|
August 2002
|
       |
Research in BriefWorking with Rural Employers: An Interagency PartnershipSally R. Bowman Margaret Manoogian Debra Minar Driscoll IntroductionCan Extension professionals help employers find ways to hire and retain employees and understand the needs of families with limited resources? Oregon State University Extension Service and county partners organized an employer development program in a small rural community to find out. When welfare reform legislation passed in 1996, mandating moving adults from welfare to work, it became increasingly important to assist individuals with limited resources to secure and retain paid positions. Industry councils, workforce development teams, and JOBS and JTPA programs recognize that linking potential employees to employers requires some commitment to employer development. Yet these agencies generally have limited time and resources to work with employers, and they typically focus on assisting the individual. Employer Focus Recommended strategies for developing workforce solutions include understanding employers' needs and appealing to employers' economic motives (McPherson, 1999). Many small business owners may not know about economic strategies and supports, such as tax incentives, wage subsidies, and indirect financial incentives like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. National surveys indicate that employers seek employees who are reliable and have positive attitudes and strong work ethics, valuing these traits much more than training and flexibility (Monroe, Blalock, & Vlosky, 1999). Employers who have hired former welfare recipients are more willing to hire them again when compared to employers who have never hired them. Ninety-four percent of 500 small employers who had hired former welfare recipients indicated that they would rehire them (Regenstein, Meyer, & Hicks, 1998). Employers reported that welfare recipients possess the desired personal attributes. Extension's Role Extension educators are uniquely positioned to help employers understand the needs of families and find ways to address work/family balance and family friendly policies (Corbin, 1998). Extension is well suited to provide this type of education because of its record of collaboration, strong history of conducting community-specific needs assessments, and practice of delivering family and youth programming (Lerner, Bogenschneider, Wilcox, Fitzsimmons, & Hoopfer, 1996). Project OverviewThe Oregon State University Extension Service organized the collaborative Oregon Workforce Development Project in a small rural community to understand employer needs and create effective partnerships. Project goals were:
Two criteria were used to identify a project site:
The project focused on small businesses, because they provide many employment opportunities in rural areas and generally lack human resource departments. A pilot county was identified with an estimated population of 59,500 and an estimated civilian labor force of 30,197. Unemployment rates in 1998 were 4.9%. Approximately 11% of the adults between the ages of 14 and 72 were economically disadvantaged. Representatives from the local welfare agency and JOBS program in the county were invited to serve on a task force with Extension representatives. The task force wanted to assist employers who hire or could potentially hire former welfare recipients and to assess employer needs to facilitate linking clients to employers. All agencies involved agreed to provide financial, staff, or material resources to the project. The task force gathered information on the needs of small business employers and employees. Individual employers, Chambers of Commerce, business and education representatives, and key committees/organizations were contacted to determine if the county had conducted recent surveys or assessments and whether an employer summit would be appropriate. Once employer and employee needs were identified and partnerships were established, the task force concluded that an employer summit was feasible. All county employers identified from Chamber of Commerce listings (N = 330), regardless of size or service, were invited to an employer/agency event. Targeted employers were visited to personally invite them to the event and to learn their experiences working with adults with limited resources. The Employer Summit was a 2-hour event that included breakfast, short presentations, focus groups, and resource tables. At the conclusion of the Employer Summit, participants were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the event and make recommendations for further activities. After the event, the task force met to evaluate and plan future activities. All program participants received a letter summarizing the focus group discussions and evaluations. ProcedureNineteen small business employers representing service, manufacturing, government, education, and retail sectors joined 21 human service representatives to participate in six focus groups of five-seven participants each, facilitated by agency representatives. Employers represented these sectors:
The human service sector included education (high school, community college, university, educational service district), and the state employment and welfare departments (e.g., JOBS Council). These agencies are employers as well. Six specific questions about hiring and retention practices and challenges (see Appendix) guided the focus group discussions. The larger group then reconvened to summarize and discuss the issues raised in individual groups. Recorded responses and participant evaluations were compiled and analyzed to determine key issues. ResultsChallenges Facing Businesses Rural employers identified employer - employee relationships, employee retention, and inadequate applicant pools as their primary challenges. Appropriate attire, attendance, flexibility, commitment, and being a team player were major concerns. One employer said employees may have the skills, but they lack the motivation, and building motivation takes time. Another employer underscored the need for employee counseling, but indicated that most small businesses are unable to provide it. Employers mentioned difficulties with communication and coordination of work schedules. Employers spoke of the effort and expense of training employees. Small businesses are unable to offer high salaries and have little time to implement retention efforts. Barriers for employees included transportation and childcare, reflecting current national research (Blank, 1997; Seccombe, 1999). Challenges in Retention Retention challenges included inadequate financial resources of employer, inadequate interpersonal skills of employees, poor physical and mental health of employees, and other characteristics of employees, such as job-hopping. Employers also identified difficulties in providing flexible work environments and