August 2002
Volume 40 Number 4

Features

Citizens Developing a Voice at the Table: A Story of Educational Organizing in Contemporary Extension Work

Scott J. Peters
Assistant Professor, Department of Education
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Internet Address: sp236@cornell.edu

Introduction

The essence of Extension education is often understood as consisting of two kinds of work: diffusing "science-based" information and helping people "apply" such information. While this captures some of what Extension educators have done and still do, from the very beginning Extension work has also included something I call "educational organizing" (Peters, 2002). Educational organizing can be understood as the work of developing leadership, building civic capacity, and facilitating learning through bringing people and resources together to identify, deliberate about, and act on important public issues and problems. Such work helps people to learn and act together in relation to specific, real-world problems and issues they care about, over time scales that can stretch from several months to several years in length.

At present, there is little useful research on the tradition of educational organizing in Extension work, either with respect to its historical foundations and development or its current shape and form. In response, I have initiated an action research project designed to help educators, specialists, and administrators to both understand and strengthen this tradition of work.

The focus of the research is the development of "practitioner profiles" that provide detailed first-person accounts of actual "practice stories" of educational organizing from experienced Extension professionals. My research method is adapted from an approach developed by John Forester that aims "to take practice more seriously, to recognize sensitively and to analyze powerfully what insightful practitioners do well in the most challenging moments of their work" (Forester, 1999, p. 8).

In semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews, which generally last from an hour to an hour and a half, Extension educators are asked to speak about one particular project they have pursued in a way that provides insight into what they actually do in their work. Each profile, created from the edited transcript of an interview, tells the story of a project in the educator's own words. Completed profiles provide accounts of specific practice stories, shedding light not only on the challenges educators face but what they do as they respond to them.

Profiles serve as learning and theory-building tools that help us identify and critically reflect on the skills, strategies, and roles educators use, develop, and play in their everyday practice. Because profiles are constructed from the actual lived experiences of practitioners, they can help us theorize about Extension education in ways that have strong practical utility.

To date, my graduate students at Cornell University and I have developed about 60 practitioner profiles of Extension educators and specialists from several states. In this article, I draw from one particularly rich profile from our collection in order to discuss some of what we are learning about the dimensions and significance of educational organizing in contemporary Extension work. The profile is of Janet Ayres, a professor and Extension specialist in leadership development in the Department of Agriculture Economics at Purdue University. Her "practice story" describes a process of public deliberation and leadership development that she coached and facilitated to help citizens in Wabash Township (near Lafayette, Indiana) gain a voice in development decisions affecting their community.

The Practice Story

Janet's story, in her words, is about "how people in a community were having decisions made about their quality of life. They had no representation on [local] decision making boards and wanted to have a say in what was happening. If I were to give it a title, it would be something about citizens developing a voice at the table." (This excerpt, and those that follow, from Peters, Hittleman, & Ayres, 2001) The story began in 1994 when a township trustee asked Scott Rumble, an Extension educator in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, for help. Scott then called Janet to ask for her help.

The first thing Janet and Scott did was to arrange a meeting with the trustee to learn more about the trustee's situation and perspective. Their "work" at this meeting was to draw out the trustee's concerns and listen carefully to what she said. Here is how Janet described what they did:

The Extension educator and I asked her a lot of questions about what she thought was going on, about the interest level of other people, about any form of organized group of citizens that currently existed. Other than the volunteer fire department, there was no organized group, and that was one of the issues. We asked her these questions to get a better feel for what was going on and also her level of interest in involving others in a process.

Based on what they heard, Janet and Scott had to decide whether it made sense for them to get involved. They asked themselves whether what they heard from the trustee was only a "personal agenda," or whether it was "truly a public issue where education and bringing the people together would make a difference." They could not answer this question without taking another important step: explaining the role they could play and suggesting a process to get things started. As Janet recalls,

We told her that our role is education. We're not private consultants, and we do not make recommendations. We will bring people together and create an opportunity for citizens--and we do use that word, citizens--to come together to talk about issues and to help them look at alternative courses of action and to facilitate a process where they can develop their own plan of action. But we do not do it for the people; we facilitate. Through that, we can provide education, and we can tap into the resources of the university to the extent that expertise may be needed. We would not be making any decisions, and we would not be making any recommendations, but we would provide a process whereby they would do that. That was exactly what she wanted. So with that, we felt there was a reason for us to get involved and that we could do some meaningful work through education and organization.

Janet and Scott's next step was to help the trustee begin to organize around her concerns and settle on a process for taking action. Here, Janet continued her listening and drawing out work with the larger group the trustee brought together, while also helping them to settle on a process for taking action. In her words,

We asked [the trustee] to identify other people that she knew who would broadly represent the township--I guess you would call it a steering committee--to help get this process under way. She identified nine to ten people and asked whether they would they be willing to meet with us. Then we met, in a home, sitting around the living room talking about the issues and what they saw happening there, and what they thought needed to be done....[W]e talked about a process that we might go through to bring people together across the township. We spent a lot of time talking about the process.

The process the steering committee settled on was adapted from the "Take Charge" program, which Janet had previously designed and used with other groups. Take Charge is an approach that is grounded in three sequential public meetings that move people through a process of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their community, developing a vision of the future, and deciding on issues that need to be addressed to move toward their vision. After deciding to use this approach, the steering committee gathered data on the households in the township, built a relationship with the local media, and worked on logistical issues related to holding the three public meetings (where to hold them, for example).

From this point on in the story, Janet played two main roles. She coachedthe steering committee as it moved through the Take Charge process, and she facilitatedthe three public meetings they organized. Janet summarized these roles this way:

[After] we identify a steering committee to give leadership to the process, our role becomes more one of coaching the process and facilitating the meetings to ensure the meetings are fair and that they're open and accessible and meaningful. In this case, I coached the process by working very, very closely with the steering committee. I met with them a lot so that they understood the process. We met two to three times before the three meetings started. Then after each meeting, we met. We started on a Thursday, so it was three Thursdays in a row. Then after the third meeting, we met several times to talk about what came out of the meetings and what the next steps ought to be, how to keep communication going.

Through her facilitation role at the three public meetings, Janet continued her listening and drawing out work. As she put it, "Part of my job is to hear what they're saying and to hear the common themes and the common threads. At the end of the meeting, I would summarize what I heard as the common threads." She also worked hard to make sure those who attended the meetings did not just stick with "people of their own kind," but instead got a chance to get to know, and eventually work with, people who were different. As she told me, this was intentional:

At the first meeting, people will sit by people they're most comfortable with, people of their own kind. This is where I think facilitating a meeting is very important. We mixed them up from the very beginning, so they would sit with people that they didn't know and could hear about the community from a different perspective, so that the cardiologist who drives his Mercedes could hear a lower-income person talk about the inaccessibility of the community services. As I facilitate, I'm very open about what I'm doing. I don't facilitate in a hidden way. I tell them up front that we have mixed them because when we come into a room like this, we're all a little anxious; we don't know quite what to expect, and we're going to sit by people that we feel most comfortable with. And I tell them that I'm going to be stretching them a little bit beyond their comfort zone and would really like for them to sit where we've assigned them because they are friends and neighbors, and we want them to get acquainted and to listen to what others feel are issues in the community.

Something else Janet did that she counted as significant, not only for her facilitation role but for her coaching role as well, was to suggest alternative approaches to problem solving. This was particularly important here, because some people started with the idea that the "solution" to their problem of being shut out of decision-making tables was to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. But Janet wanted people to look for other solutions. As she put it,

I think one of our roles as Extension educators can be to suggest alternative approaches to problem solving other than hiring an attorney and having an attorney fight it for you, which seems to be a very common mind-set. Maybe that's just in Indiana. I see so much that if a person has an issue, they try to find allies who also support that issue. Then they hire an attorney to fight their battle for them so they win, rather than seeing that "We're in a community together. We all have a stake here. Let's talk about this and work it out together around a table." That model is forgotten or not thought about. I talk about it, and then people say, "Oh, I like that." But they hadn't thought about it.

