|
October 2005
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageSome JOE Style Points: Terminal Punctuation & SuperscriptsAs I said in my August Editor's Page, I am going to start building a JOE style guide in "bits and pieces." The bits I'm tackling this month are terminal punctuation and superscripts. The phrase "terminal punctuation" sounds so, well, terminal, doesn't it? But it's just the punctuation convention that calls for a comma before the "or" or "and" in every series, even when a series contains only three items. That's not the only approved way to punctuate a series. Associated Press style, for example, does not always call for that "terminal" comma, but JOE style does. So, before the "or" or "and," even in a short series, insert a comma, and make the JOE editor's life a little easier. As for superscripts, there's nothing wrong with them--except when it comes to the Web. For reasons I do not profess to understand, when you use a superscript on the Web it causes spacing problems in the text. So, for example, instead of writing "21st century" (see what I mean?), please make it "21st century." These JOE style points will also be posted on the Help for JOE Authors page. October JOEThe First two Feature articles in this issue, "Hearing Their Needs: Voices of Underrepresented Populations" and "Exploring Agricultural Census Undercounts Among Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers with an Alternative Enumeration Project," deal with underrepresented or undercounted audiences. The first Research in Brief addresses another kind of minority, those caught on the wrong side of the digital divide. "An Evaluative Study of the United States Cooperative Extension Service's Role in Bridging the Digital Divide" reports on a nationwide survey of Extension administrators to gauge their opinion of Extension's role in bridging the digital divide. I think that there is a digital divide and that we in Extension should do all we can to bridge it. That way, more and more of our clients will have access to the information, tools, and materials described in "An On-Line Survey Process for Assessing Impact of an Email-Delivered Pest Advisory," "Determinants of Irrigation Farmers' Crop Choice and Acreage Allocation Decisions: Opportunities for Extension Service Delivery," "Strengthening Marriages: An Evaluation and Assessment of a Couple's and Marital Enrichment Newsletter," "Strengthening Integration of Land Use Research and Outreach Through Innovative Web Technology," and "Embracing Edutainment with Interactive E-Learning Tools." And those are just eight of 28 fine articles. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Extending EthicsRobert L. Zimdahl IntroductionEach of a series of workshops encouraged Extension personnel to think about the ethical dimension of what they do and the contrast between what is and what ought to be. In general, Extension personnel thought that agriculture does not have ethical problems. Instead, agriculture's problems were viewed as the result of government policy and a poor economic situation. It was believed that agriculture's problems are economic not ethical. If this is a common view, then Extension programs and personnel would benefit from regular consideration of the ethics of agricultural practice. Ethics, at a minimum, is concerned with developing reasons that guide conduct--reasons that guide one toward what ought to be done, rather than just what can be done (Rachels, 2004). The primary objective of the workshops was to explore the ethical choices related to achieving agricultural sustainability. A complementary objective was to increase participants' awareness of the ethics of agricultural sustainability. The workshops were supported by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. Four workshops in Colorado in 2002, three in 2003, one in New Mexico in 2003, and one in Montana in 2004, with a total of 218 attendees revealed that the ethics of agricultural practice is not a routine concern of Extension personnel. If this small sample represents the view of the majority of Extension personnel, it is, at a minimum, interesting, and may indicate a deficiency that should receive attention. Ethics vs. EconomicsA major conclusion of the workshops was that, for Extension workers, whether ethical implications of actions are considered is largely related to profitability. If an action has positive economic implications (profit), ethical consideration is appropriate. However, if anticipated economic outcomes will be unsatisfactory, then ethical questions are not considered. This is, of course, an ethical decision. For Extension workers, ethics and economics go together, but economic outcomes are primary. Discussion of the importance of economic implications as a prelude to consideration of ethical questions is part of a more general debate about whether attention should be given to things that have intrinsic value (that which is valuable in and of itself) as opposed to instrumental value (that which is valuable because its use enables achieving intrinsic value). Things most participants thought should be sustained were the environment, family farms, animal rights, and food safety. A common view was that there is no evidence that sustainability of these things had been compromised by present agricultural practice. The claim was that there is no lack of food in the world, but there are major distribution problems, and this explains why hunger persists. What Is Sustainability?Many participants questioned the definition of sustainability. Some thought that because it was a vague concept, it might be impossible to achieve. Thirty-seven definitions were suggested in nine workshops affirming that the concept is unclear. Most participants said sustainability cannot be achieved just by going back to the good old days. The definition accepted by most was: a sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable. Most agreed that it must also be politically achievable. However, there was little agreement on what sustainability is or how to achieve it. All agreed it is a worthy goal, but most thought it was not something that demanded large changes in existing agricultural systems. Much could be achieved by tinkering at the margins of the system. As suggested above, it is not agricultural practices used by farmers that are viewed as creating ethical dilemmas, it is government policy (e.g., subsidies to large farms) and a poor economy. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the difficulty of achieving sustainability could be related to the programs of Cooperative Extension and Land-Grant Universities. These organizations have done their job so well that over-production of agricultural commodities makes them abundant and cheap. This has helped drive family farms out of business and, in the view of some, (Comstock, 1987; Goldschmidt, 1998) has made traditional farming and farm communities less sustainable. Corporations produce cheap food and achieve large profits with little concern for sustainability of land or communities. Participants seemed to agree with Thompson's (1995, p. 64) claim that the central norm of agriculture is to produce as much as possible, regardless of the cost. Several participants thought changing the nature of the relationship most people have with food production must be considered in discussions of sustainability. The majority of the U.S. population does not understand where their food comes from or how it is grown, harvested, and marketed. Participants agreed that achieving agricultural sustainability should be seen as an agricultural and a societal responsibility. Therefore, lack of public knowledge of the many links in the food system reduces the likelihood of achieving agricultural sustainability. If a sustainable agricultural system is not achieved, the resources available to future generations will not be sufficient to produce enough food. If future generations do not have adequate food, then those involved in agriculture could be held accountable for lack of moral foresight. In addition to producing sufficient food, a sustainable system would help preserve local communities (Goldschmidt, 1998) and encourage environmental stewardship. These are ethical issues, but participants' comments revealed that they do not affect daily Extension activities. Ethics in Extension PracticeWhen asked if their thoughts and attitudes regarding agricultural sustainability had changed as a result of the workshop, a majority said they had not. If anything, the workshop affirmed frustration with the current agricultural system and mistrust of government policies. Ethical discussion was enthusiastic, but participants expressed frustration with the persistent lack of success in moving agricultural practices toward greater sustainability. Most participants agreed that more education about sustainability and a greater understanding of agriculture's ethical/social conflicts was needed. But none acknowledged that they regularly engaged in such education as teachers or learners. In general, participants thought decisions encountered in normal duties required consideration of ethics. However, although the moral implications of actions should be considered in most decisions, they seldom are. Several participants thought that agriculture did not deal adequately with the ethical aspects of major issues (e.g., pesticide use, noxious weeds, meat quality assurance, and antibiotics/hormones for livestock). Participants always concluded that ethical considerations will only enter the debate when agricultural profitability is assured (Thompson 1995). But they wondered if the above issues are really ethical dilemmas or just responses to sustainability issues. Some Extension participants said they thought about ethics, but all agreed they needed more education than one workshop was able to provide. They are surely correct. Most participants thought an ethics workshop was interesting, but some thought such esoteric discussion was not particularly useful. All had a firm sense of personal ethics: truth telling, fulfilling family obligations, responsibility for one's actions, etc. (Rollin, 1999). There was agreement that a combination of a strong personal ethic and a strong social ethic (fulfilling community obligations, obeying societal mores, being a good citizen) define good people. A workshop goal was to encourage thought beyond the personal and social ethical realm to consideration of the ethical dimensions of agriculture. The important question was not, are you ethical? It was, can you discuss and responsibly question agriculture's and Extension's existing ethical foundation? That is, do Extension personnel have and use moral theories that are the result of careful thought and that are consonant with inner moral principles and available scientific knowledge (Comstock, 1995). This small sample suggests that consideration of ethical questions may largely be absent from Extension programs. Strong arguments can be made that it is only by examining the ethical foundation that actions can be defended when correct and changed when incorrect. Perhaps it is time to extend ethics. ReferencesComstock, G. L. (1995). Do agriculturalists need a new, an ecocentric, ethic? J. Agric. and Human Values. Winter: 2-16. Comstock, G. L. (ed.) (1987). Is there a moral obligation to save the family farm? Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. 427 pp. Goldschmidt, W. (1998). Conclusion--The urbanization of rural America. Pp 183-198 in K. M. Thu & E. L. Durrenberger. Pigs, profits, and rural communities. State University of New York Press. Albany, NY. Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. New York, NY. 218 pp. Rollin, B. E. (1999). Part I. Theory. In Veterinary medical ethics: Theory and cases. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. Thompson, P. B. (1995). The spirit of the soil. Routledge. New York. 196 pp. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Hearing Their Needs: Voices of Underrepresented PopulationsPatreese D. Ingram Amy K. Syvertsen The Pennsylvania State University As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, Extension organizations have raised diversity to a new level of importance on the organizational agenda. Strategic plans clearly spell out goals and strategies to recruit and retain a more diverse workforce, build capacity to manage diversity, and reach diverse populations with relevant educational programming. Some states have established strategic plans specifically to address their changing audiences and workforce. Every 4 years, Extension reviews its educational objectives. This allows Extension to consider the changing needs of its potential audiences, and develop a new plan of work (POW) that is relevant and addresses the needs of the clientele. The POW process is an extremely important task, because it provides the direction needed to achieve its primary purpose - to bring the university to the people. It is crucial that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input into the planning process. As Grogan (1991) purported, "The future success of Extension will be determined not only by the relevance of its educational programs, but by the extent to which low-income and minority group citizens participate in and consider them valuable." In Pennsylvania, stakeholder input is formally gathered via on-line surveys and focus group interviews of current program participants. The on-line survey method was instituted to provide Pennsylvania residents a cost-efficient opportunity to offer input; however, Internet access is limited in many low-income communities. Unfortunately, citizens who do not have easy access to the Internet or have not participated in Extension programming are not likely to have the opportunity to have their insight, needs, and wants reflected in the POW. As stated by Schauber and Castania (2001),
Purpose and MethodologyIn an attempt to give voice to a diversity of underrepresented audiences, a special effort was made to gain input from ethnic minority and low-income populations on the major programs to be included in the 2005-2009 Pennsylvania Plan of Work. Five Pennsylvania communities were selected for inclusion in this exploratory study. Each was purposively selected because of the high concentration of racial and ethnic minorities and/or low-income populations. A focus group interview was held by the researcher in a public space in each community. Participants were invited to join the focus group by the local Extension 4-H/youth development or family consumer science educator. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary. Each participant that completed the interview received a credit card redeemable for $10.00 in groceries at a specified store in their community. Due to the complexities of obtaining informed consent from the parents of minors, participation was limited to people who were 18 years of age or older. Additionally, all were either members of a low-income and/or minority group or a community service professional who served low-income and minority clientele. A total of 52 community members participated. Seventy-nine percent (n = 41) were community members, and 21% (n = 11) were community service professionals. The researcher who conducted the interviews was a member of an ethnic/racial minority group. Table 1 provides a brief description of the focus group participants. These participants groups included participants with varying levels of familiarity with Extension.
Focus group questions mirrored a subset of questions that were included in the Web-based needs assessment available to all Pennsylvanians. The semi-structured interview questions were based on key issues identified by county Extension educators and faculty in a series of meetings held over an 18-month period of time. Questions used in the focus groups centered on the following general categories: youth, family, community, nutrition, family health, and long-term health needs of middle-aged and older adults. In each category, participants were asked to think about the next 5 years. Then, participants were asked to discuss what concerned them most, what challenges they expected to face, what type of educational programs Extension might provide to address the issues, and what concerns they had about today's policies that impact the local community, youth, families, health, nutrition, and care of the elderly. Focus group interviews were at least 1.5; hours in length. Group size varied from 9 to14 participants. All participants were encouraged to respond to the interview questions. Each interview was audio recorded to ensure accurate transcription. The data were analyzed using QSR NVivo 2.0, a software package for qualitative data analysis. Using content-analysis procedures, the findings were separated into content-related categorizes, then grouped by theme: youth, family, community, and nutrition and health. Last, the data were checked for inter-rater reliability. Agreement between the two raters approached 90%. FindingsThis article brings the concerns of the underrepresented voices in our sample into the limelight. It is imperative that Extension include the needs and suggestions of its entire clientele base when developing the POW and designing programs. The following summarizes the needs and suggestions of the focus group participants into content-related categories--youth, family, community, nutrition, family health, and care for the elderly. YouthParticipants identified several positive youth-engaging organizations/opportunities in their communities. Among them were 4-H programs, Girl Scouts, homework clubs, the library, church youth groups, a community center, and YMCA programs. When participants reflected on the challenges youth may face and the types of programs needed to address these challenges, a number of issues surfaced. In several communities, participants cited the lack of affordable recreational opportunities for children. In many of these communities the public pools were not operating, and membership costs for the YMCA were prohibitive. Where opportunities existed outside of the neighborhood, there was a lack of transportation for youth to attend. Youth in low-income families are limited in their opportunities to explore beyond their immediate communities due to financial and transportation constraints. Participants in each of the focus groups expressed the need for exposure to activities, events, and sites that would challenge youth to broaden their horizons. Suggestions included field trips to museums, attending theatrical performances, and traveling to historical and educational points of interest. Additionally, youth need to be provided the opportunity to explore the academic and career possibilities that exist beyond their immediate experiences. Activities suggested for urban youth included pruning trees and growing produce to sell. Youth are interested in dance, ballet, theatre art, modeling, talent shows, creative arts, cheerleading, and drill teams. The lack of exposure to sporting activities was of much concern. At the root of the problem participants cited the disorganization of community-sponsored sporting leagues and declining financial sponsorship from local businesses. In particular, participants noted that sporting opportunities for female youth are especially scarce. In some neighborhoods, safety was a primary concern. The lack of safe places to go outside of the home confined many youth to indoor activities, primarily watching television. Participants expressed a need for a safe place to congregate and engage in learning activities. One participant argued that programs need to be located "in the middle of where the greatest, most crying needs are, where the biggest disconnect exists." A number of issues related to personal development and social skills were discussed (Figure 1). Overwhelmingly, participants agreed that youth in their communities need educational opportunities that promote their development as strong, self-respecting citizens.
