April 2005
Volume 43 Number 2

Features

The View from County Partners--Extension in Southwest Washington

Douglas M. Stienbarger
Washington State University Extension
Brush Prairie, Washington
stiendm@wsu.edu

Introduction

Extension offices in Washington State receive varying funding amounts from counties, primarily from counties' discretionary general funds. Extension in Washington State, as in many Western states, faces a serious crisis in funding from county partners due to increased budgetary pressures from other services, such as law and justice. Historically, Extension offices often received county funding with only modest scrutiny by county commissioners. In Washington State, counties provide, at a minimum, office space and equipment in addition to contributions to faculty salaries. Some counties may provide staff or funding for support as well.

In a climate of increasing urbanization and economic transformation, how do county commissioners perceive Extension? The study described here explored the relationship between Extension offices and elected county commissioners in six counties in southwest Washington State: Jefferson, Clallam, Clark, Skamania, Lewis, and Mason (Figure 1). The study attempted to gauge the perceived accountability and relevance of Extension programs to county governments.

The study derived, in part, from a need to evaluate perceptions that local decision-makers often view Extension programs as traditional and relatively static. This region was chosen because of its accessibility to the researcher. While limited to southwestern Washington, the study is relevant to other regions and states that utilize significant discretionary funding from local government partners, especially where those governments face increasing budget pressures.

Figure 1.
County Location

County Demographics

Table 1 provides a comparison of the six counties included in the study. The six counties studied have a combined population of over 560,000, with Clark County accounting for 61% of the total. Clark and Lewis Counties straddle the Interstate 5 corridor between Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington.

Skamania forms the transition county between eastern and western Washington in the Columbia River Gorge. Its population is concentrated in small towns along the Columbia River. Mason County, while still rural, is located within commuting distance of large population centers along the southern end of Puget Sound. Although Clallam and Jefferson Counties extend across the Olympic Peninsula, their population clusters along the eastern side of the Strait of San Juan de Fuca and the west side of Puget Sound.

All six counties experienced significant population growth during the last decade. With the exception of Jefferson County, major employers shifted from government and manufacturing to service industries, followed by government and wholesale/retail industries. In-migration brought in people with different backgrounds and needs that, together with natural population increase, have placed greater demand on local services. All counties in the study except Jefferson exceeded the average state unemployment rate (7.3%) in 2002 (US Department of Labor, 2002).

Methods

In 2002, I conducted in-person, open-ended, semi-structured interviews lasting approximately an hour each with county commissioners in six counties. I also conducted phone interviews with Extension county directors from four of the six counties. Two of the 18 county commissioners declined to participate in the study for unstated reasons. Of the six Extension county directors, two did not participate, including the author.

Results and Discussion

Commissioner Profiles

Table 2 shows a group of commissioners generally older than the average resident, fairly experienced in office, with a range of educational backgrounds and a variety of previous occupations. All commissioners are long-time residents of their communities.

What Does Extension Evoke?

Commissioners responded that they associated "Extension" most often with 4-H and agriculture, which they mentioned first almost equally (Table 3). These represent the two primary program areas Extension has promoted historically.

Interaction with Extension

Contact

Eight commissioners stated they had some form of contact with Extension on a weekly basis, while a ninth commissioner had semi-monthly contact. Three mentioned monthly contacts, two had contact quarterly, while two did so only annually or semi-annually. Contact frequency was fairly consistent within each county, and there appeared to be no relation to the size of county population or to how well the programs were judged by commissioners.

When characterizing their relationship with Extension, nine commissioners talked of providing funding or office space, while four used the terms "cursory," "distant," or "little engagement." Two commissioners mentioned providing advisory input, and another said the relationship with Extension was "good."

Program and Personnel

Only two commissioners stated they knew how Extension prioritizes its programming. Ten did not assist with Extension's annual planning and two did, while the remaining four mentioned involvement in the budgeting process as their contribution to the annual planning process. One commissioner did not know 4-H was an Extension program.

This data suggest a fundamental disconnect with county partners and indicate that Extension offices need to better align their programming to county priorities. Most offices have not successfully made the connection in commissioners' minds, although several commissioners stated they did not want to be significantly involved in directing Extension due to already heavy workloads. One commissioner, echoed by others, commented, "I don't hear any complaints, so I assume they are doing good work." None of the commissioners participate in faculty evaluations, although six thought this could be important.

All but one commissioner could cite successful collaborations with Extension. Usually these involved program efforts aimed at addressing an issue important to the commissioner. When asked how they would change their local Extension office, four commissioners liked the status quo, one would prefer to eliminate Extension, and six would like more non-county funding for Extension programs and staff. Three wanted Extension to work more in non-traditional youth programs.

Commissioners had few suggestions on changing Extension at the state level because they had little idea how the Extension system was structured beyond the local office.

Critical Programs and Issues

The most interesting findings reveal commissioners' perspectives of how well Extension programs address critical county issues (Table 4). Table 4 also demonstrates important differences in the views of Extension county directors and commissioners. Commissioners listed the actual Extension programs they perceived as the most important for their county, but they did not perceive that these programs address what they saw as critical local issues. Some Extension work may mesh with critical county issues, but commissioners did not perceive it that way. For example, work done to increase small non-industrial private forestland profitability may provide economic benefits to county residents in ways that do not clearly link program impact to economic development. Clearly, Extension offices could do a better job defining how their programs are linked to counties' critical issues.

Extension county directors' responses essentially matched commissioners' responses with respect to which Extension programs they considered important. However, the two groups matched much less closely on views of the critical issues facing their counties. Commissioners view policy issues as top priorities while Extension county directors view program issues as top priorities. When asked if Extension could help address their critical issues, only four thought Extension could help, and then only on very specific issues (Table 5), such as helping with Endangered Species Act impacts. This aptly illustrates that Extension offices have not made the case to commissioners that Extension programming positively affects the issue areas concerning commissioners. Two commissioners stated:

"Extension does not keep up with issues in changing times."

"[Extension reminds me of] an antiquated piece of equipment."

Commissioners' uncertainty about Extension's competence to help address urgent problems reinforces the county perception that, while important, Extension programs are not essential when pressures mount on a county's general funds.

Rate of Return

Despite the disconnect noted above, 11 commissioners believed that the rate of return on their investment in Extension was good or very good. One categorized the return as poor, while four thought they received a fair return. When asked if their investment was well matched by WSU, nine commissioners responded yes, while four did not know, and two wanted increased WSU funding.

This generally positive perception possibly arises in part from the relatively minor percentage that Extension budgets comprise of each county's general fund. In western Washington, county general fund dollars contributed toward Extension offices tend to be less than 1% of a county's general fund, and are often less than 0.5% in more populous counties (C. Beus, personal communication, October 22, 2002). County service structures largely eclipse the size and funding for local Extension offices in this region.

Commissioners also tended to see the benefit of being connected to the university and its resources, even though they did not know the amount WSU actually contributed in actual dollars or indirect support.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

Even though Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) outline the nature of the partnerships between Extension offices and county governments, none of the commissioners were familiar with this document. Six mistook annual budget amendments for the base MOA. This result stems partially from the age of many MOAs, most of which were written or last revised in the 1980s. Three of the four county directors interviewed did not know when their MOAs were last negotiated or signed.

Only two commissioners mentioned potentially important items (water issues and the position of the Extension Chair in the county hierarchy) that might be included in an MOA. This indicates that the nature of Extension's relationship with county partners has become "assumed" and that county partners do not see the MOA as a means of re-envisioning the relationship with WSU. Rather, changes occur based primarily due to pressures on counties' discretionary funding. This might also explain the dearth of similar studies in the literature: Extension has not bothered to systematically explore its relationship with its primary local partner.

