|
October 2002
|
|
Contents
Editor's PageThis introduction is going to seem familiar. I'm again going to direct your attention to a feature of the JOE Web site and then talk about just some of the great articles in this issue. JOE Usage StatisticsIf you haven't yet visited the JOE Usage Statistics page, check it out. "The Top 50 Most Read Articles" list I wrote about in the last issue is just one of several informative features that speak to JOE's "reach." Interested in how many visitors/readers JOE averages? Visit Readership Statistics. You'll also learn the difference between a "hit and a "page view" (and why the latter is a more reliable indicator than the former). Want to know which countries access JOE? Visit Nations Accessing JOE. You'll see a list of 135 countries, starting with Albania and ending with Zimbabwe. Curious about which U.S. institutions take most advantage of JOE? Visit The 25 Institutions Accessing JOE Most Frequently. Robyn Ness, JOE Web developer, will be updating these pages every 6 months or so and has at least one more interesting feature in the works, so don't make yours a one-time visit. JOE reaches far and wide. And, if you're published in JOE, so do you. October 2002 JOEWe have two good Commentaries this month, both of which could set the cat among the pigeons. If you have an opinion to share about either or both of them, please don't forget the JOE Discussion Forum. The convergence of information technology and training gets a lot of coverage in the October issue. At least eight of the 26 articles deal with this important subject. In the August issue, we had two Tools of the Trade articles that dealt with how we in Extension should prepare for and/or respond to emergencies. "Using Simple Educational Methods to Motivate Consumers to Prepare for Emergencies" outlines how one state used Y2K as a teachable moment for consumers. JOE has published four Commentaries over the last few years on the need for and benefits of an international orientation for Extension. "Uncovering Resources for Your International Extension Experience" describes a Web site with resources for Extension staff who seek international experience. I wish I could highlight all the articles in the October issue. You'll just have to read it. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
The Roles of Extension in Agricultural Economics DepartmentsMichael V. Martin IntroductionAfter spending 15 years as a faculty member in an economics department, I moved into university administration. Over the past decade, I have served as an associate dean, dean, and now vice president. Since joining the "dark side" of the university, my view of agricultural economists and agricultural economics departments has changed considerably. In particular, I have substantially revised my thinking about the importance of the Extension function and Extension programs in agricultural departments and for the agricultural economics larger profession. In this commentary I argue that agricultural economists and their departments must focus more attention on their Extension mission and that, to do so, the profession must heighten the stature and enlarge the recognition for those who do Extension work well. My Former ViewWhile a faculty member at Oregon State University (1977-1992), I came to accept that what seemed to be the conventional wisdom on the hierarchy of work in an agricultural economics department. That is, research (as reflected primarily in journal publications) carried the greatest prestige, followed by teaching at the graduate level, undergraduate teaching, and then Extension. Those with large research appointments tended to receive larger support allocations (assistantships, travel, etc.) and seemed to collectively assume a "quality control-gatekeeper" role with respect to hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, etc. On more than one occasion, following an interview for a faculty position, I heard the comment "he/she may be able to do Extension but isn't strong enough for a research assignment." This assertion was usually based on someone's view that the candidate's seminar was not sufficiently loaded with confusing calculus or econometrics. Casual observation suggests this hierarchy of prestige is imbedded in the values of the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA). A review of the credentials of those who hold office or are granted "fellow" status supports the hypothesis that recognition flows to those whose C.V.'s are dominated by research contributions rather than Extension. The biographical sketches that appear with the annual officer-director ballots emphasize published research even for those who have a split Extension appointment. One might well conclude that a mediocre research record is more likely to impress the AAEA membership than an outstanding Extension record. Even if my assessment about Extension being undervalued in the agricultural economics profession is simply the result of a "Napoleon Complex" by proxy, my central contention remains. It is this: If agricultural economics departments are to be relevant, and in turn, reasonably well funded, in the future, they had better devote time, energy, and talent to building strong Extension programs. My New View: The Case for Extension Applied EconomicsCurrent Academic Environment First, I offer a few "stylized facts" that describe the environment in which academic agricultural economics is now practiced. One, funding for higher education has become increasingly politicized at both the federal and state levels. Programs are funded because voters/campaign