expressed an interest in offering formalized retention programs relating to childcare or other benefits. Employer Services Rural employers identified the services they provide that help employees overcome employment obstacles, including cross training of employees, youth mentoring, team problem solving, personal counseling, telecommuting, wellness programs, extensive benefits packages, and awards and recognition to their employees. These employers, however, would like to offer more services, such as health care benefits, childcare, transportation assistance, counseling, better wages and bonuses, mentoring, and information and referral programs. These services are not offered due to limitations of size and resources. Awareness of Community Services Participants were asked about their knowledge regarding county services and agencies that could help with hiring and retention of employees. In general, most employers were unaware of services. They listed some of the services they knew about, but typical comments included: "not much," "know existence, but not how to access," "quite a bit--have had to personally research." Employer Needs When asked what kinds of support services would help in employing a productive workforce, participants mentioned the need for education for both employers and employees. Offering training to new employers and employees; increasing linkages with existing services, such as schools and job fairs; providing employee assistance programs; pooling employer resources; and networking were suggested. Based on a "certificate of employability" program for high school students in this community, employers suggested a similar certificate program for adults. Hiring Experiences Employers were asked about their hiring experiences with employees with limited income and/or minimal work history. They indicated that most entry-level jobs had high turnover rates and that hiring strategies had "mixed results." Extensive employee reference checks were cited as the most successful strategy for ensuring a good hire. They recognized that in many cases their vacant positions had little to offer in terms of advancement. EvaluationEvaluations were collected from the small business representatives present at the summit. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the lowest rating, employer participants (N=17) rated the breakfast summit overall as "very good" (rating of 4.1). The most useful component of the event was the resources provided by agencies (rating of 3.8). Attendees thought the "roundtables" (focus groups) were effective in generating discussion concerning hiring and retention issues (rating of 3.4). Participants also thought the featured presenters provided new and pertinent information (rating of 3.4). Three top issues were identified by participants:
Because these evaluations were completed after the focus groups and the ensuing discussion, the identification of these issues were affected by the process. Project OutcomesAfter the employer summit, the task force met to discuss the next steps for employer service development. An advisory committee of employers addressing common needs, challenges, and issues was formed. The Business Services Planning Team met monthly in 1999-2001, with a core group of eight local businesses and an additional 20 that receive monthly feedback from the Team. As a result, a Work Ethics workshop was developed and presented to local businesses and clients of the county one-stop career center. This workshop continues to be requested and offered. Other employer training workshops were delivered locally, instead of regionally, at employer request. Enhanced partnerships with local Chambers of Commerce resulted in increased communication and an initiative to assist new businesses with recruitment and orientation of employees. The downturn in the economy resulted in fewer requests from the business community for hiring needs assistance and more requests for assistance to employers who were discharging employees. The director of the county career center noted in March 2002 that there is an increased connection between local businesses and career center partner agencies. Project Implications for ExtensionThis project was focused on one rural community and serves as a model for other rural workforce development efforts. Extension can act as a catalyst to bring together all who are concerned with the employability and stability of individuals in families with limited resources. Interagency and business collaboration and communication can be enhanced. Extension can draw attention to employee issues in rural areas where economic hardship is a reality. Changes to the welfare system and economic recessions bring added challenges to the economic lives of families. Because many rural areas lack adequate employment opportunities, transportation systems, childcare facilities, and private sector support systems, families leaving welfare may continue to experience hardship. These issues need focused and timely attention. A focus on needs assessment of employers brings needed information to agencies that serve families who struggle. Through assessment and evaluation, Extension can provide agencies and employers alike with input that can enhance, redirect, and create services for employees. Extension can play a unique role in communities regarding workforce issues. In this case, the project acted as a catalyst to address workforce issues, employed collaborative and inclusive strategies, and established community partnerships. This type of project brings all players who influence the well being of families with limited resources together. What better role for Extension? Appendix: Focus Group Questions
ReferencesBlank, R. M. (1997). It takes a nation: a new agenda for fighting poverty. Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage. Corbin, M. (1998, Summer). Trends and emerging issues related to welfare reform: A perspective for Extension [22 paragraphs]. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues [On-line serial], 3(2). Available at: http://www.cyfernet.org/welfare/roleextprog/ Lerner, R.M., Bogenschneider, K., Wilcox, B., Fitzsimmons, E., & Hoopfer, L.C. (1996). Welfare reform and the role of Extension programming [On-line]. Available at: http://www.cyfernet.org/welfare_reform/ McPherson, B. (1999, January). Engaging employers in local workforce systems. Symposium conducted at The Salem One Stop Partners Workshop, Salem, Oregon. Monroe, P.A., Blalock, L. B., & Vlosky, R.P. (1999). Work opportunities in a non-traditional setting for women exiting welfare: A case study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20, 35-60. Regenstein, M., Meyer, J.A., & Hicks, J.D. (1998, August). Job prospects for welfare recipients: Employers speak out (No. A-25). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Seccombe, K. (1999). "So you think I drive a Cadillac?": Welfare recipients' perspectives on the system and its reform. