Features

The Role of Extension in Controversial Studies: The Case of Interstate Dairy Compacts

Kenneth W. Bailey
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: baileyk@psu.edu

Introduction

Extension is increasingly being asked to analyze and address controversial issues of importance to their local stakeholders. This is particularly true for Extension economists, who must now conduct applied research that was historically done by their research colleagues. This new trend provides opportunities for Extension to develop well-conceived, research-based economic analysis of critical public policy issues. However, it also carries risks, particularly if Extension is viewed as " biased" or providing skewed results to meet the latest political needs of select local stakeholders.

In the spring of 1998 this author, along with other University of Missouri Extension faculty, was requested by a state dairy association to evaluate the economic impact of a policy proposal. The Missouri Governor and state legislators were considering whether or not Missouri should join a controversial Southern Dairy Compact. Regional dairy compacts are designed to enhance local and regional milk prices. By design, they also affect interstate trade in milk and dairy products. To join the Southern Dairy Compact, Missouri had to seek passage of a new state law authorizing the compact, approval by the Governor of Missouri, and ultimately consent of the Congress. The Missouri Director of Agriculture, Mr. John Saunders, was interested in this issue because he was charged with making a recommendation to the Governor regarding support for state legislation that would enable Missouri to join any new compact.

After presenting some historical background and citing some literature on Extension involvement in controversial topics, this article reviews the steps taken by the University of Missouri in dealing with a recent very controversial study. While the study did not quell the controversy surrounding the validity of interstate dairy compacts, it did provide various public and private stakeholders in Missouri and beyond with a greater understanding of the economic tradeoffs involved. More important, the process employed by the university maintained the integrity of academic freedom and sound science.

Pamphlet Number 5 and the Oleo Margarine War

The profession of agricultural economics has a long history of dealing with controversial public policy issues, particularly with regard to analysis dealing with the U.S. dairy industry.

In 1943, Professor T. W. Shultz, then Head of the Department of Economics at Iowa State University, co-authored a controversial report on the nutritive value of oleo margarine. The report, referred to as Pamphlet No. 5, "Putting Dairying on a Wartime Footing," made the assertion that margarine compared favorably with butter as a source of fat in the diet (Beneke, 1998).

This report struck a sensitive nerve with the U.S. dairy industry. At the time they were trying to maintain a two-to-one price advantage for butter over oleo margarine. An indirect impact of the war years was to introduce consumers to a cheaper and more plentiful alternative to butter. Butter sales as a result dropped from 16 pounds per capita before World War II to 10-12 pounds just after the war (Bailey, 1997). During the three decades beginning with the 1950s, butter sales fell and stabilized at just over 4 pounds per capita. Margarine sales, on the other hand, grew from just over 2 pounds per capita before the war to 10-12 pounds per capita by the 1980s.

Beneke (1998) reports that the president of the National Dairymen's Association disputed the accuracy of the publication. That put pressure on Iowa State College President Charles Friley to reevaluate the publication. The affair ended with Schultz tendering his resignation during the controversy to Friley "so that our discussions may be as free as possible from any concern about my personal or professional interest as a member of the staff." That one resignation brought to light the fundamental right of faculty members to conduct research free of special groups that have a vested interest in the outcome of university research.

Extension's Role in Public Policy

More recently, Barron (1998) notes that public policy often creates both winners and losers. In this environment, the principles of honesty, respect, and decorum may fall by the wayside. Despite these dangers, Barron suggests that "it is the job of university faculty and administrators to support and seek the truth wherever that path leads."

Extension has a unique role in conducting public policy analysis because of our close relationships with stakeholders that are affected by such research. Goodwin (1993) suggests a more limited role for Extension by presenting contrasting viewpoints only. But Schumacher and Lloyd (1997) take a more aggressive stance by stating the role of Extension in public policy education is, "(a) to make highly technical information available to farmers and the public in an understandable form; (b) to provide unbiased information; (c) to help create a forum in which all stakeholders have an opportunity for input; and (d) to provide education for our clientele."

Interstate Dairy Compacts

Like the oleo margarine study, the subject of interstate dairy compacts is extremely controversial because it has the potential to pit farmers against farmers, farmers against processors, and farmers against consumers. In many cases, lawmakers, both at the state and federal level, are caught in the middle. They are requested to make decisions on a very complicated issue. The economics of dairy compacts, despite the complexities of dairy policy and conflicting statements made in the popular press, is extremely clear.

A dairy compact is an agreement among a group of states to regulate the price of milk. The compact receives its authority from the Congress. That authority requires the creation of a Compact Commission to promulgate rules and set milk prices. The Commission attempts to enhance revenue for dairy farmers participating in the compact by fixing fluid milk prices (bottled milk) above existing federal or state prices. The Commission only has authority to regulate fluid milk prices; milk used for manufacturing purposes is not subject to such regulation because it derives its value from a national market.

The U.S. Constitution prevents state laws from interfering with the interstate shipment of goods and services. Our founding fathers recognized that if the economy of this country were to grow, goods and services must be freely traded across state lines. Thus one state cannot fix a high milk price for their local dairy farmers and erect barriers to lower priced out-of-state milk.

An exception to interstate trade may be found in the Commerce Clause to the U.S. Constitution. That exception allows states to " compact" together if they gain authority from the Congress to do so. Historically speaking, this exception was used over time to deal with border disputes and other administrative matters important to only a few states in the Union. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact (Northeast Compact), which expired in September 2001, was a recent example of a compact between six New England states and received its authority from Congress in the 1996 Farm Bill.

The language that created the Northeast Compact required that a commission be formed. The Northeast Dairy Compact Commission established regulations and set a fluid milk price (compact price) at $16.94 per hundredweight (cwt) for all milk used for fluid purposes in the compact region. At this level, the compact price was above the minimum federal fluid price for the compact region (called a Class I price). The difference between the compact price and the Class I federal price was called the compact obligation, and was collected each month by the Compact Commission and distributed back to compact farmers net of certain deductions.

By setting a minimum wholesale fluid price above the federal northeast price, new dollars were generated. The Compact Commission paid out $105.6 million in payments (net of escrow requirements) to eligible dairy farmers over the period July 1997 ­ April 2000, averaging $0.57 per cwt (Bailey, 2000b). This method of fixing wholesale fluid milk prices acted to stabilize and enhance the fluid portion of a farmer's milk check.

The effectiveness of dairy compacts in generating new revenue for dairy farmers is part of the reason why it is so controversial. Small family farmers struggling to remain solvent in a very competitive national market for milk see it as a way to garner more dollars from the marketplace. At issue is how much more will processors and retailers pay for milk under a compact scheme, and how much of that increased cost will be passed on to consumers? In addition, if farmers in compact regions receive additional income, will some of them expand their milk production? That would result in additional supplies of cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk, depressing farm-gate milk prices for farmers in non-compact regions. Hence some farmers are helped and others are hurt.

Steps Taken in the Missouri Study

A study on the economics of dairy compacts was undertaken at the University of Missouri. The study, later called the "Missouri Study," used a team approach to determine the scope of the project, identify an acceptable methodology, and complete the study. The following steps were developed for completing the study:

1. Develop a study committee comprised of knowledgeable experts from government, academia, and industry.
   
   
2. Define a research proposal in terms of objective, methodology, and resources needed.
   
   
3. Conduct the study, and develop a draft report.
   
   
4. Seek comments from the study committee and from the Executive Director of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
   
   
5. Present the preliminary study to the Missouri Director of Agriculture, Mr. John Saunders.
   
   
6. Publish the report, and widely disseminate the research findings.

The purpose of the study committee was to provide input and guidance on the study objectives, scope of the project, methodology, and write up. The study team was comprised of experts in the field of milk marketing. They included the author, economists from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), economists from USDA (Market Administrator), and representatives from two local dairy cooperatives and the Missouri Dairy Association (MDA).

