenbach, M. (1998). Defining scholarship for county Extension agents. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/iw1.html

Weiser, C. J. (1994). The value system of a university: rethinking scholarship. College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

4-H Programs with a Focus on Including Youth with Disabilities

Mitzi Stumpf
State Extension Associate
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Internet Address: mitzi_stumpf@ncsu.edu

Karla Henderson
Professor and Chair
Internet Address: karla@email.unc.edu

Karen Luken
Research Associate

Deb Bialeschki
Professor

Mary Casey II
Research Assistant
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Inclusion involves creating environments where all people feel they are welcome and can access meaningful involvement. Because 4-H serves a broad spectrum of youth, people with disabilities should be included in the myriad of programs offered. Disability should not be a deterrent to any young person or adult volunteer who wishes to be involved with 4-H.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 mandates that programs accommodate people with disabilities. The ADA specifies that no one shall be denied opportunities, segregated, or otherwise discriminated against based on their disabilities. The outcomes of this law are yet to be fully articulated and enforced, but the implications for the need for inclusion for people with disabilities are clear. This article describes the rationale for inclusive 4-H programs and presents some preliminary information about the efforts being undertaken in North Carolina to facilitate inclusive 4-H programs.

Definitions and Background

Many people have impairments (i.e., a temporary or permanent diminishment in strength) in their physiological functioning (e.g., they need to wear eyeglasses) that may be inconvenient but do not interfere with their ability to manage their lives. Disability, on the other hand, is the inability to perform one or more major life activities of self-care, range of motion, manipulation, communication, learning, working, cognitive processing, or maintaining relationships (Dattillo & Williams, 1999).

Disabilities may include a wide range of developmental, psychiatric, and physical problems that may be chronic or acute. A handicap is a limitation that varies from situation to situation based on the environment and the individual (Dattillo & Williams, 1999). For example, a person who uses a wheelchair may be handicapped in some sports, but generally would not be handicapped when playing video games.

Other terms are associated with disabilities that may be useful to understand. Stereotypes are often associated with disabilities. Stereotypes generally involve the beliefs that people associate with characteristics about certain groups. Stereotypes may be positive or negative and may be somewhat accurate or entirely inaccurate (Dattilo & Williams, 1999). Prejudice involves the development of a judgment, irrespective of that individual's rights, that may lead to damage in some way. Discrimination involves making a distinction categorically rather than individually about a person and then acting differently toward that person than someone not in that same category. Negative attitudes often lead to negative behaviors that may be manifested explicitly or implicitly (Dattilo & Williams, 1999). For example, segregation results in the separation or isolation of a group or an individual, and it often results in different treatment for a group.

Language can be a subtle way to focus on differences among people. The use of language can be particularly important when addressing the integrity and potential of youth and adults with disabilities.

"People first" language is preferred because it literally places the emphasis on the person and not the difference (Dattilo & Williams, 1999). Identifying the person before the disability is important (e.g., a person with a visual impairment rather than a blind person) because it reminds us that our first concern is with the person and not the disability. In addition, it is important to avoid grouping people by medical diagnosis (e.g., the retarded or the deaf).

Language can be used to communicate dignity and respect. Identifying people who are not disabled as "people without disabilities" is preferable to saying they are "normal." Paying attention to language is important if inclusion is to occur and youth and adults are to feel comfortable in Extension programs.

Inclusion means that people with disabilities have the same opportunities for involvement in meaningful and satisfying experiences as afforded other segments of the population. Sometimes people with disabilities will choose to participate with people with disabilities, but in other cases they may want to participate in programs designed for the general public.

Rather than offering special programs only for people with disabilities, the trend today is toward providing supports to increase inclusive opportunities within all programs open to the public. For most individuals, the elimination of physical and social barriers reduces the need for special programs. This inclusion, however, involves more than just placing people with disabilities into a group. It involves social interaction as well as physical integration. Providing support expresses an acceptance of a person and their abilities and helps the individual participate at his or her level of independence. Inclusion means altering the environment more than forcing the person with a disability to change.

