February 2003
Volume 41 Number 1

Ideas at Work

Serving Rural Asian American and Latino Families and Their Communities: A Call for a Rural Paradigm Shift

Ruben P. Viramontez Anguiano
Assistant Professor
Bowling Green State University
Human Development and Family Studies
Bowling Green, Ohio
Internet Address: rubenv@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Walter T. Kawamoto
Assistant Professor
CSU Sacramento
Family and Consumer Sciences Department
Sacramento, California
Internet Address: kawamotw@saclink.csus.edu

Introduction

Extension family consumer scientists and other family specialists are at a crossroads in serving rural populations. The rural cultural tapestry continues to be redefined as the country begins a new millennium. As populations continue to shift from rural and urban to suburban areas, Extension family consumer scientists and other family specialists are faced with developing appropriate practices in serving the new faces of rural America (Fluharty, 2001).

In particular, the Asian American (Wheelan, 2001) and Latino (Kohoe, 2001) populations have burgeoned over the last 10 years as the first and second fastest growing populations in the country. This article discusses a working paradigm that illustrates how Extension family consumer scientists and other family specialists can work collectively with rural Asian American and Latino families to promote family and community life.

When providing services to rural Asian American and Latino populations, it is important for Extension professionals and other family specialists to take an ecological and historical perspective. Asian American and Latino historical experiences and challenges can serve as a map to establishing culturally sensitive approaches, while providing effective outreach. Key lessons include the following.

• Learn the rural geographic region and its historical influence on these groups.
• Understand cultural resources and characteristics as they have evolved for these groups.
• Understand the relationship with local, state, and federal government.
• Understand the importance of the concept of time in these rural communities.

Working Towards Partnerships: Asian American and Latino Families in a Rural Context

Latino families have been described as an extensive familial support network. The network provides emotional, psychological, social, and financial support to family, extended family, and fictive kin. The family network reflects cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, and reinforces the maintenance and transmission of culturally specific roles and values. This network serves as a resiliency mechanism for rural Latino communities.

Asian American families have been a part of rural American lives for generations. Asian Americans can be found in many rural communities and industries; however, the stories of Asian Americans are rarely recognized (Mejia-Giudici, 2000; Wurzburg, 1999). Similar to the Latino community, the Asian American community has recently been dramatically affected by new immigrants. These different Asian American communities also posses strong extended kinship networks.

There are several cultural resiliency mechanisms that specialists should understand and incorporate when developing partnerships with rural Asian American and Latinos families and their communities. Specialists should understand:

• The importance of personal and social relationships and their impact on partnerships,
• Family socialization and its influence on developing strong partnerships,
• The importance of honoring the immigration experience of families through partnerships,
• Generational differences,
• The importance of religion and faith, and
• The family activist role of faith-based organizations.

Recommendations: A Call for a Rural Paradigm Shift

Serving rural Asian American and Hispanic families and their communities can be a puzzling experience for Extension family consumer scientists. However, a working paradigm based on the historical lessons and challenges of these families and an ecological wraparound perspective would benefit the partnership between the families and the specialists.

Specifically, this perspective is based on an assumption that families bring an expertise to their unique situation and that, when given the opportunity, they can competently define their needs (Handron, Dosser, McCammon, & Powell, 1998). Moreover, this perspective would explore family dynamics through a strengths-based systemic approach, which includes the individual, family, and community. Important factors that would contribute to the paradigm would include the following.

• Outreach would be culturally sensitive and family and community centered.
• Families would empower themselves and become equal partners.
• Faith-based centers would participate as rural social and family centers.
• Rural organizations and other social agencies/systems would develop coalitions to provide enhanced services.
• Schools would shift to school, family, and community partnerships.
• Universities would be innovators in serving rural families through specialists and technology.
• Rural corporations would develop family-sensitive models.
• Rural businesses, including ethnic stores, would become outposts for information.

