April 2002
Volume 40 Number 2

Ideas at Work

A Framework for Introducing Program Evaluation to Extension Faculty and Staff

Sandra J. Bailey
Family & Human Development Specialist
Department of Health & Human Development
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
Internet Address: baileys@montana.edu

Mary Y. Deen
Family & 4-H Youth Development Specialist
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
Internet Address: mdeen@wsu.edu

There is an increasing requirement by university administrations and funding agencies for Cooperative Extension Services to demonstrate that their programs are making an impact on the populations served. Many in Extension have little background in program evaluation, thus making it a daunting task.

At Washington State University we developed the Life Skills Evaluation System (http://ext.wsu.edu/lifeskills/) to assist Extension 4-H Youth Development and Family Living staff with this process. We realized that in order for staff to effectively use the evaluation system, which measures life skill outcomes, they would need a background in program evaluation. Therefore, as part of the training on the system, we conduct presentations introducing evaluation. The purpose of the presentation is to demystify program evaluation and provide a foundation by which staff can develop and conduct evaluations of their programs. Jacob's (1988) Five-Tiered approach to evaluation and the quality standards for program evaluation (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994) were used in developing a framework to present the information.

We open each training with a learning activity based on Patton's (1997) premise that evaluation becomes meaningful when there is a shared definition and commitment to the process. One activity asks participants to describe evaluation through a musical instrument. This helps them express their feelings about and see the varied benefits of evaluation. Another activity asks participants to identify their favorite store and list why it is their favorite. This assists in illustrating that we are continuously evaluating in our everyday lives. Next, we discuss the framework, using examples from the participants' programs to explain the concepts.

Jacob's Five-Tiered Approach to Evaluation

Jacobs' (1988) five-tiered approach to evaluation is frequently used in prevention program evaluation design. The model is easy to understand and emphasizes the importance of using evaluation as a part of program planning and development.

• Preimplementation occurs during the initial stages of program planning to assess community needs.
• Accountability is the level at which staff account for the programming that took place such as the number of sessions offered and the number of participants who attended.
• Program clarification assesses the current status of the program, the program's strengths, and where improvement is needed.
• Progress towards objectives begins to assess whether or not short-term outcomes are occurring as a result of program participation.
• Program impact assesses whether systems-wide impact has occurred as a result of the program.

The tiers in Jacobs' (1988) model build upon one another as the program becomes more established. Jacobs emphasizes that a program should be evaluated at an appropriate level. By using Jacobs' model, we were able to assist staff in understanding that evaluation is effective and useful at all stages of development.

Program Evaluation Standards

The second component of the training is to present criteria for conducting quality evaluations. For this process, we draw upon the program evaluation standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). These standards are incorporated under the following four domains and consist of 30 criteria for planning and implementing quality evaluations.

• Utility emphasizes the need for useful evaluations that involve and respect stakeholders.
• Feasibility discusses the need to conduct evaluations that are practical and cost effective.
• Propriety is concerned with the ethical issues of conducting research using human subjects.
• Accuracy covers the importance of gathering and reporting reliable, valid data.

We present and discuss the four major domains and the implications for conducting evaluations by using fun and interactive methods, such as skits and role plays. In this manner, workshop participants are able to gain a greater understanding of the evaluation process and how the process impacts results.

Application of the Framework

After presentation of the tiers of program evaluation and criteria for quality evaluations, we then demonstrate the Life Skills Evaluation System. This step appears to help participants take the framework presented and put it into action during the workshop, reinforcing what was learned. Others using this framework might introduce an evaluation instrument at this point.

We have used this framework for numerous workshops across the state of Washington. Feedback from faculty and staff indicates that using the framework has assisted them in thinking about program evaluation by providing them with:

• Appreciation for evaluation research,
• Understanding of why a specific process needs to be followed,
• Awareness of the ethical issues involved in gathering information from program participants,
• Knowledge of the basics of program evaluation, and
• Understanding of incorporating evaluation as part of program planning.

