April 2002
Volume 40 Number 2

Research In Brief

Progress Report--Globalizing U.S. Extension Systems

Barbara G. Ludwig
Professor and Chair
Department of Extension
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: ludwig.2@osu.edu

Introduction

Extension programs across the globe are being challenged to consider their impact, relevance, and effectiveness in a rapidly changing society. U.S. Land-Grant Universities, European Advisory Services, and Extension Centers globally are looking beyond traditional roles to provide leadership for maintaining sustainable communities. Social, economic, environmental, and production issues are inter-related and tie to the goals of economic well-being and quality of life . Globalizing Agricultural Science and Educational Programs for America (GASEPA, 1998) established a vision for colleges of agriculture and described globally competent stakeholders, faculty, and students who live, compete, and work well in a dynamic and interdependent world community.

Studies of Extension Directors conducted in 1990 indicated there had been little emphasis on internationalizing by Extension systems across the country (Poston & O'Rourke, 1991; Rosson & Sanders, 1991). Poston & O'Rourke (1991) reported 80% of Extension directors believed that their state had achieved either a low level or had not achieved any level of globalization. The study described here sought to determine the current state of globalization and identify directors' viewpoints about changes that had occurred and their projections for the future. Extension Directors were once again selected because of their broad understanding of Extension in their state, both current and past, and their ability to envision the future of their individual system.

Ludwig (1999) established a definition for globalizing U. S. Extension systems that provided the basis for the study. Globalizing was defined as: the incorporation of global content into Extension efforts so that clientele develop a fundamental understanding of global interdependence and international economic forces. Globalizing was characterized as integral to Extension's mission. A globalized Extension system would exhibit the following five characteristics (Ludwig & Barrick, 1997).

• Clientele understand global and national interdependencies.
• Programs stress the impact of international economic forces on agricultural markets.
• Extension professionals incorporate global concepts into ongoing Extension activities.
• The relationship between basic international issues and the Extension mission is recognized.
• Personnel evaluation systems recognize international efforts.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to ascertain state Extension system characteristics which relate to globalizing, describe changes in state Extension Systems from 1990 to 2000 and project changes by 2010 as identified by state Extension directors.

Methodology

Instrumentation

A survey instrument was developed following a review of literature to clarify the concepts being studied. A five-point Likert-type scale was used on seven items related to characteristics of globalization. Respondents were invited to add position statements describing their responses. Respondents identified major barriers to globalizing and completed open-ended items requesting short descriptions of state system's efforts to globalize in 1990, 2000 and projections for 2010.

Face and content validity of the instrument were assured through the use of a panel of experts. The reviewers, six faculty from universities in the U.S., were knowledgeable about U.S. Extension systems, research methodology, and international programs. Each was advised of the purpose and objectives of the study and asked to review and refine the alternatives stated. Comments and suggestions related to clarity and content were solicited. The instrument was pilot and field tested with university faculty from 10 universities to help control measurement error. Cronbach's alpha for the instrument was .85. This met criteria established for internal consistency (Nunnally, 1967).

Data Collection and Analysis

Instruments were distributed to all Extension directors during February 2000. The study, although not an exact replication of the 1990 Poston & O'Rourke study, targeted the same audience and sought the same types of information from leaders of Extension in the U.S. Follow up contacts in March and May 2000 encouraged response. Individuals responding to the May mailing of the questionnaire were considered late respondents.

Descriptive statistics were calculated. Responses were coded for computer analysis using SPSS. A .05 level of significance was established a priori. Early and late respondents were compared, using late respondents as a surrogate for non-respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983). Using a t-test at the .05 alpha level, no significant differences were found between early and late respondents.

Results

The results of the study represent the collective opinion of the directors participating in the study at a single point in time and cannot be construed to be representative of any other population or situation. Directors from fifty of the 51 U.S. systems (50 states and District of Columbia) responded, a 98% response rate. Comments made by the directors provided additional information to describe the ratings and clarify issues. Forty-nine usable instruments were received.

Characteristics of State Extension Systems

Directors were asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with a series of statements as descriptors of their own Extension system. Seven characteristics were examined based on the GASEPA report (1999) and a study of internationalizing U.S. Extension systems (Ludwig, 1999). Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics. One hundred and forty-seven comments were received explaining ratings on the seven characteristics.

Table 1.
Characteristics of State Extension Systems
N=49

The characteristics considered and trends for 2000 appearing in comments from directors are reported below.

Programs offered to clientele incorporate global perspectives.

• Directors indicate the majority of programs focus on local perspectives. More emphasis on global perspectives is sought. Agricultural programs are more likely to incorporate.

Extension professionals are interested in incorporating a global perspective.

• Educators with some international experience have a strong commitment to globalizing Extension programs. Many have limited knowledge. Local focus takes precedence.

Professional development opportunities exist for Extension professionals to develop global competencies.

• Very few opportunities currently exist. Local people resist their county educators' involvement in international work because of the gap it creates in local programs. A few states are offering leave opportunities, but most professionals find their own funding source.

Resources are available (e.g., funding) to support Extension professionals wishing to engage in global collaborative efforts.

• Budgets are tight. Motivated people are successful in finding adequate support for good programs. University and colleges are supportive of international experiences, grants, and sabbaticals often used to support.

Agricultural programs focus on the impact of international economic forces on agricultural markets.

• International marketing in various commodities has the greatest priority. Clients have growing awareness and interest in trade issues. More growth seen in this program area.

Personnel evaluation systems recognize international efforts.

• There is limited recognition, more for faculty. Generally evaluations relate to impact of programs on the people of the state.

Extension professionals are involved in programs that promote economic and social well-being in other nations.

• A number are involved or have been in short-term humanitarian and development projects. Most have not.

State Efforts to Globalize

Directors were asked to describe their state Extension system's efforts to globalize in 1990 and 2000, and project efforts for the year 2010. For purpose of analysis, the comments were coded into three categories based on the descriptors provided by directors:

1. None or minimal globalizing;
2. Moving in a direction of globalizing; and
3. Globalization integrated into Extension programming.

