|
December 2004
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE On-Line--All of ItI am happy--and proud--to report that all 207 back issues of the Journal of Extension (JOE) are now on-line at http://www.joe.org/archive.html. This milestone is thanks to the efforts of JOE Web developer, Robyn Ness, and her colleagues at Ohio State. From the first issue of what was then the Journal of Cooperative Extension, published in the spring of 1963, to the October 2004 JOE, there's a wealth of information and inspiration, and, I think, a fertile field for study. Much has changed, of course. Today, for example, an article titled "The Professional and His Journal" would not be published in or submitted to JOE. But much has remained the same. And here I'm referring to the breadth of our interests as Extension professionals, the depth of our scholarship, and the level of our commitment to the land-grant mission and to Extension. JOE, which has been an electronic journal for 10 years, is flourishing. This year, we will exceed our all-time high of 256 submissions, reached in 2003. With your help, JOE will continue to be a vehicle for sharing our interests, reporting our scholarship, and expressing our commitment. December JOEThe 30 Feature, Research in Brief, Ideas at Work, and Tools of the Trade articles in this issue certainly reflect the breadth of our interests, the depth of our scholarship--and the way we continue to evolve. They include an article profiling female county agricultural agents, one reporting on a survey of ANREP members, one on partnering with mass media to broadcast educational programming before and after local weather reports, and the second in a series on IRB's. How many of these topics were even on our radar screen in 1963? And the 2 Commentary articles just as certainly reflect the level of our commitment--and concern--for Extension and make fitting capstones to end our anniversary year. "Is Extension an Idea Whose Time Has Come--and Gone?" and "Is Extension Relevant for the 21st Century?" essentially ask the same question and challenge us with their different answers. JOE is ready for the challenge if you are--and I know you are. Best wishes for the holiday season. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Is Extension an Idea Whose Time Has Come--and Gone?George McDowell Our Funding Crisis--Just a Sign of the Times or More?Extension is in crisis--still and ongoing. It has been this way for quite a long time. I wrote my paper "Extension Revisited or If You Haven't Visited Extension Recently You'd Better Do It Soon Cause It Isn't Going Be There Long" in 1991. The system was under assault then and still is. The federal partner is almost not a partner anymore--the constant decline of formula funding and the loss of national Extension program leaders is just some of the evidence. State governments in fiscal crisis all across the nation are questioning their support to Extension. In November 2003 Michigan State University issued an e-mail appeal to alumni to make noise wherever they could--both Extension and the Experiment Station were on the chopping block--not just for cuts but for possible elimination. Identifying a state where there is not a state funding crisis for Extension is difficult. There are tales about North Carolina, South Carolina, Minnesota, and Oregon. And what about Massachusetts? Oh, they simply tried to eliminate 4-H there. How can we fathom all this negative stuff about a part of public higher education in America in which many of us believe so deeply? We do believe that the land-grant universities changed higher education in the world forever. We do believe that Extension is what made these universities better than Harvard and Yale under the values of American society. Extension engaged the land-grant universities with the ordinary people of the society before anyone knew what engagement was all about. Extension has and does make some of the scholarship in the land-grant universities better and more relevant than it would otherwise be because it solves real problems of real people. Our heritage is proud--even great! Those who came before us transformed a peasant agriculture into the most productive agriculture in the world. At the same time the land-grant universities created and institutionalized much of modern science--just examine the history of statistics. So what has gone wrong? Why has our support from the society (the national, state, and local partners of the "Cooperative" part of Extension) dropped off so badly? Is it just another paradox of the times? "I'm proud to be an American, but I really don't want to pay taxes (for anything, even the things that make me proud)." Are our problems of support just another part of the failure of many Americans to understand ourselves and our own society? Consider--according to a Time survey, during the 2000 election 19% of Americans, when asked, believed they were in the top 1% of the income distribution. Another 20% thought they would soon be. (Brooks, 2003) It's hard to believe this need for a reality check is explained by believing in and hoping for the American dream. Both the "hell bent on cutting taxes" and the "don't really understand who we are" phenomena are outside of our control. They are forces to which we can only react. Both may be involved when folks exclaim that Extension is the one of the best-kept secrets around. But if our time has come and gone, what would that mean? It would seem to mean that what we offer and/or the methods we use to deliver what we offer are no longer relevant to most of the people in the society. We Have Met the Enemy--It Is Us!Of the alternative explanations for the demise of support for Extension--irrational behavior, failure by audiences to understand or appreciate our value, or irrelevant and inappropriately delivered programs--I believe the major causes are in the latter two categories. Unfortunately, the irrational behavior most affecting Extension is internal to Extension itself. The need to broaden the Extension program portfolio to other than agricultural audiences while continuing to serve well our traditional support base seems obvious. What is less obvious is the need for both agricultural audiences and agricultural Extension staff to understand the importance they play in the survival of the organization. If either agricultural audiences or agricultural Extension agents use the substantial power they have in the system to protect just the agricultural Extension part of the budget, they are contributing to the more rapid demise of the system. And there won't even be a Galaxy in which to decline to participate. The argument goes this way: Extension must broaden its base of support. Almost everyone in the system agrees. Broadening our support base means finding ways to serve and collect from new audiences. With agricultural audiences declining in numbers and power, we must find ways of serving agriculture well with fewer resources. If agricultural clients and agents insist on maintaining old ways of delivering programs and protect only the agricultural part of the budget, they put the system in a budget/political downward spiral towards its ultimate demise. When agricultural agents participate in trying to restrict spending in Extension to agricultural programs, their irrational, self-interested behavior costs Extension dearly. Actually, the casual evidence is that agricultural interests inside and outside Extension are a little more sophisticated than believing they can carry even the agricultural budget for themselves by themselves. Most agricultural groups do recognize the role that 4-H programming support plays in the total politics of Extension budgets. When in recent years Minnesota agricultural agents went after restricting the Extension portfolio to a subset of current programming, they were careful to include 4-H. They knew, as do we all, that in most states 4-H carries more political water than any other part of the program. Curiously, we invest the least and have the thinnest research base in support of 4-H programming. (See also Astroth, 2003.) As important as support from agricultural audiences is for our total programs, other parts of the program must become much more sophisticated in collecting support for the excellent programs they do. We allow ourselves to be to be defeated by continuing to deliver good programs to appreciative audiences who never make known the value they place on our programs. We should never be permitted ever again to say that "Extension is the best-kept secret around" if we are a part of keeping it secret by not working hard to collect for the institution from the people we serve. There is, however, a nuance in the preceding sentence. It says "collect for the institution." Lots of Extension staff collect credit for the excellent work they do, but they collect for themselves rather than for the institution of Extension. That stored up personal political capital usually gets spent on reallocation within the organization to protect "my" programs rather than on growing the total. Revealing the Secrets and Getting Credit for ItOne way to think about generating and garnering support for our Extension programs is to consider that the following four conditions are necessary to that process:
These four conditions mean 1) we must have first-rate programs that really meet audience needs; 2) audiences must know the information came from Extension; 3) we must have mechanisms in place to identify and contact clients like associations, clubs, newsletters, mailing lists, and/or other devices; and 4) when we need to collect support, we must make it easy and cheap for our supporters to help us. These conditions focus on both the public and private benefits that our audiences gain from our programs. Explicitly identifying the public benefits would help clients identify their own benefits and also stimulate them to act politically for us because they see a broader public interest in our work. (See Kalambokidis, 2004.) Our history and the discussions of engagement make clear that efficiency arguments about the organization and delivery of Extension programs substantially understate the role of Extension in the university. (See Laband & Lentz, 2004.) Such analyses, while instructive, focus primarily on the direct beneficiaries of Extension programs. They substantially overlook Extension's role in making research better and more relevant. They ignore the role of Extension in eliciting broad public support for the university beyond the parents of students, who are after all at any point in time, some of the primary beneficiaries of our universities. In economists' terms, they use a production economics approach when a public choice or political economy approach is more appropriate. An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?To finally answer the question about whether Extension's time has come and gone, we must return to the question of the Extension program agenda. Some of the issues we must deal with about that agenda are the following.