4-H and Inclusion

People with disabilities have been an area of limited study in Extension research. McBreen (1994) described what Extension staff should know about the ADA. He suggested that educating the public about people with disabilities and ADA was a vital role of Extension and that this legislation would have far-reaching effects. McBreen emphasized that Extension staff would have to address issues of facilities, marketing, decision making, faculty knowledge, resources, policies, and evaluation.

Tormoehlen and Field (1994) described a project at Purdue University that examined the rationale and outcomes of 4-H programs aimed at getting more youth with disabilities involved. Another Extension program to address health issues was described by Williams (1997) and included a "Bustin the Barriers" program aimed at disability education. A recent survey of Pennsylvania Extension professionals about diversity issues indicated that 91% of staff strongly agreed, agreed, or slightly agreed that "physically challenged individuals" should be involved in 4-H, and 89% believed that "mentally challenged young people" should be involved (Ingram, 1999).

North Carolina's 4-H Inclusion Project

The issue of youth with disabilities and 4-H involvement is not new, but evaluation of programs that have been responsive is not widespread in the literature. Because of this scarcity of resources and information about successful practices, a proposal was written and awarded to North Carolina Extension by the North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities to undertake a 4-H inclusion project.

The mission of the "Intentionally Inclusive 4-H Club Program" is to purposefully create accessible 4-H environments and engage communities to be better able to meet a variety of needs. The program is designed not only to benefit people who have disabilities or who will acquire disabilities, but also to benefit everyone in the community. The purpose of this program is not just to place people in 4-H clubs, but also to make inclusion a philosophy of 4-H. Inclusion occurs through proper planning, preparation, and supports.

During the first year of the pilot program, a collaborative team joined forces, including:

• Professionals from the disability field,
• Parents of youth with disabilities,
• Community volunteers,
• Youth with disabilities and non-disabled youth, and
• County and state 4-H professionals.

Together they developed a fun-filled experiential curriculum for youth ages 9 to 12 years, "Shine Up and Step Out."

"Shine Up and Step Out" is a curriculum designed to raise awareness among 9 to 12 year-old youth about people with disabilities and disabling illnesses. The 12-lesson curriculum features activities such as navigating an obstacle course while simulating mobility and vision impairments and doing a site evaluation for accessibility. Several of the lessons emphasize empathy, including gaining a better understanding of their friends and classmates who have disabilities. Youth also learn etiquette and people-first language through role-playing.

The first-year pilot program also developed three new inclusive 4-H marketing pieces. These colorful and interactive media tools illustrated the desire of 4-H staff to work with all youth and engage volunteer support. Through marketing, staff in the NC 4-H program hoped to actively invite youth and volunteers with disabilities into all of its program components.

In the second year, applications were solicited from county 4-H staff who wanted to test the materials and develop training and resource opportunities. Staff received funding to hire a part-time program assistant. The three counties of Wake, Wilson, and Bertie participated in the program, and the following summary provides examples of what they achieved in the initial year. The next 2 years will add additional counties with more data collected regarding ways to make 4-H programs inclusive.

Inclusion in the North Carolina Experience

Each of the three counties selected approached the inclusion project in slightly different ways. Data were collected by in-depth interviews with county agents and program assistants, telephone conversations with these individuals, and examining newly developed written materials.

In these conversations, the evaluators were interested in determining all the activities undertaken within the county to address inclusion. The materials developed in the county were examined to ascertain how they were contributing to the county's overall plan for making 4-H more inclusive.

In finding what was done in these pilot counties, state 4-H staff hoped to determine what possible models might be effective in other counties in the state. The following sections describe each county's initial approach to inclusion. This information combined with additional data collected in the next 2 years will provide a baseline of examples that might be used successfully in other parts of the United States.

Bertie County

Bertie County applied for the inclusion grant because staff saw an opportunity to expand their programming and to gain the knowledge necessary for reaching new members. In the rural sparsely populated county, Extension staff faced challenges of limited economic resources and support services within the county. 4-H became a primary contact for inclusion information in this county. Bertie County's efforts toward inclusion awareness reached over 600 people, used more than 250 teens and adults to assist with inclusion projects, and trained 65 volunteers in inclusion awareness.