The basic questions the study attempted to answer were:

1. What impact will a Southern Dairy Compact have on Missouri farm-gate milk prices?
   
   
2. How will the compact affect the milk supply in participating states?
   
   
3. What impact will the milk supply have on milk prices, if any?
   
   
4. How will the compact affect fluid milk consumption in Missouri?
   

The major conclusion from the study committee was that the compact study could not be limited to just Missouri. In other words, in order to address the objectives of the study, a national approach would have to be taken, along with regional and state impacts. That's because prices for dairy commodities, such as butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk, are determined on a national market. And such an approach would show the impact of regional dairy compacts on dairy producers outside the compact. The study committee also suggested that the study take into consideration the impact of dairy compacts on other constituents, namely consumers.

Needless to say, some of the committee members did not agree on a national approach. Some stakeholders stated that they requested a study focused on just Missouri dairy farmers. They expressed concern that the study would unnecessarily reveal the economic tradeoffs of dairy compacts on alternative constituents, particularly consumers. They reasoned this could affect Congresses decision to provide authority for a new compact.

Despite some disagreement on the scope of the study, it was completed after careful consideration of input from each member of the study committee. The results were then transmitted to Mr. John Saunders via Dr. Ronald Turner, Executive Vice President and Director of Cooperative Extension at the University of Missouri (Turner, 1999). A presentation of the study results was then made to Mr. John Saunders, invited members of his staff, and individuals from the MDA and the Missouri Farm Bureau.

Results of the Missouri Study

The study identified two distinct regions: compact regions and non-compact regions. The study assumed the creation of three compacts (Northeast, Appalachian, and Southeast) that comprised almost 30 percent of the nation's milk supply.

The results show that dairy farmers within the dairy compact regions received a higher farm price due to the compact. These farmers reacted by expanding milk production and the volume of milk they sold. Consumers paid more for fluid milk because the compact increased the cost of milk to processors, who passed on their higher costs.

Higher retail milk prices reduced fluid milk consumption slightly. Overall spending by consumers on fluid milk in the compact region increased. Greater milk production and less fluid milk consumption in the compact regions resulted in more milk used for manufacturing purposes. That resulted in increased production and lower prices of butter, nonfat dry milk, and cheese in compact regions. That lowered farm prices in the non-compact regions. Farmers in non-compact regions and states responded by producing less milk.

The study found that for Missouri consumers, the price of bottled milk would go up by 15 to 31 cents per gallon. Therefore, a family of four would spend an added 41 cents to 84 cents per week under the dairy compact. Total added fluid-milk costs to Missouri consumers would be $13.4 to $26.8 million per year. One reviewer at the presentation of the study results noted that the added cost of the compact to consumers was modest compared to the significantly higher returns to small to moderate size Missouri dairy farmers.

The report was released January 1999 (Bailey & Gamboa) and was immediately criticized by compact advocates. Much of the criticism was that the assumptions were not realistic and the results did not meet a priori expectations. For example, the study assumed that the regional dairy compacts would result in a $2 per cwt increase in the price of milk to fluid milk processors. This assumption was based on data from the first 6 months of operation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Despite the source of data, the criticism was that this premium associated with the compact was too high.

A second criticism was that the impact of the compact on consumers was overstated. Some proponents even suggested that processors would, over time, absorb most of the cost of the compact and that consumers would face little change in retail milk prices. It seems that despite the careful steps taken to form a study committee and to seek input, controversy surrounding this very emotional issue remained.

The results of the Missouri study were later submitted for publication to the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. The study was peer reviewed, accepted for publication (Bailey 2000a), and later received the 2001 Journal Article of the Year award by the Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association.

Lessons Learned

The author accepted a tenure track position at the Pennsylvania State University in dairy marketing and policy. Within 12 months of accepting this job he was asked by a group of Pennsylvania dairy farmers to analyze the economic consequences of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Their concern was twofold. First, they concluded that the "Missouri Study" was biased. Second, they requested a study of an actual compact (the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact), rather than a theoretical or stylized version in the "Missouri Study." Clearly, this was a very reasonable request, and it was the responsibility of Extension to address these critical issues. The lessons learned from the Missouri experience helped with the new study (Bailey 2000b).

More and more, Extension is being asked to conduct applied economic studies of controversial public policy issues. Extension personnel often have a much more detailed understanding of the complex issues facing their constituents than their research colleagues, who are increasingly focused on more basic research. If Extension is to remain relevant to society, it must be willing to step forward and address these complex and politically sensitive issues.

However, care must be taken to conduct these studies in an objective and scholarly manner without unnecessarily alienating affected stakeholders. Care must be taken to address the impact on all stakeholders in society, not just traditional stakeholders. University administrators must be forewarned about such controversial studies. And a study committee or review team made up of respected analysts from outside the university community could be helpful. Finally, affected stakeholders should be carefully briefed on the study results before they are widely disseminated.

The process outlined in this study provides guidance to Extension faculty in conducting applied studies of controversial public policy issues. Clearly, Extension cannot and should not avoid addressing important public policy issues. Academic freedom and integrity must be maintained during the process. Extension faculty cannot allow themselves to be placed in a position to be influenced by affected stakeholders. At the same time, Extension cannot operate effectively if they are unnecessarily alienated from important stakeholders. This study outlines an acceptable balance.

References

Bailey, K. (2000a). Evaluating the economic impacts of regional milk pricing authorities: The case of dairy compacts." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(2): 208-219.

Bailey, K. (2000b). Report on the operation and performance of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. The Pennsylvania State University [On-line]. Available at: http://dairyoutlook.aers.psu.edu/reports/NECompactStudy.htm

Bailey, K. (1997). Marketing and pricing of milk and dairy products in the United States. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Bailey, K., & Gamboa, J. (1999). A regional economic analysis of dairy compacts: Implications for Missouri dairy producers. Report #CA ­ 160. Commercial Agriculture Program, University of Missouri. January 1999 [On-line]. Available at: http://agebb.missouri.edu/commag/dairy/bailey/compact/indexanl.htm

Barron, J. C. (1998). The university and controversial research. Choices. Second Quarter, pp. 9-12.

Beneke, R. (1998). T.W. Schultz and Pamphlet No. 5: The Oleo Margarine War and academic freedom. Choices. Second Quarter, pp. 4-8.

Goodwin, J. (1993) Contrasting viewpoints about controversial issues. Journal of Extension [Online]. 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/a7.html

Schumacher, S. D. & Lloyd, M. (1997). Educating with controversial issues. Journal of Extension [Online]. 35(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/tt2.html

Turner, R. J. (1999). Letter of transmittal to Director John Saunders, Missouri Department of Agriculture [On-line]. Available at: http://agebb.missouri.edu/commag/dairy/bailey/compact/turner.htm

Coalition Sustainability: Long-Term Successes & Lessons Learned

Kathleen Lodl
Extension 4-H Youth Development Specialist/Associate Professor
Internet Address: klodl1@unl.edu

Georgia Stevens
Extension Family and Community Specialist for Diversity/Professor
Internet Address: gstevens1@unl.edu

University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska

Introduction

Program sustainability is a key component of any successful project. Projects that introduce a new endeavor and have high visibility for a short period but fail to be sustainable after the initial thrust create a sense of resentment for local communities. Communities have become wary of participating in yet another opportunity that may be short lived. This can be especially true for grant-funded projects that have a definite timeline. Because of this, many programs require grantees to document sustainability beyond the life of funding. Project sustainability is a commendable goal, but it can be a very difficult part of the project.

Project sustainability was a major component of USDA youth-at-risk grants developed in the early 1990's. One of these USDA youth-at-risk projects was designed to develop local-level coalitions to address the needs of youth-at-risk in a rural midwestern state. This article describes the impact several of these coalitions are still making, 10 years after the onset of the initial project and 5 years after cessation of grant funding. The lessons learned through the work of these coalitions can provide insight into the planning and implementation of other projects and provide strategies that can be used to help ensure project sustainability.