Extension directors, much less field staff, tend not to address the campus/field gap issue because faculty in academic departments do not "direct" easily--they never will direct easily. The campus/field gap becomes an additional barrier to broadening the program portfolio, particularly when the departments that need to be involved have no Extension traditions or experience. Bridging this gap between the campus and the field is explicitly about the "positive net benefit condition" identified above. The gap, and the failure to bridge it across the whole university, may ultimately prove that Extension's time has indeed come--and gone. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.) ReferencesAstroth, Kirk A. (2003). Doorway, doormat, or doghouse? The challenges facing 4-H youth development scholarship in land-grant universities. Journal of Extension [On Line], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm1.shtml Brooks, D. (2003). The triumph of hope over self-interest. Opt Ed. New York Times. Sunday, January 12. Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the public value in Extension programs, Journal of Extension [On Line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.shtml Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (2004). Which universities should provide Extension services? Journal of Extension [On Line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/comm2.shtml McDowell, G. R. (1991). USDA and the Extension system revisited--Or, if you haven't visited Extension recently, you better do it soon, cause it isn't going to be there long. Paper present to the National Workshop for Extension Agricultural Program leaders, Nashville, TN, April 3-5, 1991, unpublished. McDowell, G. R. (1985). The political economy of Extension program design: Institutional maintenance issues in the organization and delivery of Extension programs, Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 67(4). pp.117-125.
Is Extension Relevant for the 21st Century?Nancy H. Bull Lawrence S. Cote Paul D. Warner M. Ray McKinnie As a 90-year-old artifact of the days when an agrarian economy dominated society, is it possible for Cooperative Extension to still be relevant? As the primary outreach and public service function of most land-grant universities, the relevance of Extension is closely tied to the perception of relevance of the host public, land-grant institutions. Cooperative Extension: A Vision for the 21st CenturyIn 2002, the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) published the report, The Extension System: A Vision for the 21st Century. "[It] proposes a vision of the Extension System that addresses contemporary issues relevant to constituents residing within and beyond its traditional rural and agrarian heritage" (p.1). The report calls upon Extension leadership to draw upon the universities' many disciplines to respond to changing societal needs. The report was developed in response to (and assessed the effectiveness of Extension against) the seven-part test of university engagement proposed in the Kellogg Commission monograph Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution (1999). The seven characteristics of engaged institutions proposed there were:
Perhaps the eighth component should be relevance: being appropriate to the community needs and context of the day. The concept of engagement is central to the Kellogg Commission's series of recommendations (published in six reports between 1997 and 2001) as to how land-grant universities can remain relevant. The engagement concept "goes well beyond extension, conventional outreach, and even most conceptions of public service" (Kellogg, 1999). Mission Creep or Context Change?Some observers charge that Extension has experienced mission creep and should return to a focus on agriculture (Peters, 2004). Others argue that Extension is a "captive" of agriculture interests and should serve a broader national purpose (McDowell, 2001). In 1903, following a request for assistance by a group of local farmers, federal agriculture specialist Seaman Knapp and farmer/collaborator Walter Porter initiated test plots on the Porter Farm in Kaufman County, Texas. Knapp and Porter focused on solving economic/productivity problems in the context of agricultural production and the community of the day. Dr. Knapp's philosophy, "what he does himself, he cannot doubt" (Texas A&M, 2003), became the mantra for the national Cooperative Extension System. As Extension addressed a broader array of community-based needs during the 20th century and drew upon more university disciplines and developed programs within urban settings, the question of mission creep arose. Boyle (1996) and others have proposed that meeting the Extension responsibility to serve the lifelong learning needs of people involves a commitment of the total university. Extending the research of the public, land-grant university to solve problems through stakeholder collaboration continues today. A safe, secure, and productive food system remains critical. Yet the context and need for Extension education have proliferated. American society is now more diverse, urban populations have increased, yet the demand for affordable food continues. Just as Knapp and Porter were learning partners, Extension personnel today work as partners with citizens, communities, and university colleagues. Today land use, obesity prevention, responsible use of pesticides, urban revitalization, non-agriculture commerce, and specific attention to the needs of underserved audiences are among the expanded Extension portfolio, in addition to programs serving the original stakeholders. Extension is still about improving the quality of life for citizens.
