October 2002
Volume 40 Number 5

Research in Brief

Using Simple Educational Methods to Motivate Consumers to Prepare for Emergencies

Cathy Faulcon Bowen
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: cbowen@psu.edu

Nakesha Faison
Research Associate
Institute for Social Research
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Internet Address: nfaison@umich.edu

Background

Emergency situations from earthquakes to power outages occur frequently throughout the world. However, emergency preparedness is an aspect of public safety often overlooked. Most consumers are not prepared to handle emergency situations (Lambert, 1999b; American News Service, 1999a). Even in places where natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes occur frequently, residents generally are not prepared (Rustemli & Karanci, 1999; Faupel, Kelley, & Petee, 1992; Garcia, 1989). According to Julius Becton Jr., former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "Educating the public to the many different hazards which confront people" increases emergency preparedness and can prevent or lessen the effects of disaster situations (Becton, 1986). Studies show that education has a positive influence on consumer's emergency preparation behavior (Asgary & Willis, 1997; Faupel Kelley, & Petee, 1992).

Possible disruptions in daily living attributed to the Y2K (year 2000) computer bug presented consumers with a potential emergency because nearly every part of the world could have been affected. In reality, Y2K was a consumer issue (Abrahms, 1998), as demonstrated by the vast media coverage both encouraging and ridiculing consumers for preparing for the arrival of the year 2000. Some print media reflected a "survivalist" attitude, urging consumers to store months or years worth of supplies, including nonperishable foods and water, medicine and candles (Belanger, 1999; Sheaffer, 1999).

During the late 1990's, many grassroots organizations were created to promote awareness of Y2K. In many cases, organizations arose from residential concern about Y2K emergency preparedness issues (Abrahms, 1998; Lambert, 1999a). Concerned citizens, public officials, and volunteers distributed pamphlets, issued public service announcements, gave speeches, organized seminars, and made videos on the topic (American News Service, 1999b). Many saw the approaching year 2000 as an ideal time to inform consumers about basic household emergency preparedness and other household management practices that should be used all the time (Bowen, 1999). Pfahl (1999) summarized the thoughts of many emergency preparedness professionals in a single sentence: "More than anything else, what most people need is knowledge, and practice in using that knowledge before it is needed in a crisis" (p. 14).

Penn State Cooperative Extension developed and implemented two educational efforts in response to consumer questions and concerns about Y2K: an educational workshop and a booklet. Both promoted Y2K awareness and were designed to motivate consumers to prepare their homes for emergency situations. The premises were that:

• Key actions taken in the home would help consumers manage during an emergency period and help them handle an emergency with more confidence and less panic; and
• With adequate household preparations, the demand on community organizations and local emergency management agencies would be decreased during an emergency period.

Penn State Cooperative Extension educators conducted educational workshops throughout 1999. Workshops were presented on household emergency preparation and the arrival of the year 2000. Workshops were held in more than one-third of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, and ranged from 1.5 to 2 hours in length.

The booklet, Consumers and the Year 2000, was based on sound emergency management practices used by the FEMA and the American Red Cross. The information was condensed to the essentials and formatted into a user-friendly, 4-page booklet.

The booklet was distributed throughout Pennsylvania at workshops and mailed to citizens who requested a copy through their local Extension office. In addition, large employers (e.g., hospitals) and community and civic organizations (e.g., places of worship) also distributed copies. From March to December 1999, 122,000 copies of the Consumers and the Year 2000 booklet were distributed. The booklet could also be accessed on the Internet at the Penn State Cooperative Extension Family and Consumer Sciences Web site.

To assess the usefulness of the workshop and booklet, the Y2K User Feedback Response Card was developed. The postage-paid card, 8" x 5" with a 4" x 5" tear-off reply section, was distributed to consumers who attended workshops, requested the booklet from Extension offices, or received the booklet from an employer who distributed copies.

Purpose and Objectives

The study reported here investigated the educational impact of the booklet and workshop on consumer preparation for Y2K and other emergency situations. The objectives of the study were to determine:

1. If the workshop and booklet motivated consumers to prepare their homes for an emergency,
2. What actions consumers took to prepare for emergencies, and
3. Which variables best explained whether or not consumers took emergency preparation actions.

Methods

Data were collected from workshop attendees who returned the Y2K user feedback response card. A total of 357 cards were returned. Response cards were returned to a central address and accepted from June 1999 until January 15, 2000. Extension educators and large employers were asked to distribute the response cards with the booklets. All county offices of Penn State Cooperative Extension (n=67) were sent 100 cards for distribution. Large employers were given the same number of response cards and booklets. No records were kept of the number of feedback cards distributed to consumers. Therefore, a response rate could not be determined.

The Y2K user feedback response card asked consumers to report:

1. How much of the booklet they read,
2. If they attended a workshop, and
3. If they took any action because of information learned from the workshop or the booklet.

If they had taken action, consumers could list up to two things they did. To identify the types of action taken, a coding scheme was developed based on emergency preparation themes highlighted in the booklet. Demographic information was also solicited from respondents, including county of residence, the size of their community (from rural farm to city of over 50,000), gender, age, and highest level of education completed. Responses were anonymous, therefore no follow-up of non-respondents was conducted.

Results

Characteristics of Respondents

Table 1 presents a demographic profile of the respondents. Respondents were primarily female (80%), older citizens (59% age 50 or older), and well-educated (60% post-high school training). Respondents from 55 counties completed the response cards, with most (75%) residing in rural communities or towns of less than 25,000 inhabitants.

Consumer Actions Taken

As shown in Table 2, slightly more than half (53%) of the respondents attended a workshop. Forty percent (40%) reported reading the booklet to some extent, with nearly half (48%) reading the entire booklet. Only 12% did not read any of the booklet. Finally, 53% of respondents indicated they took some emergency preparation action because of information presented in the booklet or the workshop. Of the 188 respondents who took action, most indicated storing food and water (63%), and basic items such as batteries and candles (47%).