The first step taken by staff was to identify county partners. Over the course of several months, they identified five primary partners:

1. Bertie County Board of Education—Special Needs Program;
2. Bertie County Schools—Exceptional Children's Program;
3. A retired educator with experience with exceptional children and member of the State Extension Advisory Council;
4. A staff psychologist at Roanoke-Chowan Human Services; and
5. Three representatives of the Compensatory Education Program at Martin Community College, Bertie Campus.

As the inclusion efforts developed, they formed other partnerships, including the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council, the JP Long Cougars, and the county schools with whom they collaborated for special programs.

Bertie County developed two useful resources to support their teen and adult volunteers. The first was a program kit with the necessary materials for teaching the inclusion curriculum designed through the state 4-H office. The second resource was an extensive in-house collection of reference materials. The collection included:

• A staff-developed, color-coded dictionary of disabilities and inclusion techniques,
• Reference materials from the Department of Education,
• Articles from the Internet, and
• A list of Internet resources on disability-related subjects.

The resources also included an array of marketing materials to distribute at school (through the assistance of the school secretary) with the parents being the primary target audience.

The Bertie County staff found the curriculum useful with multiple applications. For example, to increase parental involvement and acceptance, the staff used a curriculum activity as an icebreaker when presenting inclusion to parents. They found that the activity educated the parents on 4-H's ability to provide inclusive programming for youth outside of the inclusion curriculum. Parents often demonstrated willingness for their young people to attend other 4-H programs.

Volunteers also presented the curriculum in several retreat-type settings. The retreats were educational not only for youth, but for the volunteers who recognized that they were more tolerant of unusual behaviors when they had been informed about the nature of disabilities. Consequently, 4-H staff tried to provide information to volunteers about their audience before they presented programs. Because of this program, the positive attitudes about the need for including people with disabilities in all aspects of the 4-H increased.

Wake County

In urban Wake County, approximately 50 youth were involved in the Horticulture Program that was the main basis for use of the inclusion curriculum. The Horticulture Program consisted of club meetings once a month and a Middle School Program that reached 30 youth with some crossover from other clubs. The Middle School Program began in response to a need for faculty education and to provide a learning experience for youth with and without disabilities. About half of the youth in these groups had identified disabilities.

Wake County staff attributed the social relationships that developed among the youth and the leadership of teens in the program as the keys to success. Teens as leaders were particularly important to the inclusion curriculum in Wake County because their involvement provided the leadership to encourage individual performance among all the 4-H participants. In the summer, four teens were trained for the day camp program. Additionally, the summer horticulture day camp involved 47 youth, including 12 young people who had identified disabilities.

Several newsletter articles were published concerning inclusion. These articles, published through ARC and the Autism Society, reached over 1000 people in Wake County. Public events concerning 4-H Inclusion were held at Exploris Museum (a children's museum) and through the Wake County Youth Garden Contest.

One major problem faced by Wake County was that they have low turnout for programs marketed as "inclusion." Therefore, they incorporated elements of the inclusion curriculum into their New Leader Training. They found this approach to be a successful way of educating their leaders without the stigma that is often attached to attending "sensitivity training."

A second problem involved program leaders who were hesitant to hold inclusion workshops at their facilities for fear of liability issues (e.g., the horse programs). Education for 4-H program leaders is ongoing to help them make decisions based on current liability laws while working within the ADA guidelines.

Wayne County

In Wayne County, there are approximately 4000 youth involved in the 4-H program, with 500 students each day in after-school programs, including outreach in communities. They regularly conduct programs including a Saturday Academy for the school system, enrichment and academic programs, and retreats. They also have a science-based enrichment curriculum where they train teachers who can then take the curriculum back to the classroom.

Wayne County incorporated the inclusion curriculum into their pre-existing programs and created several new programs. 4-H staff integrated the curriculum into camps, retreats, and after-school programs.

In addition, they had a pre-existing structure of TRY (Teens Reaching Youth) teams who mastered the activities from the curriculum and took the curriculum back into the community. Staff found that youth were more receptive to learning the information when presented by a teen rather than an adult. Although the county used the TRY teams for several curriculums, they noted how much the teams enjoyed using the inclusion curriculum.

