December 2005
Volume 43 Number 6

Tools of the Trade

More Tips: Communicating with Institutional Review Boards Over the Course of Your Project

Donna J. Peterson
Assistant Research Scientist
pdonna@ag.arizona.edu

Daniel A. McDonald
Research Specialist
mcdonald@ag.arizona.edu

Sherry C. Betts
Extension Specialist and Professor
sbetts@ag.arizona.edu

The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Introduction

This is the third follow up to a series of four recent articles designed to help Extension Professionals navigate the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) process (Brown, Martin, & Weigel, 2004; Martin, Weigel, & Brown, 2005; Weigel, Brown, & Martin, 2004; Weigel, Martin, & Brown, 2005). The first follow up was on working with more than one IRB at a time (Betts, Peterson, & McDonald, 2005), while the second focused on working with tribal IRBs (McDonald, Peterson, & Betts, 2005). The current article focuses on the process of continuing review by IRBs.

After a project has received approval from an IRB, federal regulations require that projects be re-reviewed at regular intervals if research activities are continuing (e.g., recruiting participants, collecting and analyzing data, or paper, presentation or poster writing). This is called "continuing review." The purpose of continuing review is to ensure that the previously approved protocol has been followed, that the protections for participants are still adequate, that the anticipated benefits still justify the risks to participants, that any new regulations for human subjects research are incorporated, and that new research findings that may impact the project are considered.

We visited several university IRB Web sites to review various policies and procedures regarding continuing review. As may be expected, there were many similarities and a few differences across universities. Because all university continuing review policies are based on those developed by the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), OHRP's general guidelines are presented here.

OHRP offers guidance on conducting continuing reviews of research and delineates specifically what information must be submitted for review <www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/contrev2002.htm>. OHRP stipulates that a review be conducted at least once each year (or more frequently if there is greater risk involved), and that the following information be provided:

• A report on the total number of subjects accrued;

• A summary of any adverse events, problems, withdrawals, or complaints about the research project since the last review;

• A summary of relevant recent literature, findings, or any changes to the research since the last review;

• Any relevant multi-center trial reports (where more than one institution is involved in the research);

• Any relevant information, especially involving risks associated with the research; and

• Copies of the current consent form along with any proposed changes in the form.

While the annual review process provides a time for examining consent documents, it is important to keep in mind that during the project, whenever there is new information that requires modification of the consent form, the revised form must be approved by the IRB.

OHRP also provides some guidance on whether or not the continuing review documents need to be reviewed by all IRB members or if the IRB chair (or designated IRB member) can conduct the review (otherwise known as an "expedited review"). Generally speaking, if your research project originally qualified for expedited review, then in most circumstances it will be eligible once again unless there are changes that would no longer permit an expedited review. It is also possible for a research project to not be eligible initially for expedited review, but to qualify as expedited during the continuing review process if it meets the following criteria (taken from the Guidance on Continuing Review, July 11, 2002):

• The research is permanently closed to the enrollment of new subjects; all subjects have completed all research-related interventions; and the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of subjects; or

• No subjects have been enrolled and no additional risks have been identified; or

• The remaining research activities are limited to data analysis.

There is no grace period permitted after the expiration of the annual review approval period, so you will want to make sure you have provided your information to the IRB in a timely manner, usually at least 30 days prior to the approval expiration date. The approval expiration date is determined at the time of the initial IRB review. OHRP provides a few different scenarios for IRBs to use in determining the review date, but suffice it to say that in most cases it will be one year after final approval is given at an IRB meeting (even if minor revisions are required) or after the IRB chair gives approval if an expedited review process is used.

Issues and Tips

Follow Your University's Specific Continuing Review Procedures

While general information about continuing review has been provided above, keep in mind that your university's IRB will have specific procedures that you must follow. Their guidelines will discuss the information and documents you will need to submit for continuing review. Be sure to closely follow the instructions and meet the imposed deadline to prevent approval from lapsing, resulting in a delay to your project.

Seek IRB Approval for Any Protocol Modification

IRB approval must be obtained for any changes to an already approved protocol. These changes include modifications to consent forms, participant recruiting procedures, incentives, data collection instruments or methods, or personnel. For example, if you have been previously approved to recruit participants through fliers in grocery stores, but now want to also place an ad in the newspaper, this change must first be submitted to and approved by your IRB. Although the continuing review process provides the opportunity for you to summarize any changes in one place, you must notify your IRB along the way.

Avoid Noncompliance and Misconduct

Allegations of noncompliance, or research not conducted in accordance with policy, can come to the attention of the IRB during the continuing review process. Misconduct is fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the research community or a failure to disclose conflict of interests. Most researchers share goals of ethical conduct and want to comply with regulations that are there to protect the subjects and themselves. You will find that regular communication and periodic review with your institution's IRB will help you reach those goals.

