October 2002
Volume 40 Number 5

Features

Examining a Professional Development System: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment Approach

Nikki L. Conklin
Associate Professor
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: conklin.1@osu.edu

Laryssa L. Hook
Extension Agent 2
Delaware, Ohio
Internet Address: hook.26@osu.edu

Beverly J. Kelbaugh
Assistant Professor
St. Clairsville, Ohio
Internet Address: kelbaugh.1@osu.edu

Ruben D. Nieto
Program Manager
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: nieto.1@osu.edu

Ohio State University Extension

Introduction

In today's rapidly changing world, knowledge is quickly outdated. An organization with knowledge development and education as its base needs to have processes in place to continually develop its intellectual capital (Van Buren, 2001). With the aging baby boomer population and increasing diversity of the workforce, the 21st century organization must be skilled at developing capacities of personnel.

Determining professional development needs in any organization is a challenging task--especially when there are 1,400 personnel in 100 locations! The task becomes more complex with the diversity of job responsibilities: conducting Extension programs, teaching, providing office support, and serving as technical subject matter resources.

Mincemoyer and Kelsey (1999) studied in-service attendance and satisfaction level in Pennsylvania State University's Cooperative Extension program. The top reasons cited by county-based faculty for not attending in-services were:

1. Previous commitments (56%);
2. Too much time away from the office (53%);
3. Conflict with local programming (45%);
4. Conflict with another in-service (43%);
5. Work/family conflicts (42%); and
6. In-service not relevant to program in county (41%).

Since district and state Extension specialists are a primary source of information for county agents, it is important that they understand their needs and be inclusive in their in-services (Radhakrishna & Thompson, 1996; Shih & Evans, 1991). State Extension faculty may not fully understand their role in the programming process, especially in developing resource materials, providing in-services, and in evaluating programs relative to timely issues identified as county needs (Baker & Villalobos, 1977).

Methodology

In-service training is an important component of professional development provided by Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension). In autumn 2000, a team of OSU Extension professionals conducted a comprehensive needs assessment process using four instruments:

1. To determine factors impacting personnel participation in in-service opportunities.
2. To identify barriers coordinators faced in providing professional development and to identify support needed in this role.
3. To determine both technical subject matter and process skill developmental needs of program and support personnel.

Several expert panels established content and face validity for each of the research instruments. The instruments were field tested, and a reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (r = .94). Software entitled "EventHandler" (GAP Consulting, 2000) was piloted with the research instruments. Because results of the field tests indicated the software worked best with short research instruments, mail surveys were used for both the program personnel and support staff. Multiple mail and e-mail reminders encouraged response to the electronic and mailed surveys. To control for non-response error (Miller & Smith, 1983), early respondents and late respondents were compared. No statistically significant differences were found between early and late respondents for the major variables of the study. This comparison was not possible with the electronically administered surveys.

Key Findings

Coordinator's Survey

Seventy-three (36%) coordinators responded, including state specialists, Extension associates, district specialists, program area team leaders, and administrators. Eighty-eight percent indicated they are expected to provide training as a part of their job description, with 81% coordinating at least one in-service per year. The primary target audience was Extension agents (87%). Though office support staff compose 28% of the workforce, they were targeted by only 16% of the coordinators.

Barriers commonly faced by in-service coordinators were:

• Too much competition for audiences (71%),
• Low attendance (34%),
• Inadequate facilities (26%),
• Too many responsibilities (25%), and
• Expenses of outside resource people (22%).

Coordinators cited assistance needed to be effective in providing in-service:

• Using electronic registration process (41%),
• Using new formats for in-services (40%),
• Support in implementing distance education strategies (39%), and
• Start-up funds (34%).

Coordinators most frequently evaluated training programs at a reaction level. Less than half (41%) reported evaluating at the skill or knowledge acquisition level. Over half indicated they would use, if provided, a standardized evaluation instrument with components to assess knowledge gained, intentions to apply knowledge, teaching effectiveness, and reactions of participants.

User's Views

Of approximately 1,400 Extension employees, one third responded to a survey examining the professional development infrastructure. Only 305 (22%) responses were usable due to problems administering the electronic survey that resulted in partially submitted data. Though the mean years of employment with Extension was 10.3 years, 20% of the respondents had worked 2.25 years or less. Respondents included Extension agents (31%), support staff (30%), and program assistants (19%). Twenty percent were state and district specialists, Extension associates, and state program coordinators.

Five primary barriers limiting participation in in-service education:

• Difficulty in taking time from job,
• Scheduling conflicts,
• Lack of in-services relevant to job,
• Too far to travel to in-services, and
• Too much time on the road.

During the past year, personnel spent a median of 4 days in technical knowledge/skills training at Extension-sponsored in-services and 2 days at in-services provided by other sources. They spent a median of 1 day in process skill training (communication, leadership, teamwork, conflict management, etc.) at Extension-sponsored in-services and had not attended similar trainings outside of Extension. Support staff and state administrative/professional (A&P) staff tend to attend statistically significant fewer OSU Extension in-services (knowledge/skills and process skills) than Extension agents do. Support staff attend statistically significant fewer outside in-services (knowledge/skills) than agent and state A&P staff.

Methods of Delivering Training

Do coordinators provide training in the way the users most prefer? Table 1 shows a comparison of the methods coordinators currently use to provide training compared to the users' preferences. With the exception of face-to-face delivery, coordinators were under-utilizing methods preferred by users.

Priority Training Needs

A Westinghouse model called GETNA (1997) was adapted for use in conjunction with Borich's model (Borich, 1980) to determine training needs. Competencies were grouped into process skills and subject matter areas. Process skills for all personnel included: communications, information and technology, personal/professional development, and leadership and management skills. In addition, the program personnel survey included program development and planning and evaluation. Subject matter areas were grouped by program area including: 4-H Youth Development (4-H), Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) and Community Development (CD). Respondents were instructed to complete all four process skill areas and only the subject matter skill areas relevant to their jobs. The support staff instrument included competency areas for support tasks and financial functions in addition to the process skill competencies.