It may be time to renegotiate MOAs to better reflect today's funding realities. While posing a risk for Extension offices, renegotiating MOAs could strengthen Extension links with counties. Extension offices risk losing some autonomy, but they could gain increased budget certainty by renegotiating contracts that more explicitly align the work of local Extension offices to county priorities and build in accountability standards. In the long term, this could increase the perception of county partners that Extension constitutes an essential service to county residents. Well-crafted MOAs need not compromise the neutrality of the university any more than grant funding with its requirements for deliverables.

Conclusions and Recommendations

While county commissioners in southwest Washington like Extension programming, they express little ownership in that programming, they often view Extension programs as unchanging and traditional, and they cannot articulate how Extension meets the pressing needs of their communities. Most commissioners do not invest much time in the relationship with their Extension office. Commissioners also express ambivalence about how Extension fits into the work the county does for its residents as well as how Extension itself fits within the county structure.

This dysfunctional relationship threatens Extension budgets when discretionary funding at the county level shrinks. In this environment, Extension is often viewed as the "first to go." At a minimum, Extension needs to stress how it leverages county funds in the form of grant and partnership funding. Clearly, Extension needs to better communicate with, and demonstrate to, commissioners that Extension addresses county priorities, but with a minimal demand on commissioners' time.

It is also critical to ensure programming meets the "attribution condition" whereby the benefits of programming are attributed to Extension (McDowell, 2001). Often, clientele associate programs with individual faculty members instead of Extension. This also happens with volunteer programs, such as 4-H, where participants and the public associate with the program, but do not relate the program to the institution.

Better alignment with local county priorities may be as simple as deliberately highlighting different aspects of current programming. For example, a program working with local non-industrial private forest owners to better manage their forests might emphasize the economic development aspects of this work. In other cases, alignment with county priorities may mean refocusing existing programs. For example, if substance abuse is a local priority issue, 4-H offers the infrastructure to work with youth on this issue.

In more extreme cases, some programs may simply not fit local priorities even when they continue to draw participants. The challenge becomes how Extension sheds these less relevant programs heavily invested in by staff. Extension programs often get "captured" (McDowell, 2003) by clientele groups whose adverse reactions Extension prefers not to risk, regardless of the merits of reallocating resources. This contributes to the perception of an antiquated Extension.

The survey certainly indicates that Extension in southwest Washington should work to identify county priorities (perhaps through strategic planning documents) and determine how well its programming serves county residents. Extension must then decide how best to market or promote its programs to county commissioners. In some counties, it may be possible to work directly with commissioners, perhaps by choosing one project to focus on.

Renegotiating MOAs to include performance-based outcomes in return for some budgetary certainty represents another strategy. Crafting the MOA as a framework document would maintain flexibility for counties and Extension, while establishing more specific deliverables.

Some of these suggestions can be accomplished with modest effort, but structural issues contributing to this dysfunction will be more difficult to address. These are briefly discussed in the following section.

Implications for Institutional Change Within Extension

The data suggest institutional issues worth exploring. Extension hires most faculty with specialties who then run programs in their specialty area. Writing on the subject of university engagement, McDowell (2003) states: "In many cases the situational analysis . . . that guides programming is based on long-time experience with a particular audience and is accomplished almost intuitively."

But how accurate is "intuition" when a county urbanizes or undergoes other changes that necessitate different programs requiring other specialties? WSU Extension often lacks the flexibility to respond to rapid local and regional changes due to characteristics rooted in the academic model. Whereas the on-campus locale may allow for a slow evolution of disciplines and/or departments as student demand changes, such a pace on the county level can result in programming ossification. As several commissioners noted, Extension programming often appears static or anachronistic.

Local funding becomes more critical to local offices as state support decreases. Increasing pressures on local funding increase the need for accountability, and static programming comes under closer scrutiny. Commissioners rightly ask what positive, demonstrable impact a program has on residents and their behaviors in addressing critical issues.

What happens when a faculty member's specialty does not coincide with local priorities? This currently depends almost entirely on the individual. Some will "reinvent" themselves through training or broadening their knowledge to meet the changing needs. Others continue to listen to their clientele and do what has worked for them in the past (and probably still works for them). There is little institutional incentive or assistance for faculty to make significant shifts.

Additionally, the academic evaluation system used by WSU Extension fails to reward the risk involved in reinventing oneself to meet emerging social changes. Conversely, the disincentive structure of the evaluation system is very weak, providing neither a stick nor a carrot to encourage faculty to make changes.

Often, the institution provides no coherent strategy to ensure that faculty identify and respond to these shifts in needs. Increased institutional encouragement and training could somewhat mitigate the effects. This could entail establishing a small team that deploys itself when needed to provide rapid situation assessment, followed by guidance and relevant retraining assistance. Any strategy for transitioning faculty and eliminating less relevant programs will require administrative support. Extension should better balance the long term benefits with the short term costs of such encouragement and training.

Moreover, Extension's response to other issues will remain constrained by the resources tied up in tenured agricultural faculty (Conone, 1991). Extension's tenure system contributes to and exacerbates this issue. Tenured Extension faculty members enjoy a "sinecure of position" that ably insulates them from retaliation for unpopular work as well as a "sinecure of place" that mirrors the campus version of tenure. Thus, even though WSU hiring documents state that Extension faculty are hired into the organization and not into a specific location, faculty are seldom moved. This makes the institution more family friendly, but also makes it difficult to move Extension faculty to locations where their specialties are most relevant to meet changing local and regional needs.

While morale would suffer in the short term if faculty were more mobile, morale will be no better when decreased funding eliminates positions (due in part to static or less relevant programming). Tenure sometimes insulates Extension faculty from the accountability necessary to demonstrate the relevance and impact of programs to local funders. This does not mean that tenure is not a viable system within Extension. However, it does point to the need to modify the model lifted straight from campus to better account for county realities. This requires institutional and individual leadership.

Other models exist, but most would require fundamental shifts in our Extension paradigm and may be as problematic as tenure. One such structure would entail contracting individuals to implement programming for specified terms. Bartholomew and Rinehart (1993) make the argument that "resources could be redirected rapidly from one program to another in response to . . . changing needs." Although speaking about Extension specialists, this applies equally to county-based faculty. Contract renewal would depend on whether programs still meet the priority needs of a locale.

The internal discussion and energy directed at engagement and making Extension university-wide should be better integrated into the issue of local relevance. Just as faculty at Cornell University remained disinterested in discussions on engagement (Franz, Peterson, & Randall, 2002), most WSU Extension field faculty remain largely uninvolved in on-going discussions on engagement. It is certain that commissioners pay no heed to these discussions. Making Extension stronger within will not matter if our most important local partners deem Extension irrelevant.

Fundamental changes would require philosophical shifts in what constitutes "Extension." However, as we seek ways to maintain what is valuable about Extension while increasing our ability to respond to our changing world, it behooves us to explore all alternatives in our struggle to craft such a system.

References

Bartholomew, H. M. & Rinehart, S. H. (1993). Extension work by contract: A proposal. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/f1.html

Conone, R. M. (1991). People listening to people... Or are we really? Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991fall/f1.html

Franz, N. K., Peterson, R. S., & Dailey, A. L. (2002). Leading organizational change: A comparison of county and campus views of extension engagement. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/rb1.html

McDowell, G. (2001). Land grant universities and extension: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

McDowell, G. (2003, July). What's the difference between Extension and engagement? Paper presented at the 2003 Western Extension Mid-Managers Conference, Newport, OR.

Northwest Area Foundation. (2003). NWAF indicator website. Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?FIPS=53000

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Local area unemployment statistics, labor force data by county. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://stats.bls.gov/lau/home.htm

Rethinking Extension Communications: Is Issues Programming the Key?