Conclusion

The importance of communicating with your university's IRB cannot be overstated. By keeping the IRB informed of any changes to approved protocols or problems as they arise and by submitting requested documentation and information on a regular basis as required, you will be able to ensure a smooth-running project.

References

Betts, S. C., Peterson, D. J., & McDonald, D. A. (2005). More tips: What if a Cooperative Extension professional must work with two or more institutional review boards? Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005august/tt1.shtml

Brown, R., Martin, S., & Weigel, D. (2004). What Cooperative Extension professionals need to know about institutional review boards: Recruiting participants. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/tt1.shtml

Martin, S., Weigel, D., & Brown, R. (2005). What Cooperative Extension professionals need to know about institutional review boards: Obtaining consent. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(2) Article 2TOT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005april/tt1.shtml

McDonald, D. A., Peterson, D. J., & Betts, S. C. (2005). More tips: What if a Cooperative Extension professional must work with Native American institutional review boards? Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/tt1.shtml

Weigel, D., Brown, R., & Martin, S. (2004). What Cooperative Extension professionals need to know about institutional review boards. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/tt1.shtml

Weigel, D., Martin, S., & Brown, R. (2005). What Cooperative Extension professionals need to know about institutional review boards: Risks and benefits. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article 1TOT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/tt1.shtml

Intensity Weighted Ranking: A Methodology for Understanding What Clients Tell Us

Natalie Carroll
Associate Professor and Extension 4-H Specialist
Youth Development and Agricultural Education
ncarroll@purdue.edu

Stephen Lovejoy
Professor and Extension Specialist
Agricultural Economics
lovejoy@purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

"Using Technology to Survey New Audiences," an Ideas at Work article in this issue, discusses our utilization of a computerized touch screen for collecting data about perceived client needs. While quite useful, the rank ordering of issues leaves a major question unanswered: "How strongly do you feel about each issue?" Respondents can only rank a limited number of discrete choices, and ranking tells us nothing about the intensity of client views on each topic. Unlike interval level scaling, rank ordering does not imply how much more important subsequently ranked issues are for a respondent.

This article introduces a tool for uncovering respondent's intensity of response and more specific information about respondents' issues of most concern. The methodology requires respondents to rank order a short set of concerns as they influence their community.

Methods

We were interested in what water quality issues Indiana residents see as most important and how strongly they feel about these issues. This information will assist us in planning educational activities and programs. To assess the concerns and educational needs of a general audience, we used a touch screen computer at the Indiana State Fair in 2003. Participants were asked to rate the strength of their concern for specific water quality topics. Seven general issues were broken down into component "sub-issues." The issues and sub issues were:

• Wastewater Treatment--septic systems, municipal sewage treatment, storm water runoff

• Supply of Clean drinking water--quantity and quality issues

• Community Planning Resources--land use/watershed planning, decision aids (maps, software, etc.)

• Ag Production Issues--animal production issues, nutrient management, sedimentation

• Surface Water Quality--maximum loading to streams (TDMLs), nutrient criteria

• Health of Aquatic Ecosystems--ecological metrics, disease vectors (e.g., West Nile)

• Water Based Recreational Opportunities--fishing, swimming, boating

Participants were asked to rate the sub-issues importance for their community on a scale of "no importance" (0) to "highest importance" (10). A score of 5 was an average value. The survey included four demographic questions, a ranking of seven water quality issues, and an analysis of the strength of the respondent's feelings about each issue. The water quality issues were determined from an open-ended e-mail survey of Indiana Extension staff (county and state).

A total of 434 people completed the survey through at least part of the rating of the strength of their concerns. (Details of the demographic information and results of the water quality issue rankings are presented in "Using Technology to Survey New Audiences," in this issue.)

Results were analyzed by comparing the average value given for each sub-issue. The sub-issues that respondents felt most strongly about received a higher value. Although the average values for sub-topic give some idea of the strength of concern, people tend to see every sub-issue as important in and of itself. Therefore, we developed a method to combine the issue ranking and the strength of concern for each sub-issue, which we call the "Intensity Weighted Rank," calculated by multiplying the importance rating by the inverse of the rank order of the corresponding major issue response.

For example, if an issue was ranked 4th and was given an importance rating of 5, the Intensity Weighted Rank would be 1.25 (5*0.25). An issue ranked 1st with an importance of 10, on the other hand, would have a Weighted Rank of 10 (10*1.0). This provides a measure of overall importance of each issue. The issues that people felt most strongly about had a higher rating, with 10 being the highest value possible.

Results

Community drinking water was given the highest average value (9.6) with well water quality next (9.1). Table 1 and Figure 1 show the average values given for each sub-issue. Participants felt that all sub-issues were important, with average values ranging from a high of 9.6 to 7.0.