Using a five-point Likert scale ranging from "0" not proficient/relevant to "4" extremely proficient/relevant, respondents indicated their perceived level of proficiency and relevance to job role for each competency. Discrepancy scores were calculated through the use of the Borich (1980) formula and used to identify priority needs. The possible range of scores was between -4 (lowest priority) and +16 (highest priority). The higher the number, the greater the need for training.

Fifty-nine percent (468) of OSU Extension employees with program responsibilities responded to the survey examining perceived relevance and proficiency on key competencies. Seventy-one percent of the respondents were field personnel, including Extension agents, program assistants, and nutrition educators. The remaining respondents were state specialists, Extension associates, and district specialists. Some of these respondents coordinated in-services, so responded to that instrument as well. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents had FCS as the primary program area assignment, followed by ANR (22%), 4-H (22%), and CD (8%). The majority of the respondents (75%) have worked for OSU Extension less than 17 years, with a mean of 10.8 years. Three hundred three (48%) support staff responded, the majority (75%) having worked for OSU Extension less than 14 years, with a mean of 9.33 years. Table 2 lists top 10 priority topics identified through a ranking of discrepancy scores.

Comparison of Priorities and Competency Area Needs for All Personnel

Items in the program personnel and support staff instruments were grouped into key competency areas. Rankings were calculated from 1 (Highest) to 5 (Lowest). For all personnel, the personal and professional development competency area was identified as the most needed, while technical subject matter competency areas (program personnel) and technical job knowledge areas (support staff) were least important. Five of the 10 highest priority needs were the same for all personnel (Table 2).

Discussion and Implications

The top four barriers to attending in-service training were consistent with results from Mincemoyer and Kelsey (1999):

• Difficulty taking time from job,
• Scheduling conflicts,
• In-services viewed as irrelevant to job, and
• Distance to training sites too far, requiring too much travel time.

Face-to-face approaches were the most frequently used delivery method for in-services and were preferred by most personnel. However, to address the barriers of time and travel to participate, other approaches are needed to deliver in-services. Personnel indicated overwhelmingly (90%) that they would be willing to participate in in-service education via distance education, yet few coordinators (22%) are currently using distance formats for delivery. Incentives are needed for coordinators to use a wider variety of methods. Training for coordinators and start-up funds could be used as incentives to support creative and futuristic delivery of in-services.

Budget constraints faced by Extension may mandate use of new delivery methods. Coordinators may overlook the total expense to the organization when planning in-services. They consider costs such as location, meals, speaker and materials, but the major expense for field-based personnel is reimbursement of travel expenses. Findings ways to minimize training inputs while addressing critical needs is essential. Coordinators may need to use distance and/or self-study methods and offer in-services at locations geographically convenient to the participants rather than the presenter.

Though personal and professional development topics were ranked as most needed for training, findings indicated that respondents attended a median of 6 days of technical knowledge/skills training and only 1 day of process skills training. The results show interest in developing process skills, but personnel are not attending the trainings. More pressing job demands may cause individuals to put aside their personal and professional development needs. Individuals will need supervisor encouragement to participate in process skill development. The organization needs to address creative ways to implement process skill development in the context of subject matter development.

In this era of accountability, educational organizations must evaluate program outcomes. In-service coordinators would benefit from standardized evaluation instruments that emphasize high-level outcomes or impacts and that can be adapted to the specific in-service.

OSU Extension is not unique in facing the challenges of designing a professional development system to meet the educational needs of a diverse population of employees and a geographically dispersed workforce. The question continues to be what is the right professional development model for complex organizations? Research could be conducted nationally to examine what models states are using to overcome the challenges facing professional development of Extension personnel.

References

Baker, M., & Villalobos, H. (1997). Perceptions of county faculty of the professional development needs of specialists. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997august/a1.html

Borich, G. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education 31(3).

Gap Consulting, LLC (March, 2000). "WWO Contests Features-Professional version 3.1". GAP Consulting. LLC. Available at: http://www.wolfcountry.com/scripts/

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5) 45-50. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf

Mincemoyer, C., & Kelsey, T. (1999). Assessing in-service education: Identifying barriers to success. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/a3.html

Radhakishna, R. B., & Thomson, J. S. (1996). Extension agent's use of information sources. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 34(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996february/rb2.html

Shih,W., & Evans.J.,F. (1991). Where field staff get information--approaching the electronic times. Journal of Extension [On-line],29(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991fall/a5.html

Stone, B., & Bieber, S. (1997). Competencies: A new language for our work. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(1) Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/comm1.html

Van Buren, M.E. (2001). State of the industry report 2001. Alexandria, Va.: American Society for Training and Development

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Technology Transfer Program (1997). GETNA-General employee training needs analysis: a paper-and-pencil tool for determining common denominator training needs. Department of Energy/Carlsbad Area Office.

Short-Term Interventions for Long-Term Needs: The Challenge of Bridging Youth and Community Development

Garry Stephenson
Associate Professor and Extension Agriculture Faculty
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: garry.stephenson@orst.edu

Shawn Morford
Socio-Economics Extension Specialist
Forest Research Extension Partnership
Victoria, British Columbia
Internet Address: shawn.morford@siferp.org

Holly Berry
Associate Professor and Extension Family Community Development Faculty
Oregon State University
Salem, Oregon
Internet Address: holly.berry@orst.edu

Overview

If you want to know if I think you've done a good job, I think you guys have. And you're probably the saving grace for a lot of kids in this area that would have gotten themselves in a lot of trouble. At least they had something to go to or something to look forward to. . . . And they didn't have that before.

Mother of at-risk youth, Mill City, Oregon, 1994

In the midst of the timber crisis of the early 1990s, the authors embarked on a project to create a youth development program in a community besieged with high unemployment and the gloom associated with the threat to a way of life. While funded as a youth development initiative through the USDA Youth-and-Families-At-Risk Program, the project's objectives related to development of community capacity to meet the needs of youth--a decidedly community development focus. Bridging the demand for short-term outcomes with long-term capacity development needs of the community became a key challenge to the project team and community leaders involved in the project.

