April 2004
Volume 42 Number 2

Research in Brief

The Effect of Tenure and Promotion Policy on Evaluation and Research in Extension

Allison Nichols
Evaluation Specialist
West Virginia University Extension Service
Morgantown, West Virginia
ahnichols@mail.wvu.edu

Introduction

In 1985, West Virginia University (WVU) Extension educators, both state and field-based, were granted faculty status in Extension. At WVU, very few Extension faculty members carry an appointment in an academic college or department, so this was an important change in promotion and tenure policy. At that time, most faculty members were assigned research and teaching as their areas of significant contribution and were expected to participate in evaluation and research activities.

The move was welcomed by the faculty because it meant an elevation in status as well as an increase in salary. Most, however, did not fully realize how much time and effort they would be expected to spend on evaluation and research activities. The guidelines for promotion and tenure have been adjusted two times since 1985, in 1989 and 1996 (WVU Extension Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure, 1985, 1989, & 1996).

In 1991, the WVU Extension Research Planning Committee conducted a needs assessment to determine how to strengthen the capacity of Extension faculty to do evaluation and research. On that survey, 73% of field-based faculty or agents reported that they were having difficulty complying with research requirements as compared to 42% of state-based faculty or specialists who were having difficulty.

The faculty members said that they needed technical assistance to design research and analyze data and that they wanted policies and procedures that would systematically incorporate research activities into their plan of work (Marshall, et al., 1991). Over the next 10 years, a series of workshops were offered to faculty, a specialist was given the responsibility of coordinating research throughout WVU Extension, a research committee was established, and a fulltime evaluation specialist was hired.

Today, 18 years later, the effects of WVU Extension's promotion and tenure policy are being evaluated, and changes are being implemented to allow faculty members to change their areas of significant contribution from research and teaching to service and teaching. This is partially in response to the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grand Universities (1999), which says that universities should organize their resources to better engage and serve their clientele.

In 2003, several entry-level tenure-track faculty members were selected to change their area of significant contribution from research to service and to develop a portfolio that will document their service as scholarship and serve as an example to others who might want to make the change. Based on these faculty members' experience, Extension administrators will be able to make decisions as to whether to allow new faculty members to choose service over research and to allow tenured faculty to change their areas of significant contribution. In addition, the information will help faculty in academic departments defend their outreach activities as scholarship.

As an Extension evaluation specialist, I was interest in whether this new policy would have an effect on evaluation and research productivity at West Virginia University. The results of this exploratory study might also help other Extension units as they deal with promotion and tenure issues (Schauber, et al., 1998; Weiser, 1994, Ukaga, et al., 2002).

The following research questions were explored:

1. Does "faculty status" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation expectations and research expectations?

2. Does "job status" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation and research expectations?

3. Does "length of service" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation and research expectations?

4. If WVU Extension faculty members change their area of significant contribution from research to service, will it affect evaluation and/or research productivity?

Methodology

In the fall of 2002, all faculty members in WVU Extension were invited, via e-mail, to attend a workshop on survey writing. Forty-seven Extension professionals attended and completed a survey. There were 36 faculty members in this group, which represents about one-fourth of all faculty members in WVU Extension.

The study group is not a representative sample of Extension faculty members at West Virginia University because the majority (32) were from the Center for 4-H and Youth, Family and Adult Development, one of three WVU Extension centers, and all respondents "self-selected" for the study by signing up for a workshop on survey writing. In addition, this group may have a greater interest in evaluation and research methodology than other faculty members may. Therefore, this study must be considered exploratory.

The questions on the survey included demographic information about the respondents' professional or faculty status; their position at WVU Extension; how long they had worked for WVU Extension; whether they had worked for WVU Extension before 1985, when faculty status was granted; whether they had worked for any other Cooperative Extension unit before coming to WVU; and whether state and field-based Extension educators had faculty status at that institution. They were also asked if they could explain the difference between research and evaluation, a distinction that has caused both confusion and unrealistic expectations during promotion and tenure reviews.

Using a three-point Likert scale (1=too high, 2=about right, 3=too low) respondents were asked to rate the evaluation and research expectation placed upon them by administration. Using a four-point Likert scale (1=not important, 2=tends to be not important, 3=tends to be important, 4=important), they were also asked to indicate how important or unimportant program evaluations and/or research activities are in order to achieve high performance ratings on annual reviews. Using a three-point Likert scale (1=fewer, 2=about the same, 3=more) they were asked to indicate whether or not they would do more or fewer evaluation and research projects if they did not have faculty status. Finally, using a four-point Likert scale (1=yes, 2=no, 3=unsure, 4=does not apply to me), they were asked if given the opportunity, they would choose to change their areas of significance to service and teaching rather than research and teaching.

Subjects

Almost two-thirds of the faculty respondents were tenured (23) and another third (13) had faculty status, but were either not tenured yet or were clinical faculty who are not on tenure track. The latter group can be promoted and participate in the same promotion process as those on tenure track. Twenty-five, or 66%, of the respondents were field-based faculty; eight, or 22%, were state specialists; and one was an administrator. Thirteen, or 36.1%, had worked for WVU Extension for more than 20 years; 13, or 36.1%, had worked for Extension for 6 to 20 years; and 10, or 27.8%, had worked for WVU Extension for 5 years or less.

Experience with Evaluation and Research

Seventeen, or almost one-half (47.2%) of the faculty respondents, had been working for WVU Extension in 1985, when faculty status was granted. Of those, eight, or more than half (57.1%), said that they evaluated fewer programs before they had faculty status, and 13 (92.9%) said they engaged in fewer research projects before they had faculty status.

Evaluation Expectations

A smaller number of faculty members said they thought that the evaluation expectations were too high than thought that the research expectations were too high. The majority, 20 of the respondents (55.6%), said that they thought the expectations for evaluation are about right (Figure 1). Thirty-two of the respondents (88.9%) agreed that it is important to complete program evaluations in order to get a rating of high merit on annual evaluations.

Figure 1.
Evaluation Expectations

Twenty-eight respondents (77.8%) said that they thought the research expectations were too high, seven (19.4%) thought they were about right, and one (2.8%) thought they were too low (Figure 2). Thirty-five of the respondents (97.2%) said that they believe it is important to complete research projects in order to get a rating of high merit on annual evaluations.

Figure 2.
Research Expectations

Effect of Faculty Status on Evaluation and Research Productivity

Eight, or almost one fourth (22.2%) of the respondents, said that they would do fewer evaluations if they did not have faculty status. On the other hand, 28 respondents (77.8%) said that they would do fewer research projects if they did not have faculty status (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Perceived Evaluation Productivity Without Faculty Status

Twenty-two of the respondents (61.1%) said that if they did not have faculty status, they would do fewer research projects. Thirteen (36.1%) said they would do about the same number of research projects, and one person said he or she would do more.

Figure 4.
Perceived Research Productivity Without Faculty Status

Change in Area of Significant Contribution

Thirteen respondents (36.1%) said that they would change their significant area of contribution from research to service if given the opportunity. Eight respondents (22.2%) said that they would not change, and nine (25%) said that they were unsure about making the change. Six of the respondents said that the proposed change did not apply to them. The reason for this may be that, at the time, specialists were told that they could not change their areas of significance.

Figure 5.
Desire to Make Changes in Area of Significance

Those who said that they would not change their significant areas gave the following reasons for not changing.

• "After 10 years I feel more confident in doing research due to opportunities to work with other professionals working in research."

• "I am happy with teaching and research."

