|
April 2004
|
       |
FeaturesIdentifying the Public Value in Extension ProgramsLaura Kalambokidis Public Value Is Crucial to Program SupportThe current economic climate has placed significant pressure on the budgets of state and county governments. In turn, those governments have compelled state Cooperative Extension Services to defend their continued receipt of state and county funding. Even when policymakers are persuaded of the efficacy of an Extension program, they have questioned whether the program should be supported with scarce public dollars rather than through user charges. In his book, Creating Public Value, Mark Moore explains that a government agency can secure public support for its services by articulating what he calls the "public value" of those services (Moore, 1995, p. 28). In contrast with the private value that accrues to an individual who purchases a private good, public value is created when a service benefits society as a whole. When a service is recognized as having significant public value, even citizens who do not directly benefit from the service will endorse its public funding. When a service is not recognized as having significant public value, citizens believe that it should have the same status as a private good and should be purchased on the private market for a price. Cooperative Extension, the recipient of funding from several levels of government, faces the challenge described by Moore (1995
Public sector economics addresses this very challenge by identifying the conditions that call for a service to be publicly funded. Those conditions include the classic cases of market failure--imperfect information, externalities, public goods, and natural monopoly--as well as the desire of a community to ensure fairness and justice. When those conditions are met, collective action (possibly, though not necessarily, through government intervention) leads to general improvements in welfare. This article describes an approach for systematically applying the principles of public sector economics to Extension programs in order to formulate a persuasive argument for the programs' public support. The approach, which has been developed into a workshop for Extension program teams, begins with an assessment of whether and how the measured impacts of a particular Extension program address one or more of the economic justifications for government intervention. We then try to determine which of those justifications represents the strongest argument for the program. In the process, we will either develop a strong message about the public value of the program, which can be used to shore up public support, or we will establish that public funding for the program, in its current form, is not justified. Therefore, the approach serves to both sustain programs that have strong public value and identify programs that do not. The workshop was developed at the request of University of Minnesota Extension administrators, who had observed a gap in program directors' messages about their programs. Program directors were asked, "What evidence do you have of this program being valued by the public?" Having successfully delivered programs that satisfied client needs, program directors understandably responded by enumerating their program's value to direct participants. They described the programs' documented impacts on participant behavior or welfare, presented strong participant evaluations and individual testimonials, and showed that participants were willing to pay a fee to access the program. However, to secure public funding for a program, Extension staff must also be able to explain why citizens and policymakers who are not direct program participants should value the program. Extension administrators found that their program teams could not adequately make these arguments. Consequently, Extension administrators commissioned a workshop, "Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs," to help program teams develop a "public value statement." Based on the principles of public sector economics, the statement would convey the program's value to citizens in an economically sound, but accessible, way. Ultimately, the statements would be used by the program team, Extension administration, and Extension's communications office to secure support for the program. Three, 2-hour pilot workshops took place in October 2002 on the St. Paul campus of the University of Minnesota. Ten Minnesota Extension Service program teams from five different subject areas attended one of the three workshops. The 10 programs would be highlighted at the statewide Extension Service conference, where program teams would be asked to present their newly developed public value statements. In addition to the workshop, program teams participated in two more steps (listed in Figure 1 and described below) that provided them with additional guidance on preparing their statements.
Program Teams Participated in Four Steps to Identify the Public Value of Their ProgramStep 1: Program Teams Participated in the Workshop PresentationThe "Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs" workshop was developed and presented by the author of this article, a faculty member and Extension Economist in the Department of Applied Economics with expertise in public finance. Extension administrators and other Applied Economics faculty made helpful suggestions and reviewed early drafts of the materials. The first hour of the workshop consisted of a presentation followed by a discussion session. The presenter explained the possible justifications for government intervention in a market economy by teaching the economic concepts listed in Table 1: imperfect information, the distribution of resources, public goods, external benefits (and costs) of production and consumption, and natural monopoly. In each of these cases, the presenter introduced the concepts with illustrations from outside of Extension. The presenter then named (or solicited from the participants) examples of Extension programs that might fit these criteria. For example, the case of a public good was illustrated with the classic textbook example of a lighthouse: once the lighthouse is operational, it is impossible to exclude any passing ship from receiving its warning, and no one's ability to benefit from the lighthouse is diminished when an additional ship captain sees the light. As an Extension example, consider a program that facilitates the revitalization of Main Street in a rural town. It is at least costly, if not impossible, to try to exclude anyone from enjoying the spiffed up facades and increased economic activity in the town center. Moreover, at least for small increases in population, new residents don't reduce anyone else's enjoyment of the improvements. Table 1 defines the economic concepts and lists some of the examples used in the workshop.
The Main Street example above illustrates something that quickly became clear as workshop participants applied the economic concepts to their own programs: Extension programs rarely fit neatly into the textbook definitions that appear in Table 1. In fact, it might be technically feasible (though costly) to exclude non-taxpayers from benefiting from the revitalized town center. And eventually, additional citizens will create congestion, reducing the benefits for everyone. The workshop emphasized that, in practice, Extension programs are a mix of private and public goods, possessing some of the characteristics of both. Moreover, Extension programs often address more than one market failure. For example, a youth development program generates external benefits by helping youth become more productive citizens. But, if the program is targeted to low-income families, it also addresses a concern about fairness. During the workshop, participants were drawn into discussions of several additional complicating factors. The presentation made clear that when any of the criteria from Table 1 are satisfied, intervention in the private market is warranted. In some cases, the market failure can be addressed through the collective action of a group of citizens; other cases call for formal government intervention. Moreover, the government could respond in any number of ways besides actual provision of a good or service. For example, if the residents of a rural community inadequately maintain their septic systems, causing environmental and health problems, the government could:
In the workshop, we noted that, while the market failure conditions call for market intervention, which form of intervention is best depends on the specific case. The presentation allowed that a program may be justified by a crucial concern about fairness and justice, and very many Extension program teams believe that their program does address this concern. However, if the Extension Service tries to argue that all of their programs deserve public support "because it is only fair" that everyone have access to the programs at no charge, the public value message will quickly become diluted. Therefore, the workshop presentation emphasized that the "fairness argument" should be used sparingly. To help teams decide whether theirs was a program that could be justified on fairness grounds, they were advised to consider three questions about the program. (See Figure 2.) The more of these questions the team could answer with "yes," the stronger would be their fairness argument.
Similarly, very many program teams believe that their programs address a market failure from imperfect information. Again, the workshop presentation emphasized that this argument should only be made when the case was very strong. To help program teams decide whether their program could be justified on the grounds of imperfect information, they were instructed to consider four questions about the program. (See Figure 3.) Again, teams that could answer these questions affirmatively would be able to make the most persuasive arguments.
