February 2005
Volume 43 Number 1

Features

Extension as a Delivery System for Prevention Programming: Capacity, Barriers, and Opportunities

Laura Griner Hill
Assistant Professor
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
laurahill@wsu.edu

Louise A. Parker
Director of Extension Family Programs
Washington State University
Puyallup, Washington
parker@wsu.edu

The historical function of Extension is to bring research-based knowledge in a useable form to groups, families, and individuals in local communities. Extension personnel provide an important bridge between university researchers and community knowledge-users by being able, first, to identify community needs, and second, to select, translate, and transmit relevant, research-based information to help address those needs (Russell, 1991).

Traditionally, Extension 4-H youth and family personnel have created their own curricula or made use of programs and curricula developed by other Extension agents and specialists across the nation. Increasingly, however, granting agencies at state and federal levels are requiring that programs chosen for funding be designated as "model" or "best practice" programs whose effectiveness has been demonstrated through replicated, randomized, clinical trials. One example is the Strengthening Families Program, developed at Iowa State University and supported by 9 years of longitudinal research that clearly documents program effectiveness (Spoth, Redmond, Trudeau & Shin, 2002). Because a growing percentage of Extension activities are funded by outside grants or through collaborations with agencies using outside grants, it would be beneficial to incorporate such best practice prevention programs systematically into Extension youth and family offerings.

We conducted a survey of all Family Living and 4-H personnel and county chairs employed by Washington State University Extension. The survey was designed to explore attitudes toward both prevention programs serving youth and families (generally, issue-specific, time-limited, evidence-based "best practice" programs) and traditional Extension programs (generally, ongoing skill and character building curricula and activities in the form of clubs or after-school programs).

Many of the programs we refer to as "traditional" are similar to or overlap in content, methods, and goals with the programs we refer to as "prevention" programs. However, the two categories differ in some respects, most notably in their historical development. In the eyes of funders, the primary differences are that evidence-based "prevention" programs are based in formal developmental theory and in empirical research on risk and protective factors; they have been demonstrated effective in research trials; and they have met specific criteria in order to be designated "best practice."

Numerous studies over the past decade (Basch, 1984; Beebe, Harrison, Sharma, & Hedger, 2001; Orlandi, 1986; Plested et al., 1999) have demonstrated that successful delivery of prevention programs is related to system "readiness"--that is, in order for a new program to be effectively disseminated, the organization or community implementing it must:

• Perceive a need for prevention of specific issues,
• Be able to identify programs that will address that need, and
• Have adequate knowledge, skills, and resources to implement and sustain the program.

The primary goal of our survey was to determine the readiness of Washington's Extension system to incorporate best practice programming into its standard repertoire of volunteer training and program delivery. Drawing on the findings of previous studies of readiness, we explored participants' assessment of community needs, attitudes, and beliefs about prevention programs, and knowledge and skills required to deliver prevention programs. We also assessed whether participants felt that they had the resources necessary to implement such programs, including collaborative relationships, time and money, and organizational support.

The present investigation extends previous literature in two ways. First, although there are some research reports on Extension's delivery of specific types of prevention programs such as teen pregnancy (e.g., Johns, Moncloa, & Gong, 2000) or substance abuse (e.g., Goldberg, Spoth, Meek, & Molgaard, 2001), we found only one report that discussed the potential role of Extension as a delivery system for evidence-based prevention programs (Molgaard, 1997). Results from the present study provide important information about strengths of the system in one state with regard to implementing best practice prevention programs as well as information about barriers to implementation.

Second, there are a number of articles related to differences in attitudes between practitioners and researchers (e.g., Myers-Walls, 2000). However, our literature search revealed no information about attitudes of Extension personnel to specific types of prevention programs or to prevention programs generally, about perceived readiness to deliver such programs, or about preferences with regard to traditional Extension offerings versus designated best-practice prevention programming. The present study is therefore the first report of attitudes and perceptions of Extension personnel with respect to these two types of programs. Finally, the survey process and content may serve as a reference for other states interested in exploring readiness in their own Extension systems.

Method

Sample

Our sample included all Extension faculty and program staff whose work involved 4-H, Family Living, or both areas. In addition, we surveyed all county chairs. Eligible personnel were identified through mailing lists maintained by state-level Extension personnel in the 4-H and Family living areas and by review of the statewide Extension personnel directory. The original mailing went to 149 individuals, of whom 16 were found to be ineligible to fill out the survey due to retirement, leave of absence, changing of jobs, or our misidentification of their jobs. The total eligible sample was thus 133 individuals, of whom 110 (83%) completed the survey within 6 weeks of the initial mailing.

The eligible sample included 39 county chairs, 39 faculty, and 55 program staff. Of these, 33 (85%) of the chairs, 35 (90%) of the faculty, and 42 (76%) of the program staff returned the survey. By program area, the sample included 77 4-H personnel, 27 Family Living, and 10 identified as both 4-H and Family Living. An additional 19 (all county chairs) were from other program areas (e.g., Agriculture). Sixty (78%) of the 4-H personnel, 23 (85%) of Family Living, 10 (100%) 4-H/Family Living, and 17 (90%) of the other program area personnel completed the survey.

Procedure

An initial contact letter, introducing and endorsing the study, was mailed from the state administrative directors of the 4-H and Family Living program areas to all eligible Extension personnel. The survey itself, in addition to an explanatory cover letter and consent form, was then mailed to all participants 4 days later. The initial mailing was followed by a reminder and thank-you postcard (to all participants) 1 week later and by a replacement survey (to non-respondents) 3 weeks later (Dillman, 1991). A $2 incentive and self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE) were included with the initial survey mailing; a SASE was also included with the replacement survey. Survey content and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington State University.

Measures

Overview of Measures

We asked participants to respond to items in several areas, including: perception of need for different types of programs; program effectiveness; the role of Extension in delivering best-practice programming; knowledge and perceived competence; and availability of resources. Within several of these areas we asked about attitudes toward 14 specific types of programs: five types of positive development programs (character building, workforce preparation, social skills development, neighborhood and community attachment, and parent training), and nine types of programs designed to prevent maladaptive outcomes (teen substance abuse, delinquency and aggression, teen pregnancy, school dropout, domestic violence, teen suicide, child abuse and neglect, and deficiencies in prenatal and infant care).

The positive development programs represent the traditional focus of Extension's youth and family programs, and the nine others represent typical best-practice or prevention program focuses. Factor analyses clearly indicated separate factors for the "traditional" and the "prevention" programs on items asking participants to rate all programs. The survey items were pilot tested in a series of 12 interviews conducted with Extension personnel.

Perception of Need

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that their community needed more programming to address issues associated with specific negative outcomes (teen substance abuse, delinquency and aggression, teen pregnancy, school dropout, domestic violence, teen suicide, child abuse and neglect, and deficiencies in prenatal and infant care) as well as issues associated with the more positive outcomes traditionally targeted by Extension programs (character building, workforce preparation, social skills development, neighborhood and community attachment, and parent training). Agreement was rated on a five-point Likert-type scale.

Factor analyses on this set of items indicated that the negative outcome items constituted one factor ("Problem Outcomes") and the positive outcome items constituted a second factor ("Positive Outcomes"). Cronbach's alpha for the Problem Outcome scale was .92 and for the Positive Outcome scale .84. Thus, it is clear that these types of programs are perceived as falling into two distinct categories by survey respondents.

Program Effectiveness

We asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of both issue-specific prevention programs and traditional Extension programs in preventing teen substance abuse, dropout, aggression, and the remaining negative outcomes. Factor analysis yielded two scales, one related to effectiveness of skills-based programs (Cronbach's alpha = .86) and the other to effectiveness of prevention programs (Cronbach's alpha = .94). Items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale.

Extension's Role

We asked respondents to rate their agreement with the following statements: "Traditional Extension activities and curricula focused on positive development and skill building may need to be supplemented by programs addressing specific topics (such as substance abuse or teen pregnancy prevention) in order to fulfill our Extension system's vision for children, youth, and families," and "Traditional Extension activities and curricula focused on positive development and skill building should be replaced by programs addressing specific topics (such as substance abuse or teen pregnancy prevention) in order to fulfill our Extension system's vision for children, youth, and families."

Knowledge and Competence

We measured respondents' perception of their knowledge and competence with a series of nine items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale. Factor analysis yielded two factors: one comprised of two items indicating general theoretical knowledge about child and family development (Cronbach's alpha = .84), the other indicating perceived knowledge and abilities related to prevention programming, such as risk and protective factors, identifying and implementing evidence-based programs, conducting program evaluation, and obtaining funding (Cronbach's alpha = .89). In this article we report on the items specifically related to prevention programming.

Adequacy of Resources

We measured respondents' perceptions about their degree of collaboration with local, state, and federal agencies and organizations; availability of resources; and organizational support. Many of the resource items were taken directly or modified from a national study of the capacity of Cooperative Extension to serve children, youth and families (Betts, Peterson, Marczak, & Richmond, 2001; Marczak, Peterson, Betts, & Earthman, 1999).

Results

For ease of interpretation, we collapsed the five-point Likert-type scales into three categories: "Agree," "Neutral," and "Disagree."