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gauging Perceptions of Farm ProgramsDarrell R. Mark M. Scott Daniel Joseph L. Parcell Department of Agricultural Economics IntroductionAfter considerable debate, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRI) was enacted in May 2002, replacing the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR). The scope and complexity of the new farm legislation suggests that Farm Service Agency (FSA) and other U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies have a large task of creating regulations to implement FSRI and educating producers of the provisions, alternatives, and benefits available to them under FSRI. As in the past, Extension will likely be a key player in developing and delivering educational programs and decision-making tools related to the farm program. Extension personnel can use various educational opportunities and programs to not only explain the provisions of FSRI, but also to gather information regarding producers' perceptions of how farm policy affects, or is expected to affect, their operations. This latter information can be especially useful to policy makers as they assess the implementation of new farm policy and consider changes for the next farm bill. The marked change in agricultural policy in 1996 fostered immediate interest in the impacts of FAIR on farm income, income variability, land values, crop acreage mixes, and producer perceptions of federal agricultural policy. By the end of FAIR in 2001, producer assessments of these impacts changed as a result of historically low commodity prices that occurred from 1998 to 2001, underscoring the importance of continually monitoring the effects of farm policy. Observing changes in producers' and nonproducers' views of FAIR was useful for policy makers as they considered which components of FAIR, if any, should be incorporated into FSRI. In this report, we demonstrate how the perceptions of FAIR and its impacts on income and income variability changed from 1996 to 2000 for a small and nonrandom sample of Kansas producers and agribusiness professionals. This information, combined with other similar observations from other studies, was beneficial for legislators as they framed FSRI, which retained some of the program benefits provided in FAIR (e.g., fixed payments). Similarly, tracking producer and nonproducer perceptions and observed effects of FSRI will be useful to policy makers and agricultural interest groups as they monitor FSRI and propose new policy to replace it when it expires in 2007. BackgroundAdoption of FSRI in 2002 replaced the 1996 FAIR act; however, some components of FAIR and the 1990 farm program were incorporated into FSRI. FAIR was designed to separate income support payments from commodity prices. Under FAIR, a one-time sign-up allowed producers planting flexibility in return for fixed annual payments that declined annually through 2002. Low commodity prices in 1998 through 2001 (which were largely unexpected in 1996 when FAIR was enacted) prompted additional emergency supplemental payments and loan deficiency payments (LDP). The 1990 farm program, which required farmers to follow a historical planting pattern and occasionally divert acres from production, included nonrecourse government loans using the program crop as collateral and deficiency payments, which covered the difference between a program crop's established target price and the higher of the loan rate or national average market price. FSRI provides for three types of payments on covered commodities: marketing assistance loans, direct payments, and counter-cyclical payments. Each of these retain elements of the 1996 and 1990 farm programs, with some notable exceptions:
Policy makers' decision to retain elements of previous farm programs, with modification, in the 2002 farm program was based, at least partially, on producer preferences for those elements and their perception of how they would benefit from the program as their operations changed in the future. Other producer and public attitudes and perceptions were also incorporated into FSRI:
Because farm policy is created with consideration given to producers' and agribusiness persons' perceptions, it is important to gather such information. Extension personnel are often in a good position to do this. Gathering Perceptions on Farm PolicyIn an effort to ascertain perceptions of FAIR among Kansas producers and agribusiness professionals, attendees of the annual Kansas State University (KSU) Risk and Profit Conference were surveyed in 1996, 1999, and 2000 regarding current and future agricultural policy. This intensive 2-day conference generally attracts producers from relatively large and well-managed farms and agribusinesses leaders in Kansas and surrounding states. Survey respondents were classified as producers or nonproducers according to their principal occupation and primary source of income (on-farm production or off-farm employment and investments). Producers' operations tended to be wheat, corn, grain sorghum, soybean, and hay enterprises. Nonproducers were employed as bankers, lenders, Extension educators, appraisers/brokers, and consultants. In 1996, producers accounted for nearly 60% of 92 returned surveys. In 1999, 146 participants responded to the survey, with 41% being producers. Forty-three percent of the 105 total respondents to the 2000 survey were producers. The average farm size was approximately 2,600 acres in 1999, three times the Kansas average farm size of 748 acres. The mix of occupations among the nonproducer group was similar across years. Bankers/lenders comprised approximately 40% of the group, whereas appraisers/brokers accounted for about 30% of nonproducers. Both producers and nonproducers were queried regarding their perceptions of FAIR's effect on farm income and income variability, as well as their overall rating of FAIR relative to previous farm policy and their preferences for future policy. Perceived Effects of FAIR on Farm Income Because FAIR substantially changed the way government payments were provided, its effects on farm income were uncertain. Attendees of the 1996 KSU Risk and Profit Conference were asked how they expected farm income to be affected by FAIR, whereas 1999 and 2000 conference attendees were asked how FAIR had changed farm income (Figure 1). Results indicate that:
Figure 1.
Perceived Effects of FAIR on Income Variability The expected risk-return tradeoff suggests that if farm income increased as a result of FAIR, variability in farm income will also increase. Similar to the question for income, 1996 survey respondents indicated how they envisioned FAIR to impact income variability in the future and 1999 and 2000 respondents indicated how FAIR affected income variability (Figure 2). Results showed that:
Figure 2.