The county has several internal support structures for their TRY teams to contribute to their success. One of these support mechanisms is the use of evaluations that give data on team performance and the program's success including the activities used. Another support was the development of program kits. One of these kits included the necessary materials for the inclusion curriculum so that the team could concentrate on delivering the material rather than gathering it.

Conclusions and Discussion

Each of the counties took a different approach to the 4-H inclusion opportunities. These differences were laudable in that each county addressed its particular situation in determining how best to disseminate information and address inclusion issues. The nature of the county as urban or rural resulted in different challenges.

The focus of this first year in the counties was primarily on basic education about disability issues and the value of inclusion. This awareness was focused on adult leaders, parents, teen leaders, and 4-H members. Materials were widely distributed to 4-H volunteers (including adults and youth), to parents, and to members of the general public. In addition to the materials that were available, individual counties also developed their own materials and resources to assist with the project. Leader (adults and youth) training was a central core for distributing materials and beginning the process of inclusion in the counties.

The staff noted that having an individual, the program assistant, devoted to the work of inclusion in the county provided a critical "jump start" for initiating inclusion in 4-H. Another key area that enhanced the success of the inclusion programs in each county was the connections made with other community groups that either had resources or were interested in disability issues. Partnerships were important for promoting this program as well as gaining community support and awareness.

The county and state staff learned more about inclusion during this initial year of the program. Understanding the nature of disabilities and the stigma and stereotypes associated with physical, mental, and emotional impairments requires ongoing training and education. The development of curriculum materials and the training of adult and youth volunteers are only the beginning of more opportunities that might be pursued to assure that 4-H programs are inclusive.

The number of individuals with disabilities in 4-H programs did not seem to change appreciably in the first year. These numbers, however, were difficult to precisely determine due to possible invisible disabilities and county reluctance to track disabilities. The focus in the first year was on awareness, but future years within these counties must also focus on how to actually get individuals with disabilities integrated into existing 4-H programs. The progression of information must move beyond awareness to recruitment.

Additional materials will be needed for those counties that have done the training with the original materials. These new materials need to focus on recruitment and retention, age appropriate activities, developing partnerships in communities, and training for advocacy. Working with other community groups is essential if this 4-H Inclusion program is to make a difference and have an impact.

For inclusion to become a focus of 4-H, all staff in Extension must be trained and must become advocates for inclusion. Although it was helpful to have an individual dedicated to doing the initial work, all county staff and policy makers must "buy in" to the concept and to the curriculum.

North Carolina 4-H has taken an initial step to focus on the spirit of ADA beyond meeting the requirements of the law. Future years of this project will provide more information helpful to others who are committed to disability inclusion issues for adults and young people.

References

Dattilo, J. & Williams, R. (1999). Inclusion and leisure service delivery. In E. Jackson & T. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Ingram, P. D. (1999). Attitudes of Extension professionals toward diversity education in 4-H programs. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 37(1). Available at: www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a3.html

McBreen, D. (1994). What Cooperative Extension should know about Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(4). Available at: www.joe.org/joe/1994december/a1.html

Tormoehlen, R. & Field, W.E. (1994). A perfect fit: Involving youth with disabilities in 4-H. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(1). Available at: www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a4.html

William, D. K. (1997). The decision for health initiatives--Successful implementation strategies. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 35(3). Available at: www.joe.org/joe/1997june/iw2.html

The Challenges Associated with Change in 4-H/Youth Development

Renee K. McKee
Specialist, 4-H Leadership/Volunteerism
Internet Address: Renee.mckee@four-h.purdue.edu

B. Allen Talbert
Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education
Internet Address: btalbert@purdue.edu

Susan J. Barkman
Professor, 4-H/Youth Development
Internet Address: sbarkman@four-h.purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

The Cooperative Extension Service through the years has operated as if it were the same thing to all people and has been criticized for becoming too comfortable with a group of loyal followers rather than concerning itself with a new and changing customer pool. Extension's success at building an alliance of individuals who are willing to address specialized needs and support programs targeted toward specific audiences may well determine its future (Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant, 1996).