For 5 years the project nimbly adjusted to changes in the community, as well as the vicissitudes of working within a university system and the requirements of the federal funding provider. The project ultimately moved a segment of the Mill City/Gates community from "bad" to "better." The project was able to accomplish:

1. Intervening into what was a serious situation for youth. For 5 years the project regularly offered worthwhile activities that built important life skills.
   
   
2. Developing a community infrastructure to provide long-term support for youth and families. This legacy of the project has continued until the present--over 5 years after funding for the project ended.

This article gives a brief overview of the Mill City/Gates Youth Development Project, reviews some of its successes and challenges, and discusses the implications of both.

Situation

Mill City and Gates are two small, moderately isolated, timber-dependent towns located east of Salem, Oregon. Situated adjacent to one another, the towns form a community that shares shopping, schools, a tradition of independence, and a commitment to hard work in the forest or in lumber mills.

When a reduction in timber harvest on public lands was implemented in the late 1980s, lumber mills began to close, and the unemployment rate climbed. By 1990, the National Association of Counties designated Mill City and Gates as one of 10 "endangered" communities in the western United States (Jackson & Gustafson, 1990).

The Mill City/Gates Youth Development Project began during the spring of 1991 as one of the Youth-At-Risk programs funded through the USDA Extension Service under its "Building and Developing Coalitions" category. As the project began, these significant risk factors for youth and families were identified.

• High unemployment. Unemployment was high, with the majority of the population depending directly or indirectly on the timber and wood products industry for their livelihood. During 1990, the unemployment rate for Mill City was 13.2% and for Gates was 8.3% (Weber & Bowman, 1999).
  
  
• Poverty. Poverty affected many households. During 1990, the percentage of the population living in poverty was 14.3% for Mill City and 16.7% for Gates (Weber & Bowman, 1999).
  
  
• Substance abuse. The local crisis center reported that it was witnessing an increase in substance abuse with both adults and youth (C. Girod, personal communication, April, 1991).
  
  
• Children in crisis. The local crisis center reported a steady increase in the number of "children-in-crisis" calls, many involving physical abuse (C. Girod, personal communication, April, 1991).
  
  
• Few youth development opportunities. There were no significant youth-serving organizations or businesses in the area.
  
  
• Lack of social services. The community is awkwardly located on the boundary spanning two counties. As a result, county health, youth and other services were disjointed and often inadequate.

School counselors characterized area youth as having a sense of hopelessness about their future. A sharp rise in stress within families coupled with a lack of positive activities for youth placed the children of Mill City and Gates significantly at-risk.

Formation of the Mill City/Gates 4-H Coalition was a first step for the project. The "Coalition," as it was generally known, included parents and representatives from schools, churches, the local crisis center, and the U.S. Forest Service. Grounded in methods outlined by Bogenschneider and associates (1991), the Coalition resolved to enhance community protective factors and reduce community risk factors for youth.

With the community gripped by the timber crisis, Coalition members felt that the project should provide positive alternatives for youth as soon as possible. In addition, the project required quantifiable results for each year in order to continue funding. Middle school youth were the first group targeted for the program. After-school hours and summer were identified as critical periods when youth development activities could be beneficial. A comprehensive program was developed targeting specific time periods and included:

• An After-School Program scheduled for most school days and on other weekdays when school was not in session.
  
  
• A 10-week Summer Enrichment Program led by teen staff members.
  
  
• Volunteer-led programs such as trail-building and enrichment classes, as well as traditional 4-H club programs.
  
  
• Family activities such as campouts, parenting classes, and retreats.
  
  
• Evening programs consisting of entertainment such as dances and video nights.
  
  
• A Youth Advisory Board that planned and led activities for other youth.
• The activities were designed to build life skills. The project used material by Gobeli (1991) and curricula such as Leadership Skills You Never Outgrow (Munson & Zwilling, 1993) as a foundation. These life skills guided the design of project activities:
• Understanding myself and my values;
• Communicating and relating to others;
• Problem-solving and decision-making;
• Acquiring, analyzing, and using data
• Managing resources; and
• Working with others (Gobeli, 1991:4).

The Coalition also provided programs for high-risk high school youth. Referred by the local sheriff's department and the high school counselor, these youth completed a 10-week outdoor challenge program and received high school credit for their participation. The program had a low student-to-instructor ratio and included a high number of hours devoted to one-on-one mentoring.

Results

The Youth Development Program

Through the course of the project, over 75% of the targeted middle school age audience participated in one or more programs. During the fourth year of the project, a graduate research assistant collected and compiled evaluation data on the effectiveness of the project's youth development programs (Gilden, 1995). The data showed the following.

A survey of teachers indicated positive improvements in communication skills, getting along with other youth, confidence, and self-esteem by youth involved in the project. In addition, teachers confirmed the project was reaching at-risk youth. Their comments included:

• I believe the biggest improvement I've seen has been an improvement in self esteem...I look at changes in [some] kids...and I think there are life-changing improvements.
  
  
• It has reached kids that were not reached by the schools or by parents.

A survey of youth involved in the program indicated:

• 76% felt that involvement with the program had changed them in a positive way.
  
  
• When youth were asked if they were now more, the same, or less likely to carry out certain tasks related to life skills than before becoming involved in 4-H, respondents said they were more likely to:
  
  
  • Teach others how to do something (79%)
  • Set goals for themselves (65%)
  • Save money to buy something or go somewhere (65%)
  • Stand up for themselves (60%)
  • Take responsibility when things go wrong (60%)
  • Try something they had never tried before (60%)
  • Finish doing something they had started (53%)

Detailed case studies were conducted for three participants. Interviews with the youth, their parents, and volunteers who worked with them indicated the project was having a positive impact. Comments from the case studies included:

• I know how to agree with people now. I know how to settle arguments better 'cause before I'd be throwing books and hitting people, and now I'd be talking it out and settle it better. Middle School Age Youth
  
  
• . . . He got grounded and the only thing he could do [was allowed to do] for a while was anything to do with the 4-H. I can't say 4-H did this one certain thing, you know, but it was a good influence on him totally, and his brother, and a few other kids that I've noticed that come over. I think 4-H is one of the best things that could happen to Mill City. I really do. Mother of Middle School Age Youth

Short-term results for the high school age participants were also positive. Eighteen high-risk youth participated in the outdoor challenge program. Fourteen youth completed the program.