Attitudes and Beliefs

Need

A majority of respondents felt that there was a need in their communities for prevention programs to address each of the problem outcomes described. For example, between 55% and 70% perceived a local need for prevention programs addressing teen substance use and abuse, pregnancy, dropout, suicide, and aggression (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Perception of Need for Prevention Programming in Community

Effectiveness

Between one-half to two-thirds of respondents felt that prevention programs are effective in addressing the problem outcomes. In many cases, however, nearly as many respondents felt that traditional Extension programs are also effective in preventing the same problems (Figure 2). For example, 75% felt that issue-specific prevention programs are effective in preventing teen substance abuse, but 68% felt that traditional Extension programs are also effective in this regard. In prevention of child abuse, domestic abuse, and in prenatal and infant care, however, issue-specific programs were rated as significantly more effective (p< .05).

Figure 2.
Perceived Effectiveness of Issue-Specific Programs Versus Traditional Extension Programs

Extension's Role

A majority of respondents (63%) agreed with the statement that Extension may need to supplement its offerings with prevention programs (Figure 3). An equally strong majority (64%) disagreed with the statement that Extension should replace traditional offerings with prevention programs.

Figure 3.
Supplementing Versus Replacing Traditional Programming with Prevention Programming

Interest

About half of all respondents expressed interest in learning more about most issue-specific prevention programs (Figure 4). Interest ranged from a low of 34% (prenatal and early infant care programs) to a high of 52% (teen substance abuse programs).

Figure 4.
Levels of Interest in Issue-Specific Programs

Overall, however, respondents were significantly more interested in learning more about programs with traditional Extension emphases than in learning more about issue-specific programs (t = 5.59, p < .0001). Interest in traditional programs ranged from a low of 57% (parent training programs) to a high of 70% (social skills development; see Figure 5).

Figure 5.
Levels of Interest in Programs with Traditional Extension Emphasis

Knowledge and Skills

A strong majority of participants felt that they had general knowledge and skills necessary for successful implementation of prevention programs (Figure 6). For example, 72% reported that they understand risk and resilience factors, and 92% reported feeling comfortable with interactive teaching methods This very high degree of comfort contrasts with members of other professions, especially school teachers, who report a strong preference for non-interactive teaching methods such as lecturing. Interactive methods are associated with positive program outcomes (Ennett et al., 2003), and those who are comfortable with such methods are also more successful in implementing prevention programs (Ringwalt et al., 2003). On the other hand, slightly less than half the respondents agreed that they have skills specifically related to prevention programming, such as an ability to identify prevention programs (47%) or to implement them (48%).

Figure 6.
Knowledge and Skills Relevant to Delivery of Prevention Programming

Resources

Organizational Support

Approximately half the respondents (47%) felt that the state Extension system has a clear vision for children, youth, and family programming. Nearly two-thirds felt that the state Extension system has a clear, long-term commitment to children, youth and families (Marczak et al., 1999). Only 21% felt that paid program staff are adequately recognized for their work, but 81% felt strongly supported by their supervisors. Forty percent felt strongly supported by campus faculty.

Time and Money

These resource-related items elicited the strongest level of disagreement of all items on the survey. Over half (55%) disagreed that they had adequate resources (time and money) to engage in collaborative efforts, 72% disagreed that they had resources necessary to match program offerings to community needs, and 44% disagreed that they had adequate resources to conduct evaluations.

Collaboration

An overwhelming majority felt that collaboration with others enhanced the credibility of their own work (87%) and was worth the effort (92%; see Figure 7).

Figure 7.
Attitudes Toward Collaboration in Program Delivery

Respondents reported high levels of collaboration with Extension personnel from other counties (46%) and other program areas (48%), community agencies (56%), and schools (45%). Respondents reported a relatively low degree of collaboration with federal agencies (17%), local businesses (14%), and faculty from University departments (11%; see Figure 8).

Figure 8.
Degree of Collaboration with Various Groups

Discussion

A substantial number of Extension professionals expressed positive attitudes towards prevention programs. In general, approximately one half to three quarters of survey respondents:

• Endorsed supplementing traditional 4-H youth and family programming with issue-specific programs,
• Perceived a need for such programming in their communities,
• Expressed interest in learning more about issue-specific programs,
• Believed that prevention programs are effective, and
• Stated that they have the knowledge and skills to deliver such programs.

Very few respondents, however, believed that Extension should replace traditional programming practices with prevention programs (only 10%), and most believed that traditional skills and character building programs are also effective in preventing problems such as teen substance use/abuse, dropout, and child abuse.

Conclusions

Strengths and Barriers Related to Delivery of Prevention Programs

Extension has significant strengths related to delivery of prevention programs, notably the following.

• Most respondents believed that Extension has a clear vision of and commitment to serving children, youth and families.

• Almost all felt supported by their supervisors in programming choices.

• Nearly everyone reported feeling comfortable with an interactive teaching style.

• Nearly everyone believed in the value of collaboration.

• Most reported strong collaborative relationships with local schools and community agencies.

Some barriers to delivery of best practice programs through Extension do exist:

• Limited resources (time and money);

• Relatively little collaboration with university departments, local business leaders and legislators, and state and federal agencies;

• Concern that Extension will lose its focus on traditional areas of emphasis if it incorporates issue-specific programs (survey and interview comments); and

• Perception that prevention programs derive from a "deficit model" and are contrary to Extension's focus on positive development (from written comments).

Implications for Extension

• Extension personnel have some well-developed skills (e.g., interactive teaching styles and understanding risk and resilience models) that are a good fit for the delivery of best practice prevention programs. We can capitalize on that strength if we learn to articulate it in the context of these new program opportunities.

• Staff development on the identification and implementation of prevention programs is vital (with fewer than half feeling they had these skills). It would be important to emphasize ways in which professional skills currently used in "traditional" programs connect to the delivery of best practice prevention programs. For example, comfort with interactive teaching methods may be taken for granted by Extension personnel. However, many people currently delivering prevention programs do not possess these skills; this represents a significant asset for Extension relative to some of the usual venues for prevention programs (e.g., schools).

• In addition, staff need to understand how "traditional" youth and family programs operate in a prevention context (e.g., reduce risks and promote resilience). For example, adult leaders in 4-H clubs often serve as mentors for young people, a well-documented protective factor (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992).

• We need to overcome the tendency to dichotomize "traditional" and "prevention" programs in Extension. If we can consistently integrate and/or recast our traditional programs as prevention programs, we may be better positioned for new external funding. To do this, staff will need to learn new ways of articulating their work in prevention terms.

• Best practice prevention programs offer an ideal opportunity for integrated Extension and research projects, a goal that is clearly part of the land grant mission but often absent in 4-H youth and family arenas. Prevention programs by design have strong evaluation components that offer applied research opportunities for research faculty and graduate students. Sadly, the lowest percentage of collaboration reported by Extension personnel in the survey was with campus-based faculty. New partnerships will need to be formed and strategies for sharing program funding devised to create successful projects that integrate research and outreach. However, doing so will offer the best chance for documenting long term program impacts and in turn, for sustained funding.

References

Basch, C. E. (1984). Research on disseminating and implementing health education programs in schools. Journal of School Health, 54(6), 57-66.

Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., Sharma, A., & Hedger, S. (2001). The community readiness survey: Development and initial validation. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 55-71.

Betts, S. C., Peterson, D. J., Marczak, M. S., & Richmond, L. S. (2001). System-wide evaluation: Taking the pulse of a national organization serving children, youth, and families at risk. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 87-101.

Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.

Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., et al. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1-14.

Goldberg, C .J., Spoth, R., Meek, J., & Molgaard, V. K. (2001). The Capable Families and Youth Project: Extension-university-community partnerships. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a6.html

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.

Johns, M.J., Moncloa, F., & Gong, E. J. (2000). Teen pregnancy prevention programs: Linking research and practice. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000august/a1.html

Marczak, M. S., Peterson, D. J., Betts, S. C., & Earthman, E. (1999). Cooperative Extension's capacity to support programs for children, youth and families at risk: How to implement the organizational change survey: A step-by-step guide. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, Institute for Children, Youth and Families.

Molgaard, V. K. (1997). The Extension service as key mechanism for research and services delivery for prevention of mental health disorders in rural areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(4), 515-544.

Myers-Walls, J. A. (2000). An odd couple with promise: Researchers and practitioners in evaluation settings, Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 341-347.

Orlandi, M. A. (1986). The diffusion and adoption of worksite health promotion innovations: an analysis of barriers. Preventive Medicine, 15(5), 522-536.

Plested, B., Smitham, D. M., Jumper-Thurman, P., Oetting, E. R., Edwards, R. W., & Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, (1999). Readiness for drug use prevention in rural minority communities. Substance Use & Misuse., 34(4-5), 521-544.

Ringwalt, C. L., Ennett, S., Johnson, R., Rohrbach, L. A., Simons-Rudolph, A., Vincus, A., et al. (2003). Factors associated with fidelity to substance use prevention curriculum guides in the nation's middle schools. Health Education & Behavior Vol 30(3) (Jun 2003): 375-391, 30(3), 375-391.

Russell, M. M. (1991). Cooperative Extension and the land-grant university: A futures history. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991summer/fut1.html

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau L., & Shin C. (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 129-134.