A 1989 National Initiative Task Force on Youth-at-Risk suggested that Extension needed to begin rethinking the way it conducted business and work more effectively to address the needs of today's young people. How well Extension is able to identify and overcome both real and perceived barriers affects the ability of Extension to deal more effectively with critical youth needs. This also involves significant individual, institutional, and organizational change (Rennekamp & Gerhard, 1992).

There are tensions and fears associated with change. Change in the Extension System is a collaborative effort among the Extension educator and lay leaders, the learner or learner groups and systems. Individual attitudes toward change and personal beliefs about the opportunities for change and growth seem to be critical factors in organizational development, yet scholars have tended to fail to recognize their importance (Silverberg, Betts, Huebner, & Cota-Robles, 1996).

Purpose/Objectives

Research was conducted to document and interpret current beliefs toward proactive change of staff and volunteers involved in determining policy for the county-level 4-H/ Youth Development Program in Indiana. The study was designed to provide baseline data on the relationships and interactions among volunteers who develop policy for local 4-H Programs and the professional staff with whom they work. The baseline data adds to the body of knowledge that the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service uses to determine in-service needs for professional staff and volunteers, resulting in a more open and inclusive Indiana 4-H/Youth Development Program. To accomplish the purpose, the following guiding research questions were employed.

1. What attitudinal similarities or differences were found among staff with extreme scores on the Organizational Change Orientation Scale© (OCOS)?
2. What attitudinal similarities or differences were found among staff and the members of the volunteer 4-H policy-making groups with which these staff members work?
3. Did the attitudes of the members of local 4-H policy-making groups reflect or parallel those of the staff member assigned to work with them?
4. Were volunteer 4-H policy-making groups resistant to working with at-risk or new populations in the community?
5. In communities where individuals with nonfunctional OCOS© scores were found, what types of reasons were given for the 4-H/Youth Development Program not being more open to change and innovation?

Methods/Procedures

The population for this research was defined as 4-H/Youth Development Educators and the local 4-H policy-making board members with whom they worked. These individuals are responsible for writing and implementing 4-H program policies and guidelines on a local level. Purposeful sampling was used in determining the individuals selected for case study analysis because it allowed for the selection of information rich cases for in-depth study (Bernard, 1995; Patton, 1990).

The phenomena were studied by employing a mixed design, three-phase approach. In Phase 1, a quantitative measure, the 36-item Organizational Change Orientation Scale© (Jones & Bearley, 1986), was administered to each of the 97 4-H/Youth Staff members in Indiana (82 or 84.5% completed and returned) to assess their individual approaches to handling organizational change. The Organizational Change Orientation Scale© (OCOS©) uses a six-point Likert-type scale format and was developed by Jones and Bearley (1986) to assess the tendencies of individuals to behave in predictable ways in response to change.

Phase 2 consisted of audiotaped, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with nine staff members, three from each of Jones and Bearley's (1986) three categories of how people respond to change as indicated by the OCOS© inventory. These interviews helped the researcher gain perspective to ascertain whether there was a relationship between 4-H staff members' attitudes towards change, the volunteers with whom they work, and the openness and innovativeness of the local 4-H program. Using the OCOS© inventory alone would have limited participant responses and failed to provide a complete understanding of the structure and essence of their beliefs and value systems.

During Phase 3, audiotaped group interviews in each of the participating staff members' counties were conducted with the volunteer members of the 4-H policy-making board. Volunteers attending the selected meetings comprised the interview groups with a range in the number of participants from five to 22. To assure anonymity of volunteer responses, the local staff were not in attendance during the interviews. These group interviews provided additional high-quality data allowing the researcher the opportunity to look for consistencies or discrepancies in the beliefs of the staff member and the volunteers.

The triangulation of data methods and types allowed the use of different "lenses" or perspectives and offered not only a more holistic view of each community setting but also offered cross-validity checks, thus strengthening the study's usefulness for other settings (Asher, 1992; Marshall & Rossman, 1995, Morse, 1994; Patton, 1990).

Findings

The analysis of multiple data sources (OCOS© inventory, in-depth and group interviews, ES 237 Statistical Reports, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, 1995; 1999 and minutes from local 4-H policy-making meetings) led the researcher to develop the following conclusions.