Figure 1.
Sub-Issue Averages

The Intensity Weighted Rank values give good comparison of the issues. Values ranged from a high of 9.6 for Community Drinking Water down to 1 for Boating. Table 2 and Figure 2 show the Weighted Ranking results. Comparing Figures 1 and 2 shows the value of the Intensity Weighted Ranking method. While the results appear similar in Figure 1 (because respondents were generally concerned about all water quality issues), Figure 2 shows the issues of highest concern. In addition, the Intensity Weighted Rank provides an indication of how much more important some issues are than others. For example, the issue of community drinking water had a IWR that was 16% higher then the IWR for the issue of declining aquifers, although both were in the top rank category of Clean Drinking Water.

Figure 2.
Intensity Weighted Ranking

Although 434 people completed at least part of the survey asking how strongly they felt about the sub-issues, many stopped before completing all 20 sub-issues. There was a drop of 8% (to 92%) of the people who indicated the strength of their concern for the first issue but stopped at that point. A drop of from 0-2% was seen with each subsequent question. Most people completed the entire survey, however, with 318 (73%) people answering all 20 sub-issue questions, indicating how strongly they felt about each sub-issue.

Discussion

Using a computer survey we were able to obtain information from a variety of people with a minimum of staff involvement. Questions included ranking water quality issues and indicating how important 20 sub-issues were. Answering 27 questions may have became an onerous task for the average fairgoer. A possible change would be to ask participants to rank and rate only the seven major issues. This method, however, would lose the specificity that listing all 20 sub-issues provided.

The Intensity Weighted Ranking combines the average intensity rating and the issue rank, giving more complete information. For example, "septics" was ranked 13th by the straight averaging method (7.9) but was ranked 7th using the Intensity Weighted Ranking system. This additional information indicates that educational programs about septic systems may be more important to citizens than first appears. Note that although the strength of response values for the sub issues varied between a narrow range (7 to 9.6), dividing by the ranking can make a big difference (values from 1 to 9.6). Note, however, that the decreasing relative difference in the smaller fractions (1/4, 1/5, vs. 1 or 1/2) makes the lower ranked issues appear closer in importance.

Conclusions

Analysis of average responses and Intensity Weighted Rankings in a needs assessment effort is more useful in evaluating programming needs than a simple rank ordering of issues.

Polling Your Audience with Wireless Technology

Cole Gustafson
Professor
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota
cole.gustafson@ndsu.nodak.edu

Laurence Crane
Agricultural Economist
National Crop Insurance Services
Kansas City, Missouri
laurencec@ag-risk.org

Recent advances in wireless technology provide new opportunities to engage audiences in Extension workshops. While audience response systems have been around for years, they were often cumbersome to use and fixed in location. New systems, such as the Personal Response System (PRS), are user friendly and transportable, and create the excitement of "polling the audience" on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. This article provides an overview of the technology, discusses unique applications for Extension, and reviews its use in a recent farm business planning workshop.

Personal Response Technologies

Modern audience response systems (ARS) consist of a handheld response unit that is the size of a cell phone, with an embedded keypad, a receiver, and software that tabulates, summarizes, graphs, and records individual audience responses. At North Dakota State University, two-thirds of freshmen now use ARS in their classes. Instructors routinely use the system to monitor attendance, enhance student-teacher interaction, and assess student performance. Edmonds (2005), Elliot (2003), and Hake (1998) discuss other classroom applications and note that active learning, depth of learning, and student interest all increase.

Off-campus use of ARS has been minimal to date, but offers great potential. Salmon and Stahl (2005) found no significant difference in learning with ARS in their off-campus workshops. However, ARS possesses a number of other unique qualities that are particularly well suited to Extension.

First, traditional participants in Extension workshops (farmers and other rural citizens) are often not accustomed to raising their hands and volunteering information publicly like students in a classroom. ARS preserves individual anonymity and can be used in a discreet manner that is more comfortable for participants.

Second, many Extension programs involve sensitive personal information, especially workshops on economic and finance topics. When participants in these programs really get involved, they often desire responses to their own personal situation, but are reluctant to volunteer information about their problem. Periodic planned examples can assist educators with development of examples that are more relevant to individual needs.

Third, when discussing topics of a policy nature, ARS provides an opportunity to express minority interests who otherwise would not speak up. Finally, ARS methods may be an interesting way to break up day-long sessions and increase interaction (Ponessa, 1999).

Strategies for Use

Instructors can pose a question orally, write it on an overhead, or project it internally through ARS. Respondents have an allotted time to enter their response and can revise their answer if needed. Once the question is asked, a clock is started, and time remaining is shown. A grid on the projector's screen indicates when individual handsets have responded. Respondents can check their handset number to see if their entry has been recorded. Questions can be Yes=1, No=0, multiple choice (e.g., select one of five possible answers), or numeric (e.g., estimate your city's population).