Positive changes towards globalizing were shown from 1990 to 2000, with increasing globalization efforts projected in 2010. In 1990, 40 states identified no or minimal efforts to globalize and nine were globalizing. By 2000, 13 states reported minimal efforts, and 35 state directors recognized their systems as moving toward internationalization. One was globalized. Thirteen directors projected globalization will be integrated into their Extension programming by 2010, while 30 forecast continued progress in globalizing and 5 projected minimal efforts to globalize as the decade ends.

Sixty-five percent of the directors indicated that limited financial resources were the greatest barrier. Directors identified a lack of time (25%), concern about clientele support (19%), and not a programming priority (17%) as other barriers.

An overview of the descriptors would indicate that in 1990 there was recognition of a need to globalize in some states, but many were hampered by budget cuts. A few formed international committees, and highly interested individuals were involved in USAID projects.

By 2000, more efforts were seen, including conferences and training programs. Support of a small number of faculty and agents to obtain global experience was noted. The global economy was the main focus of programming for clientele.

By 2010, directors hope expanded efforts for all program areas will have occurred. This will include out-of-country experiences for clientele and staff and global perspectives integrated into programming. Global collaborative efforts will be evident and more fiscal support available.

Implications

In reviewing the results of the study, Martin (2001) expressed concern that while some progress has been made, U.S. Extension systems could be characterized as globally challenged. The lack of a plan for globalization or adding an international perspective to Extension programming is evident in responses from most states.

The events of the past months raise our awareness of our connection to our neighbors across the oceans. By mid-century, it is predicted that the average U.S. citizen will trace his or her ancestry not to Europe, but to Asia, Africa, the Hispanic world, or the Pacific Islands. Global is becoming a part of local, and education and support for clientele will have to be delivered within a culturally sensitive framework. Cross-cultural competency will make Extension professionals more effective locally and also open to them the possibility of personal professional growth through involvement in a project or study tour to another part of the world.

The barriers identified by directors should be given careful consideration and could be used as a starting point in determining proactive approaches. Ludwig (1999) and Knight and Elliot (2000) in studies involving all Extension personnel in two different states found similar perceptions among individuals in the systems studied. Lack of time, financial support, and not a program priority were viewed as primary barriers by Extension personnel. Concern about clientele support appeared to be a greater perceived barrier for directors than for Extension educators who deal directly with local clientele. Extension personnel appeared to have more concern about whether the organization saw globalizing as a priority.

References

GASEPA Task Force (1998). Globalizing agricultural science and education programs for America. International Agriculture Section, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Bobby D. Moser Chairman. Washington D.C.

Ludwig, B. & Barrick, K. (1997, Fall) . Examining what should be the role of an internationalize land grant extension system. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 10/4, 14-19.

Ludwig, B. G. (1999, March). Extension professionals' perspectives on global programming. 1999 conference proceeding of the Association for International and Extension Education. Port of Spain, Trinidad. Un-numbered pages.

Miller, L. & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 21, 45.

Poston, T. & O'Rourke, U. (1991, November). Globalization and cooperative extension, final report: November 1991 (Publication 91-53). Washington State University: Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC).

Rosson, C. P. & Sanders, L. D. (1991). International programming issues for Extension education. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 29(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991summer/a5.html

Nunally, J. (1967). Physchometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

A Case Study of Stakeholder Needs for Extension Education

Kathleen D. Kelsey
Assistant Professor
Internet Address: kelseyk@okstate.edu

S. Christian Mariger
Research Associate

Department of Agricultural Education, Communications, and 4-H Youth Development
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma

Introduction

The study described here was designed to serve as a model for gathering stakeholder input for all land-grant universities to fulfill the mandate of the 1998 Farm Bill to collect stakeholder input when setting research, education, and Extension priorities (AREERA, 1998). The researchers worked with one academic department in a land-grant university to assist them in understanding their constituents' needs for education, information, and programs, and to increase communication between the faculty and stakeholders. The Department of Forestry was chosen because timber resources were the third largest agricultural commodity in the state and the failure to recognize areas of need outside traditional programs has been a core issue in the widening gulf between land-grant universities and their constituency (Dale, 2000).

Sample selection for participation in the study was based on legitimate stakeholders who had sufficient program knowledge to contribute to the process in meaningful ways and whose self-defined stake in forestry programs was high (Greene, 1988). Stakeholders were divided into three categories: beneficiaries, agents, and underrepresented citizens. Beneficiaries were those people who benefited from university programs, such as participants in educational programs; agents were those people involved in research and planning or delivery of programs, such as Extension agents and faculty; and underrepresented citizens were those who were inadequately served by the university, such as absentee landowners (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the case study was to develop a model for gathering input from stakeholders for setting research and educational programming priorities to fulfill the mandate of the 1998 Farm Bill. The specific objectives of the study were to:

1. Identify stakeholders of one academic department at a major land-grant university.
2. Describe stakeholders' problems and challenges.
3. Describe stakeholders' educational needs.
4. Identify sources of information used by stakeholders.
5. Determine stakeholders' level of interaction with the Cooperative Extension Service.
6. Collect stakeholder recommendations on how the land-grant university could better serve them.

Methods and Procedures

The study employed qualitative case study techniques (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2000; Yin, 1984) to collect, analyze, and interpret the data. One of the most important uses of the case study is to "explain the casual links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies" (Yin, 1984, p. 25, emphasis in original). When using the case study approach, researchers collect extensive data on individuals and programs under investigation.

Data were collected from January to June 2000 from 65 citizens engaged in forestry-related activities. Interviews, artifacts, and participant observation were used as data sources (Patton, 1990). The researchers also spent an extended time period on-site and interacted with the stakeholders at various meetings and within their places of business. The researchers (Kelsey, Pense, and Mariger) conducted the interviews face-to-face with the stakeholders. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for verbatim accuracy. All interviews adhered to a flexible interview instrument that was developed in conjunction with the department faculty and the purpose and objectives of the study. A panel of experts (faculty members within the forestry department) validated the instrument for content and face validity. The instrument was also field tested and refined for more accurate data collection.