Review of the Literature

Very little research has been done on the impact of community coalitions that have continued to work after initial funding has ceased. Public health professionals have been particularly vocal about the lack of research that has been conducted on the institutionalization of community action projects (Holder & Moore, 2000; Altman, 1995). Within Cooperative Extension, the 11 public policy education projects funded by W. K. Kellogg Foundation in the early 1990's provided an insightful lesson as to what sustainability really means. According to their report on lessons learned from these successful projects, those coalitions most likely to be sustained after the initial life of the project are ones that created project materials and developed new organizational legacies (i.e., changes in organizational structure, changes in how the work is done, and changes in prioritization of program implementation) (Hahn, Greene, & Waterman, 1994).

Research related to community collaboration projects provides limited discussion of the merits of coalition sustainability. As a teaching tool for Cooperative Extension, a collaboration framework outlining the contextual and process factors that are inherent within collaborations was created, with sustainability listed as one of the process factors needed for building effective relationships that last (Bergstrom et al., 1995). Stevens and Marin-Hernandez (1999) highlight one community collaborative problem-solving lesson learned with a warning that processes isolated from local realities will not be sustained. In earlier research with the same Midwestern project, the federal expectation to sustain the program differed drastically from the local level desire to successfully complete an initial project and not worry about long-term sustainability (Stevens, Lodl, Rockwell, & Burkhart-Kriesel, 1994). With these thoughts in mind, the purpose of this article is to assess the sustainability of community coalitions 10 years after their initial onset and 5 years after funding ceased.

Project Description

KIDS' TEAM was a 5-year project of the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, funded by a grant from the CSREES. The goal of the project was to empower local communities to form coalitions that address the needs of youth and families at risk.

Through KIDS' TEAM, 56 community coalitions were developed in Nebraska's rural Third Congressional District. Each of these coalitions initially identified school-age child care as a high priority. To address this issue, KIDS' TEAM developed a program wherein volunteers planned and implemented positive group activities and supervision for school-age youth on school-release days, and as part of a before- and after-school program. Based on coalition successes with school-age child care programs, many went on to address more complex issues. For example, several coalitions developed parenting education programs. Others worked in the area of farm safety. Still others worked with tobacco and alcohol issues faced by teens.

While the successes of these coalitions were documented during the term of the project, in order to truly measure the impact of KIDS' TEAM, one must look at the long-term systemic change that transpired and the kinds of outcomes that are still occurring as a result of the project. While those coalitions associated with KIDS' TEAM had the advantages of being part of a statewide effort that had general goals and could provide seed money for the beginning of projects, their experiences can be used as ways to help better the process for other groups that are striving to do the same kinds of grass roots work

Methodology

In order to measure the long-term impact of KIDS' TEAM, individuals who participated on the original KIDS' TEAM leadership team were contacted during spring, 2000, 5 years after the end of funding and 10 years after the beginning of the project. To begin the process, these individuals were asked about the current status of their coalition, the long-term impact from the coalition, and effective processes the coalition had used to reach its goals.

Based on the responses from this focus group, the literature was reviewed to determine whether there was a connection between these themes and the previous research. The survey questions were developed based on these responses and further consultation with experts in the field. Leadership team members were reached via telephone and were asked to participate in a telephone interview. Nine individuals participated in the interviews, and information was gathered on 18 coalitions. Some of the interview participants had been involved with more than one coalition site.

Through the phone interviews, participants were asked if the coalitions that they had originally been working with were still active or if the coalitions had ceased. At this point in the interview, the participants were asked a series of open-ended questions. Those who responded that a coalition still existed were asked to discuss the current activity of the coalition, the impacts that the coalition has had on the community, the benefits of the coalition's activities, and reasons for success. Themes generated from these interviews were analyzed and compared with the literature. The following is a summary of the results of these interviews.

Results

Of those coalitions studied, the focus of most coalitions has expanded beyond the original goal of meeting the needs of children and families on school-release days. Only one group is still focused on this original goal.

One coalition closely resembles what was originally established through the KIDS' TEAM program. This group is led by members of the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) at the local high school and adult volunteers from the community. The youth volunteers provide activities for children in the community on school-release days. These days include teacher work days, fall and spring breaks, and parent-teacher conferences.

Another coalition, the Family Resource Organization, exists to help minimize duplication of services among member agencies and organizations. The coalition explores new and different ideas and how they can be implemented in the county. The Family Resource Organization endorses activities that the member agencies conduct. The group has an office and a paid employee to oversee the activities of the group. If the group has an idea for a particular activity, the coordinator works with member agencies to find a sponsor for the event.

The Area Family Resource Network is another active coalition. This group recently printed the fourth edition of a directory of services for families in that particular county. The directories are distributed through the school system and member agencies. The group worked to establish a home-based head start program that employs three family educators. The Network has received recognition for the work that has been done to meet the needs of children and families in the area. The group has also worked to distribute information and conduct programs that address a variety of topics including child care, parenting, child abuse, and divorce. The coalition works to collaborate on meeting the needs of children and families in the county to maximize services without duplication.

In another community, the FAST Coalition sponsors a number of local programs in the community, such as an adult/youth mentor program. The FAST coalition has worked with the local court system to provide a divorce education program. The group is working with a behavioral services agency to pilot test a federal program that assists families in getting services from the community. The coalition also helps parents develop positive parenting and child care skills.

Another coalition has conducted two needs assessment studies over 4 years to identify training needs of educators and child care providers. As a result, the coalition has provided training programs in several areas, such as first aid, information on the basic development of children, and parenting education. The coalition has also conducted a needs assessment with local businesses to identify child care needs. As a result of this work, a new child care facility is being built. A mentor program has been established that pairs an experienced child care provider with a new provider to help facilitate positive care practices. The coalition coordinates the publication and distribution of a bimonthly newsletter that reaches 240 child care providers in the area. The coalition also sponsors mini-grants that are used to fund an annual early childhood education conference. The group also sponsor a Kids' Festival during the community's annual summer celebration.

While each of the functioning coalitions is carrying out programs specific to the local needs of their community, there are some common themes that help describe why they are still thriving. For example, most of the active coalitions have received outside funding over the past 5 years. This funding was cited as a key to success of the active coalitions. Three of the five active coalitions in this study were able to hire and support a paid coordinator through the grant funding received. All indicated that this played a big role in the success of the coalition.

When asked to share the impact of their coalition on the community, several similarities emerged for all of the coalitions. Following is a brief listing of the ideas shared:

1. The work of the coalition has made resources available in the community that had not been available before. Families are more aware of the services that are available for their use.
   
   
2. The work of the coalition keeps educators and child care providers aware of current issues regarding children and families.
   
   
3. The coalition allows individuals, agencies, and organizations to collaborate in an effort to maximize access to services and minimize duplication among the various member agencies.
   
   
4. The coalition has been together long enough to effectively identify current needs in the community and work to meet those needs.
   
   
5. The community has come together to support activities that meet the needs of children and families.
   
   
6. Some of the coalitions have received feedback that parents and families feel that they have benefited from the programs and resources made available through the coalition.
   

Finally, the subjects were asked to think about why the coalition has been successful. Several factors were identified. Though not all factors seemed to play a role in the success of each of the coalitions, the following factors seemed to be key to a successful coalition.

1. The coalition has a common goal to identify and meet the needs of families in the community.
   
   
2. The members feel a responsibility for the commitment that they have made to the coalition.
   
   
3. The coalition has been able to secure outside funding to make services available. Three of the five active coalitions have been able to afford to hire a paid coordinator, and this was identified as a very valuable factor in the success of these coalitions.
   
   
4. As the coalition experiences some early success of programs or activities, members gain the enthusiasm to work harder, thus creating a cycle of success.
   
   
5. The coalition has been recognized for its success. Some sources of recognition mentioned were articles in the local newspaper, recognition by the community, and identification through the Nebraska Good Beginnings program.
   