• "I am starting to figure out about research, and I don't want to not practice what I've been spending nine years learning to do."

• "I'm OK with teaching and research at this point in my career."

Relationship of Respondent Characteristics to Attitudes About Research and Evaluation Expectations

Since the sample is small and non-representative, non-parametric tests were used to compare two independent samples of participants based on professional status, job status (agent/specialist), and length of service (10 years or less/more than 10 years). No relationship was found with professional status (clinical, non-tenured tenure track, tenured) and any of the independent variables.

Job status

Based on a Mann-Whitney Test for significance, County Extension agents rated the expectations for research higher than did specialists. It is important to note that this does not mean that the expectations are higher for field-based faculty than for state-based specialist, but only that they perceive them to be higher.

Length of Service

Based on the Mann-Whitney Test for significance, those who have more than 10 years of service in Extension rated research expectations higher than those with fewer years of service. Those with fewer than 10 years of service were also less likely to think that completing research projects was important in order to get a rating of high merit.

Discussion of the Results

Research Question One

Does "faculty status" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation and research expectations?

The answer to this question is "no." The majority of West Virginia University Extension faculty members who were surveyed said that evaluation expectations were "just right," and the majority of West Virginia University Extension faculty members who were surveyed said that research expectations were "too high." Neither evaluation nor research expectations were related to faculty status, or whether the respondent is a clinical professor, non-tenured tenure track professor, or a tenured professor. In addition, perceptions of whether or not completing evaluations or research projects are necessary in order to receive a rating of high merit on annual evaluations, is not related to faculty status.

Research Question Two

Does "job status" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation and research expectations?

Whether the respondent was a specialist or a field-based faculty member had no relationship to his or her perception of evaluation expectations or of whether a faculty member needed to complete evaluations in order to receive a high merit rating.

Job status did make a difference with regard to research expectations. Field-based faculty members rated research expectations higher than specialists did. There was no significant difference, however, in the responses of specialists and field-based faculty to the question about the importance of completing research projects in order to receive a rating of high merit.

Research Question Three

Does "length of service" have an effect on a WVU Extension faculty member's perception of evaluation and research expectations?

The length of service did not have a relationship to evaluation expectations or the perception of the need to complete evaluations in order to achieve a high merit rating.

Those who have been employed by Extension for more than 10 years rated research expectations higher than those with fewer years did of service. Those individuals were also more likely to say that completing research projects is important in order to receive high merit on annual evaluations.

Research Question Four

If WVU Extension faculty members change their area of significant contribution from research to service, will it affect evaluation and/or research productivity?

The majority of WVU Extension faculty members who participated in the study said that they would do about the same number of evaluations if they were allowed to change their area of significant contribution from research to service. No relationship was found with faculty status, job status, or length of service.

The majority of WVU Extension faculty members who participated in the study said that they would do fewer research projects if they were given the opportunity to change their area of significant contribution from research to service. Again, no relationship was found with faculty status, job status, or length of service.

Implications of the Results for Extension

For WVU Extension, the results of this study indicate that both field-based faculty and specialists seem relatively satisfied with evaluation expectations and expect to continue at the same level if they have the opportunity to change their area of significance from research to service. This is true no matter how long they have been with WVU Extension.

However, the two job groups view the research expectations of their jobs differently. One can reasonably speculate as to why WVU Extension educators differ more when it comes to research. For instance, specialists, most of whom have doctoral degrees, are more comfortable with research tasks and have job responsibilities that accommodate research activities. Field-level faculty members at WVU usually have a master's degree and are primarily engaged in programmatic activities. They may not have research skills and often do time to do research.

With regard to length of service, those with 19 or more years were hired at a time when research expectations were not as high as they are today. They never expected to be held accountable for their research activities and may still not have adequate skills. For WVU Extension, the results of this study should reinforce the need for training in research skills. In addition, Extension faculty members need to be clear about the distinctions between evaluation and research requirements.

The results of this study should also be considered by those in administrative positions in Extension who are considering changes to promotion and tenure policies. For them, the important result from this study is that field-based Extension educators are comfortable with evaluation expectations, but not with research expectations. Once the evaluation skills of field-based faculty are developed and they gain experience with implementing evaluation strategies into program activities on a regular basis, their level of comfort will most likely increase.

The importance of this finding is that evaluation, rather than research, could become the key to documenting the scholarship of engagement. The challenge is to develop and enhance evaluation skills in Extension educators, to give them opportunities to conduct applied research in connection with their evaluations, to write technical reports and professional journal articles, and to present evaluation findings.

If Extension is successful in bringing field-based faculty through the tenure and promotion process using quality evaluation studies to document the scholarship of engagement, it could become an example for the rest of academia. Indeed, Extension could be instrumental in assisting the rest of academia in understanding the process of promoting and giving tenure to those in discipline areas that do not fit into the tradition system, which rewards basic research and teaching over other forms of scholarship.

References

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/engage.pdf

Marshall, P. H., Filek, R., Gianato, S. McConnel, T., Remington, J. Singleton, J., & Zeller, F. (1991). An assessment of needs and opportunities to strengthen the capacity of the extension faculty to conduct research: Findings and recommendations of the research planning committee. West Virginia University Extension Service, Morgantown, W.V. 26506.

Schauber, A., Aldrich-Markham, S., Olsen, J., Gredler, G., Olsen, P., & Reichenbach, M. (1998). Defining scholarship for county Extension agents. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at:  http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/iw1.html

Ukaga, O. M., Reichenbach, M. R., Blinn, C. R., Zak, D. M., & Hegland, N. J. (April, 2002). Building successful campus and field faculty teams. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/a3.html

Weiser, C. J. (1994). The value system of a university: Rethinking scholarship. College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

West Virginia University guidelines for promotion and tenure. (1985, 1989, 1996). West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Use Retrospective Surveys to Obtain Complete Data Sets and Measure Impact in Extension Programs

Martha Raidl
Extension Nutrition Education Specialist
University of Idaho
Boise, Idaho
mraidl@uidaho.edu

Shelly Johnson
Program Administrator
University of Idaho
Kootenai County
sjohnson@uidaho.edu

Kali Gardiner
Program Coordinator
University of Idaho
Kootenai County
kgardiner@uidaho.edu

Marty Denham
Assistant Program Director
University of Idaho
Latah County
mdenham@uidaho.edu

Kris Spain
WIC Coordinator
Department of Health and Welfare
SpainK@idhw.state.id.us

Rhea Lanting
Program Administrator
University of Idaho
Twin Falls County
rhlantin@uidaho.edu

Cammie Jayo
Program Coordinator
University of Idaho
Twin Falls County
cjayo@uidaho.edu

Audrey Liddil
Program Administrator
University of Idaho
Bannock County
aliddil@uidaho.edu;

Karen Barron
Technical Records Specialist
University of Idaho
Bannock County
kbarron@uidaho.edu

Introduction

Demonstrating impact in Extension programs is necessary to maintain funding and ensure their continuation. Traditionally, pre/post surveys have been conducted to determine changes in participants' knowledge, behavior, attitude, or skills. However, evaluation with a pre/post format has two problems. The first is incomplete data sets, where either pre- or the post- only are filled out. The second problem is referred to as "response-shift bias," where participants overestimate their behaviors on the pre-survey and underestimate their behaviors on the post-survey due to a change in frame of reference.