Stakeholder identification was accomplished using the snowball technique; that is, stakeholders were asked to identify additional peers when interviewed by the researchers (Babbie, 1989). The initial list of stakeholders was identified by the faculty and by the researchers when attending a forest utilization conference in April 2000. Data were collected until no new themes emerged from the interviews based on negative case analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The data were analyzed and reported using procedures recommended by Creswell (1998):

1. Organization of data. Facts about the case were arranged in a logical order.
2. Categorization of data. Categories were identified, and the data were clustered into meaningful groups (coded).
3. Interpretation of codes. Specific statements that fell into like clusters (codes) were examined for specific meanings in relationship to the purpose and objectives of the study.
4. Identification of patterns. The data and their interpretations were scrutinized for underlying themes and patterns that characterized the case and allowed the researchers to draw conclusions.
5. Synthesis. An overall portrait of the case was constructed where conclusions and recommendations were drawn based on the data presented. Because of their focus on a particular situation, case studies may not be generalized beyond the specific research parameters of the study (Yin, 1984).

Findings

Sixty-five stakeholders were identified for the study. They were interviewed by the researchers and classified as an agent, beneficiary, or underrepresented citizen (Table 1).

Table 1.
Stakeholder Connection to the Forest Industry and Classification

The study sought to collect stakeholder input regarding:

• Problems they encountered in their occupations,
• Their need for research-based information,
• How they obtained information,
• To what extent they interacted with Extension, and
• Their recommendations for improving services offered by the university.

Stakeholders stated their perceptions on several aspects of their relationship to the land-grant university during these interviews.

Problems

Stakeholders identified seven categories of problems encountered with production. Although these problems were forestry-industry specific, they can be generalized to other agricultural situations that Extension agents encounter with producers. Problems areas included:

1. Product management,
2. Marketing of products,
3. Receiving adequate information regarding product production,
4. Environmental and wildlife issues,
5. Government and legal issues concerning product production,
6. Product processing, and
7. Private landowner issues.

Product Management

Forty-one stakeholders (63%) stated that they needed more information on best management practices, control of pests and invasive species, fertilization, GIS/GPS mapping, and use of fire to control invasive species.

Marketing of Products

Thirty stakeholders (46%) requested information on computer simulated economic models that would demonstrate the outcome for various management practices and a means for expanding markets for products. Several stakeholders suggested that simulation models could meet the need for better management decisions. Economic models could also assist landowners in understanding options for land use, for example, the tradeoffs of beef versus timber production.

Educational Opportunities and Dissemination of Information

Twenty-six stakeholders (40%) identified the lack of adequate information regarding product production as a problem. Information such as specific management practices was not available or difficult to obtain.

Environmental Regulations, Conservation Issues, and Wildlife Management

Twenty-two stakeholders (34%) reported that hunting leases, wildlife conservation, vehicle use on private land, upland erosion, riparian impacts on water quality, drought, or land-use conflicts were problem areas and that they needed more education and information on how to deal with these issues.

Government and Legal Issues

Nineteen stakeholders (29%) reported that government regulations, policies, and laws concerning timber production were arbitrary or capriciously applied. However, the stakeholders also reported that many of the problems they faced could be avoided if they better understood the regulations so they could implement strategies for compliance.

Products and Processing

Thirteen stakeholders (20%) encountered problems with management of by-products, creating value-added products, and capturing more value for their products and by-products.

Private Landowners

Eleven stakeholders (17%) cited problems concerning the maltreatment of private landowners by the forest industry and the abuse of landowner rights. A few small landowners reported that timber harvesters ignored contracts and left harvested lands in disrepair.

Information Needs

As stakeholders discussed the problems and challenges they faced in producing wood products, they were asked about their information needs by the researchers. Forty-two stakeholders (65%) reported that they needed more information and continuing education on forestry-related topics similar to their problem areas (timber management, business and marketing, current research, and wildlife, specifically declining quail populations and fire ant control).

Timber management education was of primary importance to this group and included several subcategories. Stakeholders wanted more information on the use of fire in forest management and appropriate silvicultural practices for various sizes of operations. Stakeholders also cited a need for more information on management for recreation, risk management (trespass and theft issues), and safety issues.

Stakeholders cited a need for business and economic education, including marketing wood and wood products. They suggested that faculty develop an economic model that could predict returns from various types of forest management scenarios. Small landowners requested assistance with developing legal documents to protect themselves from abuse by loggers and developers.

Several stakeholders expressed interest in knowing more about the results of research conducted by the faculty at the land-grant university. They requested more communication from faculty regarding research results that were written for the forestry practitioner. Several participants reported that Extension Fact Sheets currently available from the university were under-utilized because they were written at a level that was too technical for most readers.

Sources of Information

Stakeholders identified 22 sources of forestry-related information (Table 2). Contact with other people in informal settings such as coffee shop gatherings constituted 70% of the responses. Other sources of information were magazines, journals, and newsletters. Government land managers, specifically USFS employees, primarily used Fact Sheets; however, people in small forest-based businesses did not use Fact Sheets.

Of the 52 stakeholders who responded to questions on use of Extension, 19 (36%) indicated that they used Extension very little, did not use their services at all, or confused them with other agencies like the Department of Forestry. Thirty-three stakeholders (63%) stated that Extension in their area did not focus on the forest industry and expressed the desire for the local Extension agent to receive continuing education in various forestry-related topics.

Table 2.
Sources of Information Used by Stakeholders

Stakeholder Recommendations

The researchers collected recommendations on how the academic department could better serve the needs of its stakeholders. The 79 recommendations fell into four broad categories, including:

• 42 recommendations for disseminating research results and other information more effectively,
• 23 recommendations for reaching target audiences,
• 10 recommendations for improving Extension services, and
• 4 recommendations calling for greater cooperation between the university and other organizations that serve the forestry industry.