contributors want them to be funded. And, because voters/campaign contributors want many other things funded as well, budgets for public higher education will remain tight for years to come. Two, the cost of science-based programs in land grant universities is rising rapidly but at differential rates. As biology-based programs (agronomy, plant pathology, horticultural science, animal science, etc.) have adopted new techniques, the cost of supporting faculty in these departments or programs has risen astronomically in both absolute and relative terms. For example, faculty with big-time genetic capabilities not only draw handsome salaries, they also demand significant recurring support and large start-up packages. Meeting these demands threatens to "crowd out" other areas of activity, including social sciences such as agricultural economics. Three, many departments in land grant universities have natural constituent bases. Hog and cattle producers obviously value animal science departments. Corn, soybean, and wheat growers tend to support agronomy departments. Golf course superintendents align with environmental horticultural departments and so on. Agricultural economists don't typically have obvious or natural networks of supporters. Thus, their programs must create and continually reinforce their clientele base. Four, "technology transfer" is regarded by decision makers and funders as a critical final step in the research process. For biology-based programs, technology transfer is often imbedded in research results. If an agronomist uses biotechnology in crop breeding, the release of the resulting variety effectively transfers the technology. For agricultural economics, technology transfer is not so simple. Importance of Building Strong Extension Programs In this context, there are several reasons why building strong Extension programs should be a major priority for agricultural economics departments and the larger profession. First, as suggested above, Extension education is the primary means by which agricultural economics research is "translated" and "transferred" for practical application. Much of the research conducted by agricultural economists, as reported in the journals, is steeped in mathematics and/or technical lingo. If research outcomes are to be useful, they need to be recast in terms intelligible to those beyond the academic wing of the profession. I recently read an interesting article in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics (AJAE) on "generic advertising," a very hot topic with Florida's citrus growers (Crespi & Marette, 2002). The findings offer useful insights for many commodity organizations that spend their members' money on "generic" advertising campaigns. But someone will have to interpret the findings for administrators and growers on the Florida Citrus Commission and similar organizations. Doing so will add significant value to Crespi and Marette's work. A strong Extension program can add to this value. Second, the pace of change in the economic environment facing agricultural, food, and related industries is overwhelming. Environmental interventions, industry consolidations, freer trade agreements, changing input costs, and new technologies, among other developments, have created "teachable moments" for Extension education in agricultural economics. Simply explaining what's happening appears to be appreciated by those living through these confusing times. To use economics terminology, there is an increasing demand for Extension education that calls for a supply response by agricultural economists. Third, as implied already, resource allocations at land grant universities are frequently influenced by constituent support. Solid, visible Extension programs can serve as a powerful means of engendering external pressure to drive decision making regarding investments in agricultural economics. At the University of Florida, we've recently had an illustration of Extension connectedness resulting in new funding. Representatives of several of the state's agricultural organizations persuaded our Governor to allocate $1.0 million from a federal appropriation to a trade center in our Food and Resource Economics Department. The external group made three things clear in delivering this investment:
The University of Minnesota's Applied Economics Department (AED) benefits in many ways from a unique Extension program. The department is home to the state economist, Dr. Tom Stinson. The state contracts with AED for Stinson's services. Stinson's work is widely reported in the popular press. This obviously brings broad recognition to the department. Moreover, Stinson has an important Extension audience of one--the Governor. Fourth, agricultural economics can create an internal Extension clientele by providing expertise to those who make administrative and fiscal decisions. The analytical framework available from economics can be quite useful to administrators. Applications of cost benefit analyses and other approaches can serve to better frame choices and trade-offs. In Florida, many believe that retaining a viable cattle industry is important for both economic and environmental reasons. If we are to enhance the profitability of cattle production in the state through research and education, we'll need to set priorities. Here's where agricultural economists can be helpful. Disaggregating costs of production and marketing for cattle will allow administrators to answer the question: Which components can be best reduced through research and education? In this way, agricultural economists can contribute to