These problems can be circumvented by using a retrospective survey. All data sets are complete because the individual completes the post/pre survey. Also, Howard, Ralph, Gulanick, Maxwell, Nance, and Gerber (1979) and Pratt, McGuigan, and Katzev (2002) have found that using a retrospective survey decreases the "response-shift bias" that occurs in pre/post surveys. Researchers have adapted retrospective surveys to determine changes in behavior of individuals in drug prevention and leadership development (Rhodes & Jason, 1987; Rohs, 1999); changes in attitudes toward individuals with HIV/AIDS (Riley & Greene, 1993), and changes in knowledge from taking a nutrition course (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989).

In Idaho, the Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) program, called the Extension Nutrition Program (ENP), switched from having participants complete a traditional EFNEP survey that had a pre-post format, which measured self-reported changes in nutrition, food safety, and resource management behaviors to the retrospective survey. The purpose of the project reported here was to determine if a retrospective survey decreased the number of incomplete responses and provided an effective measure of self-reported changes in nutrition, food safety, and resource management behaviors.

Methodology

Step I: Changing a Pre-Post Survey to a Retrospective Survey

To change the pre-post to a retrospective survey, two questions were asked for each behavior being measured. The first question was a post-test question because the participants were asked about their behavior after the program. The second question, the pre-test question, asked them about their behavior before the program (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989).

Figure 1 is an example of a question from the Retrospective Survey that has 5 choices. The choices were converted to a 5 point scale: 1 = do not do; 2 =seldom; 3 =sometimes; 4= most of the time; 5=always.

Step II: Training on the Retrospective Survey

All of the Nutrition Advisors, paraprofessionals who conducted the ENP lessons and the surveys, were trained on how to administer the retrospective survey.

Step III: Implementing the Revised Questionnaire and Analyzing the data

The retrospective data analyzed for this study covered all FY2002 participants (N=346) who "graduated" from the program and completed at least six core lessons. The pre-post data analyzed for this study covered all FY2001 participants (N=220).

Data for analyses included: (1) the number of incomplete responses for the FY2001 pre- and post-test and the FY2002 retrospective survey; (2) Frequency of pre- and post-behaviors on the retrospective survey; and (3) Paired t-tests for the 15 retrospective survey questions, where subjects served as their own control. All t-tests were two-tailed, and df=345. A Bonferroni adjustment (Rimm, Hartz, Kalbfleisch, Anderson, & Hoffman, 1980) was made to control the experiment-wide error rate, and the level of significance was set at <0.003 (0.05/15).

Results

Number of Incomplete Responses

As indicated earlier, one of the problems associated with the pre-post survey was the number of incomplete responses that occurred when people completed this survey. Table 1 lists the percentage of incomplete responses of the pre-post survey and the retrospective survey. The percentage of incomplete responses for the pre-survey was 16% and for the post-survey was 15.6%. In contrast, there were 0.0% incomplete responses with participants who completed the retrospective survey.

Changes in Behaviors

Results from the retrospective survey in Table 2 indicate that frequency of positive behaviors increased, negative behaviors decreased, and participants significantly improved (p<0.000) in all 15 behaviors.Frequencies for positive behaviors were combined from the "most of the time" and "always" categories, and negative behavior frequencies were combined from the "do not do" and "seldom" categories.

Participant ratings showed that all resource management, nutrition, and food safety mean behaviors significantly (p<0.00) improved. After attending ENP, there was a 34 - 44.8% increase in participants who indicated that they most of the time/always planned meals, compared prices, used grocery lists, used a spending plan, and had emergency money set aside and a 32.7% decrease in the number of participants who said they did not or seldom ran out of food.

Nutrition mean behaviors increased by 38.2 - 48.2%. After attending ENP, participants reported that they most of the time or always read food labels and ate low fat items, fruits and vegetables.

Food safety mean behaviors increased by 9.5 - 13.6%. After attending ENP, participants reported that they most of the time or always washed utensils, cooked meat thoroughly and washed their hands. Also, there was a 50.6% decrease in participants who said that they seldom or did not thaw their meat on the counter.

Discussion

Using a Retrospective Survey

The results from this study indicate that a retrospective survey can be used to measure the behavior changes that occur in participants of an FSNE program. This evaluation tool was tested on a large representative sample (N=346) of individuals graduating from a FSNE program. Results showed the retrospective approach to be successful in a number of ways.

While the pre-post method resulted in approximately 16% incomplete responses in both surveys, there were no incomplete responses for the retrospective survey. Reasons why the number of incomplete responses was higher in the pre-post surveys include:

1. The participant may not have had a clear understanding of what the pre-survey was asking them and therefore chose not to answer the question (Howard, Ralph, Gulanick, Maxwell, Nancy & Gerber, 1979);

2. Post-survey questions may not have been answered because participants may have felt that they already answered these questions (in the pre-test) and;

3. Participants may have felt that the post-survey took up valuable time that could be better spent on their class (Marshak, deSilvva, & Silberstein, 1998).

In contrast, when the retrospective surveys were conducted at the end of the core classes, participants may have had a better understanding of these questions and therefore were more willing to spend the time to make sure the survey was filled out completely.

Participants completing the retrospective survey reported that they significantly changed their resource management, nutrition, and food safety behaviors. Kempson, Palmer-Keenan, Sadani, Ridlen, & Rosato (2002) found that before individuals in low socioeconomic groups can change nutrition and food safety behaviors, they must not be food insecure, i.e., they must have "a ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods and an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways" (Anderson, 1990).

It is estimated that 11% of the households in the U.S. are food insecure, and Idaho is above the national average at 13% (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2002). Therefore, some of the first classes covered in the FSNE program focus on resource management skills.

The resource management behaviors are practiced by a much higher percentage of ENP participants when compared to national statistics, which show that that approximately 50% reported that they plan meals (Food Marketing Institute, 2000), 21% do cost comparison, and 12% buy only those items on their grocery list (Food Marketing Institute, 2002). However, even after the ENP classes on resource management, approximately 17% of participants indicated they ran out of food, which is similar to the national average of 16% of food insecure individuals (Nord, Andrews, & Winicki, 2002).

Seven out of 10 Americans believe eating healthfully is too complicated (Dinkins, 2000). The improvement in eating habits of ENP participants could be related to the classes that focused on teaching participants how to apply this information in order to improve their dietary quality.

Also, the most recent Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) indicates that low-income adults are interested in consuming more fruits and vegetables and less fat (USDA, 1998). It is estimated that the average American consumes 1.5 servings of fruit and 3.3 servings of vegetables daily (USDA, 1998). The ENP nutrition classes were effective in increasing fruit and vegetable intake of ENP participants to 2 - 3 or more servings per day. Research by Marion Neuhoser and colleagues (1999) indicates that many individuals use food labels to decrease their fat intake, and this behavior may have been linked to the increased consumption of low-fat food items.

Rusin, Orosz-Coughlin, & Gerba (1998) found that the kitchen environment was more heavily contaminated with bacteria than the bathroom. The food safety behaviors covered in the ENP focus on sanitation practices in the kitchen. Proper food handling practices can prevent cases of foodborne disease (EPA, USDA, DHHS, 1997).

Schoenborn and Barnes (2002) found that 43% of adults living below the poverty level reported participating in physical activity. This is a little lower than the 50% of ENP participants that reported being physically active.

A limitation of this study was that all of the data collected was self-reported and participants may have reported what they thought we wanted to hear, instead of what really occurred. Even though it is impossible to eliminate all bias in a study, the retrospective survey ensures that individuals evaluate their pre-post behaviors using the same frame of reference.