Classroom instructors frequently pause during their lecture and pose a question with ARS to monitor student comprehension of a topic. This technique could be readily adopted in Extension workshops to gauge audience understanding at the beginning of a workshop. Newer ARS have the capability of posing questions directly in PowerPoint slides for a more seamless integration of the technology.

Extension educators could also use ARS to gauge learning for assessment purposes by posing questions at the outset and conclusion of each workshop. Audience responses can be quantitatively measured and more conveniently obtained than pre- and post-paper testing.

ARS can operate either in anonymous or named mode. In most Extension workshops, ARS will probably be used anonymously. However, named mode may be useful when monitoring completion of certification programs. Further, named responses over time might reveal progress in lifelong learning.

Extension educators are advised to review their institution's Institutional Review Board policies. Depending on the nature of individual responses received, proper assurances might need to be provided to workshop participants.

Farm Business Planning

ARS was recently used to enhance producer involvement in a series of farm business planning workshops held in North and South Dakota. At the beginning of the workshop, producers were divided in small groups and asked to identify important risks facing their operation (e.g., weather, disease outbreaks, border/trade issues, etc.). The group then reassembled and used ARS to vote for the 2-3 most important issues facing the group as a whole. These topics were then integrated into the remaining curriculum throughout the workshop.

In a discussion of household expenses, participants used ARS to identify the average level of household expenditures for North Dakota farms. They were presented with five possible responses ($15-$40,000. Most were surprised that the average level was the highest choice (over $40,000). Their modal response was $25,000.

When discussing labor issues, participants were presented with a problem employee situation and asked to use ARS to select the best strategy for responding. Responses were equally divided among the alternatives selected. This provided the instructor an opportunity to discuss the merits of all the alternatives and did not allow one member of the audience or idea to dominate the discussion.

Conclusion

New wireless audience response systems are rapidly being adopted in academic classrooms and may offer several opportunities for Extension. This article reviews the merits of ARS and discusses a recent trial in a farm business planning workshop. Educators will have to invest some initial energy learning the software and integrating the system into their materials. However, heightened audience interaction and more personalized responses make the effort worthwhile.

References

Edmonds, V. Turning point student response system. Retrieved April 6, 2005, from: http://www.campus-technology.com/print.asp?id=9864

Elliot, C. Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1:1(2003), 80-86.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66:1(1998), 64-74.

Personal Response System. Retrieved April 5, 2005, from: http://www.gtcocalcomp.com/interwriteprs.htm

Ponessa, J. T. (1999). Gaining audience involvement: Interactive teaching exercises. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/tt1.html

Salmon, T. P., & Stahl, J. N. (2005) Wireless audience response system: Does it make a difference? Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(3) Article 3RIB8. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/rb10.shtml

The Use of Personal Response Transmitters in Extension Settings

Ray Massey
Extension Associate Professor
masseyr@missouri.edu

Nick Jaskolski
Administrative Assistant
jaskolskin@missouri.edu

Laura Sweets
Extension Associate Professor
sweetsl@missouri.edu
Commercial Agriculture Program

University of Missouri – Columbia
Columbia, Missouri

Introduction

Audience participation enables adults possessing knowledge from experience to influence teaching sessions. Because much adult Extension education does not involve testing, participation also serves as an informal measure of comprehension. Unfortunately, a dominant participant can obscure the educators' understanding of the needs and comprehension of the group as a whole.

The use of personal response transmitters (PRTs) can facilitate audience participation. This article details how personal response transmitters were used in an Extension program in Missouri and relates lessons learned.

Description of PRTs

PRTs tend to resemble TV remote controls. The PRTs we used, from Interwrite PRS, contain 10 buttons for numeric input. Each participant receives a PRT with a unique code to identify and record responses. The PRTs transmit, via a receiver, responses from the users to a computer that records and displays the responses.

Before a session, the instructor creates a participant roster, a response map, and questions with multiple answers. The roster links the responses to individual PRTs. The response map, displayed during the instructor-specified response period of each question, indicates if an individual PRT's answers have been received by the computer by changing color. The questions and possible answers can be viewed directly from the Interwrite program or within a PowerPoint presentation. If integrated into PowerPoint, the questions can be dispersed among teaching slides.

At an educational session, the instructor sets up the receiver and issues a transmitter to each participant. After a question has been displayed, participants point their transmitter toward the receiver and transmit their response. After the specified time for responding to a question, the results are graphically displayed for the audience. At this time, the instructor learns of the audience comprehension and can direct discussion according to that knowledge. A session may contain as many questions as desired by the instructor.

Responses are stored in a database so that summary statistics or statistical analysis can be conducted. Summary statistics show how many of the respondents answered in a certain way. Because each response is linked to each PRT's code, statistical analysis or correlations could be performed to see if certain participant characteristics (e.g. age of respondent or size of farm) explain their responses.