Conclusion

Historical challenges and lesson to rural service providers and rural Asian American and Latino families can serve as a perspective lens to developing rural partnerships for the future. Thus, a rural paradigm shift that incorporates the factors discussed above would be instrumental in the transformation of rural communities.

Acknowledgment

A version of this manuscript was presented at the Annual Conference of the National Extension Association for Family and Consumer Sciences 2001, in Portland, Oregon.

References

Fluharty, C. (2001). The politics of rural policy in an urban society. Presented at the National Extension Association of Family and Consumer Sciences National Conference: Portland Oregon.

Handron, D.S., Dosser, D.A., McCammon, S.L., & Powell, J.Y. (1998). "Wraparound" The wave of the future: Theoretical and professional practice implications for children and families with complex needs. Journal of Family Nursing, 4, 65-86.

Kehoe, C.J. (2001) Juvenile corrections in a changing American landscape. Corrections Today, 63, p6.

Mejia-Giudici, C.C. (2000). "Whole day work, whole day work": A Filipino family's legacy on the Eastside. Northwest Asian Weekly, 19, N. 30.

Omori, C. (1999). Reacquainting ourselves with the farmer's soil and toil. International Examiner, 26, N.9

Whelan, D. (July, 2001). The Asian American blind spot. American Demographics, 23, 16-17.

Wurzburg, M. (1999). Life at the market: Local residents share stories of Japanese American's history at Pike Place Market. North American Post, 19, N. 30

Designing Nutrition Education Programs to Reach Mexican American Populations

Sharon F. Robinson
Assistant Professor & Nutrition Specialist
Texas Cooperative Extension
College Station, Texas
Internet Address: s-robinson@tamu.edu

Jenna Anding
Assistant Professor and Nutrition Specialist
Texas Cooperative Extension
College Station, Texas
Internet Address: j-anding@tamu.edu

Bertha Garza
District Extension Director - Family and Consumer Sciences
Texas Cooperative Extension
Weslaco, Texas
Internet Address: b-garza@tamu.edu

Ileana Hinojosa
Community Health Education Specialist
Texas Cooperative Extension and Health Science Center
Weslaco, Texas
Internet Address: i-hinojosa@tamu.edu

Texas A&M University System

The U.S. population is becoming more diverse. Currently, racial and ethnic minorities make up 25% of the population. It is estimated that by the year 2030 this proportion will increase to 40% (Allen, 2001). In 1997, the nation's total foreign-born population numbered 26 million, of which 7 million were native of Mexico (US Census Bureau, 2001). As of 1998, the Hispanic population of Texas was 6 million, representing 30% of the state's population. Six Texas counties were at least 90% Hispanic: Starr (98%), Webb (95%), Maverick (95%), Jim Hogg (93%), Brooks (91%), and Zavala (91%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

Mexican American women who reside in the Texas counties that border Mexico have a higher incidence of Neural Tube Defect (NTD) associated pregnancies (Suarez et al., 2000). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of spina bifida, an NTD, can be reduced by half if women consume a healthy diet and adequate folic acid before and during the early weeks of pregnancy (Ahluwalia & Daniel, 2001). Increasing the awareness, and consequently the consumption, of the B vitamin folic acid by Mexican American women is an important strategy for decreasing the number of babies born with diet related NTD.

To address this challenge, a nutrition education program, "The Importance of Nutrition in the Prevention of Birth Defects: Education Outreach in South Texas," was developed and implemented by the Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System in collaboration with the Texas A&M University Health Science Center. Funding for the 3-year project was provided by the Houston Endowment Inc. Curriculum and program outreach materials were titled "Celebrando Los Niños" (celebrate the baby).

Intervention

A culture-centered approach is indispensable to reducing health disparities related to ethnicity (Parangimalil, 2001). With this in mind, the goals of Celebrando los Niños were to identify barriers to folic acid consumption, develop and test culturally sensitive nutrition educational materials, and train professional and lay educators to facilitate the delivery of nutrition education programs to the Mexican American community in south Texas.