In this study, a retrospective survey was used to measure changes in behavior after completing six core lessons. However, because many Extension programs consist of a single lesson, the post/pre format could be used to develop a questionnaire that participants complete at the end of the lesson to determine impact of the lesson.

Implications

In summary, the study reported here showed that a retrospective survey has three positive benefits. The first two benefits are that it gets rid of incomplete data sets and wasted data sets that usually occur in pre-post tests. The third benefit is that it is an effective way to measure self-reported behavior change.

References

Anderson, S. A. (1990). Core indicator of nutritional state for difficult to sample populations. Journal of Nutrition,120 (Suppl),1559-1600.

Dinkins, J. M.(2000). Beliefs and attitudes of Americans toward their diet. Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 13 (1), 98-100.

Food Marketing Institute. (2000). Four types of shoppers, Supermarket Research 2000, 2(3), 1-3.

Food Marketing Institute. (2002). Trends in the United States: Consumer attitudes & the supermarket, 2002. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, D.C.

Howard, G. S., Ralph, K. M, Gulanick, N. A., Maxwell, S. E., Nance, D., & Gerber, S. L. (1979). Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and the re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurements, 3, 1-23.

Kempson, K., Palmer-Keenan, D., Sadani, P. S., Ridlen, S., & Rosato, N. S. (2002). Food management practices used by people with limited resources to maintain food sufficiency as reported by nutrition educators. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,102,1795-1799.

Marshak, H. H., de Silva, P., & Silberstein, J. (1998). Evaluation of a peer-taught nutrition education program for low-income parents. Journal of Nutrition Education, 30:314-322.

Neuhouser, M. L., Kristal, A. R., & Patterson, R. E. (1999). Use of food nutrition labels is associated with lower fat intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,99,45-50, 53.

Nord, M., Andrews, M,, & Carlson S. (2002, October).Household food security in the United States, 2001.ERS Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. FANRR29. 52 pp,

Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Winicki, J.(2002). Frequency and duration of food insecurity and hunger in US households. Journal of Nutrition Education And Behavior,34,194-201.

Pratt, C., McGuigan, W. & Katzev, A. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21,341-349.

Rhodes, J. E., & Jason, L. A. (1987). The retrospective pretest: An alternative approach in evaluating drug prevention. Journal of Drug Education, 17:345-356.

Riley, J. L., & Greene, R. R. (1993). Influence of education on self-perceived attitudes about HIV/AIDS among human services providers. Social Work, 38(4), 396-401.

Rimm, A. A., Hartz, A. J., Kalbfleisch, J. H., Anderson, A.J., & Hoffman, R. G., (1980). Basic biostatistics in medicine and epidemiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Rockwell, S. K., & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-then pre evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html

Rohs, F. (1999). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating leadership development with self-report pretest-posttest measures. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4):28-37.

Rusin, P., Orosz-Coughlin, P., & Gerba, C. (1998). Reduction of faecal coliform and heterotrophic plate count bacteria in the household kitchen and bathroom by disinfection with hypochlorite cleaners. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 85,819-828.

Schoenborn, C. A., & Barnes, P. M. (2002). Leisure-time physical activity among adults: United States, 1977-98. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics; no 325. Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for Health Statistics.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. (1998). 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and 1994-96 Diet and Healthy Knowledge Survey and related materials (CD-ROM).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Food safety from farm to table. A National food safety initiative. A report to the president. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Defining Key Sub-Competencies for Administrative County Leaders

Mitchell B. Owen
Innovation and Organizational Development Leader
Personal and Organizational Development
North Carolina Cooperative Extension, NCSU
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mitch_Owen@ncsu.edu

Overview

North Carolina Cooperative Extension (NCCE) defined seven core competencies, 39 sub-competencies, and accompanying multi-level proficiencies important to the effectiveness of administrative leaders of Extension programs in 1999. The Core Competencies, sub-competencies, and proficiency level development effort began with the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on Staff Development and Training in August 1998.

Charged with five challenges, the BRC began with a study of the organization's staff development system and culminated in a set of recommendations for transformational change to personal and organizational development (1999). Since its creation in 2001, the Personal and Organizational Development group has continued the work of the BRC through literature and stakeholder analysis including the use of task forces such as the County Extension Director Competency Task Force. The result of these efforts is the current description of seven competencies, 39 sub-competencies, and proficiency levels for Extension Administrative Leaders. Each sub-competency defined in the model includes three levels of proficiency describing specific learning outcomes for the learner.

Several in the literature have also promoted the approach of orientating personal development around a framework of core competencies (Stone  & Bieber, 1997; Ritter, 2000; & Cooper & Graham, D., 2001). The North Carolina competency model has been widely accepted internally as well as externally, among groups sharing similar organizational missions as NCCE. While earlier NCCE studies have identified that all the sub-competencies are important for success, an examination of which sub-competencies were most important to insuring success was needed. Administrative leaders also wished to clearly understand the "felt" needs of existing administrative leaders.

Methods

County Extension Directors, the recognized administrative extension leader at the local level in North Carolina, were sampled by randomly selecting four of the seven Extension Districts organized in North Carolina Cooperative Extension. Fifty County Extension Directors, representing approximately 50% of the population, were surveyed using an internally developed survey instrument administered during four face-to-face meetings.

Participants in the study were asked to select which 20 sub-competencies from the total number of 39 were most critical in their personal development goals of becoming an effective County Extension Director. Participants were asked to think about which areas, if not mastered, would derail someone early in their tenure as a County Extension Director. Participants were also asked to select five sub-competencies that newly hired County Extension Directors were most likely to be proficient in.

Responses were accumulated using methods consistent with accepted quality improvement. Continuous quality improvement methods are an outgrowth of the quality control movement and statistical process control methods in management. Using these proven methods, percentages were calculated denoting three groupings of importance.

Findings

Results show eight sub-competencies were considered critically important in achieving success in the role of an administrative leader. More than 70% of all County Extension Directors surveyed felt the following eight sub-competencies were critical:

• Understanding the NCCE and County Government Partnership
• Team Building
• Politics and Relationship Building
• Budget Management
• Effective Use of Volunteers and the Advisory Leadership System
• Oral Communication
• Active Listening
• Creativity, Innovation, and Visionary Thinking

The majority of County Extension Directors surveyed considered an overwhelming number of the sub-competencies important. The following 11 sub-competencies, in addition to the eight listed above, were considered important by a majority of County Extension Directors.

• Vision, Programs, and Goals
• Funding Process
• Training, Coaching, and Delegating
• Appraising People and Performance
• Program Planning
• Evaluation and Accountability
• Managing Change
• Ethical Behavior
• Networking, Partnerships, and Collaborations
• Customer Service
• Model the Way

Sub-competencies receiving less than a majority ranking should also be considered important from the viewpoint of "unfelt" needs. The findings in this study are a result of using a forced choice method, thus intensifying the deviation of the importance levels of the sub-competencies. Only two sub-competencies received few responses. In addition, huge disparity in perceived needs is apparent across districts. Thirty-one of the 38 sub-competencies were considered critical by at least a majority of County Extension Directors from one district.