Use of PRTs in IPM Group

The use of PRTs at an IPM meeting in the winter of 2005 illustrates one use of the technology for educational purposes. The meeting involved presentations by three scientists and an economist. After the presentations by the scientists, an agricultural economist interacted with the group using the PRTs.

We familiarized the participants to the PRTs by asking them to respond to several simple questions. During this time, each person was instructed where to point the PRT for best transmission of their response and how to confirm that their response was received. We then asked questions about their pest scouting practices. Figure 1 shows the responses we received to the question "During the last growing season, I scouted (or had someone scout) my soybean fields: 1) daily, 2) several times a week, 3) weekly, 4) every 2 weeks or 5) rarely or never."

Figure 1.
Results to Soybean Scouting Question

This was followed by a question regarding their scouting intentions for the 2005 growing season (Figure 2). The two graphs viewed successively indicated that change was anticipated. This change became a point of discussion. Why were they planning to scout more frequently? How were they going to accomplish this? What resources did they have or need to scout?

Figure 2.
Soybean Rust Scouting Question

The questions on scouting were followed by questions asking the participants to identify diseases from pictures of soybean diseased leaves. One hundred percent of the participants correctly identified frogeye leafspot, while only 37% correctly identified Asian soybean rust. Both diseases had been covered earlier in the day. The benefit of this type of question is that without the use of the PRTs, those who did not know how to identify rust would have remained quiet, perhaps one person would have correctly answered, and the instructors would have assumed that most of the group knew the correct answer.

The PRTs gave the audience the freedom to be wrong without embarrassing themselves and, thus gave the educators immediate opportunity to address the problem. Given the response to the rust ID question, we modified the agenda of the workshop to allow the pathologist to conduct a "mini lesson" on correctly identifying rust.

Last, the economist covered how to use partial budgets to evaluate IPM strategies. This lesson was followed by questions regarding the cost and return implications of various management strategies for rust. One question asked the participants to give their opinions of whether spraying a field infected with rust would "1) increase costs, 2) decrease costs, 3) increase revenues, 4) decrease revenues, 5) increase costs and revenues, or 6) none of the above." The wide variety of responses permitted a discussion of the concepts of partial budgets within a relevant context where the participants had already made an assessment. Each participant was able to have his or her answer either affirmed or challenged without being publicly exposed.

Figure 3.
Graph of Spray Partial Budget Question

Lessons Learned in Making Use Successful

The following lessons learned in Missouri have made the PRTs more successful.

• We purchased an extendable tripod that allowed us to put the receiver above the projection screen in the front of the room so everyone could see it.

• Distribute the PRTs randomly so that people can't guess the serial number of other participants.

• Test questions before using them with participants.

• While learning the technology we had an assistant operate the PRT while an educator taught.

• Graphs show multiple choice number rather than actual possible answers. Have a printout of the choices with their corresponding number so that you know immediately what response matches each number.

Orchestrating Volunteer Orientation: Introducing the O.B.O.E. Model

Ken Culp, III
Extension Specialist for 4-H Youth Development, Volunteerism
Lexington, Kentucky
kculp@uky.edu

Amy E. Aldenderfer
Extension Horticulture Agent, Hardin County
Elizabethtown, Kentucky
aaldende@uky.edu

Lynette A. Allen
Extension 4-H Youth Development Agent, Breckenridge County
Hardinsburg, Kentucky
lallen@uky.edu

Sarah G. Fannin-Holliday
Extension 4-H Youth Development Agent, Morgan County
West Liberty, Kentucky
sfannin@uky.edu

Raven C. Ford
Extension 4-H Youth Development Agent, Rowan County
Morehead, Kentucky
rcford@uky.edu

Carole A. Goodwin
Extension 4-H Youth Development Agent, Meade County
Brandenburg, Kentucky
cgoodwin@uky.edu

University of Kentucky

Introduction & Review of Literature

When utilizing the GEMS Model to coordinate volunteer programs, generating volunteers is the first step in volunteer administration (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells, 1998). After potential volunteers have been identified, recruited, screened and selected, they may then be educated to conduct their service activities. The initial step in volunteer education is orientation.

Orientation is the overview of the total organization necessary for every new volunteer, regardless of the specific assignment. It places the work into context and allows for consistent introduction of policies, procedures, rights, and responsibilities (Ellis, 1996). Orientation provides the volunteer an opportunity to become acquainted with the role, organizational culture, and environment (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells). Orientation provides new volunteers with generalized information and a "big picture" look at the organization and its volunteer program (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells).

Volunteers generally come to their new role with varying levels of knowledge about the organization. An effective orientation program introduces the volunteers to the organization as a whole and to their specific job responsibilities. Orientation can be beneficial in assuring that volunteers have accurate information regarding the organization's purpose, programs, policies, and expectations. In today's service arena, volunteers should also be oriented in risk and liability management (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells, 1998).