Youth-Led Community Building: Promising Practices from Two Communities Using Community-Based Service-Learning

Linda Camino
Senior Scientist
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
lcamino@facstaff.wisc.edu

Introduction

There is recent widespread support for youth engagement in communities (Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002). Youth engagement is predicated on the notion that youth have assets and are therefore capable of making meaningful contributions to their organizations and communities Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Youth engagement is also predicated on the notion that youth voice is a necessary component of engagement (Lansdown, 2001).

Research highlights the importance of youth engagement and voice. In 60 neighborhood-based organizations examined over 5 years, youth voice--or involving youth in decisions, problem solving, and program planning--was found to be important in fostering positive youth development (McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). Similarly, resiliency research indicates that opportunities for meaningful participation in communities--problem solving, goal setting, and planning--are major protective factors that help youth withstand the negative impacts of neglect, poverty, and other problems (Benson, 1997; Werner, 1990).

Service-learning, especially community-based service-learning (CBSL), has become a major pathway for supporting youth engagement and voice in communities (Claus & Ogden, 1999). The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 expanded funding for service-learning programs, creating the Learn and Serve America program. The Learn and Serve program is divided into school and community-based divisions. CBSL is operated through community organizations, not schools. As such, CBSL is limited neither to particular academic foci, nor scholastic calendars (Bailus & Lewis, 2003). CBSL thus provides a broad context for youth engagement in communities.

While the research studies cited above show the importance of examining outcomes related to youth engagement and voice, it is equally important to determine successful practices to understand how such outcomes can be achieved. Addressing the question of how youth voice and engagement are undertaken has been under-examined, however. Critical syntheses of the youth engagement literature note a gap in such research (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Zeldin, Camino, & Calvert, 2003). The service-learning research literature contains a similar gap. Although many service-learning programs now seek to promote civic engagement and to incorporate youth empowerment and voice into programming, there is a paucity of implementation information in service-learning research (Billig & Eyler, 2003).

The purpose of the research discussed here was to examine the practices that two Extension-sponsored CBSL programs used to promote youth engagement and voice while providing service to the community. The illumination of such practices is important to Extension educators and leaders because it assists in implementing, improving, or adjusting programming in youth engagement. For 4-H educators, particularly, it is useful to know what practices they can use both for the long-term benefit of youth and the community.

Background and Methodology

The findings discussed here are derived from evaluation research of the Youth-Led Service-Learning for Community Change Initiative. The initiative was a demonstration, implemented with a grant from Learn and Serve America, Corporation for National and Community Service. An overall aim was to learn, document, and evaluate strategies through which 4-H/Youth Development can engage community residents in community building led by youth and in understanding the outcomes that result from such strategies. The 3 1/2-year initiative was sponsored by a partnership between the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development and National 4-H Council. The initiative was administered locally through Cooperative Extension, 4-H/Youth Development in Oxford Hills, Maine, and in Upton community in Baltimore, Maryland.

Oxford Hills is a cluster of eight towns located in rural Oxford County in western Maine. The population is 20,000, of which 95% are of European-American descent. Average per capita income in the county is $17, 323. The service-learning team, the Respect Team, engaged approximately 25 cross-grade, high-school-age youth during any one year.

Upton community is located in Baltimore, Maryland, and is one of the oldest communities in which African Americans settled in the city. The population is 6,589, of which 99% are African American. Median household income is $12,861. The team, the New Upton Group, had 15 youth, middle- and high-school-aged, participating during any one year. Both teams led and mobilized hundreds of community youth and adults in community building over the course of the initiative.

The initiative was grounded in principles of community building. Community building is an approach to prevention that typically involves grassroots democracy, self-determination, bottom-up planning and implementation, and resident empowerment (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Minkler, 1997). It is assumed that when diverse people from the community are involved in decision-making, then it becomes possible for residents and stakeholders to improve their capacity to achieve collective vision and goals, and readiness to respond to opportunities and challenges (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997). In the case of the demonstration initiative reported here, the goal was to bring together youth and adult residents, two groups that do not typically work together in community building (Finn & Checkoway, 1998).

The cross-site evaluation took place over 2 1/2 years and addressed several key questions, including:

• What outcomes were fostered among the service-learners?

• What impacts did the activities of the service-learners bring about in the communities?

• What practices proved promising in enabling the service-learners to engage their voices, and lead youth and adults in community building?

This article addresses the last question; findings on the first two questions are reported elsewhere (Camino & Payne-Jackson, in press). The overall methodology for the cross-site evaluation was the multiple case study. This is a standard research and evaluation method for explaining complex community programs and for examining contemporary events where behaviors cannot be manipulated by the researcher (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1984).

Another strength of case studies is the use of multiple sources of data to maximize validity (Patton, 1990). Data sources for this study included four site visits to each community, observation of activities and events, document review, monthly conference calls with the Extension educators in each community, 11 focus group interviews with the service-learners, and 20 individual in-depth interviews with Extension educators and community youth and adults.

Promising practices were identified through an iterative process. As the 4-H educators and teams discovered through their community work that a given practice seemed to work, it became a focus for further inquiry. That inquiry included linking the practice to outcomes, as well as to published descriptions in the community-building literature. This strategy is consistent with that urged by Patton. In a recent critique of the concepts of "best practices" and "lessons learned," he (2001) argues that rigor and confidence increase when a practice is supported by multiple and triangulated data sources, including observation, interview, program document review, and the wisdom and experience of practitioners and expert opinion contained in published sources. In the present study, triangulation included the sources noted above, as well as corroboration of practices across the two sites.

All data were maintained in detailed transcripts. Reliability was maintained through the construction of data collection protocols. The protocols were designed to elicit detailed answers to the key study questions, while also allowing for individuals to raise new research avenues and for context-appropriate probes by the researchers. The data were coded and analyzed independently by the author and another experienced researcher to guard against bias and to strengthen validity and reliability. In addition, informant checks, another method to check validity, were employed (Maxwell, 1996; Patton, 1990).

Results

The promising practices enabling the service-learning teams to engage their voices, and lead youth and adults in community building were:

• Create a core leadership team and train youth in leadership and community facilitation methods;

• Develop widespread participation, and use an asset-based community approach; and

• Use reflection not only for service-learners, but also for community youth and adults.

Create a Core Leadership Team and Train Youth in Leadership and Community Facilitation Methods

Literature on community building emphasizes the necessity of engaging wide segments of the community (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1997; Wates, 2000). Crucial is creating a core group, which takes responsibility for moving an initiative along (Minkler, 1997). For youth, providing incentives to sustain involvement is important in fostering civic engagement (Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002).

In Oxford Hills, there was one adult, and in Upton two adults, in addition to the 4-H Youth educators, who helped guide and coach youth. Both youth and their adult coaches recognized the importance of creating teams. This was because the service-learning was directed toward long-term community building, rather than focused on short-term, discrete projects. Because the expectation for involvement was at least 6 months, but more commonly for a year or longer, there was also recognition of the need to employ incentives.

In Upton, initial incentives included logging service hours (72 hours of community service is required for high school graduation in Maryland), stipends, and the promise of learning new skills. However, the young people reported that after participating in the team for a few months, their motivations expanded to include the intrinsic rewards of doing community-building work. For example, the New Upton Group youth initially joined because of the chance to fulfill service hours, but then became excited by learning about the little-known history of Upton as a distinctive community that nurtured African American culture, arts, and leaders. The youth were also inspired by opportunities to be part of positive community-wide change. The team in Oxford Hills was similarly motivated by discovering community assets and to learn and exercise leadership for the common good.

Successful community building also involves developing local leaders who are able to gain self-understanding, as well as facilitation and community-building skills (Mattesich & Monsey, 1997). As residents learn leadership skills, their ability to lift their voices for the common good is enhanced. In Oxford Hills and Upton, youth were trained in relevant skills, including leading and facilitating discussions, public speaking, problem solving, conflict resolution, and community event planning.

Youth also learned to routinely assess their strengths, identify areas for improvement, and to give and take constructive criticism from teammates. In particular, youth learned to recognize the difference between their personal wants and needs, and those of the community. This was important because the community-building work necessitated that youth lead the community, which meant including diverse groups and voices of youth and adults, and helping them come to consensus in decisions.

Develop Widespread Participation, and Use an Asset-Based Community Approach

A fundamental premise of asset-based, long-term community building is that building partnerships with multiple organizations and groups yields greater likelihood of effectiveness and sustainability (McKnight, 1995; Morris, Pomery, & Murray, 2002). The teams developed several means by which to connect with, and involve, diverse groups.

The Respect Team in Oxford Hills used three primary strategies:

• Planning and leading an annual Respect Week,

• Delivering character education training to elementary schools, and

• Planning and leading an annual Community Summit.

Respect Week consisted of speaker presentations and workshops on 5 consecutive days for students and faculty of the local high school that served eight local towns. Community children, youth, and adults were also invited. Topics included diversity, social responsibility, and the consequences of bullying and violence. Speakers represented national, regional, and local leaders.

The team also facilitated workshops on character education for elementary-school-aged children in several local schools. The youth based their training on the nationally developed curricula, but they also innovated by tailoring modules and/or creating new training materials and processes.

The annual Community Summit was a day-long event during which youth and adults discussed topics and issues related to youth and the community, and then outlined actions they would like to see occur within the next year. Examples included creating a caf&ea for youth and adults, engaging youth on the school board and other local civic boards, and establishing a teen hotline.