Overall Rating of FAIR Relative to Previous Ag Policy The adoption of FAIR represented a substantial departure from previous agricultural policy, offering producers planting flexibility in exchange for declining fixed payments. Consequently, overall reaction to FAIR during its first 5 years was somewhat mixed. In comparing FAIR to previous agricultural policy, survey results indicated:
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
In 2000, 2 years before the expiration of FAIR, the KSU Risk and Profit Conference survey respondents provided their opinions on the future direction of farm policy. Reflecting the generally positive perceptions of FAIR during its first 5 years, the majority (60%) of respondents favored extending FAIR for another 5 years. Only 4% preferred returning to a farm program with base acreages and production controls. Another 4% thought farm programs should be ended altogether, and 8% wanted no formal program but disaster aid provided on an as-needed basis. Twenty-four percent offered other suggestions for future farm policy, many of which contained elements of FAIR (e.g., planting flexibility). ConclusionFrom the Extension conference survey results, it appears that Kansas producers were generally favorable to FAIR, citing planting flexibility and predictable production flexibility contract payments as beneficial to their production and financial management. Although they recognized and dealt with more income variability under FAIR, many producers also realized higher incomes. Agribusinesses also experienced important changes that affected how they served their producer clientele. The needs and perceptions of both groups and their ability to adapt to changes in policy were useful to policy makers in the development of FSRI. As a result of producer and agribusiness perceptions and reaction to FAIR, as well as expert opinions, FSRI contains several elements of FAIR, including direct (fixed) payments and marketing assistance loans. Additionally, new conservation programs (e.g., Conservation Security Program) and program commodities (e.g., soybeans and other minor oilseeds) are provided for in FSRI, partially at the request of producers. Although FSRI has yet to be fully implemented, it is important to consider how producers and others in agribusiness react not only to the transition between FAIR and FSRI, but also to how FSRI impacts farming operations over several years. Extension educators, through interacting with a wide variety of producers and agribusiness professionals, can gather and assimilate such information that will be useful in future policy making. Even through the use of small and nonrandom samples, producer information regarding farm policy can be useful to policy makers evaluating differences in policy impacts for farming operations of various sizes or geographic locations. Agricultural policy in the future will likely further promote the adoption of additional food safety assurances and create or strengthen safety regulations regarding the production, handling, processing, and preparation of food. Further, there is an emerging trend toward increased funding for conservation in farm bills. Consumer reaction to supporting food safety assurance and protection of natural resources will, as a result, be important to monitor. Therefore, Extension personnel's efforts to gather data regarding consumer perceptions of agricultural policy will be increasingly necessary in the future.
Food Safety for Healthy Missouri Families: Evaluation of Program EffectivenessMarcus M. Comer IntroductionMillions of American families are affected each year by food-borne illnesses (Centers for Disease Control, 2001). According to Taylor and Curtis (1999), education in basic food safety principles is the key to decreasing the incidence of food-borne illness in the United States. Many of the problems evident in food safety education are related to the general paucity of agricultural awareness, especially among urban or impoverished populations (Squires & Comer, 2000; Nordstrom, Wilson, Richards, Coe, Fivek, & Brown, 1999; National Research Council, 1988). This lack of awareness can lead to food myths, mass hysteria, and acts of violence (Guterman, 2000). According to Frick, Birkenholz, and Machtmes (1995), "Consumers, as well as policy makers, need to be agriculturally literate in order to respond appropriately as issues arise" (p. 44). To address these issues, a holistic education program, Food Safety for Healthy Missouri Families, was developed to both teach food safety information and foster agricultural literacy in young consumers, especially those consumers living in impoverished communities, where much of the available food safety information does not reach. This article is an evaluation of that program's effectiveness. PurposeThe purpose of the small pilot study reported here was to determine the level of understanding and general knowledge about food safety of youth participating in a 4-week summer enrichment program. The objectives of the study were to:
Methods and ProceduresPopulation and Sample The population included 22 inner-city youth from low-income families, ranging from 6 to 16 years of age. Most of the children participating in the program were what Woodard and Fine (1991) describe as "latch key" kids, children who come home before their parents get off of work and are in a "self supervised situation." Many of these children were often responsible for preparing meals for themselves and their siblings. The groups were divided based upon age, with one group containing children ages 6-12 and the second group containing children ages 13-16. Instrument Questions were developed using food safety literature, lesson objectives activity sheets, USDA surveys, Extension, and other food safety educational programs, as a framework. Questions where developed and incorporated into a survey instrument designed to examine the students' knowledge and perceptions about agriculture and food safety. Questions were selected based on the assumption they met one of three criteria:
Each question was placed into one of five categories:
The survey was presented to students as trivia questions in a game show format in order to make the activity fun and exciting, minus the pressured feelings of a regular classroom (Figure 1). The groups were presented with the questions on the first day of the summer enrichment program and again at the end of 4 weeks to determine changes, if any, in behaviors and knowledge about the subject matter. Figure 1.