We have learned firsthand the importance of providing a framework for conducting evaluation prior to implementing a specific evaluation. In one workshop, where we had limited time, we chose to give an abbreviated version of the framework described above and moved right into the logistics of using the Life Skills Evaluation System. It was clear during and after the workshop that without a foundation of the basics of evaluation, participants did not fully understand how or why the system was useful.

As a greater emphasis is placed on outcomes for Cooperative Extension programs, there is an increased need to provide staff training on the basics of evaluation. A framework using Jacobs' (1988) Five-Tiered model of program evaluation and the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994) can provide a useful foundation for introducing evaluation and demonstrating how it can be used to document program processes and outcomes.

References

Jacobs, F. H. (1988). The five-tiered approach to evaluation: Context and implementation. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs, New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Service-Learning: Going Beyond Traditional Extension Activities

Pamala V. Morris
Assistant Professor of 4-H/Youth
Internet Address: pvm@four-h.purdue.edu

John Pomery
Associate Professor of Economics
Internet Address: pomeryj@mgmt.purdue.edu

Kate E. Murray
Assistant Service-Learning Coordinator
Internet Address: katebth@hotmail.com

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

The Cooperative Extension Service has a rich heritage of serving communities through outreach activities. However, the Kellogg Commission has challenged higher education to go beyond traditional notions of Extension, outreach, and service in order to become truly engaged institutions. The Commission defines engagement as: "a partnership of campus and community where all parties involved are committed to reciprocity and mutual respect for what each party brings to the table."

This article introduces the concept of designing and teaching service-learning courses as an activity that can allow Extension educators to become a more integral part of a "truly engaged institution." The context is based on a service-learning course, "Learning, Culture, and Community," developed and team-taught by an Extension faculty member, a non-Extension faculty member, and a teaching assistant at Purdue University.

The undergraduate students enrolled in this course travel by van to Indianapolis once a week to tutor and mentor middle-school children at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center. Travel time in the van is used for discussion of assigned readings and reflective journals written by the students. Learning covers a range of topics, including: learning styles, child development, multiculturalism, "at risk" labeling, sources of poverty, motivation, the nature of community, and more.

As this course has evolved, a number of important questions have been raised.

1. How does service-learning, viewed as a form of engagement, differ from traditional Extension activities?
2. What benefits might involvement in service-learning bring to all stakeholders, and especially to members of the Cooperative Extension Service?
3. How might an individual Extension educator, a county Extension office, or a statewide Extension program go about engaging young people in service-learning activities?

Service-Learning

Service-learning is a form of experiential learning, typically course-based. The notion of service-learning is familiar to many in Extension, but at the level of (for example) members of a 4-H club participating in a community service project, and then undertaking reflective activities. In this article, we focus on Extension educators acting as leaders, or co-leaders, in service-learning activities performed by college-level students in college-level courses.

To meet the criteria for a service-learning course, those college students should participate in an organized service activity that meets community needs. In addition, service-learning goes beyond volunteerism or even organized community service by necessarily including elements of reciprocity (the presence of shared decision making and commitment of effort between campus and community) and reflection (a framework linking coursework and community service whereby students are involved in critical thinking about the experience).

How does service-learning, involving Extension educators working with college students, tend to differ from traditional Extension Service activities? Any sweeping generalizations run a danger of being gross oversimplifications, but for reasons of space we will take an almost stereotypical view of Extension activities.

First, traditional Extension activities tend to involve an expert, typically a "practical" expert, providing information, guidance, or other services to groups of "clients" in a largely one-way process. The reciprocity element of service-learning emphasizes the importance of providing services that reflect explicitly stated community needs. It also emphasizes the importance of all parties involved being viewed simultaneously as learners and as teachers.

Second, traditional Extension activities rarely involve college students as an integral part of the provision of services.

Third, traditional Extension Services tend to involve, and to be associated with, Schools of Agriculture and Schools of Consumer and Family Science. Undergraduate service-learning courses can involve students and faculty from a range of disciplines beyond those schools.

Benefits of Service-Learning

For college-student participants, service-learning has the potential to make classroom learning more meaningful. This occurs because of the necessity of confronting community issues and taking them seriously, as well as forcing the participants to apply, adapt, and reflect on ideas and theories found in the classroom. An engaged institution will better prepare students for today's global society by developing a strong sense of civic responsibility, accompanied by a better understanding of self, one's own resources, the links between individual and community, and the relevance of classroom concepts and theories.