The two principal investigators recognized their limitations in designing a relevant program for the target audience as neither were Mexican American nor bilingual. Consequently, they consulted with bicultural advisors, including members of the local Extension faculty. In addition, a bilingual health educator was hired as the local project coordinator.

Insight to the target population was obtained with qualitative research. A local Hispanic marketing agency was hired to conduct focus groups with Mexican American women and men. The bicultural, bilingual facilitator conducted the sessions in Spanish. Concurrent translation to English was provided.

Education materials were developed by the principal investigators in English and translated to Spanish. The Spanish translator was from south Texas and had an appreciation of the target audience and their education level. The project coordinator reviewed the Spanish translations to confirm their appropriateness.

Education materials were pilot tested by trained Texas Cooperative Extension faculty and Expanded Nutrition Program paraprofessionals. Interview of the educators did not indicate problems with the content, format, language, or illustrations. A pre- and post-survey was developed and administered during the pilot testing.

Professional and lay community educators having knowledge about the cultural beliefs, dietary norms, and food practices of the target population were invited to a day-long workshop that focused on the Celebrando los Niños curriculum. The interagency conference was hosted by the Texas Cooperative Extension and included the Texas March of Dimes and the Texas Department of Health Birth Defects Division. Invited participants included Texas Cooperative Extension faculty, health and wellness volunteers, and Expanded Nutrition Program paraprofessionals; local agencies such as the March of Dimes, Department of Health, visiting nurses and promotoras. Pre- and post-surveys were employed to ascertain change in conference attendee knowledge. The conference was conducted in Spanish, the preferred language of the attendees.

Promotoras were invited to the conference because of their ability to reach the intended audience. Promotoras go by many names, including community health worker, lay health advisor, community leader, colonia health worker, etc. Whatever the title of the individual, the role and responsibility of the promotora is the same. The promotora is an advocate, leader, organizer, promoter of issues, not only a community educator, but the eyes and ears of the agencies that serve the community. To the audience they serve, a promotora is "someone who looks and talks like us to help us find ways to be healthier" (Maurana, 2000).

To extend the reach of Celebrando Los Niños, each of the 130 invited conference participants received education resources and was asked to share the lesson with at least 100 Mexican American women during the coming year. The project coordinator, in coordination with local agencies such as the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), continued the momentum by conducting education outreach.

Implications

Extension has a rich history of developing programs for diverse populations (Grogan, 1991; Woodson & Sgamma, 1997). As professionals, we cannot limit outreach to familiar populations and narrow areas of expertise if we are to meet the needs of a changing population and continue to grow in our professional development. This program used content specialists and local faculty to develop a relevant education program for a specific population. Challenges can be overcome with respect for each team member's contribution and a commitment to meet the needs of all populations (Bonder, Martin, & Miracle, 2001).

References

Ahluwalia, I.B., & Daniel, K.L. (2001). Are women with recent live births aware of the benefits of folic acid? May 11, 2001/50.

Allen, C.E. (2001). Presidential address: Eliminating health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 91:7.

Bonder, B., Martin, L., & Miracle, A. (2001). Achieving cultural competence: The challenge for clients and healthcare workers in a multicultural society. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 25:1.

Grogan, S. (1991). Targeting audience for the 21^st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/fut1.html

Maurana, C.A. (2000). Strategies for developing a successful community health advocate program. Family and Community Health.

Parangimalil, G.J. (2001). Latino health in the new millennium: The need for a culture-centered approach. Sociological Spectrum, 21:423-429.

Suarez, L., Hendricks, K.A., Cooper, S.P., Sweeney, A.M., Hardy, R.J., & Larsen, R.D. (2000). Neural Tube Defects among Mexican Americans living on the US-Mexico border: Effects of folic acid and dietary folate. American Journal of Epidemiology, 152:11.