Fifty-three percent of the recommendations were suggestions on how the department could promote and disseminate information to its stakeholders. The stakeholders specifically commented on creating publications for lay-audiences as well as using e-mail, listserves, and the Internet to broadcast information. It was recommended that the faculty create media-rich interactive materials such as a CD-ROM that could be used independently of the Internet for those who choose not to learn online. Stakeholders also asked for content-specific workshops, demonstration plots, and field days.

Stakeholders recommended that Extension target school children, small landowners, forestry professionals, and the legislature for its research and education programs. Respondents stressed that all citizens needed to know more about natural resource management and the economic importance of forestry as it is the third largest commodity in the state. It was also pointed out that Extension needed to educate the public, especially children, about natural resource management to counter environmental propaganda that has permeated school textbooks without being certified as research-based knowledge.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study sought to develop a model for collecting stakeholder input into land-grant university research and programming priorities as mandated by the 1998 Farm Bill (AREERA, 1998). Even though Extension in this state had undergone a period of expansion, findings indicated that the majority of forestry stakeholders were underserved and were not enjoying the bounty of knowledge generated at the university.

The majority of stakeholders had not received adequate information from the land-grant university. It was found that barriers existed between research faculty and citizens in both oral and written communications. The lay audience reported that written information was too technical and not usable for improving production practices. It is recommended that Extension invest in appropriate communication avenues to reach their intended audience.

It was also discovered that stakeholders were not using Extension Fact Sheets because they were too technical. Fact Sheets are documents that are intended for lay audiences. It is recommended that agricultural communications professionals conduct a content analysis on the Fact Sheets and rewrite them so that they are more comprehensible for the intended audience.

In this study stakeholders strongly favored face-to-face interaction with Extension agents. This phenomenon has also been documented in other settings by van den Ban and Hawkins (1996). Face-to-face consultations allow Extension agents to integrate research-based findings with solving clients' problems. Stakeholders of this study were interested in being served through face-to-face channels as well. Given the level of interest in traditional Extension approaches, Extension should expand its forestry programming to include workshops, demonstration plots, and field days to communicate research findings and information to non-academic audiences.

References

AREERA. (1998). Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-185, 7 USC 7601, 112 Stat. 523 [On-line]. Available at: www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dale, D. (2000). Reshaping the institutions that are shaping the food system: Case studies in institutional change. Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, UW-Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems and the Center for Rural Affairs.

Greene, J. G. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12(2), 91-116.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.  

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

van den Ban, A. W. & Hawkins, H. S. (1996). Agricultural Extension. (2^nd ed). Blackwell Science, Cambridge MA.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. (Vol. 5). London: Sage Publications.

Interagency Collaboration on Wildlife Management Issues: Opportunities and Constraints

Amanda D. Rodewald
Assistant Professor and Extension Wildlife Specialist
School of Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
Internet Address: rodewald.1@osu.edu

Introduction

Traditionally, Cooperative Extension has provided science-based, educational resources for rural clientele on a variety of agricultural issues. However, societal and landscape changes have produced a need for the Extension system to include a stronger emphasis on natural resource management (Schneider & Smallidge, 2000).

Most notably, the demographics and needs of clientele have changed. In particular, our client base is increasingly urban and interested in a wide range of natural resource topics rather than a narrow agricultural focus. This interest in the natural resources may result, in part, from greater public awareness and interest in environmental issues. Within our physical landscapes, regional changes in land use have resulted in greater amounts of natural cover types (e.g., woodlands and wetlands) than in previous decades.

Wildlife ecology and management are among the most popular topics in the natural resources. Wildlife species have important ecological, aesthetic, scientific, educational, recreational, economic, and cultural value. Across the country, millions of people participate in wildlife-related activities, ranging from hunting to birdwatching. As the rural-urban interface expands, the public also faces more challenges with nuisance wildlife and associated damage. In addition, because the eastern U.S. has little public land, the management of wildlife on private lands is increasingly recognized as critical to the success of statewide conservation efforts. Thus, many state and federal agencies and environmental organizations are involved with outreach efforts to promote education and awareness about wildlife ecology and management, particularly concerning damage prevention, habitat enhancement, and conservation.

Although specific outreach programs vary in subject matter, delivery system, and approach, all depend on successfully identifying issues that are most important to concerned citizens and using these issues to guide programming. Interagency collaboration has been widely promoted as a strategy to achieve the challenging educational goals of various groups. However, effective and mutually beneficial collaboration depends on sharing compatible priorities. In an effort to evaluate the potential for partnership between Extension organizations and state agencies, I (1) identified wildlife management issues that were perceived to be important to Ohioans and (2) compared perceived importance and knowledge levels of Extension and state agency personnel.

Methods

In consultation with faculty and staff in The Ohio State University Extension and the School of Natural Resources, I developed a mail survey that listed various wildlife management topics, ranging from habitat enhancement to wildlife damage management. These topics represented a broad range of wildlife management issues that, based on my conversations with agents, faculty, state agency personnel, and private citizens, seemed to be of interest to Ohioans. Respondents were asked to rate each topic according to (a) perceived importance to clientele and (b) their own level of knowledge about the topic. The rating scale ranged from 1 (low importance or knowledge) to 5 (high importance or knowledge).

In October 2000, surveys were mailed to 100 county Extension agents and district specialists dealing with agriculture and natural resources in all of Ohio's 88 counties and to 59 personnel at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Divisions of Forestry and Wildlife). I targeted state agency personnel who interacted directly or indirectly with private citizens concerned with forest or wildlife management issues (e.g., service foresters, private lands biologists, wildlife specialists). Ninety-six surveys were returned, and return rates were similar for both groups (60% for Extension and 61% for state agencies). Differences in importance and knowledge scores between state and Extension personnel were analyzed separately for each topic using an analysis of variance (SAS Institute, Inc., 1990).