The three public meetings Janet facilitated were quite successful. They were lively and well attended. Agreement was reached on six priority issues to work on (e.g., the effects of growth on the school system), and a volunteer task force was created for each. The steering committee organized monthly educational meetings about the issues during the time the task forces were doing their work. During this time, Janet continued her coaching role. She added to this two other roles: linking the group with experts at Purdue University who could help people better understand the six priority issues and conducting skills workshops for the key leaders who emerged from the process. Here she describes these roles:

[The steering committee] set up a series of educational meetings. We provided input into those and brought experts from Purdue who could talk about that. But they set them up and they were in charge of the meeting. We took an approach that would enable the greatest input from people and would bring to the top the issues of the people. Altogether, probably over 240 people were involved in the whole thing....I met with the chairperson of [the] groups and did a leadership training workshop on what it means to be a chair of a group, what's expected, how you work through this process. We developed a time-line so that each of them was very clear about what was expected of them and how they were to go about doing their work. We were all in agreement on a time-line. Then those task forces did their work. They gathered information. They studied the issues. And they developed a plan of action with a set of recommendations for what they thought they needed to be done.

The recommendations were put together in a report that was published and shared not only with local decision-makers, but also with every household in the county. After that, the process of implementation began, which was still underway when I interviewed Janet in June of 2001.

Janet's story can be viewed as a success story, at least with respect to helping people in Wabash Township to organize to effectively deal with their original problem of feeling shut out of the decision making process. The citizens of Wabash Township did, in the end, develop a voice at the table--many voices at many tables, in fact.

Discussion

We can learn a great deal about educational organizing from Janet's practice story. Here, I only have space to briefly discuss three things. First, Janet's story helps us learn something about the breadth of roles such work involves as it unfolds over time. From the account of Janet's practice story provided above, we can see that she played seven different roles as the work progressed:

1. Drawing out and listening carefully to people's ideas and views;
2. Providing process suggestions;
3. Facilitating;
4. Coaching;
5. Providing alternative approaches to problem solving;
6. Providing workshops of specific skills; and
7. Linking people with university resources.

But we learn more from Janet's profile than just what roles she played. We learn something about how she played them as well. For example, we learn that when Janet is "facilitating," she is intentionally working to get people from different backgrounds to listen to and learn from each other.

Second, a careful reading of Janet's profile helps us see that educational organizing demands more than subject matter expertise and a technical competence in the seven roles named above. It also demands an embrace of--and an ability to model or live out--a set of principles and values that serve to guide or ground technical skills and knowledge. In Janet's case, we learn from reading her entire profile that these include:

• A deeply felt respect for all kinds of people,
• Faith and confidence in their capacities and potential,
• A passionate commitment to broadening and deepening the level and quality of their participation in civic life, and
• A strong belief in active democracy.

Interestingly, while Janet has three degrees from two land-grant universities (Purdue and Cornell), she did not learn these things in her formal education. She learned them from watching and listening to her father, a dairy farmer who was deeply involved in community affairs.

Finally, Janet's profile helps us to see both how and what people can learn as a result of educational organizing. To see this, we must begin with Janet's definition of education. According to Janet,

It's a two-way street of someone from the university in a facilitating role learning about the community along with the citizens, as they are learning from one another. It's people educating one another about the community. It's not just transferring the expertise. Education, to me, comes with a discourse. It comes with a much deeper understanding of issues. You get in community, where you're talking with people who have very different views. You keep talking and keep talking until everyone around the table has felt the light bulb go on because "Now I'm looking at this issue differently than just in my own little narrow slice of the world." That, to me, is the highest level of education. . . . [A]nd it stretches us. I think it stretches you to learn tolerance of listening to people who have very different values, or of different political persuasions, and to listen to that and think about it. To me, that's when you're getting the butterflies in the tummy and the sweaty armpits because it's stretching you.

As an Extension specialist grounded in this view of education, Janet helped community members learn much more than a set of technical skills. She did help them learn important concrete skills, such as how to chair a task force, how to work with the media, how to do research on community issues, how to write a vision statement, and how to develop action plans. But she also helped them learn how others in their community--particularly those from different neighborhoods or different socioeconomic circumstances--viewed things.

Through Janet's artful facilitation work, they learned to hear each other's thoughts and concerns, and to understand each other's hopes and interests. They learned "tolerance and respect." They learned to move from thinking in terms of "I, me, mine" to "we." They learned to shift from seeing people with different views as "enemies" and "opponents" to seeing them as potential collaborators.

Additionally, people not only learned that it is possible to work together, they developed a new frame of reference for how to work together. As Janet told me, they began to see themselves as collaborative problem-solvers. People who did not see themselves as having power began to discover that they could, in fact, act together to change the world. And what they learned in this specific experience, in Janet's view, could be applied to other cases in the future:

I'm hoping that people learn a process and a way of working together, that regardless of the issue, they've learned how to talk about public issues with civility and how to work them through any problem-solving model. So it's not just the issue that we were talking about five years ago, but they can apply that process to an issue today and five years down the road. I also hope they recognize that there are other approaches besides building allies, forming a special interest group, and fighting. There's a better way through collaboration.

Learning from Practice Stories

The above discussion only begins to scratch the surface of what can be learned from Janet's story. There are many more lessons and insights to be found in her story than I have space to draw out. Additionally, there are many questions her story leads us to raise about a host of things, ranging from the immediately practical (e.g., how do we deal with the challenges of local politics in Extension work?) to the deeply philosophical (e.g., what is the relationship between education and democracy?).

While rich practice stories like the one Janet tells can be invaluable tools for research aimed at building theory about practice, I am finding in my own work that they can also serve as powerful learning tools in classroom, staff development, and organizational development settings. Such stories not only help us learn "how to do it," but also just what the "it" is, and why it matters.

In other words, while practice stories help us learn tips and strategies useful for improving the technical practice of educational organizing, they also help us learn something about its value and significance, both in relation to people in communities across the nation who are struggling to address public problems and to the Extension system itself, which is struggling to develop a clear, vital, and compelling sense of purpose and relevance in a new time.

These days, change and revitalization efforts in the Extension system frequently come with calls to "think outside the box." As important and useful as that might be, perhaps we need to think more deeply and critically about what is in the box, too. Perhaps if we do so we will discover that the seeds of revitalization are already emerging from within, in the practice of educators like Janet Ayres. Perhaps we will discover in their work the continuing relevance and power of one of Extension's best historical traditions. And perhaps we will find inspiration and hope for the difficult but essential work of renewing it in our time.

References

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Peters, S. J., Hittleman,M., & Ayres, J. (2001). "Bringing Citizens' Voices to the Table: A Profile of Janet Ayres." Unpublished Manuscript.

Peters, Scott J. (2002. Rousing the people on the land: The roots of an educational organizing tradition in Extension work." Journal of Extension[On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html

Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership

Erin P. Condo
Graduate Student
Pennsylvania State University
State College, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: epc108@psu.edu

Kenneth E. Martin
Extension Professor and Director, Center for Community, Economic and Workforce Development
West Virginia University Extension Service
Morgantown, West Virginia
Internet Address: ken.martin@mail.wvu.edu

Introduction

Rapid changes in healthcare are raising concerns about access to and cost and quality of care. Disease prevention and health promotion continue to be important programmatic needs. And, while healthcare makes an important contribution to the local economy, concerns about healthcare infrastructure in rural areas and access for minorities and limited resource individuals and families remain important challenges.

The Cooperative Extension System in partnership with the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) has increased its engagement with the community to identify and ameliorate community health problems, but Extension as a resource is still underutilized within the university. The USDA-CSREES funded pilot project entitled "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership" is part of the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative. This project works to bridge the gap between the university and community by offering a community-based service-learning experience for health professions students across disciplines.