Participants typically develop leadership and teamwork skills and become more attuned to working amongst populations of varying ethnicity or socioeconomic status. The institution itself is likely to benefit from more satisfied students, often more motivated and more likely to stay in college, as well as from better relations with potential employers, neighboring communities, voters, state legislators, parents, and current and future alumni.

However, how might this form of engagement benefit the Cooperative Extension Service? If it takes time and effort to organize well-run service-learning courses, and if college students need to be trained, supervised, and assessed in such settings, then why take on that extra burden? We see a number of reasons, none of which can be covered in great depth here.

1. By teaming up with non-Extension faculty and students from a variety of disciplines, the Extension Service gains "access to" advanced academic learning in topics and disciplines that are often very pertinent to urban issues and concerns (e.g., computer literacy, information technology, accounting, pharmacy practice, health sciences, kinesiology, public relations, law and society, ESL, and audiology).
   
   
2. These same connections can help Extension programs provide a broader array of services, as well as assisting the lifelong learning of the Extension educators involved in such collaborations.
   
   
3. The Cooperative Extension Service is often one of the best kept secrets within a campus and also statewide. By involving college students as co-learners and by working with non-Extension faculty as partners, Extension will become more visible and more appreciated. These benefits can take a number of forms.
   
   
   • Student participants are more aware of the nature, mission, and resources of Extension in their state.
   • Non-Extension faculty members more fully understand the role and the expertise offered by the Extension Service.
   • Top-level university administrators see Extension as an important player in a holistic approach to a collaborative scholarship of engagement that can contribute to the research, teaching and service missions.
   • Community citizens and state legislators become more aware of the pervasive presence of the Extension Service as a major asset.
   • The Cooperative Extension Service has the potential to recruit, from among student participants, more entrants into the service, at a time when many stalwarts are approaching retirement age.

In essence, an engaged institution tends not to have totally distinct roles for classroom instructors, student-service specialists, outreach providers, and community-relations staff. Instead these traditional boundaries are very much blurred. The Cooperative Extension Service has much to bring to the table in such a context. Topics such as leadership, food and nutrition, mentoring K-12 students, and a host of others are addressed on a daily basis (but often in total isolation from each other) in the contemporary Extension Service and on the non-Extension side of campus.

In a context where college administrators see much value in service-learning and related experiences, but worry about faculty resources to oversee such labor-intensive activities, the Extension Service can offer:

1. Practical expertise;
2. A collaborative role in supervision;
3. An array of existing programs and models for college students to utilize; and
4. An existing network of county-level contacts with community groups.

Developing a Service-Learning Course

Most land-grant institutions will already have a number of non-Extension faculty members involved in service-learning courses, and some will have a full-fledged service-learning office and full-time service-learning coordinator. Some institutions have Community Outreach Partnership Centers, funded by HUD. These faculty members and support staff would be delighted to discuss opportunities for collaboration.

At West Virginia University, under a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, they have created a program where county agents, plus a service-learning coordinator, act as intermediaries between community groups with needs and campus faculty members and students who can provide services that address some or all of those needs. In addition, there is a national Campus Compact and nearly 30 state-level Campus Compacts, which are a consortium of colleges and universities committed to promoting engagement, not least in the context of well-run and effective service-learning courses. Help is also available through the use of Web sites, handbooks, discipline-specific guides, and workshops.

References

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: concepts and practices. Barbara Jacoby and Associates; forwarded by Thomas Ehrlich. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publication.

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

Griffin-Wiesner, J., Byers, M., & Margolis-Rupp, B. (2000). An asset builders guide to service-learning. Minneapolis, MN: A Search Institute Publication.