LaRae M. Donnellan
Professor
School of Journalism and Graphic Communication
Florida A&M University
Tallahassee, Florida
larae9411@hotmail.com

Florita S. Montgomery
Associate Professor and Extension Communications Specialist
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
fmontgom@wvu.edu

Accountability. That's the challenge facing all Extension professionals. In recent years, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) network of federal divisions, land-grant universities, and state and county agencies and associations has been challenged to improve the system's outreach and increase its accountability (Richardson, Staton, Bateman, & Hutcheson, 2000; Kellogg Commission, 1999).

Not since the 1950s and 1960s (Miller, 1995) have Extension communicators had a potentially greater opportunity to add their voices to the discussion about outreach and accountability. However, the current opportunity adds fuel to the decades-old debate simmering among communicators, subject-matter specialists, and administrators: What is the communicator's role?

Traditionally, communicators at land-grant universities have been performing what Grunig and Hunt (1984) call a "public-information" role. This has involved creating products (such as publications, videos, or news stories) that support the educational programs developed by subject-matter specialists. Although Extension communicators traditionally have described themselves as "journalists" or "public information specialists," for decades, some communicators have questioned whether their skills could better be used to help plan and evaluate CES programs as well as support them (Kern, 1978; Evans, 1976; Evans, 1980; Snowdon & Evans, 1991). The authors of this article agree that Extension would be better served if most of the communicators it hires practiced "public relations," as defined at the First World Assembly of Public Relations Associations and the First World Forum of Public Relations:

Public relations practice is the art and science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organization leaders, and implementing planned programs of action which will serve both the organization's and the public interest (as quoted in Newsom & Haynes, 2005).

Extension administrators often call for marketing of Extension programs, but what people mean by "marketing" often varies. For some, marketing means promoting the image of the organization through a flood of news releases and through consistent signage, logos, T-shirts, and telephone greetings. For others, marketing also means assuming an advocacy role by telling Extension's story effectively. What the concept of public relations counseling adds to this discussion is the importance of understanding your organization and its publics and of setting measurable objectives to meet critical needs.

At the same time that this debate has been going on within communications units, Extension, as a whole, has been struggling to change its approach to educational outreach: from its traditional discipline-based programming to a more inclusive issues-based programming (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988). In the issues paradigm, all specialists on the CES team--including communicators--are needed at the table to help develop educational programming that is targeted for and delivered to appropriate audiences.

This article examines the roles communicators have played and makes recommendations for how administrators, specialists, agents, and communicators may be able to work together to better fulfill Extension's mission and tell its story. The authors conclude that Extension should fully support issues programming teams, which would include consulting communicators, to achieve organizational goals.

From Scribes to Communicators

Land-grant communicators began as "scribes" who were hired to write down the work being done by early agricultural scientists (Kern, 1983). As audiences grew and the need for communication increased, "agricultural editors" developed specializations as editors, writers, graphic designers, and broadcasters (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000).

A major change in the role of CES communications was heralded in the 1950s, when the Kellogg Foundation funded the 7-year National Project in Agricultural Communications (NPAC). NPAC was the brainchild of the American Association of Agricultural College Editors (AAACE--later renamed Agricultural Communicators in Education and now called Association for Communication Excellence or ACE ).

NPAC formalized the use of social science research to help shape communications training, communications research, and program outreach (Miller, 1995). NPAC called for training state-based interdisciplinary teams that made communicators full participants in the CES' program development process. "What NPAC was and did . . . helped make ACE, and agricultural communication in the land-grant system and abroad, what they are today" (Miller, 1995, p. 9).

Another goal of NPAC was to "professionalize" the field of land-grant communications (Miller, 1995). Many universities created communication faculty positions that often involved teaching or training with production duties. Like their colleagues in the traditional CES disciplines, communicators were encouraged to do theoretical and practical research and to use their professional expertise to help shape CES programming, at least within agriculture. Kellogg funding expired before this expanded role could be implemented formally within home economics and youth development programs.

Emergence of the Consulting Communicator

The Kellogg experience enriched the debate over communicators' roles. Kern (1978) outlined three possible roles for Extension communicators: the craftsman, the communication programmer, and the consulting communicator. Kern defines the consulting communicator as someone who applies knowledge of social science research to help plan communication strategies, analyze audiences, and select the best communication tools to achieve desired goals. These roles, Kern says, are not mutually exclusive, and communicators may perform different roles at different times

A handful of CES communications offices have had people officially serving as "consulting communicators" (Snowdon & Evans, 1991), although Kern said the term "named a role; it didn't create one" (as quoted in Nelson, 1979, p. 24). One problem was that "Many [communicators] . . . said they didn't feel competent to play a consulting communicator role--as differentiated from strictly a 'communications craft' role--even though they reported plenty of consulting anyway" (Nelson, 1979, p. 24).

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many scholars addressed the role of the consulting communicator (Browning, 1987; Cutler, 1977; Kern, 1978; Metcalf, 1981; Miller, 1983; Pates, 1987; Swanson, 1981). The University of Illinois is one state that embraced the consulting communicator concept. Snowdon and Evans (1991) noted that Illinois administrators tried "alliances with communications researchers on campus" and designating certain staff members as "communications planners" before settling on the use of "communications consultants." The new role required that all communications staff members be trained in analysis and planning, and it required that those skills be used to counsel administrators, specialists, and other clients in their communications needs.

In 1988, Illinois created a new position, "decision data specialist," which was filled by someone with research knowledge of marketing and business administration (Snowdon & Evans, 1991). Illinois continues that system today (Ken Spelke, 2003, e-mail correspondence).

Challenges to the Consulting Communicator Role

The 1990s brought new challenges to land-grant communications. The decade was marked by the growth of new technologies, changes in the makeup of communications staffs, and the reshaping of the communications function. By the end of the century, the number of faculty positions within CES communications offices had decreased significantly.

Most of these positions required scholarly efforts that some administrators and communicators thought conflicted with production demands. Thomas (1996) reported a 59% drop in the number of tenure-track positions within agricultural communications units between 1987 and 1995. Donnellan (1999) found that only 11.9% of respondents in her study of land-grant communications offices currently had faculty positions and planned to hire more faculty in the future. A major reason for the loss of faculty positions has been the separation of academic and applied communications programs (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000).

Donnellan (1999) noted a change in the structure of many communications offices because of the increased demands that communicators also be technology specialists. Of the 30 land-grant offices that responded to her study, 16 housed communications and information technology (IT) within the same unit, and 14 had separate communications and IT offices. Another change has been the increased pressure placed on communications offices to provide marketing and public relations support for their institutions (Thomas, 1996; Kingsley, 2002).

In 1980, Evans identified six reasons that hold true today as to why CES communicators have had trouble with the role of consulting communicator:

1. They are trained as journalists, not as communication consultants.

2. They are biased toward the medium in which they are trained.

3. They aren't trained to "analyze rigorously the coverage and capabilities of specific communications media."

4. They are concerned about "news," not sustained campaign messages.

5. They aren't aware of how much message repetition is necessary to reach certain audiences.

6. They tend to jump immediately from the problem to a solution without doing research, establishing objectives, and implementing a measurable program.

As a result of the demands to "do more with less," communicators might add other reasons to this list (Snowdon & Evans, 1991):

7. Heavy workloads (especially because of fewer staff and the need to be technology savvy).

8. Lack of money to hire communications specialists to focus on analysis and planning.

9. Fears of alienating traditional clients (i.e., subject-matter specialists and administrators) who are used to having communicators doing their bidding.

10. Negative attitudes held by some communicators who feel that they were hired to "do," not "sit in on planning meetings."

11. The continued emphasis by administrators on production rather than planning.

The momentum generated by NPAC and by the champions of the consulting communicator concept seems to have wavered in recent years because of the increased pressure to do more with less and because of a mind-set of some communicators who see themselves as journalists and not as marketers or public relations specialists.