These findings build on the foundational research that resulted in the 38 sub-competencies and suggests that, while some sub-competencies may be considered critical developmental needs early in a County Extension Director's tenure, all (39) sub-competencies should be considered important to fully develop as an administrative leader. The remaining important sub-competencies include:

• History, Philosophy, and Mission
• Knowledge of Organizational Structure, Function, and Relationships
• National Perspectives for CES
• Policies and Procedures
• Resource Development
• Staffing, Recruitment, and Hiring
• Risk Mgmt., Decision Making, and Project Mgmt.
• Design of Programs
• Implementation of Programs
• Adult Education and Instruction
• Personal Organization Skills
• Professional and Personal Development
• Written Communication
• Information and Communication Technology
• Interpersonal Relationships and Emotional Intelligence
• Negotiation and Conflict Management
• Understanding Self and Others
• Systems Thinking
• Working with Groups

County Extension Directors were also surveyed concerning which sub-competencies were most likely to be mastered prior to entering the role of County Extension Director. Results of this survey show five sub-competencies as significantly more likely to have been learned. They include:

• History, Philosophy, and Mission
• Program Planning
• Implementation of Programs
• Ethical Behavior
• Oral Communication

County Extension Directors were also asked to respond to the survey with any additions, deletions, or modifications of the sub-competencies or proficiencies. With the exception of very few recommendations made to enhance readability and understanding, no changes were made to the sub-competencies or proficiencies. County Extension Directors express confidence in the accuracy of the sub-competencies and proficiencies.

Conclusions and Implications

The following implications can be drawn from the findings.

1. Themes drawn from those sub-competencies considered most critical suggest that County Extension Directors must master the political and budgetary landscape early in their tenure. The development of a strong advisory leadership system, a clear understanding of the political environment, skills in building a strong NCCE and County Government partnership, and early building of relationships with key leaders are essential to success as a County Extension Director.

2. County Extension Directors need to master all 39 sub-competencies to ensure long-term success. Findings indicate a majority of the County Extension Directors felt most of the sub-competencies were important to their effectiveness and success.

3. County Extension Directors may wish to participate in some method of self-assessment early in their tenure so that they can develop a long-range personal improvement plan toward mastery of the sub-competencies. Supervisors and professional development leaders should anticipate and prepare development opportunities that vary depending on the individual needs of each County Extension Director.

4. There was consensus across the districts that new County Extension Directors come to the job with: knowledge of the history, philosophy, and mission of Extension; strong oral communication skills; a sound ethical foundation; and ability to plan and implement educational programs. Addressing the needs of the small number of County Extension Directors who do not show mastery of these sub-competency areas may be best done through mentorship and self-directed study.

References

North Carolina Cooperative Extension. (1999). Blue ribbon commission on staff development and training: Strategic analysis and recommendations North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University, Personal and Organizational Development [Online]. Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/pods/brc_report/index.html

Cooper, A., & Graham, D. (2001). Competencies needed to be successful county agents and county supervisors. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.html

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

Ritter, E. (2000). Lessons learned on the journey to "team management" in an agricultural communication unit. Proceedings of the Southern Agricultural Scientists Conference. Lexington Ky.

Engaging County Educators in Science Education Reform: The New York 4-H Environmental Inquiry Program

Timothy DePriest
MS Student
td48@cornell.edu

Marianne Krasny
Professor
mek2@cornell.edu

Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Introduction

In the late 1990's, scientists and educators developed the National Science Education Standards, which emphasize involving youth in open-ended inquiry learning, including authentic research (NRC, 1996). According to the Standards, instead of memorizing terms and conducting labs with pre-determined outcomes, students should become actively involved in "learning science as science is practiced." Furthermore, the Standards call for the involvement of community organizations (such as Cooperative Extension) to enhance students' research experiences.

In 2000, the Cornell University Department of Natural Resources embarked on a new program, 4-H Environmental Inquiry (4-H EI). The goal of the program was to build the capacity of Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) educators to play a key role in science education reform in their communities, through providing opportunities for youth to engage in authentic, open-ended research. The program drew on our 14 years of experience in creating opportunities for youth and educators to conduct research. That experience included:

• Summer research internships for high school teachers and students (Krasny, 1999),
• Research-based curricula (Barnaba, Krasny, Kasperek, Hoskins, & Hope, 2000; Carlsen, Trautmann, Cunningham, & Krasny, 2003; Krasny, Trautmann, Carlsen, & Cunningham, 2002; Trautmann, Carlsen, Krasny, & Cunningham 2001, 2003), and
• Workshops for educators who have then guided youth in local investigations (Krasny & Doyle, 2002).

Most of the Environmental Inquiry programs have taken place in high school and middle school classrooms, with only a few projects involving 4-H youth.

4-H has played an important role in education reforms related to school-to-work programs (Kraft, 1999), and a number of programs have engaged 4-H youth in science inquiry activities (e.g., In Touch Science, Youth Experiences in Science, Science Experiences and Resources for Informal Education Settings). However, we felt that 4-H could also engage youth in authentic research, drawing on the historical precedent of the early 4-H clubs that involved youth in planting experiments with new varieties of vegetables. In addition, Extension could draw on its experience facilitating joint projects involving university scientists, government agencies, schools, and local non-profits.

The purpose of this article is to: (1) briefly describe youth research programs implemented by the county educators and (2) document some of the issues that arise when county Extension educators engage youth in research.

4-H Environmental Inquiry

Using funds from the Cornell Research and Extension Integration grants program, we solicited proposals from NYS counties wanting to develop 4-H EI programs. Ten counties were awarded $500 "mini-grants," based on their plans for volunteers and CCE educators to work with at least 10 youths to conduct authentic research. A training workshop for educators and volunteers from the 10 counties was held in May 2001, during which participants were introduced to the National Science Education Standards and to a series of potential research projects that are appropriate for youth.

Methods

The focus of the program evaluation was to identify the aspects of project implementation in each county that reflected progress towards and challenges to achieving the goals of the 4-H EI program. Because we desired to gain an in-depth, detailed description of each county project, the evaluation methods were based on a naturalistic inquiry approach (Patton, 1990). Qualitative data were collected from the CCE county educators through open-ended surveys and semi-structured phone interviews. In addition, the evaluator conducted on-site observations of 4-H EI activities in several counties.

Educators completed a written survey at the beginning of the program, which focused on their background in research and education, goals for project implementation, and related concerns. They also completed a survey at the end of the program detailing the types of programs they conducted, number of youth participants, and partnerships formed.

The primary source of data was semi-structured, in-depth interviews with the 10 CCE county educators participating in the 4-H EI program. The interviews focused on four main areas: general experiences with and perceptions of the program, needs for project implementation, challenges faced, and benefits received as a result of participation. The complete, recorded interviews were transcribed, and by analyzing the content of the transcripts, emerging themes in each area were identified.

Observational data were collected through the evaluator's participation in a subset of the county projects, yielding an "insider" perspective on the process of engaging youth in research experiences. For example, by working alongside the CCE educator, local partners, and youth participants in the invasive species monitoring project, the evaluator experienced the general challenges and complexities of organizing and facilitating youth research activities. These observations aided in the analysis of the interview and questionnaire data by grounding the educators' responses in a practical context.

Considering the highly diverse set of county projects, we initially took an inductive approach to data analysis, which allowed issues related to project implementation to emerge rather than be constrained by pre-determined categories (Patton, 1990). Each educator's unique perspectives on the program were used to identify issues, which were coded into themes for further analysis.

We then took a deductive approach to developing a category of "key issues" based on the relevance of the issues to stated program goals. For example, the fundamental goal of 4-H EI was to engage youth in research experiences; hence, issues related to the educators' capacity to facilitate youth research projects were considered as key issues. This allowed us to examine more closely the alignment of program design with the way in which the program was implemented at the county level, resulting in an informed understanding of how the program works and where it can be improved for the future.