Volunteers often assume roles with a high public profile on behalf of a nonprofit organization. Clientele who participate in and benefit from participation in programs administered by non-profit organizations often have their greatest contact with volunteers (DeWitt, 1995). Informed volunteers will represent the organization positively, carry out their responsibilities effectively, and possess a positive attitude toward the organization for which they are volunteering (Culp, Deppe, Castillo, & Wells, 1998).

In planning any orientation, one must consider the question "What would someone need to know to feel comfortable and competent in carrying out this position?" The answer to this question should lead the volunteer administrator to design an effective volunteer development program; the initial step of which is orientation (Stallings & McMillion, 1999). Orientation benefits new 4-H leaders who are preparing for service. Adult volunteers found orientation sessions to be relevant and increased their knowledge and preparedness for their volunteer roles (Van Winkle, Busler, Bowman, & Manoogian, 2002).

A study of 4-H agents in Ohio showed that they believed volunteer orientation to be an important component of volunteer administration. The study further identified that agents lacked a structured volunteer orientation program as well as feedback regarding the effectiveness of their teaching strategies and educational programs (Deppe & Culp, 2001). As a result, the 2003 Volunteer Administration Academy (Culp & Stivers, 2003) developed a Volunteer Orientation Model as a tool to be utilized by Extension professionals.

Discussion

The volunteer orientation model (O.B.O.E.) can be adapted to fit any Extension program or non-profit volunteer organization. Divided into four main topics, the orientation program is easily presented in a 90-minute session. Orientation topics of the O.B.O.E. model include: an Opening, Background, Organizational safeguards, and Evaluation.

Components of the orientation program include the welcome, introduction and mixing activity, the history of Extension, mission and values of Extension, the organizational structure, volunteer expectations, risk management, communication channels, resources, program evaluation, question period, evaluation, and a tour of the facility.

The Opening component sets the stage for the orientation session. A warm welcome is extended to the participants, introducing the outline for the session. The opening should also include an icebreaker allowing the group to bond, fostering the development of a harmonious support system among the volunteers.

The history of the organization, its mission and values, and the organizational structure are accompaniment pieces of the Background component. This is where the professional can arrange the program to fit his or her own organization.

Organizational safeguards include volunteer expectations, risk management strategies, effective communication channels, and available resources. This topical section protects the volunteer, the clientele, and the organization as well as the volunteer administrator from risk and also serves to establish parameters within in which the volunteer is expected to perform.

The orientation program concludes with the components of program evaluation, a question period, evaluation, and a tour of the facility, all of which are included in Evaluation. This section, which establishes the rhythm of the program, provides the opportunity for participants to clarify, question, and determine the success of the program and its impact upon the volunteer participants.

Uses and Implications

1. Extension Agents can use the OBOE Orientation Model to provide a unified and accurate message concerning the purpose of the organization.

2. Orientation provides the first opportunity for agents to develop a cohesive relationship with Extension volunteers.

3. Agents should use orientation as an opportunity to develop awareness of liability issues, risks and has the potential to reduce the occurrence of problem behaviors.

4. Volunteer orientation provides a foundation for evaluation.

5. During orientation agents should provide a listing of available resources and technical support available to volunteers.

References

Culp, III, K., Deppe, C. A., Castillo, J. X. & Wells, B. J. (1998). The GEMS model of volunteer administration. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 16 (4), 36-41.

Culp, III, K. & Stivers, W. J. (2003). AED 779 volunteer administration academy. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Department of Leadership and Community Development. Class lecture and project.

Deppe, C. A. & Culp, III, K. (2001). Ohio 4-H agents' perceptions of the level of importance and frequency of use of the eighteen components of the GEMS model of volunteer administration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4) 32 – 42.

DeWitt, J. D. (1995). A legal handbook for nonprofit corporation volunteers [On-line]. Available at: http://www.iciclesoftware.com/vlh7/

Ellis, S. J. (1996). From the top down. Philadelphia: Energize, Inc.

Stallings, B. G. & McMillion, D. Orientation and training of event volunteers. Retrieved on December 2, 2004 from: http://www.energizeinc.com/art/ahowt.html

Van Winkle, R., Busler, S., Bowman, S. R., & Manoogian, M. (2002). Adult volunteer development: Addressing the effectiveness of training new 4-H leaders. Journal of Extension. 40(6). [On-line]. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a4.shtml

Recruiting Strategies for Short-Term Volunteers

Doug Hart
Associate Professor
Oregon State University Extension Service
Gold Beach, Oregon
doug.hart@oregonstate.edu

Volunteers Are the Key to Our Success

Are you ready for short-term (episodic) volunteers in your Extension programs? A survey (J.C. Penney, 1987) asked people why they weren't volunteering. Seventy-nine percent of those asked said they would be more inclined to volunteer if the jobs were shorter in duration.