Factors Motivating Consumers to Take Action

Chi-square analyses revealed that middle age to older respondents (X² = 13.11, df = 3, p = .00) and those with higher levels of education (X² = 19.12, df = 3, p = .00) were significantly more likely to report preparing for an emergency. Furthermore, those who read part or all of the booklet (X² = 42.57, df = 3, p=.00) or attended a Y2K workshop (X² = 6.56, df = 1, p = .01) were significantly more likely to report taking action than those who did not read the booklet or attend a Y2K workshop.

Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship (if any) between whether respondents took emergency preparation action (dependent variable) and the following independent variables:

1. Extent to which the booklet was read,
2. Attendance at a workshop, and
3. Highest educational level.

In contrast to linear or multiple regression, which is used to determine the influence of continuous independent variables on a continuous dependent variable, logistic regression is used when the dependent variable is categorical or dichotomous and the independent variables are interval level or dichotomous (Morgan and Greigo, 1998). Table 3 summarizes the results.

All three variables significantly influenced whether respondents took action (Table 3). Specifically, respondents who attended a workshop and who completed high school or a higher level of education were three times more likely to take emergency preparation actions. Respondents who read the entire booklet were two times more likely than those who did not read the entire booklet to take action were.

Conclusions and Implications

The study was conducted to determine the impact of a workshop and booklet on motivating consumers to prepare for an emergency. Readers should view the results with some caution as it relates to applicability of findings to a larger population. Specifically, no records were kept of the actual number of user-feedback cards distributed to assess the usefulness of the workshop and emergency preparedness booklet. Moreover, the primary intent was to meet consumer demand for information on a topic of immense interest. The goal of the study was to ascertain the value and use of the information and materials.

The findings suggest that public awareness of key issues, such as emergency preparedness, can be increased with simple educational methods. The booklet and the workshop significantly influenced consumers to prepare for an emergency. Consumers who attended a workshop were three times more likely than those who did not attend a workshop to prepare for an emergency were. Those who read the entire booklet were twice as likely to prepare for an emergency than those who did not read the entire booklet were. In addition, chi-square analyses indicated that middle age to older consumers (35 and older) and those with higher levels of education (high school and above) were significantly more likely to take action than younger adults or those without a high school education.

While these results may be encouraging for Extension educators who routinely use printed material and workshops to reach audiences, the findings of this report must be viewed cautiously because the sample was not randomly selected. In addition, the worldwide media focus on the arrival of the year 2000 could have contributed to these consumers' preparation actions.

Following are some specific implications drawn from the study.

1. Educational workshops will continue to be an effective way to reach some audiences. Older consumers who have time and who find reading difficult because of visual problems may prefer to attend workshops. Also, individuals with underdeveloped reading skills may prefer workshop where immediate clarification can be obtained on questions.
   
   
2. Nearly half of the respondents reported reading the entire booklet, Consumer and the Year 2000. It was short, four pages of content, and written in a format that facilitated action. It could be read at one sitting in about 10 minutes. Brevity should be remembered when planning educational materials. In a time-crunched society, providing information in a bulleted, user-friendly format may increase use. Even when consumer interest is strong on a particular topic, brevity and visual appeal in printed matter are factors that should be considered.
   
   
3. Incorporating minor practices into routine daily living activities may encourage consumers to make desirable changes. Preparing for an emergency by storing water and foods could be accomplished easily during routine shopping trips. In the study, storing food and water was the most frequently reported activity among those who took action.
   
   
4. Age and education level significantly influenced consumers' emergency preparation action taken. Similar findings have been reported by others (Homes & Neighbors, 2000). Middle age and older persons as well as the highly educated may be more receptive to messages on preparing households for emergencies and thereby be a target audience for this topic. Conversely, special efforts may be needed to reach younger consumers and those who have not graduated from high school.
   
   
5. Paying attention to the national media can be useful in identifying educational programs that may be demanded by the public or created in anticipation of a public need. In either case, a topic in the national media and/or a topic that is of immediate concern can be helpful in attracting an audience for educational programs.

The self-selected sample paves the way for research on emergency preparedness using a random sample. Also, this study was conducted in the context of a unique emergency situation, Y2K, which received worldwide media attention. It would be beneficial to explore consumer emergency preparedness actions to an educational program during a time when the media is not focusing on a potential emergency situation.

References

Abrahms, D. (1998, November 2). Half of Americans fear worst with Y2K problem. Insight on the News, 14, 41.

Despite efforts, organizers say few prepared for Y2K disruption. (1999a, December 14). American News Service.

Small town's Y2K strategy: educate and cooperate. (1999b, December 14). American News Service.

Asgary, A., & Willis, K. (1997). Household behavior in response to earthquake risk: an assessment of alternative theories. Disasters, 21 (4), 354-365.

Becton, J. (1986). Emergency management: Where are we now? What may lie ahead? Vital Speeches of the Day, 52 (23), 719-723.

Belanger, J. (1999). The calm before the storm. Countryside & Small Stock Journal, 83 (2), 8-11.

Bowen, C. (1999). How consumers prepared for the Year 2000: Preliminary findings. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues [On-line], 4(3). Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/1999/y2k.html

Faupel, C., Kelley, S., & Petee, T. (1992). The impact of disaster education on household preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 10 (1), 5-24.

Garcia, E. (1989). Earthquake preparedness in California: A survey of Irvine residents. Urban Resources, 5 (4), 15-19.

Y2K worries lessen. (2000, January). Homes & Neighbors.

Lambert, D. (1999a, December 14). City folk make friends with their neighbors preparing for Y2K. American News Service.

Lambert, D. (1999b, December 14). Y2K spawns citywide disaster plan. American News Service.

Morgan, G., & Greigo, O. (1998). Easy use and interpretation of SPSS for windows: answering research questions with statistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pfahl, G. (1999, July). Another way of looking at preparation. Countryside & Small Stock Journal, 83(4), 114-115.

Rustemli, A., & Karanci, A. (1999). Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behavior in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139 (1), 91-101.

Sheaffer, R. (1999, January). Apocalypse soon. Skeptical Inquirer, 23 (1), 18-19.