The New Upton Group in Baltimore also used three primary tactics:

• Planning and leading a Community Youth Speak-Out,

• Connecting with Upton's Planning Committee, and

• Integrating into a long-term community development process.

The Community Youth Speak-Out was a day-long meeting of youth and adult residents and representatives from various organizations. The purposes were to network, obtain youth views on community development, and develop common understanding of what community youth were doing related to service-learning.

The Upton community has a Planning Committee that has been active for many years. The committee is an umbrella organization for many organizations, institutions, and associations in the community. The New Upton Group connected with the committee, and a rotating subgroup of the team attended meetings to advise the committee and participate in decision-making processes. It was the first time youth had ever served on the committee. The team also integrated into and contributed to the community's 5-year Master Planning process for comprehensive community development.

Both teams also focused on community assets by conducting community asset mapping. Asset mapping (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1997) provides widespread understanding of a number of community contexts, such as geographic layout, history, and human resources. In Upton, the team completed a photographic survey, interviews with residents on talents and skills they would be willing to teach or share with others, and research on the community's history. The team in Oxford Hills identified natural features in the area, pathways, and meeting places that could serve as resources for community building and development.

Asset mapping enabled the youth to increase their own civic understanding of the communities' historical, cultural, social, political, economic, and geographic resources. Armed with such knowledge, youth were able to speak with authority in public forums and meetings. The youth also shared their maps and results with other community groups. This contributed to the success of the teams in changing community adult attitudes from viewing youth as current or potential problems to seeing youth as responsible, knowledgeable, and contributing individuals. Finally, asset mapping formed a basis from which the youth were able to lead community involvement. Youth led various community groups in asset mapping as way to include diverse perspectives, and to facilitate community members' first-hand learning of assets and resources.

Use Reflection Not Only for Service-Learners, But Also for Community Youth and Adults

A feature of service-learning distinguishing it from community service is the emphasis on reflection (Eyler, 2001; Stafford, Boyd, & Lindner, 2003). Reflection helps individuals connect their experiences with learning. Reflection has traditionally been used in many 4-H activities, so the importance of reflection was not new to the Extension educators who supported the teams. Both teams employed several options for reflection, such as journal writing, discussion, and making videotapes.

What was new, however, was that the youth led reflection sessions among community youth and adults. The youth routinely led sessions after the community activities they implemented. The youth used a framework of questions aimed at promoting reflection on thought, feeling, and action-oriented levels (Stanfield, 1997). These reflections provided a space and framework for honest dialog through which community youth and adults were able to further learn about and from each other. As Tirozzi & Uro (1997) note, opportunities for purposeful and respectful listening and dialogue are associated with enhanced understanding and positive relationships. This is a hallmark of successful community building (Freire, 1983; Minkler, 1997).

Conclusions and Implications for Extension

These promising practices demonstrate that youth, not only adults, can lead community-building work. Virtually all of the literature on community building, however, is focused on and reflects, the efforts of adults, with scarce reference to youth. Specifically, efforts aimed at involving youth to focus primarily on community building are relatively few, for youth service and service-learning activities are dominated by charity and short-term project models involving discrete tasks (Kahn & Westheimer, 1999; Morton, 1995).

Looking across the promising practices, it is interesting to note similarity to ones emerging from the research by the Search Institute about assets that youth need for positive development (Benson, 1997). These include support from the community, empowerment, commitment to learning, and engagement in planning and decision making. The experience of the service-learning teams in this demonstration expands the Search Institute findings by highlighting that youth cannot only benefit from such practices, but can themselves follow the practices to promote positive community building.

The practices described here also highlight that in community building, learning is not just learning for the sake of youth; all in the community can become learners. Residents learned about their communities through asset mapping activities and reflection sessions led by youth. The vehicle for the youth to do this, CBSL, focused on community building that aimed to promote broad critical learning about the community, including the contexts of history, culture, economics, and politics.

There are several implications for Extension. First, these findings can offer guidance on how to help youth discover and lift their voices in civic work. Second, CBSL can offer another model and set of practices for 4-H to complement community service and traditional service-learning models (Stafford, Boyd, & Lindner, 2003). Just as positive youth development is built on assumptions of youth assets rather than deficits, youth-led CBSL can help others in the community develop their capacities and resources, based on collective assets. Third, this study indicates a funding source. Specifically, the Learn and Serve American Program, Corporation for National and Community Service has a dedicated funding stream for CBSL, which can be tapped by Extension.

Finally, the practices discussed here may also serve as a framework for documentation and evaluation. Such a framework can be useful in explaining to county legislators and other constituencies the multiple benefits and strategies of community building, thus adding another source of clarification and accountability for the important work of 4-H.

Acknowledgement

The demonstration initiative and the external evaluation discussed in the article were funded by a grant from Learn and Serve America, Corporation for National and Community Service (federal government). The corporation's policy is that the following acknowledgment and disclaimer appear in any external report or publication of material based upon work supported by the grant:

This material is based upon work supported by the Corporation for National Service under Learn and Serve America Grant No. 00LCGMDO27. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Corporation or the Learn and Serve America Program.

References

Bailus, L, & Lewis, B. (2003). Overview of what is known about the scope of community-based service-learning in the United States. The Generator: Journal of Service-Learning and Youth Leadership, 21(3), 17-19.

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (2003). The state of service-learning and service-learning research. In S.H. Billig & J. Eyler, (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts, pp. 253-264. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Camino, L., & Payne-Jackson, A. (in press). Fostering social capital and community capacity for change. The Bridge.

Claus, J., & Ogden, C. (Eds.). (1999). Service-learning for youth empowerment and social change. New York: Peter D. Lang.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Eyler, J. (2001). Creating your reflection map. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 35-43.

Finn, J. L., & Checkoway, B. (1998).Young people as competent community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work 43(4), 335-347.

Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the oppressed New York: Continuum.

Kahn, J., & Westheimer, J. (1999). In the service of what? The politics of service-learning. In J. Claus & C. Ogden, (Eds.), Service-learning for youth empowerment and social change, pp 25-42. New York: Peter D. Lang.

Keter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, University of Maryland. http://www.civicyouth.org/

Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1997). Building communities from the inside out. Chicago: ACTA Publications.

Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.

McLaughlin, M., Irby, I., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKnight, J.L. (1997). Two tools for well-being: Health systems and communities. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community organizing and community building for health, pp. 20-29. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Mattessich, P., & Monsey, B. (1997) Community building: What makes it work. A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Minkler, M. (Ed.). (1997). Community organizing and community building for health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Morris, P. V., Pomery, J., & Murray, K. E. (2002). Service-learning: Going beyond traditional Extension activities. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/iw2.html

Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project, and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning, Fall, 19-32.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 329-336.

Sagawa, S. (1998). Ten years of youth in service to America. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (Eds.). (2002). Growing into citizenship: Multiple pathways and diverse influences. Special issue of Applied Developmental Science, 6(4).

Stafford, J., Boyd, B., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). Community service versus service-learning: Which is best for 4-H? Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/a1.shtml

Stanfield, R. B. (1997). The art of the focused conversation: 100 ways to access group wisdom in the workplace. Toronto: The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.

Tirozzi, G. N., & Uro, G. (1997) Education reform in the United States: National policy in support of local efforts for school improvement. American Psychologist, 52, 241-249.

Wates, N. (2000). The community planning handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns, and villages in any part of the world. London: Earthscan Publications.

Werner, E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In I.S. Meisels & J. Shonkoff, (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention, pp. 320-348. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community governance: Policy priorities and research directions. Social Policy Report, XVII, III. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development, http://www.srcd.org/spr.html.

Strategies for Engaging Scientists in Collaborative Processes

Lynne M. Hinkey
Trainer and Sea Grant Liaison
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Charleston, South Carolina
lynnehinkey@yahoo.com

Kristy T. Ellenberg
Environmental and Training Consultant
Ellenberg Associates, Inc.
Columbia, South Carolina
ktellenberg@earthlink.net

Brianne Kessler
Marine Protected Areas Training and Technical Institute
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Charleston, South Carolina
Brianne.Kessler@noaa.gov

Collaboration in Natural Resource Management Decision Making

The current trend in public policy decision-making is away from a command-and-control approach toward increasing collaboration. In natural resource management, the former relied on the best available scientific data (with a bit of politics thrown in for good measure) to develop policies and regulations. Given the current state of our natural resources, resource managers realized that this method was not working as well as was needed. Thus, collaboration (also known as "stakeholder involvement," "public participatory process," "consensus-based problem solving," and a host of other names with marginal differences in meaning) has become a critical strategy in resolving natural resource management problems.

Although Extension professionals should not be advocates of a position on any issue, it has been argued that Extension professionals should be advocates for the use of collaborative, inclusive, problem-solving processes (Favero & Haaland, 2000). Among the factors that have been associated with successful collaborative problem solving is the inclusion of skilled, committed people in the planning and outcome (Flynn and Harbin, 1987; McKenna & Carroll, 1999).