The Nutrition Information and Resource Center at Penn State University

Katherine L. Cason
Associate Professor
Department of Food Science
Internet Address: klc13@psu.edu

Julie A. Haines
Program Coordinator
8L Borland Laboratory
Internet Address: jah15@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Consumers are bombarded with a tremendous amount of nutrition and diet information every day. This information overload often leads to requests for additional information or clarification from nutrition educators. This presents a challenge for nutrition educators in having up to date and accurate information about food and nutrition. To maintain professional credibility, to offer viable nutrition advice, and to initiate contemporary nutrition services, nutrition educators must keep abreast of the latest food and nutrition information.

In order to address this information need, a Nutrition Information and Resource Center (NIRC) was developed. The purpose of NIRC is to provide educational resources for Extension agents and other nutrition educators so that they can more effectively and efficiently educate consumers.

Project Description

The NIRC is an innovative mechanism for providing nutrition information and educational resources to nutrition educators. The NIRC development began with a needs assessment of Extension agents. Informal interviews, a Web-based survey, and focus group interviews were conducted. The information obtained indicated a strong need for accurate and up-to-date information provided in a timely manner.

The project coordinator believed the best approach to meeting these needs would be through a Web-based educational resource center. Extension Program Priority Initiative (EPPI) funding was acquired to begin the development of the NIRC in Spring 2000. Graduate assistants and staff were employed to begin the development of the NIRC. Using the framework developed by the project coordinator, the NIRC was developed with the following components.

NIRC has an informational Web site (http://nirc.cas.psu.edu/) with online fact sheets that can be downloaded and printed. The Web site was constructed by a Web master at a local company, By The Numbers. The NIRC Web site has links to many other food and nutrition Web sites, making it a great place to begin searching for information on any nutrition-related topic. These Web sites have been evaluated for accuracy, objectivity, currency, coverage, and design and format.

Nutrition educators may submit questions about various nutrition and food science topics through an email question and answer system (eat4health@psu.edu). The answers to the questions are researched and responses provided in a timely manner. Questions may also be submitted in person, over the telephone, through the mail, or by using the form on the Web site.

Resource

The NIRC has a lending library with the inventory of listings maintained on the Web site. The food science and human nutrition materials consist of books, journals, nutrition education curriculums, nutrition activities and displays, and audiovisuals covering a broad range of topics from children's literature to technical nutrition information. The materials collection is reviewed, categorized, annotated, and listed in a database.

Center

A physical location for the NIRC was acquired within the Food Science Department at Penn State University. The center serves as the storage place for educational resources, and a site where educators can preview materials.

NIRC Site Maintenance

The NIRC resources are easily maintained through the Web site. Authorized NIRC staff access the NIRC site administration page to process requests. When a site user sends a request, a notification appears on the NIRC administration page. The NIRC staff process the requests and record the status on the administration page.

An email message is automatically sent to borrower to let him or her know when the request has been processed. Another email message is sent to the borrower a few days before the resource is due back to remind him or her to return the item. NIRC staff may also add or delete items in the library, online publications, and Web site databases from this site administration page.

Evaluation

The NIRC was introduced to a group of Cooperative Extension agents attending inservice training in March 2001. The NIRC has also been publicized through articles in departmental and professional association newsletters and through various email listservs. When NIRC was first introduced, several users and NIRC staff requested resource processing and site administration changes. These requests were incorporated into the Web site by the Web master.

Users of the NIRC have included Cooperative Extension Agents with foods and nutrition responsibilities, EFNEP and FSNEP agents and paraprofessionals, Food Science and Nutrition students and dietetic interns, Family & Consumer Science Teachers, and Public Health Department Educators.

NIRC user responses have been overwhelming. Educators have reported that the availability of NIRC materials has enabled them to supplement and/or update existing nutrition lessons/curriculum with current and attractive materials, activities and displays that they could not otherwise afford to purchase. Others have reported that the NIRC materials have allowed them to preview new materials in a timely and cost effective manner for input when making their own purchasing decisions. These comments provide project staff with insight into the success of the NIRC.

• "Thank you! This is wonderful!"
• "You gave us a start on where to get information. The Web site is great. It will be especially helpful for new agents."
• "Excited about the availability of Web site. This is great! Fantastic job!"