Assessment of NetMeeting® for Professional Development Programming

Joe Parcell
Assistant Professor & Extension Economist
Internet Address: parcellj@missouri.edu

Nancy Giddens
Value Added Marketing Specialist and Extension Associate
Missouri Value Added Development Center
Internet Address: giddensn@missouri.edu

Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri

Introduction

University Extension programs face significant financial constraints. Extension programs have two alternatives: decrease costs or increase revenue. This article addresses one means by which to decrease costs. Though there are many activities evaluated to determine future resource allocation, we focus on train-the-trainer activities and the economic assessment of three alternative delivery modes.

During the fall of 2001 we delivered a train-the-trainer educational program (Professional Implementation Experience in our system) to a group of 11 University of Missouri Outreach and Extension field faculty. The topic of the program was "Market Feasibility Analysis: Key Components." As persons who embrace technology and understand "economic costs," we took a leap forward and used NetMeeting® in conjunction with teleconferences to deliver the program. What we report here is a comparative summary of the economic and time costs of using NetMeeting® versus two alternative modes of delivery available. Additionally, we provide a restrictive qualitative assessment of NetMeeting® as a mode of program delivery.

Background

For this particular program, three alternative modes of delivery were available: NetMeeting®, on-campus training or training through interactive television. We realize more alternatives exist; however, we focus on these three because they are the most relevant for the train-the-trainer programming. Following is a brief description of each delivery mode alternative.

NetMeeting®

NetMeeting® is a Microsoft Windows® product that enables meeting participants and the instructor to exchange files, view presentations, and chat through the Internet simultaneously. Several modes of Internet delivery exist; however, we chose NetMeeting® due to convenience and cost. The instructors and all participants use their office computers to take part in the program. In essence, no one moves from his or her offices and chairs. NetMeeting® is free to Windows® users. Specifically, NetMeeting® allows for the instructor to show a presentation and the participants to view the instructors' presentation in real time. Allowing for real-time transmission of presentations, the instructor controls the pace with which participants browse the presentation. Though NetMeeting® has Internet audio capabilities, we chose to use teleconferencing because phones offer a more reliable communication medium and some participants did not have access to microphones. For this mode of delivery, we chose a one and one-half hour learning period on four separate days.

Face-to-Face via On-Campus

This educational delivery medium involves University Regional Extension Faculty attending a 1-day, 6-hour program in Columbia, Missouri. An on-campus program involves arriving in Columbia by 9 a.m. and departing Columbia around 4 p.m. A minimum of lunch is provided to participants. For this analysis, we assume all 11 persons travel independently, which is typical given that persons attending such train-the-trainer programs are coming from geographically dispersed areas. Also, we assume all participants travel to Columbia the morning of the program. In reality, two to three persons traveled the night before to attend a 9 a.m. program.

Interactive Video (ITV) via Video-Conferencing to Outreach Centers

This delivery mode involves the transfer of video and voice via video conferencing originating from one of 14 University of Missouri Outreach & Extension TeleCenter Network sites located throughout the state. These technologies are housed in multi-purpose instructional facilities. This technology allows for broadcasting of real-time programming, allowing presenters and participants to communicate in real time. Typically, University of Missouri Regional Extension faculty travel to the location nearest their home county. Furthermore, program delivery is limited to 3-hour blocks. For economic analysis, we assume participants need to make two separate trips to obtain 6 total hours of educational program delivery. We assume all participants travel separately to the nearest ITV location.

Economic Assessment of Three Program Delivery Modes

As discussed in the Background section, there are three potential modes of program delivery that are applicable for this train-the-trainer curriculum. For each of the 11 participants of this program, we compute the monetary cost to University of Missouri Outreach and Extension and the time cost (opportunity cost) to participants for equivalent type programs. Participant cost is aggregated by delivery mode. Table 1 summarizes these costs for the three alternative program delivery modes. Total "class" time is 6 hours. In summary (for the Missouri structure), this is one 6-hour program on the Columbia campus, two 3-hour programs through the interactive television network (ITV), or four 1.5-hour programs via NetMeeting®.

The "time travel costs" outlined in the table clearly indicate a savings by using NetMeeting®. For a similar on-campus program, travel time requires a total of one and one-half 40-hour weeks of work time forgone. For a similar ITV-based program, travel time (assuming no carpooling) requires a total of one 40-hour week of work time forgone. NetMeeting®, of course, has zero travel time costs.

The economic advantages of using NetMeeting® for program delivery are large. The economic costs associated with program delivery include mileage (assuming no carpooling), wages paid for travel time, food expenses, and teleconferencing. The only cost for NetMeeting® is the teleconferencing charge. We do not include the 6 hours of programming (labor hours) in our economic costs because the costs are the same for each mode of delivery. Total economic costs for an on-campus program were $2,200 over the use of NetMeeting®. Total economic costs for ITV based programming were $1,200 over the use of NetMeeting®.

Qualitative Assessment of Program Delivered Using Net Meeting®

No base group exists to allow for comparing the qualitative impact of the program among methods of delivery. We, however, use an outcome-based method for evaluation of professional development programming. This entails asking participants to rank their understanding of activities to be addressed in the training through a pre-program survey. Similarly, upon completion of the professional development program, all participants rank their understanding of the activities covered in the program. Questions posed in the pre- and post-program surveys are identical. Both surveys are administered via the Internet, and all responses were kept confidential.

Though the sample size is small, the sample represents those persons who took part in all 4 days of professional development experience, i.e., the population. Table 2 summarizes the average response to the before and after survey for five separate activities covered in the program. The final column indicates the percent change in understanding from before to after completing the program. Prior to the program, participants indicate a below-average to average understanding of a specific activity. Following the program, participants indicate an above-average understanding of activities discussed. While the semantics of setting a "target level" of understanding could be discussed, we focus only on participant feedback indicating that NetMeeting® can be an effective method of program delivery.