Step 2: Program Teams Begin Drafting a Public Value StatementAfter the presentation and discussion, workshop participants were asked to break into program groups to begin developing their public value statements. Participants were reminded that for the upcoming Extension conference, they would be expected to:
The groups were expected to only begin drafting a statement during the 1-hour workshop session and to complete it outside the workshop. They were advised to get started by brainstorming about all of the possible ways their program might satisfy the criteria for public funding and then eliminate those claims that could not be substantiated by evidence and research. Finally, they were instructed to choose only those substantiated claims that would be most persuasive to citizens who are not directly served by the program. In short, the aim was to produce the strongest, most defensible, and most concise public value statement possible. Throughout this portion of the workshop, the presenter was available to answer questions and help guide the discussions. This one-on-one consulting seemed especially helpful for identifying all of the possible ways a program might satisfy the public funding criteria. Since the teams knew the programs best, they could name program impacts and outcomes that the presenter was unfamiliar with. Then the presenter helped to fit those impacts and outcomes into the economic criteria. Independently, some participants indicated that even more one-on-one consulting would have been helpful. Step 3: Applied Economists Reviewed the Draft StatementsShortly after the workshop, program teams were asked to submit their draft public value statements for review by two economists from the University of Minnesota's Department of Applied Economics. The draft statements were assigned to faculty members according to subject matter expertise. The economists were asked to critique the statements and to provide constructive suggestions to improve the statements' economic soundness. Some program teams reported that they did not find this step as helpful as the other steps. Perhaps the usefulness of this step could be improved if, instead of giving written comments, the faculty were drawn into a discussion of the program with the program team, providing more of the one-on-one consulting that seemed helpful during the workshops. Step 4: Conference Participants Gave Feedback on the Public Value PresentationsUsing the comments from the applied economists, the program teams revised their public value statements and incorporated them into a presentation for the annual statewide Extension Service conference. The presenters described the program, its impact and effectiveness, and answered the question, "Why use public funds to support this program?" The presentations included a "question and answer" session, when staff not involved with the featured program could give the presenting teams feedback on their public value messages. Outcome of the "Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs" ProcessAfter the program teams had completed the four steps, they were asked to evaluate how useful each step was for "explaining to someone who did not directly participate in the program why they should endorse its public funding." Program teams rated each step as "very useful, "somewhat useful," "not very useful," or "not at all useful." For all except step 3, the five teams who evaluated the process rated each step, on average, as "somewhat useful." Perhaps a more telling measure of the effectiveness of the public value process is the change in the teams' messages about their own programs. While all of the pre-workshop messages focused on the value of the program to direct participants, all 10 conference presentations emphasized the value of the program to those not directly served. And every team supported their arguments with the public finance concepts learned in the workshop, albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness. Therefore, through the workshop, each team was able to improve their potential to secure program support from non-program-participants. Despite these observed changes, we cannot yet evaluate whether the newly drafted statements actually are effective in persuading citizens and policymakers, because Extension administrators are only beginning to use them. Through the pilot workshops, we found that the ease of crafting a good public value statement varied a great deal among programs. For some programs, it seemed immediately clear which market failure the program addressed, and the case for public support came relatively easily. For example, it seems straightforward to demonstrate that nutrition education programs directed at needy families address fairness (all families, regardless of their income, should have adequate nutrition) and public goods (adequate nutrition leads to sound public health). But even a seemingly simple case may also address a less obvious economic issue. For example, a nutrition education program may also address the case of imperfect information in the private market. Private enterprises may supply nutrition information that is biased by their profit motive, and better information may be too costly for low-income families to obtain. Government intervention, in the form of nutrition educators, is justified to help low-income consumers make the best food choices for their families. For many programs in the wide-ranging Extension portfolio, the case is not so easy to make. Consider, for example, agricultural research and farmer-education programs that aim to increase productivity and reduce producer costs. Historically, these programs have been justified to the public with the promise of lower food prices--which directly benefit consumers--or increased farmer income--which is valued by citizens who cherish the economic vitality of farm communities. In fact, whether agricultural research leads to lower food prices, higher farmer income, or higher profits for agribusinesses will depend on the type of research, the structure of the commodity market, and the relative economic power of farmers, processors, and retailers. (For a discussion of the impact of agricultural research, see Alston and Pardey, 1999.) Stronger arguments can be made for programs that produce high external benefits, such as those that induce farmers to adopt environmentally sound practices or programs aimed at poor farmers (Umali-Deininger, 1997). For program teams charged with developing a public value statement, putting all of this into a concise message can be difficult. Next Steps for ExtensionThe "Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs" pilot workshops helped 10 Minnesota Extension programs develop a message about the public value of their programs. There are several additional steps that the Extension Service, with input from public finance economists, can take to increase public support for their programs.
Finally, Extension must decide what to do with revenue raised through fees. Funds could be reinvested in the programs that generated the revenue, or they could be used to support programs that have significant public value and will not generate revenue on their own. ReferencesAlston, J. M., & Pardey, P. G. (1999). The economics of agricultural R&D policy. In J. M. Alston, P. G. Pardey, & V. H. Smith (Eds.), Paying for agricultural productivity. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Umali-Deininger, D. (1997). Public and private agricultural extension: partners or rivals? The World Bank Research Observer, 12(2), 203-204.