Episodic volunteering is becoming more prevalent in today's society due to more people working out of the home and generally busier lifestyles. In order for Extension programs to be effective and relevant in our communities, Extension professionals will need to become more reliant on the short-term volunteer.

What Is a Short-Term Volunteer?

Short-term volunteers may assist with special project, events, and activities. Often these volunteers will assist for 25 or fewer hours in a calendar year. When recruiting the volunteer, the type of position and length of assignment are important points to consider. Depending on the length of commitment needed for the position, it may require a different approach to recruitment, training, and support than you would use to recruit a traditional, long-term volunteer.

To make effective use of the short-term volunteer, follow these simple guidelines.

• Have short-term volunteer roles available for upcoming special events like camp, research projects, after-school programs, and county fair.

• Develop specific job descriptions for your short-term volunteer that lets them know the duration and tasks that must be completed.

• Provide these volunteers with a training/orientation session that is appropriate to the roles that they will be performing.

Improve Your Recruiting? Know Your Program!

A successful recruiting method is to know your program needs in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the needs of your volunteer as well. Designing your volunteer management program should be completed before volunteers are recruited. In addition, during the recruitment process, it is important for the volunteer to assess what they are qualified to do. That will help in the eventual placement of volunteers. A volunteer self-assessment tool is useful in assisting the coordinator and the volunteer in assigning the appropriate roles for these individuals.

Because there are different ways to recruit volunteers for your programs, don't concentrate all your efforts on one method. For instance, news and press releases are just one way to recruit. Paid advertisements, company newsletters, word of mouth, etc., are other ways you might try. Other methods to recruit the short-term volunteer include:

• Pool ideas of salaried and volunteer staff on recruitment possibilities.

• Use all communication outlets: radio, TV, Web sites, newspapers, paid advertisements, personal contacts, billboards, etc.

• Mail preference questionnaires to past clients and community newcomers.

• Attend job fairs, recognition and award activities.

• Develop creative and attractive material for an upcoming project.

• Have current volunteers bring a friend.

• Contact clubs and service groups.

• Document successes--and share them!

In Curry County, Oregon, short-term volunteers were recruited for a 4-H after-school gardening program by using a few of these techniques. To begin, specific program goals were identified. Position descriptions were written that included the time of commitment, a list of responsibilities, and the training required. A few paid ads and an appeal to the Master Gardener volunteers resulted in the eight short-term volunteers needed to work on the project.

Keep Communication Lines Open

When volunteers have been identified for your programs, it is important to keep them updated on their responsibilities and other things they have committed to do. The more support the volunteer receives, the more likely they will be to volunteer in the future. Training and support can be simple as long as they provide the volunteer with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective performance.

Recognize Your Volunteers

Recognition is important--for volunteers and salaried staff. It should be planned as we prepare our recruiting strategies for volunteers. On-the-job praise is an important way to give encouragement to staff, both salaried and volunteer (Larwood, 2002). If we make recognition a habit, both publicly and privately, the message is sent to current and potential volunteers just how important they are to our organization. Effective and meaningful volunteer involvement demonstrates your appreciation for volunteers all year long (Fox & Penrod, 1989).

Measuring for Success

Once a short-term volunteer program is in place, it's important to measure and review the quality of his or her work to see whether expectations are being met. Appraisal and evaluation should be part of ongoing supervision, not saved for certain times of the year or done only when projects have been completed. In reviewing a volunteer's performance, identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas where more training is needed. Watch for signs of boredom and work with the volunteer to add new dimensions to their assignment.

It is important to develop a process or method of communicating the results of the evaluations. Whatever the process selected to evaluate volunteers, it should be interactive. This gives a chance to give and receive feedback.

Conclusion

Since incorporating a short-term volunteer strategy in Curry County, Oregon, volunteer numbers in all areas have increased by 18%, with nearly 70% of the new volunteers committing to short-term assignments. Return rates of these short-term volunteers for a second year averages 85%. By diversifying the volunteer base in this county, new and larger audiences have been reached.

If you are in looking to expand your volunteer and/or clientele base, maybe these tools for recruiting, supporting, evaluating, and recognizing episodic volunteers will work for you.

References

Fox, W. & Penrod, K. (1989). A vision for strengthening local leadership. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, IN.

Larwood, L. (2002). 4-H volunteer development handbook. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, OR.

VOLUNTEERING: A national profile. the J.C. Penney Company, (1987).

Roads Scholar Tours: A Marketing Tool for Building Strong Campus/Community Relationships

Deborah J. Maddy
Assistant Director
Oregon State University Extension Service
Corvallis, Oregon
deborah.maddy@oregonstate.edu

Jean A. Stilwell
Marketing Consultant
Corvallis, Oregon
jean.stilwell@oregonstate.edu

Building Campus-Community Relationships

The three-fold mission of land-grant universities presents many interesting challenges in the corporate life of the organization. One of those challenges is to create a cohesive and collaborative university community that fully includes county-based faculty and staff. Building a strong campus community requires greater knowledge and understanding of the engagement mission.