Results and Discussion

In general, the wildlife management issues that were assigned the highest importance values by Extension and state personnel were related to either wildlife damage, hunting, or managing for game species (e.g., deer and grouse) (Table 1). Nuisance wildlife that were perceived to be of greatest importance to Ohioans were deer, geese, and raccoons.

Perceived public interest was relatively high for habitat management and enhancement, particularly for private forestlands, agricultural areas, and grasslands. In contrast, both groups rated the creation of specific habitat features (e.g., hedgerows, nest boxes) as less important to clientele. Clientele were thought to be especially interested in learning ways to attract game species.

Although the overall results initially suggested that bird-feeding and backyard landscaping were of relatively low importance to clientele, an examination of respondents from counties containing metropolitan areas showed that bird-feeding ranked third and backyard landscaping ranked sixth in perceived importance among habitat management topics. Given that a high proportion of Ohioans resides in metropolitan counties, targeting these " suburban" interests in wildlife habitat can have considerable impact. General information on wildlife in various landscapes (forest, grassland, urban) as well as wildlife-habitat relationships was also important to clientele regardless of the respondent group.

For 72% (21 of 29) of the topics, Extension and state personnel did not significantly differ in their ratings of perceived importance to clientele. Extension personnel placed greater importance on use of pesticides, wildlife-related health issues, and the control of bats, woodpeckers, and rodents than personnel in state agencies. In contrast, state agency personnel assigned higher importance values to the use of nestboxes, hunting, and managing for game species.

Table 1.
Ratings of Perceived Importance for Wildlife Topics

Respondents generally rated their knowledge similar to the importance score, and there were few large gaps between importance and knowledge. However, there were striking differences in the self-assessed knowledge scores between Extension and state personnel (Table 2). Self-assessed knowledge values were significantly higher for state agency than Extension personnel for 83% (24 of 29) of wildlife topics. Although it is possible that gaps between the two groups were related to confidence with subject matter, differences in professional development and training likely explain a large part of the pattern.

In Ohio, most Extension agents in agriculture and natural resources have extensive training in agriculture but less exposure to natural resource management. In contrast, most personnel at the Forestry and Wildlife Divisions of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources have extensive training in natural resource fields, including wildlife management. These differences in training reflect, in part, the traditional agricultural focus of Extension agents. However, as the clientele base shifts from agricultural to urban/suburban areas, the emphasis of outreach and Extension programs in natural resources will likely shift (Brown, 1999; Brown & Nielsen, 2000).

Table 2.
Self-Assessed Knowledge Ratings for Wildlife Topics

Overall, the potential for collaboration between Extension and state personnel is great. Similarity in the perceived importance of two-thirds of the wildlife topics suggests that Extension and state personnel have common interests and needs in outreach programs. For example, wildlife damage management is expected to become one of the most important issues facing both Extension and state agencies within this century--especially as the rural-urban interface expands (Regan, 1999).

Ideally, partnerships can build on the respective strengths of the two groups. Extension educators have tremendous experience in developing effective outreach programs and have well-established clientele networks. Natural resource professionals in the state agencies have the subject and technical expertise necessary to address complex wildlife issues.

Implications for Cooperative Extension

The Extension system must not neglect the natural resources. Limited training and expertise in wildlife ecology ultimately could be a future barrier to the success of Extension programs in natural resources. Although both Extension and state personnel recognize the importance of wildlife management to clientele, state agencies seem better poised to successfully deal with those issues. Extension agents have traditionally concentrated their efforts on an agricultural clientele base. However, today's agents are also an important resource for an increasingly urban public that encounters more wildlife, and agents must be knowledgeable about wildlife management (Schaefer et al., 1992).

What can Extension organizations do to prevent problems? First, they can increase the natural resource and wildlife training of Extension agents. Clearly, wildlife topics are perceived as important to clientele. By placing too much emphasis on agriculture, we put agents at a disadvantage in dealing with the full range of topics that are important to clientele. There are several ways to achieve a greater level of training. For example, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University developed an ambitious and innovative course to train county Extension agents in natural resources management, regulations, resource decision-making, and conflict resolution (Brown, 1999).

Second, Extension organizations must promote additional collaboration with state agencies, particularly on the most difficult issues. Partnering with wildlife biologists and other natural resource professionals will not only be a learning experience for many agents, it will likely increase the satisfaction of the clientele concerned with wildlife issues. Collaboration is needed in three basic areas (Regan, 1999):

1. Technical assistance to private land and homeowners,
2. Development of science-based outreach materials on habitat management, damage prevention and control, land ethics, and sustainability, and
3. Encouragement of individuals and communities to actively participate in problem solving and planning.

Is collaboration a threat to the Extension system? Probably not. Although the " credit" for programs may become more diffuse, this "co-management" or sharing of responsibility among agencies and organizations is likely to be the next paradigm shift in wildlife management (Decker & Chase, 1997, Decker et al., 1999). Ultimately, the common tie between Extension systems and state agencies is sincere interest in helping others to help themselves. Working together is the best way to reach this goal.

References

Brown, R. (1999). Natural resources challenges for land grant colleges of agriculture in the twenty-first century. Renewable Resources Journal 17:12-17.

Brown, R. D. (1999). How do we make the extension system work for us: a view from the inside. Proceedings, 9^th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference, Portland, Maine.

Brown, R. D. & Nielsen, L. A. (2000). Leading wildlife academic programs into the new millennium. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:495-502.

Decker, D. J. & Chase, L. C. (1997). Human dimensions of living with wildlife - a management challenge for the 21^st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:788-975.

Decker, D. J., Curtis, P. D., & Schusler, T. M. (1999). Extension education challenges and opportunities to achieve real community partnership for wildlife management. Proceedings, 9^th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference, Portland, Maine.