Obstacles to Overcome and Final Thoughts

We conclude with some general observations on using NetMeeting® for professional development program delivery. First, we agree openly that nothing beats face-to-face interaction. Second, because participants do not leave their office, it is easy for them to become distracted. Third, because county offices do not always have individual offices, background visiting can be a problem. Fourth, the technology, at this time, requires Internet access and a phone line. Thus, offices where the phone line serves a dual purpose of telephone and Internet NetMeeting® will not work. Last, assessing the amount of content to cover is tricky and likely will need adjusting according to the pace at which participants acquire knowledge.

As Extension moves from a "bonding" mode to a "bridging" mode of information delivery, further economic and qualitative assessment of delivery modes for professional development activities should be conducted.

Basic Botany On-Line: A Training Tool for the Master Gardener Program

Ann Marie VanDerZanden
State Master Gardener Coordinator
Internet Address: vanderza@science.oregonstate.edu

Bob Rost
Communication Specialist Extension and Experiment Station Communications
Internet Address: bob.rost@orst.edu

Rick Eckel
Associate Director Distance Education
Internet Address: rick.eckel@orst.edu

Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon

Background

Extension educators throughout the country are increasing their use of the World Wide Web (DeYoung, Harris, & Larsen, 1995; Lippert, Plank, Camberato, & Chastain, 1998), including using the Web to deliver Extension educational information and programming to clients (Tennessen, PonTell, Romine, & Motheral, 1997). This information can be delivered locally, regionally, or even nationally, which greatly increases the number of clients Extension educators can reach. An equally important benefit is that these clients have the opportunity to access this information at their convenience, thereby removing the constraints of time and location.

Adults make up a large percentage of the clients served by Extension, including participants from the Master Gardener (MG) program. As learners, adults bring a unique set of characteristics to any learning environment, one of which is a preference for a more learner-directed education style (Wilkes & Burnham, 1991). Knowles (1973) further elaborated on characteristics of adult learners, including that:

1. Adults are self-directed learners;
2. Adults seek to build on their previous experiences as they learn;
3. Adults have specific learning needs generated by real-life tasks; and
4. Adults wish to learn skills and/or knowledge that they can apply immediately in real-life situations.

Computer-based instruction may be one way in which Extension can reach larger audiences and create a learning environment compatible with some adult learners.

In 1986, Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb noted that computer-based instruction has the potential to increase learning, increase retention of participants, decrease expenditures, and decrease the time required for training. Although all of these can be considered benefits, the challenge remains to create a quality on-line  learning experience rather than to simply deliver information.

On-Line Master Gardener Training

In 1999, over 940 new MG member received 48-66 hours of initial training at 19 different sites throughout Oregon. The popularity of this Extension program, as evidenced by large annual training classes, has resulted in a shortage of traditional classroom space.

This growth led a team of educators and Web designers at OSU to develop a non-credit, on-line training module for the MG program. Creating this module, which is based on a required component of the annual training program, was the first step in making the 48-66 hours of training available online. Having the entire training available online will dramatically increase learner access to the MG program and allow them to complete the training asynchronously. In addition to classroom limitations, reductions in faculty and travel budgets associated with program delivery have made it difficult to effectively deliver quality training on a statewide basis.

Methodology

The on-line training module <http://osu.orst.edu/extension/mg/botany/> is comprised primarily of text from the Basic Botany chapter in the Oregon-Washington Master Gardener handbook that was modified slightly to meet Web publication criteria. Other module components include:

• A clickable glossary with a pronunciation guide;
• On-line quizzes for each section;
• An on-line discussion group;
• Links to additional educational resources on the Web;
• Three multimedia components, including a welcome video from the instructor;
• Two animations; and
• Numerous photographs and line drawings.

The module is a series of knowledge-based and problem-based learning components. All components of the module are linked via loop navigation icons so learners can readily reinforce their learning and analytical skills.

Development of the module required approximately 14 weeks following the project schedule delineated in Table 1.

Pilot Testing the Module

To determine the effectiveness of this new learning tool, it was evaluated twice during the development phase. The first evaluation was completed by 16 veteran MG members using a 27-question survey. The survey was divided into five sections to evaluate:

1. Technical issues;
2. Organization of the module;
3. Presentation/navigation throughout the module;
4. Content/language; and
5. User satisfaction.

The survey was formatted into a 5-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932) where 1=highly positive ranking and 5=highly negative ranking.

A second group of seven volunteers participated in a usability test in a computer classroom to determine "user friendliness" of the module. Participants navigated through the module while a research team member monitored their progress. Participants then answered open-ended questions including:

• What they liked or disliked about the module,
• Areas that were easy to navigate,
• Areas that were difficult to navigate, sections of the module they thought should be expanded, and
• Components of the module they did not find useful.

Based on comments and suggestions from these two groups the research team made modifications before the module was used in the 2000 annual training.

Implementation

In January 2000, 32 new MG trainees self-selected to complete their botany training using this on-line module. They were given 2 weeks to complete the module online and at their own pace. At the end of that period, they received via mail the same 27-question Likert scale survey, with two additional questions related to an introductory video clip and two animations, and were asked to complete and return the survey.

Results and Discussion

Overall, participants in the test group felt the on-line botany module was a useful training tool for the Oregon MG program (total overall survey average: 1.56, n=16) and that it would be a useful addition to the annual training (Table 2). Written comments on the survey highlighted that the option to complete the module at their own pace and from home made this method of program delivery beneficial. And, although some of the participants enjoyed using the on-line discussion group and email to post questions to the group of on-line learners and the instructor, the group as a whole did not feel that these features helped them connect with the other learners or the course instructor.

Evaluations from the 32 new MG trainees who received their botany training online were similar to those of the test group (total overall survey average: 1.94, n=32) (Table 2). In the user satisfaction category, responses to the two questions on the introductory video clip and animations revealed need for more work in this area. The research team was interested in whether or not the participants could access these multimedia features and if they felt these features enhanced the quality of the module. Most users had difficulty accessing the multimedia features, and they did not feel the features enhanced their learning (4.1 and 4.0, respectively). The research team is exploring new software options to make multimedia components easier to use by a wider variety of users.