The KIDS' TEAM program appears to have helped to lay the early foundation for successful coalitions in these five communities. In general, the resources originally developed by the KIDS' TEAM project are being utilized in the work of the coalitions. For example, the curriculum box developed by the project and information concerning the needs of youth and families continue to be well received. One interview subject shared that organizations in her community had begun talking about forming a group and working together and that KIDS' TEAM acted as a catalyst to get them organized and functioning.

Each coalition is unique and works to meet the specific needs in their area. The individuals communicated the value of the collaboration among organizations and agencies. By working together, the coalition has been able to maximize services for children and families and raise awareness in the community of these services.

Unfortunately, some of the original coalitions have ceased. The subjects who answered that a coalition had discontinued were asked to share ideas for why this happened. One reason was that funding ran out, making it difficult to continue. Several coalitions relied on volunteer leadership, and burn-out played a role in the demise of the organized activity. In some cases, there was a lack of interest from the community and the activities were not well attended. These factors played a role in the discontinuation of the programs.

In most cases, the individuals indicated that KIDS' TEAM had been worthwhile in their communities. The original work of KIDS' TEAM helped to raise awareness of the current needs of children and families. The early coalition building helped to open the lines of communication and foster relationships among organizations that still exist even if the coalition does not. The resources and materials from the KIDS' TEAM program continue to be utilized with other programs through Cooperative Extension, child care, and education.

To summarize, KIDS' TEAM appears to have been successful at building and sustaining community coalitions. Five years after completion of the project, project participants were able to talk about the benefits of the program. Whether the coalitions are still active or not, the subjects shared positive feedback. KIDS' TEAM appears to have raised an awareness of current issues of children and families. The program helped to facilitate relationship building among organizations with a common goal to serve families. The active coalitions continue to serve families in Nebraska and appear to be a valuable asset in their communities.

Lessons Learned

While it is good to know that KIDS' TEAM was successful, it is even more important to understand the KIDS' TEAM coalition building process so that it can be applied to other projects. Based on observations of those coalitions that have successfully sustained themselves and long-term study of a variety of coalition success and failures, the following lessons can be learned.

1. Project sustainability must be a key part of the project from the very beginning.
   
   
2. Conducting valid needs assessments is vital to giving the coalition and its work credibility. This also gives the coalition a true sense of accomplishment when the project is completed and adds to the likelihood of the coalition continuing its efforts.
   
   
3. Those coalitions that bring together a wider variety of entities that encompass broader community needs prove to be more valued and tend to sustain. For example, county-wide or multi-county coalitions are often more effective as their efforts aren't in competition with each other.
   
   
4. Statewide or even national cooperation of agencies can serve as a model for local level coalition building and sustenance.
   
   
5. The most successful coalitions are those that begin their work with a specific goal for their first project. This goal can serve as the catalyst for coalition formation and work.
   
   
6. Communication among coalition members is key. For example, regular newsletters, in-person meetings, conference calls, annual directories of services, etc., serve to coordinate activities/events of the cooperating members.
   
   
7. The coalition is more likely to be successful when it seeks to minimize duplication of services and coordinates the efforts among agencies. This is especially true in areas that are sparsely populated and have minimal resources.
   
   
8. Coalitions most likely to remain a vital force in the community are those where someone, either a paid staff member or a staff member from one of the partnering agencies, has the responsibility of keeping the coalition functioning.
   
   
9. Youth membership on coalitions is essential to coalition longevity. Through encouraging youth input into project planning and using youth volunteers to help carry out project goals, all members of the community feel an ownership to the coalition and its work.
   
   
10. Coalitions that sustain themselves become skilled at securing funding. This funding can be in the form of federal, state, local or private grants, cash donations by local businesses, or in-kind contributions.

While many of these lessons appear to be common sense, using them as guidelines when working with coalitions can help to build more permanence into groups that might otherwise meet for a specific purpose and then disband. The lessons learned through the KIDS' TEAM process mirror and expand upon those identified by the Kellogg evaluation report (Hahn, Greene, & Waterman, 1994). With the insight gleaned from these two projects, and others like it, future coalition development can be expedited and enhanced in such a way that grass roots efforts truly can be successful.

Acknowledgment

Special appreciation is extended to Kyla Olson, project assistant, for her work in collecting information.

References

Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology, 14(6), 526-536.

Bergstrom, A., Clark, R., Hogue, T., Perkins, D., Slinski, M., Iyechad, T., Miller, J., Mullen, S., Rowe, E., Russell, J., Simon-Brown, V., Snider, B. A., & Thurston, F. (1995). Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity. National Network for Collaboration, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC.

Hahn, A. J., Greene, J. C., & Waterman, C. (1994). Educating about public issues: Lessons from eleven innovative public policy education projects. Media Services at Cornell University: Ithaca, NY.

Holder, H. D., & Moore, R.S. (2000). Institutionalization of community action projects to reduce alcohol-use related problems: Systematic facilitators. Substance Use and Misuse, 35(1-2), 75-86.

Stevens, G. L., Lodl, K. A., Rockwell, S. K., & Burkhart-Kriesel, C. (1994). Do local realities clash with federal expectations? A case study of youth-at-risk funding. Journal of Extension. [On-line], 32(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994october/a2.html

Stevens, G. L., & Marin-Hernandez, A. (1999). Community collaborative problem solving cross-cultural lessons. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. 91(2), 79-82.

Evaluating Extension-Based Water Resource Outreach Programs: Are We Meeting the Challenge?

Robin Shepard
Assistant Professor of Life Sciences Communication, Extension Water Quality Coordinator
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Internet Address: rlshepar@facstaff.wisc.edu

Introduction

The demand for effective and efficient programs has always been part of Extension-based outreach, but the degree of emphasis placed on accountability is at an all-time high. Greater diversity in programs, concerns over duplication of efforts, calls for the use of communication campaign-type strategies by Extension educators, and more reliance on competitive sources of funds are a few reasons driving the need for program evaluation (Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996). Furthermore, increased pressures from politicians and agency personnel through program reviews and audits, as well as the federal enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993 are direct examples of new, expanded attention on program impacts.

Beyond the issues of accountability raised by funders and politicians, evaluation must be seen as a fundamental part of being a professional educator (Scarborough, Killough, Johnson, & Farrington, 1997). Outreach program managers and staff must ask the basic questions, "Did we accomplish what we intended?" and "How do we know?" This is the essence of evaluation for today's educator.

Evaluation involves a systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs, personnel, and products, in order to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those programs or products are doing and affecting (Patton, 1982). It compares evidence with previously selected criteria to assess the value of a program, activity, or product.

Evaluation should be thought of as different from impact reporting. Evaluation requires a well-planned strategy for collecting a variety of outcome data and measuring it against the program's intent (Bennett & Rockwell, 1995). Some of the data can be linked in causal ways to the program, and some cannot. Impact reporting focuses on specific program results, and the data may be narrowly linked only to the impacts program stakeholders deem important (Patton, 1997; Bickman, 1985; and Cronbach, 1982).

Ironically, recent trends emphasizing accountability have increased attention on impact reporting, somewhat at the expense of more objective and thorough program evaluation approaches. One reason is that program staff often focus heavily on program implementation until the program or project is over, when they finally turn their attention to impact reporting of project successes (Decker & Yerka, 1990). All too often in outreach education, evaluations are "reactive" in that they are relegated to the last days of a project. Reactive evaluation, in this sense, involves leaving whatever is left in staff time and financial resources to fulfill final reporting obligations and record any impacts that might reflect accomplishments.

Background and Supporting Information

In 1990, then President George Bush recommended a new initiative for enhancing water quality. The President's Water Quality Initiative (WQI) was created as a cooperative effort among the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The effort was coordinated with related activities of other United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and agencies of the Department of Interior and Commerce.

The WQI stressed integration of projects, data, and information across agency lines, setting the stage for the sharing of program resources and, subsequently, evaluation efforts. The WQI involved Demonstration (DEMO) Projects and Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) projects, which were designed to encourage producers to adopt specific management practices to protect and/or enhance water quality.