Woodson, J.M., & Sgamma, L.C. (1997). The challenges of reaching a culturally diverse audience. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/tt1.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Hispanic heritage month 1999. Available at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-ff12.html

Electronic "Ask a Master Gardener" Answers Gardening Questions

Mary Hockenberry Meyer
Associate Professor
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Internet Address: meyer023@umn.edu

Beth R. Jarvis
Yard & Garden Line Coordinator
St. Paul, Minnesota
Internet Address: brjarvis@umn.edu

University of Minnesota

In May 2001, a new electronic consumer horticulture answering service was introduced by the University of Minnesota Extension Service called "Ask a Master Gardener." Thirteen Master Gardener volunteers representing 10 counties across the state answer e-mail questions from the public. The "Ask a Master Gardener" Web site <http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/yardandgarden/askmg.html > is linked to the Yard & Garden Line homepage <http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/yardandgarden/>.

The Yard & Garden Line, established in 1998, is a telephone-based consumer garden information service that can be called, toll free, from anywhere in Minnesota. Callers select from several options, including:

• Talking with University staff at the Yard & Garden Clinic (for a $5 flat fee),
• Ordering Extension publications,
• Requesting soil test sample collection materials,
• Listening to pre-recorded tapes on various subjects, or
• Leaving a message for a Master Gardener in the callers' home county to return their call.

With one phone number, consumers can access a wide variety of Extension information.

The Yard & Garden Line (Y & GL) is the successor to Dial U, a telephone-based insect and plant information service started in 1983. Several states use a phone or hotline system to answer public questions (Patterson, 1995; Joh & Barkley, 2001). Dial U established a Web presence in 1996. In 1998 it was changed to reflect all the offerings of the Y & GL. Links to all of the choices on the Y& GL are available, as well as additional information such as Y & GL Briefs (fact sheets), plant disease diagnostics, and insects. An electronic newsletter, the Y & GL News, was started in April 1999. The current issue and a searchable back issues archive are prominent features of the Y & GL Web site.

Public interest in an e-mail information source was evident when the Y & GL News editor began to receive unsolicited e-mail gardening queries. Some respondents simply asked where they could ask a question by e-mail.

Methods and Materials

To handle submission of consumers' gardening questions, the Information Technology team at the University of Minnesota Extension Service created a Web input page that requests name, e-mail address, and Minnesota county of residence plus the question. This information goes into an electronic mail discussion list (Mailman 2.0.5 © Free Software Foundation, Inc.) that, in turn, e-mails the query to the Master Gardener volunteers.

The Master Gardener members select the questions they wish to answer and then post their responses to the "Ask a Master Gardener" WebBoard^TM (WebBoard 5.0.208 ©2001 ChatSpace). Addresses of the inquirer or Master Gardener are never revealed, only that of the moderator. Inquiries are not visible to the public, which also enables screening non-horticultural or inappropriate questions.

Master Gardeners were selected to work in the program based on recommendations from their county educator and to some extent on their participation in the Master Gardener e-mail discussion list (Meyer & Banks, 2000). Experience in answering questions or previous hotline work, computer or e-mail comfort, and location in the state were also considered.

The Master Gardener volunteers were then trained (via e-mail) on how to access and respond to the questions. Master Gardeners try to answer questions from their area of the state, but are not limited to respond to any kind of question. Response time is posted on the site as "within 48 hours," and to date this response time has been met.

Results and Discussion

Over 1,000 questions were received and answered in the first 7 months of operation, May 1 to December 1, 2001 (Table 1). The vast majority of questions came from Minnesota, but approximately 3% came from other states or counties (Table 2). An additional 3% cannot be determined because clients did not select a county or mention a geographic location and have a national e-mail addresses (AOL, Hotmail, etc.)

Questions from other states are answered if possible, but inquiries pertaining to pesticides or plants not hardy to USDA Zone 4 are referred to their home state Extension service. Questions generally are similar to the traditional gardening questions handled on phone hotlines, with trees and perennials being the most popular topics (Table 3).

Master Gardeners often end a response by recommending additional written resources such as Extension publications or bulletins, and these are hot linked at the end of the message. Questions are answered through board postings only and become the content of a public site for teaching horticulture. The questions and answers serve as a gardening and educational resource for other Master Gardeners, as well as the general public.