Results

County Programs

Each county implemented at least one program following the workshop. The educators utilized various models of implementation, including:

• Direct support of or collaboration with local partners to conduct research projects with youth (5 counties),
• Workshops to train local partners to lead youth in research projects (4 counties), and
• Working directly with youth and volunteers to conduct research activities (2 counties) (Table 1).

  Table 1.
  Overview of 4-H EI Projects in Each Participating County

  Project Description	Project Model*	# of Youth	# of Partners
  Amphibian population monitoring. Youth identified species using mating calls and submitted their data to a national amphibian monitoring database.	1	6	2 teachers
  Eco-camp. Week-long day youth camp focusing on field research methods for wildlife and vegetation. Results of field sampling used to monitor a human-made wetland.	3	6	N/A
  Effects of deer on forest regeneration. Youth measured vegetation regeneration inside and outside of deer exclosures.	1	8	2 teachers 2 volunteers
  Biological control of invasive species. Using permanent plots, youth monitored the growth and spread of purple loosestrife before and after release of beetles used in biological control.	1	20	2 teachers 5 volunteers
  Project Feeder Watch. Through participation in a citizen science program developed by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, youth observed and identified bird species at feeders and submitted their data to a national database.	1	No data	1 teacher 1 4-H leader
  Strawberry cultivation. After establishing a strawberry garden at their school, youth engaged in experiments to determine what factors contribute to different levels of strawberry sweetness.	1	~50	2 teachers 2 4-H leaders 2 volunteers
  Water quality monitoring. Youth monitored the health of a stream adjacent to their school using water quality test kits and macro-invertebrates.	1, 2	12	1 teacher
  Sugar maple sap sweetness. Youth measured sap sweetness and learned about the Sugar Maple Tree Improvement Program.	3	~30	2 teachers 2-3 syrup producers
  Training workshops for local science teachers and students (3 counties). A series of workshops to introduce participants to youth research topics, raise awareness of CCE resources, and develop skills in inquiry-based instructional methods.	2	40	4 teachers
  * Project Models Direct support of local partners to conduct scientific research projects with local youth (6 counties). Conduct workshops to train local partners to lead youth in research projects (3 counties). Work directly with volunteers and youth to conduct research activities (1 county).

Benefits, Challenges, and Needs

Opportunities for networking with other Extension educators and local partners was the most important benefit of participation, although ties to campus, curricula, funding, and professional development opportunities also were cited by educators (Table 2). As one educator suggested, networking and seeing how other programs work could be a key factor in breaking down barriers to implementing a new program such as 4-H EI (Table 3).

The biggest challenges related to working with program partners (Tables 2 and 3). Most of the county projects involved schoolteachers as local partners and encountered constraints associated with fitting new material into an already full school curriculum. General community awareness and support of CCE educational programs also presented a challenge. Several county 4-H educators noted that other local educators were not aware of the county's ability to provide science experiences, and in fact, some teachers go straight to Cornell University for training and support needs, bypassing the county office.

Several educators felt that programs developed on campus, including this youth research program, were a mismatch for the intended audiences (Tables 2 and 3). One educator referred to the "marketability" of some Extension programs over others and to her obligation to provide programs that her county residents are calling for.

More traditional 4-H activities, such as those associated with animal husbandry and textiles, may overshadow newer science education programs. According to one educator, there is resistance to change 4-H club-based to school-based programs, and the Extension educators feel an obligation to remain loyal to the well-established programs in their community. Furthermore, the 4-H EI program was designed for middle and high school youth, whereas the county 4-H programs generally focus on elementary age youth.

Previous Research Experience and Program Implementation

The level of prior experience conducting scientific research was identified as having important implications for the educators' ability to facilitate youth research projects. In response to the pre-workshop survey item, "List three things you think it is important for youth to understand about environmental sciences research or science research in general," educators with prior research experience mentioned youth understanding of the process of scientific research, while those without research experience placed more priority on learning outcomes associated with, but not integral to, conducting research (e.g., career explorations) (Table 4).

Prior research experience also appeared to have a strong influence on implementation of research projects. An educator with research experience commented,

It is a long-term project, so I did not expect to get any results immediately, but wanted the younger people to understand that ecology and environmental cycles are long-term and it is just as important to think about those issues.

In contrast, an educator lacking research experience indicated some of the challenges her group faced:

We had the training day at the Arnot, which was very helpful, but we just kind of skimmed the surface of each topic, and did not get too far into it. For someone like me for whom this is not their background, it took some extra work before I felt like I could teach this.

Another educator recognized that program partners who lack science backgrounds were less confident to engage in research activities, and because of this tailored her training workshops to directly address this issue.

(As a result of these workshops) several people came up to me and said "this is really good, it makes me less intimidated by the whole process, because there are not wrong questions, or wrong answers--it's really, it's promoting curiosity. And that's really what we need to do with kids."

Prior research experience by the local program partner was also a key factor in the implementation of a 4-H EI project in one county. The youth in this county set up research plots to monitor the invasive plant, purple loosestrife. One of the local partners, a high school teacher, had previous research experience, which enabled him to show the youth how to obtain a random sample and to articulate the importance of random sampling.

Discussion

Was the 4-H EI program successful in reaching its goal of building the capacity of Extension educators to play a role in science education reform in their communities, through providing opportunities for youth to engage in open-ended research? Some counties, particularly those where Extension educators had research experience, were able to engage youth in research, drawing on the curriculum resources, financial support, and opportunities for networking with university scientists and like-minded educators provided through the program.

In other counties, the program was seen as not meeting local needs and presented significant challenges. In these counties, engaging youth in research activities may have been used to meet other county 4-H priorities, such as providing career opportunities and hands-on learning.

The National Science Education Standards recommend that teachers be provided with inquiry-based experiences, which are considered necessary for a teacher to be effective at facilitating inquiry-based learning (NRC, 1996). In hindsight, it might have been more effective for the 4-H EI educator workshop to have engaged the participants in a "mini-research" project from start to finish, thus providing them with at least minimal experience with the research process and also modeling how we wanted the educators to guide youth in research.

Instead, the training included a series of hour-long presentations to introduce the educators to the variety of potential youth research projects (e.g., sugar maple sap sweetness, herpetology monitoring) but did not provide time for the educators to experience the research process. Whether or not a short workshop could provide sufficient research experience to prepare educators to implement youth research projects is not known, although a similar short-term research experience had some positive effects on high school teacher and student understanding of the research process (Krasny, unpublished data).

Thus, designing and evaluating creative ways to engage county 4-H educators in either short-term research at workshops or longer-term projects in collaboration with university scientists would be an important next step in trying to meet our original goal. In addition to providing research experience for Extension educators, consideration must be given to providing such experiences for teachers and other local educators and volunteers.

Once a more appropriate workshop format is in place, a program such as 4-H EI can draw on the support educators offer each other to help overcome additional barriers to program implementation. Similar to the results from this program, networking among Extension educators, Cornell faculty, and local partners was a major benefit for participants in a program that focused on engaging CCE educators and volunteers in research and education programs focusing on invasive species (Krasny & Lee, 2001).

However, there likely will still be challenges related to different priorities of university faculty and county educators. In NYS, university faculty engaged in 4-H and other types of outreach often are influenced by their university research colleagues and by funding opportunities from the National Science Foundation and other agencies that require attention to the National Science Education Standards. In contrast, county Extension programs often reflect the priorities of farm families and volunteers working with elementary-aged and younger youth.