Roads Scholar Tours Concept

That's why, at Oregon State University, the Roads Scholar Tours were developed in 1999. Seeking improved understanding of Extension's educational mission and commitment to engagement by campus leaders, the Oregon State University Extension Service initiated the tours as a way to give campus-bound colleagues firsthand experience with community-based people and programs. The tour as a marketing tool is not original to Oregon State. Several universities around the country, including The Ohio State University, Cornell University, and Washington State University, sponsor similar activities. Responding to the specific marketing problem of creating a cohesive and collaborative university community, OSU Extension put a unique spin on the concept.

Think Strategically About Participants

Annually, potential scholars are invited by the Oregon State President and the Dean and Director of Extension to participate in a mini-van tour guided by one of the OSU Extension administrative leaders who showcases exemplary county-based programs hosted by Extension faculty. The small, intimate setting provides greater interaction with the guide and the hosts and leads to a more in-depth experience and greater learning as compared to the large bus tour hosted for new faculty by some universities. The emphasis is definitely on building relationships as the guide and scholars traverse the highways of Oregon.

The scholars interact with Extension faculty, volunteers, and learners in the community and apperceive the various stakeholders' shared passion for OSU's land-grant mission. They observe Extension faculty teaching in community-based learning laboratories. They get to talk with the Extension faculty and staff, program participants, volunteers and community leaders and hear what a difference Extension and the University make in the lives of Oregonians.

Create Interesting Itineraries

Each summer two or three appealing itineraries are designed for a limited number of scholars to choose from. The tours cover a range of challenges and opportunities for Oregon and detail how OSU Extension faculty members make a significant contribution to the communities visited. Over the years, the tours have earned prestige through the selective nature of the invitation, the limited space available, and the high quality experience.

The tours are 1 or 2 days in length. Recruitment and registration takes place in the early spring to accommodate senior-level administrators' busy calendars. Expenses generally average less than a thousand dollars per day for a tour of 10-12 participants. This includes transportation costs, meals, and lodging at state-approved rates.

Capitalize on Unique Community Features

The uniqueness of the community shapes the tours. For example, on a typical tour, participants start with a brief overview of county programs delivered by the local staff chair and faculty. Next, a visit to a classroom of teen parents learning about the nutritional needs of their infants and young children will highlight the difference Extension makes in the health and well-being of families.

Traveling to a research forest for a picnic lunch, they learn about the ways Extension forestry faculty use the forest as a community-learning laboratory. Later, the travelers visit a produce farm and learn about the ways in which Extension faculty have helped its owners manage agricultural production and market the products. A stop at the 4-H Tech Wizards computer lab shows at-risk Hispanic youth teaching senior citizens how to stay in touch with their grandchildren via the Internet.

The tour finale is a four-star meal of Oregon-caught seafood hosted by the Extension Sea Grant program and prepared by a local chef. The meal becomes a tool for teaching about the impact Extension's expertise and leadership has had on the fishing industry's economic and environmental issues.

Include External Partners

When possible, county commissioners and other community partners are included to demonstrate the full range of community collaboration. Throughout the day, participants are exposed to the myriad ways in which the university is engaged in local communities and in the lives of Oregonians. It is always an enlightening experience for campus-based faculty and administrators, and instills a new sense of pride and ownership for the engagement mission.

What Participants Tell Us

As of summer 2004, 84 scholars have participated, with follow-up surveys reporting that participants 1) increased their understanding of Extension's vision, mission, and values, and 2) incorporated what they learned about Extension into their campus assignments. Unsolicited feedback received from participants reinforces the survey findings.

"Your tour provided those of us on campus a chance to enlarge our perspective of the Extension Service as a multi-faceted resource to the state."

OSU Head Librarian

"The tour enhanced my respect for the important work that the Extension faculty and staff perform."

OSU Foundation development officer

"The theme that I saw very strongly everywhere we stopped was the connection Extension has with the communities. That's the heart and soul of the land-grant mission."

OSU Director of Business Affairs

" . . . wonderful to see the great things Extension folks are doing for our community!"

Executive Assistant to the Vice Provost

There are countless examples of how Roads Scholar Tour participants have used their increased understanding of and new appreciation for OSU Extension to improve operations that affect off-campus faculty and staff. The enhanced respect for Extension work, teamed with the mutual respect for campus-based work, has led to more collaborative efforts between Extension field faculty and campus research faculty.

Conclusion

If campus-based faculty, staff, and administrators don't currently have a strong sense of how the Cooperative Extension Service is serving your state, you may want to consider adapting the Roads Scholar concept to fit your situation. With a minimum investment of dollars and some focused time of a few key Extension faculty and staff, the tours can happen. The priceless benefits to your organization are strengthened campus/community relationships.

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

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.