The "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative is guided by three main goals:

1. Educate and empower individuals and families to adopt healthy behaviors and lifestyles,
2. Educate consumers to make informed health and healthcare decisions, and
3. Build community capacity to improve health.

The pilot project, "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership," placed health science interns in community-based education and outreach programs in partnership with county Extension faculty and staff. Each project contributed to one or more of the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" goals and provided students with service-learning opportunities.

Funding was awarded to seven students in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia during the summer of 2000, providing them with a rare opportunity to learn in mostly rural community settings. Learning goals for the students included working at the community level to assess community healthcare needs and to develop and deliver a health education program to a high-priority audience. Long-term effects expected as a result of the grant include placing health professions students in underserved rural areas; enhancing the capacity of Extension to deliver health education and outreach to underserved populations; and fostering the integration of research, higher education, and Extension.

This article evaluates the success of this grant in meeting three specific goals:

1. Provide service-learning experiences for students,
2. Develop community-based and university partnerships, and
3. Enhance Extension's capacity to deliver health education and outreach programs.

The diversity of projects and methods undertaken throughout this project provide for a rich understanding of how Extension can better its own efforts in expanding partnerships and providing community-driven programs.

Methods

At the end of the internship, students reflected on their experiences in written reports to the project team. These reports were studied to determine the extent of student learning, new partnerships created or enhanced, and improved Extension capacity to deliver health promotion and education. Second, grant applicants (Extension administrators and specialists) and the Extension agents/educators at the county level were administered a telephone survey that further evaluated the experience of Extension faculty and staff in implementing this grant project to meet its objectives.

This article discusses the projects that were created or enhanced, and the target client populations reached by each of the projects. Further, the extent to which collaborations were built and what students learned through service in the community-based setting are discussed. Finally, this article assesses the outcomes of the pilot project and makes recommendations for its further implementation.

Findings

Overview of Projects

Five disciplines, including medicine, nursing, social work, physical therapy, and nurse midwifery, were represented in this grant project. This range of disciplines allows for diverse perspectives and skill sets to guide project development in the community. The grant program was flexible in terms of which kinds of projects could be developed so that students could easily match their learning objectives to community-identified needs and existing Extension projects. Student involvement ranged from observation to active participation and leadership in service delivery and project development.

The Extension educator at each site worked to oversee community projects; assist the student in making contacts with community members, leaders, and organizations; and to provide education and limited supervision.

Projects developed by the students in conjunction with Extension agents include the safe-sitter program, Dining with Diabetes, recycled medical equipment, nutrition and health for young mothers, food safety workshops, and the development of a rural health clinic. Through these projects, a variety of client populations were reached, including low-income teens, geriatric women, diabetics, children, food vendors, the medically uninsured/underinsured, and young parents (Table 1).

Table 1.
Overview of Projects

Service-Learning Benefits

Increasingly, universities are turning to service-learning as a method of engaging campuses with surrounding communities. Extension, rooted in community involvement, is the ideal vehicle for providing opportunities in student learning through community involvement.

It is useful here to provide a working definition of service-learning. A recent review of the literature devoted to university service-learning models reveals that most scholars and practitioners identify several major learning components. These learning components include orientation and reflection, reciprocal learning, interdisciplinary learning, community partnerships, needs and assets assessments, and social change.

Orientation and reflection are interdependent and crucial to implementing service-learning. First, orientation should work to define the goals and to clarify the role of each party (students, Extension, and community), including types of activities involved, evaluation criteria, and hours of work (Cauley, 2000). Reflection is a tool used throughout and at the completion of a project or activity to evaluate and re-evaluate the roles and expectations of each party and comes in many forms, both formal and informal (Eyler, Giles, & Schmeide, 1996). It is also useful in connecting community work to the health professions.

Reciprocal and interdisciplinary learning are also central to service-learning. In this framework, the student, community, and organization all benefit from the project, learn from the project, and bring valuable resources to the project. This idea holds true in interdisciplinary learning as well, where each health profession brings different, but equally valuable, knowledge to the project.

The pilot project succeeded in meeting these service-learning objectives. Concerning orientation and reflection, all students were required to write a report documenting their activities, successes, and suggestions for future development. Many students had not before heard of Extension, and much of their orientation centered around familiarizing themselves with Extension and the community to be worked in. A medical student wrote, "the first two weeks of the internship were dedicated to learning about healthcare needs in this area and also in some surrounding areas. It also involved learning what services Extension provides to the community."

However, the majority of respondents reported that there was not a proper introduction to project responsibilities. This was in part due to the newness of the project, but also due to the desired flexibility to carry out community-based projects. Still, the majority of the students report that, although they were somewhat autonomous in carrying out their responsibilities, they were always able to obtain the needed guidance from the local Extension educator.

The interdisciplinary and reciprocal nature of the internship experience was invaluable to student learning. Extension agents provided a link to the community, and they helped with the development of learning objectives while the students implemented the projects. Not only were different disciplines, such as diet, nursing, and medicine represented, but different types of community agencies offering their own expertise were utilized to further the students' learning objectives as well as the goals of the communities. And all parties brought their own expertise to the projects. As one Extension educator said of working with a nursing student, "it was good to have someone come into the office and give us a different viewpoint."

Students essentially worked for social change in the area of healthcare. Each project in some way enhanced efforts to improve access to healthcare with community input and involvement, the third goal of the "Healthy People: Healthy Communities" initiative. One administrator responds "we met this [goal] by making more resources available through the recycled medical equipment project. The goal of adopting healthy behaviors and lifestyles was also met."

Each project developed out of a community-identified need and built upon community strengths. Two students organized focus groups and community meetings to determine the desire for the respective projects, and a research study was done to determine the need for another project. One Extension agent reported, "the student really helped to organize the social reconnaissance meeting so that we could get input from the community to determine their interest in pursuing being a federally qualified health center in our county."

Concrete service-learning activities included project development, outreach, observation, grant writing, assessment, public relations, and community organizing. At a minimum, students gained an enhanced understanding of community practice and the diversity of rural healthcare needs, the impact of which cannot be underestimated. At most, sustainable projects were developed and initiated. Perhaps the most noticeable service-learning benefit was the creation of new or the enhancement of existing community partnerships.

Partnership Development

The value of community partnerships was apparent to the participating health professions students. As a logical first step in implementing a community-based project, students identified collaborating with their community as a learning objective. One grantee described one of her objectives while initiating the Safe-Sitter program as identifying "potential relationships between healthcare and Extension." Her work reflects this goal, as she "developed a community-based coalition for project collaboration." To promote the Dining with Diabetes project, one student wrote, "county Extension educators will work with health departments, hospitals, community dietitians, and other diabetic support groups." Another student, working with the Recycled Medical Equipment Project wrote, "planning meetings were held which brought together the county Extension agent, the Rural Health Education Partnership site coordinator, the regional community health promotion specialist, representatives from two rural hospitals, and a community member.... Many community leaders were brought together that had never met each other."

Although many students reflected that they had not before heard of Extension, they described it as an invaluable resource for community collaboration in promoting health and health education. A theme of many students' responses was the idea that Extension was a "best kept secret." Students learned about Extension in general, but also learned about the role of the Extension agent as a community leader and facilitator of change. Through this project, the Extension agent took on a new role, that of a facilitator of learning for health professions students.

Local Extension offices gained new partners through the collaborative work of the students in the community. An agent reported, "I was able to network with some organizations that I hadn't been able to get into before." To do this, some students arranged public meetings where community members and social and health service administrators came together to assess community needs and provide direction to projects. Examples of new partners identified by the agents/educators included the county health department, local nurses, the Girl Scouts, local hospitals, local citizens, and government officials. However, two agents reported that students used existing community partnerships rather than making new community ties.

For administrators, this project served as an opportunity to gain new partners in health professions schools, including schools of social work, medicine, nursing, and physical therapy. Although there were only five disciplines represented in the pilot project, these connections led to additional linkages with other health science programs such as the schools of pharmacy in two states. Through this pilot project, as one Extension applicant indicated, "we are learning to talk the same language with the health professions."