Summary and Conclusions

The overall ranking of 1.94 (1= highly positive and 2= positive) suggests the initial offering of an on-line training module for Oregon MGs was successful. Participants particularly like the flexibility of completing the training asynchronously. And, although the module included components to make it more interactive (on-line discussion board, video clip, and animations), these were not features that the participants found particularly useful. This may in part be because they needed more instruction on how to use the features or because their computer systems were not capable of running the software associated with the video clip and animations. More research on computer capabilities of Oregon MGs would help to answer some of these questions.

The usability testing conducted in a computer classroom provided the research team with valuable feedback on the module and highlighted areas that needed improvement. A number of issues the team took for granted (e.g., knowing how to use a browser, typical placement of forward and back arrows, how frames work) needed to be modified or explained better to help the learners. Additionally, color schemes and page layouts were also modified before the module was offered to the new trainees. The pilot testing, usability testing, and subsequent changes before the module was implemented were key components to making this project successful.

The complexity of this project required a team of professionals, each with a unique skill set and area of expertise. Team members included a subject matter specialist, education designer, publication specialist, Web specialist, Web graphics designer, Web animation developer, Web accessibility specialist, evaluation specialist, and proof-readers. This initial project capitalized on skills of members from both the Horticulture Department and the Department of Extension and Experiment Station Communications. Development of future modules will also require this type of collaborative work.

We are continuing to further develop on-line training options for Oregon Master Gardeners. Creating on-line training modules based on content from the Oregon-Washington Master Gardener Handbook creates an opportunity to greatly increase accessibility to the Oregon State University Master Gardener program. An ultimate goal is to develop training options for new volunteers that are more flexible than traditional classroom delivery, yet still provide a high-quality learning experience.

References

DeYoung, B., Harris, P., & Larsen, L. (1995). Virtual communities and university outreach. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995february/a5.html

Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected sSpecies (Building Blocks of Human Potential). Huston; Gulf.

Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J. (1986). The effectiveness of computer-based adult education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2:235-252.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of  Psychology. 140.

Lippert, R.M., Plank, O., Camberato, J., & Chastain, J. (1998). Regional Extension in-service training via the Internet. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/a3.html

Tennessen, D. J., PonTell, S., Romine, V., & Motheral, S.W. (1997). Opportunities for Cooperative Extension and local communities in the information age. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/comm1.html

Wilkes, W. C., & Burnham, B. R. (1991). Adult learner motivations and electronic distance education. American  Journal of Distance Education. 5:43-50.

Financial Information Base of Participants in FSA Borrower Training

Gregory Ibendahl
Assistant Extension Professor
Lexington, Kentucky
Internet Address: gibendah@uky.edu

Steve Isaacs
Associate Extension Professor
Lexington, Kentucky
Internet Address: sisaacs@uky.edu

Richard Trimble
Extension Professor
Princeton, Kentucky
Internet Address: rtrimble@uky.edu

Agricultural Economics
University of Kentucky

Background

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides two types of loans to farmers. With the guaranteed loan program, the FSA encourages agricultural lending by guaranteeing 95% of the principal loan amount of conventional lenders. While the conventional lender is responsible for servicing the loan, FSA has the right to monitor the lender. These loans must meet certain criteria to be eligible for the guarantee (FSA, 2001).

The second type of loan is a direct loan from FSA. Instead of a conventional lender being involved, FSA funds and services the loan itself. Most of the direct loans are for farm ownership, operating, and emergency uses. Minority and beginning farmers also receive funds from the direct loan program (FSA, 2001).

One of the criteria for applicants of FSA direct loans is for adequate farm management training or experience (7CFR1924.74). However, little is known about the pre-training financial knowledge levels of FSA loan applicants. The study reported here presents the results of a survey designed to assess financial knowledge and how financial records are currently used by FSA loan applicants.

For Extension educators, this FSA training presents some unique challenges and opportunities. The main challenge occurs because attendance is mandated by the FSA. Thus, training usually starts with an audience that would prefer not to be there. One of the opportunities is trying to build a cohesive 2-day program. Extension educators seldom get a chance to cover so many financial management ideas all at once.

These results should be useful to policy makers and educators because several of the FSA educational objectives include understanding and utilizing financial statements. Training can then be modified to fit the pre-training knowledge level of participants. The six educational objectives of FSA training are:

• Describe and explain the goals of the business.
• Maintain and utilize a financial management information system to make financial and production decisions.
• Understand and utilize an income statement.
• Understand and utilize a balance sheet.
• Understand and utilize a cash flow budget.
• Be able to identify problems, evaluate alternatives, and make correct decisions.

Previous Studies

Several other studies have examined issues related to borrower and farmer training. Hanson, Delavan, and Power (1996) outline the FSA training used in Pennsylvania from 1994 to 1995 and discuss implications for future borrower training. Hanson, Parsons, Musser, and Power (1998) expand on the Pennsylvania training to address the results of the course evaluation. Hanson and Parsons (2000) discuss some of the presentation techniques, especially satellite uplink vs. videotape for borrower training. Trede and Whitaker (1998) examine the educational need of beginning farmers in Iowa. They focus on the best method to present information.

These previous studies show some of the results and the techniques of farmer/borrower training. What is missing is some information about borrower knowledge levels and use of financial tools before the training occurs.

Methods

The study reported here describes what records farmers in the Kentucky FSA borrower training program maintain and how records are used by those farmers. The FSA borrower training is normally conducted with two or three state farm management specialists, an area farm management specialist, and an Extension associate. A financial and production records survey is administered at the beginning of each 2-day workshop. This survey is designed to assess what records are kept and how much farmers know about financial statements prior to the training. Data have been collected from all farms since the inception of the borrower training program in 1995. The study summarized data collected from 226 farms during 18 sessions in 1995-1997. All of the farms are from Kentucky.

Farmers participating in FSA training seem to be fairly typical of other farmers in Kentucky as far as the types of crops and livestock produced are concerned. Tobacco is the most common crop grown, with 87% of the participants in FSA training reporting growing at least one acre on their farms. Corn and soybeans are grown by 51 and 21% of the participants, respectively. From the livestock side, 59% of the participants raise beef cattle, and 26% are involved with dairy. The average size farm is 350 acres.