Evidence-Based ExtensionRachel Dunifon Michael Duttweiler Karl Pillemer Donald Tobias William M.K. Trochim Ithaca, New York IntroductionSince its inception, one of the central goals of the USDA Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service has been to translate the best of current research into practice. In establishing Land Grant Universities and the Cooperative Extension Service, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 stated that its "...work shall consist of the development of practical applications of research knowledge...," and the recent Kellogg Commission review of the land-grant system included the need for "conscious efforts to bring the resources and expertise at our institutions to bear on community, state, national, and international problems in a coherent way (Kellogg Commission, 2000, page 6). Historically, Extension faculty have conducted research with an expectation that the knowledge generated would be disseminated through local offices to address the issues and problems of communities. This tradition of research synthesis, translation, and dissemination in Cooperative Extension is consonant with the recent evolution of "evidence-based" research, which includes a thorough scientific review of the research literature, the identification of the most effective interventions or strategies, and a commitment to translating the results of this process into guidelines for practice. This article summarizes the evidence-based research movement, provides an example of work designed to translate evidence-based research to practice, and considers some of the implications for Extension. We offer several ways in which Extension can connect with ongoing evidence-based activities in relevant areas. By doing so, Extension can further improve its use of research-based practice and also inform and advance the ongoing evidence-based work occurring in the scientific community. A Brief Review of Evidence-Based PracticeThe term "evidence-based," when used to describe the conjunction of research and practice, comes originally from medical research (Antes, 1998), where it is termed "evidence-based medicine" (EBM) or sometimes more generically "evidence-based practice" (EBP). Features of Evidence-Based PracticeThere is no clear or universally accepted definition of "evidence-based," but the following features generally characterize such approaches:
The Cochrane CollaborationThe "granddaddy" of review systems comes from medicine and is known as the Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org). It consists of numerous review groups from across the spectrum of medical specialties and involves hundreds of researchers who collaborate on systematic reviews. These reviews follow a very specific methodology for selecting and analyzing studies, and the results are published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Library (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/clibintro.htm) is the online resource that publishes the completed reviews. A controversial aspect of the Cochrane Collaboration is the almost exclusive emphasis it places on randomized experiments, a research design in which participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Because these two groups are equivalent, any result showing that the people receiving the treatment showed an improved outcome can be attributed to the treatment itself. This type of design is well-established in medical research but often more challenging to implement in more applied contexts (and are rare in evaluations of Extension programs). Evidence-based approaches such as the Cochrane Collaboration have influenced virtually every area of medical practice. For instance, public health has developed evidence-based efforts in areas ranging from physical activity to tobacco control (Brownson, Baker, Leet, & Gillespie, 2002). In recent years, the idea of EBP has been spreading rapidly to new fields outside of medicine and public health. In 1999, the Campbell Collaboration (Schuerman et al., 2002) (http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/) was created as a counterpart to the Cochrane Collaboration and focuses on social, behavioral, and education arenas. Other organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute, and Child Trends, are actively undertaking evidence-based reviews of research and the publication of resulting guidelines for practice. Arguments in favor of Evidence-Based PracticeThere are several compelling arguments in favor of EBP. The use of formal methods and reliance on panels of scientists to review results help encourage a more thorough and rigorous review of research than lone investigator literature reviews tend to produce. Additionally, formal recommendations or "best" practices or guidelines help to assure a higher degree of consonance between the system of science-based knowledge generation and the world of practice. In an age where information overload is a significant concern, it is often difficult for practitioners to distinguish legitimate science claims from pseudo-science. Additionally, practitioners too often develop programs and policies based in whole or in part on anecdotal evidence and intuition, uninformed by the most recent science. EBP offers a systematic approach for summarizing the best that current science has to offer in an area and packaging the programs and interventions that were actually tested in a manner that is accessible to the practitioner. Proponents maintain that EBP strategies have been transformative, have improved practice, and have produced a paradigm shift in the education of practitioners (Davidoff, 1999; Hoge, Jacobs, Belitsky, & Migdole, 2002). Criticisms of Evidence-Based PracticeThe development of EBP has not been without significant challenges. Identifying all aspects of the published literature applicable to the practices being studied is difficult (Robinson & Dickersin, 2002). Further, it is hard to maintain the infrastructure and funding necessary to ensure high-quality, consistent reviews (Laupacis, 2002). Additionally, there is often disagreement about the methods used to score the quality of studies (Juni, Witschi, Bloch, & Egger, 1999). Critics in medicine have argued that EBP threatens the autonomy of the physician practitioner (Armstrong, 2002; Hampton, 2002), is in opposition to a patient-centered model of care (Armstrong, 2002), and is simply the latest methodological fad (Bauchner, 1999). Some argue that applied programs in medical practice (Rothwell, 2002) or public health (Rychetnik, Frommer, Hawe, & Shiell, 2002), are too complex and context-dependent to be well-described by EBP syntheses. One can reasonably expect that analogous arguments will also be raised by practitioners in other fields. This criticism could pose a major barrier to widespread adoption of evidence-based approaches in Extension. The obstacle lies in the culture of Extension work. That is, limiting Extension programs to only those on which there is sound empirical evidence of effectiveness (especially based on randomized controlled trial research) would be perceived as foreign to many in the Extension system, in part because many programs are developed in collaboration with communities rather than delivered in standardized form. It is highly unlikely that the evidence-based requirements will be so stringently applied to Extension work. However, this perspective does offer a challenge to Extension professionals: to rigorously examine what, if any, basis in empirical research exists for programs they promote and to design new programs based on those that have been proven effective through evidence-based reviews. Evidence-Based Example: Promotion of Physical ActivityTo illustrate more concretely what an evidence-based approach looks like and how the results could be used within Extension, we present an example of evidence-based research endeavors in the area of the promotion of physical activity. This is an area in which Extension is active, as shown by the "Healthy People, Healthy Communities" initiative. In this area, evidence-based syntheses and reviews have already been completed, and significant effort has already been expended on the development of guidelines for practitioners. Development of GuidelinesThe evidence-based review on physical activity was undertaken as part of a larger project, the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) (Briss et al., 2000). The Guide (available online at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/) is designed to be an evidence-based resource for community public health practitioners. The steps used by the Guide Task Force to review and synthesize evidence and generate recommendations were:
Step 5 constituted the heart of the research synthesis and involved careful coding of each research study on physical activity that was considered to be relevant and synthesizing results across similar studies through simple statistical analysis. The Guide did not require that studies be limited only to randomized experiments. In applied community-based public health interventions, such a requirement would likely prove too restrictive. The end result of this process is the development of a set of guidelines for practitioners. Table 1 summarizes these guidelines. Physical activity interventions were classified as either having strong evidence of effectiveness, having sufficient evidence, or not having enough evidence, based on things such as the number of studies on the intervention, the study designs, and whether results were replicated across many studies (Centers on Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). Interested readers are referred to the Guide Web site for more details. Considerable effort went into making the recommendations as concise, readable. and straightforward as possible, while ensuring the maximum level of scientific accuracy.
Complete results are available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/default.htm Putting Guidelines into PracticeThe chapter of the Guide on physical activity is an example of evidence-based practice guidelines that were developed based upon an evidence-based meta-analysis. But the development of guidelines alone is not sufficient to ensure their adoption in practice. Recent efforts have been directed at filling this gap. The Translating Research into Improved Outcomes (TRIO) program (Kerner & Vinson, 2002) is a collaborative initiative coordinated through the National Cancer Institute that includes a variety of activities designed to translate guidelines into actual practice. One of the most important and innovative of the TRIO activities is the PLANET (Plan, Link, Act, Network with Evidence-based Tools) program (Kerner, Vinson, & Cynkin, 2003). PLANET is a Web site (http://cancercontrolplanet.cancer.gov/) that provides for public health practitioners and researchers a simple five-step process for developing local programs (in this case, cancer-fighting programs). The PLANET Web site represents an ambitious, state-of-the-art effort to link evidence-based research and practice in the area of cancer control and to evaluate the results of such dissemination efforts. These steps, detailed below, are highly relevant to Extension educators who are seeking to identify, obtain funding for, and initiate new, research-based, programs in their communities. The five steps of PLANET are as follows.