• A survey of teachers and the high school counselor indicated that 70% (10 individuals) of the participants who completed the program showed positive changes in classroom behavior and an improvement in grades. Two of these individuals reportedly had "life changing" improvements in behavior.
  
  
• The high school counselor and teachers indicated four individuals probably would not have graduated from high school had they not participated in the program.

Although these programs were highly effective and provided a positive alternative for youth during the five years the community was in its greatest period of crisis, they were too expensive for the community to maintain when grant funding ended.

The Coalition

Sustaining the benefits of the project beyond the 5-year federal funding commitment was a major goal of the Coalition as well as an expectation of the USDA. During the last 2 years of the project, county officials began working with the Coalition to enhance services for area children and families. The Coalition collaborated with the county government, and the project "loaned" its director to help form the Santiam Canyon Youth and Families Alliance (SCYFA). Representing the six communities in its region, SCYFA created an infrastructure that continues to address the needs of youth and families.

In its first year, SCYFA secured funding for staff and opened the "Canyon Family Resource Center" that provided information and referral for families, as well as office space for social service professionals. SCYFA has six standing committees that focus on local issues including:

• Family Resource Center
• Youth activities and development
• Child care
• Transportation
• Parenting support
• Cultural diversity

Since 1994, SCYFA has been an important entity in the area. Through the Santiam Canyon Family Center, it coordinates local delivery of services to residents. The Center now shares offices with the local Chamber of Commerce and the North Santiam Economic Development Corporation, indicating the formal recognition and institutionalization of a program with a grassroots beginning.

Lessons and Recommendations

The project was never smooth sailing, and many lessons were learned. The following are some of the challenges encountered. The responses serve as recommendations for similar programs.

Outsiders

During the timber crisis, residents of Mill City and Gates were suspicious of people from outside their community, particularly people from government agencies. This issue was dealt with by having the project director work and live in the community to build rapport. Also, the cadre of key community members and the non-threatening reputation of the 4-H program opened doors for the project. Once the project had a track record of providing positive youth activities, it became a valued part of the community.

Approach to Youth Development

At a time when most families were preoccupied with maintaining their households, the traditional club-based approach to 4-H programming and its high time commitment for adult volunteers and youth simply would not draw adequate participation. The strategy instead was to offer high numbers of short-term programs based on sound youth development principles. Accordingly, there were activities to suit most interests and they were offered at times youth were available.

This approach also fit well with the varying levels of commitment and the somewhat transitory lifestyle some families were experiencing. In similar settings, efforts to reach a large youth audience of various ages, ethnicities, and income levels, the focus should be on youth development instead of strictly the 4-H club model. Offering a wide variety of youth development programs (including 4-H clubs as one component) appeals to a wider variety of families

Turnover of Volunteers

While there were over 90 volunteers associated with the project by the fourth year of the project, job changes, illness, and other factors caused some key volunteers to leave the project. Their absence resulted in temporary or, in some instances, long-term loss of program segments and overall project momentum. Although the community included more than its share of highly talented people, its small population limited the size of the talent pool and hindered the ability to routinely recruit additional key volunteers. Unfortunately, this situation simply had to be endured.

Turnover of Key School District Personnel

The school district occupied a crucial position in the success of the project and the health of the community. When key personnel, such as superintendents, principals, counselors, and teachers, left the community for new jobs, their replacements were either very enthusiastic about their community involvement or did not share the same interest in the community as their predecessors. Consequently, access to facilities and collaboration between the school district and the project grew and diminished with staff changes. Key volunteers regularly lobbied the school board on behalf of the project, but these changes were something to which the project simply adjusted.

Year-to-Year Funding and the USDA's Demand for Short-Term Outcomes

Stevens and associates (1994) noted differences in expectations at the local level versus the federal level for USDA Youth-At-Risk projects. The experience of the Mill City project was consistent with their observation. The USDA seemed to have conflicting demands of short-term impacts along with long-term project institutionalization. The first 2 years of the project were funded only 1 year at a time. Renewal of funding was based solely on short-term outcomes. This forced the project to focus initially on producing quick quantitative data such as numbers of participants rather than on long-term community building. It was not until the beginning of the third year that the USDA was able to commit to 3 years of secure funding.

The situation created by the need for short-term outcomes also forced the use of funds for programs that the community could not sustain when the project ended. The authors maintain that the project would have been even more effective had the same budget been spread out over 10 years rather than 5 years. In similar situations, resources should be carefully budgeted toward short-term intervention programs for youth and long-term community building, with attention to creating the types of youth programs that are sustainable for communities.

Conclusion

The Mill City/Gates Youth Development Project took place in a community experiencing the turmoil of change. The project was guided by a coalition of interested parents and key community leaders resolved to enhance community protective factors and reduce risk factors. It accomplished this through offering youth development activities and creating an infrastructure to address the needs of youth and families.

Though the youth development activities responded to an important community need, they ultimately ended in the absence of funding. On the other hand, SCYFA, the alliance representing the communities of the region, is fully institutionalized and continues to support young people and their families. The project demonstrates that investments in community capacity building are worthwhile and are necessary in order to have lasting benefits.

References

Bogenschneider, K., Small, S., & Riley, D. (1991). An ecological, risk-focused approach for addressing youth-at-risk issues. A paper presented at the National Extension Youth-at-Risk Summit, Chevy Chase, MD. Reprinted in1994 as Wisconsin Youth Futures Technical Report Number 1. University of Wisconsin-Madison Cooperative Extension. Available from CyferNet Children, Youth and Families Education and Research Network at: http://www.cyfernet.org/research/youthfut1.html

Gilden, J. (1995). An evaluation of the impact of the Mill City/Gates Youth Development Project. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University.

Gobeli, V. (1991, November). Teaching life skills. A paper presented at National 4-H Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

Jackson, S. P., & Gustafson, A. (1990, October 18). Federal rules threaten Mill City, group says. Statesman Journal. Page 1A.