The survey instrument contains questions designed to determine how farmers currently use records and financial information in their farm businesses. It indirectly tests some of their knowledge of records as indicated through some of the responses.

Workshop facilitators use the survey data to customize the training for individual audiences. Responses are tabulated during the first session, and results and observations are included to make teaching points during the remainder of the workshops. For example, low response rates to questions about pesticide record keeping are often used to illustrate the need for improvement in this area.

Findings

The percentage response to each survey question choice is indicated in Table 1. These are the percent of the total number of participants. Therefore, totals for each question might not sum to 100% if more than one response was checked or left blank. Question seven is slightly different because it subdivides the yes responses into why yes was chosen. These sub-yes percentages in question seven are thus the percent of the yes total for that question. Question eight is also different because it asks participants to rank the six choices in order. The number given here is the average numerical ranking for each choice.

Question One

Question one asked whether farmers kept a separate farm checking account. The survey shows nearly 43% did, while 57% of the participants did not. This result is probably not surprising because many farms in Kentucky are fairly small and probably do most of their bill paying with one account. It does suggest that well over half the farms combine business and family living income and expenses, making separation of business performance more difficult.

Question Two

As question two indicates, farmers in FSA training do very little tracking of income and expenses. Almost three-quarters of the farmers use their checkbook to record transactions, while another 20% file their expenses into separate files. Fewer than 25% of the farmers use a system (computer, record book, professional book keeping) that makes it easy to perform a periodic analysis of income and expenses. Probably less than 25% could do enterprise analysis because many record books are not designed for dividing income and expenses into enterprise categories. The percentages from question two total more than 100% because many farmers checked two or more choices.

Question Three

Almost 70% of the farmers use cash accounting, as indicated from question three. Given the small size of farms and the benefits of cash accounting for income tax management purposes, this result is not unexpected. What is unexpected is that more than one-fifth of participants indicate that they use accrual accounting. Subsequent workshop discussions suggest that many people were not sure what accrual accounting involves. Also, accrual accounting requires more detailed record keeping, which question two indicates many farmers do not do. This question indicates some additional lack of knowledge of financial records as only 89% of the participants responded to this question.

Questions Four and Five

Question four shows that fewer than 10% of the farmers prepare their own tax returns. Tax preparers and accountants do the bulk of the returns.

Question five may be somewhat misleading because farmers may interpret this as reconciling their bank statement versus how often they strike a balance. At least 22% of the farmers keep a current listing of their checking balance. This could be higher because some of the monthly responses may keep a running total but only reconcile once a month. What is surprising is the 2% of farmers who only balance their checkbooks on a quarterly basis. One would assume that all banks are sending monthly statements.

Question Seven

Most farm families (91%) say they discuss financial matters on a regular basis, as indicated in response to question seven. Of this 91%, 78% discuss major purchases within the family. Other important discussion points are for big decisions (74%), financial planning (70%), family choices (63%), and credit planning (59%). This question depends upon the point of view of who fills out the survey. Often both the farmer and spouse are present; however, sometimes only the farmer attends the training. The results are probably more accurate when both farmer and spouse respond.

Question Eight

Question eight probably reflects what farmers would like to do rather than what they actually do. This question asks participants to rank the six choices in order of importance from one to six. Farm management and decision making was ranked the most important, with an average score of 2.05. This was followed by providing information to lenders (2.79), evaluating farm performance (2.84), tax compliance (2.95), dividing income (4.20), and enterprise analysis (4.28).

Given that few of the farmers are currently keeping very detailed records, the top score to farm management is probably only a goal or a response with the answer they think the instructors want. This idea is reinforced by the fourth-place ranking received by tax compliance, something that all farms actually do. Subsequent workshop discussions often serve to highlight this disparity in farmer response to this question.

Question Nine

Responses to question nine illustrate several points about the financial records knowledge of the participants. First, only 37% report filling out a Schedule F (the IRS form on which farm-related income and expenses are reported), while most participants readily admit to paying income taxes. Participants say this is because their accountants or tax preparers complete their tax forms. However, it could be a lack of understanding about what a Schedule F actually is.

This always becomes a teaching point in the workshops because of the low response rates. The Schedule F is often the only profitability measure many farms have, and this suggests that even it is not widely used. Second, the lack of detailed record keeping indicated in question two would seem to indicate a lower-than-indicated percentage of the financial statements from question nine are really completed.

The lack of farmer schedule completion also demonstrates a possible lack of financial knowledge. In question nine, five of the eight statements have a less than 50% completion rate. Only one statement, the income statement, is marked by more than two-thirds of the participants. However, this response rate for the income statement is inconsistent with the less than 40% response rate for the Schedule F. Farmers either have some confusion about the statements, or they are being completed by some third party such as a lender, tax preparer, or lawyer. Either condition suggests that participants are not readily familiar with the commonly used methods of measuring the financial position and progress of their farm business.

Question Ten

Question ten examines the production records of participants. Two-thirds of the farmers keep track of crop yields, while only 8% keep track of weather. All the other production records have a less than 50% response rate. The DHIA percentage is low mainly because of the small number of dairy farmers in the program. The low response for both financial and production records seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the importance of record keeping. If some of these records were not required, the response rate might even have been lower.

Conclusions

The survey reported here seems to indicate that FSA borrower training participants enter the financial management training with substantial management information deficiencies. To that end, the borrower training program is clearly needed and can help farmers meet the educational objectives. The survey data suggests that most farmers are not keeping track of enough information to make informed financial decisions. Further, many of the financial records they do prepare are being completed by others, and there is some lack of understanding of the records themselves.

Through farm financial management training provided by Kentucky's FSA borrower training workshops, farmers can learn to use information more effectively and become more profitable producers. In addition, 2-day workshops like these are successful at imparting detailed information to farmers even when the farmers are mandated to be there.