This grant program also expanded Extension's partnership with communities. One Extension specialist reported, "the contacts that were made will really enhance the efforts of other educators and help them get similar contacts in place." Another applicant reflected, "...although many organizations may have known about each other, they had not worked together in a partnership like this before these projects." Partnerships were also reportedly strengthened at the state level.

Benefits to Extension

The benefits to Extension were many and varied. One obvious benefit is that Extension programs were developed at little or no cost to local offices, and students provided the energy and mobilization to initiate community projects. All parties indicated that the internship provided an atmosphere that fostered a mutual relationship among student, agent, and community. A variety of new and old target groups were reached through these joint efforts, providing a valuable service-learning experience for the students. Additionally, the health professionals provided a new perspective on program delivery at the community level.

This project brought higher visibility of Extension to the community by creating and strengthening partnerships. At the same time, students, some who previously had not heard of Extension, learned the value of Extension as an educational resource. These efforts undoubtedly worked to expand the mission of Extension to include healthcare and to become more engaged with the university through facilitating learning experiences for students.

It should be noted that, although this program was targeted at health professions, its aims are perfectly suitable for working with other disciplines within the university such as engineering, public administration, economics, and more. Extension could partner with these departments to provide community-based service-learning experiences for students, while using the skills of these students to contribute to the expanding mission of Extension.

Project Challenges and Recommendations

A majority of the challenges faced by all participants were logistical in nature. Some felt that the 2-month timeframe for the project limited the opportunities for the student to become really involved in the community. The short time allotted and the short notice of the project to agents created problems in finding a "good fit" between agents and students, especially when students have such a structured program.

Another major challenge to implementing the project was the lack of orientation to the project in terms of expectations for the student and the agent. Proper orientation is essential in ensuring that the student has a meaningful learning experience in the field and that the project itself is successful without creating an additional burden to the agent.

Despite the challenges to implementing this project for the first time, benefits of the project were realized in health professions education programs, Extension, and underserved rural communities. There was unanimous agreement that the project should continue providing more opportunities for health professions students to learn in the community setting and for Extension to be the link to the community.

The "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership" pilot project resulted in the development of various community projects that have worked to expand the role of Extension in the community and in the university. With limited seed money, community-based projects have been initiated whose benefits are still being realized. In turn, Extension has become more visible and more effective in partnering with communities.

For more information about the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative, visit the National Network for Health Web site at http://www.nnh.org/.

References

Cauley, K. (2000). Integrating student learning objectives with community service objectives through service-learning in health professions schools curricula. Paper presented at the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health's Annual Conference, Washington, DC.

Eyler, J., Giles, D.E. Jr., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A practitioner's guide to reflection in service-learning. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.

The Integration of Research and Extension: A Preliminary Study

Rebecca Gould
Director, Information Technology Assistance Center
Associate Professor, Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and Dietetics
Internet Address: ragou@ksu.edu

George Ham
Associate Director of Research (Emeritus)
K-State Research and Extension
Internet Address: geham@ksu.edu

Kansas State University
Manhattan Kansas

Introduction

"Almost all of the problems of contemporary America require interdisciplinary solutions." Furthermore, "...our institutions could be better organized to bring them to bear on local problems in a coherent way." These statements from In Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution (1999) point to the need for increased connectedness within the land-grant system. According to Kerr (1987), no one questions the financing of agriculture research with public monies. What is in question is how to best leverage funds to enhance the return on investment of both federal and state dollars and to fulfill the land-grant mission. Simply stated, the mission of public and land-grant institutions should be to advance the common good (Kellogg Commission, 2000).

Implied in the 1996 Farm Bill (http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/titles.htm) and specified in the 1998 Farm Bill (http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/workshop/NERAReview.html) was integration of Research (AES) and Extension (CES). The National Research Council (1996) reported on the need for change in the land-grant system in four key areas, one of which was to stimulate the linkages among teaching, research, and Extension. The report recommended changes in formula funding to alleviate separation of these entities. In his remarks regarding the National Research Council (NRC) report, Webb (1998) commented that the organization of administrative and funding structures within the land-grant system hinders integration. McDowell (2001) discussed the rhetoric of integration by pointing out that of the $950 million budget FY 2000 CSREES budget, $39 million was allotted for integration activities.

Although there are challenges to integration, Webb (1998) pointed out that where research-Extension linkages exist, the dynamic that occurs through the flow of information enriches the research process and the use of these findings to serve the public. These linkages also ensure that current knowledge is disseminated through outreach. Thompson and Gwynn (1989) reported that deans of Colleges of Agriculture have been concerned about the lack of such linkages or increasing integration for a long time.

Purpose and Objectives

Since the 1996 NRC report, the realignment of research and Extension has received heightened attention. However, there was no information found in the literature on how this was occurring throughout the land-grant system. The purpose of the study reported here was to investigate the status of the integration of research and Extension within the land-grant system. Specific objectives included to:

• Determine who set the research and Extension agendas for institutions
• Uncover ways in which collaboration between Extension and research is fostered
• Provide examples of collaborative efforts, and
• Understand basic resource allocation within the land-grant system.

Methods

An online survey was developed and pilot tested. The 22-item survey was based on a review of the literature and discussions with administrators within a land-grant system. Nine close-ended questions pertained to setting agendas, determining appointments, methods of interaction, future directions, and demographics. Open-ended questions were designed to gain more specific examples about collaborative efforts, incentives for collaborating, allocating funds, submitting joint AES/CES proposals, and additional suggestions for integrating Extension and research. The survey was built using an in-house developed survey software package.

Approximately 10 AES/CES faculty around the United States were emailed a draft of the survey and asked to review the questions for clarity and relevance to the purposes of the study. Three of the faculty suggested changes to the wording, length of the survey, and extensiveness of close-ended questions.

The survey was then configured for online distribution. An email notice was sent to the us-aesdirs@reeusda.gov and us-cesdirs@reeusda.gov listservs requesting that they link to the Web site and complete the survey. Individuals on these listservs include dean/directors, associate directors, and assistant directors at each land-grant institution. Because of the unique way in which AES/CES is organized at land-grant institutions, there was no way to determine the exact number of individuals at each institution who might be on the listserv; therefore an overall response rate could not be calculated. A follow-up reminder was sent approximately one week after the initial electronic mailing.

The executive directors of the four regional associations of research directors (Northeast, North Central, South, and West) who received the online survey suggested that the orientation of the questions was by state and difficult to answer from a regional perspective. Therefore, open-ended questions were posed to the executive directors. These included:

• Is enhancing the collaborative efforts between AES and CES a concern among regional directors?
• As an executive director do you have suggestions for ways to enhance interaction between AES and CES?
• Are you aware of any "best practices" among the land-grant  universities that illustrate innovative collaborative efforts?

Qualitative and quantitative data were downloaded into an Excel^TM spreadsheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Institutional Review Board of Kansas State University approved the study.

Results and Discussion

Demographics

Ninety-two individuals responded to the survey, with 53% having their primary area of responsibility in AES and 47% holding CES appointments. About 30% of the respondents were from the western region of the United States (Table 1).

Table 1.
Extension Region Affiliation

Responsibility for Research and Extension Appointments and Agenda

Sixty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that the Administrative Head of Agriculture made AES appointments, while 82% of the respondents indicated the Director of Extension assigned CES appointments (Table 2).

Open-ended comments from respondents indicated that the respective administrative heads made appointments after input from department heads and faculty. Individual researchers (74%), stakeholders (71%), and College of Agriculture administration (69%) established the AES agenda. Extension agents and specialists (83%), stakeholders (79%), and the Director of Extension (77%) established the CES agenda (Table 3). One respondent commented that a regular and ongoing needs assessment was conducted at the county level to prepare the CES agenda.