Issues Programming: Renewed Potential

As NPAC's impact continued to recede within land-grant communications, a movement to adopt a similar outreach process began to emerge among USDA organizational development specialists. In 1986, CES recommended that its various units use a new paradigm--issues programming--rather than discipline-based programming. Issues programming depends on interdisciplinary teams to identify needs and problems; set priorities; plan, design and implement programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of those programs (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988).

Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) remind CES educators that the issues programming process, though broad in scope, does move through Extension's time-honored steps of program development. Those steps, however, are taken in new ways. First, an issue must be identified by a team representing diverse disciplines, skills, and external stakeholders, rather than by a narrowly focused group representing one or two academic disciplines. Then, after the major issue is identified, a fully integrated interdisciplinary team begins the Extension program development process: needs and problem identification, priority setting, planning, designing and implementing, and evaluating (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988).

While those supportive of the NPAC communications process may have experienced a glimmer of hope with the piloting of issues programming, some subject matter specialists and agents, on the other hand, were struggling with the new expectations. "Resistance," "conflict," and "frustration" were among terms used to describe specialists' and agents' reactions as they struggled to work on interdisciplinary, issues-focused teams (Taylor-Powell & Richardson 1990; Bahnl, 1991; Baker & Verma, 1993; Yang, Fetsch, Jenson, & Weigle, 1995).

This struggle will continue because funders demand accountability through issues programming driven by community needs (Dalgaard. Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988; Taylor-Powell & Richardson, 1990; Bennett, 1996; Richardson, Staton, Bateman, & Hutcheson, 2000; Kellogg Commission, 1999; Barth, Stryker, Arrington, & Syed, 1999). Once again, Extension and other land-grant university units are being challenged to become "engaged" with their communities (Kellogg Commission, 1999; Ukaga, Reichenbach, Blinn, Zak, & Hutchison, 2002; Kelsey, 2002).

The new call for accountability should send administrators, specialists, and agents back to the original issues programming documents (Montgomery 1992). Patton (1987) said Extension must change its organizational culture--values, norms, rituals, shared beliefs, and metaphors--and then convince its traditional constituencies and funding sources that such a program-creation shift is necessary. Sanderson (1988) said issues programming calls for greater organizational flexibility, greater individuality, continual self-renewal, and increased staff development. Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) said for Extension to adopt issues programming, "appropriate education" will be needed throughout the system.

At the heart of the "issues" or "engagement" debate is one constant: staff development. Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) foresaw this need. They recommended that Extension use the issues programming process to accomplish organizational change. Be a model, they said, by following  the model. Implement internally the same program development process Extension would use in its communities. And provide appropriate staff development--especially for team members.

The Potential for Success

True to its NPAC roots, ACE has promoted a marketing model (Kingsley, 2000) that includes the consulting communicator's role in interdisciplinary teams--remarkably similar to those proposed through issues programming. Marketing--or as the authors prefer to call it, public relations--shares the same goal as issues programming: accountability (Table 1).

Extension administrators want communicators to be advocates, but they cannot be advocates unless the organization is--first and foremost--accountable. In other words, you must do the right programs well before you have a good story to tell.

Recommendations

1. If they haven't already done so, Extension administrators should institute and support interdisciplinary, issues-based planning teams that include consulting communicators. Communicators should not be brought in at the last minute to produce products that support educational programs designed by others. Programs must be issues-driven with measurable objectives, rather than pieced-together products that demonstrate output and not necessarily impact.

2. These planning teams must develop and communicate their measurable goals and objectives to all stakeholders.

3. Consulting communications--who have regular, direct access to decision makers and issues team leaders--should develop a clear, measurable communications plan that helps Extension meet its goals.

4. When recruiting new communicators, CES administrators and communications department heads need to link the communications skill sets they seek to the organization's communication goals and objectives. In other words, if you expect someone to market educational programs, require candidates to have audience-targeting, needs-assessment, program-evaluation, and other marketing skills--in addition to excellent writing skills.

5. Extension units need to craft job descriptions that reflect the different levels of expertise needed. All public relations counselors (i.e., consulting communicators) should be able to write well, but not all good writers need be consulting communicators. Communications staffs need both types of employees.

6. CES administrators and communications department heads need to link their employees' professional development opportunities to the organization's communications goals and objectives. In other words, if you expect existing staff to assess program impact, make sure that they receive regular training in program evaluation. In fact, all members of Extension planning teams need training in how to write measurable objectives and how to develop programs to achieve those objectives.
   
   A possible measurable objective, for example, would be "To increase use of Extension best management practices by 50 percent of our state's beef producers within the next year." This is a programmatic goal, but it entails communications goals as well. Communications products or activities (e.g., news releases, Web sites, videos, workshop notebooks, farm tours) should be crafted to help meet the programmatic objective. If they do not support it, then those products or activities should be revised or eliminated.

7. Administrators need to encourage and reward their communicators, as well as other subject matter specialists, who seek advanced public relations training that will better prepare them to be involved in issues programming and to perform higher-level communications functions.

8. Extension administrators should turn to ACE for training in marketing and public relations.

9. ACE could help Extension administrators better understand how to align communications goals and communications functions. Such help could include examples of relevant communications position descriptions and research findings on communications effectiveness.

Conclusions

When the W.K. Kellogg Foundation supported NPAC in the 1950s, the role of the communicator began to evolve from that of a technician to the more responsible role as a member of interdisciplinary planning teams guided by social science methods. Yet cutbacks in budgets and the increased need for an information technology infrastructure have led land-grant organizations to demand more product delivery and less leadership from its communications (and more often, "communications and technology") units.

The momentum and focus of NPAC should be regained. The challenge for CES and its research and teaching partners at land-grant universities is to recognize and embrace the idea that their organizational goals can best be met by having well-trained communicators serving in both leadership and support roles on issues programming teams.

At the same time, Extension communications offices and administrators need to embrace a public relations model that recognizes communications as a critical management function in support of Extension goals. Rather than shun "public relations" in favor of "journalism," communicators must begin to see public relations as a program delivery process for "relations with publics" for the mutual good of the organization and the people it serves. Training in public relations and marketing is essential for all members of interdisciplinary program planning teams. Accountability requires nothing less.

References

Bahnl, H. M. (1991). Institutional conflict between issues-based and disciplinary programming. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/f1.html

Baker, F. E., & Verma, S. (1993). Evaluating issues programming. Journal of Extension [On-line] 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/a5.html

Bennett, C. (1996). New national program information system for Cooperative Extension: Lessons from experience. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996february/a1.html

Boone, K., Meisenbach, T., & Tucker, M. (2000). Agricultural communications: Changes and challenges. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Brown, J. L., & Kiernan, N. E. (1998). A model for integrating program development and evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb5.html

Browning, N. (1987). Market research and the land grant/USDA communicator. ACE Quarterly 70(2), 1-9.

Calvert, P. (Ed.) (2002). The communicator's handbook: Tools, techniques and technology. (4th ed.). Gainesville, Fla.: Maupin House and Agricultural Communicators in Education.

Cutler, M. R. (1977). Some 'Musts' for Doing Our Job Better. ACE Quarterly 60(4), 5-11.

Dalgaard, K. A., Brazzel, M., Liles, R. T., Sanderson, D., & Taylor-Powell, E. (1988). Issues programming in Extension. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Donnellan, L. M. (1999). Land-grant university salary and hiring survey preliminary results. Presentation June 13, 1999, to the Agricultural Communicators in Education (ACE) Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio.

Donnellan, L. M., & Montgomery, F. S. (2001). Taking charge of our future: Reshaping communications and information technology. Presentation at the Agricultural Communicators in Education/National Extension Technology Conference, July 31, 2001, Toronto, Ontario.