effective and efficient resource allocations within their institutions. They can demonstrate the value of economics to their administration. Having deans and others find their work useful can influence internal budgeting. A Few RecommendationsWhat should be done to enhance Extension programs delivered by agricultural economists? Here are a few suggestions. First, the larger profession, primarily via the AAEA, should work to heighten the stature of Extension work and of those who do it. Along with the standard annual awards, the AAEA bylaws should ensure strong Extension representation on the Board of Directors and among the officers. The criteria for achieving "fellow" status should explicitly identify a strong Extension record as equal to research and teaching. Second, research agricultural economists should be encouraged to specifically identify the Extension activities that will follow from any proposed research project. Funding for an Extension component should be included in grant or contract submissions. Third, agricultural economics departments should go out of their way to embrace their Extension responsibilities collectively. Rather than leaving Extension exclusively to those with Extension appointments, every department member should be committed to supporting Extension education. Fourth, administrators at all levels in the university community should clearly articulate expectations for Extension program excellence in agricultural economics departments. The reward system, including promotion, tenure, and salary adjustments, should reflect these expectations. And fifth, an appreciation for, and some education about, Extension should be included in the training of agricultural economics graduate students. Departments and colleges may wish to enlarge the number of Extension assistantships. They may also wish to require the preparation of an Extension presentation as part of the final sign off on theses and dissertations. SummaryLet me succinctly restate my case. Agricultural economic departments and the profession as a whole must find ways to build public awareness and support for the things they do. Agricultural economists must create constituencies. This is particularly important as funding becomes more constrained and the cost of research in other disciplines increases. A serious commitment to responsive, research-based Extension programs is by far the best means for justifying investments in agricultural economics' programs and departments. It is clear from my perspective as an administrator that if agricultural economics departments fail to fully embrace their research-based Extension mission, they, and in turn, the larger profession, will not prosper.
ReferencesCrespi, J. M., & Marette, S. (2002, August). Genetic advertising and product differentiation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(3) pp. 691-701.
Employee Participation in Decision Making in Extension: A Ladder of Participation to Reduce CynicismThomas J. Gallagher In the new management best seller, The Deep Blue Sea, author Wilfred Drath (2001) engages readers in the operations of a fictional piano manufacturing company. In the life of the company the senior Mr. Karl retires and is replaced by daughter, Elena, who doesn't feel comfortable with her father's "top down" leadership style. Her efforts to develop her own, more participatory, style are initially not accepted by staff, who see her effort to gain their involvement in decisions as "a false note at first" and "something of a Trojan horse, an idea that is perceived as nothing more than rhetoric" (p.65). The problem, as Drath emphasizes, isn't one of participatory leadership not being a good idea. Rather, it is that leadership is a social agreement, "a sharing of a way of knowing leadership" (p.64). He explains that, "This shared creation of leadership was worked out through years of experience with one another...." and that social agreements take time to change. In my 3 years as a Leadership Specialist with Extension, the single greatest plea I've heard from faculty and staff, other than for more time and resources, is for more participation in decision making. Extension leaders have heard this call, and Extension offices have, rather uniformly I suspect, included, as part of their vision and principles, having decisions made "as close to the work as possible." However, pushing decisions down from executive to employees is complicated by Extension's "shared way of knowing leadership," which is, from what I can tell, most often "top down" in character. Efforts to engage faculty in decisions are often viewed by employees with cynicism, as "nothing more than rhetoric." A Ladder of Decision MakingI would pose that in Extension there is a way to begin to overcome this attitude and that it is to articulate the "terms of engagement" for the interaction of leaders and employees in decision making. Of course, I am not talking about leaders abdicating legitimate authority, or employees engaging in decisions beyond their knowledge, interest, or responsibility. The terms of engagement should vary depending on the nature of the decision to be made. This variation gives rise to what I call a "ladder of decision making." The ladder provides an image and a conceptual model to help clarify the role of participants in the process. This tool builds upon a similar image and model, a "ladder of public participation," developed by Arnstein (1969). In this concept (Figure 1) the responsibility for the decision shifts with each step from the authority (executive), to the affected faculty and staff (employees).