Munson, M. K., & Zwilling, A. (1993). Leadership skills you never outgrow--leader guide. Urbana: University of Illinois Extension Service.

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

Weber, B., & S. Bowman. (1999). Economic well-being in Oregon and its counties. Oregon State University Extension Service. EM 8751.

Participatory Approaches to Program Development and Engaging Youth in Research: The Case of an Inter-Generational Urban Community Gardening Program

Marianne Krasny
Associate Professor
Internet Address: mek2@cornell.edu

Rebekah Doyle
Extension Associate
Internet Address: rld22@cornell.edu

Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Introduction

Recently, scholars have called for more participatory approaches to Extension, citing failures of what is perceived as the top-down, one-size-fits-all technology-transfer model (Ison & Russell, 1999). Critics claim that participatory approaches are especially crucial in programs that require holistic approaches rather than changing a single technology at a time (e.g., sustainable agriculture) and where environmental and socio-economic conditions vary widely among sites (Roling & Wagemakers, 1998). In addition, participatory approaches have proven useful in developing educational programs in new subject areas and in working with educators from a diversity of formal and non-formal settings, each with its unique mission and audiences (Krasny & Lee, 2002; Lopez, et al., 1999).

The formation of learning communities is one approach to participatory program development in Extension. Such a community might involve university faculty introducing educators to research-based tools and ideas, and educators then designing and piloting individual programs to meet local needs using their newly developed skills and knowledge. The educators then share the results of their local "experiments," thus furthering our understanding of educational practices (Krasny & Lee, 2002; Roling & Wagemakers, 1998).

For example, through the Explorations from an Aerial Perspective program, Cornell faculty trained county 4-H and other educators in aerial photography and topographic map interpretation, and each educator then designed a local project in which youth conducted a land use investigation using the airphoto and map tools. The resulting program manual includes examples of local programs designed by the educator and youth groups (Barnaba, Krasny, Kasperek, Hoskins, & Hope, 2000).

An evaluation of Explorations from an Aerial Perspective revealed that the program employed an participatory approach to overall program development and that several of the educators developed local programs having many elements of Participatory Action Research (Mordock & Krasny, 2001). These elements included:

• Working with youth to develop research questions,
• Engaging local adults in the subsequent investigations to answer those questions, and
• Conducting an activity to benefit their community based on the results of their research.

Participatory Action Research and several other forms of participatory research, including Participatory Rural Appraisal, were originally developed for use in international settings. The methods attempt to break down the barriers between outside researchers and economically and socially disadvantaged community members, through engaging the two groups in collaboratively identifying and investigating a local problem with the ultimate goal of taking action to improve local conditions (Chambers 1999; Gaventa, 1988). Methods used in Participatory Rural Appraisal include:

• Engaging community members in drawing maps of local resources,
• Diagramming inputs and outputs of a farm relative to the surrounding community,
• Interviewing knowledgeable individuals while walking along a transect of sites in the community, and
• Developing a community action plan (Chambers, 1999; Freudenberger, 1999).

In 2000, Cornell University and Cornell Cooperative Extension-NYC received funding from the USDA Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program to initiate Garden Mosaics, a program through which county Extension and community center educators adapted participatory research tools for use in an inter-generational urban education program (Krasny, Doyle, & Najarian, 2001). The primary goal of the program was for youth to conduct Participatory Rural Appraisal research to document planting practices of ethnic minorities and recent immigrants in urban community gardens and to take an action to benefit the gardens based on their research results. In addition to the educational benefits of youth learning to conduct research, we hoped to use the results of the youth projects to begin developing a database of community gardening practices that would be useful to city planners, community garden activists, and scientists working in urban settings.

Thus, the Garden Mosaics program used participatory approaches at two levels:

• Educators developed and shared means to implement the program; and
• Youth used Participatory Rural Appraisal methods.

It should be noted that there was relatively little participation by adults and youth in determining the overall program and research goals. Much of the initial direction came from the Cornell University and NYC Cooperative Extension program leaders; educators from other cities were invited to help develop the program after the overall focus had been determined.

Because participatory programs demand significant time and often a change in attitudes toward education (Ljung & Gibbon, 2000), it is important to understand what motivates participants, how they benefit, and the challenges they face. Furthermore, programs that engage youth in participatory research often have educational, youth development, and research objectives, and the various participants may have different understandings about the program goals, all of which should be taken into account in program development.

This article discusses the motivations, conceptions of the program, challenges faced in program implementation, and outcomes for participants in Garden Mosaics. The results are then interpreted in light of participatory program development and engaging youth in participatory research. More information about the Garden Mosaics activities and how the educators adapted them to meet local needs can be found in Doyle (2001) and Doyle and Krasny (2003).

Garden Mosaics

We first trained community educators in six U.S. cities (Allentown and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; and New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester in New York) in Participatory Rural Appraisal approaches and tools, including:

• Participatory mapping,
• Interviewing,
• Venn diagrams,
• Historical timelines,
• Seasonal calendars, and
• Soil measurements (Doyle & Krasny, 2001; Freudenberger, 1999).

The educators then adapted these tools to develop local Garden Mosaics programs, which engaged youth from community centers and other out-of-school summer programs in conducting the research activities with adult gardeners. The educators were affiliated primarily with Cooperative Extension, although in Rochester they were affiliated with a food security/social action, non-profit organization and in Baltimore they were from a cultural center. Youth participants ranged in age from 9 to 16 years, and the youth and community gardeners were predominantly African-American or Hispanic. The cooperating organization in each city received $5100 to compensate for staff time and related expenses.

Methods

Because Garden Mosaics was a pilot program with numerous components and diverse sites, we chose a qualitative, naturalistic inquiry approach (Patton, 1990) to the research. To ensure rigor in methods and data quality, we adopted several commonly advocated strategies for qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1999), including:

• Triangulating information collected using different methods and at different times,
• Comparing the results with other studies being conducted on Garden Mosaics (Franz, Gregoire, & Savelyeva, 2001), and
• Discussing results with program participants and colleagues.