Applications for ExtensionSteps 3 and 4 of this process are especially notable for Extension educators and represent a real innovation in the ways in which Extension educators can use research to inform their programs. Once educators identify an area in which they would like to intervene, they can determine which approaches are most effective and then choose from several specific programs that were used in the original scientific research and demonstrated as effective. For example, educators seeking to promote physical activity in their community would learn that developing a school-based physical education program is likely to be more effective than a mass media campaign. They could then identify specific physical education programs in the PLANET database that have been shown to be effective in the research. This is a change from the typical ways in which research has been used to inform Extension. Although Extension currently benefits from research summaries on "best" practice guidelines and syntheses of research, an evidence-based Extension program would make such reviews more systematic than those currently available. Rigorous, agreed-upon standards would be applied to reviews of a series of relevant topics, would be coordinated across states and universities, and would link more directly with cutting edge research communities. Instead of Extension educators creating their own programs based on general conclusions gleaned from research disseminated to them via summaries produced by one or more Extension faculty members familiar with the literature, the educator can draw on a database of programs that have been systematically analyzed. This is not meant to preclude local adaptation of such programs or the need to tailor them appropriately. It simply suggests that the starting point for local program development would be closer to the actual programs on which the scientific evidence is based. Implications of Evidence-Based Practice for ExtensionThe emerging movement of evidence-based research is likely to have a significant impact on USDA-CSREES and State Cooperative Extension Systems. Many of the practice areas addressed in evidence-based practice, such as the promotion of physical activity, fall directly within the purview of Extension. As evidence-based research moves into a broader array of applied fields, there is likely to be a corresponding increase in the number of Extension-relevant reviews. How might Extension get involved in evidence-based efforts like these? We envision several possibilities. InitiatorsFirst, Extension educators and faculty can act as initiators of new evidence-based projects, playing a leadership role in identifying topics where there is both the greatest need for and feasibility of accomplishing high quality evidence-based reviews. As noted by Schuerman et al. (2002), evidence-based research groups such as the Campbell Collaboration rely on volunteers to help identify topics for review. Extension organizations have both the experience and access to play a key role in identifying topics--through surveys, issue scanning, concept mapping, or other means--that could benefit from rigorous review and communicating this information to the review groups. CollaboratorsSecond, Extension faculty could actively participate in the evidence review process, working as collaborators with other organizations on doing evidence-based reviews and guideline development. The Extension system is an ideal mechanism for identifying and pulling together a nationwide network of researchers who can collaborate with others on evidence-based reviews of relevant topics. With faculty in major research universities across the United States, Extension can work to identify specialists in specific fields and tap their expertise to contribute to evidence-based reviews in specific areas. DisseminatorsThird, Extension could serve a dissemination role, making use of the national network of Extension offices. A key role of Extension faculty would be to categorize and package evidence-based information and disseminate it to educators, who could then use it in their existing programs and in developing and obtaining funding for new initiatives. For example, the National Cancer Institute is developing training on PLANET (Kerner et al., 2003) to help Extension educators learn how to implement and evaluate evidence-based cancer control program (e.g., disease prevention, early detection, and survivorship). These efforts could, at relatively little expense, be expanded nationwide, encouraging broad consistency in programs across the Extension system and helping assure that practice is linked to the most up-to-date scientific research. Web-based portals could be used by Extension educators to access relevant evidence-based reviews and practice guidelines. There are some potential roadblocks for Extension when disseminating evidence-based reviews into practice guidelines. In particular, such guidelines will only be useful and inform actual practice if educators feel that the contexts of the research studies are relevant to the contexts in which they work. Therefore, efforts must be made to illustrate ways in which research studies are generalizable to a larger population and to point out ways in which results from such studies are specific only to the contexts in which the research occurred. Attention to such factors should be both a key feature and a unique contribution of Evidence-Based Extension efforts, and would differentiate EBE from other evidence-based endeavors. EvaluatorsFinally, Extension is in an ideal position to play a key role as evaluators of the effects of evidence-based practice guidelines and programs. Extension has the experience and the local presence throughout the nation to be on the ground coordinating the distribution of evidence-based programs and interventions, and the collection of relevant outcome data. Extension educators have a rich tradition of implementing programs and interventions, and gathering evaluative data about their effectiveness. In short, Extension is a broad-based existing natural laboratory that can be utilized to implement evidence-based results and to evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts. This would require, minimally, an organizational commitment to coupling dissemination of evidence-based results with systems for evaluation process and outcome data collection and the synthesis of such results. This commitment would need to take place at both the national and state levels to ensure systematic dissemination of results and collection of outcomes. Evaluation is, perhaps, both the greatest challenge to and opportunity for a major role for Extension in the evidence-based endeavor. For the example of physical activity discussed here, this might include the following:
On some of these evaluations, Extension could take a primary role or even be the exclusive evaluator. But in many, Extension would partner with other organizations (National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Cancer Society), providing expertise in evaluation, access to the Extension network, and a local program and evaluation presence. Summary and ConclusionThis article argues that, despite the potential barriers, Extension should embrace this new movement to link scientific evidence and practice. Evidence-based practice entails a thorough scientific review of the research literature, the identification of the most effective interventions or strategies, and a commitment to translating the results of this process into guidelines for practice. This process corresponds closely to the goals of USDA CSREES. We have offered several ways in which Extension can connect with ongoing EBP activities in relevant areas. By doing so, Extension can further improve its use of research-based practice, and also inform and advance the ongoing EBP work occurring in the scientific community. ReferencesAntes, G. (1998). Evidence-based medicine. Internist, 39(9), 899-908. Armstrong, D. (2002). Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour. Soc Sci Med, 55(10), 1771. Bauchner, H. (1999). Evidence-based medicine: A new science or an epidemiologic fad? Pediatrics, 103(5), 1029-1031. Briss, P. A., Zaza, S., Marguerite, P., Fielding, J., Wright-De Aguero, L., Truman, B. I., et al. (2000). Developing an Evidence-Based Guide to Community Preventive Services-Methods. Am J Prev Med, 18 (1S), 35-43. Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Leet, T. L., & Gillespie, K. N. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-Based Public Health: Oxford University Press. Centers on Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Increasing physical activity: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, MMWR 2001; 50(no.RR-18). Davidoff, F. (1999). In the teeth of the evidence: The curious case of evidence- based medicine. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 66(2), 75-83. Hampton, J. R. (2002). Evidence-based medicine, opinion-based medicine, and real-world medicine. Perspect Biol Med, 45(4), 549-568. Hoge, M. A., Jacobs, S., Belitsky, R., & Migdole, S. (2002). Graduate education and training for contemporary behavioral health practice. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 29(4-5), 335-357. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta- analysis. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(11), 1054-1060. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (2000)."Renewing the Covenant: Learning, Discovery and Engagement in a New Age and a Different World". Available at: http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/Kellogg2000_covenant.pdf Kerner, J., & Vinson, C. (2002). Informing research dissemination & diffusion with audience input through concept mapping. Paper presented at the 130th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Philadelphia, PA. Kerner, J., Vinson, C., & Cynkin, L. (2003). Cancer Control PLANET-Plan, Link and Act with Evidence-based Tools, 2003 Priester Conference. Phoenix, Arizona. Laupacis, A. (2002). The Cochrane Collaboration - how is it progressing? Statistics in Medicine, 21(19), 2815-2822. Robinson, K. A., & Dickersin, K. (2002). Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(1), 150-153. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rothwell, P. M. (2002). Why do clinicians sometimes find it difficult to use the results of systematic reviews in routine clinical practice? Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(2), 200-209. Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(2), 119-127. Schuerman, J., Soydan, H., Macdonald, G., Forslund, M., de Moya, D., & Boruch, R. (2002). The Campbell collaboration. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(2), 309-317. Upshur, R. E. G. (2002). If not evidence, then what? Or does medicine really need a base? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 8(2), 113-119.