References

Code of Federal Regulations. 7CFR1924.74. Farm Service Agency (2001) [On-line]. Available at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

Hanson, G., Delavan, W., & Power, L. (1996). Mandated financial training for FSA/USDA farm borrowers. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 34(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996april/a3.html

Hanson, G., & Parsons, R. (2000). Satellite uplink vs. videotape in borrower training. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 38(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/a1.html

Hanson, G., Parsons, R., Musser, W., & Power, L. (1998). Impact analysis of farm finance workshops. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb2.html

Trede, L., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Beginning farmer education in Iowa: Implications to Extension. Journal of Extension [On line]. 36(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.html

Forest Landowner Short Courses at Mississippi State University

Andrew J. Londo
Assistant Extension Professor
Internet Address: andyL@ext.msstate.edu

Thomas A. Monaghan
Extension Professor
Internet Address: tomm@ext.msstate.edu

Department of Forestry
Mississippi State University
Starkville, Mississippi

Introduction

Approximately two-thirds (18 million acres) of Mississippi is forested, with 66% of this owned by over 314,000 non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners (Londo, 2000; Gunter, Bullard, Doolittle, & Arano, 2001). These individual forest landowners provide a large and diverse audience for Extension programming (Barden, Jones, & Biles, 1996; Monaghan, 1997).

There are nine faculty members with Extension responsibilities in the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State University. Five faculty members are located on campus and provide statewide leadership in the areas of silviculture, harvesting, economics, and taxation. Four faculty members are strategically located throughout the state (NE, SE, NW, and SW districts) and work closely with 20 to 21 Extension Agents in their respective areas. These faculty assume statewide leadership in needed subject matter areas according to their interest and expertise. In addition, there are four program assistants working in conjunction with the faculty to provide programming across the state. The effectiveness of the Extension program of the Department of Forestry has increased with the creation of these off-campus faculty positions (Monaghan, 1991).

Forest Landowner Short Courses at MSU

Prior to 1984, the predominant Extension forestry programming methods utilized in Mississippi consisted of forestry field days, group meetings, demonstrations, publications, and mass media (Monaghan, 1991). These traditional Extension education methods have been used successfully in many other Extension programs around the country (Presternon, 1986; Harmon & Jones, 1997) and are still integral parts of our program. These early methods were designed to provide some general knowledge of forest management options to landowners, but did not provide intensive training in any specific area (Monaghan, 1991).

The need to provide more intensive training in specific forestry areas prompted the creation of short courses for forest landowners. Short courses can be an effective way to impart knowledge to the user by bringing together researchers, forestry professionals, and Extension personnel (Neal, 1991; Svenson, 1997). The first forest landowner short course was conducted in Jones County, Mississippi in 1984 (Monaghan & Londo, 2001). This course, "Woodland Management," was comprised of 2-hour long classroom sessions conducted one night per week for 5 weeks. Various forest management topics were covered during the 5-week period. Each participant was provided with a notebook containing publications from various sources as additional reference material. The success of this program resulted in the Woodland Management short course being offered in several other counties over the next 2 years.

Continuous evaluation and modification resulted in improvements in delivery, increased efficiency, and an expanded short course curriculum. Landowners' evaluations of these early programs indicated a need for more in-depth training in a variety of forestry-related subjects. In response, new forest landowner short courses were developed in other subject areas. As a result, short courses have become one of the most important programs for educating Mississippi forest landowners (Monaghan, 1997).

Short courses have also been instrumental in stimulating the formation of County Forestry Associations (CFA's) in many counties. The Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA) initiated a statewide effort to organize county affiliates around 1985. For several years, the core group of landowners who formed CFA's were recent short course participants. Their enthusiasm for forest management was stimulated by these short courses.

Sixty-three CFA's have been established representing 71 counties and serve as local affiliates of the Mississippi Forestry Association. The members of these local organizations include landowners, business people, forestry consultants, forest industry representatives, and anyone else interested in forestry. The local County Extension Agent serves on the board of directors of each CFA. CFA's serve as excellent advisory groups for program planning and provide political support when needed (Monaghan & Londo, 2001).

Short Course Curriculum

The short course curriculum now consists of 11 forest landowner short courses. Length (contact hours of instruction) varies from 6 to 10 hours. Depending on the needs of the target audience, a course may be scheduled as one all-day session or a series of 2-hour sessions, one night per week, over a period of 3 to 5 weeks. The short courses are offered in various counties across the state each year (Monaghan, 1997). A list of the short courses offered, along with a brief description of each, can be found in Table 1.

The planning, coordination, and implementation of a forest landowner short course are the primary responsibility of the area forestry faculty in cooperation with the local county Extension agents and CFA's. Short courses are typically scheduled during the spring (February-May) and fall (August-November). The breaks in between these two periods are essential for planning and preparation purposes.

Faculty members from the Department of Forestry typically serve as instructors; however, volunteer instructors (professional foresters from industry, consulting firms, and government agencies) are often used. Each short course has a standardized schedule of sessions. The standardization allows for efficient development and duplication of notebook material as well as scheduling volunteer instructors.

Teaching objectives have been developed for each session and are provided to all instructors to assist with presentations and to avoid duplication of subject matter covered in other sessions by other instructors. Consistency and similarity have proven to be very important in the development of our short courses. All short course offerings of the same title are virtually identical. This enables us to produce the notebooks in bulk and schedule guest instructors up to a year in advance.

Scheduling and Publicizing Short Courses

In collaboration with Forestry Faculty, each CFA plans programs such as forest landowner short courses, field days, and other events suited to the needs of the local members. During the year, the executive committee of each CFA meets to discuss business issues. Among the issues discussed are the educational needs of forest landowners and other CFA members and the curriculum available from Extension. Once a decision is made, the county agent contacts the appropriate area faculty member to schedule the short course. This scheduling usually occurs 6 months in advance.