DEMOs and HUAs were initiated between 1989 and 1991. In 1997, these projects began phasing out and were required to conduct final reporting and project evaluation. By 2000, many of the projects had ended, and evaluation efforts associated with final reporting came to the forefront.

To better understand the evaluation practices of these special water resource outreach efforts, a survey of Extension Service water quality coordinators was conducted. These water quality coordinators do not represent overall evaluation efforts by Cooperative Extension, but they were selected to assess the evaluation efforts of special water quality projects they were required to report and evaluate. This is a situation where a specific group of decision makers was expected to give evaluation greater attention than is usual in general extension-based outreach. This assessment was led by the University of Wisconsin in consultation with national program leaders in both CSREES and NRCS.

Objectives of the Study

As the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) projects began reaching their termination dates between 1997 and 2000, the need for program evaluation grew. In order to encourage and support state-level evaluation of DEMO and HUA projects, the University of Wisconsin conducted an assessment of the intentions each state Extension service had toward evaluating their respective projects. This assessment was developed to determine the methodological approaches to evaluation by CSREES state water quality coordinators. The study objectives included:

1. A description of program evaluation efforts for DEMO and HUA projects.
   
   
2. The identification of barriers to evaluation efforts of DEMO and HUA projects.
   
   
3. The identification of training and professional development needs related to building sustained capacity for conducting evaluation as part of water quality outreach efforts.

Results from this study were used to develop USDA-CSREES and USDA-NRCS guidance pertaining to evaluation and final reporting for DEMO and HUA projects. Subsequent documents were written and distributed nationally in 1998-1999 (Shepard, 1998). Furthermore, the findings from the study have been used, in part, to develop a national evaluation training program by the University of Wisconsin called "Providing Leadership to Program Evaluation." This professional development seminar has been held annually since 1999.

Methodology

A list of potential respondents was generated from a national directory of the 48 CSREES state water quality coordinators. These individuals had some level of administrative responsibility for one or more USDA Demonstration (DEMO) or Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) projects in their states or territories. State water quality coordinators were also the people most likely to know about evaluation plans and expectations for the projects in their states. They were, in effect, in the administrative position most likely to promote, or even design, the evaluation efforts for the projects.

Wisconsin's state coordinator was eliminated from this list because the principal investigator/author of the study was the lead contact. In addition, three other coordinators were eliminated from the list because their projects were either led exclusively by NRCS (non-Extension Service) or had already shut down and staff had been reassigned. This left a total of 44 as the maximum number of water quality coordinators for this study.

In winter 1997-98, a survey was conducted with the 44 water quality coordinators (i.e., a census of the population of water quality coordinators working with DEMO and HUA projects). The survey was administered using telephone, FAX, and e-mail procedures. An initial telephone call introduced the survey and its purpose to prospective respondents. A screening question gave the coordinator the option of either participating or deferring to a staff member who had been more involved in project evaluation or impact reporting. After agreeing to participate, the respondent was given the choice of receiving the survey questions by e-mail or FAX.

Results are based on 31 responses (a 70% response rate). A single interviewer handled the logistics of the survey (initial telephone screen, survey distribution by FAX or e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls in cases where the surveys were not returned). The interviewer indicated that of the 13 states (30%) where the coordinators chose not to participate, most refusals reflected limited concern for evaluation. In checking for non-response bias, those non-respondents stated they felt they would either address evaluation issues at a later date or were not planning any evaluation efforts.

When a respondent indicated that they were responsible for multiple projects in a state, the respondent was asked to answer the questions pertaining only to the DEMO project. This was the case in approximately 12 states where both an HUA and a DEMO existed. If the respondent had responsibility for more than one HUA or DEMO, he/she was asked to consider the project that was most concerned with evaluation and impact reporting.

The survey involved approximately 35 questions, with the total number per respondent varying depending upon how they followed tiered response categories and/or skip patterns. Questions focused primarily on five areas:

1. Respondent demographics and their role in project evaluation;
   
   
2. Type of evaluation and procedures used (i.e., formative, summative, reactive; collection of baseline data prior to project implementation; impact-focused reporting);
   
   
3. What data was intended to be collected;
   
   
4. Barriers to conducting evaluation; and
   
   
5. What type of future training and professional development would be appropriate for those responsible for implementing water quality outreach efforts.

Results and Discussion

The analysis of results is based on completed interviews with 31 of 44 state water quality coordinators (i.e., the population of state water quality coordinators or their designee who had responsibility for DEMO or HUA evaluation was 44). Furthermore, because the respondents represent a census, based on one contact per state, statistical tests of such measures as probability estimates are not used.

Most water quality coordinators indicated that a detailed evaluation strategy for their project had not been developed despite being 1 to 2 years from project closure/termination. Only 8 of 31 (26%) respondents said they were able to assess actual change over time in the adoption of best management practices (BMPs). Such results indicate a lack of pre-planning and commitment to collecting pre-project data with the expectation that specific indicators will be tracked.

By default, this leaves most projects with the prospects of conducting reactive forms of evaluation and measurement that are designed to show or even prove certain changes have occurred. A risk in reactive evaluation is that the methods and approach become focused on recording those changes that are most likely to reflect positively on the project. Reactive evaluation can lead to induced bias and a focus on the accomplishments of the project, rather than an objective assessment of what the project intended to do and if it accomplished its goals.

This consequence of post-project, or reactive evaluation is affirmed by the water quality coordinators' concern about the lack of baseline information and true assessment of pre-project conditions (Table 1).

Table 1
What Are the Challenges for DEMO and/or HUA Evaluation?*

Reactive evaluation and a specific approach to impact reporting are often relied upon in the absence of more planned formative evaluations. Formative uses for evaluation (Scriven, 1967) include issues such as audience needs, current knowledge gaps, prevalent behaviors, and information preferences, etc. When assessed prior to a project's start, these issues can be used to influence the design and implementation of the outreach efforts (King & Rollins, 1999; Lanyon, 1994; Mattocks & Steele, 1994). When tracked over time, such measures can show whether changes have occurred. In this way, evaluation becomes an essential component to initial program design and is integrated into the project from the very beginning.

One barrier associated with formative evaluation approaches is deciding what to measure. Water quality projects are by their nature directed at protecting and/or enhancing water quality. This encourages program staff to focus on biophysical changes to the water as an indicator of program success or lack of success. While the overall, or long-term intent, of outreach education may be to protect or enhance water quality, there are other impacts that can be assessed, such as the application of knowledge and skills or the adoption of improved management practices (Rogers, 1995).

Such practices are at the heart of most outreach programs, because staff promote certain actions that research has shown to be beneficial to protecting water quality and/or farm profits. Therefore, both long-term indicators of impact (i.e., physical changes to water quality) and more immediate impacts (i.e., changes in farm management and behavior) were assessed by this study to determine the needed level and type of evaluation support for and from state water quality coordinators.

The study found that only three (10%) of the states actually conducted a formative assessment strategy for their project. This involved collecting pre-project needs and audience characteristics specifically for DEMO or HUA efforts. However, when all coordinators were asked what information they intended to use to determine program impact, there was reliance upon information ranging from biophysical environmental indicators (e.g., sediment loading, biotic indexes, etc.) to behavioral indicators (e.g., awareness, knowledge, and/or adoption of practices, etc.). When a range of potential indicators were assessed for intended use, many states intended to rely on such indicators without any true baseline from which change could be adequately assessed (Table 2).

Table 2.
What Type of Information Will Be Used to Assess Project Impacts Without Pre-Assessment of Baseline Conditions?*

Building evaluation skills and developing personal confidence to use those skills is critical for educators to answer questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs. It may not be necessary for educators to become evaluation experts; however, they do need a fundamental understanding of methods and ethical standards if they are to make evaluation part of overall program design.

This assessment of state water quality coordinators asked several questions pertaining to the training and professional development needs of project staff. In the majority of states, more training was viewed as beneficial to building internal capacity necessary for making evaluation a more common part of projects and outreach programming (Table 3). Specifically, water quality coordinators felt staff needed:

• Better understanding of when specific sociologic measurement is appropriate;
• Knowledge of what type of data can and should be collected; and
• The skills to choose reliable and appropriate methods for collecting sociological data.