Others were particularly concerned with promoting active civic engagement in youth. Learning what it means to be a good neighbor, opportunities to volunteer, and learning how to vote were specifically mentioned. Participants also felt that career and college preparation programs would be beneficial. Suggested objectives for such a program were exposing youth to a wide variety of jobs in the workplace, assisting youth in defining their goals and aspirations for the future, and preparing them for post-secondary education. A college prep program could provide basic information on the collegiate experience, how to select a school, the application and management process of financial aid, and preparation for college visits. Youth also need opportunities and transportation to visit colleges. It's paramount that we create a support network for youth and help them to realize that attending college is a realistic goal. While many of the questions that youth have about college should be provided within the school system, guidance counselors are typically severely overloaded and are unable to reach all of the youth who would benefit from their services. Attention is needed in the social and psychological domains of youth development. A serious concern was expressed regarding the limited programming at the high school level that addresses use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. While these issues may be introduced at the middle school level, they seem to receive less attention in the upper grades. A few participants supported the implementation of drug prevention programs with elementary school-age children. There are limited opportunities for adolescents to talk about issues of serious importance to them. Participants identified the following as topics they would be interested in learning more about:
Although many of these topics may reach beyond the scope of Extension, it is important to acknowledge the genuine needs of these populations. Collaborations with local parenting and/or counseling agencies would be a viable and realistic means of fulfilling these needs. Finally, a number of policies affect youth in a negative manner. The lack of available transportation makes it difficult for many youth to participate in activities that exist outside of their neighborhoods. Employment opportunities for youth are limited. In some communities, night school is only available to youth with behavior problems. Participants supported this program, yet they expressed a need for alternative education options to specifically serve teen parents who are trying to balance the demands of parenthood and schooling. Unconsciously, we tend to bias the negative impact of teen pregnancy solely on females, often times failing to recognize that the situation has negative impacts for teenage males as well. Court-ordered employment and child support can severely reduce the opportunities for teen fathers to pursue a college education. FamilyParticipants repeatedly cited the lack of educational and recreational opportunities designed for whole families as problematic. Community programs tend to focus on either adults or youth; however, few provide opportunities for mothers, fathers, and children to interact together. The need for parent education programs was frequently voiced. One respondent declared, "We have parents who have never been parented. They have no parenting skills of their own. Yet, we are expecting them to pass this along to their kids." Participants identified needs for parent education in the following areas.
Parenting skills are needed not only for parents, but also for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. One community expressed a particular need for programs on how to care for "crack babies" because these children display more challenging behavioral patterns and have special needs. Parents need assistance to develop skills to successfully negotiate the school system. For many, the communication and relationship between parents and schools is poor. Some parents feel that schools are not making an attempt to include them in their child's education. They feel uncomfortable dealing with school officials. "The administration doesn't want to hear from parents. They want your taxes but they don't want your voice." Parents want more information about the opportunities available so they can help their sons and daughters select the classes and programs that may better their futures. Participants requested a comprehensive money management program that focused on basic budgeting skills, checking account management, and information on the services commonly offered by banks. Another suggested that information on scams be included. Other areas of need for families included programs that address self-esteem issues for adults, time management skills for single working parents, and anger management. Additionally, citizen education and English as a Second Language programs are needed for migrant adults. The high cost of childcare for working parents, the lack of affordable housing for low-income families with children, and the lack of employment were mentioned as public policy issues that affect families. CommunityA common concern throughout the study was the lacking of a sense of community among minorities and non-minorities alike. Participants suggested that more community-building activities be sponsored to bring citizens together. Another issue expressed was the need for skills to interact with township and borough officials. Residents want to have a voice in developing the policies related to their community, although many feel they lack the skills and/or knowledge to do so. Additionally, with the changing demographics in some communities, some respondents voiced a need for diversity education to "help people get used to being around and accepting the differences of different kinds of people, cultures, and habits." Issues relating to the elderly were another area of concern. On one hand, a growing number of elderly are raising their grandchildren (Lugaila, 1998) and are in desperate need of both financial and emotional support. "Grandparents lack the patience and skills to parent today's youth. Some are even angry about the situation. Grandparents raising grandchildren need help." On the other hand, families who must consider placement of elderly relatives in nursing homes need information. What should family members look for in a nursing home? What questions should they ask? How can one ensure that a relative is being properly cared for? Participants expressed fear of maltreatment in nursing homes. Nutrition and HealthWhen asked to reflect on issues and concerns related to nutrition and health, a number of areas were discussed. Families would benefit from nutrition education that promotes healthy cooking and eating practices. Learning to determine proper portion sizes, creative ways to use leftovers, and alternatives that provide the family with healthy meals with limited preparation time were specifically mentioned. Weight control and exercise were high on the list of needs. Affordable group exercise programs for adults, particularly females, are not readily available to many residents of low-income communities. In addition to exercise and weight control, programs that help adults set goals to improve their welfare and self-esteem were desired. Other health concerns included diabetes, the lack of affordable health insurance, and knowledge about preventive health measures. One participant creatively suggested the development of early protection information sheets to serve as an age-based guideline for medical check-ups. Furthermore, there is a lack of information about medical services that are available to members of the community. Better information about available public services is needed. Figure 2 identifies the general areas of concern that were repeated in at least four of the five focus group interviews.