Conclusion

The NIRC is a valuable resource that can be replicated by Extension in other states. Extension Specialists traditionally conduct many of the NIRC activities, such as the development of publications and informational Web sites and the loan of educational resources. The publications developed for consumer use could readily be adapted for placement online. With publications organized on a searchable Web site, the users can more easily locate the needed information.

By using the Pennsylvania NIRC as a model, others can consolidate, and organize existing Web sites to become a searchable site with links to other credible sites. Educational materials can be acquired, reviewed, and made available for loan. Many resources are free or have a nominal fee. Others may be purchased with grant funds, and when appropriate, with EFNEP or FSNEP funds.

The NIRC has helped Extension educators to locate accurate, up-to-date information and resources that they can use to help children, youth, and families to acquire knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to improve their nutrition and fitness.

A Biosolids Technician Training Course with a "Hands On" Team Approach Using Professionals from the Field

Philip N. Kane
Water Facilities Biologist
Florida Department of Environmental Protection--Central District
Orlando, Florida
Internet Address: phil.kane@dep.state.fl.us

Introduction

Whether it is called biosolids, residuals, or just plain sludge, the word carries an ominous weight. All of these words mean the same thing, the solid, liquid, and semisolid residue produced by a domestic sewage treatment facility processing the domestic wastewater from its residential customer base.

People are readily aware of the water generated by a wastewater treatment facility, but the biosolids are a major end product of all sewage treatment facilities that is not commonly recognized. Even so, there are few words or actions that can evoke as immediate and highly emotional response from a citizenry faster and with more negative connotations than the use of biosolids (sludge) for agricultural land application. This is especially true when the biosolids are going to be land applied near the people's residences.

In Florida, F.A.C. 62-640 is the state rule that governs the proper use of biosolids, including the agricultural recycling process of biosolids land application as a fertilizer product. The US EPA also regulates biosolids with its Part 503 Rule, as well as some local ordinances such as Orange County, Florida. Florida biosolids land application sites are permitted specifically for each wastewater facility. The biosolids are predominately land applied either as a liquid or solid (cake) at ranches or farms to help crops (grass for cattle, sod farms, citrus crops, or other agricultural crops that can benefit from the product).

The often extremely negative vocal response from citizens is that biosolids are unacceptable for use anywhere. Subsequently, nothing anyone can say or do will change their minds. With all the innate public resistance already in place, the professionals who work with biosolids in the fields and with the trucks that transport the biosolids could certainly benefit from guidance and an understanding of the biosolids generation and land application process.

The Florida Water Pollution Control Operators Association, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Brevard Community College in 1999 initiated a Biosolids Technician Training Course for all interested people.

Course Design

A team approach was developed for the adult learners. A 4-day intensive learning experience focusing on "hands on" experiences with practical and relevant information was the format. Because the main focus of the course was on the people who actually work with biosolids, such as truck drivers, wastewater treatment facility personnel, and field people, the course design incorporated practical aspects of their everyday duties. Public service, regulations, safety, vehicle operation, and land application were key elements of the educational experience. There was even an exercise involving role-playing and successful complaint resolution.

Every attempt was made to ensure that the experience did not become a pedantic lecturing format in a strict formal setting. Even though the learners would obtain continuing education credit from the community college and a voluntary certification, the learning experience was designed to be informal, with extremely active participation by the students. Not only was knowledge a focus, but creating positive attitudes was also a goal.

One of the techniques employed in the team approach was that of using many people in the professional community as "real people" facilitators for the learners. A wide variety of professionals in the business of regulating and working in biosolids related areas provided interactive presentations presenting their relevant perspectives to the students. For example, at the most recent course, people from the FDEP in such areas as civil enforcement, criminal enforcement, permitting, and emergency response presented the State of Florida regulations and their direct application to the students. The US EPA presented their regulations, as did a geographically local agency, Orange County Environmental Protection Division. Also, another local agency, the Orange County Fire Department, provided valuable everyday lessons on safety and first aid.

Throughout the 4 days, each professional interacted with the students, while a leadership team of three main instructors coordinated the course and ensured presentations went smoothly. Flexibility was important in scheduling the professionals and all activities.  