Extension professionals play an important role in ensuring the process is properly designed and conducted, and that it includes all of the interested and affected parties, including those with expertise, skills, and knowledge that may be helpful in resolving the issue. These parties include the experts--natural and physical scientists, economists, social scientists, planners, lawyers, and so on--those who have some authority over the issue, such as managers, and the people whose lives will be affected by the decision and those who will have to comply with the decision. Many expert stakeholders such as planners, social scientists, and resource managers are actively involved in public processes as part of their professional positions.

Although natural and physical scientists have vital information to contribute to the problem-solving process, gaining their active participation can be difficult (National Academy of Science, 1995). As advocates for public participatory processes, Extension professionals can play a critical role in bringing scientists to the table. The following discussion offers some tools and strategies to do this. 

Engaging Scientists in Collaborative Processes

Much has been written by both scientists and non-scientists about the appropriate role of scientists in public policy decision-making (Kaiser, 2000; Kennedy, 2003; NAS, 1995; Wheeler, 1997). Some argue that while scientists should be objective in designing, conducting, and drawing conclusions about their research results, they should be advocates of public policy based on what they have learned from this research (Kennedy, 2003). Others fear that involvement in public policy decision-making, and particularly advocating a position in that process, could jeopardize one's career (Kaiser, 2000).

Extension professionals, as the interpreters of science for the public, also can help to translate collaborative processes for scientists. Extension staff can help scientists become more comfortable engaging in the process by defining what collaborative problem solving is, how it works, why scientists should be involved, and how they can effectively contribute (without losing their credibility). By comparing and contrasting the scientific method with the methodology for collaborative problem solving, Extension professionals can answer these questions using an example from the scientists' experiences. 

Defining the Collaborative Process for Scientists

Collaboration, like science, is a set of complex attitudes and skills that have to be learned (Boss, 2003). To define for scientists what collaborative processes are and how they work, Extension professionals can use the scientific method as a starting point. Table 1 provides a comparison of the scientific process with collaborative problem solving. This tool can help Extension professionals clearly articulate to scientists the similarities and differences in the collaborative and scientific processes in a familiar format. Extension professionals who are facilitating a collaborative process in which scientists are participating can better communicate the meeting(s) process by presenting this information either graphically using the table or orally.

This technique proved very helpful in collaborative meetings with scientists, such as the Southeast Coastal Ocean Science workshop (January 2003, Charleston, SC) and the Integrated Ocean Observing System/Coastal Ocean Observing System (IOOS/COOS) Education workshop (March 2004, Charleston, SC). Both of these meetings addressed, in part, research needs for coastal management and education initiatives, so scientist participation was essential.

For the former meeting, the Table 1 graphic was presented to the group to help explain the specific process that would be followed. The parallels to the scientific process clarified for the scientist participants why the meeting progressed in the manner that it did. As one participant described in his post-workshop evaluation, "the explanation of the methods and materials helped me to understand the typical meeting facilitator nonsense that used to frustrate me--very helpful."

For the latter meeting, the facilitators described the parallels of the meeting process and the scientific method to help participants understand the multi-day meeting agenda and their roles in various parts of the meeting. Again, participants (both scientists and Extension professionals) indicated on their workshop evaluation forms that this explanation clarified what had been "the mystery" of why facilitated meetings proceeded as they did.

This tool is also used in the NOAA Coastal Services Center workshop Public Issues and Conflict Management. The workshop is designed for coastal resource managers, researchers, and Extension agents to help them design and conduct more effective public participatory processes. In follow-up participant evaluations conducted 1 and 2 years after the workshop, participants have frequently referred to this table as having been "very useful" in conveying to others how and why the process is designed as it is and what the participants' roles were (Hinkey & Hinchcliff, 2004).

Among the first steps in both the scientific and collaborative processes are the identification of a problem, framing the problem in the appropriate manner, and selecting methods and materials that will lead to credible, viable information. Later in each process, the data or information is analyzed to determine the best solution to the problem, and the process for reaching that decision is critiqued to determine how it could be improved for future efforts.

One of the greatest differences between the two problem-solving strategies is in the manner the problem is framed. The scientific process frames the question as a test of the null hypothesis. The possible answers to this question can only be that results did or did not differ from the hypothesis tested. The scientific method does not conclude with a "right" answer, but with an answer that is either not wrong or different from the proposed answer (hypothesis).

The collaborative process frames its question as a "how do we . . .?" statement that addresses the issue of concern. The range of possible solutions to the problem is limited only by the creativity of the participants. To find a solution that is not necessarily "right" but that best addresses the interests of all participants, the framed problem moves away from participants' positions to their specific interests and concerns. The broader question addresses the issue and interests of those involved. Any prospective answer includes an answer to the question "what's in it for me?" or WIIFM. WIIFM describes the benefits or outcomes that are of interest to a participant. The answer to WIIFM may be personal, professional, self-interested, or altruistic (community-oriented).

For an example, consider a community with a traffic congestion problem. To address the issue collaboratively, the question cannot be framed in terms of a single proposed solution such as "should we build or expand a highway?" This only allows participants to take positions for or against that particular solution. By examining the stakeholders' interests during the preliminary identification of the problem (e.g., long commute times, traffic jams, noise, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, child safety), the question can be framed in a manner that asks about the issue--traffic--without limiting the possible answers or solutions to "yes" or "no." An example would be, "how do we address our community's traffic problem while maintaining our pedestrian-friendly community?" A broad range of WIIFMs are addressed in this framing of the issue, including both self-interest (commute times and child safety) and community interest (traffic problems and community character or pedestrian-friendliness).

The answer or outcome of the process, in order to be "correct" for the participants, has to answer their WIIFMs. In the example above, the solution should result in shorter commute times, reduced traffic congestion, and safer streets that provide plenty of pedestrian amenities and opportunities. The participants themselves would specify how this would be accomplished.

Of interest and concern to scientists are how and why they should participate in the process. When the framed problem is presented to scientists, it is important to provide information not only on how the process works, but also on how their participation can benefit them (what's in it for them). This can help to overcome their concerns, as well as provide motivation for them to be involved. Table 1 provides scientists with the necessary information on how the process works. The next section describes how Extension professionals and collaborative process facilitators can answer some common WIIFMs of scientists.

What's in It for the Scientist?

Although the answers to WIIFM for scientists differ as much as they do across any group of individuals, some of the main concerns that have been expressed by scientists are that involvement in public policy decision-making and particularly advocating a position in that process could jeopardize one's career (Kaiser, 2000) and that the reward system in the academic and scientific world precludes their participation. Publication, not application, is what merits promotion, tenure, and increased standing and respect in the scientific community.

Framing the question to answer the concerns of scientists can help to convey the importance of their participation in the process. The same traffic problem may be framed for scientists in various formats that speak to their interests. To address the issue of advocacy, the problem could be framed to solicit possibilities rather than a position:

• "How can your research help us to address our community's traffic problem?"

• "What might be the outcome to the traffic situation if the information you have on habitat fragmentation is not included in the process?"

• "How can the findings of your research on the relationship of impervious surface and water quality be shared and incorporated without putting you in the role of advocate?"

To address concerns about pressures to publish, the question could be framed to examine the possible research interests of the issue:

• "How could the additional information on [demographics, land-use planning, etc.] that you'll obtain as a participant in the process help to shape your future investigations on the topic?"

• "How can this issue offer new directions or insights into your research findings?"

• "Are there possible sources of funding for future research because of this issue?"

Scientists, like Extension professionals, are problem solvers. When they develop potential solutions to the questions that address their interests, they will have more reason to participate in the process.  

Extension, Collaborative Processes, and Change

The similarities in collaborative and scientific processes are obvious. Neither process results in an absolute right answer, but both result in the best one given the current information, tools, and abilities. Both are limited in their ability to find the best solution by the skill of those conducting the process and by limitations in the current best practices, methods, and materials available.

The differences also are obvious. Scientific studies manipulate one or a few variables while holding all others constant to understand causal relationships and what factors influence them. Collaborative processes are used to address natural resource problems that affect or are affected by people. As anyone in Extension can verify, people are a difficult variable to hold constant. Rather than attempt to hold some variables constant, collaborative processes strive to change all of the variables, or participants. The process is designed to change the participants' knowledge and understanding of the issue by exchanging information and learning about the issue from multiple perspectives.

At their heart, collaborative processes are really just complex learning processes. In collaborative processes, all of the participants learn from each other, including agency representatives, the content experts like scientists, and the affected public. Unlike compromise solutions, which reduce the solution to the lowest common denominator acceptable to all parties after they've given up parts of their preferred solution, collaborative processes help identify better or more preferred solutions based on a gain of knowledge and information. Mutual learning results in all of the participants arriving at a new or different solution, not by coercion or compromise but because of their increased understanding of the issue. The increased understanding leads to changes in interests, positions, and what is seen as the best possible solution to the problem.

One of the primary areas that Extension professionals work in is Public Issues Education (PIE). PIE is a broad label that encompasses all of the components of collaborative problem solving: public policy education, community development, leadership development, and coalition building (Favero & Haaland, 2000). Learning as a tool to effect change also is the heart of Extension. As agents for change, Extension professionals use sound process skills to ensure that all of the stakeholders in a process can make the appropriate changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to resolve the issue at hand. Extension professionals, as advocates for sound problem-solving processes, are uniquely equipped to ensure that the players--experts and impacted participants--understand what collaborative processes do, how they do that, and the role of each member in the process.