The WebBoard^TM where all answers are posted has several enhancements, including a search feature of all postings and a listing of questions by topic. Consumers can go to the site and look for similar questions or read other questions that have been already answered.

Master Gardeners who work on the e-mail answering service are comfortable with the system. They indicate it takes longer to type a concise response than to speak on the telephone. However, the lack of dialogue eliminates the need for in-depth questioning in order to make an exact and definitive response.

The Master Gardeners feel the public really likes this method: "they can ask anything, there is no dumb question." Clients can take time to thoughtfully compose their question and check back at their leisure. Responses are more "permanent" than phone conversations and can be reread as needed. Master Gardeners did indicate some frustration with the system (the order of posting messages) and the age-old issue of repetitive questions-- consumers asking questions already answered on the site. Volunteers also appreciate the flexibility and can contribute their hours at odd times at their convenience.

E-mail takes more time to compose than answering a phone call and is inefficient in determining the actual environment of the plant in question. However, public response has been high, with minimal promotion of the site. A link to "Ask a Master Gardener" was featured on the University of Minnesota Extension's homepage <http://www.extension.umn.edu/> for 1 week in the summer. An Extension specialist has also talked about the program on radio gardening programs.

The "Ask a Master Gardener" electronic format has been popular with the public due to its flexible nature, "always open" schedule, and individual, "personal" response.

References

Joh, L., & Barkley, D.V.. (2001) Developing a plant clinic database as an educational tool for master gardener programs. HortTechnology 11: 661-665.

Meyer, M.H., & Banks, W. (2001) E-mail discussion list is rated equal to fact sheets and bulletins in educational value. HortTechnology 11:319-322.

Patterson, D. (1995). Master Gardener phone response manual. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995october/tt4.html

Pennsylvania Gardener Selects Plant Evaluation Program

James C. Sellmer
Assistant Professor of Ornamental Horticulture
Internet Address: jcs32@psu.edu

Robert D. Berghage
Associate Professor of Horticulture
Internet Address: rdb4@psu.edu

Alan H. Michael
Ornamental Horticulture Extension Agent, Dauphin County
Internet Address: ahm4@psu.edu

Toni Bilik
Penn State Master Gardener Coordinator
Internet Address: amb2@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Penn State University has a long history of independent evaluations of plant cultivars for commercial producers, All America Selections (AAS), seed companies, and plant breeders. These trials have been conducted continuously since 1932. Evaluations provide valuable information used in commercial production decisions as well as a resource for professional horticulturists and home gardeners. Each year a number of plants in the trials stand out as superior cultivars. These plants are promoted through published performance results, magazine articles, and seminars; however, information only reaches a fraction of the people who could use and benefit from it.

The Pennsylvania Gardener Selects (PGS) plant evaluation, display, and promotional program was initiated to use this information to expand Pennsylvania plant markets through education, evaluation, and display gardens. The strength of the PGS program lies in two areas:

• An integrated marketing program for plants suited to Pennsylvania conditions.
• An emerging opportunity for Penn State Master Gardeners.

Marketing Program

The PGS program has been warmly received by the Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association (PLNA), Pennsylvania Floral Industries Association (PFIA), and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Board. During the past 3 years the associations have committed $15,000, which has been matched by the Department of Agriculture to result in a total of $30,000 for promotion and marketing of the program and selected plants.

The marketing program for PGS gets its direction from a grower guidance committee composed of industry members and directors of PFIA and PLNA. This committee sets the timetable for notifying growers of newly selected plants. Lead-time for annuals is currently 1 year, with the announcement of selected plants announced to commercial growers. The following year they are announced to the gardening public.

For example, plants evaluated and selected during the 2001 growing season were announced to growers in January 2002 and will be promoted to the gardening public in spring of 2003. The grower guidance committee has also registered a domain name and begun developing a Web site promoting PGS plants <http://www.gardenerselects.com/>.