A common concern expressed by water quality coordinators in open-ended responses was that project staff are more likely to have technical and physical science backgrounds (e.g., agronomy, soil science, crop production, etc.) and may not be prepared for or feel comfortable using social science measures (e.g., behavior change, practice adoption, perceptional indices, etc.). Capacity building through training and professional development should consider more than just describing what to evaluate or track (Seevers, Graham, Gamon & Conklin, 1997). In particular, training should address the appropriateness and ethical issues associated with social science data collection through the use of surveys, case study techniques, focus group, and other efforts.

Table 3.
Water Quality Coordinators Indicating They or Project Staff Would Benefit in Evaluation Training.*

Administrative support considerations may also affect evaluation efforts for water resource projects entering their latent stages of activity. An overwhelming concern for water quality coordinators was that as the DEMO and HUA projects reached the end of their federal funding, project staff began leaving or were reassigned to other projects, thus leaving no one to conduct or help in the evaluation efforts. As of 1998, most of the 31 states surveyed indicated they were seeking staff time and funding for evaluation. Seventeen of the states indicated that less than one-half of one staff person's annual work time would be dedicated to evaluation. Twelve of the states expected to spend $15,000 or less on evaluating their DEMO and HUA projects. Of the more committed states, one had planned to dedicate 2.2 annual staff positions to evaluation work, while two states planned to spend nearly all of their final year's project dollars on evaluation.

Conclusions and Implications

Results from this study indicate an overwhelming lack of attention to project evaluation in special water quality outreach efforts. Indeed, the outright refusal of 30% of the states with DEMO or HUA projects to participate in the survey illustrates the low priority often given to evaluation efforts, especially in light of the most common reasons given for that refusal:

1. Evaluation concerns would be addressed later (despite the project's nearing termination) or
   
   
2. No plans to address evaluation were in place at all.

The survey results point to these main explanations and conclusions.

Despite the best intentions, the approach to DEMO and HUA project evaluation seemed to be primarily reactive, using neither basic evaluation planning nor formative research techniques. Much attention goes into just "doing" outreach, and by the time evaluation is considered, outreach-focused staff and faculty have moved on to the next outreach program. Without early attention to program evaluation as part of program design and implementation, adequate indicators of potential change are not collected from which a later comparison can be made.

Those who conduct and administer water quality outreach programs view evaluation as important; however, barriers to conducting evaluation must be addressed. These barriers include: dedicating time for evaluation beyond that allowed for conducting programs, assigning staff and funding, and recognizing quality evaluation efforts.

There is a need to improve staff skills and capacity to conduct evaluations. The training and professional development most requested includes how to evaluate changes in the biophysical environment, agronomic impacts of water quality practices, and the extent to which farmers adopt water quality practices. Training should give specific attention to social science data collection techniques and methods. This requires more than merely a survey methods course, and should include topics such as: a description of various methods and when to use them, how to ensure credibility and confidence, and ethical issues in evolution research.

Scientific inquiry and the need to better understand why things occur as they do are part of the culture from which the nation's Land-Grant institutions are founded. However, anecdotal comments from the telephone survey strongly suggest that program evaluation is not given the same status as other aspects of the project, such as program implementation or even applied research efforts. Even more problematic is the apparent lack of support for specific approaches such as formative evaluation as part of program planning.

University administrators, program leaders, and even project managers often claim to place a high priority on evaluation, but when it comes to allocating resources and rewarding faculty and staff for quality evaluation work, the commitment is often lacking. There is an administrative hesitation to dedicating staff time and expertise, and especially financial resources, to evaluation. This is supported by the overwhelming absence of baseline information collected prior to, or even in the early stages of, DEMO and HUA projects.

Administrators and project staff should acknowledge and support evaluation in substantial ways. Such acknowledgement should include at a minimum:

• Recognition of quality efforts in project reviews;
  
  
• Identifying evaluation as a responsibility of project staff and reinforcing the time to conduct such work;
  
  
• Acknowledgement through annual plans of work and individual merit reviews;
  
  
• Allocation of funds specifically for evaluation efforts; and
  
  
• Active identification for training and professional development of staff to increase their skills and capacity for evaluation.

These actions are necessary to establish an organizational culture that recognizes evaluation as part of the educator's job—not merely an add-on task to be done if and when there is time. Without a shift in our support for evaluation, it will always be considered a nuisance requirement at a project's end, done only to justify the existence of the next program or project.

References

Bennett, C., & Rockwell, K. (1995). Targeting outcomes of programs (TOP), an integrated approach to planning and evaluation. (A program planning guide prepared for USDA employees.) Washington, D.C.: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.

Bickman, L. (1985). Improving established statewide programs: A component theory of evaluation. Evaluation Review, 9(2), 189-208.

Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluation of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Decker, D. J., & Yerka, B. (1990). Organizational philosophy for program evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line] 28(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/f1.html

King, R., & Rollins, T. (1999). An evaluation of and agricultural innovation: Justification for participatory assistance. Journal of Extension, 37(4).

Lanyon, L. E. (1994). Participatory assistance: An alternative to transfer of technology for promoting change on farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(3), 136-142.

Mattocks, D., & Steele, R. (1994). NGO-government paradigms in agricultural development: A relationship of competition or collaboration? Journal of International Agriculture and Extension Education, 1(1), 54-61.

Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Patton, M. (1982). Practical evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). The Diffusion of innovations. (4^th ed.) New York, NY: Free Press.

Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D., & Farrington, J. (Eds.). (1997). Farmer-led extension. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, Ltd.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagne, and M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative extension. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Shepard, R. (1998). A guide to project closure and final report planning. Madison, Wisconsin: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service and University of Wisconsin-Extension.

Van den Ban, A. W., & Hawkins, H. S. (1996). Agricultural Extension (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science Ltd.

The Long and Short of Groundwater Education for Michigan Farmers

Robert H. Holsman
Communications Director
Environmental Education Training Partnership
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Internet Address: rholsman@uwsp.edu

David Krueger
Assistant Professor
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communications
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Internet Address: kruege20@msu.edu

Introduction

We all hope that Extension education programs empower learners to make lasting changes that improve their lives. Empowerment is especially desirable when addressing issues that directly affect an individual's quality of life via health and safety concerns. One prime example relates to efforts to educate the public about steps they can take to protect their drinking water.

Agriculture poses particular risks to groundwater because of the widespread use of pesticides and liquid fertilizer in concentrated quantities (Moody, 1990). In agricultural states, farmers play an especially key role in land use to protect groundwater supplies that often provide drinking water to many communities.

Though most Americans express a strong concern for water quality, they are not well informed about water quality issues, sources of pollution, and ways to prevent it (National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, 1999; Marketing Horizons, Inc., 1997). Jones and Jackson (1990, p.236) determined in their study of Wisconsin farmers that they "lacked the means to evaluate their farms' potential pollution sources, including management activities and to draw conclusions on the possible effects and options to reduce risks." Some of the risky practices they discovered included the improper storage and handling of fertilizers and pesticides. The need to educate and promote behavior changes in farm management and promote safer groundwater practices among farmers was apparent.

Theories of Behavior Change

Research has overturned the long-standing and naive assumption that there is a direct and linear relationship between providing information to individuals and changing the behaviors of those clients (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Newhouse, 1990). Knowledge of groundwater and its sources of contamination may be only one factor among many antecedents that influence farmer behavior. Other important psychological variables include attitudes toward the behavior(s), perceived self efficacy, social norms, and knowledge of and perceived competencies with behavior strategies (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980; Hungerford & Volk, 1990).

Risk perceptions are likely another important criteria that has an impact on decision-making (Slovic, 1987). Raedeke, Nilon, and Rikoon (2001) found that farmers' who believed their land uses had impacts on the local watershed were more interested in participating in conservation programs. Yet it has been shown that even farmers who express higher levels of environmental concern are just as likely to perceive high risks of adopting new technologies aimed at addressing soil and water conservation problems (Napier, Camboni, & Thraen, 1986).