Table 2.
Individual or Group Responsible for Either AES or CES Appointments

Table 3.
Individual or Group Responsible for the AES/CES Agenda

Methods for Enhancing Collaboration Between Research and Extension

Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated that enhancing the collaborative efforts between AES and CES was a concern at their university; 80% identified ways to enhance the interaction. Many commented that collaboration was already ongoing. One respondent aptly stated that, "...our ability to document/demonstrate relevance is driving us to improve." Another respondent summarized the reasons for integration, "We are an applied research and extension system, one family, different functions, same goals, ultimately."

A strategic plan/vision was the impetus for enhanced cooperation at some universities. Funding opportunities was yet another driver of collaboration. Examples included the establishment of internal grant funds, special accounts, or a reorientation towards outcome-based funding. According to several individuals, there are more available competitive funds through AES, which are awarded with outcomes as the dominant consideration. Outcomes for CES are harder to measure and articulate.

In nonagricultural related areas, research is not as closely aligned with CES as deemed necessary. To paraphrase one respondent, Extension in land-grant universities is broader than the AES agenda. The need for an effective feedback mechanism between CES field staff, who hear the concerns of clients, and the campus staff, who conduct the research, was a concern. Funding sources, expectations of faculty, and differences in reporting requirements contribute to problems with collaboration. Several respondents pointed out that collaboration must be reinforced by administration.

The most common method of interaction was co-housing AES and CES faculty within a department, which was reported by 50% of the respondents (Table 4). The respondents also indicated that joint faculty appointments, some county faculty joint appointments, college- and community-based teams, and all of the options listed were common methods of interaction. One university held joint monthly meetings to keep AES and CES faculty informed on issues facing both programs.

Table 4.
Common Methods of Interaction Among AES/CES Faculty

Thirty-five percent of the respondents indicated that the number of joint proposals submitted was 1 to 20% (Table 5). Joint proposals were encouraged using the assistance of a grants/contract office that saw the grant process through from inception through closing of a funded grant, administrative oversight by respective associate directors, greater merit increases based on joint proposals, and higher funding ceilings on seed grants for integrated projects.

Table 5.
Percent of Proposals That Are Joint AES/CES Submissions

Respondents provided numerous examples of collaborative efforts among land-grant universities. A summary of these follows.

• Adopt the concept that faculty are "faculty" regardless of the appointment.
• Award program planning grants, program development grants, rapid response grants.
• Develop program area thrusts, common interests groups (CIGs).
• Eliminate individual PI Hatch projects.
• Establish teams to work on key issues.
• Evaluate all Extension faculty in academic departments.
• Expect outreach from all faculty.
• Form commodity-oriented and science area groups.
• House Research and Extension in departmental units.
• Require Extension components in all research projects.

Incentives for Collaborative Efforts

Incentives to enhance collaborative efforts ranged from legislative mandates to seed grants. For one respondent, the primary incentive was the federal AREERA requirement. Some universities require interaction as part of the position, which is evaluated through the promotion and tenure process. Salary adjustments for individuals who served as coordinators, merit increases, nonfinancial acknowledgement, and overload payment for CES faculty who teach also were mentioned. One university set aside monies to bring CES and AES faculty together to develop joint projects.

Examples of Best Practices in Collaboration

Both general and specific examples of best collaborative practices were provided. These included Area of Expertise teams, Research to Outreach initiatives, and a three-tiered team system of individual project teams, group teams, and college-wide teams. Many of the best practices centered around commodity-type programs, such as blueberries, cotton, and wheat, or issue-based programs, such as fire ants, water quality, manure management, and nutrient management. As an example of a best practice, program-planning groups were used for needs identification, priority setting, and review of preproposals for federal formula funds.

Other universities touted their best practice as a diagnostic to discovery activity approach and research farms that were fully integrated Extension/research facilities. In one state, the Directors of AES and CES conducted regional listening sessions to understand how research and Extension could address issues facing agriculture. In some instances, Extension faculty were conducting applied research in conjunction with campus faculty. Other respondents commented that they were not interested in integration beyond AES and Extension agriculture, where integration makes sense.

Additional comments on enhancing collaborative efforts were provided. Some noted the lack of understanding of the land-grant mission and the development of a more modern perspective of AES and CES. Implied in many comments was the need for increased communication between AES and CES, a respect for the missions of each entity, and a desire to work together.

Funding Sources and Resource Issues

Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that CES faculty qualify for AES research funds. Respondents (60%) most frequently cited the College of Human Ecology as the recipient of AES/CES dollars allocated outside of the College of Agriculture (Table 6). A 1-5% allocation of AES dollars outside of the College of Agriculture was the most common response (27%) (Table 7). Respondents indicated that funds were typically allocated by the administrative head (either Dean of the College of Agriculture, AES Director, or unit leader). Funds also were allocated by faculty appointments at the time of hire, Hatch project designation, competitive proposals, departmental block grants, or a combination of these. One university provided funds to academic departments and other units based on research portfolio, level of activity, uniqueness of the unit, and project expense.

Table 6.
Investment of AES/CES Outside of the College of Agriculture

Table 7.
Percent of Total AES Dollars Allocated Outside the College of Agriculture

The amount of CES dollars allocated outside the College of Agriculture tended to be 1-10%, which was the response given by 23% of the participants in the study (Table 8). Respondents commented on the need to continue to integrate federal funds. One respondent suggested that the process for budgeting and research proposals become more open, because the current system tends to be closed. Staff members might have to be replaced before integration occurs. Another stated the current CSREES administrative and accounting system is an impediment to the collaborative process. One accountability system was recommended so that the faculty/agent could complete their program of work and report it once using the CRIS or EASE type system. Still another suggested that the new AREERA reporting guidelines are forcing greater accountability.

Table 8.
Percent of CES dollars Allocated Outside the College of Agriculture

Establishing Current and Future Directions

Program development groups (62%) was the most common manner in which AES/CES faculty met the needs of clientele and determined future directions (Table 9).

Table 9.
Ways in Which AES/CES Faculty Meet the Needs of Clientele and Determine Future Direction

Summary of Comments from Executive Directors

The executive directors surveyed indicated that integration was a high priority. To achieve this goal, there must be an appreciation for and understanding of each other's mission and programs at the director level, which will result in "spill over" to the research scientist and Extension specialist. When carried to the regional and national level, appreciation and understanding fosters the establishment and perpetuation of joint programs and activities.

The directors commented on the movement towards collaboration as evidenced by:

• Joint meetings between AES and CES at regional and national levels,
• Combined efforts of the NASULGC Extension and Experiment Station Committees on Organization and Policy--Agricultural Biotechnology and Implementation Task Force and the Food Safety Subcommittee, and
• The use of multistate research funds (25% of Hatch) only for approved multistate projects

Summary

Research and Extension are engaged in collaborative efforts throughout the land-grant system. Beyond joint appointments of AES and CES faculty, cohousing, and funding opportunities, there was no one best practice that pervaded the qualitative comments. Land-grant systems might use the suggestions provided by peers to enhance integrative efforts at their respective universities.

In summation:

• One third of the respondents indicated that they are using AES/CES teams to plan and implement projects.
• AES/CES funding tends to be concentrated in Colleges of Agriculture.
• Extension scientists are engaged in applied research
• Request for proposal strategies to stimulate joint AES/CES, multidisciplinary, and multi-university proposals appear to be justified.
• There is strong evidence of stakeholder input.
• Progress is being made in facilitating environments where discussion between Research and Extension scientists occurs at the departmental level.
• A best practice at one institution might not "fit" another.
• Many of the collaborative efforts were financed with seed money or through a competitive grant process.

Limitations

The limitations of the study included the small sample size, the inability to quantify listserv participants, the inability to send follow-up responses to all nonrespondents, and timing of the study, which occurred in early May.