Donnellan, L. M., & Montgomery, F. S. (2000a). Agricultural communications: Is it a profession or just a job? Presentation at the U.S. Agricultural Communicators Congress, July 23, 2000, Washington, D.C.

Donnellan, L. M., & Montgomery, F. S. (2000b). ACE and your professional development. Signals 11(5). Agricultural Communicators in Education, University of Florida.

Evans, J. F. (1976). Some pains for growth of agricultural college communicators. AAACE Quarterly 59(4), 3-6.

Evans, J. F. (1980). Spotlight on the Extension communicators: Ready or not. Presented Feb. 21, 1980, to a conference of regional publicity officers, New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Sydney, Australia.

Gruning, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Jones, B. (2001). Remarks--Recipient of the ACE Professional Award. Presentation at the Agricultural Communicators in Education/National Extension Technology Conference, July 31, 2001, Toronto, Ontario.

Jones, F. I. (1981). Of professionalism: What is it? Who is a professional?" ACE Quarterly 64(3),13-15.

Kearl, B. (1983). The past and future of agricultural communications. Part I: A look at the past." ACE Quarterly 56(3), 28-38.

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.

Kelsey, K. D. (2002). What is old is new Again: Cooperative Extension's role in democracy building through civic engagement. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/comm1.shtml

Kern, K. R. (1978). Communicator roles in Extension. ACE Quarterly 61(2), 3-10.

Kingsley, K. (2000). Organizational and product marketing. In The communicator's handbook: Tools, techniques and technology. (4th ed.). Gainesville, Fla.: Maupin House and Agricultural Communicators in Education.

Metcalf, E. (1981). Qualifications and concepts an agricultural editor should bring to the job. ACE Quarterly 64(1), 27-30.

Miller, M. E. (1995). AAACE changed our lives: NPAC and agricultural communication in the '50s." Journal of Applied Communications 79(3), 1-9.

Miller, M. E. (1983). To my colleagues in the land-grant universities. ACE Quarterly 66(2), 5-9.

Montgomery, F. S. (1992). Andragogy in staff development for Extension agents. Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Nelson, D. (1979). Consulting communicator--New name for old role. Extension Review 50(1), 24-25.

Newsom, D., & Haynes, J. (2005). Public relations writing: Form & style. 7th Ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Pates, J. (1987). What kinds of research information do communications practitioners need? ACE Quarterly 70(2), 10-14.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). The Extension organization of the future. Journal of Extension [On-line], 25(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987spring/fut1.html

Richardson, J. G., Staton, J., Bateman, K., & Hutcheson, C. E. (2000, January). Adroit accountability or keeping a step ahead. Paper presented at the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Agricultural Communications Section, Lexington, KY.

Sanderson, D. R. (1988). Working with our publics, Module 1: Understanding Cooperative Extension: Our origins, our opportunities. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Extension Service and the Department of Adult and Community College Education, North Carolina State University.

Snowdon, G., & Evans, J. F. (1991). Decision data service: A new resource for communications planning. Journal of Applied Communications 75(1), 1-7.

Swanson, H. B. (1981). Public relations: A role for communicators? ACE Quarterly 64(2), 21-31.

Taylor-Powell, E. & Richardson, B. (1990). Issues programming changes Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/a4.html

Thomas, R. E. (1996). Then and now: An eight-year look at the U.S. land-grant university agricultural communications profession, 1987-1995. Journal of Applied Communications 80(2), 26-34.

Ukaga, O. M., Reichenbach, M. R., Blinn, C. R., Zak, D. B., & Hutchison, W. D. (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

Yang, R. K., Fetsch, R. J., Jenson, G. O., & Weigel, R. R. (1995). Overcoming resistance to issues-based programming. Journal of Extension [On-line],33(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995june/a2.html

The Heritage Area Movement: Redefining Opportunities for Extension Professionals

Steven Selin
Professor
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program
sselin@wvu.edu

David McGill
Extension Specialist, Forest Resources Management
dmcgill@mail.wvu.edu

West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia

Introduction

The heritage area movement is gaining momentum in the United States, offering new opportunities for Extension professionals to strengthen communities, build strong partnerships, and share the Extension story. There are now 23 officially designated National Heritage Areas (Figure 1) in the United States, and 37 proposals designating new National Heritage Areas are pending before Congress.

Figure 1.
National Heritage Area System

State heritage area programs are expanding at a rapid rate, with strong programs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and Utah having strong programs. Brenda Barrett, National Park Service heritage area coordinator, estimates there are more than 200 ad hoc heritage areas in the Unites States that have no "official" government designation (B. Barrett, personal communication, November 15, 2002).

Despite this rapid growth, there is little systematic data on the heritage area movement to assess its impact and benefit to communities and regional economies. Proponents also struggle to define what a heritage area is. The National Park Service, charged by Congress to support National Heritage Areas, works to designate areas where "natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources combine for a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography" (Pillifant, 2002). For example, the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area in the Pittsburgh area tells the story of how the steel industry contributed to the rise of the industrial revolution in America.

According to Mary Means (1999), heritage areas project the idea of a national park to the landscape or regional level and are implemented through partnerships among landowners, communities, businesses, and state and federal agencies. Perhaps one reason for the growth of the heritage area movement is that many constituent groups (recreation, tourism, historic preservation, economic development) find something of value in it.

Heritage areas are coordinated at a regional level, coalescing a diverse set of partners that have a common interest in the culture and history of the region. As such, the heritage area movement is redefining opportunities for Extension agencies. New organizational partnerships are emerging where Extension agencies, state parks, national forests, local businesses, and community festivals and events often form the cornerstone of heritage areas. In heritage area initiatives, Extension professionals are contributing by serving as catalysts, convenors, trainers, grant writers, governing body members, and communication experts. Extension engagement in heritage area initiatives has considerable potential to build the capacity of communities as well as enhance the legitimacy and visibility of Extension services.

This article describes potential opportunities for Extension professionals in the heritage area movement. This is accomplished by systematically examining the anatomy of a heritage area start-up, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area (AFHA) in West Virginia and western Maryland. Here, Extension professionals have played a critical role in the growth and development of this heritage initiative. Case study research methods and participant evaluations are used to build a case history of the AFHA initiative as well as to create a descriptive profile of heritage area partners, their visions for the heritage area, personal and organizational benefits derived, and major issues and conflicts addressed in implementing the regional heritage area.

Methodology

Data for this research study were compiled using a case study research methodology (Yinn, 1989). Multiple sources of data were collected to control for possible biases (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Data sources included letters, agendas and minutes, administrative documents (reports, proposals, brochures), and newspaper clippings from AFHA stakeholder meetings. Organizational and participant profile data were collected in three evaluation surveys administered at AFHA membership meetings in November 2001, March 2002, and September 2002. A case history of the AFHA initiative was compiled from the sources collected. Evaluation surveys were coded to reflect major themes and then recoded into subthemes to reflect specific content (Strauss, 1987).

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area (AFHA) has its roots in the long history of human use of the highland forests of West Virginia and western Maryland. For centuries, the forests of the Appalachian Mountains have sustained local settlers, provided raw materials for America's economic expansion, and inspired visitors. AFHA tells the story of this forest legacy and the mountain people who forged it.

The inspiration for the creation of a forest heritage area was born when the residents of Webster Springs, West Virginia proposed to develop a Woodchopper's Village, building upon the success of their Woodchopper's Festival, an annual celebration commemorating the rich forest heritage of the community. This community initiative was noticed by a team of forestry professors and Extension specialists at West Virginia University, who applied for a USDA Fund for Rural America grant. Thus, the idea of a regional forest heritage area was born. The USDA was looking for proposals that crossed state borders, so the forest heritage area was conceived as including the highland forest regions of West Virginia and western Maryland.