Description of LevelsLevel 1. Executive Decision. The executive makes the decision and does not inform employees, except possibly through a future meeting or conference or in a periodic report or newsletter. Level 2. Executive Decision with Report. The executive makes the decision and reports, in the near future, to employees. The timely report is significant as (whether as a courtesy or warning). It provides some opportunity for employee feedback prior to implementation of the decision. Level 3. Consultative Decision. The executive asks employees for their ideas, at least in a general way. At best, the employees are engaged explicitly in the steps in the decision-making process (Gallagher, 2000) and can influence the decision with the strength of their statement of values, their information, and their alternatives. The decision, however, rests with the executive. Level 4. Employee Recommendation. The executive assigns or delegates the responsibility to conduct the decision-making process, the four steps, to the employees. The employees offer their recommendation(s) to the executive who makes the decision. Level 5. Delegated Decision with Veto. The executive delegates the authority to the employees to make the decision but retains the authority to exercise veto power if necessary. (Such a veto could indicate a flawed problem-solving process that failed to engage the executive in interim reviews.) Level 6. Delegated Decision without Veto. This is the same process as above; however, the employees make the decision and the executive supports the decision through to a future evaluation period, perhaps a year or two for most programs. Level 7. Employee Decision. The employees make the decision and do not inform the executive, except perhaps as part of the normal reporting protocols, such as in periodic meetings or annual reports. The Challenge in ExtensionThe challenge in Extension is complicated by the observation that some individuals--on both the executive and employee side--prefer a top-down decision-making style. As I've discussed in a paper on cultural values (Gallagher, 2001), some people are more hierarchical in their decision preference, others more collateral (group oriented), and still others more individualist (let's vote on it). Anecdotal evidence, supported by current research (Saunders & Gallagher, 2002, submitted for publication) suggests that Extension is fundamentally a hierarchical institution with cultural norms that permit only a measure of collateral and individual decision making. The challenge in Extension may be heightened by a history of poorly executed participatory processes. When executives call for employee participation but then don't design or manage an effective process of involvement, employees are quick to label such activity as placation at best and manipulation at worst. From Drath's view this history builds a relationship that becomes a "social agreement" that takes time to change. Certainly training is desirable for all parties to understand the rungs and their roles on each. Closing ThoughtsIn the practice of decision making (e.g., Kneeland, 1999) and meeting management (e.g., Doyle & Straus, 1976) there is agreement that everyone engaged in a decision process or meeting should understand his or her role. The ladder of decision making helps to define that role. The ladder provides a way to articulate who makes the decision and offers employees more certainty about how their input, which consumes their time and resources, will be used. From these benefits, the ladder offers the even greater benefit of improving the quality of decisions by incorporating employee values, information, and alternatives into the decision. It also increases the potential for decisions to be implemented as employees help make, and "own," the decision. And the ladder offers the possibility of reducing employee skepticism, indeed what I see as cynicism, about executive decisions and executive efforts to engage in more participatory leadership. And, not least, the ladder can help structure the decision process to help save employees' number-one issue, time and resources. ReferencesArnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of participation. Journal of the American Planning Association. Doyle, M., & Strauss, D. (1976). How to make meetings work. Jove Publications. Gallagher, T. J. (2001). The value orientations method: A tool to help understand cultural differences. The Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/tt1.html Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Decision making: An architect's model for Extension applications. The Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/tt1.html Kneeland, S. (1999). Effective problem Solving: How to understand the process and practice it successfully. How to Books, Oxford, England Saunders, K., & Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Decision-making styles: An exploration of preferences in Extension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Examining a Professional Development System: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment ApproachNikki L. Conklin Laryssa L. Hook Beverly J. Kelbaugh Ruben D. Nieto Ohio State University Extension IntroductionIn 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:
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). MethodologyIn-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:
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 FindingsCoordinator'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:
Coordinators cited assistance needed to be effective in providing in-service:
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:
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 ImplicationsThe top four barriers to attending in-service training were consistent with results from Mincemoyer and Kelsey (1999):
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. ReferencesBaker, 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 DevelopmentGarry Stephenson Shawn Morford Holly Berry Overview
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:
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. SituationMill 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.
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:
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. ResultsThe 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:
A survey of youth involved in the program indicated:
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:
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.
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:
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 RecommendationsThe 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. ConclusionThe 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. ReferencesBogenschneider, 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 ProgramMarianne Krasny Rebekah Doyle Cornell University IntroductionRecently, 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:
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:
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:
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 MosaicsWe 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:
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. MethodsBecause 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:
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). ResultsMotivations 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