Future Research

The above limitations should serve as a catalyst for follow-up studies. Future research might evaluate the integration of research and Extension from the research faculty and Extension specialist perspectives. An in-depth description of best practices in integration occurring throughout the land-grant system universities is needed. Identifying barriers to Extension and research linkages at the local, unit, and individual level might be yet another area to research.

Acknowledgements

This preliminary study was Rebecca Gould's project for Class 10 of the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program. Dr. Richard Wooton, Associate Director of Extension for K-State Research and Extension, was instrumental in the development of the survey and assisting with synthesis of the results.

References

External Review of Northeastern Multistate Research Portfolio Report. (September 1999). From The Panel to the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) U.S. Department of Agriculture [On-line]. Available at: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/workshop/NERAReview.html

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Institutions. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. (Third Report) National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Institutions. (2000). Renewing the convenant: Learning, discovery, and engagement in a new age and different world. (Sixth Report) National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Kerr, N.A. (1987). The legacy: A centennial history of the state agricultural experiment stations 1887-1981. University of Missouri-Columbia: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station.

McDowell G.R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21^st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

National Research Council. (1996). Colleges of agriculture at land grant universities: A profile. Washington DC: National Academy Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 394472).

Thompson, O.E., & Gwynn, D. (1989, Spring). Improving Extension: Views from agricultural deans. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989spring/a1.html

Webb, B. (1998). A reality check. In: Ernstes, D.P., Hicks, D.M. Increasing understanding of public problems and policies, 1997. Papers presented at the National Public Policy Education Conference. (47^th, Charleston, SC, September 21-24, 1997) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 420746).

Needs Assessment Surveys: Do They Predict Attendance at Continuing Education Workshops?

Robert W. Malmsheimer
Assistant Professor of Forest Law and Policy
Internet Address: rwmalmsh@esf.edu

René H. Germain
Assistant Professor and Continuing Education Coordinator
Internet Address: rhgermai@syr.edu

Faculty of Forest and Natural Resources Management
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Syracuse, New York

Introduction

Extension educators regularly conduct needs assessment surveys to develop programs to meet their clients' education needs (Ahmann, 1979; Gilmore, 1989). These surveys are particularly prevalent in continuing education (CE) programs, where rapidly expanding knowledge, technical innovations, and public demand for professional competence require specialists to constantly increase their skills and knowledge (Queeney, 1995).

Advocates of needs assessment surveys urge educators to use these surveys as "a decision-making tool for...identifying the educational activities or programs they should offer to best meet their clients'--and society's--education needs" (Queeney, 1995, 1). These surveys are used as tools to analyze program feasibility, in essence, serving as quasi-referendums on potential programs. The premise is that if a survey is conducted properly, survey respondents will participate in program activities (e.g., Witkin and Altschuld, 1995; Reviere, Berkowitz, Carter, & Ferguson, 1996). However, a review of the literature revealed that no one has tested the theory that survey respondents' preferences can be used to predict those respondents' attendance at CE programs.

The study reported here compared CE needs assessment survey records with CE program attendance records to learn if respondents attended programs that they indicated a preference for. Specifically, we wanted to answer two questions about needs assessment survey respondents:

• Did respondents who indicated an interest in a workshop topic attend a workshop on that topic?
• Did respondents' workshop attendance vary based on their level of interest in a workshop topic?

Methods

The study analyzed data from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Faculty of Forest and Natural Resource Management's (FFNRM) CE program for New York State (NYS) forest resource managers. We matched questionnaires from a CE needs assessment survey of New York State forest resource managers with attendance records from a series of workshops on three topics.

The CE Needs Assessment Survey

Forest resource management CE educators regularly employ needs assessment surveys to learn their clients' CE preferences (Bullard & Straka, 1986; Donovan, Anderson, Wheatcraft, & Carpenter, 1989; Fischer & O'Leary, 1987; Lilley, 1987; Straka & Richards, 1984, 1985). In fact, published studies under represent the number of these surveys because many CE programs publish only internal reports (e.g., Oregon State University Administrative Committee, 1998; Siscock, Rechenbach, & Finley, 1995). Using these studies as models, we surveyed a census of practicing NYS forest resource managers to determine their CE preferences in August 1996 (Malmsheimer & Floyd, 1996).

We employed Dillman's Total Survey Design Method (Dillman, 1978). Each member of the population was sent an initial mailing consisting of an introductory cover letter, a questionnaire, and a postage paid self-addressed stamped envelope. Ten days later, we sent a reminder letter to all non-respondents. Two weeks later, all non-respondents received a different reminder letter, another copy of the questionnaire, and another postage paid self-addressed stamped envelope. The questionnaire collected information on workshop topic and logistic preferences, and respondents' characteristics. Each questionnaire was uniquely numbered so that we could match returned questionnaires to specific survey respondents.

The study examined the responses to the two parts of the questionnaire that requested respondents' workshop topic preferences. In Part I, respondents indicated any of 145 workshop topics that interested them. For this study, we designated these responses as "general interest" workshop preferences.

In Part II of the questionnaire, respondents chose the top five workshop topics (of the 145 workshop topics listed), that were "of greatest interest or need to you or your organization." We designated these five responses as "strong interest" workshop preferences. When a respondent indicated both a "general interest" and a "strong interest," we coded the response only as a "strong response." This prevented us from double counting respondents' preferences and allowed us to analyze whether interest level affected workshop attendance.

We mailed 507 questionnaires. Ten questionnaires were undeliverable, and 369 were received (74.2% response rate). Of the received questionnaires, 27 respondents (7.3% of respondents) indicated that they were not interested in continuing education. The study matched the remaining 342 respondents' questionnaires with our workshop attendance records.

The Workshops

In accordance with needs assessment survey advocates' suggestions, we used the survey's responses to choose CE workshop topics. From May 1998 to May 2000, the FFNRM presented 19 CE workshops covering nine topics.

The study analyzed the attendance records from 13 of the 19 workshops. These 13 workshops addressed three topics:

• Best Management Practices (BMP workshops),
• Occupational Health and Safety Agency Hazard Tree Regulations (OSHA workshops), and
• Silviculture (Silviculture workshops).

We limited our analysis to these workshops because the five BMP, five OSHA, and three Silviculture workshops were presented at locations throughout New York State, consistent with the state-wide coverage of the our needs assessment survey. The workshops on other topics were only presented in one part of the state.

Analysis

We used the unique number on each questionnaire to determine individual respondent's names. We then examined workshop attendance records to find survey respondents who attended workshops. We reviewed each one of these respondent's workshop preferences to determine whether that respondent attended a BMP, OSHA, and/or Silviculture workshop.

We conducted descriptive and inferential analysis of this data with SPSS 8.0 (1997). Chi-square tests and standardized residuals were calculated by cross-referencing the data.

Results

The workshops covering the three topics were well attended. Survey respondents represented 19%, 23%, and 32% of BMP, OSHA, and Silviculture workshop attendees, respectively.

More than 10% of survey respondents who indicated an interest (general or strong) in a workshop topic attended that workshop, with more than 30 (17%) of the respondents interested in a Silviculture workshop attending such a workshop (Table 1). Survey respondents with a strong interest in a workshop topic exhibited a higher rate of attendance than those with a general interest in the topic, with more than one in five respondents strongly interested in BMP and Silviculture workshop attending such a workshop.

Table 1.
Survey Respondents Who Indicated an Interest in a Workshop Topic and Attended a Workshop on That Topic

We also wanted to learn whether the survey respondents that attended workshops had indicated an interest in the workshop on their questionnaire. More than half of the respondents who attended the workshops indicated an interest in that workshop topic in their survey, with more than 82% of respondents at the BMP workshops doing so (Table 2). This indicated that while many respondents who attended a workshop indicated an interest in the workshop when they completed their questionnaire, a large number of workshop attendees did not.

Results for specific workshop topics varied. Most respondents at the OSHA and Silviculture workshops had a general, rather than a strong, interest in these workshop topics. Conversely, more than one-half of survey respondents at the BMP workshops had indicated a strong interest in that topic.