Conclusion

The natural resource management issues that are addressed through collaborative processes are complex issues that involve more than one area of expertise. Physical, natural, and social scientists, and engineers and accountants each bring different expertise to the table. All have correct and useful information to add, but no one discipline or interest has the "right" answer because the questions are more complex than that. All of these experts must learn from, as well as educate, the other participants. Including natural and physical scientists in these processes helps ensure that the final outcome is based on a comprehensive understanding of the issue from all perspectives, including but not exclusively the scientific one.

Extension professionals, as change agents and unbiased purveyors of information, are in a unique position to lead the ongoing transition from command and control management to collaborative solutions for complex natural resource problems. One important role for Extension professionals in this effort is to help move scientists from experts outside of the problem-solving process to key players and full partners in the process. Extension professionals can ensure that scientists are fully prepared and comfortable as participants in the process by educating scientists on the nature of collaborative processes and the role of the scientist in them. Comparing and contrasting collaborative processes with scientific processes is one simple technique to increase scientists' willingness and ability to participate. 

References

Boss, W. (2003). Don't take collaboration for granted. GeoWorld [On-line]. Available at: http://www.geoplace.com/gw/2003/0308/0308rdr.asp

Favero, P., & Haaland, K. (2000). Statements concerning public issues education: A summary and analysis of state Extension policies and ideas. University of Maryland Center for Applied Policy Studies.

Flynn, C. C., & Harbin, G. L. (1987). Evaluating interagency coordination efforts using a multidimensional, interactional, developmental paradigm. Remedial and Special Education, 3, 35-44.

Hinkey, L. M., & Hinchcliff, G. (2004). Measuring the Effectiveness of Public Participatory Process Training. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Coastal Society. Newport, RI.

Kaiser, J. (2000). Ecologists on a mission to save the world. Science, 287(5456), 1188.

Kennedy, D. (2003). Research fraud and public policy. Science, 300(5618), 393.

McKenna, J., & Carroll, J. (1999). Collaborative problem solving: financial education for youth. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a3.html

National Academy of Science (NAS). (1995). Chapter 3. Challenges to effective use of science in making and implementing coastal policy." Science, Policy, and the Coast: Improving Decision-making. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NOAA Coastal Services Center. (2000). Navigating in rough seas: public issues and conflict management. Workshop manual. Charleston, SC: U.S.

Smith, R. (1991). Public land management skills for the 21st century. The George Wright Forum, 8(1), 23-27.

Wheeler, D. P. (1997). The ecosystem approach: new departures for land and water. Keynote address. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24 (4), 623-630.

Building a Collaboration for Youth Development: The "Club-Within-a-Club"

Theresa M. Ferrari
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, 4-H Youth Development
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
ferrari.8@osu.edu

Laurie Beth Hartzell Sweeney
Director of Development
Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio
lbsweeney@bgccolumbus.org

Introduction

The 4-H program offers opportunities for many youth to develop into confident, capable, and contributing citizens. However, attracting youth from high-risk environments can present challenges (Hobbs, 1999). Without a family history of 4-H participation, these young people do not readily come forward to enroll in 4-H clubs. Furthermore, 4-H clubs are not routinely offered during the time when the need for positive youth development programming is greatest (e.g., during after-school hours). Such out-of-school time programs can give youth safe, supervised places to be, along with chances to learn new skills, develop their interests, and interact meaningfully with peers and adults (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Posner & Vandell, 1994; U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2000).

Hobbs (1999) suggested that Extension youth development professionals could increase access to programs by facilitating cooperative efforts with community-based youth organizations. This represents a challenge, as well as an opportunity, for Extension professionals to devise new ways to reach youth through 4-H programming.

National and state-level studies reveal that youth associated with 4-H experience positive relationships with adults and learn life skills (Astroth & Haynes, 2002; National 4-H Impact Study, 2001; Rodriquez, Hirschl, Mead, & Goggin, 1999). Likewise, many researchers have discussed the importance of participation in activities offered at Boys & Girls Clubs. Positive social and academic outcomes, as well as fewer problem behaviors, have been noted among participants (e.g., Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003; Roffman, Pagano, & Hirsch, 2001; Schinke, Cole, & Poulin, 2000; St. Pierre, Mark, Kaltreider, & Campbell, 2001). These benefits can accrue, however, only if youth are participating, and the frequency, duration, and breadth of their participation matters. Clearly, efforts can be undertaken to encourage such participation.

While there are many ways for Extension professionals to envision their role in creating youth development programs in the after-school hours, one model receiving attention is what we call the club-within-a-club. In other words, the 4-H club operates within the structure of a community-based organization that manages an after-school program (Ferrari, 2002). This model works well when the goals of the two organizations are compatible and there is a shared sense of ownership.

This article describes the efforts of Ohio 4-H Youth Development (4-H) and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus, Inc. (B&GCC) to explore such a program delivery model. These two organizations began working together in 2001 to build a long-term relationship. Given our organizations' well-known successes, the similarity in missions, and the fact that both have a significant community presence, it seemed only logical that the two organizations examine the development of a closer working relationship.

Purpose/Objectives

The study described here was undertaken to inform the continued development of the 4-H/B&GCC collaboration. We wanted to learn more about the feasibility of forming a long-term, well-integrated relationship between the two organizations. We did this by adopting a "learn by doing" approach; in other words, we proposed to learn about the inputs, outputs, and outcomes by actually implementing 4-H clubs within Boys & Girls Clubs' facilities. This stage of program development also has been referred to as "taking a test drive" (Banach & Gregory, 2001). Specifically, the study was designed to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Describe a 4-H club delivery model suited for after-school settings, specifically, the implementation of 4-H within Boys & Girls Clubs.

2. Describe the associated strengths and challenges of this model.

3. Determine keys to success and appropriate next steps.

Methods/Procedures

The focus of the investigation was on program implementation. To consider questions of program outcomes would not be appropriate at this stage of the program's development. As King, Morris, and Fitz-Gibbon (1987) have stated, "unless the programmatic black box is opened and its activities made explicit, the evaluation may be unable to identify strengths or suggest appropriate changes" (p. 9).

We determined that a qualitative design would provide the necessary insight into program implementation, particularly because individuals' perceptions were desired (Patton, 1987). If the collaboration was to be maintained over the long term, staff needed to view the programs as successful. This measure of success could not be based on an objective measure, but on the staff members' perceptions of the program. Furthermore, analysis of multiple data sources was considered necessary. Such data and method triangulation would provide an added degree of credibility (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002).

Data collection consisted of audio taped in-depth interviews with all B&GCC staff members (N=7). These staff members were selected because the primary responsibility for day-to-day implementation took place at the B&GCC facility. A graduate student who was not affiliated with either organization conducted the staff interviews. Qualitative data from these interviews were analyzed inductively in a line-by-line analysis using a process known as open coding (Straus & Corbin, 1990). Data were then categorized into relevant themes.

In addition, two university faculty members interviewed youth participants to gain their insight. These interviews provided a different perspective of program implementation. Data were also collected through participant observation; that is, the club adviser made notes regarding the evolution of the club experience. Notes from team meetings were reviewed as well. All research procedures and instruments received human subjects approval.

Findings and Discussion

First, the implementation of the program is described. Next, the presentation of the findings is organized under the major themes of benefits, challenges, and keys to success.

Program Description

To implement this project, B&GCC and 4-H shared the cost of a yearlong graduate student internship. Office space was provided at the B&GCC facility where programming occurred, which allowed a more thorough integration of staff and youth. Program materials were funded through the 4-H budget (e.g., curriculum guides, food for cooking projects, field trips) and program grants to the B&GCC (e.g., gardening supplies).

The intern served as the adviser for 4-H club meetings at two sites. The clubs met once a week during the school year and twice a week during the summer. Average attendance at the 4-H clubs was approximately 12 youth per session during the school year and 20 youth per session during the summer. Ages ranged from six to 11, and the majority of members were female and African American.

The school-year program was scheduled in such a way that 4-H was offered at the same time as many recreation activities, and while this seemed to affect the number of boys who participated, many of the girls mentioned that the alternative to recreation was appealing to them. Because it was offered as a full-day program with more structured blocks of activity, the nature of the summer program allowed more youth to participate, especially boys. There was a designated time and location for club meetings. Visitors to these 4-H meetings would recognize the pledge and the clover as familiar 4-H symbols. They took roll, selected officers on a meeting-by-meeting basis, participated in special recognition such as Family Nights, had 4-H bulletin boards posted at each site, and created a club exhibit for the State Fair.

To continually address program implementation, team meetings with directors and program staff (i.e., B&GCC program staff and both state- and county-level Extension staff) from both organizations took place monthly. These meeting provided a chance to determine goals and objectives, report on their completion, and discuss obstacles and ways to address them.

Perceived Benefits

Both organizations perceived benefits. The location and nature of B&GCC programming attracted youth who did not have a previous history with 4-H. 4-H was able to reach an urban audience, the majority of whom were African American; these youth would not have participated in 4-H without this effort. Because of B&GCC's after-school operating hours, 4-H clubs were offered during the critical times when youth need positive youth development programming.