Regan, R. J. (1999). What do state wildlife agencies need, want, and expect? Proceedings, 9^th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference, Portland, Maine.

Schaefer, J. M., Huegel, C. N., & Mazzotti, F. J. (1992). Expanding into the urban arena. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 30(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a2.html

Schneider, R. L. & P. J. Smallidge. (2000). Assessing extension educator needs in New York to address natural resource issues for the new millennium. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 38(3). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/2000june/a4.html

Value of Adult Volunteer Leaders in the New Mexico 4-H Program

Julie K. Hutchins
Cooperative Extension Agent, 4-H
Valencia County
Las Lunas, New Mexico 87031
Internet Address: juhutchi@nmsu.edu

Brenda S. Seevers
Associate Professor
Internet Address: bseevers@nmsu.edu

Dawn Van Leeuwen
Associate Professor
Internet Address: dvanl@nmsu.edu

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Introduction

Imagine a world without volunteers. Imagine your 4-H program without volunteers. Who are volunteers in 4-H? What are some of the activities and programs they are involved with? What contributions do volunteers make?  These are important questions to ask for Extension agents involved in volunteer management and development.

National trends indicate the number of volunteers in public and governmental agencies continues to increase each year (Independent Sector, 1999). The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) and the 4-H Youth Development Program are no exception. Volunteers are an integral part of the 4-H program. Nationally, in 1999,there were 534,295 volunteers donating their time and energy to work with 4-H youth. They served as volunteer leaders with local 4-H clubs/groups and assisted with 4-H youth development activities that reached over 6.5 million youth (National 4-H, 1999).

Despite an increase in the number of individual volunteers, a misconception sometimes exists that this multitude of volunteers represents cheap labor and are used to replace or decrease professional staff. However, in the reality of budget restrictions and reductions, volunteers are needed to not only maintain adequate levels of service to clientele but to also prevent the loss of professional staff.

A sound volunteer program is not inexpensive to operate. Therefore, the decisions regarding if and how volunteers are used in an organization should be based on the cost of the volunteer program compared to the quality of services provides as well as any advantages to the organization (Brudney, 1990). Funding sources require government and nonprofit organizations to justify budget requests, and they also hold them accountable for the expenditure of public dollars and expect a return on their dollar.

Assessing the economic value of volunteer time to the organization is one approach to determining a rate of return. Learning about volunteers, such as their motivation, what activities they participate in, how much time they contribute, and the economic value of that time can help institutions increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Purpose and Methodology

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the dollar value of volunteer time contributed to the New Mexico 4-H Youth Development Program. A profile of adult volunteer leaders in the New Mexico 4-H program was developed by describing personal characteristics, types of volunteer activities (or roles) engaged in, the estimated amount of time donated to these volunteer activities, monetary donations contributed, and motivational factors for volunteering.

A sample of 265 subjects was selected from New Mexico 4-H volunteers enrolled for at least 4 years as of May 1998 (N = 1,134). It was believed that volunteers who experienced a role or activity more than once were more likely to provide a credible estimate of time spent. Data were collected using a mailed questionnaire from February through June 1999.

The researcher-developed instrument was assessed for face and content validity by a panel of experts. Reliability was assessed using a test-retest procedure with 30 volunteer leaders not selected to participate in the study. The minimum percent agreement of 70% was set a priori. No statements, questions, or subcategories were changed or deleted. The final usable response rate was 74% (n = 187).

Findings

Profile of Volunteers

Leaders participating in the study were found to have been serving the 4-H program for an average of 8 years. Most of the leaders identified themselves as project leaders who previously had or currently have children enrolled in 4-H. Fifty-eight percent had also been 4-H members themselves. Three-fourths of the volunteers were female, 90.6% were Caucasian, and 92.3% were married. Almost 73% were employed full time, mostly in the fields of accounting/office management, teaching/education, or self-employment. The age of leaders ranged from 31-55, with the greatest number in the 41-45 age group. Forty-one percent had attended a college or university, and 33% completed a college degree. Average family income was over $50,000. Nearly half of the volunteers lived on a farm or ranch.

There is a vast population of potential volunteers that has not been reached that could benefit for possible aspects and contributions to the 4-H Youth Development Programs. Underutilized groups include males and minority populations, college age students and senior citizens, urban-based families, and people established in lower income brackets and educational levels.

Motivation

Primary motivations for volunteering with the New Mexico 4-H program were that their children were 4-H members, that 4-H was a good organization, and that they enjoyed working with youth. These findings are consistent with other studies investigating motivation of 4-H volunteers (Culp, 1997; Fritz, 2000; Rouse & Clawson, 1992; Steele, 1989).  Fifty-eight percent of those studied were former members of 4-H.

Activities/Roles

Table 1 describes roles and activities participated in by total mean hours per activity. The majority of a leader's time was spent on countywide 4-H activities, teaching projects to youth, and local club meetings. The least amount of time was spent on recruiting 4-H members and receiving 4-H leader training. Volunteers are concentrating their time on teaching youth life skills through projects and club meetings. 4-H leaders were more active and more time was committed overall during the months of June through September. The minimum number of hours any one particular respondent spent during the year was 7.5 hours, and the maximum was over 2000 hours. The median number of hours was 369.5. Data represented a positively skewed distribution.

Table 1.
Activities/Roles Participated in by New Mexico 4-H Volunteers

Economic Value of Volunteer Time

Using the 1999 average hourly wage for nonagricultural workers ($14.30) provided by the Independent Sector (1999) and the median hours contributed, the economic value of the average New Mexico adult 4-H leaders' time was $5283.65. Applying this figure, New Mexico volunteers (N = 1,134) contributed an estimated 6.5 million dollars to the New Mexico 4-H program in 1998.