Table 2.
Workshop Preferences of Survey Respondents Who Attended a Workshop

Inferential Analysis

Pearson Chi-square tests that compared respondents' interest in workshops were significantly associated with attendance at some of those workshops (Table 3). Respondents who indicated some kind of interest (general or strong) in two of the three workshops (BMP and OSHA) were more likely to attend the workshop than survey respondents who indicated no interest in these topics.

Table 3.
Chi-Square and Phi Values for Survey Respondents' Workshop Attendance

An analysis based on survey respondents' level of interest revealed that general interest in one workshop (OSHA) and strong interest in another workshop (Silviculture) were associated with attendance at those workshops. For example, analysis of standardized residuals revealed that respondents with a strong interest in a Silviculture workshop were 2.3 times more likely to attend an Silviculture workshop. However, low expected Chi-square cell frequencies prevented us from analyzing the results for respondents with a strong interest in the BMP and OSHA workshops. An analysis of Phi values for all the statistically significant analyses indicated that the relationship between interest and attendance was weak, explaining only 11% to 14% of the variability.

Discussion

The results suggest that CE needs assessment survey respondents' workshop preferences do sometimes match their stated behavior. However, the relationship between stated preferences and attendance was weak. An examination of our research questions provides some important insights for CE educators who rely on needs assessment surveys to assess CE program feasibility.

Did Survey Respondents Who Indicated an Interest in a Workshop Topic Attend a Workshop on That Topic?

Survey respondents who indicated an interest in a workshop topic attended some workshops more often than survey respondents with no interest did. Although the inferential analysis validated this statement, our results were tenuous. Our results suggest that, at best, 17% of survey respondents who indicate some type of interest (strong or general) in a CE workshop will attend the workshop.

There are many reasons why many survey respondents may not have attended our workshops. Some relate to circumstances beyond CE educators' control, such as family obligations, illness, or that respondent may have moved out of New York State. Other reasons may relate to the workshops themselves. Three of these are particularly relevant for understanding the limitations of our analysis.

• First, all of our workshops were full-day workshops offered on weekdays. Some interested respondents' employers or work responsibilities may have prevented interested respondents from attending our workshops.
• Second, our workshops may have contained none, or only a small portion, of the material that some respondents who indicated an interest in a workshop topic were interested in learning about.
• Third, there was nearly a 2-year delay between when the survey was administered and when the workshops were first offered. During that time, some interested survey respondents may have satisfied their CE needs through other sources, such as other universities' CE programs or correspondence courses, or some respondents may have simply changed their CE priorities.

Our analysis of the workshop preferences of survey respondents who attended a workshop (Table 2) revealed that CE administrators need to remain cognitive of CE needs assessment survey's "shelf life." The discrepancy between survey respondents' interest in OSHA workshops and participation in OSHA workshops illustrates why CE administrators should not rely solely on needs assessment surveys to determine CE programing. Respondents in our survey ranked an OSHA workshop the 21^st (of 145) most popular workshop topic. However after the survey was completed, OSHA began to enforce its comprehensive logging regulations. OSHA's initiative stimulated forest resource managers' interest in (and attendance at) workshops on the topic. This suggests that external factors can limit the stability of needs assessment surveys' results and illustrates why CE administrators should complement needs assessment surveys with other techniques to continually evaluate their clients' educational needs.

Did Survey Respondents' Workshop Attendance Vary Based on Their Level of Interest in a Workshop Topic?

Our CE needs assessment survey asked respondents to distinguish their level of interest in a workshop topic. This technique has been used in other forest resource management CE needs assessment surveys (e.g., Siscock, Rechenbach, & Finley, 1995). This study was designed to determine whether attendance varied based on survey respondents' level of interest in a workshop topic. The small number of survey respondents who indicated a strong interest in BMP and OSHA workshops prevented us from completely answering this question. However, the Silviculture results suggest that survey respondents who indicate a strong interest in a workshop are more likely to attend that workshop (Table 3).

An ancillary, and perhaps more practical, question is whether CE educators need to ask survey respondents to differentiate between their levels of interest in a workshop topic. Our results suggest they do not. Every survey respondent in our study who indicated a strong interest in a workshop topic also indicated a general interest in the topic. Thus, strong interest respondents were a subset of general interest respondents. If the purpose of needs assessment surveys is to gauge interest in workshop topics, CE educators can do this by only measuring clients' general interest in a workshop topic. This would lessen the time and effort clients must expend to fill out a survey and may increase survey response rates.

Conclusion

Educators regularly use needs assessment surveys to understand their clients' preferences. Our findings suggest that, although educators can sometimes rely on needs assessment surveys to assess program feasibility, only a small percentage of survey respondents who indicate an interest in a topic will attend a program on that topic. In addition, many program attendees will fail to indicate an interest in the program when they are surveyed.

Although many of our findings were significant, they were also tenuous. The exploratory nature of this study and the limited number of survey respondents who attended workshops indicate that more research is needed. Additional studies will help us understand the value of needs assessment surveys and whether they are one of the essential tools educators should use to assess their clients' education needs.

References

Ahmann, J.S. (1979). Needs assessment for program planning in vocational education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Bullard, S.H. & Straka, T.J. (1986). Continuing education needs of natural resource professionals. Resource Management and Optimization. 3:281-290.

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

Donovan, D.D., Anderson, S., Wheatcraft, A.M., & Carpenter, S.B. (1989). Continuing Education needs assessment of forestry professionals in Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Extension Forestry Report No. 2., 24 pp.

Fischer, B.C., & O'Leary, J.T. (1987). Continuing forestry education. Journal of Forestry 85(2):18-19.

Gilmore, G.D. (1989). Needs assessment strategies for health education and health promotion. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.

Green, Samuel B., N.J. Salkind, & T.M. Akey (1997). Using SPSS for Windows. Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lilley, W.D. (1987). Continuing forestry education in Maine. University of Maine, College of Forest Resources, Technical Notes No. 99. 10 pp.

Malmsheimer, R.W., & Floyd, D.W. (1996). A continuing education needs assessment of New York State forest resource managers. SUNY ESF Report. 75 pp.

Oregon State University Administrative Committee (1998). Strategic planning for outreach education: Responding to market opportunities -- incentives and barriers. Oregon State University, College of Forestry Report. 12 pp.

Queeney, D.S. (1995). Assessing needs in continuing education: An essential tool for quality improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Reviere, R., Berkowitz, S., Carter, C.C., & Ferguson, C.G. eds. (1996). Needs assessment: A creative and practical guide for social scientists. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

Reynolds, H.T. (1984). Analysis of nominal data. 2nd ed. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Research Methods, Vol. 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Siscock, M., Rechenbach, M., & Finley, J. (1995). Continuing forestry education survey report. Pennsylvania State University, School of Forestry Report. 20 pp.

Straka, T.J., & Richards, D.P. (1984). Continuing forestry education: The effects of age, years of experience, and type of employer on forester-perceived needs. Journal of Forestry 82:556-557.

Straka, T.J., & Richards, D.P. (1985). Continuing forestry education: Needs of consulting foresters in Mississippi. The Consultant 30(1):8-10.

Witkin, B.R., & Altschuld, J.W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Managing for Sustainable Agriculture

John D. Harrison
Agriculture Waste Management Specialist
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
Internet Address: jdh@cc.usu.edu

Introduction

Extension can provide owner/operators of animal feeding operations (AFO) with a systematic approach to meeting both their business and environmental goals. Farmers and ranchers are recognized as the leaders and primary stewards of the nation's natural resources. These producers are also aware that there is growing public concern for environmental protection and sustainable development. Like professionals in many other businesses and industries, agriculturists are being challenged to demonstrate a commitment to environmental improvement. Implementation of an Agriculture Environmental Management System (AEMS) can assist in this effort in variety of ways.