Furthermore, staff interviews supported the view that 4-H activities such as gardening provided B&GCC an additional, unique means to fulfill its mission. As one staff member noted, "We try to reach every kid. Not all of them are going to like basketball, we have about ten to twenty kids who really look forward to 4-H, it's their niche, it's what they like to do."

Participation in the 4-H club provided youth with exposure to new experiences. Another B&GCC staff member stated, "4-H is different, and offers us another avenue to fulfill our mission. It expands their horizons, and gives them options for things to do and interests to develop, rather than just hanging out." It was further noted that "the kids seem really excited about the types of activities that they are able to participate in."

Participation in the 4-H club gave youth opportunities for building relationships. In fact, it was clear that much of the success of this effort stemmed from the relationship that was established between the youth and the club adviser (the intern). Pittman (1992) noted that youth often define their attachment to a program or organization in terms of their relationship with a caring adult. The 4-H club adviser came to be known by many youth as "the 4-H lady," thus demonstrating the extent to which this person came to be identified with the activity.

This finding pointed to the importance of having the consistent presence of a 4-H club leader in the B&GCC facility, as opposed to a once-a-week visit. Who that individual is does make a difference. The characteristics of adults who work with youth and the roles they play in fostering relationships and creating group climate have been documented in previous research (Astroth, 1996; Gambone & Arbreton, 1997; Grossman et al., 2002; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994; Rhodes, 2004; Yohalem, 2003). For example, Astroth (1996) found that beyond benefits from the relationship itself, youth gained more skills in groups where leaders were autonomy oriented compared to those with a control orientation. Thus, our observations provide a practical example of the role the adult leader plays in creating a successful experience.

The fact that the 4-H club was a separate group seemed to create a special sense of belonging among the members. B&GCC staff members reflected on the enthusiasm and special nature of the 4-H club that made it appealing to youth:

I think that the idea of a club, a membership kind of thing, . . . our B&GCC is a membership thing, but it's a big club. The idea of belonging to a group, a special group within the bigger B&GCC membership, seems to be attractive to the kids.

Saying the 4-H pledge was not a matter of because we've always done it that way, but because it helped to create connectedness to the group and to the ideals represented. Leading the pledge was always an honor. Officer roles were rotated weekly to give everyone a chance to participate and to alleviate issues created by a transient membership. The 4-H clover was recognized by members as their own symbol, proudly worn on 4-H/B&GCC t-shirts and displayed in their meeting room and bulletin board.

The long-term involvement 4-H provided fostered commitment, goal setting, and future orientation. The activities that the youth mentioned as enjoyable were those that involved participation over time. The garden project stands out in that regard. A staff member stated, "It helps them to set goals, the garden especially takes time to reach that goal." The other activity that figured prominently in youths' comments were the cooking experiences. Of the youth who reported talking with parents about 4-H, cooking was one of the top conversation topics (Hartzell, 2001). Both of these activities yielded tangible products, providing evidence of mastery. The intern noted that the summer programming, with its more frequent and longer blocks of program time and with its more consistent participation, made it easier to work toward program goals.

Challenges

Members of both organizations had to examine underlying assumptions regarding how we worked. The commitment of team members to overcoming obstacles and to establishing practices known to enhance positive youth development kept the efforts focused. Questions about issues such as consistent attendance, enrollment, parental involvement, appropriateness of paid staff as advisers, appropriateness of program guides and project books for groups, and expectations of participation at the fair were addressed.

For example, the expectation of consistent attendance was recognized as a strategy to develop belonging, create relationships, and foster achievement of goals. However, creating such a structure ran counter to Boys & Girls Clubs drop-in policy. In addition, other B&GCC activities that were offered during the same time as the 4-H club unknowingly created competition for members. With open discussion at team meetings, this situation was easily remedied.

Another challenge was working with existing 4-H project materials. Most project materials were written for individual use and with the assumption that follow-up activities would take place in the family setting. Because this club relied on a group format in the context of the after-school setting without relying on the participation of parents, very few existing guides were used, and many adaptations were made. Project activities had to balance being self-contained activities and taking into account the benefit of having longer-term program goals. At first glance, this is in contrast to the observation that projects that youth enjoyed were those that occurred over time. However, the population served by the B&GCC is rather mobile, and attendance was not always regular. Because the same youth may not attend the 4-H club meeting from week to week, short-term group projects that dealt with a common theme were ideal.

Invariably, one of the questions we are asked is: Do these youth go to the fair? Because of mobility issue mentioned above, members who attended the summer session were often different youth from those who initially enrolled during the school year. This timing conflicted with eligibility deadlines for county fair participation. Additionally, parent involvement was minimal, making transportation to the fair difficult, and individual projects close to impossible.

Instead, we sought other opportunities to showcase the club members' work and to provide them with recognition. For example, at the end of the 6-week food project, youth cooked a celebration dinner for invited family members. Perhaps one day youth will exhibit at the fair, but we did not consider this a necessary measure of the program's success.

Keys to Success

Before even agreeing to pursue the partnership, key players came together to agree on a set of goals and objectives that we were hoping to reach. Although not the only point of contact, these team meetings were essential for regular communication. Communication is crucial, as it has been identified as a significant variable influencing the success of collaborations (Jackson & Clark, 1996; Mancini & Marek, 1998). Both organizations had youth in the forefront, and wanted to be sure that the partnership would enable them to accomplish their mission and goals. We worked to ensure that our practices were aligned with principles of positive youth development (e.g., Hamilton, Hamilton, & Pittman, 2004).

We considered several aspects of this partnership to be our greatest strengths: shared vision, compatible missions, sense of commitment and ownership from both sides, and quality programming. This is consistent with the literature on collaborations (Mattesich & Monsey, 1992). It is likely that if even one of these assets were removed, 4-H clubs would not be thriving in the Boys & Girls Clubs environment.

The intern became fluent in the organizational cultures of both the B&GCC and 4-H, which enabled her to understand the functioning of both organizations and to address the challenges that occurred. The intern learned the basics of 4-H, as well as the many options for implementing 4-H, through participation in 4-H volunteer conferences, club advisor trainings, and training designed more specifically for after-school sites. Daily office and program hours, attendance at B&GCC staff meetings, and participation in B&GCC trainings allowed the intern to become immersed in both organizations to the extent that problems could be examined from both an insider and outsider perspective.

Conclusions and Implications

Overall, youth viewed their participation favorably. As well, B&GCC staff perceived that youth experienced several benefits from their participation. Upon culmination of the internship, key players agreed we had created a win/win situation and wanted to continue. This decision was based on an examination of the partnership's ability to implement sound principles of learning and positive youth development (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; National 4-H Impact Study, 2001).

The challenge remains in going to scale, that is, moving beyond a demonstration to the next phase of implementation. We have to show whether these benefits are an artifact of the particular individuals involved or if this partnership can continue even if the players change.

Funding and staff challenges are commonly reported obstacles to project survival (Marek, Mancini, Earthman, & Brock, 2003). Additions of new B&GCC sites, staff turnover in both organizations, and lack of funding have created some changes in the program structure. These are challenges are commonly experienced by youth programs (Gootman, 2000; Larner, Zippiroli, & Behrman, 1999; Miller, 2001). One of the new sites enjoys significant student involvement due to its proximity to the university (both an opportunity and a challenge). Providing in-service training and consistent staffing will be vital to the long-term sustainability of the partnership, and we are continuing to explore more and better ways to be successful in this aspect of programming.

Though they are not as frequent, the team meetings continue to take place, because they are undeniably one of the greatest strengths of this partnership. Each organization has something to offer and something to gain, making the collaboration truly mutually beneficial. We view this as "our" program--a sign that ownership has taken root. Its continued success, however, depends on using the information reported here to make refinements in the program (Banach & Gregory, 2001).

Another point to note is that qualitative data provided the richness necessary to understand the process of program implementation, collaboration, and outcomes. Other studies of youth programs also have found such an approach to be important (e.g., Astroth, 1996; Matysik, 2000; Paisley & Ferrari, in press; Ferrari & Turner, 2004).

As Extension professionals examine ways to address community needs for positive youth development and after-school programs, simply creating more programs is not necessarily the answer. Although starting 4-H clubs is a familiar part of the 4-H professional's job, establishing the club in an after-school program setting may present some new challenges. In a time when youth development professionals may be "torn" between serving traditional 4-H club programs and new initiatives that target specific youth audiences (McKee, Talbert, & Barkman, 2002), this programming model represents a way to bridge the two worlds.

If 4-H is to be "true to the original mission while changing our programs to meet new challenges that young people and the nation face" (Van Horn, Flanagan, & Thomson, 1998), then models such as that proposed here should continue to be explored. With increased focus on program delivery models in the after-school time (Ferrari, Linville, & Valentine, 2003), lessons learned from such partnerships must continue to be shared.

References

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. M. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 39-53.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Astroth, K. (1996). Leadership in nonformal youth groups: Does style affect youth outcomes? Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/rb2.html

Astroth, K. A., & Haynes, G. W. (2002). More than cows and cooking: Newest research shows the impact of 4-H. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/a6.shtml

Banach, M. J., & Gregory, P. J. (2001). Essential tasks, skills, and decisions for developing sustainable community-based programs for children, youth, and families at risk. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001october/a4.html

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.) (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Ferrari, T. M. (2002). An Extension program development model for out-of-school time programs. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, 4-H Youth Development.