In order to accomplish lasting impacts, educational strategies need to emphasize skills that empower learners in order to increase the likelihood that knowledge gains will lead to permanent adoption of new practices or ways of living. Dwyer, Leeming, Cobern, Jackson, and Porter (1993) termed the behavior change strategies alluded to here as "antecedent strategies" because they attempt to bring about changes in the attitudinal determinants of behavior. They also described "consequence" strategies that focus on rewards and punishments as a to way influence behavior. Economic incentives for taking (or not taking) some action are an example of a consequence strategy.

Program Background

Since 1995, The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP) has pursued a variety of educational strategies to educate pesticide and fertilizer users about risks to groundwater and suggest ways to minimize those risks. This article describes results of a 4-year research evaluation done to track the effectiveness of the MGSP in Michigan.

In an effort to be proactive in preventing pollution, the Michigan legislature created a special funding mechanism—a tax on pesticide and fertilizers users—earmarked for education about the wise use of these products. This initiative led to the creation of the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, housed in and administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) in cooperation with Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Since its inception, the focus of MGSP has been to provide voluntary, confidential risk assessments, education and demonstration projects, technical assistance, and cost-share money to promote the adoption of farm management practices that minimize risks to groundwater.

The implementation of these groundwater education and outreach efforts is conducted by a network of trained groundwater technicians who are employed by local grantee organizations (usually Conservation Districts) but whose activities are directed through partnerships with regional Extension offices. The keystone in MGSP's approach to education and outreach with farmers has been the deployment of the Farmstead Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst or FAS), a nationally developed risk assessment tool.

Groundwater Education Approach

Since 1995, groundwater technicians have conducted Farm*A*Systs on 8,600 of Michigan's farms (MGSP, 1999). Through these voluntary and confidential assessments, technicians provide farmers with a three-ring binder that contains fact sheets and worksheets for calculating various risks to groundwater. It is the goal of Extension that the FAS workbook serve to expand farmer knowledge regarding groundwater and the risks presented by common farming practices involving the storage and use of pesticides and fertilizers. These individualized educational interventions are designed for the technician to train the farmers in use of the FAS reference book and to empower farmers to assess their own groundwater risk factors now and in the future.

The on-site visit also provides technicians an opportunity to share additional information with farmers regarding cost-share opportunities available through MDA grants, local stewardship activities, or other additional programs that provide technical assistance or services that encourage groundwater stewardship behaviors. In addition, all program participants are eligible to apply for cost-share through the MGSP. The types of practices eligible vary based on funding availability and local priorities.

Evaluation Methods

In order to assess the effectiveness of the program, we drew upon the results of two separate studies. First, we employed a statewide baseline mail survey in 1996 that was sent to a randomly selected sample of 400 Michigan farmers drawn from the Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service's database. The mail survey measured groundwater knowledge, risk perceptions posed by various materials and land uses to groundwater contamination, and awareness related to groundwater education and technical assistance programs.

In 2000, the baseline survey was repeated with another sample of 400 Michigan farmers drawn from the same source to assess changes in knowledge and attitudes. The same survey instrument was used, with an additional set of seven questions added, targeting groundwater stewardship farm practices. Response rates for the survey in 1996 and 2000 were 53% and 51%, respectively.

The second study was an annual survey of farmers who participated in the FAS program. The evaluation survey tracked the self-reported behavior changes and program satisfaction levels of FAS participants. This program participant data was collected each year between 1998-2000. Though the methodology for this annual survey has varied over the course of the study, the results obtained have been consistent for the past 3 years. The self-administered FAS evaluations were sent in by farmers following on-site assessments conducted by local groundwater technicians. Response rates on the annual evaluations have ranged from 35-50%.

Results of the FAS Evaluation

Results of annual evaluations by program participants indicate strong levels of satisfaction with the program and with the technical assistance provided by technicians. In addition, the evaluations have revealed numerous behavior changes following completion of an on-site FAS. Highlights of the most recent findings include the following:

• Nearly four out of five (78.9%) respondents made at least one management change to protect groundwater.
  
  
• The majority of respondents changed more than one farm management practice as a result of program participation.
  
  
• The most frequently reported stewardship practices included emergency farm planning (48.1%), closing abandoned wells (45.2%), and enacting safeguards in pesticide storage and handling (45%).
  
  
• Most respondents applied for program cost-share dollars in order to make changes (78%).
  
  
• Only a quarter (24%) of the respondents said they read the fact-sheets dealing with the substantive knowledge of each groundwater topic before completing the risk assessment worksheets (Holsman, Heyboer, Geisler, & Campo, 1999)

Meanwhile, the longitudinal study of Michigan farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and groundwater behaviors indicates that groundwater literacy scores are low and remained unchanged on all 12 groundwater knowledge items over the 4-year period (Table 1). On average, farmers scored 55% correct on the knowledge section in 2000. There was not a significant difference in the overall score between 1996 and 2000.

Table 1
Frequency of Farmer Responses to Groundwater Knowledge Questions on the Longitudinal Statewide Survey 1996-2000

The results indicate that most farmers/respondents knew that:

• Groundwater provides water to lakes and streams;
• It is more cost effective to prevent pollution than to pay for cleanup;
• Irrigation and lawn watering can affect the amount of water leaching into the ground; and
• Water that looks clear and tastes good is not necessarily safe to drink.

Conversely, less than a majority of farmers understand what groundwater is by definition. The fact that most respondents agreed with both definitions provided (the correct and the incorrect one) indicates confusion over the concept. Farmers also do not fully understand the relative scarcity of groundwater as a global resource or have any idea how much American's use in a day (Holsman et al., 2000).

On the statewide survey in 2000, farmers also were asked if they had ever participated in a Farm*A*Syst. One-quarter of the respondents indicated that they had gone through the program (n=47). Knowledge scores of these farmers were compared with farmers who had not participated in the program. No significant differences were observed on any of these items.

However, Farm*A*Syst program participants were more likely than non-participants to engage in four out of seven farm practices that have direct implications for groundwater protection or contamination (Figure. 1). Three of the differences showed increased frequency of the desired stewardship behaviors promoted by the FAS program and suggest that the program is influencing farmers to make positive changes.

These changes mean that more farmers are participating in pre-side dress nitrate testing (PSNT), pesticide container recycling, and drinking water monitoring. Curiously, program participants also reported more frequent levels of one type of practice that presents a risk to groundwater—rinsing away pesticide spills with water.

There were no differences in the frequency of stewardship practiced with regard to petroleum storage safety, use of mix/load pads to contain spills, or in on-farm dumping of trash (a groundwater hazard few respondents practice).

Figure 1.
Significant Differences in the Frequency of Groundwater Practices Based on Participation in Groundwater Education and Training in Michigan

Discussion

The results of the two studies taken together suggest that Farm*A*Syst is a successful intervention for promoting certain farm management practices in Michigan. Yet, despite the apparent shift in several types of farm management practices indicated by the FAS evaluation survey and the differences in frequency of adoption rates between participants and non-participants, the program appears to be having little impact on groundwater literacy.

At the beginning of this particle we acknowledged that knowledge change alone is not an effective predictor of behavior change. At first glance, these results suggest that knowledge change may not even be necessary in order to shift behaviors. Before jumping to such conclusions, more information and monitoring of the actual implementation of the program's educational delivery may be necessary.

From informal interviews with groundwater technicians (the educators) and from re-evaluating the survey results, we offer the post-hoc hypothesis that behavior changes are being manipulated through cost-share incentives rather than through "education" offered during or after the Farm*A*Syst program. In other words, we suspect "consequence" strategies are having more influence than the "antecedent" strategy of using the FAS workbook to build knowledge and skills.

For example, we know from the data described here that few farmers are utilizing the written education material provided during training. This material represents a substantial investment of money and time by Extension educators, yet it appears it is not being used to its potential.