Because the course was intended for statewide use, it was important that each be designed with statewide value as well as value to the local area where the course was being held and where many of the students resided. For example, in Orlando, Florida at the most recent course, a local licensed CDL Examiner brought a land application vehicle from a nearby participating city (Titusville, Florida) and took the biosolids technicians through actual check lists and vehicle inspection. FDOT Law Enforcement demonstrated the details of a potential field stop by one of their officers. A biosolids stabilization company conducting land application in the area provided a field site inspection experience, while another local biosolids stabilization company provided a tour and inspection of its facility.

Evaluation

In order to evaluate and increase the effectiveness of the course, informal qualitative evaluation techniques were used. The learners were encouraged to freely communicate their ideas and comments on the course at any time throughout the course, and, upon completion, the adults commented on an evaluation instrument. As part of ongoing course development, all student and facilitator evaluations were analyzed, and those aspects of the evaluations that would enhance the course continue to be incorporated into each future course. As in Extension education, the needs of the students remain the highest priority, and it is necessary that the experience be of personal value to adult students in an informal education setting.

Conclusions

Developing an adult education course for use with people interested in everyday practical applications of a field where not only knowledge, but positive attitudes are a job necessity can be successful when numerous professionals are presented to the adult learners in a semi-structured informal learning format. For such a course to be effective, the students should not only be taught factual information but should see and interact with the very people directly involved with their job duties. This helps provide the students a sense of personal value connecting them to the far-reaching and varied group of people working in their professional area. They can more readily understand the niche they occupy in that profession.

The "hands on" experiences incorporating actual professional people in a biosolids technician training course allowed the students to become "connected" in a holistic way to the entire field of biosolids. They developed a broader knowledge base and even obtained a measure of "wisdom." This format can have successful applications in many of the areas in which Extension wishes to educate the public. From a high-level executive in a biosolids company to a land application truck driver, all people who took the biosolids course found it a valuable experience.

References

Orange County Code. (1999). Domestic wastewater residual management ordinance of Orange County, Florida. Ordinance No. 99-15, 6-29-99.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (1998). Domestic Wastewater Residuals. F.A.C., 62-640.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1993). The standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge (title 40 of the code of federal regulations [CFR], Part 503).

Fire Prevention in the Rural/Urban Interface: Washington's Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Program

Janean H. Creighton
Extension Wildlife Coordinator
Internet Address: creighton@wsu.edu

David M. Baumgartner
Extension Forester and Professor
Internet Address: baumgtnr@wsu.edu

Department of Natural Resource Sciences
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington

Steven D. Gibbs
Forest Stewardship Program Manager
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Olympia, Washington
Internet Address: steve.gibbs@wadnr.gov

Introduction

Like most forested states in the U.S., Washington faces the increasing challenge of providing forest fire prevention and protection as more people move into the urban/rural interface, while mitigating the impacts of growth on forest resources. Washington is the smallest state in the western U.S., and it has a rapidly growing population. Companies like Boeing, Microsoft, Real Networks, and Immunex fuel population growth. The high tech boom is raising real incomes and the price of property, accelerating the expansion of development and fragmentation of forests. More people are moving into rural areas, putting pressure on adjacent municipal resources and increasing forest fire hazard. The combination of years of fire suppression and changes in forest management practices has resulted in a dangerous build up of fuels, establishing forest wildfires as the major threat to lives and property in the urban/rural interface.

Conventional techniques used to reach non-industrial forest (NIPF) landowners have been ineffective in reaching homeowners in the urban/rural interface. The potential audience is large, and traditional approaches such as Extension classes, workshops, and one-on-one site visits cannot meet the demands of folks in these areas.

The Washington Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Program

In Washington, there is a combination of aggressive and innovative technical assistance and educational programs to promote sound management practices in rural/urban interface forests. Central to this is a collaborative partnership between the Washington Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University Cooperative Extension, the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Division, and other state and federal agencies and organizations.

The Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Program was developed to target people who own between 10 trees and 10 acres of trees in the urban/rural interface, but is applicable to anyone who owns a home in a wooded environment, regardless of acreage or geographic location. The program helps landowners better manage their properties by promoting fire safety, the protection of water resources, and improvements to wildlife and fish habitat.