Students were divided into teams and instructed to work in cooperative groups to answer the trivia questions, According to Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991), when students work in small groups, learning is maximized. As an incentive, the groups were told that the group with the most points would receive prizes. The entire process was video taped, and each student was coded. Analysis of Data A content analysis of video data was conducted to determine prior knowledge of students before participating. Each student's answers to the trivia questions were recorded and evaluated. Frequencies of correct answers were calculated and summarized using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Results and DiscussionThe results indicated a lack of food safety and agricultural awareness among both participant age groups before the program. The pre-test revealed that both groups lacked knowledge about food safety and agricultural issues; however, the younger students were more familiar with kitchen safety issues than the older students. The reason for the difference was revealed during discussions. Many younger students reported that kitchen safety was addressed in health classes during the recent school term. Table 1 presents the percentage of correct answers to the pre-test and the post-test, and the amount of change exhibited by both age groups. Table 1.
During the pre-test game of both groups, discussions turned into heated debate over question # 9, Eating cake batter or raw cookie dough can make you sick, and question # 24, Fruits and vegetables are cleaned before displaying. The majority of the students stated that eating raw cookie dough had never made them sick, and many of the same group believed with conviction that fruits and vegetables on display in the grocery store were clean and could safely be consumed while shopping. One student in the younger group (ages 6-12) stated that she regularly practiced sampling grapes from the stand while grocery shopping, meaning that she often consumed fruits without washing them. Post-test results revealed vast improvement in many of the practices after students had participated in the program. Some showed differences as high as 91%, with only a very few falling below 50%. However, certain topics--irradiation, eating raw cookie dough, and perceptions about the way food is handled by the grocery store--showed little or no change. From group discussions, it was ascertained that most of the students continued to associate irradiation with biotechnology and/or radiation, which some stated could make a person ill. Students held to the belief that eating raw cookie dough or cake batter would not make a person sick and stated that they would continue the practice until they either got sick or witnessed someone get sick. Several students continued to believe that grocery stores clean fruits and vegetables before putting them on display and that they were therefore safe to consume or sample before purchasing. Others stated that they believed this was only true for grocery stores in or near the "good part of town" (stores located in higher economic communities). Conclusions, Recommendations, and ImplicationsMillions of American families are affected by food-borne illnesses each year. Many of these problems are related to the lack of awareness about agriculture. Pre-tests revealed that neither youth group in the study reported here was knowledgeable about food safety and agricultural issues. However, the younger students were more familiar than the older students with kitchen safety issues. Group discussions revealed that many of the students in the younger group had recently addressed kitchen safety in health classes during the school year. This implies that the curriculum being used in the health classes has been somewhat effective with the younger students; however, their overall lack of knowledge suggests that more is needed. This also implies that older students need to be exposed to this information. Post-test results showed dramatic changes in behaviors and beliefs. However, perceptions towards irradiation, eating cookie dough, and food in grocery stores remain a concern. The study indicates that there is a lack of knowledge about food safety and agricultural issues among inner city youth living in the impoverished communities of Mid-Missouri, showing a need for more similar programming. Another conclusion drawn from the study is that some misperceptions and behaviors concerning the safety of food are deeply engrained. Based upon the findings and conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are made.
Although efforts are being made to educate the public about food safety, for many reasons, this information often does not reach segments of the population where poverty is rampant and the need is greatest. It is essential that this information be delivered to all segments of the population if we are going to alleviate the continuing problem of food-borne illnesses. ReferencesCenters for Disease Control (2001). Health topics [On-line]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/ Frick, J., Birkenholz, J., Machtmes, K. (1995). Rural and urban inner-city high school students knowledge and perception of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36, 4. Guterman, L. (2000, April 14). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. A29(32), 32. National Research Council, Board of Agriculture, Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Education. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nordstrom, W., Coe, R., Fivek, & Brown (1999). Students' attitudes toward animal-derived products and services and how they affect society and the environment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4), 10-19. Squires, S., & Comer, M. (2000). Food safety for global health. Paper presented the 2000 X World Congress of Rural Sociology XXXVIII Brazilian Congress of Rural Economy and Sociology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Taylor C. M, & Curtis, A. (1999). Development and design of a "gateway" to food safety information on the Internet for Extension educators. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 37(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/a5.html Woodard L. J., Fine, M. (1991). Long-term effects of self-supervised and adult-supervised child care arrangements on personality traits, emotional adjustment, and cognitive development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 12, 73-85.