Other Monetary Contributions

4-H leaders in New Mexico made fewer than 25 phone calls per year and spent under $50 on long distance/pay phone charges. They also spent less the $50 of their own money on program supplies. New Mexico 4-H leaders, however, drove more than 500 miles in a year for related 4-H activities. New Mexico is a very rural state with only a few major urban centers, thus requiring greater driving distances and more time to attend both in- and out-of-county events. Nationally, in 1996, the average 4-H volunteer drove 300 to 400 miles and spent approximately $50.00 of their own money (4-H Statistics, 1998).

Implications and Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made.

1. Given the study's findings, the 4-H program should be expanded by implementing recruitment strategies that target under-utilized populations, including male and minority populations, college students, senior citizens, urban based families, and individuals identified as lower economic status.
   
   
2. Volunteers are important resources to the 4-H program. They are used to teach, plan, and implement many programs. Extension should continue to emphasize leader involvement in the areas found to have had the most time served because research shows that volunteers are more motivated and effective in serving areas they have an investment in. However, 4-H faculty and staff should invest more time in promoting leader involvement, recruitment, and volunteer training if they wish to expand and increase the educational program relativity of these areas.
   
   
3. The economic value of the average New Mexico adult 4-H volunteer leader's time for the period of 1 year was determined to be $5283.85. In 1998, 1,134 volunteers who had served at least 4 years were enrolled in the New Mexico 4-H program. Using these figures, New Mexico volunteers contributed an estimated $6.5 million in time and talent to the state 4-H program for 1998. 4-H administrators should use this information to demonstrate the significance and relevance volunteer have to the New Mexico 4-H program. These figures should also be used to address additional funding needs for the 4-H Youth Development Program.
   
   
4. 4-H leaders made less than 25 calls per year and spent under $50 on long distance/pay phone charges and under $50 on program supplies. Extension should continue to keep these "out of pocket" expenses to a minimum by allowing leaders to make long distance phone calls from their local office and through providing project materials at a low cost.
   
   
5. Leaders drove more than 500 miles in a year for related to 4-H programs. This is higher than the national average. A mileage reimbursement program should be initiated for volunteers driving their personal vehicles who drive 500 miles per year or more. The reimbursement program could be initiated through 4-H County Councils or fundraising events.
   
   
6. When recruiting volunteers, findings from this study should be used to help answer questions such as, "How much time would I be spending?" "What activities would I be expected to be involved with?" and "When would I be expected to serve?"
   
   
7. Volunteer leaders spent the least amount of time receiving or giving volunteer orientation and training. 4-H program faculty and staff should provide high-quality, frequent volunteer orientations and training throughout the year.
   
   
8. Other states should collect data to determine a profile of their volunteer 4-H leaders. Data collected can be used to make decisions about recruiting, orienting/training, management, and evaluation of the overall volunteer program.

The information collected from this study is useful to both state and county staff to help improve programs, recruit volunteers, and justify the spending of public dollars for 4-H Youth Development programming. Study findings can be used for program planning, recruitment, and accountability purposes. The program planning and recruitment aspects are primarily useful to Extension staff. For example, average hours spent by adult volunteer leaders in different program areas will be available to use in recruiting when potential volunteers ask, "How much time would I likely be spending?" Monthly patterns of activity for adult leaders will help to determine months when most leaders would be active and open to respond to surveys, attend training sessions, and receive information concerning new aspects of certain projects and to identify when recruitment of extra help might be needed.

Data related to the nature and extent of leader involvement can be used for accountability purposes (impact figures related to time spent by volunteer leaders in support of their leadership activities) and can be shared with funding agencies, donors, and sponsors, as well as provide recognition to volunteers serving in the program. Finally, general background data on volunteer leaders will enable a "volunteer leader profile" to be formulated containing characteristics of 4-H volunteer leaders to aid in recruitment efforts.

References

Brudney, J. (1990). Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector: Planning, initiating, and managing voluntary activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Culp, K., III (1997). Motivating and retaining adult volunteer 4-H leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38, (2) 1-7.

4-H Statistics. (1999, January 26). [On-line]. p.3 Available at: http://www.4h-usa.org/4h_stats.htm

Fritz, S. (2000). Motivation and recognition preferences of 4-H volunteers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41 (3) 40-49.

Independent Sector. (1999, January 12). [On-line]. p.1. Available at: http://www.indepsec.org/programs/research/charts/chart2.html

Rouse, S. B. & Clawson, B. (1992). Motives and incentives of older adult volunteers: tapping an aging population for youth development workers. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 30(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992fall/a1.html

Steele, S. M.., Finley, C., & Edgerton, C.A. (1989). Partners for action: The roles of key volunteers. Madison, WI. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Attributes of Indiana's 4-H Livestock Judging Program

Clinton P. Rusk
Assistant Professor
4-H Youth Department
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Internet Address: cr@four-h.purdue.edu

Chad A. Martin
Instructor
Animal Science Department
Kishwaukee College
Malta, Illinois
Internet Address: cmartin@kougars.kish.cc.il.us

B. Allen Talbert
Associate Professor
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Internet Address: btalbert@purdue.edu

Mark A. Balschweid
Assistant Professor
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Internet Address: markb@purdue.edu

Introduction

The Indiana 4-H livestock judging program began in April 1919 at the first 4-H Club Round-Up at Purdue University (Smith & Kirkpatrick, 1990). The livestock judging activity has been a traditional 4-H program offered to youth as an initial means of developing competencies in livestock evaluation. Throughout the development of the 4-H livestock judging program, residual benefits, such as life skills development, have enhanced the validity of maintaining the activity. Livestock judging has been associated with developing a variety of employer-preferred life skills such as communication, problem solving, and decision making (Boyd, Herring, & Briers, 1992).

When youths learn the process of evaluation through livestock judging, these same skills can be integrated into other real life situations. McCann and McCann (1992) reported that the livestock judging activity provides youth with an opportunity to develop necessary life skills. Participation on livestock judging teams is credited with improved critical thinking skills, enhanced self-confidence, and development of better team skills (Smith, 1989).