Discussion and RecommendationsCurrent Extension programs are attempting to address some of the needs expressed by focus group participants. Examples include: conflict resolution skills, citizenship education, and tobacco prevention for youth; and healthy eating habits, money management skills, and participation in policies impacting the community for families and adults. While these are areas in which Extension has been successful, it is important to note that even these programs will need to be adjusted in terms of content and teaching delivery to be accepted by, and meaningful to, some low-income and diverse audiences. There are other areas of need that are not being adequately addressed by current Extension programming or by other community organizations. These may be viewed as special opportunities for Extension to fill unmet needs. Extension can offer programs that encourage the whole family to interact and learn together, provide support groups for parents and parenting grandparents, and create opportunities for group exercise with built-in lessons on self-esteem and healthy dietary practices. There are clearly opportunities to develop and conduct programs that meet the many unmet needs of youth and older teens. Extension could develop programming that provides opportunities for teenagers to discuss and learn about critical topics that affect the social circumstances of their everyday lives. While traditional 4-H programs provide numerous opportunities for youth to participate in activities at the county, state, and even national level, youth who are not involved in these traditional programs do not have this chance to travel. Exposure to communities beyond their neighborhoods could inspire new perspectives, hopes, and goals for their futures. Undoubtedly, Extension cannot single-handedly provide all programs for all people. Particularly in times of shrinking resources, it has neither the staff nor the finances to do so. However, through collaboration with other community-based organizations in low-income and diverse communities, Extension can help to meet a greater number of needs. For example, if Extension cannot conduct weekly grandparent support groups, they may be able to develop the curricula and train volunteers or other agency staff to do so. Pooling resources with other agencies might enable the development of community programs that neither organization could do by itself. It is important to note that many of the concerns and needs such as issues related to parent involvement, parenting skills, limited activities for youth, and long-term care for the elderly, that arose during the present study were also identified by the Community Needs Capacity Assessment conducted by Extension professionals in another Midwestern state (Nieto, Schaffner, & Henderson, 1997). These needs may very well continue to exist in the future unless education professionals within organizations such as Extension take the time to hear the voices of the underrepresented and develop relevant programming and collaborations to fill the unmet needs. In Pennsylvania, for example, the results of this study were posted online <http://pow.cas.psu.edu/pdfs/NontradResponses.pdf> to guide the planning of POW committees. Although the needs revealed through this exploratory qualitative study are specific to the focus group participants and their communities, these results provide the basis for further research with low-income and underrepresented populations using more rigorous methodologies. Extension has many opportunities to develop and conduct relevant educational programs with diverse audiences. To increase effectiveness, however, we need to find out what the needs are from all the people we intend to serve and then present the materials in a manner that will invite members of diverse audiences to relate to, and engage in, the learning. ReferencesGrogan, S. (1991). Targeting audiences for the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/fut1.html Lugaila, T. (1998). Marital status and living arrangements: March, 1997 (update). Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nieto, R. D., Schaffner, D., & Henderson, J. L. (1997). Examining community needs through a capacity assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(3). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/1997/june/a1.html Schauber, A.C., & Castania, K. (2001). Facing issues of diversity: Rebirthing the Extension Service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/comm2.html
Exploring Agricultural Census Undercounts Among Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers with an Alternative Enumeration ProjectVictor Garcia Juan Marinez IntroductionAccording to Agricultural Census 1997, Hispanics or Latinos (henceforth referred to as " Hispanics/Latinos" ) were the largest and fastest growing minority farmer group in the United States (USDA, 2000). (2002 Census results were not available at the time of the writing of this article.) In 1997, Hispanic/Latino farmers numbered nearly 28,000, an increase of 32%, or 8,870 farmers, from 1992 to 1997. As the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) prepares to release the results of Agricultural Census 2002, Hispanic/Latino farmers, minority farmer advocates (e.g., Center for Latino Farmers and The Rural Coalition), and Extension agents are voicing their concerns about agricultural census undercounts among the Hispanic/Latino farmer population. Recent research suggests that a segment of the Hispanic/Latino farmer population in particular may be at a high risk for not being included in the agricultural census (Garcia & Marinez, 2002). New immigrants, who do not seek assistance from the Farm Service Agency and other USDA providers or may not be familiar with the agricultural census, are likely to be missed. Other possible barriers, such as English language competence and illiteracy and informal farming arrangements, may also keep these and other Hispanic/Latino farmers from participating in agricultural censuses. The unintentional exclusion of these immigrants skews NASS Hispanic farmer profiles, or " statistical totals," that are used by USDA and other government agencies to generate priorities, write policies, and to develop regional and national programs aimed at helping farmers and ranchers. Nationally and regionally, an undercount of Hispanic/Latino farmers in agricultural censuses also has consequences for Agricultural Extension. One problem is that Extension agents will not have reliable figures on the size and growth of this hard-to-reach farmer population. In fact, Extension agents, as we found, may not always be aware of their existence, if NASS figures do not bring this population to light (Garcia & Marinez, 2002). Another shortcoming is that unreliable figures, as a result of an undercount, will provide Extension agents with an unsound profile of Hispanic/Latino farmers in their region. Flawed information will keep them from developing new programs or tailoring existing programs to meet the needs of these farmers. Closely related, Extension agents will not be in a position to advocate for their Hispanic/Latino farmer clientele in programming and policy arenas because they will be unable to demonstrate need. Agricultural Census 2002 provides a timely opportunity to explore the participation of immigrant Hispanic/Latino farmers and to develop approaches for including them in the next agricultural census. Towards this end, we propose a plan for examining their participation in Agricultural Census 2002. We start by briefly discussing how the agricultural census is conducted and why it is important for all farmers to participate. Possible barriers to census participation, based on our field observations of immigrant Hispanic/Latino farmers in southwestern Michigan, follow. We conclude by suggesting an alternative Hispanic/Latino farmer enumeration, one design to assess if there is an undercount among this group as well as to improve their inclusion in the future. Our enumeration plan is based on an alternative enumeration project conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in Census 1990 to assess the undercount of minority populations and to develop creative strategies for including them in future decennial censuses. The Agricultural CensusEvery 5 years, NASS conducts an agricultural census designed to count the number of farms, gather statistical information about producers, and measure agricultural activity and productivity for county, state, and region in the United States (NASS, 2002a). In Agricultural Census 2002, a "report form," was distributed in two formats: a sample long version or a non-sample short version. The report forms, only printed in the English language (with the exception of those used in Puerto Rico), were designed, according to region (13 regions in all nationwide), to gather information on:
The census forms--either a long or short version--were mailed in December to independent operating units, called "operations," or to farms, ranches, and other agricultural businesses with farm acreage under production (NASS, 2002a & b). The forms are mailed to agricultural businesses that participated in the previous agricultural census or that sought assistance from USDA agencies and their programs, such as the Farm Service Agency. Operators, or individuals who make the day-to-day decisions, were to complete the forms and return them by February. By law, under Title VII, United States Code, the recipients of the form, who can be landlords, tenants, corporations, are required to respond factually. USDA carries out various activities during the census year to get the word out and convince farmers to participate (NASS, 2002a). News releases, public service announcements, and public presentations are used with this objective in mind. Depending on the state and the availability of resources, if the census form is not returned by the due date, several measures are taken. Most often, local Extension agents call farmers who do not return their forms. The farmers are either reminded to return their forms or the census information is gathered over the telephone. If funds permit, Extension agents also visit the farmers and solicit the census information in person. The data compiled from the forms are used to put together and publish statistical totals of production, sales, and acreage, at the county, state, and national levels. These totals are used for annual crop and livestock estimates. Additionally, service agencies that work with farmers, such as Cooperative Extension and Farm Service Agency, use census information to design programs and offer services and products to producers who need them. More important, Congress employs these same data in considering and implementing farm legislation. Major resource allocations to the counties and states are made on the basis of the information gathered in the agricultural census. Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers and Agricultural Census ParticipationHispanics/Latinos--mainly Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants--are the largest group of ethnic-minority farmers in the country. By far, they outnumber other immigrant groups, such as Cambodians and Ethiopians, who are also becoming farmers in unprecedented numbers. One of the largest concentrations of Hispanic/Latino farmers is found in the Southwest, but their numbers are also increasing outside of this region. In the Midwest and South, for example, Mexican immigrants--many of them ex-peasants and farm workers--are replacing aging White and African American producers whose children are not staying on the family farm but moving on and pursuing non-farm careers. Our USDA-funded project, "Farmwork Transition to Farm Ownership" (grant number 00 68-3A75-9-41), provides insights on the reasons for a possible undercount of Hispanic/Latino farmers in the agricultural census (Garcia & Marinez, 2002). We sought to find out whether Hispanic/Latino farmers in Van Buren County, Michigan, were using USDA programs. Working through local contacts and social networks, we found all of the Hispanic/Latino farmers in the county (the majority of who were of Mexican-origin). Thirty-one out of the 33 were interviewed using an open-ended interview guide. Additionally, Extension agents and staff of the Migrant/Bilingual Education Program of the Van Buren Intermediate School District proved to be a source of valuable information regarding Hispanic/Latino farmers in the area. Our final report, which includes a detailed discussion of our field methods and findings, is posted on Michigan State University's Extension Web page at <web1.msue.msu.edu/home/ifo_resource.htm>. Possible Participation BarriersDespite their eligibility, we found that the Mexican immigrant farmers, particularly recent arrivals, do not participate in USDA and Extension programs. In fact, the majority had little or no contact with local Extensions. Based on these findings, we suspect that the immigrants, particularly the newcomers, are not participating in the agricultural censuses. We believe the following to be barriers to their participation:
Some of these possible barriers are similar to those identified by the Census Bureau in its decennial censuses. Census studies (e.g., Brownrigg & Martin, 1992; Garcia, 1992; 1995) specifically designed to determine the causes of census undercounts among minority populations found that limited or no knowledge of the census, language and illiteracy problems, fear and apprehension of government agencies, and immigration status keep Hispanics/Latinos and other minority groups from participating in census enumerations and contributes to their undercount. A Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative EnumerationTo assess the participation of Hispanic/Latino farmers and, more important, to improve their inclusion in future agricultural censuses, an alternative enumeration is needed. This enumeration--a Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative Enumeration--should have two basic objectives:
Ideally, it should be conducted as soon as possible after Agricultural Census 2002 in order to capture all Hispanic/Latino farmers who were farming during the enumeration and target farm operators as defined in the census, i.e., persons who run the farm, making the day-to-day decisions, and produce $1,000 or more in agricultural products (crops and livestock) on the farm, which are sold or normally would have been sold during the year under consideration (NASS, 2002b). A delay in implementing the alternative enumeration may miss farmers who were farming in 2002 but have quit the business altogether or moved on to another region. The Census Bureau's Alternative EnumerationThe alternative enumeration should be modeled after the Ethnographic Evaluation of the Behavioral Causes of Undercount Project, successfully carried out by the US Census Bureau during the 1990 decennial census. The objective of that project was two-fold:
In all, 24 sites nationwide--representing different ethnic minority populations--were selected for the project. The sites were entire census tracts within cities or rural areas, or parts of tracts if they covered an extensive geographical area. Anthropologists, who had conducted ethnographic or qualitative research at the sites and were well familiar with the local residents, were selected as researchers. Concurrently or immediately after Census 1990, they gathered information on the size (i.e., number of members) and the composition (i.e., the relationship of the members) of all the households living in both conventional and non-conventional housing. Traditional ethnographic methods, such as participant observation and informal interviews, were used to gather the data. Garcia, one of the authors of this article, was a researcher in this project (Garcia, 1992), and he has also participated in other census studies designed to locate and enumerate Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants and migrants (Garcia, 1995; 2001). The household data gathered in the alternative enumeration--names, ages, and the relationship of the household members--were compared with similar information recorded in census forms. The researchers were provided with printouts of the information on record for each household. If a household was missed altogether in either the alternative enumeration or the official census, the researcher was required to find out why this occurred. Additionally, any discrepancies in the household information gathered in either of the censuses, such as omitted household members or an inconsistency in the relationships of the household members, were to be explained. For detailed information about the Census Bureau's alternative enumeration project see Brownrigg and Martin (1992). Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative Enumeration and Agricultural Census 2002Similar to the Census Bureau's 1990 alternative enumeration, a Hispanic/Latino farmer alternative enumeration should be carried out nationwide after Agricultural Census 2002. However, given current financial constraints, a more modest undertaking may be more realistic. Instead, three or four sites in different parts of the country should be selected for pilot alternative enumeration. Care should be taken to include regions with an increasing number of new immigrant farmers, given that they are the largest group of new Hispanic/Latino farmers. Culture-sensitive measures should be employed in locating and contacting Hispanic/Latino farmers in the selected alternative enumeration sites. Flyers and other mailings to get the word out do not work. Direct contact as opposed to indirect means should be used. Face-to-face relations are important in the culture of Hispanic/Latino farmers, particularly among the immigrants. The researchers or alternative enumerators should contact the farmers in person--visiting them in their homes or on their farms--and map their social networks. These networks in turn should be enlisted to get the word out about the alternative enumeration and to convince as many immigrant farmers as possible to participate in this worthwhile project. Information that will allow the researcher to identify a Hispanic/Latino farmer in an agricultural census form should be gathered in the alternative enumeration. Essential information for this task is:
This basic information will allow the researcher to identify a Hispanic/Latino farmer and to see if he or she participated in Agricultural Census 2002. As with the Census Bureau's alternative enumeration, omissions of farmers and discrepancies in the information gathered in both the alternative enumeration and the agricultural census should be noted and explained. The explanations are essential if we are to develop strategies for getting immigrants to participate in future agricultural censuses. There may be USDA and farmer concerns about non-USDA researchers viewing non-aggregated data from agricultural census forms. The possible breach of confidentiality and privacy will worry some farmers. There were similar concerns in the Census Bureau, but, with proper safe guards in place (e.g., keeping Census information under lock and key or traveling to Suitland, Maryland, to view files in the Census Bureau's facilities), the researchers of the alternative enumeration project were granted permission to view unpublished census data. They were hired as Census Bureau consultants and required to take an oath (similar to one taken by all federal employees) and obligated to refrain from discussing confidential Census information with anyone outside of the project. ConclusionsHispanic/Latino immigrants are entering farming in unprecedented numbers. Many are not familiar with the agricultural census and its mission. This lack of knowledge, together with limited or no contact with USDA, keeps many from being included in the census. How many are not participating? We just do not know. What is certain is that the omission of Hispanic/Latino farmers keeps NASS from coming up with an inaccurate profile of this growing farmer population, and in turn, a skewed profile prevents USDA from developing programs that serve these farmers. It also keeps Agricultural Extension from adequately advocating for and serving the needs of Hispanic/Latino immigrant farmers. There is growing evidence that these immigrant farmers can benefit from USDA and its many agencies. Many of them are becoming indebted financially as they use their credit cards or high interest rate loans to farm and, in the worst of cases, falling into bankruptcy and losing their farms and homes. This problem and others identified in our study can be addressed effectively through USDA programs, but first we must know their actual numbers and needs. We strongly believe that new programs are not needed, at least, not until Hispanic/Latino farmers start to use existing USDA programs and we learn if they are beneficial. Following the lead of the Census Bureau, we need to assess to what degree there is an undercount of minorities, particularly immigrants, in the agricultural census. In the last two decennial censuses, the Census Bureau has addressed this shortcoming by developing campaigns and strategies to get the word out to ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other hard-to-reach populations. USDA needs to take similar action. It needs to assess the omission of minorities and immigrants in the agricultural census and determine the causes behind this problem. With this information, USDA and Extension will be able to develop strategies for including as many of them as possible in agricultural censuses. The census data on Hispanics/Latinos in turn will allow them to develop a more accurate profile that will serve to develop and implement needed programs. ReferencesBrownrigg, L. A & Martin, E. A. (1992, April). Proposed study plan for the ethnographic evaluation of the behavioral causes of undercount, Paper prepared for the Census Advisory Committee on Population Statistics at the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. Garcia, V. (1992). Results from an alternative enumeration in a Mexican and Mexican American farm worker community in California: Ethnographic evaluation of the behavioral causes of undercount. Final coverage report for Joint Statistical Agreement 89-29. Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Garcia, V. (1995). Finding and enumerating migrants in Mexican enclaves of the U.S. Northeast: The case of Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. Report, Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Garcia, V. (2001). Generation X? Exploring civic engagement, government views, and census participation among Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants in Dallas, Texas. Report for Generation X Speaks Out on Causes, Surveys, and Civic Engagement project, Center for Survey Methods Research, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Garcia, V. & Marinez, J. (2002). Farmworkers transition to farm ownership: Lessons from Mexican origin farmers in Southwestern Michigan. Final Report, Office of Outreach, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. National Agricultural Statistical Service (2002a). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 11, 2003 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/preliminary/census-faq.html. National Agricultural Statistical Service (2002b). Report forms & instruction sheets. Retrieved September 11, 2003 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/reportforms/reportformsindex/html. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2000). Quick facts. Characteristics of Hispanic farm operators. National Agricultural Statistics Service and Secretary's Hispanic Advisory Council.
Validating Institutional Commitment to Outreach at Land-Grant Universities: Listening to the Voices of Community PartnersDavid J. Weerts IntroductionThe need for public understanding and awareness of the value of university Extension and outreach is at an all-time high. During the past decade, a confluence of factors has created the "perfect storm" that has threatened the future of public support for outreach and Extension. Ominous clouds began rolling in when the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Colleges declared in 1996 that the public perception of higher education institutions is that they are "arrogant, out-of-touch, and unresponsive to the needs of society" (NASULGC, 1996). Darkening the skies have been other stinging critiques of the modern land-grant institution suggesting that university outreach and public service "is poorly focused and not well internalized in the value system of the modern university," (Bonnen, 1998). These stormy images have only been compounded by the struggling economy, which has placed intense pressure on state and county governments and has led policymakers to question whether Extension and outreach services should be supported by public money or by user fees (Kalambokidis, 2004). Consequently, many institutions have considered new ways to cut costs or generate revenues in their Extension programs, as federal money appropriated for university Extension programs has remained flat (Hebel, 2002). To weather the storm, national groups such as the National Association for State Universities and Land Grant College (NASULGC) Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) have convened to broaden traditional Extension programs with the aim of promoting university-wide engagement and more deeply connecting with community partners (NASULGC, 2002). A renewed emphasis on building community partnerships is gaining ground as evidenced by ECOP's call for "engagement with communities and organizations through open, flexible and expanded partnerships that share resources, respond to needs and expectations, and recognize and honor contributions," (NASULGC, 2002). A central concern to community engagement, however, is the issue of effectively measuring how institutions are succeeding in their efforts to build mutually beneficial relationships with community partners. Often, the voices of community partners are left out of this evaluation process and neglected when considering policies and strategies to foster institutional engagement. This issue is the primary focus of this article. Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of the study reported here is to examine community perspectives on community-university engagement, specifically how community members form their opinions about whether an institution is committed to public engagement. This study addresses one research question: How do community partners validate whether universities are committed to outreach and engagement? In this article, the word "community" refers to geographical regions within states linked by common experiences and concerns (Anderson & Jayakumar, 2002). Methods/ProceduresThe research question in this study is addressed through a multi-case study of three land-grant universities that have historically been active leaders in outreach: the University of Illinois at Urbana/ Champaign (UIUC), the University of Georgia (UGA), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW). Fifty interviews were conducted with campus and community leaders involved in Extension and outreach in the above states. For the purposes of answering the research question proposed this article, interview data will be limited to those representing community perspectives. Sampling and Coding StrategyA referral type sampling method, called snowball sampling (Bogdan & Bicklen, 1992), was used in this study to select community engagement sites and guide data collection throughout the study. This technique calls for identifying a first round of interviewees who are then asked to recommend others to be interviewed, and so on. Following this sequence, the campus provost and chief outreach officers overseeing outreach programs at the three institutions were interviewed to shed light on two outreach efforts underway on their campus that were typical of their institution's commitment to engagement. These administrators then provided names of the appropriate leaders of these programs to interview, who in turn provided names of community leaders to interview about these partnerships. The coding measures used in this study were also guided by the work of Bogdan and Bicklen (1992). First, I searched through my initial data for regularities, patterns, and general topics my data cover. Second, I recorded words and phrases to represent these topics and patterns. Third, I recorded these phrases or codes as they emerged during my data collection. Finally, I created indicators to match related data in my field notes. The coded areas represented the main themes or factors learned in the study and appear as headings for the findings section of this article. I collected interview data until I reached saturation, the point where the information one receives becomes redundant (Bogdan & Bicklen,1992). Interview protocol stemmed from the study's conceptual framework and is provided in Appendix A. Engagement Initiatives StudiedOf the six partnerships studied, data from three community partnerships will be discussed in this article: UW Villager Mall project, Clarke County School District--UGA--Athens Clarke County (ACC) Partnership, and the Office for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (MSTE) at UIUC. First, UGA's 5-year partnership with Athens-Clarke County schools was developed in 2001 to establish at-risk schools as community learning centers "where leadership, resources, and accountability are shared among all the partners, parents, and most importantly, students," (Collaborating for Success, 2001). A wide range of school administrators, community partners, and UGA faculty, staff, and students collaborate in problem solving through action teams that address curriculum, community and parent involvement, educator preparation, and other components of education. Second, in Madison, Wisconsin, the UW joined a group of neighborhood associations called the "South Metropolitan Planning Council" (SMPC) to improve quality of life on South Park Street, an area of the city troubled by significant urban problems related to lack of affordable housing and persistent poverty. In 1998, the UW made a 5-year commitment to lease space in the Park Street Villager Mall to play a role in training the community, providing expertise and resources to build capacity in neighborhoods, and mobilizing community teams to work on key issues such as housing and transportation. The initiative involves a large group of community partners and UW faculty, staff, and students. Third, the University of Illinois' MSTE program was established in 1993 to support technology-based teaching and learning at the K-16 level. Over a 10-year period, the MSTE program has evolved into "a set of communities and networks of practice that use advanced technologies to further education reform, particularly in mathematics, science and technology education" (Reese, 2002). Innovative Web-based modules provide standards-based, technology-intensive math and science instruction for students, teachers, and faculty at all levels. The MSTE Web site receives over 100,000 hits per month to access its programs. The program is guided by an advisory board consisting of UIUC faculty, staff, and K-16 teachers and administrators who assist in program design. Factors Affecting Institutional Commitment to Outreach and EngagementBefore the findings of the study can be presented, it is important to outline the conceptual framework that guides this analysis. The literature suggests that a number of factors are important to explaining institutional commitment to outreach and that the true test of understanding campus commitment to public service is to investigate the organizational attributes of the university that characterize its outreach activities (Holland, 1997). A review of literature suggests that five factors affect institutional commitment to outreach, and this study tests whether these factors are useful for understanding how community partners form their opinion about institutional commitment to outreach.
Findings and Discussion: How Community Partners Form Their Opinions About Institutional Commitment to Outreach and EngagementThe data suggests that community partners validate institutional commitment to engagement by monitoring three important domains: the extent to which campus executives are visible and active in their support for community-university partnerships, the degree to which faculty and staff are "ready" to work with community partners, and the extent to which organizational structures housing outreach and engagement are welcoming and accessible to community members. Monitoring Signals from Campus LeadersCommunity perceptions about institutional commitment to outreach and engagement--positive or negative--were greatly informed by the rhetoric and behaviors of top executives at each of the institutions. In the positive cases, community confidence in campus commitment to engagement was bolstered by high profile leaders who delivered public messages about opening an office, starting a new program, or rewarding engagement activity. Community members looked to newspapers and public proclamations that declared the importance of the initiative and provided proof that it was part of an overall strategy to better connect with outside constituencies. Evidence of commitment was often seen through the convening of events or public announcements. For example, one community partner in Madison observed, "There is a sense among us that commitment to this project runs deep. The Chancellor's Office has highlighted this initiative in a special event and the university can use this initiative to its credit." Similarly, at the UGA, a formal announcement by the dean of the School of Education with the local superintendent generated public attention about the newly formed university-school partnership and helped to legitimize this activity among community partners involved with the initiative. However, community leaders who are heavily involved with these programs looked beyond public relations and more carefully monitored the actual behavior of these leaders. Throughout the case studies, astute community partners were keenly aware of the pressure faced by faculty and the institutions to stay focused on traditional research. Community partners looked to the top ranks of the institution to get a sense of whether a long-term commitment to engagement was "for real" and whether these leaders played an active role in supporting faculty and staff who participated in this work. For example, in one case, community partners noticed that institutional leaders were applying pressure to transform an outreach program into a traditional research-oriented venture. This action raised questions among community partners about the validity of the community-based mission of the program and the "real" intentions of the institution. More generally, community leaders observed whether campus leaders had an impact in changing institutional culture to be more community focused. One community member in Georgia summarized this point, "It took the Deans level leadership to change the culture--the feeling that they [faculty] were doing service work despite their real duties of research." Community members throughout the initiatives wondered about the effect that leadership turnover would have on these partnerships. Attention to Faculty Attitudes and BehaviorsCommunity partners form their opinion about the institutional commitment to engagement by examining whether faculty and staff have the appropriate attitudes, training, and social skills to work effectively with community partners. Throughout the case studies, there was evidence that faculty and staff can, at times, be either the best evidence of institutional commitment to outreach and engagement or the most damning evidence against it. The cases of successful faculty and staff involvement with the community were primarily evident at the level of providing expertise and service to the community on a particular project, such as housing, transportation, or educational issues. As the ACC-UGA example demonstrated, faculty and staff made trips to the school and offered expertise and personal support in a way that "inspired success," as one community partner put it. Others alluded to the strong personal relationships that some faculty members have built with the community over time and how this affects the perception of the institution's commitment to engagement. As one community partner involved with the MSTE program pointed out,