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area initiative is now in the final year of the 4-year USDA Fund for Rural America grant. Although budgetary control during the initial grant period resides with the Extension Service and the Division of Forestry at West Virginia University, the implementation process and long-term management of the heritage area is taking the form of a community-based, collaborative decision process. Figure 2 shows the current geographic scale of the heritage area, including 15 counties in West Virginia and two counties in western Maryland. The Monongahela National Forest lies at the heart of the heritage area.

Figure 2.
The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area Region

The initial project workshop, held at Blackwater Falls State Park in November 2001, was attended by more than 90 people representing a diverse set of interests, including resource management agencies, economic development authorities, educators, tourism officials, Extension professionals, environmental groups, wood product firms, foresters, and community leaders. Participants grappled with the meaning of forest heritage and what the mission of the forest heritage area should be. An organizational structure was adopted for the implementation phase of the project consisting of:

• A Project Leadership Team of staff and co-investigators from West Virginia University and the Canaan Valley Institute (a regional, nonprofit conservation organization)

• A Steering Committee composed of Leadership Team members and active community and government partners

• Six Task Groups or subcommittees addressing such topical issues as asset mapping, interpretation, business and infrastructure, networking, organization and sustainability, and marketing.

Clearly, Extension professionals have played an integral role in the formation and development of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area. From the initial formulating of the project idea through the success of the Fund For Rural America grant, Extension specialists and administrators at West Virginia University were indispensable to the overall success of the project. Extension agents from a number of West Virginia counties helped craft the definition and scope of the project at the initial visioning meeting.

AFHA Projects and Tasks

Over the first year, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area adopted its formal name and refined its purpose and mission. Forest heritage was defined as "the ongoing story of how the forest shapes history and culture, and how ecology and human use have shaped the forest" (AFHA, 2002). The mission of the AFHA was refined to the following:

To work locally to conserve, develop, interpret, and promote a regional network of forest-based attractions and resources in the highlands of West Virginia and Maryland, for the enjoyment and appreciation of residents and visitors, in order to enhance economic and community development.

With the collective goal to develop a strategic plan for the fledgling heritage area, task groups met regularly, and two more general meetings were held in April 2002 and September 2002. Three pilot communities--Webster Springs and Elkins in West Virginia and Oakland, Maryland--have served as focal points for community contacts and projects. A primary goal for year three of the AFHA initiative included administering a mini-grants program to support community-based initiatives that advance the regional goals of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area.

Short-term goals of AFHA include:

• Pursuing national designation of the heritage area,

• Developing a memorandum of understanding with the Monongahela National Forest, and

• Compiling a formal management plan for the heritage area.

During the first 2 years of the project, efforts to leverage additional funding were made to support AFHA projects. These projects include developing a digital archive of historic photographs and stories from the region, facilitating workshops on heritage trail development and marketing, and providing service-learning opportunities for natural resource management students at West Virginia University.

Cooperative Extension has continued to expand its role in the governance and day-to-day management of AFHA. Extension specialists continue to serve as co-project investigators and project managers on the original USDA grant. Community-based Extension professionals serve on several key AFHA sub-committees and have made a number of project-related contributions such as serving on a mini-grants committee, facilitating AFHA stakeholder meetings, grant writing, and contributing to the drafting of a feasibility study for national designation of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area.

Profile of Partners

The future success of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area will depend on the regional support from a diverse set of stakeholder groups. From its inception, the AFHA has relied heavily on the human, technical, and financial resources of many individuals and organizations. The 90 participants in the AFHA initial organizing meeting represented a unique confluence of interests that foreshadowed the potential strength of the heritage area movement. Those interests included the economic development community, the tourism industry, Extension professionals, historic preservation organizations, resource management agencies, environmental and conservation organizations, the wood products industry, and educational institutions.

Examples of participating interest groups from each of these topical areas are presented in Table 1. While the participation of a number of interest groups can be explained by the forest heritage theme, the mutual goal of expanding heritage tourism opportunities in the region seems to unite a potentially influential coalition of economic development, tourism, Extension, and historic preservation groups across many heritage area initiatives.

The organizations listed in Table 1 underscore the importance of community- or place-based advocacy in the long-term success of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area. Cooperative Extension has a unique opportunity and is well positioned to help convene such a diverse group of stakeholders around a regional heritage theme. Cooperative Extension is already woven into the fabric of rural communities nationwide and is a trusted source of information for people of all stripes. Time and time again, community-based Extension agents have served as a vital "community entry-point" for AFHA staff trying to build community participation around the state.

Partner Visions of Heritage Area

The 90 participants in the November 2001 general stakeholders' meeting were asked to reflect on what their vision for the heritage area was. Not surprisingly, these responses were varied and in large part reflected the organizational and personal values of participants. Nevertheless, common themes run through the visions expressed by participants, articulating some of the underlying dynamics and social tensions of the heritage area movement. A commonly expressed dialectic was the regionalism versus local control theme. Regionalism was often couched in the language of cooperation, partnerships, coordination, interdependence, or networking. Typical regional visions expressed were:

• "The Forest Heritage Area is about establishing an umbrella of communities for planning the development, interpretation, and promotion of forest-based attractions."

• "The Forest Heritage Area is a centrally administered transportation, experience, and information network of routes and trails."

On the other end of the spectrum, community leaders often emphasized the importance of local control and validation for the heritage area. For example:

• "The heritage area should be sustained by community consensus and support by school systems and civic organizations."

• "The heritage area should serve to document and conserve local histories and reflect local roots that are shared with the visitor."

Participant visions for the Forest Heritage Area also reinforced the realization that heritage areas represent a new kind of sustainable development, one that integrates historic preservation, tourism, and economic development. Historic preservation advocates emphasized the importance of preservation in restoring rural economies. "Communities are discovering how well the preservation of historic, cultural, and natural resources combines with tourism development to enable communities to diversify their economies and promote traditional ways of life."

Regional economic development authorities tended to focus on the commerce potential of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, which was typified by comments such as, "[the Forest Heritage Area will] create commerce through the development, preservation, interpretation, and promotion of forest-based attractions in the region."

State tourism officials and representatives of regional Convention and Visitors Bureaus portrayed the Forest Heritage Area as a heritage tourism initiative. "Heritage tourism is an important economic development strategy for rural communities in West Virginia. It offers an outstanding opportunity to encourage diversified economic development." Finally, somewhat unique to the forest and forestry heritage theme of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, forest industry representatives and forestry consultants see the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area as an opportunity to educate the public about responsible forestry practices and wood products.

Despite the considerable diversity of visions expressed at the November 2001 stakeholder meeting, participants were able to unite under the mission of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area to work locally to conserve, develop, interpret, and promote a regional network of forest-based attractions and resources in the highlands of West Virginia and Maryland. Extension agents participated actively during this consensus-building process, serving as meeting facilitators in several of these public forums.

Perceived Benefits of Heritage Area

Participants of the November 2001 stakeholders' meeting identified a diverse set of benefits or outcomes that could result from the heritage area initiative. These benefits can be categorized into six benefit themes:

1. Community,
2. Economic,
3. Cultural,
4. Educational,
5. Environmental, and
6. Collaboration benefits (Table 2).

These are similar to benefit categories identified by the Northern Forest Center (2000) in its analysis of the Northern Forest region that includes portions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Both the Northern Forest and Appalachian region share a rich forest heritage.

Based upon participant responses, a sixth benefit category, collaboration, was added to coalesce the significant number of references to the importance of building partnerships, working together, and building common ground and trust across political, geographic, administrative, and stakeholder boundaries. This benefit category is more of a process indicator but has emerged as an important objective of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area. These project outcomes provide powerful testimony for the community and economic benefits that can result from Extension leadership in regional heritage initiatives such as the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area.