In cooperation with local county agents, several means of publicity and promotion are used to encourage attendance at short courses. Examples include:

• Direct mail of a brochure that includes the course title, description, location, date, time, instructors, and a pre-registration form;
• News/photo articles prepared by the area specialist for use by the county agent in local newspapers;
• A semi-annual Extension Forestry Newsletter that includes a list of all the spring and fall short courses scheduled statewide;
• A detailed listing of short course offering on the Extension Forestry Web site;
• Radio and television;
• Laminated full-color publicity posters with attractive photos advertising each course; and
• Short course announcements in magazines and newsletters published by cooperating agencies.

Short Course Evaluations and Results

Formal record keeping of short course evaluations began in 1987 (Monaghan, 1997). Participants in all short courses are asked to evaluate the following:

• Effectiveness of speakers;
• Acreage of forest land owned or managed;
• The value of the training they received in the short course;
• Usefulness of the subject matter;
• Their use of professional forestry assistance;
• Suggestions to improve the short course;
• Other short courses they would like to attend.

These evaluations have been useful in determining programming impacts and in needs assessment. Results on attendance, acreage, and value of the training received can be found in Table 2.

The data reported in Table 2 are examples of evaluative data that we collect and summarize in the Annual Report of the Extension Program of the Department of Forestry at MSU. The report describes in detail a comprehensive and complex program effort, of which landowner short courses are one of many educational methods. The report is distributed every year to selected audiences, including administrators, advisory groups, state legislators, cooperating agencies, organizations, and other "key" state leaders.

Based on evaluations completed by program participants, direct mail appears to be the most effective publicity method. This is likely due to our ability to mail brochures to nearly all forest landowners in each county. Mailing lists have been developed using count land tax data. These data were made available through a cooperative research project conducted by the Social Sciences Research Center and at the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State University.

Who Attends Extension Forest Landowner Short Courses?

Traditionally, brochures advertising landowner short courses have been sent to landowners by using mailing lists devised and maintained by the county agent. This method was very inconsistent from county to county. Each county agent maintained their own mailing list, primarily based on attendance at past programs. Notices and brochures were being sent out to the same people for each program. While efforts were made to have notices put in newspapers and have mailings in conjunction with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, few direct mailings were made and attendance at all programs was small.

The first county forest landowner mailing list was developed using county tax assessor roles in Grenada County Mississippi in 1992. The tax role was obtained from the County Tax Assessors Office, and all landowners with 40 or more acres were sent brochures. This increased participation in all Extension forestry programming. Many other counties started maintaining their landowner lists in this manner; however, it was very time consuming for the county agent.

By the late 1990's, computerized tax roll records were being used to create the landowner mailing lists. These mailing lists are now being maintained by an Extension assistant in the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State. Upon request, these mailing lists are provided to the county agent. The advent of 911 emergency addresses has caused the need update and maintain these landowner lists more often than initially expected.

The use of the computerized records for the landowner mailing lists has significantly increased the attendance at all programs while at the same time making it easier for the county agent.

Adaptability of Short Courses for Other States

While specific short courses taught in Mississippi may not all apply to all states, the underlying principle of making the handout materials and teaching objectives consistent can increase the productivity of any Extension program. This consistency allows for the increased use of volunteer instructors, thus reducing the speaking load on a county agent and Extension specialist.

The flexibility afforded by providing a number of different short course topics makes the use of short courses for Extension program even more attractive. With a broad range of topics to choose from, a given county advisory group can pick and choose, from the menu of programs available, those programs that will best address the educational needs in their county.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Over the past 20 years, the Extension program of the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State University has undergone many changes. For example, the short course curriculum has increased from one short course in 1984 to 11 in 2000. The number of short courses conducted reached a high of 46 in 1999. Due to our assessment of and response to the diverse needs of Mississippi forest landowners, forest landowner short courses have become one of the primary educational methods of Extension forestry programming at Mississippi State University.

Future programming needs will continue to be met through short courses, forestry field days, and other traditional programming methods. However, with an increasing emphasis in distance learning coupled with decreasing budgets, program methods and techniques will likely include greater use of the Internet, live video, and satellite technologies. The strategies involved in short course development should combine well with these new and emerging technologies, which will further increase the outreach capabilities, effectiveness, and efficiency of Extension programming.

References

Barden, C. J., Jones, S. B., & Biles, L. E. (1996). Extension forestry education: Reaching the people who make decisions. Journal of Forestry. 94 (3):31-35.

Gunter, J. E., Bullard, S. H., Doolittle, M. L., & Arano K. G. (2001). Reforestation of harvested timberlands in Mississippi: Behavior and attitudes of non-industrial private forest landowners. FWRC Bulletin # FO172. 25p.

Harmon, A. H., & Jones, S. B. 1997. Forestry demonstrations: What good is a walk in the woods? Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(1): Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/rb3.html

Londo, A. J. (2000. The effects of forest fragmentation on forest management for Mississippi private non-industrial forest landowners. p. 116-124. In: Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference. Sampson Group Inc. Alexandria, Va.

Monaghan, T. A. (1987-2000). Annual Reports of the Extension Program of the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State University.

Monaghan, T. A. (1991). Forest landowner short courses in Mississippi. Forest Farmer. 50(7):14-15, 20.

Monaghan, T. A. (1997). The development, implementation, and evaluation of forestry short courses in Mississippi. p 387-394. In: R. Beck (ed.) Approaches to Extension in Forestry-Experiences and Developments. Proceedings of the IUFRO Working Party S6.06-03 Extension Symposium. Friesing, Germany.

Monaghan, T. A., & Londo, A. J. (2001). Cooperation is key to Extension forestry in Mississippi. Forest Landowner 60(3):11-14.

Neal, J .E. (1991). Extension forestry in the South. Forest Farmer. 50(7):8-10.

Presternon, D. R. (1986). Forestry field days--An old idea that really works. Journal of Extension [On-line], 24(1): Available at:  http://www.joe.org/joe/1986spring/iw1.html

Svenson, G. (1997). Extension courses--A sound way to impart knowledge. p. 435-444. In: R. Beck (ed.) Approaches to Extension in Forestry-Experiences and Developments. Proceedings of the IUFRO Working Party S6.06-03 Extension Symposium. Friesing, Germany.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.