However, the most obvious barriers to successful engagement in these case studies are centered in the governance of these partnerships and how skilled faculty and staff were in working with community partners to set up the partnerships. It was clear that power issues are continually negotiated throughout the formation of the partnerships and that trust may wax and wane during its formation. Evidence of conflict arose in two of the three partnerships related to the attitude of some faculty. Said one frustrated community member,
Similarly, use of language was important as some community partners smirked that the university typically lists "university" first when describing "university-community" partnerships, asserting that the institution often puts its agenda ahead of the community's agenda. In sum, community partners were not just concerned about the availability of faculty and staff to work on community-based issues, but rather how effective they were in relating to people who were unlike themselves. The behavior of campus faculty and staff toward community partners sent a strong signal about whether the institution is serious about outreach and engagement, and more important, whether the campus is ready to take on this endeavor. Breaking Through the Ivory TowerThe complexity and size of the land-grant institutions also affected community perceptions about institutional commitment to outreach and engagement. In this study, community partners were skeptical about the ability of the campuses to effectively engage community partners due to the existence of impenetrable structures that impede access to the university. Many of the community partners interviewed bemoaned the fact that institutions were very hard to tap into without having a contact on the inside. One community respondent summarized, "It is hard to get to know a place as complex as the UW. We often don't know what is available on campus to even ask for help." Said another who expressed frustration with the organizational structure of the decentralized nature of campus, "I felt like I was sent through this maze to the point that I almost lost interest [in participating in the program]. It is overwhelming in size and we didn't know who to talk to first." On the other hand, community partners in Georgia and Illinois noted the importance of a highly visible office that helped forge connections between community members and the institution. In Illinois, for example, community participation in UIUC programs was enhanced through the formal creation of the Partnership Illinois program facilitated by the Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement. One community member said, "We tried for two years for UIUC people to work with us and nobody would even talk to us. Our opportunities expanded when the Vice Chancellor [for Public Engagement] got involved." Despite these successes, a central challenge to engagement is that outreach activities are happening far beyond the boundaries of a central administrative unit, even within the most centralized outreach structures. Consequently, the complex web of outreach and engagement programs makes it difficult to understand the breadth and depth of these activities, even at the highest levels of leadership. However, the three partnerships had success when community partners were given access to steering committees and other governing opportunities that engaged outside constituencies in policymaking. These opportunities were shown to be important organizational structures that signaled institutional commitment to engagement and sent a message to community partners that their input was important. Conclusions and Implications: Validating Institutional Commitment to EngagementThe conceptual framework outlined in this study pointed to five factors that are known to influence institutional commitment to outreach and engagement. Within this framework, this study suggests that community partners validate campus commitment to engagement through three primary domains: leadership, institutional culture, and organizational structure. First, a key finding of this study is that leadership is not only important to supporting engagement at the campus level, but is also an important signaling mechanism to community partners about the degree to which a campus is committed to community issues. In other words, the study suggests that symbolic actions by university leaders are important to community partners' validation that outreach and engagement are a campus priority. Second, the study suggests that one must go beyond observing the symbolic actions of campus leaders to explore the actual "substance" of engagement at the ground level. In other words, community partners must observe that symbolic commitment to engagement is actually transformed into action. This is evident when a faculty/staff culture has emerged that respects the participation of community partners. For example, community partners form opinions about campus commitment to engagement by asking questions such as: Do faculty and staff respect community members? Do they care about solving problems versus protecting their own method of doing things? Are they willing to listen to us? Third, it is evident that leadership and culture change among faculty must be accompanied by welcoming organizational structures that facilitate entry into the institution and help provide a voice for community decision making on community-based problems. This issue was a challenge at each of the institutions in the study due to the size and complexity of the campuses. However, community partners noted that the establishment of these structures was not only a symbol of commitment, but spurred facilitation of a shared community-university agenda. Open structures promote access to the institution and allow for community voices to influence decision making on community-based problems. As a whole, this study suggests that community partners are mostly concerned about the cultural change that underlies shifts in campus policies and structures to facilitate engagement. This is an important point because much of the literature on benchmarking engagement focuses on promotion and tenure, and organizational issues that enable faculty and staff to take on leadership roles in outreach and engagement (Holland, 1997). An implication of this study is that policy and structural changes must be accompanied by a cultural "readiness" toward engagement. In other words, university partners must reshape their own thinking about what it means to be an engaged institution and prepare themselves to act in new ways that reflects this thinking. A cultural shift toward engagement could be institutionalized through campus training on community-based work or an academy or institute that prepares faculty and staff to take on outreach and engagement. Table 1 summarizes the study's findings and implications, and provides practical recommendations for incorporating the voices of community partners into policy decisions.
ReferencesAnderson, J. L. & Jayakumar, U. M. (2002). An intergenerational research symposium on higher education for the public good: Areas of research and collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Berry, R. (1972). The Wisconsin idea...Then and now. University Extension: The University of Wisconsin. Bogdan, R. C. & Bicklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The Land Grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In, R. M. Lerner & L. A. Simon (Eds.) University-community collaborations for the 21st century: Outreach to scholarship for youth and families. New York: Garland Press. Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 71(3) 273-290. Corrigan, D. (2000). The changing role of schools and higher education institutions with respect to community–based interagency collaboration and interprofessional partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 75 (3) pp 176-195. Dickson A., Gallacher J., Longden, B. & Bartlett, P. (1985). Higher education and the community. Higher Education Review. 17, (3) 49-58. Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30-41. Hebel, S. (2002). Land Grant Colleges consider cuts or new fees for Extension efforts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 48, (21) A22. Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.shtml Lynton, E. A. & Elman, S. E. (1987). New priorities for the university. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco. Mankin, L, (2000). Gearing up for community service: Overcoming informational barriers. Journal of Public Service and Outreach. 5, (1) 45-49. Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities: New York, NY: Routledge. National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), January 30, 1996 Press Release: New commission to bring reform to state and Land-Grant universities funded by Kellogg Foundation. Washington, D.C. National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), (2002). The Extension system: A vision for the 21st century. Report of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Reese, G. C. (2002) Technology-enhanced education reform: An historical analysis of a learning system--the evolution of the Office for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education at the Universit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||