The program evaluator (R. Doyle) conducted 20 open-ended, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 29 of the 31 educators from the six cities at the beginning, middle, and end of the summer program, and a focus group with 10 educators representing the six educator teams after the summer program. In addition, Doyle conducted 30 open-ended interviews with 28 of the 85 participating youth from the six cities, and four interviews with four of the 26 participating gardeners from two program sites. Decisions about whom to interview were based largely on availability at the time of Doyle's site visits, although an attempt was made to get a representative sample of participants.

Interview questions varied for each group, but in general focused on the program activities, the nature of the participants' involvement, participants' conceptions of the program, their motivations, the benefits they received, and any concerns or challenges. The interviews lasted from 45-90 minutes for the educators and from 15-30 minutes for the youth and the gardeners. Doyle taped and transcribed all interviews and took measures to ensure transcript quality (Poland, 1999).

During her three visits to each of the sites, Doyle also took detailed notes on participant roles, program implementation, and program facilitation. Finally, Doyle reviewed documents, including educator reports, youth journals and essays, and e-mail communications among participants, for content relevant to our study objectives. She used Folio Viewsä 4.2, a qualitative data software program, to code interview transcripts, field notes, and documents into categories and themes that emerged from working with the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Results

Motivations

Educators were more likely to cite their interest in an innovative project than money as motivation for involvement (Table 1). They also were motivated by the opportunity to strengthen their organization and to network with other groups, and by the funding opportunity. Youth were most likely to be in the program because of the influence of an adult, although they also cited interest in the program as a motivation. Gardeners were motivated primarily by the opportunity to work with youth.

Conceptions About Program

The majority of educators conceived of Garden Mosaics as a youth research project, consistent with the characterization of the program by the Cornell directors. However, educators also felt gardening and inter-generational and multicultural programming were important aspects (Table 2). Similarly, youth indicated they saw this as an opportunity to collect information, although many comments related to gardening per se and to the academic skills they were learning. Gardeners seemed to view the program as an opportunity for youth to learn about gardening and did not necessarily distinguish between the data collection and gardening activities.

Program Outcomes

Educators identified professional development, enhanced ability to develop partnerships with urban audiences and with other organizations, and satisfaction from working with kids and gardeners as important outcomes (Table 3). They also learned about ethnic planting practices and expanded their skills related to gardening, facilitating participatory research, and working with youth.

The most frequently cited outcomes for youth included enhanced gardening skills and developing positive relationships and learning from gardeners, who came from a variety of cultural backgrounds (Table 4). Youth also developed teamwork, academic, and research skills; responsibility; an interest in and appreciation for gardening, the role of gardens in their community, and the broader environment; and increased knowledge about plants and soils.

The gardeners felt being appreciated by and interacting with youth were the most important outcomes; several gardeners formed long-term mentoring relationships with youth (Table 5). Less important outcomes included help in the garden and exchanging knowledge with educators.

Challenges to Program Implementation

The most important challenges faced by educators related to trying to engage youth in facilitating the Participatory Rural Appraisal research activities. Educators experienced difficulties conveying the activities to youth, engaging youth in the research, helping youth conduct the activities with the adult gardeners, and getting youth to document the results of their research. Other challenges related to language differences among participants, logistics (e.g., scheduling times when gardeners and youth could meet at the gardens, transportation of youth to the site), and working with youth with limited academic and social skills.

Discussion

A number of recent monographs have demonstrated the success of a learning community approach to technology development, emphasizing the role that farmers and natural resource managers can play in enhancing our understanding of agricultural and land management practices (Cerf, Gibbon, Hubert, Ison, Jiggons, Paine, Proost, & Roling, 2000; Ison & Russell, 1998; Roling & Wagemakers, 1998). Similarly, our experience with previous programs and with Garden Mosaics indicates that engaging Extension educators in a learning community presents relatively few challenges and results in positive outcomes for educators and program development (Doyle & Krasny, 2003; Krasny & Lee, 2002).

Fundamental to participatory program development is a strong commitment to learning among all participants. Although their organizations received $5100 for participation in Garden Mosaics, the educators were motivated primarily by their interest in learning new approaches and the opportunities for strengthening their county programs. The outcomes they cited paralleled their motivations; educators gained most from learning new professional skills and the opportunities networking provided to enhance their programs, particularly with urban audiences. Similarly, we have found interest in learning, teaching, and improving natural resources management is more important than financial and other material incentives in programs that used a participatory approach to develop best management and educational practices focusing on invasive species (Krasny & Lee, 2002) and on cultivation of selected maple seedlings (Krasny, Staats, Smallidge, & Winship, 2001).

The Garden Mosaics educators developed and field-tested with youth numerous ways to implement the participatory research activities. Thus, they contributed invaluably to our understanding of how best to conduct a Participatory Rural Appraisal project with youth as facilitators (Doyle & Krasny, 2003; Krasny, 2001). Such learning from local "experiments" is consistent with learning communities.

Engaging youth in participatory research proved more challenging than engaging educators in participatory program development. Initially we thought that because researchers working in urban, multicultural settings in the U.S. face many of the same issues as researchers working in developing countries (e.g., cultural and language differences, defining the role of research in promoting positive social change), we would be able to apply a participatory research approach developed for international settings to our work.

However, we faced challenges related to balancing our interests in collecting information on ethnic gardening practices that would be useful to scientists and community gardening activists with the interests of youth and community gardeners. Thus, the youth and community gardeners had only limited opportunities to help define the research, an important aspect of participatory research. We were more successful in breaking down barriers between outside researchers and community members, by having youth, who were able to form positive relationships with the gardeners, facilitate the research.

Other university researchers have experienced similar difficulties in trying to balance their own goals with a commitment to including community members as partners in their research and in some cases switched to more directed research after finding that they were not meeting their research objectives using participatory methods (Saldivar-Tanaka, 2001). In contrast, Australian researchers were able to successfully maintain a participatory research approach with sheep farmers, but they were interested in the outcomes of the participatory process and did not have their own research objectives related to sheep production (Ison & Russell, 1999). Similarly, researchers who were interested in the process of youth engagement, as well as educators who did not have research goals, have successfully facilitated participatory research projects in which youth determined the research and action objectives (Mordock & Krasny, 2001; Solomon, 1997).