The focus of effective environmental management is the using of a systematic approach to planning, controlling, measuring, and improving an operation's environmental effort (Stapleton, Cooney, & Hix, 1996). Deming (1986) has demonstrated that, for most industries, 85% of an operator's effectiveness is determined by the production system, only 15% by the operator's own skill. The production system is where managers have their greatest leverage for change and improvement. The potential for significant improvements and cost savings can be achieved by improving the operations management processes. The crucial point is that not all environmental problems need to be solved by installing expensive pollution control equipment.

Modern agriculture in the United States is characterized by a complex integration of bio-chemical, mechanical, and agronomic systems (Just, Schmitz, & Zilberman, 1979). These systems have enabled modern agriculture to become one of the most sophisticated industries in the world (Burke & Wakeman, 1990). Specifically, these systems have continually improved agriculture in a manner that has made agriculture essential to U.S. economic stability, rural community viability and a healthful and high-quality food supply (USDA-ERS, 1998).

An important consideration in this continual improvement cycle is a movement toward sustainable development (Hawken, 1993; WCED, 1987). Ritchie and Hayes (1998) defined sustainable development as seeking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. This balance will require modern agricultural systems to be integrated with economic, biologic, and human social systems to create a sustainable system of business.

Extension has developed the theories, methods, and tools to assist agricultural producers to meet the challenges of sustainable development. Extension has assisted many farms and ranches in adopting management system frameworks such as the Dairy Herd Improvement Program, irrigation water management, feed management, and Integrated Pest Management. These existing frameworks have similar elements that are also needed in an AEMS. Thus, much of what is required to implement an AEMS may already be in place. Integrating environmental management with these existing elements can improve an operations economy and performance.

Need for a New Model

Due to increased pressure for environmental sensitivity, the United States Department of Agriculture-United States Environmental Protection Agency (USDA-EPA) adopted the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (USEPA, 1999). This strategy has serious implications for producers. Producers view this strategy as being founded on the environmentalist notion that agriculture producers must be pushed into preserving the environment using the command and control model of management (Ritchie & Hayes, 1998). Ritchie and Hayes (1998) noted that local, state, and federal agencies are struggling with competing political agendas that seek to recreate environmental programs and their administration, with the result that accomplishing goals becomes increasingly difficult. Finally, Ritchie and Hayes (1998) suggest that producers view environmental programs with prescriptive regulations and standards as incompatible with viable production agriculture.

Managers of modern agriculture production businesses must balance the demand on limited resources among many complicated and interdependent systems. Examples of these systems include:

• Cropping systems,
• Livestock management systems,
• Irrigation and drainage systems,
• Pest control systems,
• Resource conservation systems,
• Equipment maintenance and replacement systems,
• Produce storage,
• Transport,
• Marketing systems, and
• Financial management systems (USDA, 1992).

Ritchie and Hayes (1998) state that "increasingly complex environmental regulations only add to managers already overwhelming schedules." They continue by additionally stating that due to uncertainty about the scope of regulations and costs of compliance, many managers believe that environmental management only drains resources and reduces productivity. These managers are struggling for survival and do not give top priority to sustainability.

There is evidence that improving environmental performance can lead to profitability. Repetto (1995) found that operations with good environmental performance were just as profitable as operations with poor environmental performance. He found that getting added value for environmental management was the way to profitability. He suggests government can lessen the burden of environmental management programs by:

1. Provide producers with flexibility in setting and meeting environmental goals;
2. Promote permits with entitlements for the use of resources (e.g. emissions trading);
3. Reward proactive environmental management practices throughout the entire economy; and
4. Build into the price structure of markets the costs of environmental degradation and/or preservation.

Ritchie and Hayes (1998) found that managers tend to deal well with the aspects of environmental issues that they understand, but react in crisis mode to those aspects they do not understand. Extension can influence the mind-set of producers by demonstrating that proactive environmental management can result in more effective operations and improved profitability. A new producer view toward an effective and efficient environmental management program will evolve. This new view will be based on long-term planning, not on short-term expediency.

The Basic Model

A favorable model that could be used to develop an AEMS is the Environmental Management Systems Model (Figure 1). This model is based on the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14000 series of environmental management standards (Ritchie & Hayes, 1998). Previous efforts and existing programs that agriculture producers have in place can reduce the complexity of setting up an AEMS. According to Stapleton et al. (1996), an effective Environmental Management System (EMS) will improve the economic performance of an operation by assessing the causes of problems and then providing a means for eliminating them (the prevention versus detection method). An AEMS can serve as an investment in the long-term viability of a farm or ranch. Stapleton et al. (1996) noted that this viability will be achieved not only by assisting the operation in meeting environmental goals but also by reducing liability, improving regulatory compliance, reducing costs, and improving public perceptions.

The AEMS should be a site-specific system tailored to the producer and the operation. The strength of AEMS is that it establishes a process for achieving environmental quality and can be applied to any size operation. It does not establish performance standards that must be met. There are no specifications for how an operation should satisfy requirements, and it does not specify levels to be achieved. Figure 1 shows the major components of the basic model and the continual improvement cycle required for its adoption.

Phase I: Commitment and Initial Assessment

Producer commitment is essential to implementing a successful AEMS. The producer must clearly and enthusiastically communicate their commitment to the program and support the AEMS. This commitment should include making available the needed resources and being accountable for the successful implementation of the program. During this phase, Extension could assist the producer in establishing and communicating a vision and policy statement for the AEMS. This vision is the future to which the operation aspires and is the long-term view that provides the platform upon which the operation is built. The policy statement should be specific, but not detailed or overly long. The statement will allow the operation to develop meaningful, activity specific operating policies for such as discharge response.

An initial assessment is part of the overall process and provides a benchmark for evaluating current efforts. Ongoing assessment demonstrates the operator's commitment and provides for evaluating future progress made toward improvement. It is critical that producers be actively engaged in operational assessment. The assessment should consider items such as:

• The regulatory requirements that apply to the operation,
• The operations internal support (including personnel,
• Funding,
• Management practices and procedures,
• The producer's commitment),
• The sources of contaminants and impacts resulting from all aspects of the operation,
• Environmental controls and their effectiveness,
• Evaluation of current performance compared with existing regulations and policies,
• Current gaps and needed program areas,
• Equipment,
• Personnel, training, and documentation, and
• Estimated costs and benefits.

The producer should perform the assessment and develop a report that thoroughly reviews all of the operation's management options. The report could also identify specific requirements needed or areas for upgrade. This assessment will be used to maximize resources and position the operation for success toward reducing any negative impacts to the environment.

Phase II: Planning

Phase II entails process analysis, planning, and documentation. This is essential for good planning and is an integral part of the continual improvement program. Process analyses are those activities of the operation that will be broken down into discrete steps, each of which is examined to identify opportunities to eliminate or minimize environmental impacts.

A variety of production agriculture systems that could be included are:

• Manure management systems;
• Cropping systems;
• Livestock management systems;
• Irrigation and drainage systems,
• Pest control systems;
• Resource conservation systems;
• Equipment maintenance and replacement systems;
• Produce storage, transport, and marketing systems; and
• Financial management systems.

Most operators tend to think of each of these systems in terms of a task carried out in relative isolation from other work on the operation. The first step in quality improvement is for operators to look at each of their systems in terms of being part of a continuous process. A process is simply a sequence of tasks that together produce a product or service. The best way to understand a process is to draw a flow chart showing all the steps. When you do this it is possible to visualize work in terms of being a step in a process. A whole set of new insights opens up.

Once the processes are charted, other components of the AEMS can be developed. Planning specifications will require the operation to identify any activity, product, or service that can affect the environment (either beneficial or adverse); evaluate these impacts; and use the information gathered to set objectives and targets. There may be additional legal and regulatory requirements addressed during this phase and prior to implementation of the program. Documentation is necessary to demonstrate adherence with the AEMS. Charting the processes could reveal what documentation is needed by the operation. Supportive documentation should be carefully planned so as not to overwhelm