PGS plants are promoted to commercial growers, garden centers, and landscapers in regional and statewide Extension grower meetings, through PFIA and PLNA member newsletter articles, and in a mailing promoting point-of-purchase material. In addition, the program and selected plants have been highlighted in feature articles in local, regional, and statewide newspapers. Ball Horticulture, a national plant and seed producer, prepared and distributed a national press release that resulted in several national grower magazines developing articles on the PGS program, for example Greenhouse Manager Pro (GM Pro).

The program has been promoted to consumers through newspapers, displays at the Pennsylvania Farm Show, the Philadelphia Flower Show, and numerous local and regional gardening events conducted by Master Gardeners involved in the program. The statewide Master Gardener managed display and educational gardens expand visibility and accessibility of superior selected ornamental plants to every corner of the state, providing home owners and local landscape and garden center personnel a place to see and learn about these plants.

Master Gardener Program

The PGS program began in the summer of 1999 with 29 gardens in 26 of the 67 counties in the Commonwealth. Twenty-two annuals and six herbaceous perennials were evaluated. By 2001, the program grew to 44 display gardens in 39 counties. To date, the program has evaluated approximately 60 plants, of which 22 have been named to the PGS list.

The strength of the Pennsylvania program and its innovation is local involvement of Penn State Master Gardeners. They provide a local focus to generate community interest and local publicity. Master Gardeners benefit from the program through:

• Direct involvement in the evaluation and decision making process,
• Expansion of their role in educating gardeners and green industry personnel on the suitability and qualities of PGS plants, and
• Enhanced local and statewide visibility of the Master Gardener program.

Participating Master Gardeners are trained to conduct plant evaluations during a series of meetings in spring and are responsible for:

• Location of their garden;
• Garden design;
• Preparation, maintenance, evaluation of the plants; and
• Arranging and staffing educational events at their gardens.

Many individual PGS garden sites throughout the state hold open houses, and several are featured as demonstration sites during local home and garden shows. These gardens also provide a unique venue for introducing new plants and cultivars to the market and provide local garden centers, landscape contractors, nursery producers, and designers an opportunity to see first hand and evaluate products that can add to their marketing mix. In addition, display and evaluation gardens are stable statewide locations for educating consumers on quality horticultural products.

Ultimately, the Master Gardeners are perhaps the best endorsement possible for the selected plants, yielding word of mouth recommendations by respected community leaders.

General Program Management

The Penn State trial garden or commercial grower cooperators provide seedling plants for each garden. Cooperating gardens receive materials for planting in the spring between May and June. Evaluation occurs throughout the growing season. Plants are evaluated on:

• Flowering,
• Plant habit,
• Uniformity,
• Foliage,
• Growth,
• Vigor,
• Insect and disease resistance, and
• Overall appeal.

Each character is rated on a 0 to 5 scale with 0 = dead, 1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent. Evaluators for each garden tally ratings and submit them to the Department of Horticulture, where they are tabulated to reflect average, maximum, and minimum ratings in each category.

In the fall, evaluators meet and discuss the overall outcome of their evaluations, educational activities organized around evaluation gardens, and number of visitors attending gardens in their counties. Decisions are also made on "Plant of the Year," Gardener Selects Plants for Pennsylvania Gardens and on plants to evaluate during the coming growing season.

Strategies for Successful Retirement: A 5-Part Series Teaching People How to Plan for Retirement

Kurt M. Jones
County Extension Director
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension
Salida, Colorado
Internet Address: kjones@coop.ext.colostate.edu

Cooperative Extension professionals and others have been offering estate planning and other financial planning workshops for many years (Porter & Christenbury, 1999; Hanson, Parsons, Musser, & Power, 1998; Gorham, DeVaney, & Bechman, 1998; & O'Neill, 1985). Many clients have participated in these 1-day workshops, but they often leave needing additional help or wanting more classes.

Course Design

With the assistance of a local certified financial planner, and notebooks and curriculum from Successful Money Management Seminars, Inc. (2000), Cooperative Extension educators in Chaffee County, Colorado, offered two 5-week financial planning workshops offering a more in-depth look at financial planning, investing, risk-management, and estate planning. Participants paid $50 per individual or couple for the 5-week course to cover notebooks and speaker expenses.