Supporting the Critical Administrative Leadership Role of County DirectorsDavid Campbell Jim Grieshop Al Sokolow Joan Wright University of California, Davis IntroductionThis article focuses on the administrative leadership role of Cooperative Extension county directors (CDs), arguing that this role is critical to a robust system of county-based Extension. As the most visible administrative presence of the university in local communities, CDs have a unique opportunity to network, scan opportunities, identify community and university assets, design and market programs, build public support, and solve problems (Bennett, 1990; Cooper & Graham, 2001; DeYoung, 1988; Fesenmaier & Contractor, 2001; Jackson & Smith, 1999). Yet this leadership potential is often thwarted by an avalanche of routine paperwork, a merit review system that rewards narrowly defined expertise, and inadequate support from university bureaucracies and leaders. Our analysis draws on a survey of the administrative workload, satisfactions, and frustrations of University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) county directors. As of March 1, 2003, the UCCE employed 170 campus-based specialists and 263 county-based "advisors" (comparable to what some other states call county "agents"). The state's 35 million people are spread among 58 counties, typically larger in size and population and more diverse demographically and ecologically than counties in most other states. As a result, there is considerable variation in the role and functions of local UCCE offices and in the degree to which they have supportive relationships with local government officials. About one-fifth of California's 263 advisors serve as county directors. These 49 county directors are the point persons for all internal administrative processes, and they are the most visible point of contact between the land grant university and the local community. They play a central role in the staff merit review process and bear ultimate responsibility for UCCE programs in the county. Some responsibilities fall to CDs by default--for example, when there are staff vacancies and essential programs must be maintained. Overall, the CD performs a complex set of managerial functions and faces pressures and demands similar to other county government department heads or executive directors of community-based nonprofit agencies. Three structural obstacles make it difficult for UCCE county directors to flourish as administrative leaders. First, as academic employees, county directors are primarily evaluated according to criteria that emphasize their research and outreach education roles rather than their administrative leadership contributions (Weiser, 1997). This reward system persists despite the essential role that county directors play in local issues, state and federal accountability, program and staff development, and fulfillment of administrative mandates. Second, CDs are situated at the nexus of two separate administrative systems--one tied to county government and one to the university. As a result, they have reporting responsibilities in two different chains of command, each with its own rules, definitions, procedures, and working arrangements. For example, California county directors must supervise both university-paid and county-paid personnel, under two distinct sets of personnel policies and procedures. Third, despite these complex demands and responsibilities, county directors typically come to the role with little or no previous administrative experience, having been hired based on their academic and programmatic expertise. Thrust into their administrative roles with minimal orientation and very little ongoing support and training, county directors often must "learn by doing"--coping with their duties on their own as issues arise. The survey data reveal many frustrations associated with these realities, but also the tremendous satisfaction county directors derive from their local connections. The data supports altering both the reward system and internal administrative practices to better support the community leadership provided by county directors. Such reforms are particularly warranted given the need to build public support for Extension budgets, a prospect enhanced when Extension practice embodies the historic ideal of the "engaged university" (Boyer, 1996; Brown & Witte, 2000; Ehrlich, 1999; Jackson & Smith, 1999; Kellogg Commission, 1999; Matthews, 1999; Peters, 1996). MethodsWe included all UCCE county directors (N=49) in a "fax and phone" survey conducted between April 1 and May 30, 2002. CDs were asked to base their responses on the 2001 calendar year. As such, the data represent a snapshot of county director workloads and concerns at one period in time, from 49 perspectives. The survey procedure was to schedule a phone interview with the county director and then to fax a survey form in advance of the scheduled interview. On average, interviews lasted just under 1 hour. Four Cooperative Extension Specialists in Community Development at UC Davis conducted the interviews. Each interview was tape recorded so that responses to open-ended questions could be transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Profile of County Directors SurveyedThe 49 county directors surveyed are a veteran group. They work long hours and spend more than half of that time on administrative duties. Average tenure in Cooperative Extension is 20 years (range is 6 months to 37 years), with only seven having been in the organization for 10 years or fewer. Average tenure as a CD in their current county is 7 years (range is 2 months to 23 years), with about half of CDs having served for fewer than 5 years.
Forty-one CDs are considered county department heads, meaning they have formal reporting and supervisory responsibilities within county government, attend regular county department head meetings, and are assigned related duties. About half of CDs (24) hold indefinite appointments; 20 have 3-year renewable appointments, and one has a 5-year renewable appointment (the other four in the sample included three interim CDs and one recently retired CD). UCCE provides annual administrative stipends to county directors ranging from $2,000 to $7,500; two-thirds of the stipends are for $4,000 or less. These stipends form only a very small part of the overall salary packages for CDs, which range from $46,700 to $115,300. Administrative WorkloadsThe number of reported hours worked per week ranged from 40-75, with about two-thirds of all CDs exceeding 50 hours per week. On average, the 49 CDs spend 60% of their time on administrative duties and 40% on programmatic responsibilities. A majority (60.9%) of CDs spent more time on administration than specified in the job description, and one-third (N=16) spent substantially more (15-45%) of their time on administration than indicated in the job description (Table 2).
There is considerable variation in the number of academic and non-academic employees supervised by different county directors. On average, county offices have 5 county-paid and 14 university-paid employees, and CDs directly supervise 5 academic staff and 9 non-academic staff.
The need to secure grants for research and outreach programs is a fact of life for all UCCE academics, and tight university budgets exacerbate this part of the county director workload. Indeed, the fact that county directors and other UCCE staff can leverage their university connections to secure extramural grant funding for projects of local significance is an important role for county offices. University records revealed that the average UCCE county office had 12 grants or contracts (range 0 to 37) in May 2002. Half of the counties have nine or more grants or contracts, and a quarter of the counties have 16 or more grants or contracts. The dollar value of these account balances averages $237,802 per county (range is $3,918 to $804,207). As a point of comparison, the average UCCE county office budget (from university and county allocations combined) in 2001 was $721,661. Overall, CDs estimate that they spent considerably more time on university requirements (63%) than on county requirements (37%). We presented each CD with a list of major categories of administrative functions and asked them to rate how time consuming each is. The list included personnel, financial, program reporting, compliance, meetings, facilities and equipment, risk management, and public relations (including generating support). We also asked which responsibilities had increased significantly in the past 5-10 years. The most time-consuming aspects of the CD job include university personnel procedures, risk management requirements, and meeting demands. Increases in administrative responsibilities over the past 5-10 years are attributed to new university demands rather than to county requirements (Table 4).