In addition to the difficulties of trying to balance the researchers' and youths' interests, we faced challenges related to building the youths' facilitation and research skills and to defining the role of the youth and educators. Unlike university researchers conducting participatory research in developing countries, the youth in Garden Mosaics were simultaneously community members and "outside researchers." Similarly, the educators were both outsiders and community members and were less versed in participatory research skills than university researchers would have been.

Finally, because engaging youth in participatory research is a relatively new area, we may not have successfully communicated the program goals and participatory research methods to educators, who in turn may not have communicated them to the youth and gardeners. Complicating the situation was the fact that educators had their own goals, only some of which related to youth research. Although the varying conceptions educators held of Garden Mosaics may have limited our ability to engage youth in participatory research, including a diversity of educators resulted in other positive outcomes for youth, such as the development of gardening and academic skills and positive relationships with gardeners.

Conclusion

Garden Mosaics was most successful in forming a learning community of Extension and other community educators and university faculty who explored how to conduct a youth participatory research program. During a subsequent year of the program, in which we revised our educator training based on what we learned from the first-year participants, we were better able to engage youth in the research activities, but still faced challenges having to do with youth interest and logistics.

Engaging youth in participatory research has great potential to facilitate youth development, science literacy, community development, and community activism, all areas of interest for Extension. However, Extension and 4-H educators, volunteers, and youth may not be familiar with participatory research and may question how such an approach might fit in with their other priorities. Thus, as we look toward the future, it will be important to take into account educator, youth, and gardener interests and motivations, and design ways to better meld them with our interests in engaging youth in participatory research.

Recently, Garden Mosaics received a grant from the NSF Informal Science Education program to expand our efforts to 11 cities across the U.S. We continue to evolve the program based on the insights and experiences of our learning community of faculty and educators from Extension and non-profit gardening organizations.

In light of the challenges we initially faced trying to engage youth and urban gardeners in Participatory Rural Appraisal, we are pursuing a slightly different model, which we call "Youth Action Research." The model attempts to better balance the interests of the adult researchers in collecting useful data, the need to provide guidance to novice youth researchers, and the importance of youth and community members having a voice in defining their local projects.

Under this model, the youth at each site pursue research objectives defined by the Garden Mosaics learning community of Cornell faculty and local educators, but they also have an opportunity to add their own research questions. Based on the results of this initial research, the youth and gardeners then define an "action" to benefit the gardeners and are encouraged to pursue additional research projects based on their own interests (Krasny, Doyle, & Najarian, 2002).

References

Barnaba, E. M., Krasny, M. E., Kasperek, L. M., Hoskins, S., & Hope, J. (2000). Explorations from an aerial perspective educator's manual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Media Services.

Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggons, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., & Roling, N. (Eds.). (2000). Cow up a tree: Knowing and learning processes for change in agriculture. Case Studies from Industrial Countries. Paris: INRA.

Chambers, R. (1999). Whose reality counts?: Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Doyle, R. (2001). Opportunities for learning and engagement: approaches from Participatory and Rapid Rural Appraisal in environmental education. Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University.

Doyle, R., & Krasny, M. E. (2003). Participatory rural appraisal as an approach to environmental education in urban community gardens. Accepted to Environmental Education Research (9):2.

Franz, N., Gregoire, H., & Savelyeva, T. V. (2001). Garden Mosaics: A model community/campus partnership. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.

Freudenberger, K. S. (1999). Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): A manual for CRS field workers and partners.Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services.

Gaventa, J. (1988). Participatory research in North America. Convergence, 21(2/3), 19-27.

Ison, R. L., & Russell, D. (1999). Agricultural Extension and rural development: Breaking out of traditions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krasny, M. E., Doyle, R., & Najarian, N. (2002). Garden Mosaics. Retrieved June 24, 2002 from Web site: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/gardenmosaics/

Krasny, M. E., Staats, L. J, Smallidge, P. J., & Winship, C.E. (2001). Impacts of collaborative research with Extension agents and growers: the sugar maple example. Journal of Forestry, 99, 26-32.

Krasny, M. E., & Lee S-K. (2002). Social learning as an approach to environmental education: Lessons from a program focusing on non-indigenous, invasive species, Environmental Education Research, 8(2),101-119.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1999). Establishing trustworthiness. In A. Bryman, & R. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (pp. 397-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lopez, M., Peterson, S. S., Craigmill, A., Martinez, N., Parnell, S., Rene, P., & Turner, B. (1999). Building community collaboration for lead safety education: Extension educators take the lead. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a2.html

Ljung, M., & Gibbon, D. (2001). Towards sustainable rural livelihoods: the emergence of co-learning approaches in Swedish agriculture. In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggons, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., & Roling, N. (Eds.), Cow up a tree: Knowing and learning processes for change in agriculture. Case Studies from Industrial Countries (pp. 151-162). Paris: INRA.

Mordock, K. & Krasny, M. E. (2001). Participatory Action Research: a theoretical and practical framework for environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 32 (3), 15-20.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Poland, B. (1999). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. In Bryman, A. & R. Burgess, R. (Eds.), Qualitative research (pp.13-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Roling, N. & Wagemakers, A. (1998). Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Saldivar-Tanaka, L. (2001). Culturing neighborhood open space, civic agriculture, and community development: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University.

Solomon, E. R. (1997). Rolling with the ROLERS: Promoting yYouth development through Participatory Action Research. Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Information Technology Use by Local Governments in the Northeast: Assessment and Needs

Timothy W. Kelsey
Professor of Agricultural Economics
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: tkelsey@psu.edu

Michael J. Dougherty
Extension Associate Professor/Extension Specialist
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
Internet Address: Michael.Dougherty@mail.wvu.edu

Michael Hattery
Research Associate
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
mrh3@cornell.edu

Local governments in the Northeast are involved in a variety of important public policy issues. Most local officials in the region are volunteers and lack formal training in governance on many of the complex issues they face. Improving their knowledge of these issues and their skills and abilities is a vital mission of Extension in many of the region's states.