Meeting the Graduate Education Needs of Minnesota Extension EducatorsMary J. Chairs Barbara J. McDonald Peg Shroyer Becky Urbanski Diane Vertin IntroductionRecent literature regarding the quality of professional development for advanced teachers such as Extension Educators reveals that it has most often been offered with a focus on content, topic, or strategy du jour (Lewis, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1987). Little, if any, attention has been paid to guiding the professional development of the practitioner in a systematic and planned manner (Fieman-Nemser, 1999). Even if a practitioner completes a master's degree, it may not have been in a thoughtful, coherent program that contributes in a structured, explicit way to the educator's ongoing professional development (Blackwell & Diez, 1999). Reports also note that the current style of Master's degree studies is disliked by the educators who must take them. As Tom (1999, p.1) states, "They view them as detached from the daily practice of schooling, presented as if teacher participants know nothing, and taught by professors of education fascinated with esoteric knowledge." Typically, educators are admitted to these programs on an individual basis, making little use of the proven power of peer coaching and teacher study groups (Hord & Boyd, 1995; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Krovetz & Cohick, 1993; Meyer, et al., 1998, as cited in Tom, 1999). Participants rarely develop a sense of group cohesion and mutual support that is so important to the learning experience of adults (Tom, 1999). In an effort to be more responsive to the educational needs of adult practitioners such as Extension Educators, the University of Minnesota-Duluth (UMD) has designed several specific Master of Education programs using the cohort method. One of these cohorts consists of Minnesota Extension Educators. Often, the accessibility of graduate programs for Minnesota Extension Educators is limited due to the rural locations where these individuals live and work. The University of Minnesota-Duluth (UMD) Master of Education program has a mission of providing user-friendly methods for practicing educators to complete a graduate degree. In 1998, UMD developed a special cohort of the M.Ed. program addressing the needs of the Minnesota Extension Educators. The needs of these students were determined to be different from those of a typical student. Extension Educators work one-on-one with community members, they live in very disperse locations, and they have a need to understand adult education and a need to have deep understanding in broad subject areas. This cohort program is designed to meet these graduate educational needs. BackgroundWhen the term "cohort" is used in education its definition is "a group of students who engage in a program of studies together" (Yerkes, 1994). However, Yerkes cautions that a successful cohort is not merely a group of people who happen to share the same space, time, professors, and assignments, and enjoy each other's company for a year or two. A successful cohort is a group of people who work together, provide assistance to each other, find success in their efforts, and simultaneously develop each individual's talents. The three characteristics generally recognized as representative of effective learning groups are:
These characteristics are also seen as prerequisites for the development of successful cohorts. Barnett and Cafarella (1992) believe that the cohort design is a particularly effective way of teaching adult learners because it incorporates the main characteristics of adult learning:
Numerous writers have cited the richer life experiences of the adult as a key factor in differentiating adult learning from child learning. These accumulated experiences also differentiate one adult from another adult (Kidd, as cited in Barnett & Cafarella, 1992). Knowles (as cited in Barnett & Cafarella, 1992) explains that adults can call upon their past learning experiences in the formulation of learning activities, as well as serve as resources for each other during learning events. Another characteristic of cohort learning that is well suited to the needs of Extension Educators is active involvement in the learning process. Most adults prefer to be actively involved in the learning versus being primarily passive recipients of knowledge (Brookfield, Cafarella, Knowles, as cited in Barnett & Cafarella, 1992). Students are allowed some control of the learning process; they might prepare learning contracts, give presentations in class; and/or actively participate in small and large group activities. Adult learners also have a need for affiliation, a desire to be connected to and supportive of each other's learning. Fulfilling this need for affiliation is another important aspect of the cohort model. "Beginning with initial development activities, particular attention is given to building collegial and personal relations. This collaborative way of knowing, coined by Belenky et al. (1986) as 'connected teaching,' encourages a cooperative communication style between the instructor and the participants and between and among the participants themselves" (Barnett & Cafarella, 1992). Previous studies have reported that students involved in cohort programs typically report:
Research suggests that a graduate education program for Extension Educators or other adult learners should use a model, such as the cohort method, that is adaptable to the needs and characteristics of adult learners. Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of the study reported in this article was to assess the participant perception of the effectiveness of the Extension Educator cohort Master of Education program in two key areas:
MethodologyThe sample consisted of 20 participants in the University of Minnesota Duluth Master of Education cohort of Extension Educators. The survey instrument was a descriptive, cross sectional design developed with the purpose of gathering information from program participants on their attitudes and beliefs about their experience in the Master of Education cohort model in two key areas: personal growth, and the cohort model as an effective collaborative method. The survey was administered electronically in the spring of 2000. Questions were posed as belief statements to measure semantic differentials, using a Likert Scale rating of 1-5. Ratings throughout the survey were based on a Likert Scale rating of 1-5, 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Services for Windows Release 9.0 (SPSS. 1999). FindingsDemographics Twelve of the 20 cohort members returned the surveys (one declined giving demographic information). Seventy-two percent (72.7%) of the respondents were female, and 27% were male. Eight of the respondents were teachers, and three were specialists. Eight of the respondents were between the ages of 30-49, one was 24-29, and two were over 50. The five highest rated statements (statements found to be the most significant areas of cohort experience) were:
Personal Growth The overall mean for this cluster of questions was 3.9, the highest rating of the two question clusters. The survey participants did feel that they experienced significant personal growth as members of the cohort. This result supports Forsyth's (1995, as cited in Basom) contention that group development and individual development are mutually experienced in an effective cohort. Statement #14, "The cohort experience allowed me to apply my own experience and background to my learning," was deemed one of the five most significant statements, supporting Barnett and Cafarelli's (1992) belief that adult learners have more effective learning experiences when their own background and accumulated experience can be brought into the classroom. Statement #7, "I believe I have experienced greater individual growth through the development of the cohort group as a whole," supports Forsyth's theory that group processes must assist each member in realizing their potential and also help the group achieve its goals. Responses to Statement #26, "The M.Ed. cohort program allowed me time for personal reflection," strongly confirmed that the cohort model was effective at meeting the adult learner's need for time to "make sense out of one's life experience," (Knowles, as cited in Barnett & Cafarella, 1992). The Cohort Model as an Effective Collaborative Method The