Heritage Area Issues

The planning process to develop the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area has not been without its growing pains and challenges. Strong efforts have been made to be inclusive, encouraging active participation from the broadest set of stakeholder groups. This inevitably led to occasional differences of opinion among participating organizations and interest groups.

For example, at the initial project workshop in November 2001, a disagreement emerged over whether the heritage area should focus on forest heritage or forestry heritage. Participating wood products firm representatives and forestry advocates felt strongly that the project should focus more narrowly on the history and practice of forestry, while representatives of environmental and watershed groups advocated for a broader project focus of forest heritage--one that included forestry but also encompassed forest ecology, preservation, and forest-based artisans. Eventually, a consensus decision was made at the April 2002 general stakeholders meeting to move forward under the more inclusive forest heritage theme; however, the decision has dissatisfied some project stakeholders.

A second challenge for the heritage area has been accommodating property rights concerns of project stakeholders and county landowners. In West Virginia and western Maryland and, indeed, nationally, property rights issues have emerged as a major constraint to heritage area development and the passage of national enabling legislation for heritage areas. Corporate and private landowners want assurances that heritage area designation will not limit their land use options through increased regulations or federal government purchase of land. The National Park Service counters by asserting that the heritage area approach is based on locally driven partnerships that emphasize local control of land (Hoffman, 2003).

In West Virginia, approximately 83% of the land area is privately owned, 7% industry owned, and 10% is publicly owned land. Within the boundaries of the AFHA, the percentage of public land is higher due to the proximity of the Monongahela National Forest. So far, AFHA has accommodated land use concerns by developing an asset mapping protocol where forest-based attractions can be listed only with the landowner's permission. If a landowner refuses to list a potential heritage area asset, for example, an old sawmill foundation, then the site is not listed in the regional asset map being compiled.

Again, these heritage area issues and concerns illuminate numerous possibilities for Extension professionals to play leadership roles in the planning and management of regional heritage area projects. Extension personnel provided technical support for the asset mapping protocol accommodating private landowner concerns as well as facilitation and conflict management skills that navigated the forest versus forestry heritage debates mentioned above.

Conclusions

Clearly, heritage areas are contributing sustainable economic benefits to rural regions throughout America in addition to enhancing community pride and well-being. Preliminary results from this case study underscore the diversity of interest groups that are coalescing into the heritage area movement. While this diversity is a potential strength, it can also be a weakness as heritage areas transcend the statutory duties of any single land-holding agency and rely heavily on coordinated management at the landscape level.

Results also illustrate how heritage areas are emerging as a new form of sustainable development, one that integrates historic preservation, tourism, the wood products industry, and economic development. Finally, the birthing process of the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area highlights the many challenges heritage area projects face nationwide, such as accommodating concerns of private property owners about not limiting their land use options.

Depending upon the type of heritage area, Extension agents and specialists can play a central role in the development and maintenance of the area by motivating participation from their local communities and clientele, and can consequently capitalize on the opportunities presented by them through these efforts. Extension's role as purveyors of technical information, teachers of public issues (Hahn 1990, Frederick 1998), and leaders in youth education can feed directly into advertising, education, and facilitating demands of growing heritage areas. So--whether your specialty is youth and 4-H, work force development, agriculture and natural resources, community and economic development, or tourism--your skills can be put to work within the heritage area movement.

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, initially conceived in the crucible of a university setting, is in a unique position to serve as a model or demonstration project for future heritage areas. Lessons learned, economic and social benefits derived, and implementation constraints will be continuously monitored and reported to the larger heritage, tourism, and Extension professions.

Heritage areas such as the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area are gaining momentum because people seek solace and meaning in their local and regional landscapes and special places when there is so much uncertainty in global economic and political affairs. Extension professionals have much to offer and much to gain by providing both regional and community-based leadership to the heritage area movement.

References

Frederick, A. L. (1998). Extension education opportunities with policymakers. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998april/comm1.html

Hahn, A. J. (1990). Issues-oriented public policy education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/a3.html

Hoffman, P. (2003, March 13). Testimony at Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, US Senate, Oversight of National Heritage Area Program.

Means, M. (1999). Happy trails. Planning, 65 (8), 4-9.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

National Park Service. (2002). Developing a research agenda: A national heritage areas workshop. Retrieved March 5, 2003, from http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/REP/heritageresearch.pdf

Northern Forest Center. (2000). Northern forest wealth index: Exploring a deeper meaning of wealth. Concord, NH: Northern Forest Center.

Pillifant, A. (2002). National heritage areas: Celebrating our culture and landscapes. Parks and Recreation, 37 (3), 102-106.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, Eng: Cambridge University Press.

Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Methods and design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Online Leader Training for 4-H Volunteers: A Case Study of Action Research

Lisa Kaslon
Extension Educator
lkaslon2@unl.edu

Kathleen Lodl
Extension 4-H Youth Development Specialist
klod1@unl.edu

Vickie Greve
Extension 4-H Youth Development Specialist
vgreve1@unl.edu

University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska

Introduction

Research has shown that people respond better to any job they are given if they feel they understand the job and have been trained to do the job (Hoover & Connor, 2001). This same concept applies to volunteers, as is noted by Wilson (1976). Without guidance, volunteers can waiver from satisfactorily completing their job task and feel frustrated.

Volunteer Leaders play a critical role in the 4-H program. When 4-H leaders are trained and take responsibility for conducting the program, the whole 4-H program is enhanced and improved (Richard & Verma, 1984). In designing an effective training process, the needs of the volunteer and the 4-H program are better served.

Background

A number of different volunteer development models exist. In each of these, volunteer education plays an integral role. For example, the ISOTURE (Identification, Selection, Orientation, Training, Utilization, Recognizing and Evaluating) Model of Volunteer Development (Boyce, 1971; Dolan, 1969) identifies orientation and training as two key components to volunteer development. The 4-H Volunteer Leadership Development Program (Kwarteng, Smith, & Miller, 1988) lists training as one of its six components, and the Volunteer Management Cycle (Lawson & Lawson, 1987) has eight components with orientation, training, support, and maintenance being critical.

Research shows that this volunteer training does have an impact. Rauner (1980) found that when Volunteer Leaders are trained as to the overall size and scope of the program, their skills are enhanced and they are able to better share that information with others. They become more effective volunteers. Research also indicates that in order for volunteer training to be successful, it must be effective.

Naylor (1973) found that poor or inadequate training could actually harm the organization. Volunteers will be less productive, leading to the loss of volunteers and even an unhealthy image of the organization by others. For these reasons, it is critical for the 4-H program to continually examine its volunteer training practices and involve the ultimate users in its methods.

4-H Volunteer Leaders are trained in diverse ways. In many instances, Cooperative Extension staff conducts face-to-face training in the counties they serve. However, as volunteer time becomes harder to access, programs expand, and budgets dwindle, alternate methods of volunteer development must be explored. Advancements in technology yield more training choices, such as an online training program.

According to Draves (2000), online learning is a growing medium of instruction in schools as well as with volunteers. It offers participants the opportunity to learn during their peak learning times, to study at their own pace, to focus on specific content areas, to test themselves daily, to have access to more information and resources, and to interact more with the teacher and classmates. It is anticipated that these features of online training would be beneficial to 4-H Volunteer Leaders.

The study described here used an Action Research Model to develop an online training program for 4-H Volunteer Leaders. As part of the Action Research, it also examined Volunteer Leader perceptions as to the usability of online training and the most usable components.

Methodology

Action research is a methodology that has the dual aims of action and research. The intent is to bring about program change through a systematic, reflective, inquiry process (Dick, 2001b).

Action research tends to be cyclical, participative, qualitative, and reflective (Dick, 2001a). As a result, the rationale for using action research was to be able to develop the online training as a part of the study. Action research allowed cycles to happen in which participants were included in decision-making that affected the development of the project.