More Relevant Today Than EverExtension has directed its resources to focus on relevant issues within the evolving context of local, state, multi-state, and national learning priorities. Extension must continue to communicate that evolving and multiple learning contexts (the emergence of e-Extension, for example), coupled with changing and expanding learning needs of citizens, always has been a characteristic of relevant, research-based, and high-quality Extension education. Expansion and redirection of resources is appropriate today to remain vital. The strategic partnership of land-grant universities with federal, state, and local governments enables delivery of critically needed educational programs at the grass roots level. Faculty and staff serving in over 3,000 counties provide the front door to the nation's public universities, enabling higher education resources to be used to solve real problems. While viewed historically as a rural program, 21st century Extension now touches almost every aspect of people's lives regardless of where they live (ECOP, 2003). As in 1903, citizens within their local community context still today best resolve problems in most aspects of everyday living. To continue to move forward, the Cooperative Extension System must learn to move more quickly, to take advantage of new opportunities, and to build financial partners (Harris, 2004). Extension in the 21st CenturyAlmost 20 years ago Dillman (1985) described Extension as being at the cross roads of differing societal contexts. The transformation of society moved from a focus on community control within a sense of place, to a mass society. As we move further into the information age--which tends to focus on communities of interest--Extension increasingly is responding to the learning needs of both communities of interest and of place. To continue to be relevant in this evolving context, everyone must play a role. Keith Smith, 2004 ECOP chair, challenged Extension directors and administrators to look inwardly and assume responsibility for Extension's future. There are specific things that can be done. As you communicate with key constituents and clients, weave the seven-part test of engagement into messages. Offer examples of how Extension programs demonstrate these characteristics of the engaged university. Provide clearer descriptions of problems addressed and why, followed by demonstrated impact on problem resolution over time. Strive to remember and apply the eighth test: keep Extension relevant to the changing learning needs of both communities of place and of interest. Continue to build upon the basic agricultural Extension model, yet build collaborative relationships with federal, state, and local agencies and university partners who possess the expertise and resources needed to solve today's critical problems. Require new partners to participate in the full cost, not the marginal cost, of adding major components to the national Cooperative Extension System portfolio (Hefferan, 2004). ConclusionExtension is a living, evolving, market-driven organization that responds to society's changing needs. Lifelong learning is expanding by utilizing existing and new, university-based, knowledge to solve complex problems cooperatively with citizens and their communities. As a unique achievement in American education, the Cooperative Extension System needs to assist the entire university to better engage citizens and communities to create an improved quality of life (ECOP, 2003)--and in return, to create a more complete academic learning experience for core university faculty and their students (Kriesky & Cote, 2003). Whether Extension will remain relevant, in significant part, lies within each of us privileged to be Extension professionals. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.) ReferencesBoyle, P. G. (1996). Building political support for Extension in the 21st century. Unpublished manuscript. Dillman, D.A. (1985). Cooperative Extension at the beginning of the 21st century. Paper presented at the national Community Resource Development Program Leader Conference, Logan, Utah. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (2002). The Extension system: A vision for the 21st century. Washington, D.C., National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (2003). The Cooperative Extension System: More relevant today than ever. Unpublished manuscript. Harris, L. & Associates (2004). 4-H science and technology strategic planning: Top level findings from environmental scan and asset audit. Unpublished manuscript. Hefferan, C. (2004). Keynote address: Extension programming across the natural, socioeconomic, and political landscapes. Wheeling, WV: 4th Natural Resource Extension Professionals Conference--Extension outside the box: Natural resources programming across landscapes. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1997). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution (Report 3). Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Kriesky, J., & Cote, L. S. (Fall 2002/Winter 2003). Extension/academic service-learning: Benefits and lessons learned. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 8 (1), 45-58. McDowell, G. (2001). Land-grant universities and extension into the 21st century. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (2002). Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th ed., revised). New York: Oxford University Press. Peters, S. (n.d.). Mission drift or renewal? Recovering a historical grounding for assessing Cooperative Extension's civic work. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from: http://:www.publicwork.org/pdf/workingpapers/ Texas A.M. Cooperative Extension. (2003). To make a great people. [DVD-R]. College Station, TX: Texas A.M. University.
Smith Lever 3(d) Extension Evaluation and Outcome Reporting--A Scorecard to Assist Federal Program LeadersBill Hoffman Barbara Grabowski The Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) requires that all federal agencies and programs set goals and measure outcomes (USGAO, 1996). Goals that are the product of national leadership and stakeholder input help to clearly articulate program priorities and prevent mission creep. Measuring program outcomes can quantify productivity, determine efficiency and effectiveness of processes used, and highlight the usefulness of programs in terms of accomplishment of program goals. For many program managers, the most difficult aspect of GPRA implementation is the transition from measuring program outputs to developing outcome-related program measures (USGAO, 1997). The United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) is one of many agencies whose program managers have found this to be a challenging mandate. CSREES administers funding for Extension programs that intend to help the citizenry put university research to practical use through various forms of educational programming (ECOP, 1997). Extension programming is one area where outcome measurement challenges have been documented (Nelson, 1999). The Hoffman EEOR Scorecard of LOGIC model-based questions was developed to illuminate the utilization of Extension evaluation and outcome reporting (EEOR) ideal practices by Smith Lever 3(d) programs, one sub-set of CSREES Extension funded programming efforts. This scorecard was developed from an extensive review of the Extension program literature within the context of GPRA (Hoffman, 2003). This article provides a brief overview of this research, including an example of its findings for one Smith Lever 3(d) program: Extension IPM Implementation. The lead author of this publication is professionally responsible for the state reporting function of that program. Review of Current LiteratureCurrent literature from evaluation, GPRA implementation guidance, and Extension evaluation contributed to the development of the scorecard. Evaluation BackgroundA central concept in Extension program evaluation and the GPRA is the differentiation between outcomes and outputs. Outcomes refer to results of program objectives that are defined by the underlying purpose of the federal investment (Nelson, 1999). They include variables such as improvement in agricultural profitability, increases in agricultural systems efficiency, enhanced environmental quality, and decreases in farm worker injuries. Outputs refer to the activities or efforts of a program used to produce outcomes (Nelson, 1999). They include variables such as number of training sessions held, the number of participants trained, the number of publications developed, or the number of farms visited. Change agents such as Extension educators achieve outcomes directly through programming outputs and indirectly through secondary interpersonal educational networks that exist within social systems (Rogers, 1998). This includes program participants sharing information with peers and clients, which