During the first session, participants learned about financial basics, including:

• The time value of money,
• Reasons to plan for retirement,
• Income tax basics, and
• An introduction to retirement income.

During the second session, retirement income and various investments were covered. Session three focused on advanced investments and risk management. Session four dealt with estate planning and review of previous sessions. The uniqueness of this class was realized during session five, which offered participants the opportunity to meet one-on-one with a certified financial planner and receive a personal financial portfolio and confidential counseling on their own unique situations.

Evaluation

In summary evaluations completed by course participants, several questions were asked regarding needs for additional training, overall course ratings, and additional comments. In summarizing the Reichert portion of the evaluation, participants rated the following on a 5-point scale (5=Excellent, 1=Poor):

• Value of Information: 4.83
• Clarity of Information: 4.75
• Quality of Notebook: 4.92
• Use of Visual Aids: 4.75
• Instructor's Delivery: 4.83
• Location: 4.92

Out of 12 couples taking the course, 11 felt the material was at an intermediate level.

Participants were also asked to comment on whether they would recommend this course to another (100% "Yes") and whether they felt the instructor spent too much time in self-promotion (100% "No").

Participants were also asked whether they were planning on taking action regarding their personal financial situation and had an anticipated timeline. All of the participants noted they planned on taking action, and most suggested they planned on starting within the upcoming 3 to 6 months.

To measure whether participants had made anticipated changes, a follow-up letter and survey were sent 5 months following the course. Seventy percent of the surveys sent were returned, with a variety of responses. Of those respondents, 86% had participated in the one-on-one consultation with the Certified Financial Planner. When asked about whether they had made any changes in their financial situations, 57% had made some changes, and an additional 28% still planned on making some changes.

Participants were also asked to comment on the most valuable portions of the course. Responses included:

• Saving for the future. Putting money where it will grow.
• Creating a map for planning retirement strategy.
• Critically analyzing preparation for retirement.
• Understanding/exploring several options (2).

Conclusion

This program was successful in encouraging participants to critically evaluate their retirement needs and to make changes to help them reach their identified goals. Having the group meet over a 5-week timeframe allowed a relaxed learning environment in which participants could delve into more detail where warranted. Having a series of workshops also allowed the presenter an opportunity to gain the group's trust prior to the one-on-one meetings. This series also reached an audience that is not a traditional benefactor of Extension programs.

The certified financial planner understood the need for Extension to remain neutral in terms of types of investment firms/tools and was extremely professional regarding self-promotion. Surveys indicated that all the participants would recommend this class to a friend and that they did not feel pressured to invest with the instructor or his firm.

References

Gorham, E.E., DeVaney, S.A., & Bechman, J.C. (1998). Adoption of financial management practices: A program assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998april/a5.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

O'Neill, B. (1985). Financial planning seminar. Journal of Extension [On-line], 23(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1985summer/iw1.html

Porter, N.M., & Christenbury, J.H. (1999). Money 2000: A model extension program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a1.html

Successful Money Management Seminars, Inc. (2000). Financial Strategies for Successful Retirement.

Something Different: Forestry Training for Land Trusts

Mark G. Rickenbach
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Forest Ecology and Management
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
mgrickenbach@wisc.edu

Introduction

Improved management of forests, particularly on private land, has been a long-standing goal of forestry Extension programs across the country. In formulating programs, forestry Extension faculty have primarily focused educational programs toward individuals. Traditionally, this has meant an impressive array of educational programs and materials for landowners, loggers, and professional foresters.

In recent years, public interest, concern, and debate over forests and their use have broadened the type of learners interested in forests. With greater public interest and actions regarding the management of both public and private forests, new opportunities for Extension programming about forests and their use have emerged. In a few states (e.g., Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin), Extension foresters have identified land trusts as one of these opportunities. This article describes these organizations as learners and reports on what we learned from our first programming effort with these groups in Wisconsin.