Landowners living in the urban/rural interface have diverse interests and unique concerns. Often, the pursuit of information requires they contact multiple agencies to obtain multiple publications, resulting in conflicting and confusing messages. The Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Program integrates many topics and provides landowners with the tools to fire-safe their property while allowing them to meet their forest management objectives.

The topics discussed in this program are:

• Wildfire prevention and wildfire preparedness,
• Forest health,
• Caring for shade and ornamental trees,
• Planting, thinning, and pruning forest trees,
• Safe debris burning (and alternatives to burning),
• Hazard tree management,
• Fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and
• Water quality.

In contrast to most traditional agency or Extension publications, the program uses an illustrated poster with a bulleted text format to convey key concepts quickly and simply. The information is deliberately brief and "to-the-point," with emphasis on the practical "do's and don'ts", and "how to's" that landowners often request. The kit provides additional sources (e.g., Extension bulletins, Master Gardeners, consulting foresters, etc.) when there is a desire for more in-depth information or assistance. Because of the different forest types in Washington State, two versions of the kit are available--one version for the cool and wet forests of Western Washington and another for the drier forests of Eastern Washington.

The Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Kit information is accessible immediately off the Internet and can be downloaded and printed from a home computer (http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/rp/stewardship/bfs/). Hard copies can be ordered as well by calling a toll free number, sending an e-mail request, or by dropping a business reply request card in the nearest mailbox. As of October 2000, over 15,000 kits had been distributed in response to business reply cards and toll-free telephone requests.

Aggressive Promotion

Natural disasters in the news provide a short, but effective window of opportunity in which to market the program. Backyard Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Kits are aggressively advertised during and immediately following major news-making wildfire events using the following approaches:

• Paid TV and radio spots during the peak of wildfire season.
• Cooperative advertising with private sector sponsors (e.g. utility companies, insurance companies, TV stations, etc.).
• Free Backyard Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Kit postage-paid business reply request cards. This simple tool has produced outstanding results. The use of cards as enclosures in utility bill mailings in target areas during fire season has produced exceptional results at nominal cost. Fire districts, resource agencies, and others enclose these cards in newsletters and mailings, and as handouts at public events.
• Direct mail promotional materials sent to prospective clients of the regular Forest Stewardship Program (20,000-30,000 mailings annually).

Feedback and Program Evaluation

Each Backyard Forest Stewardship/Wildfire Safety Kit includes a business reply card on which the landowner can indicate completion of up to 22 desirable activities. Anyone who returns the card indicating completion of at least six of the activities receives recognition as a Backyard Forest Steward. Recognition includes a wall certificate and property decals.

Recipients of the information kit also receive an evaluation form, which allows them to rate the usefulness of each of the kit's components and offer suggestions for improvement. The kit consistently gets high marks from users, including one who, following the largest wildfire in Washington during 2000, wrote: "Bless you for offering this program. We did the recommended activities and it saved our home during the Rocky Hull Fire."

Swift County Farm Business Retention and Enhancement Program

Craig Haugaard
Extension Educator
University of Minnesota, Swift County
Benson, Minnesota
Internet Address: hauga002@umn.edu

Richard A. Levins
Professor and Extension Agricultural Economist
Department of Applied Economics
University of Minnesota
Internet Address: dlevins@apec.umn.edu

Introduction

Swift County is a farming-dependent county in west-central Minnesota. Like much of rural America, Swift County is feeling the negative effects of farm product prices that have sunk to levels not seen since the Great Depression. The resulting flight of farmers from the land has contributed to the closing of main street businesses, school consolidations, and other countywide economic problems. The problem goes beyond farming--and so should the solution.

This article describes a community-based, citizen involvement model that was used to bring farmers and main street businesses together to address the future of agriculture in Swift County.

Background

Business Retention and Expansion programs have been used for many years to help communities strengthen main street businesses. A program several years ago in Swift County was successful and led community leaders to explore other applications. Very few programs have applied BR&E to farming, but at the urging of County Commissioner Dick Hanson, a task force was formed to explore how the program might be tailored to the current needs of Swift County.