mean for this cluster of questions was 3.5, ranking second after the personal growth cluster. It is important to note that Statement #8, "I think the M.Ed. cohort program offers more opportunity for peer collaboration," had the highest agreement level of all of the statements in the survey. The participants clearly believed that the cohort model was in fact an effective collaborative method. This agrees with the research of Barnett and Cafarella (1992), "Beginning with initial development activities, particular attention is given to building collegial and personal relations. This collaborative way of knowing, coined by Belenky et al. (1986) as 'connected teaching,' encourages a cooperative communication style between the instructor and the participants and between and among the participants themselves." The sense of group cohesion and mutual support that Tom (1999) states "is important to the learning experience of adults" is also verified as being present in the cohort. ConclusionsTh study reported here explored the cohort method as a collaborative and an effective learning method for adult learners, specifically Minnesota Extension Educators pursuing an M.Ed. degree. The study concluded that, in general, the cohort-learning model was successful in affecting leadership skills and abilities, and personal growth and improvement. This is critical information for those who seek to design graduate programs that are thoughtfully and coherently structured to contribute to the Extension Educator's ongoing professional development and learning. ReferencesBarnett, B., & Cafarella, R. (1992). The use of cohorts: A powerful way for addressing issues of diversity in preparation programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration (Minneapolis, MN, October 30-November 1, 1992). Basom, M. (1995). Exploring cohorts: Effects on principal preparation and leadership practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387587) Blackwell, P. J., & Diez, M. E. (1999). NCATE/NBPTS partnership for graduate programs. Achieving the new vision of Master's Education for teachers. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Fieman-Nemser, S. (1999). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Paper commissioned by the Supporting and Strengthening Teaching (SST) Project, coordinated by Bank Street College, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the Teacher Union Network and the National Network for Educational Renewal. Lewis, A. (1997). A new consensus emerges on the characteristics of good professional development. Harvard Education Letter, 8(3), 1-4. Liberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 76(8) 591-6. Little, J.W. (1987). District policy choices and teacher's professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11(2), 165-179. Tom, Alan R. (1999). Reinventing master's degree study for experienced teachers. Journal of Teacher Education (in press). Yerkes, D.R. (1995). Using cohort in the development of educational leaders. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the Association of Management (13th, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 1995).
What Personally Attracts Volunteers to the Master Gardener Program?Frederick R. Rohs Jonathan H. Stribling Robert R. Westerfield The University of Georgia Budget cycles and downsizing in the Cooperative Extension Service have threatened program availability, expansion, and staffing. One way to maintain the current level of programs and services is to recruit and retain volunteers. Effective recruitment and retention depend on understanding the motivators that influence individuals to volunteer. The motives for volunteer involvement are many. Smith (1972) proposed that special attitudinal factors influence volunteer participation in addition to demographic factors such as age, gender, and educational and income levels. These attitudinal factors include perceived benefits individuals gain from volunteering in the organization (personal benefits). Personal benefits from volunteering as a Master Gardener include gaining knowledge, self improvement (Simonson & Pals, 1990; Stowe & Marr, 1992), and helping and working with others (Simonson & Pals, 1992). Other studies of Extension volunteer programs (Rohs, 1986; Van Tilburg-Norland, 1992) showed that reputation or status of the organization or program attracted persons and influenced participation, as did the reputation of specific individuals (Rohs, 1986; Stowe & Marr, 1992). Few researchers have looked at these factors together. The study reported here sought to combine two broad factors (demographics and personal benefits) into one study to determine the relative importance of these factors to volunteers in the Georgia Master Gardener program. MethodologyData were collected from Master Gardeners in 12 Atlanta metropolitan counties who completed the Master Gardener training program. A preaddressed, stamped questionnaire was mailed to 110 individuals. To increase the response rate, follow-up mailings were administered 2 weeks later to nonrespondents. Replies from late respondents were compared statistically to early respondents to estimate the nature of replies from nonrespondents, as proposed by Miller and Smith (1983). No significant differences were found on key variables (demographic and volunteering activity) between early and late respondents. A total of 77 individuals returned the questionnaire, for a response rate of 70%. Attitudinal factors were found to influence participation in a voluntary activity. The attitudinal factor (personal benefit) examined in this study was defined as the benefits the individual gains from the program and the aspects of the program that are attractive to the individual. A scale was constructed using Likert type statements to measure personal benefit. Initially, 27 statements were submitted to a six-member panel of Extension agents and former master gardeners. Based on their judgments, 19 statements were deemed acceptable and incorporated into the instrument used during a pilot test. For the pilot test, the Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1971) was used to assess the reliability of the scale included in the questionnaire. The reliability coefficient for the personal benefit scale was 0.89. Personal benefit of the program was determined by summing the responses to each of 19 items in the scale in which volunteers indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Mean scale scores for each individual >2.5 on a grand scale mean were interpreted as indicating that the Master Gardener program had some benefit features that could be realized on an individual basis by being a Master Gardener volunteer. Demographic questions included:
To gain a more thorough understanding of Master Gardeners' present voluntary activity, they were asked:
Results and discussionDemographics Middle-aged married females comprised the majority of Master Gardener Volunteers (Table 1). The data revealed that 55% were over 50 years of age, 69% were women, and 84% were married. Few had any previous family connection to Extension programs. Almost three fourths (73%) were not previous 4-H members, 97% indicated that their parents had not been Extension volunteers, and 90% of the married Master Gardeners indicated that their spouses were not Master Gardener volunteers. These data suggest that a non-traditional volunteer audience has been recruited. Occupationally, 29% of the volunteers indicated they were retired, followed by 24% who were homemakers, and 23% who were employed in business. Professionals and laborers comprised the two remaining groups, with percentages of 16% and 8%, respectively. Income and educational levels were high. Fifty-two percent reported incomes at or about the $50,000 category. Over three fourths (80%) were high school graduates. Of these, 41% had some college education, 35% had completed college, and 16% had additional graduate or professional education. Most volunteers resided in the suburbs (57%). Urban residence was reported by 32% of the volunteers, and rural residence by 11% of the volunteers. While length of residence was rather evenly divided (42% 10 plus years, 31% 5-10 years, and 27% fewer than 5 years), 58% of the volunteers had resided in their present location 10 years or less. This suggests that this volunteer base is more mobile than more traditional Extension volunteer audiences are. Table 1.