Local Connections and Their Benefits to UCCEWe asked CDs about the types of agencies and organizations with which they had regular or significant interaction during 2001 and the benefits to UCCE of developing these organizational connections (Tables 5 & 6). Many CDs cited this element as the most satisfying aspect of their work.
Satisfactions and FrustrationsThe survey revealed a consistent pattern: satisfactions tend to be associated with county-related aspects of administrative work, and frustrations tend to be associated with university-related work (Table 7 & 8). As one CD stated:
CDs are most likely to find satisfaction by increasing the visibility and support for county programs, developing a happy and productive staff, and solving local problems. We heard many comments like the following.
Of the 49 CDs surveyed, 36 (74%) mentioned one or more university-related concerns as a source of frustration. The comments emphasized the counterproductive nature of many university procedures and rules, which work against programmatic effectiveness and add burdens to workloads of CDs. CDs also lamented a lack of understanding by university administrators of the work occurring in the front lines of the organization.
Asked to suggest changes that would support their administrative roles, CDs offered comments such as these.
CDs expressed particular frustration with the lack of recognition of their administrative work in the merit and review process
The widely shared perception is that programmatic accomplishments are the driving force of the institutional reward system and that managerial and administrative leadership tasks are not valued and important in their own right.
Conclusion and ImplicationsCalifornia's Cooperative Extension county directors make broad and deep county and community connections and are well positioned as the local "eyes and ears" of the university. The CDs we surveyed consistently report that community networking is the most meaningful and valuable part of their job, which otherwise is dominated by an overabundance of routine paperwork and hassles with university bureaucracies. Despite their evident frustration, our respondents still believe deeply in the county-based vision of Cooperative Extension, because they see how it can and often does work to the benefit of both the community and the university. Yet the findings also suggest the perception of a pervasive disconnect between the realities of this county-level Extension work with its everyday pressures on the one hand, and the career incentives facing county directors on the other. While the job of county director necessarily involves a good deal of paperwork--including managing the paper flow for leave records, in-service training funds, travel advances, reimbursements, etc -- it is more appropriately seen as a position of significant administrative and community leadership. The burden of this leadership is to mediate the demands and coordinate the assets of the three "masters" of local UCCE offices--the university, county government, and the public itself. The importance of county-level administrative leadership was previously underscored in an internal UCCE task force report (Smith Committee Report, August 1997, p.4):
What can be done to better support the critical administrative leadership role of county directors? Our analysis suggests three organizational change strategies that merit greater attention in state Extension systems. Altering Behavior by Changing CD Incentives and RewardsTo be willing to invest the requisite time networking, identifying community assets, educating the public, and solving local problems, CDs need to know they will not be penalized in the merit and review process. The current system places weight primarily on narrowly academic criteria rather than administrative achievements or community leadership. The survey evidence indicates that this weighting is counter to how CDs actually spend their time and what parts of their work they perceive to be the most valuable. In light of this, California and possibly other state Extension systems should begin examining how to give more weight to administrative leadership in the merit and review process. In addition to this central point, the CDs we surveyed suggest a number of other reforms that would make their jobs more attractive and fulfilling.
The overall goal should be to provide a sufficient incentive for attracting and retaining CDs who are gifted managerial and administrative leaders and who like performing the various roles this entails. Reinventing Internal Support BureaucraciesThe data point to the need to reinvent the relationship between university bureaucracies with responsibility for key support functions (accounting, grants and contracts, personnel, risk management) and the county directors and other front-line staff who directly interact with the public. In business terms, the customers of the university's bureaucratic services (i.e., the CDs) are not being provided with needed support services in a timely, efficient, and effective manner--interfering with their ability to serve community constituencies. The basic concept guiding the needed reform is that the university's bureaucratic service providers should be held accountable to their customers within the organization. According to the survey data, the current relationship works just the opposite. County directors spend much of their time serving the paperwork needs and schedules of university bureaucrats--who in effect become additional customers that the CDs must serve. Reversing the polarity in this relationship is of course not simple or easy, but in bureaucracies that have succeeded the public benefits are substantial (see Barzelay, 1992, for many examples). Two concrete steps can be taken to move in the needed direction.
Renewing the Vision for County-Based Cooperative ExtensionThe final change strategy suggested by the survey data is for senior organizational leaders to articulate and actively support a compelling vision for county-based Cooperative Extension. The presence of a university connection in multiple communities across the state and the educational organizing and delivery system that animates this infrastructure are an invaluable public resource. To animate and activate this resource, the administrative leadership of county directors must be clearly recognized and amply supported by university leaders. The county directors surveyed describe the enormous potential in Cooperative Extension's county-based infrastructure, but feel their local work is currently under-appreciated and often misunderstood by leaders in the organization.
County directors identified a number of specific steps that organizational leaders could take to better support their local work. These included:
While not easy, none of these steps is beyond the reach of Cooperative Extension leaders. The question is whether they will be seized as priorities and pursued with vigor. ReferencesBarzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bennett, C. (1990). Cooperative Extension roles and relationships for a new era: A new interdependence model and evaluation synthesis to foster work with other agencies and organizations. Extension Service (December). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11-20. Brown, D. W., & Witte, D. eds. (2000). Higher education exchange. Kettering Foundation. Cooper, A. W., & Graham, D. L. (2001). Competencies needed to the successful county agents and county supervisors. Journal of Extension [On-line]39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.html DeYoung, B. (1988). What's relationship marketing? Journal of Extension [On-line], 26(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988fall/a9.html Ehrlich, T. ed. (1999). Higher education and civic responsibility. Oryx Press in association with the American Council on Higher Education. Fesenmaier, J., & Contractor, N. (2001). The evolution of knowledge networks: An example for rural development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 32(1). Jackson, D. G., & Smith, K. L. (1999). Proactive accountability: Building relationships with legislators. Journal of Extension, 37(1), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a5.html Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Institutions (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Institutions. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/engage.pdf Mathews, D. (1999). Creating more public space in higher education. Washington, D.C: Council on Public Policy Education. Peters, S. (1996). Cooperative Extension and the democratic promise of the Land Grant idea. Minnesota Extension Service and Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Smith Committee Report. (1997). Internal task force report of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (August). Weiser, C.J. (1997). Faculty scholarship and productivity expectations: An administrator's experience. HortScience, 32(1), (February), 37-39.