Land Trusts

Land trusts are not-for-profit organizations that seek to protect open space across rural and urban landscapes. These organizations protect land in several ways, but all are premised on the active participation of a willing landowner. A landowner may choose to sell or donate property or specific rights associated with ownership. The latter is formalized in a legal arrangement called a conservation easement.

Conservation easements place permanent restrictions on the ways in which land can be used. Easements may prohibit subdivision, construction, conversion, or specific activities (e.g., hunting, timber harvesting, etc.). In the case of conservation easements, land trusts, for their part, ensure that current and future owners comply with the terms of the easement.

In Wisconsin, 45 land trusts, through direct ownership or conservation easement, protect approximately 30,000 acres. As interest in preserving land from sprawl continues, these numbers will likely continue to increase.

Most land trusts are organized and managed locally by volunteers and paid staff. These individuals vary in their knowledge regarding forests. In addition, most education directed at land trusts focuses on the array of legal, organizational, financial, and monitoring topics that are essential to land protection activities. Given that land trusts control sizeable forest resources, basic knowledge among land trust members and staff about forests and their use could enhance the quality of decisions regarding lands under current protection as well as those considered in future purchases and easements.

To address this potential knowledge gap, UW-Madison Extension faculty and staff at the Gathering Waters Conservancy (an umbrella and educational organization for Wisconsin's land trusts) sponsored a workshop to increase the science-based knowledge about forest and wildlife ecology and organizational capacity among land trust members and staff. Attendance was free, but participants were selected through a competitive application process.

Twenty-five land trust members and staff representing 17 land trusts from across the state participated in this intense 2-day educational event. The event included a combination of lectures, facilitated discussions, a field trip, and unstructured time for peer-to-peer interaction. In addition, participants were provided with a substantial number of reference materials ranging from publications and directories to speakers' presentation notes.

Lesson Learned

Our educational design emulated that of previous events for NIPF owners. When programming for NIPF owners, it is common to provide a wide array of topics to appeal to the wide-ranging objectives that NIPF owners have for their property. In our land trust workshop, we presented topics that covered the waterfront of forestry, wildlife, and land trusts.

Based on our simple evaluation of this first event for land trusts members and staff, we suggest that others seeking to serve these learners consider three lessons we learned.

Participants did not favor the "smorgasbord" approach to content. They would prefer more in-depth treatment of fewer topics in a specific land trust context. This treatment should allow for interactions with other learners and multiple expert opinions.

Educational and reference materials should be designed as organizational resources. Our evaluation suggests that organization-wide use occurred. Rethinking the design of materials would include two tasks:

1. The materials selected should include fewer that are event-specific and more that could stand alone. For example, an index could be added to aid in searching for relevant information.
2. Learners would need both an introduction to the materials as well as encouragement and some suggestions for disseminating within the organization.

While our traditional learners may view Extension as a neutral provider of education programs, these new learners are not necessarily so inclined. Few may have experience with Extension and will be more skeptical. We found that working with a trusted liaison (i.e., Gathering Waters) aided Extension's credibility.

Conclusion

Land trusts are a relatively new audience for forestry Extension; however, expanding public interest in forests and their use will likely require a wider array of programming with "non-traditional" learner groups. These situations will require that Extension faculty rethink traditional approaches to forestry outreach.

At a minimum, programming efforts must reflect the context in which land trusts operate. This will include elements of education design and appropriate educational partners that are quite different (at least for us) from those for "traditional" learners.

Beyond forestry Extension, land trusts also present an opportunity for Extension faculty working in agricultural and urban settings in that their emphasis on protecting open space extends beyond the forest's edge.

For more on land trusts, visit the Land Trust Alliance Web site at: http://www.lta.org/.

For more on conservation easements, see the following review: London, J.J., & Langer, R.J. (2002). Conservation easements: Important tools to preserve land. Wisconsin Lawyer 75 (30 <http://www.wisbar.org/wislawmag/2002/03/london.html>.

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