Voluntary Activity The data revealed that 90% of the Master Gardeners were presently volunteering in the Master Gardener Program (Table 2). About half (52%) of the volunteers gave 20 hours or more per year at the county level, conducting training sessions, answering phone calls, writing letters and reports, preparing for Master Gardener programs, and participating with other Master Gardeners in meetings, activities, and committee work. Of these volunteers, 40% gave more than 40 hours per year. Forty-three percent gave 20 hours or more at area and state levels, participating in fairs, tours, or other statewide events, and, of these volunteers, 28% gave more than 40 hours per year. Table 2.
Personal Benefits Master Gardeners also had a favorable attitude relative to the personal benefits gained from the program. Their grand mean scale score was 3.5, with a range from 2.30 to 4.38 (Table 3). Item means indicated that the five items personally most attractive to the volunteers were
Table 3.
Demographics and Personal Benefits To further investigate these findings, additional analysis was performed. For each social background factor, individuals were divided into two groups (e.g., male, female; retired, not retired; 49 years or less, more than 49 years). Item mean scores for each group were computed and analyzed to determine if significant differences existed between the two groups on the top five personal benefits items. Several differences were found (Table 4). Those Master Gardeners whose parents were Extension volunteers rated status of the Master Gardener program, flexibility of volunteer work, excellence of training materials, rewards, and training sessions higher than those who did not have parents volunteering in Extension. Likewise, Master Gardeners who were retired rated the flexibility of volunteer work and rewards higher than those not retired. Males rated the excellence of training materials higher than females, while those who had spouses in the program rated the training sessions higher than those who did not have spouses in the program. Data analysis (r = 30, p<.01) also revealed that the higher a person's overall score on the personal benefits scale, the more likely that person to continue to volunteer in the program. Table 4.
Summary and ImplicationsThese findings have implications for how we recruit volunteers for the Master Gardener program and how we can keep them involved. Background information about an individual, such as age, marital status, occupation, and whether or not he or she has parents with previous volunteer experience, can help Master Gardener coordinators identify persons who are more likely to volunteer. Having knowledge of current volunteer profiles can also aid retention efforts. Retention efforts should emphasize the personal benefits these individuals may realize from being a Master Gardener volunteer. For this group of volunteers, the top five personal benefits were the:
As limited budgets and downsizing in Extension continues to threaten program availability, expansion, and staffing, the effective recruitment and retention of volunteers to maintain these programs will be increasingly important. Promoting the Master Gardener organization as a highly valued and sought after program that offers a variety of volunteer opportunities and flexible hours are personnel benefits that should be emphasized during recruitment and retention efforts. Stressing the quality of the training materials and instruction by university experts from Extension are also important motivators to volunteers. As perceived personal benefits increase, retention of volunteers also increases. Personal benefits become even more important for retired male volunteers over the age of 49 who have a family connection to an Extension program. While beyond the scope of this study, personal benefits may be a key motivator in other Extension programs, as well. Identifying those benefits and stressing their importance may significantly affect voluntary activity and program availability. ReferencesCronbach, L. (1971). Essentials of psychological testing. 3rd ed. Harper and Brothers, New York. Miller, L., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension. 21(3) pp. 45-50. Rohs, F. (1986). Social background, personality and attitudinal factors influencing the decision to volunteer and level of involvement among adult 4-H leaders. Journal of Voluntary Action Research. 15(1) pp. 87-100. Simonson, D., & Pals, D. (1990). Master Gardeners: Views from the cabbage patch. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 28(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/rb3.html Smith, D. (1972). Social background and social role determinants. In: D. Smith (ed.). Voluntary action research. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass. Stowe, L. & Marr, C. (1992). Retaining Master Gardener volunteers. Hort Technology 2:244-245. VanTilburg-Norland, E. 1992. Why adults participate. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 30(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992fall/a2.html Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