Conclusion

The 4-H EI program demonstrated county Extension educators with research experience are able to engage youth in research and uncovered some factors that might be considered in developing workshops for educators without research experience. It is important to recognize that some of the issues the counties faced are more difficult to address through trainings, such as discrepancies between county educator and faculty priorities, school-related constraints, and local awareness of the types of programs 4-H might offer.

References

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

Carlsen, W. S., Trautmann, N. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Krasny, M. E. (2003). Watershed dynamics. National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA.

Kraft, G. (1999). Education reform as public policy: A role for Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/comm1.html

Krasny, M. E. (1999). Reflections on nine years of conducting high school research programs. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 28,1-7.

Krasny, M. E., & Doyle, R. (2002). Participatory approaches to program development and engaging youth in research: The case of an inter-generational urban community gardening program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/a3.shtml

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

Krasny, M. E., Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (2002). Invasion ecology. National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

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

Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2001). Assessing toxic risk. National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA.

Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2003). Decay and renewal. National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA.

Expanding Extension's Reach: Partnering With FSA to Meet Educational Goals

Robert L. Parsons
Extension Assistant Professor
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
bob.parsons@uvm.edu

Gregory D. Hanson
Professor
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
gdh3@psu.edu

Introduction

Extension educators have again stepped up to partner with the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) to provide agricultural training expertise. In the past three years, Extension Farm Management Specialists from Penn State and the University of Vermont have developed and conducted a series of workshops designed to train ag lenders on farm production basics and expose them to innovative producers who have made their operations a success.

The workshops have turned out to be highly successful and highly rated by the participants. They also served a useful role in building a mutually beneficial working relationship between government agricultural agencies in need of production training and the agricultural and educational expertise of Cooperative Extension.

Background

Since 1995, Penn State Cooperative Extension has been a national leader in providing financial and production training, enabling nearly 2,000 Pennsylvania and Northeast farmers to meet federal training guidelines to qualify for FSA financing (Hanson, Parsons, Musser, & Power, 1998; Hanson, Parsons, Chess, & Balliet, 2002; Parsons, Hanson, Musser, Freund, & Power, 2000).

This training expertise and success led to Penn State being chosen to lead a national financial training program for more than 1,400 FSA personnel (Hanson, Parsons, & Musser, 2002). This close relationship led FSA to request Penn State Cooperative Extension to provide the same level of ag production training to recently hired Farm Loan Officer Trainees (FLOTs) who were strong in financial skills but lacked expertise in production practices and tools. Other states provide training to producers, but few address training to FSA personnel (Ibendahl, Isaacs, & Trimble, 2002; Trede & Whitaker, 1998).

FSA's situation is not unique. Agriculture in the 21st century is a highly capitalized industry, using rapidly changing production practices and in need of ag-friendly lenders to meet financial needs. However, agricultural finance firms face many difficulties in finding individuals who are knowledgeable about the specialized production practices unique to farming, able to relocate, and desire to work in a large government agency.

The situation is made more difficult because FSA is charged with providing financial resources to America's most at risk farmers--those with limited resources and typically the most highly financially leveraged. Because at-risk farm finances permit little room for production mistakes, there is a tremendous need for "ag smart" lenders who are both knowledgeable of ever-changing farm production processes and sensitive to the unique needs of family oriented businesses.

Initial Workshop

To meet FSA's training needs, a workshop was developed for Fall 2000, led by farm management specialists from Penn State Cooperative Extension and University of Vermont Extension. The initial workshop included visits to a dairy farm, a crop farm, a livestock operation, and a farm equipment dealership. Each session included a review of production fundamentals, use of videotape interviews of similar producers, and an examination of the finances of the specific ag operation visited.

The participants were asked to identify the major production practices and the important equipment on their farm. During each 2-3 hour visit, the FLOTs toured the farm with the owner, discussing major production practices with special emphasis on the buildings, livestock, and equipment. Special effort was made to visit farms that were well managed but with typical equipment inventories and financial resources to achieve above average production levels.

The farm visits gave FLOTs a rare opportunity to see the equipment close up, e.g., examine the knives on a mower conditioner, observe how the milking system worked, and walk the fields looking at crops including pasture management and discuss with the owner how farm resources are linked in production. After each farm visit, the group discussed the farm operation, the equipment, the production process, and identification of the "secret of production," that is, what made the farm production process successful on this farm.

The visit to the equipment dealership was of particular benefit to the participants, enabling them to compare modern equipment to past models, examine the key aspects of each piece of equipment, question the value determination of used equipment. The visit also exposed the pressures input suppliers face in today's business environment.

The initial production workshop was attended by 10 FLOTs from Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. The evaluations from both participants and state leaders were positive. All of the participants indicated they gained considerable knowledge of production practices and in particular became more knowledgeable regarding the uses of individual equipment pieces. The respective state Farm Loan Chiefs indicated satisfaction with the knowledge gained and the improved confidence of FLOTs with production loan applications.

Follow-up Workshops

After examining the participant evaluations to uncover strengths and weaknesses of the training, the workshop design was altered from 2 days/week over 3 weeks to a 3 1/2-day intensive course held in 1 week. Two major changes included: 1) reducing the financial analysis, which reduced the time requirements (yet still sharing farm specific financial information where possible) and 2) placing greater emphasis on the marketing challenges facing the individual farms and businesses. The success of the program led to the decision to take the workshop to other states.

From October 2001 to September 2002, three workshops jointly sponsored by Penn State Cooperative Extension and University of Vermont Extension were held in the Northeast for 46 FLOTs from 12 states. The first two workshops followed the same approach of the initial workshop while the third workshop was more advanced, focusing more specifically on entrepreneurial operations.

Workshop Participant Profile

One basic objective was to expose FLOTs to a variety of production systems that were relevant, yet also expose them to other products that they may come in contact with and be required to analyze regarding loan approval, in the future. The diversity of Northeast agriculture is shown by the number of commodities familiar to the FLOTs (Table 1). Dairy was by far the most common commodity, with nearly 70% working "often" with clients who dairy farmed. The next most prevalent commodity was corn, followed by fruit and beef. However, Table 1 shows the diverse range of common and unique commodities that the FLOTs encountered on a regular basis through their clients.

The workshops drew recent hires and veterans, but overall the participants averaged 5.1 years of FSA credit experience and 11.1 years with the USDA (Table 2). There was a difference between the workshops. The second workshop hosted a number of new hires, thus averaging only 3.6 years of credit experience, while the third workshop included several veterans, the group averaging 7.8 years credit experience and more then 16 years with the USDA. The implication was that even the veterans found the workshop to be quite rewarding. In addition, the experienced FLOTs added valuable comments to the discussions about the farm visits.

Workshop Content

The participants were asked to evaluate the workshop content and farm and agribusiness tours. The visits to the farm input suppliers garnered the highest level of satisfaction (Table 3). While most FLOTs do get out on farms, few have frequent opportunities to visit with agribusiness firms such as equipment dealers/suppliers.

One aspect not shown in the evaluations was the generous cooperation of the equipment dealers. One dealer made a point of indicating that as a group, equipment dealers seldom get a chance to talk about equipment characteristics with lenders, and in particular, to discuss the differences between, e.g., newer and older tractor models. In addition, many of the participants were fascinated by the technology advances of new equipment and the opportunity to hear the viewpoint of equipment dealers on financing, sales, valuing used equipment, and the changes that have transpired in the input sector in the past 20 years.