Extreme Organizational Change Orientation Scale© Scores

Extreme scores were not discovered when the OCOS© was administered to the Purdue Cooperative Extension Service staff. Rather, scoring tendencies were discovered and utilized to sort individuals into three groups:

• Those who had a tendency to embrace change,
• Those who exhibited multi-directional scores and tended to be selective about the changes they chose to support, and
• Those whose tendency was toward neutrality (neither supportive nor resistive) regarding change.

Those who had a tendency to embrace change were able to indicate an approach they used when introducing change into the local 4-H Program. In each case, the educators identified key individuals with whom they would first discuss a proposed change. These individuals would then work with them to introduce the change to the local 4-H policy-making group. The reason given for this approach was that the volunteers began to "own" the idea, rather than it being one brought in from "outside" the local community.

Educators who were selective about change openly discussed (with their 4-H policy-making group) their hesitance to introduce change at the local 4-H Program level. Each discussed how uncomfortable they personally felt with change, yet acknowledged that change was necessary in order to move the 4-H Program forward.

Those educators who were neutral to change exhibited differing attitudes that would, as a group, still follow the Jones and Bearley (1986) description as inactive, neutral, submissive, and nonproductive. These would be labeled as nonfunctional attitudes or behaviors. The educator who exhibited the highest score in the nonfunctional category of the OCOS© inventory also exhibited the highest score discovered on the dysfunctional scale of the instrument. This educator was generally resistive to change or new initiatives for the 4-H Program and described behaviors that would indicate an operational tendency as a "gatekeeper" of information.

Attitudinal Similarities and Differences Among Staff and Volunteers

There was evidence that the attitudes of volunteer policy-makers did tend to parallel those of the staff member they worked with (especially when increasing the involvement of youth in the 4-H Program). Members of the volunteer groups believed, as did staff, in the "goodness" of the 4-H/Youth Development Program. Volunteers tended to emphasize that involvement in the 4-H Program was important to them and that youth currently involved greatly benefit.

While desiring increased membership, these groups did not necessarily have a plan or vision for fulfilling this wish. They did not typically discuss new ways of reaching youth beyond the traditional club model, although a few of them did exhibit slight awareness of 4-H outreach efforts.

Volunteers echoed the sentiments of the staff member they worked with in regard to future funding for the 4-H Program. If the staff member felt funding was an issue, it was discovered that the volunteers had similar concerns. In the three cases where staff members felt that future funding was not a concern, little discussion regarding funding was generated during the group interviews, nor evidenced in minutes of meetings. Two educators mentioned the procurement of grant funds for special programs but did not deem it necessary to discuss these grants or programs with the 4-H policy-making group.

Resistance to Working with New Audiences of Youth

There was no evidence to suggest that the volunteer groups in this study were resistant to working with new youth audiences. Rather, it appeared that educators had not challenged volunteers to consider new or different delivery methods (designed to broaden the youth audience) as part of the 4-H Program responsibility at the local level. In one instance, the educator made it clear that, while he viewed his responsibility to youth development as extending beyond the traditional 4-H club model, he did not believe that same responsibility had been extended to the local 4-H Council.

Reasons Given for Not Being More Open to Change and Innovation

Professional Staff and Their Interactions with Volunteers

Professional staffing patterns was one reason discovered for the 4-H/Youth Development Program not being more open to change and innovation. Some individuals felt "torn" between serving the traditional 4-H club program and new statewide initiatives that target specific youth audiences. Some educators worked as information "gatekeepers." They did not see the necessity of sharing with volunteers their ideas, work with new audiences, or collaborative efforts with other youth serving agencies. Some staff also implied they would be "taken to task" by volunteers if it was perceived that their work efforts beyond the traditional 4-H club model hampered progress in, or commitment to, the traditional realm.

Lack of Parental Involvement

Volunteer group participants repeatedly expressed their belief that parents' lack of time, knowledge, and understanding of the 4-H Program were factors that inhibited new youth from being involved in 4-H Programs. They further implied that youth were not successful in the 4-H Program if they did not have parental support. In several instances, a reference to family life styles the volunteers perceived to be different from their own was named a cause for lack of youth involvement in, and commitment to, the 4-H Program.