has the potential to multiply the effects of Extension educational activity. For this reason, Extension programming can be expected to achieve outcomes that exceed those that directly result from programming outputs. Output information can help to contextualize outcome data by helping to explain the program's role in achieving these outcomes. However, output information in the absence of outcome data does not illuminate program effectiveness, efficiency, or productivity toward reaching an educational program's objectives (USGAO, 1996). GPRA Implementation GuidanceThe United States General Accounting Office distinguishes between different types of outcomes. "Ultimate outcomes" are those that represent the achievement of the underlying purpose of the federal investment (USGAO, 1998). An example of an ultimate outcome is decreased surface water pollution caused by dairy farming operations. Outcomes that contribute or lead to this ultimate purpose are known as "intermediate outcomes." An example of an intermediate outcome that could lead to the aforementioned ultimate outcome is the adoption of environmentally friendly manure management practices by dairy farmers. If research supports a strong connection between intermediate and ultimate outcomes, the measurement of intermediate outcomes alone can be used to satisfy GPRA requirements (USGAO, 1998). These are commonly referred to a "proxy measures." Currently used evaluation models in the instructional systems and Extension education evaluation fields make similar distinctions between outcomes and outputs as well as different types of outcomes. Examination of the LOGIC model can help to clarify these distinctions and provide guidance for federal Extension evaluation and outcome reporting. Extension EvaluationThe University of Wisconsin's LOGIC model is pictured in Figure 1 (UWEC, 2002). The model has at its roots Kirkpatrick's four-level and Bennett's seven-level evaluation models (Kirkpatrick, 1959; Bennett, 1975). Figure 1. The model defines three outcome types: Learning, Action, and Conditions. Though measurements of learning through pre-tests and post-tests of participants can be considered an intermediate outcome, data that describes how this learning is transferred to action is much more valuable (Houlton, 1996). Action outcomes include changes in behavior and adoption of practices that have resulted, in part, from the aforementioned learning. Action outcomes generally represent intermediate outcomes that may reveal progress toward ultimate outcome progress. Condition outcomes are advancements in social, economic, civic, and environmental conditions that are generally analogous to the "ultimate outcomes" described earlier. Non-outcome categories of the LOGIC model include Inputs, Activity Outputs, Participation Outputs, External Factors, and Assumptions. Inputs of resources are invested to support learning activities (Bennett, 1975). The LOGIC model overcomes Houlton's criticism (1996) of Kirkpatrick's earlier work by acknowledging the role of external factors, which include new technologies and social pressures that can slow or accelerate practice adoption. Finally, the LOGIC model acknowledges the importance of assumptions made by educators regarding how educational programming may influence outcomes. These assumptions include the mix of educational tactics and the proper audiences to target, which the educator perceives will provide the greatest impact within resource constraints. Though these non-outcome categories do not address outcomes themselves, they describe the process and strategy used by educators to achieve outcomes through input investment. MethodsBased on the reviewed literature, three Extension evaluation and outcome reporting ideal practices were designated. From these, a series of LOGIC model-based questions, that is, a scorecard, was developed to examine their utilization. This section discusses these activities and outlines limitations of the research. Extension Evaluation and Outcome Reporting (EEOR) Ideal PracticesGuidance provided by the GAO regarding GPRA implementation and the nature of Extension work suggests three Extension evaluation and outcome reporting (EEOR) ideal practices to be followed by federal program managers: EEOR Ideal Practice #1--National Outcome Definition and Measurement: Define and measure national ultimate program (condition) outcomes, using research-supported proxies (learning and action outcomes) where appropriate. Ideal EEOR Practice #2--Sub-National (State) Outcome Reporting: Have a user-friendly system for individual awardees (henceforth referred to as "state programs") or groups of state programs to report on nationally defined outcomes or proxies directly. Locally defined outcomes could be used and reported if they are consistent with and complementary to nationally defined and measured goals. EEOR Ideal Practice #3--Sub-National (State) Non-Outcome Reporting: Report non-outcome data (outputs, inputs, external factors, assumptions) to contextualize outcomes, not as program results. Articulating desired national outcomes and measuring progress toward them helps to clarify programmatic purposes. Measurement of intermediate (action) outcomes can be substituted for ultimate (condition) outcomes if there is a strong, research-supported link between the two phenomena. An example is measuring the action phenomenon of the number of servings of fruits and vegetables consumed per day as a proxy for the health benefits associated with this activity. National ultimate and intermediate outcomes can often be measured through third party data, such as surveys conducted by other agencies of the federal government. A user-friendly state outcome reporting system can provide evidence of a local program's role in attaining national outcomes. Finally, non-outcome data such as number of participants and external factors can be useful to contextualize reported outcomes. While non-outcome data from all of these categories are of some potential use, this data should be used to contextualize rather than replace outcome measurement. The aforementioned three EEOR ideal practices would not necessarily ensure complete GPRA compliance themselves. However, their utilization would go a long way toward overcoming an impediment to GPRA implementation: Defining and measuring outcome goals instead of outputs. Development of an Evaluation ScorecardSimply asking "does the program utilize practice x?" would not yield the depth of answer desired. The LOGIC model was used to develop the Hoffman EEOR Scorecard to assess how and in what ways these programs utilize these three EEOR ideal practices. This scorecard is shown in Table 1. This table also references the components of the LOGIC model that the questions intend to illuminate.
Limitations of the ResearchIt is important to note that these questions were designed to illuminate the utilization of selected EEOR ideal practices that are consistent with GPRA compliance. Utilization of these practices alone will not guarantee complete GPRA compliance. Answers were obtained primarily through publicly available extant data including requests for applications, plans of work, annual reports, and other components of CSREES reporting systems. To supplement this, some CSREES National Program Leaders were consulted to provide further clarification. This focus on extant data had the potential to produce less than exhaustive information regarding the program's evaluation and results reporting efforts, particularly if a majority of these efforts take place "behind the curtain" and are not publicly documented. Abridged Example Report of FindingsThe original research examined the following programs: Extended Food and Nutrition, Children, Youth and Families at Risk, Extension Integrated Pest Management, Farm Safety combined with Youth Farm Safety Certification, Extension Indian Reservation Program, Sustainable Agricultural Research and Extension, and Regional Rural Development. Due to the space limitations of this forum, this article provides an abridged example of findings for the Extension Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. This includes a brief explanation of the IPM program and examination of compliance with each of the three EEOR practices. To aid the reader, LOGIC model components are italicized when mentioned in the regular text and included in parentheses when referred to indirectly. Explanation of IPM ProgramThe Integrated Pest Management Program teaches common pest management principles to a wide variety of audiences. CSREES provides formula funding to states and territories to further these efforts. One of the co-authors works directly with the state outcome-reporting element of this program. Program Utilization of EEOR Ideal Practice #1: National Program Outcome Definition and MeasurementThe IPM Program's utilization of practice #1 is summarized in Table 2.