Extension Agents as Administrators of Volunteers: Competencies Needed for the FutureBarry L. Boyd IntroductionVolunteers play an essential role in the delivery of educational programs conducted by the Cooperative Extension program in the United States. For example, in the area of 4-H and youth development, some 587,485 volunteers (National 4-H Headquarters, 2002) delivered educational programs to American youth in 2002. In other areas of Extension, master volunteers deliver educational programs in such diverse areas as gardening, natural resources, parenting, clothing, and food preservation (USDA, 2002). They serve critical roles on advisory committees and governing boards. Vines and Anderson (1976) stated, "without the cooperation and energy of tens of thousands of volunteers, it's inconceivable that Extension could succeed in rallying the resources it has to help solve individual and community problems" (p. 92). Many terms have been used to describe those who lead and direct volunteers: "coordinator," "manager," "director," or "administrator." For the purpose of this article, the term "volunteer administrator" is used to describe those persons who direct or lead volunteers in organizations. Volunteers need the direction of administrators who can focus their efforts toward solving specific problems. Volunteers are used extensively in every program area of Extension. This makes every county-level Extension agent a manager or administrator of volunteers. Job descriptions of administrators of volunteers typically include the recruiting, screening, education, and recognition of volunteers for an organization (Conners, 1995). In addition, administrators of volunteers must assess the need for volunteers within their organization and serve as a volunteer management "consultant" to other employees in the agency who utilize volunteers. County Extension agents often lack the competencies needed to be effective administrators of volunteers. This situation can negatively affect programs in a variety of ways, including quality of work and programming, participation, and organizational liability and risk management issues. Numerous studies have identified the deficiencies of Extension professionals in coordinating volunteers and volunteer programs (Collins, 2001; Culp & Kohlhagen, 2001; Deppe & Culp, 2001; Hange, Seevers and VanLeeuwen, 2002). In a national survey of Extension agents, Hange, Seevers, and VanLeeuwen discovered a gap between county Extension agents' perceptions of the importance of nine volunteer management functions and their level of perceived competence in those functions. Collins, Culp and Kohlhagen, and Deppe and Culp found similar deficiencies among Extension agents working with the 4-H and youth development programs in Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. Hange, Seevers, and VanLeeuwen also found that, while Extension agents do participate in professional development opportunities related to volunteer management, they do so at a relatively low level. Agents reported spending only 1-5 hours on volunteer management related professional development over a 24-month period (2002). Insufficient training for Extension agents/educators is also a concern to the national Extension leadership. Jon Irby, former National Program Leader for Leadership and Volunteer Development, CSREES-USDA, stated, "To be an effective recruiter, trainer, developer, and manager of volunteers, our field staff (Extension agents) need learning experiences that will provide the critical skills and knowledge for these roles" (Irby, 1999). Because of this concern, many state Extension programs have included skills in the management of volunteers in their list of competencies that faculty must possess or acquire in order to be successful as county Extension educators (Stone & Coppernoll, 2002; North Carolina Cooperative Extension, 2002). But exactly what competencies do county Extension agents need to be effective leaders of volunteers? Previous studies have examined agents' needs with regards to management functions as described by various models such as ISOTURE (Boyce, 1971), GEMS (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells, 1998), or L-O-O-P (Penrod, 1991). Sue Vineyard believed that the person responsible for coordinating volunteer activities in the 21st century will need to have a broader range of competencies, skills, and expertise in order to meet the growing challenges of coordinating volunteer efforts in those organizations that utilize them (1993). However, in the early part of the 21st century, it really is not known what competencies will be needed in the coming decade, thus the reason for the study reported here. Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of the study reported here was to develop consensus among a panel of experts regarding the competencies that would be required by administrators of volunteers in the coming decade. Competencies are the application of knowledge, technical skills, and personal characteristics leading to outstanding performance (Stone & Bieber, 1997). The specific objective of the article is to define the competencies required by administrators of volunteers in the next 10 years. Methods/ProceduresThe Delphi technique was the method used to develop group consensus. The Delphi technique was first developed by the Rand Corporation in the 1950s. It is a technique primarily used for forecasting, policy investigations, and goal setting (Ulschak, 1983). While the majority of its use in Agricultural Education research has been in the area of curriculum development, it has also been widely used to determine essential competencies in many fields (Martin & Frick, 1998; Shinn & Smith, 1999). The Delphi technique requires the use of a jury of experts in a given field to develop consensus regarding the answer to a specific question or series of questions. Three rounds were required to achieve consensus among 13 experts in volunteer administration. Guidelines for conducting a Delphi study followed those proposed by Linstone and Turoff (1975). The panel of experts consisted of administrators of volunteers, directors of regional volunteer centers, Extension volunteer development specialists, and university faculty members from across the nation. These experts were identified by their reputation and level of involvement in the profession and by their research and publication record in the field. Round IIn the initial round, the jury was asked to identify three to five competencies that they believed administrators of volunteers will need in the next decade. A competency was identified as a knowledge, skill, motive, or characteristic that causes or predicts outstanding performance. Fifteen of the original 20 members of the jury responded to the first round for a response rate of 75%. Dalky (1969) found that when the size of the jury was greater than 13, mean correlations were greater than 0.80, satisfying questions of process reliability. Round IIFaculty members with experience in volunteer administration examined the statements identified in Round I to find commonalities among them and to combine similar statements. The original language of the expert jury members was retained without trying to clarify or interpret meaning. These combined statements were used to create the instrument for Round II. In the second round, the jury rated their strength of agreement for each statement on a six-point Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 6 =strongly agree. All 15 members of the jury who responded in Round I also responded to Round II. Round IIIThe purpose of Round III was to begin the process of developing consensus among the jury. Those statements that received a five or six (agree or strongly agree) from at least two-thirds of the jury responding in Round II were kept for the third round. Jury members were sent a third revised instrument and asked to re-evaluate each statement retained from the second round. Thirteen of the 15 jury members responded to this round. Dillman's Tailored Design Method (2000) was used for non-response follow-up. Frequency distributions were again used to select responses based on a two-thirds majority. Findings and DiscussionCompetenciesIn Round I, the expert jury originated 72 competency statements. Combining similar statements resulted in the formation of 33 competencies required by administrators of volunteers in the year 2010. Group consensus was reached in the third round, and all 33 competency statements were retained. Three faculty members subjected these statements to an unstructured Q-sorting procedure. Kerlinger (1986) describes an unstructured Q-sort as "a set of items assembled without specific regard to the variables or factors underlying the items" (p. 511). The faculty members met to compare constructs and reach consensus where items were placed in different categories. The Q-sorting procedure resulted in the development of five constructs. The constructs and their accompanying statements may be found in Figure 1. Figure 1.