Implications such as these indicate some volunteers' lack of knowledge and understanding of societal changes. It also suggests the 4-H/Youth Development Program may not provide a clear explanation of the program's benefits to youth, or its operational structure.

The 4-H Program's Rural Image

Both volunteers and staff expressed frustration that the 4-H Program is still viewed as a traditional, agricultural program available primarily to farm youth or those with the ability to raise animals. Those involved in the program realize the many opportunities for youth beyond an agricultural realm. While cherishing the 4-H Program's history, they perceived the rural image as problematic when attempting to introduce the program to new youth audiences.

4-H Policy-Making Group Membership

Individual membership ranged from 1 to 30 years, and 74 of the 91 group members interviewed, or 81%, had been 4-H members in their youth. Six of the counties each had a single member with no 4-H membership experience. This reflects policy-making groups that exhibit few dimensions of diversity. As suggested by Houle (1997), organizations that exhibit a "sameness" in membership may be narrow in their vision, may allow the past to dominate the present, may lack fresh views, and may become rigid and inflexible when establishing policies.

The general tendency of the groups was to be fairly content with the 4-H Program as it was and to focus much of their effort on the traditional 4-H Club Program. Variations in these groups' awareness of staff efforts beyond the traditional program were slight. It was discovered that only one group reviewed specific goals, objectives, and values of the 4-H Program. Eight of the nine groups seemed to be interested in and mindful of enrollment numbers for the county's 4-H Program, rather than in a vision for the future of the program.

4-H policy-making groups in Indiana possess a variety of titles, purposes, and conditions for operation (e.g., 4-H Councils, Fair Boards, Agricultural Associations, Boards of Directors). This multiplicity of organizations, titles, and functions currently causes confusion for staff and volunteers when state and local policy issues arise.

Youth Representation on 4-H Policy-Making Groups

Youth were obviously under-represented as members of the policy-making groups as a whole. Those youth who were present during group interviews shared a lack of understanding of the respective council on which they served, and, in general, a reluctance to speak up and share their ideas or suggestions. Those policy-making groups without youth representation indicated they gained youth input from adults who work with youth. 

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to enhance the image and effectiveness of the Indiana 4-H Program in reaching new youth audiences.

1. The Department Head for 4-H/Youth Development should reaffirm the mission and goals of the 4-H/Youth Development Program. This should be accompanied by a request to staff and volunteers to recommit to and periodically review the mission and goals. They should further establish a means to measure progress toward the mission and goals in the local 4-H Program.
   
   
2. A reexamination of the definition of 4-H/Youth Development is needed. This examination should include input from staff at all levels of the organization, as well as existing and potential adult volunteers and youth. With the appropriate knowledge and training, 4-H/Youth Development educators will serve in a supportive and facilitative role, thus creating an environment and process that will allow volunteers to establish their own local plans for 4-H outreach efforts.
   
   
3. Educators who have successfully implemented strategies for 4-H/Youth Development work beyond the traditional club model should be recognized for these efforts and encouraged to share their successes with their peers.
   
   
4. Individuals involved in all levels of the program, from administration, staff, and volunteers, to the youth and parents involved, should be challenged to more accurately describe the benefits of the 4-H Program for youth. All of these groups have responsibility for the public image of the program to potential new youth. Work should be done with state and local extension staff to heighten awareness and encourage individuals to promote the fact that the 4-H Program is delivered in multiple ways, to multiple audiences, with multiple results and benefits. There is no one "right" way to deliver or evaluate the program, just as there is not a single benefit to program participants.
   
   
5. In-service education in the areas of leadership, diversity, collaboration, grant writing, and effective operations of boards and councils should be conducted for both staff and volunteers to prepare them for future work with more diverse audiences of youth.
   
   
6. Staff and local policy-making group members should be encouraged to review membership policies of the local organization. They should be challenged to include multiple dimensions of diversity in their membership and should consider defined terms of appointment or a limitation on the number of consecutive terms an individual may serve. They should als