The Smith Lever IPM Program articulates four broad national goals:
From 1995 to 2000, the national program leadership defined and measured progress toward the intermediate outcome of IPM adoption (action outcome) through third party data. A goal was set of 75% nationwide IPM adoption by the year 2000, which is a research-supported proxy for reduced pesticide use. The program is currently concluding the stakeholder input phase of a process to define new national measures with a stronger emphasis on condition outcomes (Hoffman, 2002). These new national measures are being developed in response to a 2001 General Accounting Office report that urged a stronger tie between program objectives and reductions in pesticide use (GAO, 2001). Results of this process will influence future measurement of conditions and action outcome proxies produced and measured nationally by the program. Program Utilization of EEOR Ideal Practice #2: IPM State Outcome Reporting
Statewide program coordinators choose commodities or pest management situations important to their state as areas of program emphasis and then decide which outcome and non-outcome indicators best match the efforts on that commodity. Maine may choose to report on pest management efforts in potatoes, sweet corn, and apples. Michigan could choose to report on broccoli, blueberries, and potatoes (all five commodities are grown in both states). The two states also choose to report progress using one or all of the following 16 Smith Lever IPM Program indicators of outcomes, outputs, inputs, and processes:
Though numbers 1-5 can provide evidence of the individual state program's role in achieving national outcomes, this commodity and indicator selection latitude often prevents meaningful outcome data aggregation. This lack of data aggregation is important for two reasons. First, if the national leadership of the program would like to assess its outcomes related to blueberries, this data would be incomplete unless all major blueberry-producing states choose to report on that commodity. Second, even if all major blueberry-producing states choose to report on the commodity, this data would be difficult to compile unless each state self-selected the same outcome indicators. If the program were trying to "roll up" the state outputs to come up with national outcome data, this would present a serious problem. The fact that the national program leadership measures national outcomes using third party data makes this lack of aggregation somewhat less important. Furthermore, it is possible under current guidelines for a state to select only from indicators 6-16, thus not reporting on outcomes. Efforts are currently underway to require at least one outcome indicator for each program and encouraging one outcome indicator from each area of emphasis. Program Utilization of EEOR Ideal Practice #3: IPM State Non-Outcome ReportingThe IPM Program's utilization of practice #3 is summarized in Table 4.
For the crops identified, programs can choose to report on non-outcome indicators numbers 6-16 from the 16-item list above. In addition to this crop-specific data, the state programs are asked to provide program wide narratives and resource information. Five-year plans of work and annual reports are used to report assumptions and external factors in narrative form, and alternate funding (input) data in numerical form. As mentioned earlier, it is possible under current guidelines for non-outcome data to completely replace outcome measurement on the state level through local indicator selection. The national program leadership is currently attempting to close this loophole. Results from Using the Scorecard for the Extension IPM ProgramWhen the Extension IPM Program's Extension outcome and reporting practices were compared to the Ideal EEOR practices using the Hoffman EEOR Scorecard, three major areas for further improvement were identified:
Current proposed guidelines designed to separate outcome measures from non-outcome supporting data should be implemented as soon as practical, and/or this tactic should be a part of any future proposed changes in the state evaluation and reporting system. As new national outcome measures are formed, every effort should be made to seek out third party data as guided by the scorecard at the federal and state levels to improve the overall quality of evaluation and outcome reporting and ease the reporting burden on individual awardees. As these measures are more closely linked to condition outcomes, data availability on condition outcomes and closely linked action outcome proxies should be thoroughly investigated. Finally, cooperation among states to coordinate outcome measurement could provide greater opportunities for data aggregation and more meaningful results interpretation. ConclusionWhen a judge examines a group of dogs, chickens, or cows at an animal show, he or she typically compares each member of the class to a theoretical ideal animal. Regardless of their ranking within the class, the owners and breeders of those animals are given valuable information on ways to improve their kennel, flock, or herd so successive generations of their stock may approach that ideal. The three EEOR ideal practices described in this article, along with the scorecard to evaluate their utilization, are not unlike that theoretical ideal animal that is used for comparisons. Using the Hoffman EEOR Scorecard and making such comparisons can help Smith Lever 3(d) program leaders identify how closely their practices come to the three EEOR ideal practices. Such a comparison is potentially useful in diagnosing where current evaluation efforts could be improved and the general direction that this improvement could take. This information can help program leaders to:
For the example program documented in this article, Extension IPM, this comparison yielded three major areas for further improvement:
Based on examination by this scorecard, the Extension IPM program is pursuing these three areas of potential improvement at this time. ReferencesBennett, C. F. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension [On-line], 13(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/index.html Extension Committee on Organizational Policy (ECOP) (1997). Strategic directions of the cooperative extension system. Retrieved May, 2002 from: http://www.reeusda.gov/part/gpra/direct.htm GPRA Page (CSREES Web site). (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2002 from: http://www.reeusda.gov/part/gpra/gprahome.htm Hoffman, W. (2003). Smith lever 3(d) program evaluation and outcome reporting -- a federal perspective. Unpublished master's thesis. Penn State University. Houlton, E. F., III (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Minimum standards for Extension IPM implementation program annual reporting. (2002). (CSREES Working Paper) Washington, DC. Nelson, D. E. (1999). Generic observations with regard to the 2000-2004 plans of work. Retrieved May, 2002 from: http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/generic.htm Richardson, J. G. (2001). Proactively addressing accountability in Extension. The Forum [On-line], 6, 2. Retrieved July, 2002 from: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/2001sp/richardson.html North Carolina State University (NCSU). (n.d). The performance planning and reporting system. Retrieved June, 2002: http://www.pprs.info Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Stake, R. E. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education, A responsive approach. Columbus: Merrill. Taylor-Powell, E., Steele, S., & Douglah, M. (1996). Planning a program evaluation. Retrieved July 2002, from University of Wisconsin-Extension-Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation Unit Web site: http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3658_1.PDF United States General Accounting Office. (1996). Executive guide: Effectively implementing the government performance results act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, DC: USGAO. United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Managing for results: Analytic challenges in measuring performance. GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. Washington, DC: USGAO. United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Managing for results: Measuring program results that are under limited federal control. GAO/GDD-99-16. Washington, DC: USGAO. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension (UWCE). Evaluation logic model (2002). Retrieved November, 2003 from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html United States General Accounting Office. (2001). Agricultural pesticides: Management improvement needed to further promote integrated pest management. GAO-01-815. Washington DC: USGAO. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 2nd ed. Boston: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Moving Towards Ecologically Based Pest Management: A Case Study Using Perimeter Trap CroppingT. Jude Boucher Robert Durgy IntroductionIn recent years, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs have been criticized for relying too much on chemical solutions and for having a low adoption rate of low-risk, biologically based tactics (Anonymous, 2001; Ehler & Bottrell, 2000; Lewis, van Lenteren, Phatak, & Tumlinson, 1997). Some have argued that the original meaning of the term "integrated" in IPM has been lost. It is claimed that the term originally referred to "compatible" management techniques that minimized disruption of natural enemies (Ehler & Bottrell, 2000). Lewis et al. (1997) argue that we must move away from quests for short-term, therapeutic interventions ("silver bullets"), such as pesticides, that merely treat the symptoms of an unbalanced ecosystem. They advocate that researchers concentrate on developing long-lasting solutions that build in an array of preventative, natural regulators. This means that merely switching from chemicals to selective microbial pesticides, biocontrol agents, or biotech products does not address the underlying weaknesses of conventional pest management systems. The basic tenet described by Lewis et al. (1997) and others is that nature will always counter therapeutic approaches and render them ineffective in the long term. Therapeutic tactics should serve as a backup to built-in preventative measures while balance is restored to the system, not as the primary means of pest control. To implement an ecologically based approach to pest management, we need to modify crop production designs, using principles capable of containing population levels of a variety of pests and pest complexes on multiple commodities. In ecological terms, this involves moderating or dampening pest populations' boom and bust cycles so that populations of individual pests remain at low carrying capacities and, ideally, below economic thresholds. To accomplish these goals, Lewis et al. (1997) suggest that new designs concentrate on managing the farm environment through ecosystem enhancements (i.e., landscape ecology), crop attributes, or other means that help stabilize the population of species throughout the food web. To scientists and Extension educators involved exclusively in conventional agriculture or pesticide-oriented IPM programs, Lewis' suggestions might seem little more than a pipe dream. It is often hard to imagine how a redesigned system might successfully incorporate good ecological principles, eliminate pesticides from crops, and meet all the short-term demands of modern agriculture and the marketplace. Perimeter trap cropping represents one possible redesign of the crop production and pest management system that incorporates natural population regulators, plant attributes, and a conservative trap crop spatial orientation to improve pest control. Definition and Function of Perimeter Trap Cropping (PTC)Webster's Dictionary (Guralnik, 1980) defines "perimeter" as "the outer boundary of a figure or area" and as "a boundary strip where defenses are set up." Perimeter trap cropping involves planting a more attractive host plant to completely encircle and protect the main cash crop like fortress walls. Other perimeter defenses such as border sprays or biological, mechanical, and/or cultural controls can be added to help increase efficacy. Perimeter trap cropping functions by intercepting pest migration, regardless of the direction of attack. It then concentrates pest population(s) in the border area, where they can be retained or controlled. Natural enemies are conserved by eliminating insecticide use on the main cash crop. Crop losses can be further reduced if the target pest(s) are also disease vectors (Boucher & Durgy, 2004). Perimeter trap cropping has provided excellent pest control and dramatically reduced pesticide use and costs on a variety of crops. Researchers in Florida were able to keep diamondback moth infestations from reaching action thresholds in commercial cabbage fields by surrounding them with two rows of collards (Mitchell, Hu, & Johanowicz, 2000). A naturally occurring parasitic wasp helped control the moth population on the collards and reduced the number of individuals that spread into the cabbage. Cabbage fields protected by the PTC system in the study used 56% fewer insecticide sprays than conventional fields and saved $47 to $63 per acre in chemical costs. Brewer and Schmidt (1995) used early-maturing sunflowers to surround and protect oilseed sunflowers from the red sunflower seed weevil. Yield and damage levels were similar in PTC sunflower fields and those treated with full-field sprays, but the trap crop system was more economical. Aluja et al. (1997) almost eliminated papaya fruit fly damage in an unsprayed papaya planting in Mexico by using a PTC system. Boucher and Durgy (2003) used a sprayed trap crop of 'Blue Hubbard' squash around summer squash to reduce cucumber beetle populations by up to 93% compared with check plots. Commercial growers using PTC for squash stated that the system improved and simplified pest control, reduced pesticide use (93%) and crop loss (18%), and saved time and money compared to their conventional programs (Boucher & Durgy, 2004). Boucher, Ashley, Durgy, Sciabarrasi, and Calderwood (2003) used hot cherry peppers to protect bell pepper plots from attack by the pepper maggot. In research plots, pepper maggot damage was reduced by over 90% using PTC. Economic analysis of PTC use in a commercial pepper field showed that net profits were increased by $153 per acre. Field DemonstrationsIn 2003, four Connecticut growers surrounded 18.25 acres of peppers with a hot cherry pepper trap crop. The PTC plantings ranged from 1 to 12 acres in size. These growers have all used PTC to protect their bell peppers from pepper maggot for 2 to 4 years. One additional grower tried to protect eggplant from pepper maggots with hot cherry peppers for the first time in 2003. He converted to PTC after having 100% of the eggplant crop damaged by maggots in the past few years, despite multiple full-field sprays. There are currently no effective insecticides registered to control pepper maggots on eggplant. Growers used 1 to 4 rows of trap crop along the length of their plantings. Two to six cherry pepper plants were used at both ends of each pepper or eggplant row to complete the perimeter barrier. The trap crop was transplanted at the same in- and between-row spacing as the main crop. Two growers used bare-ground culture to produce their peppers or eggplants, while the others used a plastic-mulched system of production, with either trickle or overhead irrigation. Prior to their first season using pepper maggot PTC, Extension personnel met with growers and provided fact sheets and advice to help them implement and maintain the system on their farms. Certain important concepts were emphasized with growers prior to the beginning of the program:
Repeat perimeter applications were considered justified if additional pepper maggot flies were found while checking traps at weekly intervals, or if stings continued to accumulate on the trap crop fruit (Boucher & Ashley, 2001). Full-field sprays for pepper maggot have never been needed on any of the farms while using PTC with sprayed perimeters. Extension personnel helped three growers monitor pest populations and time perimeter pesticide applications in 2003. The other growers did their own monitoring or scouting after the year of their initial training, or relied on a consultant to provide information about insecticide timing. Growers used backpacks, boom sprayers, or mist blowers to apply dimethoate or acephate to the trap crop row(s). Three growers who used boom sprayers or mist blowers applied sprays to the outer 12 to 25 feet of the block (trap and main crop) by circling the field once. At the end of the 2003 growing season, participants were surveyed and asked to compare the results of using the pepper maggot PTC system to prior years using a conventional program that relied on full-field insecticide sprays. Growers were asked to comment on PTC and to rate a list of possible benefits on a scale of zero (no benefit) to three (high benefit). They were also asked to rate the PTC program for simplicity/complexity, describe their overall satisfaction level with the system, and rate the training program overall. Results of PTC User SurveysAll (100%) of the growers stated that their pest control was much better using PTC than in previous years without a trap crop system. Mean damage estimates due to pepper maggots were 12% using multiple full-field sprays and < 1% using PTC. All respondents reported pesticide savings using the trap crop system. Growers applied an average of 1.4 insecticide sprays targeting pepper maggots to the trap crop, compared with 2.2 full-field sprays using their conventional programs. The use of insecticide active ingredient for pepper maggot control was reduced by 0.7 pounds per acre (90%) using PTC. All growers had a history of applying additional sprays for aphids or other secondary pests prior to using PTC. None of the growers required sprays for secondary pests in 2003. Growers estimated that the total cost of installing and maintaining the PTC system ranged between $30 and $93 per acre, yet all said that they saved money using the trap crop system. They estimated their overall savings from using PTC at between $1 to $1,000 per acre and attributed most of the savings to improved pest control, crop quality, and yields. Eighty percent of the growers rated the PTC system as simpler (20%) or much simpler to use (60%) than their traditional pest control program on peppers, while one grower said that using a trap crop was a little more complex. Sixty percent of the growers stated that they saved time using the PTC system compared to using their conventional program. One producer said that PTC took approximately the same amount of time as multiple full-field sprays, and one grower said that it took more time. All of the growers gave the PTC system high marks when rating a list of possible PTC benefits (Table 1). A majority of respondents rated 10 of the categories a 3, the highest possible rating. They also mentioned the following additional benefits of using PTC: the security of "knowing that you're controlling the pest" with PTC and doing "less mechanical damage by not going in [to the field] with a sprayer when the [eggplant] crop is big and has lodged."
All program participants said that they were either very satisfied (60%) or thrilled (40%) with the overall performance of the trap crop system. All final comments about PTC were positive:
All growers rated the training program as excellent and stated that they would continue using the pepper maggot PTC system in the future. Implications for Extension and IPMDespite almost a half-century of IPM research and Extension efforts, pesticide usage continues to rise (Anonymous, 2001; Lewis et al., 1997). Scientists and policy-makers are beginning to express frustration with the lack of progress and are beginning to point the finger at IPM as part of the problem (Anonymous, 2001; Ehler & Bottrell, 2000; Lewis et al., 1997). Yet many Extension IPM programs remain heavily dependent on multiple, full-field pesticide applications as the primary or solitary pest control tactic (Hoffman, 2000). The monitor and spray approach has even picked up a derogatory nickname: "integrated pesticide management." Policy-makers are now calling for future government funding to be tied to true pesticide reductions (Ehler & Bottrell, 2000). These same critics are no longer willing to accept merely substituting one pesticide for another low-use-rate chemical as progress. They want the amount of crop acreage treated with chemicals to be reduced. If Extension and IPM are not viewed as capable of reducing future pesticide use, organizations with more sustainable ideas on pest management may soon become the leaders in agricultural education, with government funding following them. Critics also fear the consequences of substituting new microbial or biotech products, insect growth regulators, or other selective materials without understanding the potential impact on the biota of the agricultural ecosystem. For instance, Extension specialists often tout the substitution of a selective microbial pesticide (e.g., spinosad) for an older product as an advancement (Burkness, Hutchison, & Pahl, 2000). However, sometimes evidence surfaces at a later time that shows just how detrimental such a material can be to important parasitoids in the cropping systems (Lyon, Van Driesche, Smith, & Lopes, 2002). Critics are calling for a rethinking of Extension's methodology, along with new cropping designs that take advantage of natural preventative measures that can suppress pest populations. Extension continues to blame low adoption rates for alternative management practices on "conservative grower attitudes" (Hoffman, 2000). Meanwhile, farmers complain that many IPM programs are "too difficult to implement" and that they have limited time for things such as scouting (Hoffman et al. 1997). The fact that it takes an entire book or manual (Boucher & Ashley, 2001) to provide IPM recommendations for a single commodity may help explain the slow adoption of alternative-based programs. Farmers have too much to do and often reach for the quickest or simplest solution to save time and to improve their quality of life. For Extension to increase the adoption rate of IPM programs, we need simpler solutions to problems that are often complex. Finally, Stephenson (2003) has criticized Extension for relying on outdated versions of the Innovative Diffusion Theory and for targeting innovative new programs at well-educated, wealthier farmers, who tend to be successful early innovators. He cautions that some of our more elaborate solutions may only be applicable to a select group of elite growers and may even harm the disenfranchised portion of our clientele. Extension must design solutions and use delivery methods that are inclusive of the greater farming community, or risk being held accountable for who succeeds and who doesn't. SummaryPerimeter trap cropping is an example of a redesigned crop production system that helps bring pest populations down to acceptable levels with a minimum of ecological disruption, as advocated by Lewis et al. (1997). This system attempts to minimize disruption from therapeutic approaches, but does not seek to eliminate pesticides entirely. Perimeter trap cropping produces true pesticide use reductions. It is a simpler, cheaper solution that works on multiple crops and pests. The technology used in PTC is applicable to all growers, not just the better educated or wealthier growers who tend to be early implementors. Perimeter trap cropping involves relatively simple changes in the crop production system that produce substantial advantages. An array of ecologically based solutions must be developed for Extension to maintain its leadership role in the area of pest control in the 21st century. Acknowledgment Funding for this project was provided by USDA CSREES NE IPM and NE SARE competitive grant programs. ReferencesAluja, M., Jimenez, A., Camino, M., Pinero, J., Aldana, L., Caserjon, V., & Valdes, M. E. (1997). Habitat manipulation to reduce papaya fruit fly (diptera: tephritidae) damage: Orchard design, use of trap crops and border trapping. Journal of Economic Entomology, 90: 1567-1576. Anonymous. (2001). Agricultural pesticides: Management improvements needed to further promote Integrated Pest Management. US General Accounting Office Publication Number. GAO-01-815. Boucher, T. J. & Ashley, R. A. (Eds). (2001). Northeast pepper Integrated Pest Management (IPM) manual. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System Publication. pp. 136. Boucher, T. J., Ashley, R., Durgy, R., Sciabarrasi, M. & Calderwood, W. (2003). Managing the pepper maggot (diptera: tephritidae) using perimeter trap cropping. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(2): 420-432. Boucher, T. J. & Durgy, R. (2003). Perimeter trap cropping for summer squash & cucumbers. Proceedings: New England vegetable & berry conference and trade show. pp. 217-219. Boucher, T. J. & Durgy, R. (2004). Demonstrating a perimeter trap crop approach to pest management on summer squash in New England. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/rb2.shtml Brewer, G. J., & Schmidt, G. (1995). Trap cropping to manage the red sunflower seed weevil in oilseed sunflower. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10: 184-187. Burkness, E., Hutchison, B. & Pahl, G. (2000). Implementing cabbage IPM: The value of on-farm research. Applied vegetable IPM relative to crop management: ESA proceedings for the formal conference in vegetable entomology. University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report Number 669. Ehler, L. E. & Bottrell, D. G. (2000). The illusion of Integrated Pest Management. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2000: 1-6. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.3/ehler.htm Guralnik, D. B. (Ed). (1980). Webster's New World Dictionary. William Collins Publishing, Inc. Cleveland, OH. Hoffmann, M., Petzoldt, C., Prostak, D., Fleisher, S., Spangler, S., Zitter, T., Reiners, S., Bellinder, R., Shelton, A., Eckhardt, L. & Hetherington, M. (1997). Integrated Pest Management for diversified fresh market vegetable producers in New Jersey, New York & Pennsylvania. Progress Report Phase I IPM Management Initiative Project. Hoffmann, M. P. (2000). IPM for onions: Present and future challenges. Applied vegetable IPM relative to crop management: ESA proceedings for the formal conference in vegetable entomology. University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report Number 669. Lewis, W. J., van Lenteren, J. C., Phatak, S. C., & Tumlinson, J. H. (1997). A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proceedings National Academy of Science. USA 94: 12243-12248. Lyon, S.,Van Driesche, R. G., Smith, T. & Lopes, P. (2002). Spinosad (Conserve®): Can we use it in combination with natural enemies in our greenhouses? UMass Floral Notes, May-June 2002: 10-13. Mitchell, E. R., Hu, G., & Johanowicz, D. (2000). Management of diamondback moth (lepidoptera: plutellidae) in cabbage using collard as a trap crop. HortScience, 35: 875-879. Stephenson, G. (2003). The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of the Extension Service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a1.shtml
A Profile of Female County Agricultural Agents in Today's CESBrenda S. Seevers Billye B. Foster IntroductionWho could anticipate the plethora of choices and careers open to the educated woman in 2004? Fields and professions once monopolized by men now open their arms to the throngs of educated and enthusiastic young women. Even the most traditional and conservative fields have found value in the acceptance of gender diversity. In 1991, The Council on Diversity in Extension submitted their strategic plan " Valuing Differences and Celebrating Diversity," emphasizing the need to strengthen diversity and pluralism in the Cooperative Extension Service (CES). However, in 1996, an analysis of CES professional staffing data showed that only a slow and minimal process of change in recruitment, selection, and retention practices had occurred. Further findings indicate that women and minorities were significantly under represented in all levels of management and all areas of CES. While CES has long used women in the areas of family and consumer education, agriculture remained the domain of men. In determining the population for the 2003 study discussed here, the researchers found that little progress had been made. Less than 12% of all CES agents with agricultural responsibilities nationally were women. Statement of the ProblemLike any other institution, the American labor force continues to experience multiple changes. In 1997, women accounted for 46% of the labor force as compared to only 29% in 1950. Other changes are more interesting. For example, 90% of male executives under 40 are fathers, yet only 35% of female executives under 40 are mothers (National Multicultural Institute, 1997). The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the ratio of women's earning to men's earning is still unbalanced. In 1970, women averaged 59.7% of men's salaries in similar positions. In 2000, women averaged 76% of the male counterparts' salaries (Women's Bureau, 2001). In 1986, the mythical "glass ceiling" was first labeled by two Wall Street reporters in reference to the invisible barriers that block women from top jobs (Catalyst Report, 1993). The U.S. Department of Labor (1991) defines the "glass ceiling" as artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified women from advancing into mid- and senior level administrative positions. Similar patterns in attitudes, barriers, and bias are seen when women desire to take on nontraditional occupations. The US Department of Labor lists over 110 nontraditional occupations for women. Nontraditional is defined as any occupation where one gender comprises 25% or less of the total employees (USDOL, 2001). Women in agricultural and Extension education are considered a minority population, or nontraditional. In a study by Foster (2001), the number of female secondary agricultural education teachers nationally was 16%. This number had not changed in more than 10 years. At the university level, female agricultural and Extension educators in academic departments comprised only 14.7% of the total population (Seevers & Foster, 2003). Maddy's qualitative study (1991) using a census of female CES directors or associate directors had only a population of eight. In a traditionally male dominated field, like agricultural and Extension education, the concept of the "glass ceiling" is a real and dominant force. Barriers inhibiting women in nontraditional fields are complex and inter-related. According to a 1999 survey by Catalyst, the barriers to women's advancement as seen by successful women included:
In more recent studies, the top barriers facing women in agricultural education at the secondary level (Foster, 2001) and university women in agricultural and Extension education (Seevers & Foster, 2003) were:
According to USDA (ECOP-PODC, 1997), barriers facing women and other minorities in CES include lack of commitment from senior managers and university administration, resistance of some clientele groups to work with staff from diverse backgrounds, and lack of specific goals and targets for attaining a diverse workforce. Purpose of the StudyThe study discussed here was designed to create a profile of women involved in Cooperative Extension as county agents with primary responsibility for agricultural programs for adult audiences. Knowledge about women who have pioneered positions in Extension education provides valuable role model information for upcoming generations of female educators. Additionally, the study sought to describe challenges and barriers perceived to be unique to women in agricultural Extensio | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