The next most satisfying aspect of the workshops was the direct farm visits. Each workshop included at least three farm tours focused on different production systems. A dairy farm was on the agenda at each workshop. Although the crop farms differed for each workshop, the general emphasis was on the range of equipment and field production practices including tillage, fertilization, and weed control. The other farm operations toured were particularly diverse, including a roadside vegetable market, a grape/apple operation, and a fruit operation with an emphasis on value-added cider.

The workshop exercises were slightly less popular with each group. However, the classroom exercises were felt to be valuable in providing guides for questions at the farms and for generating points of discussion when the workshop participants evaluated the farms. The evaluations were important because each workshop was slightly modified, with some evolutionary changes to the workshop manual and exercises. Changing the format to a full 3 days proved popular with participants who earlier had to use some weekend time for travel. In addition, interest waned after 3 days, so shortening the workshop did not reduce effectiveness.

Impact of Workshop

The objective of the workshop was to improve the production knowledge of FLOTs to enable them to become more effective in working with their clients. The participants clearly endorsed the workshop's effectiveness and also recommended the workshop to others (Table 4). One key category of importance to FSA Farm Loan Chiefs was that most participants found that workshop participation made them a better loan officer (rated 4.16 on a 5-point scale).

Quality of Instructors

A critical challenge for Extension farm management faculty is to continually improve their educational programs in the context of a dynamic agricultural environment. In this role, Cooperative Extension has the potential to fulfill its role as educator to groups other than the farm community. Since the mid-1990's, Cooperative Extension has provided training across the country for farmers to gain or renew eligibility for FSA lending. In addition, Cooperative Extension has provided leadership on financial training for FSA personnel. We believe that extending Cooperative Extension training agenda from the financial area to include production and marketing has been successful and can be successfully extended to the farm service and input sectors.

The evaluations from the workshop participants rated the instructors highly in subject matter knowledge and encouraging participation (Table 5). In addition, the instructors' workshop effectiveness was excellent, at 4.56 out of a possible five points. Most remarkable was the rating of the instructors at the third workshop, where 13 participants gave the instructors a perfect 5.0 on three of the four categories. The instructors' ratings for the second workshop were lower than for the others. These lower scores can likely be attributed in part to hotel construction, which caused room changes each day and rooms not located in the same hotel where the participants were staying.

Future Direction

The workshops have proved successful with participants and FSA Program Leaders. The success is perhaps best illustrated by a comment made in a letter from a state Farm Loan Program Leader that stated, "This workshop may go down in FSA history as the only workshop that no one complained about attending. And coming from this tough group, that is quite a compliment."

The plans are to hold additional workshops throughout the coming year. One key for training success will be to include workshop topics that are relevant to that region. We believe that production training offers an excellent opportunity to built alliances between Extension and FSA that aid both in improving the agricultural economy.

One alternative under consideration is to expand the workshop to include lenders from commercial banks and Farm Credit Associations. As the farm population continues to decline, there is little doubt that ag lenders will increasingly have greater difficulty recruiting loan officers with high levels of farm savvy and production knowledge. Thus, it becomes more vital for lenders to participate in ongoing training programs focused on the basics of agricultural production practices. Moreover, it is likely that participation in production training will become more and more useful for experienced lenders as well in order for them to keep up with technology advances in agriculture.

For Cooperative Extension, the challenge is to remain relevant in a changing world. With a smaller farm community, Cooperative Extension may have a smaller direct clientele, but Extension agents and specialists still can reach out to members of the ag community, and possibly other disciplines, by offering workshops to improve production expertise and knowledge bases. In this role, Cooperative Extension can meet the Outreach Education demands within the agriculture lending environment. These training experiences have convinced us that linking Cooperative Extension with FSA both serves the lending community and fulfills commitments to farm producers through the graduation of more ag-savvy lenders.

References

Hanson, G. D., Parsons, R. L., Chess, W., & Balliet, K. (2002). Farm production analysis training for small farmers. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/a8.shtml

Hanson, G. D., Parsons, R. L., & Musser, W. (2002). A transition finance training program for FSA/USDA. Agricultural Finance Review. 62(2):179-189.

Hanson, G. D., Parsons, R. L., 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

Ibendahl, G., Isaacs, S., & Trimble, R. (2002). Financial information base of participants in FSA borrower training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/rb4.shtml

Parsons, R. L., Hanson, G. D., Musser, W., Freund, R., & Power, L. (2000). A northeast borrower training program: evolution and impacts. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 29(2):240-250.

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

Alternative Income Opportunities: Needs of County Agents and Foresters in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Jonathan S. Kays
Extension Specialist-Natural Resources
Maryland Cooperative Extension
Keedysville, Maryland
jkays@umd.edu

Introduction

Rapid changes in land use in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region have resulted in increasing numbers of small farmers and forest owners with diverse objectives seeking information on alternative income opportunities to enable sound decision-making (Birch, 1997; USDA Census of Agriculture, 1997; Kays, 1998a; Kays, 1998b). County agricultural Extension agents ("agents") and professional foresters ("foresters") are a first point of contact for many landowners and commonly receive requests for information on alternative income opportunities related to agriculture and natural resources with which they may or may not be familiar. While agents are commonly more aware of income opportunities related to agriculture, their ability to provide natural resource information compared to foresters was the target of the study reported here.

Purpose and Objectives

Agents and foresters may need additional education to help them prepare for questions involving the range of alternative enterprise options. The purpose of the study was to develop a survey instrument that would provide the information needed to make recommendations for educational programming. The specific objectives of the survey were to determine:

1. The types of requests received by agents and foresters for specific alternative income opportunities,
2. The demographics of the clientele served by each profession, and
3. Which alternative income opportunities the professionals would like to learn more about and through which media they would like to receive it.

Methodology

A one-page, double-sided survey instrument with 10 questions was developed and field-tested. Initial questions asked what kind of information clientele requested. This included a question on the number of requests over the last year for information on 27 specific income opportunities in the four broad areas of forest farming and utilization, recreational activities, alternative agriculture, and forest management. A few questions focused on demographic characteristics of those requesting information. Other questions focused on the type of information professionals want to learn more about and by which media they would prefer to receive it.

To help organize the range of potential alternative enterprise options into groupings characteristic of the professionals, they were divided into four broad categories for the survey:

1. Managing forest resources using a forest stewardship plan
2. Forest farming and utilization enterprises
3. Recreational access and tourism enterprises
4. Traditional and alternative agricultural enterprises

A cover letter was sent with the survey instrument to 821 county agricultural Extension agents, state foresters, and consultant and industrial foresters in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Mailing lists were collected from state Extension and forestry organizations and entered into a database, with each record having an identifying number to register survey receipt.

A three-mailing survey technique was used (Dillman, 1978). The first mailing on May 15, 2001 included a cover letter, numbered survey, and postage paid return envelope with 2 weeks to respond. A reminder postcard followed 5 days after the initial mailing. After responses were tabulated, those who did not return a survey were sent another complete survey packet. Of the 821 surveys mailed, 503 or 61% were returned. However, only 415 or 51% of the surveys were completed, with an additional 98 indicating they did not want to participate.

The overall return rate varied by the group. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software was used to determine significant differences on the 415 completed surveys. The 415 respondents comprised county Extension agents (158), consultant foresters (124), and state foresters (98), with only a handful of industrial foresters (12). Only 23 respondents acknowledged their occupation as "other," and they were not included in the analysis. The number of professionals by state and occupation provided a diverse and balanced sample.

Results & Discussion

Audiences Requesting Information