Ferrari, T. M., Linville, I. M., & Valentine, N. (2003, April). 4-H Afterschool rationale, program delivery models, and theoretical base: A reference for Extension professionals. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.4hafterschool.org/Rollout_Conference/FerrariPaper.doc

Ferrari, T. M., & Turner, C. L. (2004). An exploratory study of adolescents' motivations for joining and continued participation in a 4-H Afterschool program. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gambone, M., & Arbreton, A. J. A. (1997). Safe havens: The contributions of youth organizations to healthy adolescent development. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Gootman, J. (2000). After-school programs to promote child and adolescent development. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.

Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Jucovy, L. Z., Kotloff, L. J., Raley, R., & Walker, K. E. (2002). Multiple choices after school: Findings from the extended-service schools initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/116_publication.pdf

Hamilton, S. F., Hamilton, M. A., & Pittman, K. (2004). Principles for youth development. In S. F. Hamilton & M. A. Hamilton (Eds.), The youth development handbook (pp. 3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hartzell, L. B. (2001). The club within a club: A collaboration among Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus and the Ohio State University 4-H Youth Development. Unpublished manuscript. [Available from second author upon request.]

Hobbs, B. B. (1999). Increasing the 4-H participation of youth from high-risk environments. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/rb1.html

Jackson, D. G., & Clark, R. W. (1996). Predictors of effectiveness of collaborative relationships of the USDA Youth At Risk coalitions. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/rb3.html

King, J. A., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987). How to assess program implementation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Larner, M. B., Zippiroli, L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). When school is out: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9(2), 4-20. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=71875

Mancini, J., & Marek, L. I. (1998). Patterns of project survival and organizational support: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study (Publication Number 350-800). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-800/350-800.html

Marek, L. I., Mancini, J., Earthman, E., & Brock, D. P. (2003). Ongoing community-based program implementation, successes, and obstacles: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study (Publication Number 350-804). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-804/350-804.html

Mattesich, P., & Monsey, B. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work? A review of the literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Matysik, G. J. (2000). Involving adolescents in participatory research. Community Youth Development Journal, 1(4), 14-19.

McKee, R. K., Talbert, B. A., & Barkman, S. J. (2002). The challenges associated with change in 4-H/youth development. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/a5.html

McLaughlin, M. W., Irby, M.A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, B. M. (2001). The promise of after-school programs. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 6-12.

National 4-H Impact Study. (2001). Prepared and engaged youth. Washington, DC: CSREES/USDA. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/about/4h_impact.htm

Paisley, J. E., & Ferrari, T. M. (in press). Extent of positive youth-adult relationships in a 4-H afterschool program. Journal of Extension.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pittman, K. (1992). Defining the fourth R: Promoting youth development through building relationships. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development and Policy Research.

Posner, J. K., & Vandell, D. (1994). Low-income children's after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65(2), 440-456.

Rhodes, J. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth-staff relationships in after-school settings. In G. G. Noam (Ed.), After-school worlds: Creating a new social space for development and learning (New Directions for Youth Development, no. 101, pp. 145-161). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Roffman, J. G., Pagano, M. E., & Hirsch, B. J. (2001). Youth functioning and experiences in inner-city after-school programs among age, gender, and race groups. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10(1), 85-100.

Rodriguez, E., Hirschl, T. A., Mead, J. P., & Goggin, S. E. (1999). Understanding the difference 4-H clubs make in the lives of New York youth: How 4-H contributes to positive youth development (Final report). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Schinke, S. P., Cole, K. C., & Poulin, S. R. (2000). Enhancing the educational achievement of at-risk youth. Prevention Science, 1(1), 51-59.

St. Pierre, T. L., Mark, M. M., Kaltreider, D. L., & Campbell, B. (2001). Boys & Girls Clubs and school collaborations: A longitudinal study of a multicomponent substance abuse prevention program for high-risk elementary school children. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 87-106.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

U.S. Department of Education & U. S. Department of Justice. (2000). Working for children and families: Safe and smart after-school programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/afterschool/

Van Horn, B., Flanagan, C., & Thomson, J. (1998). The first fifty years of the 4-H program (Part 1). Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998december/comm2.html

Yohalem, N. (2003). Adults who make a difference: Identifying the skills & characteristics of successful youth workers. In Villarruel, F. A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L., & Keith, J. G. (Eds.), Community youth development: Programs, policies, and practices (pp. 358-372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

A Snapshot of the Change Agent States for Diversity Project

Patreese D. Ingram
Associate Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
pdi1@psu.edu

The mission of the Cooperative Extension System's Emphasis on Diversity and the strategic plan is to achieve and sustain pluralism as an integral part of every aspect of Extension: mission and vision; work force; programs; audiences; and relationships with other people, groups, and organizations. ~ Strategic Planning Task Force on Diversity, 1991, p. 8

Introduction

In response to the growing diversity of our nation (2000 Census Bureau), the Change Agent States for Diversity (CASD) project was initiated by Cooperative Extension (Change Agent, 2003). CASD is a consortium of seven states dedicated to supporting greater cultural diversity in land-grant universities by bringing the needed technical skills and training to each of the member states. CASD project states include: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In Missouri and North Carolina, both the 1862 and the 1890 institutions participate in the project. Through this collaborative approach, the consortium will develop successful models and strategies that can be applied throughout the system to bring about organizational change.

The overall goal of the project is to build the capacity of land-grant universities to function inclusively and effectively in a multicultural world. Additionally, the project aims to set standards and implement a vision for supporting healthy, thriving, culturally diverse communities through Extension, research and academic programs.

The objectives of the project are:

1. Establish a national mechanism to support ongoing, sustainable change in the Extension System and its research and academic partners in the Land-Grant system.

2. Develop effective state leadership for addressing diversity issues.

3. Improve the diversity profile at county and state levels.

4. Foster a system that values differences.

5. Manage and enhance diversity skill development.

6. Establish strategic diversity management.

Although this article focuses on the Change Agent States for Diversity Project, issues related to diversity affect the Cooperative Extension System in all 50 states. Hence the issues raised and the findings shared in this study may have implications for all states, including those that are not currently a part of CASD.

These issues and findings are critically important to the Cooperative Extension system as the demographics of America are changing and continue to change. For example, the Census Bureau reports that people of color in this country are increasing at rates faster than the Caucasian population. People with physical and mental disabilities are more actively seeking to be contributing members of society. The fastest growing religion in this country is Islam (Arnett, 1998). And an increasing number of people are speaking languages other than English in public settings. Understanding these changes and the findings of this study will be of value in developing a plan to build and strengthen the mission of Cooperative Extension in serving the changing American population.

We need to take proactive measures rather than reactive ones because we are certain the changes will happen and we need to be prepared. This study provides a justification for Extension in all states to be prepared strategically. An important goal of this project is to share the learning gained within the entire system. As states work to build and strengthen their capacity to function effectively in increasingly multicultural settings, these findings may help strengthen programs addressing diversity within each state.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study described here was to evaluate the progress of the Change Agent States for Diversity Project. This evaluation assesses states' movement in three organizational change initiatives: Organizational Profile, Valuing Differences Education, and Managing Diversity Skill Development.

This article focuses on the Managing Diversity Skill Development initiative. The following are selected key research questions that guided this part of the study.

1. What is the business incentive for managing diversity in Extension?

2. What are the key diversity-related issues in the organization? How do administrators model support for diversity in their organizations?

3. What strategies do administrators identify as supporting the employment, development, retention, and promotion of diverse groups in the organization? What barriers do administrators identify?

4. How useful is diversity training in preparing Extension professionals to serve diverse populations more effectively and to work in a more diverse workforce?

5. In what types of diversity-focused training have administrators participated?

6. To what extent do administrators have the appropriate skills to manage organizational change on diversity within Extension?

Methodology

Twelve interview questions were developed by the researcher in consultation with members of the CASD consortium and two professors of Agricultural Sciences, both of whom have expertise in the area of research design and implementation. Open-ended questions were designed to reflect the objectives of the study. In addition, three of the open-ended questions included a related Likert-type scale item.

A telephone interview was held with each of the executive directors of the Cooperative Extension organizations in the Change Agent States for Diversity Project, seven from 1862 and two from 1890 organizations.

Each director was contacted to schedule a telephone interview with the researcher. Once the date had been set, a copy of the interview questions was emailed to the director for review prior to the interview. Interviews were between 45 and 75 minutes in duration. Each interview was tape recorded for accuracy of transcription. Data were analyzed using NVivo, a software package for qualitative data (NVivo, 2002).

Findings

The Business Incentive for Managing Diversity

Directors were asked to share their opinions of the business incentive for managing diversity in their organization. Responses fell into four major themes. One of the business incentives was that differences in backgrounds bring a richness in innovative thinking, views, and opinions, and a richer knowledge base from which the organization can draw upon. It creates an enhanced educational and academic environment.

Another business incentive was that diversity relates to the working atmosphere. It helps those from diverse backgrounds feel comfortable that their values are being included. A diverse working environment increases the tendency of diverse employees to stay with the organization and be productive for a long time.

A third theme focused on the relationship of the organization with the community it serves. Managing helps to insure that Extension educational programs are sensitive to, and attend to the needs of, diverse communities and industries. One dir