Recent changes in information technology, such as the Internet, have the potential to significantly alter local government officials' access to information and training on important public issues and the ability of Extension to deliver educational programs to officials. Information technology, similarly, has made it easier for local governments to provide information to their citizens and to handle information, communication, and other important management concerns.

How local governments are using information technology, both as users of information others have posted (e.g., retrieving regulatory information from a state agency or participating in Web-based training) and as providers of information for others (e.g., having a municipal or county Web site with budget information or a newsletter for citizens), is important to understand if Extension teaching on local government and economic development issues is to be effective. Accurate information about local government usage of information technology, the barriers they face, and the potential use of information technology for local government training would make it easier to develop multi-state educational programs in the Northeast and to take advantage of the potential advantages of information technology as a means of teaching Extension programs. This article uses results from surveys of local officials in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to examine these questions.

Background

There have been several state-level studies of the needs of local officials in the region, but these have been with a single-state focus, lacking coordination across state lines to identify cross-cutting issues. Kelsey and Lembeck (1995a, 1995b, & 1998) surveyed every Pennsylvania township and borough (all 2,516 of them) in 1994 and asked a variety of questions about computer use, training needs, and local service provision. About 55% of the respondents reported using a computer, with larger municipalities being much more likely to do so than were smaller municipalities. Dougherty and Plein (1997) conducted a needs assessment survey of 1,803 local officials in West Virginia in 1996 and found that economic development issues were rated as most important.

The potential of using distance education technologies to provide training for local government officials similarly was ignored in these prior studies, even though it has potential for great time- and cost-saving benefits for both students and instructors. The use of distance technology similarly would make it easier to provide multi-state trainings across the region.

Distance education-based training has been widely used for extension educators. These include in Alabama (Stuempler, Jelinek, Brown, & Sanders, 1997), Nebraska (Mescher, 1995), Pennsylvania (Escott et al., 1996), Texas (Hiel & Herrington, 1997), South Carolina and Georgia (Lippert et al., 1998), Oklahoma (Stewart & Soliah, 1987), and Oregon (Patterson & Wykes, 1992). It has time- and cost-saving benefits, particularly when used to teach a large number of widely separated sites (Boland, 1988). A videoconference produced by Oklahoma State University and received at 24 sites across Oklahoma, for example, cost only $2.91 per person, compared to $9.13 per person if it had been delivered in-person (Stewart & Soliah, 1987).

Distance education methods can be viewed more favorably by Extension educators than face-to-face sessions. Participants in a Nebraska leader training program, for example, preferred satellite delivery over in-person training, 63% to 35% (Mesecher, 1995). Those results might suffer from self-selection bias, however, because the survey focused on participants in the satellite-based program. People who prefer in-person training might simply have chosen not to participate in the program because it was distance education-based.

Despite this enthusiasm by some for distance education, it is unclear exactly how receptive local government officials in the Northeast would be to distance-based training. An attempted statewide local government training program in Pennsylvania based on Pic-Tel™ technology, for example, was canceled in 1995 due to lack of sufficient registrations, despite being actively supported and promoted by the state's local government associations and Department of Community Affairs. It is important to determine local officials' attitudes towards distance education-based training.

Methods

Parallel mail surveys to local government officials were conducted in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia during the spring of 2000. The survey instruments included a series of questions on how the local governments are using computers, their use of information technology, and the officials' personal interest in participating in local government training programs. The surveys also included some state-specific questions.

The survey methodology in each state followed a modified Dillman method (Dillman, 1978), with an initial mailing, reminder postcard, and follow-up mailing to non-responders. Due to funding differences, the sample sizes varied across the states, from 799 in New York (463 returned, for a 58% response rate), 474 in Pennsylvania (306 returned, for a 64.6% response rate), and 496 in West Virginia (168 returned, for a 39.5% response rate). In all states, the sample was randomly selected from official state lists of local government officials.

Results

The survey respondents in New York represented that state's mix of communities when gauged by size of place or region of the state. The respondents were well balanced across the population size range from small to large municipalities and corresponded well to the size distribution of such jurisdictions in the state.

Respondents to the Pennsylvania survey similarly were generally representative of municipalities in the commonwealth. The smallest municipalities (those with less than 500 residents) were slightly over-represented (19% of respondents, compared to their accounting for 14% of all municipalities), while moderate-sized (population between 1000 and 2,500) were slightly under represented (25% of the respondents, compared to their being 30% statewide).

About half of the survey responses in West Virginia came from cities, and half came from towns, providing a good cross section of the state's local governments. Large cities were somewhat over represented in the responses.

Use of Computers

The vast majority of municipal governments in the three states use computers in their operations. Almost all municipal governments in New York and West Virginia use computers, while adoption has been somewhat less in Pennsylvania (Table 1).

Accounting was the most commonly cited function for which computers were used by municipal governments in the three states (Table 2). Payroll and board minutes and correspondence were also very common functions. These functions are basic management functions of municipal governments. In general, fewer municipalities reported using their computers for planning functions, such as GIS-mapping, or capital planning. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many municipalities do not do these types of planning functions, regardless of the technology they use.

Internet and Web Sites

More than half of the municipal governments reported having access to the Internet. This ranged from 47% of towns in West Virginia, 56% of towns in New York and townships in Pennsylvania, to 82% of cities in West Virginia and 100% of cities in New York (Table 3). A greater percentage of municipal governments with computers reported access to the Internet, suggesting that many local officials view Internet access as an important priority. And yet it is important to note that around one third of all municipal governments across the three states did not have Internet access, despite the general optimism about the Internet, and thus are unable to access Internet-based resources or training.

Among those with Internet access, retrieving information from state agencies was the most commonly cited Internet use (Table 3). Correspondence and email similarly was a very common Internet use, with use ranging between 49% and 79% of the different types of municipal governments. Very few local officials reported having used the Internet to participate in on-line training. Of the three states, West Virginia had the highest reported use of the Internet for on-line training, done by 14% of their city governments.

The percentage of municipal governments having a Web site varied among the three states. About 85% of the city governments using computers in New York reported having a Web site, compared to 56% of cities in West Virginia, and only 31% and 48% of towns and villages in New York, and 16% and 28% of townships and boroughs in Pennsylvania (Table 4).