We also know from speaking with technicians that they are more likely to complete the risk assessment on behalf of the farmers rather than assisting them to build their own skills in risk assessment and evaluation. Finally, an examination of the types of behavior changes reported by farmers shows a strong correlation to those for which the MGSP has offered cost-share dollars.

For instance, the program has prioritized cost share for PSNT and well closures, yet far fewer cost-share dollars have been set aside for purchasing mix/load pads or for constructing locked, diked, petroleum storage facilities. These latter two practices are relatively expensive, and it does not appear many farmers are deciding to adopt such practices in the absence of financial incentives.

In conclusion, we suspect that adoption of groundwater stewardship practices may be driven by short-term financial incentives, rather than an improved understanding by farmers of the need to assess and evaluate risks to their local groundwater supplies. Some may argue that the question is moot as long as farmers are taking positive action. However, in the absence of developing this technical understanding among farmers, current implementation of the FAS program may be missing an opportunity to create long-term change in groundwater management practices.

It is often difficult to reach adult audiences with educational messages, especially when those messages pose threats to their current habits or practices. Farmers can be an especially challenging audience because of their skepticism toward government agencies. While cost-share incentives can provide a great way to market Extension programming by providing a "hook" to get farmers to participate, there are notable drawbacks to the approach. Other researchers have found that conservation behaviors adopted through financial incentives are often discontinued by individuals once those incentives are discontinued (Thörgeson, 1996; Dwyer et al., 1993).

There is also a risk that information designed to have an impact on knowledge, attitude, and skills may get lost or disregarded when provided in the same channel as information on cost-share. Given these findings, it is recommended that MSUE refocus training of groundwater technicians to emphasize instruction on on-farm risk assessment by farmers rather than completing it for them. We also recommend deferring recommendations about cost-share practices until farmers complete their risk assessment and have reviewed strategies for mitigating high-risk management practices.

In the case of the MGSP and FAS, changes like well closures provide the farmers and local communities with lasting benefits, but many other groundwater practices (e.g., pesticide application, water testing, etc.) represent annual, if not daily choices on the part of the farmer. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term impact of program participation on farmers' management decisions regarding groundwater stewardship practices. There is also a need to identify the importance of groundwater knowledge as a mediating variable on the farmers' awareness of risk and willingness to take action. Increased knowledge maybe one important factor in farmer's willingness to seek information (Raedeke et al., 2001).

In the meantime, we caution Extension educators to specify precise cognitive, affective, and behavioral objectives with programs. Long-term behavior change, whether for groundwater stewardship or other health and safety issues, is likely a complex process that requires interventions designed to affect multiple determinants of an individual's decision-making process.

Extension educators need specific strategies and messages to affect all determinants of behavior. Just as it is often possible to fail to detect the long-term changes of learners who have received an intervention of short duration, it may also be possible to mistake "education" for manipulation of behavior via rewards.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Woods, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Dwyer, W.O., Leeming, F.C., Cobern, M..K., Jackson, J.M., & Porter, B.E. (1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior 25:275-321.

Holsman, R.H., Heyboer, G.A., Geisler, M., & Campo, S. ( 2000). Evaluation of the Farmstead Assessment program in Michigan: Fiscal year 1999 report. Center for Evaluative Studies, East Lansing, MI. 20pp.

Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education 21(3): 8-21.

Jones, S.A., & Jackson, G.W. (1990). Farmstead assessments: A strategy to prevent groundwater contamination. The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45(2):236-238.

Marketing Horizons, Inc. (1997). Talking conservation: What we say/what the public hears communications research focus group report. Prepared for the National Association of Conservation Districts, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and National Association of State Conservation Agencies. St. Louis, MO: Marketing Horizons, Inc.

Napier, T.L., Camboni, S.M., & Thraen, C.S. (1986). Environmental concern and the adoption of farm technologies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (March-April):109-113.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. (1999). Summary of National Report Card on Safe Drinking Water Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. NEETF/Roper, Washington, DC.

Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP). (1999). Michigan Groundwater Program outcome summary. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Environmental Stewardship Division, Lansing, MI.

Moody, D.W. (1990). Groundwater contamination in the United States. The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45(2):170-179.

Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education 22(1):26-32.

Raedeke, A.H., Nilon, C.H., & Rikoon, S. (2001). Factors affecting landowner participation in ecosystem management: a case study in south-central Missouri. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):195-206.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.

Thögerson, J. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature. Environment and Behavior 28:536-558.

Changes in Cultural Practices of Farmers in Southeast Nebraska as a Result of Their Adoption of Transgenic Crops

James M. Peterson
Extension Educator
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Blair, Nebraska
Internet Address: jpetersm@unlnotes.unl.edu

Kenneth G. Cassman
Head, Agronomy and Horticulture Department
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska
Internet Address: kcassman@unlnotes.unl.edu

Randy Cantrell
Director, Southeast Research and Extension Center
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska
Internet Address: rcantrell@unlnotes.unl.edu

Introduction

The adoption of transgenic soybean (Glycine max, L..) varieties has been extremely rapid in the North Central U.S. The initial release of these transgenic soybean varieties occurred in 1996, and they accounted for 47% of total area planted to soybeans in 1999 (Harlander, 2000). The most widely used transgenic soybeans were varieties with tolerance to the broad-spectrum, low-toxicity herbicide glyphosate (hereafter referred to as Roundup) These varieties are called Roundup Ready® soybeans, (hereafter referred to as RR soybean).

The rapid adoption of RR soybeans suggests that farmers perceive these transgenic varieties to be cost-effective. (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2000). RR soybeans have several advantages. They can be planted in fields with severe weed problems because the most common weed species are readily controlled by Roundup (Wait, 1999). The ease and large window of application make it easier for producers to control weeds, especially when wet or dry weather inhibits the effectiveness of conventional herbicides (Hartzler, 1997). Other advantages include the low toxicity and rapid decomposition of Roundup compared with the most commonly used alternative soybean herbicides.

Despite these advantages, RR soybean have several disadvantages. The first is that these varieties cost more than conventional seed. A second disadvantage is the uncertainty about marketing transgenic crops. Concerns about food safety and environmental issues surrounding the use of transgenic crops present the possibility of trade restrictions on their export to the European Union, Japan, and other major importing countries (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2000).

Because Europe and East Asia represent the largest markets for U.S. soybeans, any trade restrictions on transgenic crops would have a negative impact on prices farmers receive for these products. Other disadvantages include the inability to re-use saved seed from a RR soybean crop because of patent protection, and the limited number of widely adapted RR soybean varieties.

Given the disadvantages and potential marketing risks, as well as the rapid rate of adoption, a key issue is whether farmers are taking full advantage of the potential benefits in crop management that result from use of transgenic soybeans. The goal of our research was to investigate the degree to which farmers modified crop management in the initial years after adoption of transgenic soybeans, and whether these changes would allow them to fully benefit from their use. In addition, we were interested in knowing the sources of information that farmers utilized in making decisions on crop management when using transgenic crops.

Methods

As a part of an exploratory study, a survey was developed to elicit responses from farmers about crop management practices used on conventional and transgenic soybean varieties. Although the initial survey included both RR soybeans and Bt Corn, for the sake of brevity, this article focuses on the findings concerning RR soybeans. The primary purpose of the survey was to determine what changes, if any, these producers were making in their crop management practices when adopting RR soybeans. In addition, the survey included questions regarding farming experience and farm size as well as questions about their reasons for using transgenic crops and concerns they had about using them in the future.

Rather than using a random sample, the study was intentionally selective, specifically seeking respondents from among the population of early adopters of transgenic crops. Essentially a cluster sample, this design is limited in its ability to support extrapolation to the general population. However, it does provide information about the specified population that might be missed in a broader sample, and it is useful in developing theoretical understanding that can guide future research.

The survey was sent out in the fall of 1997 and again in 1998 to selected farmers located in a 21-county area of southeast Nebraska. In selecting