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the impact of the Indiana 4-H livestock judging program on past participants' development of life skills associated with workforce preparedness. The objectives of the study were to:

• Describe the demographic characteristics of 4-H livestock judging alumni,
• Determine how the 4-H livestock judging program influenced their personal growth, and
• Measure the general impact of the 4-H livestock judging program on career preparation.

Materials and Methods

The target population for the research project was those individuals who participated in Indiana's 4-H livestock judging program between 1975 and 1995. Records from the 4-H Youth Department at Purdue University were used to collect the names of 4-H livestock judging alumni. Agricultural education instructors and Extension educators helped bring the list of names to 294 individuals.

Development of the Instrument

A survey instrument was developed to determine:

• The demographic characteristics of Indiana's 4-H livestock judging alumni,
• How the 4-H livestock judging program influenced their personal growth, and
• The general impact of the 4-H livestock judging program on career preparation.

Fifteen demographic questions were used to define and describe 4-H livestock judging alumni's:

• Age,
• Gender,
• Occupation,
• Annual income,
• Years of 4-H livestock judging experience,
• College judging experience,
• Highest college degree earned,
• Level of experience judging livestock shows,
• Level of 4-H volunteerism, and
• Their children's involvement in the 4-H livestock judging program.

A list of 10 life skills associated with workforce preparedness was identified from a larger listing in the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Life Skills (SCANS) report. Respondents were asked to rate how the 4-H livestock judging program influenced the development of the following life skills:

• Decision making,
• Ability to verbally defend a decision,
• Livestock industry knowledge,
• Oral communication,
• Organizational skills,
• Problem solving,
• Self-confidence,
• Self-discipline,
• Self-motivation, and
• Teamwork.

A five-point scale developed by McCann (1992) was used to find the degree of influence the 4-H livestock judging program had on developing these skills in each of the participants.

To ensure the validity of the instrument, the survey was pilot tested by 42 coaches at the National 4-H Livestock Judging Contest in Louisville, Kentucky. Responses from the pilot test were used to refine the questionnaire. Following data collection, a Cronbach's alpha test was run to determine the reliability of the instrument. An alpha value of .92 was obtained. Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) stated reliability coefficients of .70 or higher are acceptable for research purposes.

Data Collection

Following pilot testing of the instrument, 294 alumni of the Indiana 4-H livestock judging program were mailed a copy of the survey. According to Dillman (1978), the mail survey is an effective method to reach a geographically dispersed population. Surveys were coded for follow-up with non-respondents. Two weeks after the initial mailing, non-respondents were mailed post cards as a reminder to send in their surveys. Five weeks after the initial mailing, remaining non-respondents were mailed a replacement survey. These procedures resulted in 185 out of 294 surveys being returned, for a total response rate of 63%.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 7.0 for Windows, 1998). Descriptive parameters, including frequencies, means, medians, modes, ranges, minimum, maximum, percentages, and standard deviations were used to summarize, organize, and interpret the data.

Results

Demographics

Listed below is a summary of the demographic characteristics that describe Indiana's 4-H livestock judging alumni:

• 82% were male.
• 93% attended college.
• 56% of those attending college indicated their choice of college was affected by participation in 4-H livestock judging.
• 45% of those who attended college competed on a collegiate livestock judging team.
• 68% had served as volunteers in the 4-H program.
• 58% of the respondents (who had children) involved their children in the 4-H livestock judging program.

The following list shows the highest degree attained by the 4-H judging alumni who attended college.

• 11% earned an Associates degree.
• 53% obtained a Bachelor's degree.
• 28% received a Master's degree.

The age distribution of respondents is shown below.

• 45% were 21 to 30 years of age.
• 30% were 31 to 40 years of age.
• 18% were 41 to 50 years of age.
• 7% were over 50 years of age.

Annual incomes of 4-H judging alumni were evenly distributed as shown below.

• 9% earn $25,000 or less.
• 19% earn between $25,001 and $35,000.
• 20% earn between $35,001 and $45,000.
• 20% earn between $45,001 and $55,000.
• 8% earn between $55,001 and $65,000.
• 8% earn between $65,001 and $75,000.
• 16% earn more than $75,000.

Occupations of respondents are categorized below.

• 17% are doing Extension work.
• 16% work in Agribusiness.
• 14% are involved in animal production.
• 8% are Agricultural Education Instructors.
• 3% are involved in crop production.
• 3% work for the government.

After combining categories, it was determined that 58% of respondents work in some segment of the agricultural industry.

Of the respondents, 53% have judged a livestock show. The list below shows the level of judging experience of these individuals.

• 53% have judged on the county level.
• 24% have judged a state show.
• 16% have judged a regional show.
• 10% have been invited to judge a national show.
• 3% have had the honor of judging on the international level.

Judging alumni were asked to indicate their level of coaching experience. Their responses are categorized below.

• 41% had coached a 4-H team.
• 26% had trained an FFA team.
• 2% had coached at the junior college level.
• 4% had senior college coaching experience.
• 17% had coached other judging teams.

Life Skills Development

Alumni of the 4-H judging program were asked to rate the influence of the judging program on the development of 10 life skills using the following five point scale: 1 = not influential at all, 2 = mildly influential, 3 = moderately influential, 4 = highly influential, 5 = almost essential to the ultimate development of this attribute. Table 1 shows the alumni responses. According to the alumni, Indiana's 4-H livestock judging program was highly influential in the development of the following skills:

• The ability to verbally defend a decision,
• Livestock industry knowledge,
• Oral communication, and
• Decision making.

Table 1.
Distribution of Former Participants' Ratings of the Influence the Indiana 4-H Livestock Judging Program Had on
Developing Life Skills Associated with Workforce Preparedness

Qualitative Responses

Former participants in the Indiana 4-H livestock judging program were asked to describe how the judging program influenced their personal growth in an open-ended question. Over 75% indicated the program influenced their personal lives in a positive manner. "The Indiana livestock judging program was the single most important experience of my life. I know I wouldn't be where I am today without it." Another respondent stated: "The 4-H livestock program helped