Competencies falling under the organizational leadership construct included skills in planning and needs assessment, strategic planning, and a commitment to and communication of the organization's mission and vision to volunteers, clientele, and the general public. According to Fisher and Cole (1993), volunteer administrators wear many hats besides that of managing volunteers. They are frequently the most public people in the organization, interacting with clients, donors, and the media. Systems leadership competencies involved understanding the agency's organizational system, and sharing leadership and power within the organization through delegation and collaboration. It also involves understanding others and the ability to build and sustain teams to more effectively address problems. Sharing power and leadership responsibilities involves delegating important tasks to volunteers that both aid in their personal development and extend the capabilities of the volunteer administrator. Competencies identified under organizational culture include helping others within the organization understand the philosophy of volunteerism and how volunteers contribute to the mission of the organization. Creating an atmosphere of trust between employees and volunteers, and the ability to inspire and motivate volunteers through a well-communicated vision are also essential. The personal skills category not only included skills that build better relationships with volunteers, but also the ability to creatively solve problems, and predict and manage change. While verbal communication skills are important in almost every profession, the jury of experts emphasized the development of listening skills as a critical competency. Change is constant in Extension, and the ability to anticipate and plan for change is essential to Extension's viability. Management skills included those functions necessary to creating and maintaining a volunteer program: recruiting, screening, training, recognizing, and evaluating volunteers. These competencies are found in most of the accepted volunteer management models and are the most frequently addressed skills during Extension trainings. Conclusions and ImplicationsThe findings of this study indicate that leaders of volunteers need skills in areas other than those identified in the various volunteer administration models used in Extension. The predominantly used models (ISOTURE, LOOP, GEMS) include management functions such as identifying, recruiting, placing, directing, and evaluating volunteers. However, volunteer administrators also need to be competent in systems leadership, developing a positive organizational culture, and personal skills that will help them in developing effective teams and managing change. The role of volunteer administrator is one that is not well understood or valued (Connors, 1995). In their study to identify trends that will affect volunteer leadership in the next 10 years, Culp and Nolan (1999) identified the volunteer administrator's continuing professional development as the second most critical trend. Trends in volunteerism in Extension further highlight this need. Since 1990, the number of 4-H volunteers in the U.S. has shrunk by 11.5%, while 4-H enrollment has increased more than 24% (Allan T. Smith, National 4-H Program Leader, personal communication, March 12, 2003). On the other hand, master volunteer programs have experienced phenomenal growth. For example, in the same time period, the number of Master Gardner volunteers in Texas exploded by 630%, from 730 to 5,329 (Texas County Master Gardener Programs, 2001). Other states have experienced similar growth in Master volunteers in all of Extension's program areas. The implications are clear: volunteers are critical to Cooperative Extension's mission, yet research repeatedly demonstrates that agents need additional training in the competencies required to effectively manage and lead them. The following steps are necessary to enable Extension agents in all program areas to be able fully to utilize volunteers.
ReferencesBoyce, M. V. (1971). A systematic approach to leadership development. Washington, DC: USDA, Extension Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 065 793). Boyd, B. L. (2003). Competencies for leaders of volunteers during the next decade: A national delphi study, Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(4), pp. 47-56 Collins, M. (2001). Michigan 4-H youth development agents perceptions of the importance of and their competence with selected volunteer management functions. Unpublished thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Conners, T.D. (1995). The volunteer management handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Culp, III, K., Deppe, C. A., Castillo, J. X. & Wells, B. J. (1998). The GEMS model of volunteer leadership administration. Journal of Volunteer Administration 16 (4), 36-41. Culp, K. & Nolan, M. M. (1999). Trends which will impact volunteer leadership educators in the next 10 years. Proceedings of the 1999 Association of Leadership Educators Conference, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved on September 23, 1999 from http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ALE/99proceedings.html. Culp, III, K., & Kohlhagen, B.S. (2001). Kentucky 4-H agents' perceptions of their level of competency and frequency of use of volunteer administration functions. Annual conference proceedings of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. December 1, 2001. Miami, FL. Dalky, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Deppe, C. A., & Culp, III, K. (2001). Ohio 4-H agents' perceptions of the level of importance and frequency of use of the eighteen components of the gems model of volunteer administration. Journal of Agricultural Education. 42 (4) 33-43. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fisher, J. C. & Cole, K. M. (1993). Leadership and management of volunteer programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hange, J. S., Seevers, B. S.,& VanLeeuwen, D. (2002). 4-H Youth Development Extension Agent's Attitudes Towards Volunteer Management Competencies. Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Conference. Las Vegas, NV. December 2002. Irby, J. E. (1999). A beginning look at national issues: Are we all in this together? Proceedings of the V2K: Volunteerism Beyond 2000 Conference. Estes Park, CO. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Martin, A. G., & Frick, M. J. (1998). The Delphi technique: An informal history of its use in agricultural education research since 1984. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(1), 73-79. National 4-H Headquarters (2002). National 4-H Youth Enrollment Report, Fiscal Year 2000. Retrieved March 22, 2002 at http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/2000enrollrpt.pdf North Carolina Cooperative Extension (2002). Extension volunteer competencies. Retrieved online May 30, 2002 from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/pods/Volunteers/index.shtml Penrod, K. M. (1991). Leadership involving volunteers: The L-O-O-P model. Journal of Extension [On-line],29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/a2.html Texas County Master Gardener Programs. (2001). Annual Reports. Retrieved on March 12, 2003 from http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/mastergd/county.html Shinn, G.C. & Smith, K. L., (1999). Anticipating roles of the cooperative extension service in 2010: A delphi technique involving agriculture and natural resource agents and family and consumer science agents in Texas. Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Conference. December 11, 1999. Orlando, FL. Stone, B.G. & 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 Stone, B.G. & Coppernoll, S. (2002). Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System Competency Model. Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://extensionlearning.tamu.edu/competency_model.pdf Ulschak, F.L. (1983). Human resource development: The theory and practice of need assessment. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, Inc. 111-131. USDA. (2002). Master volunteer programs. Retrieved March 22, 2002 from http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/lvd/mastvolsummary.htm Vines, C.A. & Anderson, M.A. (Eds.). (1976). Heritage horizons: Extension commitment to the people. Madison, Wisconsin: Journal of Extension. Vinyard, S.E. (1993). Megatrends and volunteerism: Mapping the future of volunteer programs. Downers Grove, IL: Heritage Arts Publishing.
Program Leadership: Do Teams Work?William Taylor IntroductionProgram leadership is a national issue in Cooperative Extension. A number of state program leadership models are used across the national system and each has its strength(s). With increased scrutiny of Extension programs and with many state budgets tending downward, states are looking for ways to improve their efficiency in developing and delivering programming to their clientele. A number of states have gone to peer or multi-level team-led program leadership as opposed to top-down administrative leadership. In February of 2001, in response to internal strategic planning, Wyoming instituted five initiative leadership teams, each with its own elected chair. Each team consists of eight field agents appointed by their respective districts, two departmental specialists appointed by department heads, all department heads concerned with the initiative, and an administrative liaison. The five initiative teams are:
This article discusses the effectiveness of the new leadership structure. The concept of leadership, development, and expected product outcomes for program teams is new in many states, with a steep learning curve. Literature tells us there are six stages in group development (Cooperative Extension Service, 1987; Pickles, 1996):
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||