The task force endorsed the concept and established a local leadership team consisting of citizens with business, farming, and consumer interests to see the project through. The leadership team set itself the following goal: "A vision of agriculture will be created for Swift County and the surrounding area to help sustain the local economy and its communities."

The team then created five objectives that would further their vision:

1. To assess the needs of agricultural producers,
2. To help solve immediate concerns of agricultural producers,
3. To explore alternative agricultural ideas, cooperation ventures, and diversity of agricultural production operations, including livestock,
4. To create a support base and network among communities, government, business, and agricultural producers, and
5. To educate about the role of agriculture in the community.

Method

Once the objectives were in place, the leadership team collaborated with the University of Minnesota's Department of Applied Economics to create a general agricultural survey tool to assess the needs of Swift County farmers. The interview tool, consisting of 42 questions, was designed to focus on issues that lent themselves to local action and local solutions. Twenty-two local citizens were trained in using the survey. They were then sent out in groups of two to do the farmer interviews. Sixty-two farm families were interviewed in a period of 2 weeks.

When the survey process had been completed, the leadership team met to determine which farms surveyed had pressing concerns or "red flags." Twenty-four farm families were so identified. The Extension Educator coordinating the project then worked directly with those families or referred them to other professionals to see that their immediate concerns were addressed. In addition, the surveys generated many requests for information. In all, 693 pieces of information on various agricultural issues were sent out as a result of the survey.

Meanwhile, the research leader from the Department of Applied Economics tabulated the overall survey results and prepared a report that could be used to guide long-run planning. The leadership team used this report in identifying priority areas for action. The leadership team also received valuable input from a meeting on the University of Minnesota campus with a group of leaders in state and federal agencies, the Minnesota Farmers Union, a citizen group, and the Minnesota Extension Dean and Director. The following four priority projects were identified through this process:

1. Greater involvement and leadership for farm women,
2. Improved health care delivery for farmers,
3. Promote more effective use of farmer cooperatives, and
4. Improved delivery of information on alternative enterprises.

Committees made up of interested leadership team members, interviewers, and participating farmers were then formed to address each of these areas.

Outcomes

The group interested in strengthening the role of farm women initiated a Farm Women Forum. Averaging 37 women at its meetings, the Forum has allowed participants to focus on communication, fellowship, and leadership education. The group created the video "Healing Stories" that told the stories of three women in the forum.

The health care initiatives group focused their attention on Minnesota Care, a state insurance program for income-eligible people. In 1999, very few farmers in Swift County were signed up for the program. The task force arranged for enrollment to take place at a local office, instead of in St. Paul, and now over 50 farm families are enrolled. The task force is also pursuing state legislation that would further extend eligibility of the program to farmers.

Those working to promote more effective use of farmer cooperatives are concerned that cooperatives have strayed from their traditional role. The group is working with the Department of Applied Economics to develop educational materials for cooperative board members.

The alternative enterprises committee organized a meeting at which companies presented opportunities they had to offer local farmers. The meeting resulted in increased livestock numbers for the county and an additional 9,400 acres being farmed under contract. The contracts will increase farmer income by over $300,000 beyond what could be earned with current market prices.

The committee also provided leadership in forming an export cooperative that will focus on soybeans for the Asian market. A $10,000 start-up grant has been raised, along with an additional $3,150 to be used by Swift County extension for field trials of edible soybeans.

The project also received an Award of Excellence from Business Retention and Expansion International. This recognition has further encouraged local participants in the projects.

A Long-Term Project

Stemming the flight from rural America will take time and will require many different approaches. It is clear, however, that local citizens must be involved. The Farm Business Retention and Enhancement project has already paid dividends in broad community participation in strengthening agriculture. Prices are still low, and times are still tough, but in Swift County people are feeling more empowered and in control of their destiny.

For More Information

A copy of the Swift County BR&E research report, in summary form, can be found at:

http://www3.extension.umn.edu/projects/bre/program/swiftsummary.pdf

For general information on BR&E programming, please contact:

Michael Darger, University of Minnesota, 612-625-6246, mdarger@apec.umn.edu

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2002april/ent-iw.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.