The Action Research Model used to direct the study included three rounds of data collection based on participants' experience with the online training program. The program, designed in the University of Nebraska's course management system, Blackboard, is a password-protected system, which allows only enrolled users access. Ten modules were developed for the training. They include interactive features such as a discussion board, chat, and quizzing. The self-paced modules can be completed in order or can be worked through randomly, depending on the Volunteer Leader's needs. All of the modules include lessons as well as a section of resources, forms, and handouts.

For each round, data were collected via focus groups. Participants for the study were selected by 4-H staff to represent 4-H Volunteer Leaders from across Nebraska. Three 4-H Volunteer Leaders were selected from each of Nebraska Cooperative Extension's five state programming districts for a total of 15 Volunteer Leaders. Five of these Volunteer Leaders, one per district, participated in each of the three Rounds. For the purposes of the study, Volunteer Leaders needed minimal Web knowledge or the willingness to learn to use the Web.

Data was collected via conference call focus groups for each Round. Use of telephone phone bridges allowed statewide volunteer participation. Prior to Round 1, participants were given questions and asked to think about the answers. Prior to Rounds 2 and 3, participants were given basic instructions and asked to navigate through the 4-H Online Volunteer Leader Training Web site and comment on its usability. During each Round, participants were encouraged to contact the primary researcher regarding any technological issues.

Data gathered from the focus group interviews were examined for examples of agreement or disagreement. Questions raised were also compiled. Themes for each focus group were determined and analyzed. Changes were made based on suggestions between each focus group to allow them to build upon one another and add to the overall goal of developing the strongest online training program possible.

Findings

The Volunteer Leaders in the study represented a vast age range: six were between the ages of 30-40, eight were between 40-50 years of age, and one leader was 50-60 years old.  Thirteen of the respondents were female, and two were male. All of the Volunteer Leaders in the study were currently working with the 4-H program. Their years of experience as a 4-H Volunteer Leader ranged from 2 years to 40 years, with a mean of 7 years. All of the participating Volunteer Leaders had prior training experience in the 4-H program. This experience ranged from one to as many as 25 face-to-face training sessions, with an average of five sessions. The response rate for the study was 93%. Figure 1 presents the Action Research Model and results of each round of data collection.

Figure 1.

Schematic Diagram of Action Research Model from 4-H Online Volunteer Leader Training Program

Round 1

Round 1 of the research addressed the first Key Issue: Is online training an acceptable method of training for 4-H Volunteer Leaders? From the data collected the following conclusions were drawn:

• Online training is an acceptable method for training 4-H Volunteer Leaders,

• Online training is a usable way for 4-H Volunteer Leaders to gain information, and

• Online training is favored to face-to-face training by participants in the study.

As a result of these findings, the 4-H Online Volunteer Leader Training Program was developed. Based on components of face-to-face trainings and volunteer handbooks, nine modules were developed for use in the training, subject to approval from the Volunteer Leaders testing the site. Topics ranged from "What is 4-H?" to "Community Service" to "4-H Policies." The self-paced modules could be completed in order or could be worked through randomly, depending on the Volunteer Leader's needs. All of the modules include lessons as well as a section of resources, forms, and handouts for the Volunteer Leaders' use. All the forms were made accessible for printing for easy use at club meetings.

Round 2

The second Key Issue was addressed in Round 2: Is the 4-H Online Volunteer Leader Training Program useful and easily understood by Volunteer Leaders? Volunteer Leaders participating in Round 2 were asked to navigate through the Web site before participating in their focus groups. Website navigation by Volunteer Leaders participating in Round 2 was measured by number of "hits" on the site by each participant. Hits ranged from 38 to 92 with a mean of 63.6. Results indicated:

• Online training has features that make it exciting for 4-H Volunteer Leaders,

• Online training provides consistency in the training that takes place across the Nebraska, and

• Online training provides a training option for volunteers if no other training option is offered.

Based on the responses of Round 2 participants, the site was modified, and Round 3 participants were asked for their feedback. The number of hits before Round 3 was between 78 and 205, with a mean of 127 per participant.

Round 3

The Key Issue in Round 3 addressed the overall evaluation of the 4-H Volunteer Leader Online Training Program, including the content, context, and usefulness of the site. The data showed both strengths and weaknesses of online training.

Strengths included:

• Better access to more information when it is needed,

• Providing information in a way that is not time or place bound,

• Reduction in travel time that would be necessary for face-to-face meetings, and

• More discussion and networking by Volunteer Leaders across the state.

Weaknesses of the 4-H Volunteer Leader Online Training Program included:

• Accessibility issues related to technology, especially in more remote areas of the state;

• Delayed answers to questions that were asked by Volunteer Leaders; and

• Online training not being as personal as face-to-face training.

In addition, the data from Round 3 showed that providing a wealth of information in an online course is important. Even if one person does not find it useful, others might.

Discussion and Conclusions

Results of this study showed that Volunteer Leaders are accepting of online training as a method for gaining new skills. This is consistent with past research (Cook, Kiernan, & Ott, 1986; Scherfey, Hiller, MacDuff, & Mack, 2000) that indicates 4-H Volunteer Leaders want other options of training in addition to county face-to-face meetings.

Volunteer Leaders in the study indicated excitement for technology and a willingness to explore learning via this method of distance education. It was interesting to note that Volunteer Leaders stated they were already using the Web to find their own resources for 4-H, so using the Web as a medium of instruction was not uncomfortable to them. While this is noteworthy, this finding may be specific to this study, because the criteria for participant selection was Web knowledge or the willingness to learn.

The Volunteer Leaders in the study felt it was easier and more useful to pull information off the Web than to go to the Extension Office. This is supported by research that shows online learning as removing physical and time constraints for the learners (Boettcher & Conrad, 1999). An Extension Office visit requires the Volunteer Leader to observe the regular office hours. Often, these hours may not be convenient for the Volunteer Leader. Online learning removes this barrier.

Past work shows that online learning can create a dynamic like no other and that the synergy produced through online learning takes on new meaning (University of Illinois's Online Network, 2001). This research was supported by the Volunteer Leaders in the study, who were excited and motivated about their experience while navigating through the 4-H Online Volunteer Leader Training. It was interesting to note that participants felt that the online training offered high levels of interaction even though there was not an online discussion board provided. This may mean that the level of interaction they were seeking was with the information and not necessarily with other people.

Volunteer Leaders felt that the online training would allow all Volunteer Leaders across the state access to the same material, some of which they had never seen before. For example, 4-H Pick-a-Project, a Nebraska 4-H publication that lists all of the projects available through 4-H, had not ever been seen by several of the Volunteer Leaders participating in the study. This resource is annually available in hard copy through the local Extension Office. Volunteer Leaders were delighted to find this "new" resource online. It is possible that they had seen this piece before, but online education allowed them to see this traditional resource in a new way and in a more useful timeframe that gave it more meaning.

Volunteer Leaders commented that online training that was accessible during their leisure time would be helpful, because some of them had never experienced training of any kind. These statements were interesting in that one of the criteria local Cooperative Extension staff had used to choose them for this study was their prior face-to-face training experience.

After more discussion, all Volunteer Leaders agreed that they may have had at least one face-to-face training experience, but it was a struggle for them to remember it. In contrast, all the county staff attested that the Volunteer Leaders from their county participating in the study had experienced face-to-face training in their county. This perception of what training means to Volunteer Leaders versus what it means to staff is worthy of further research.

Data collected in the study supports the strengths of online learning identified by past research on online learning and adult education (Boettcher & Conrad, 1999; Draves, 2000; Halsne & Gatta, 2002; Moore, 1989; Song, 1998; University of Illinois's Online Network, 2001; Willis, 1993). Over and over again, Volunteer Leaders attested that the freedom of