April 2006
Volume 44 Number 2

Features

The Impact of Microenterprise Development Training on Low-Income Clients

Michele Cranwell Schmidt
Evaluation Coordinator
Center for Rural Studies
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
michele.schmidt@uvm.edu

Jane M. Kolodinsky
Co-Director and Chair
Center for Rural Studies
Department of Community Development and Applied Economics
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
jkolodin@uvm.edu

Carol Flint
Program Coordinator
Micro Business Development Program
Central Vermont Community Action Council, Inc.
Barre, Vermont
cflint@cvcac.org

Bruce Whitney
Statewide Facilitator (former)
Micro Business Development Program
Vermont Community Action Agency
Putney, Vermont
bwhitney@vermontel.net

Introduction

Microenterprise development (MED) programs that serve lower income individuals have grown over the past 16 years from a few to 650 programs throughout the United States (Severens & Kays, 2002). MED programs serve the 10.3 million self-employed workers in the United States economy, with 70% reporting that more than half of their clients are low-income, defined as below 80% of Housing and Urban Development median income (Hipple, 2004). In 2002, 20.1% of all employment in rural America came from the microenterprise sector. From 2000-2002, employment in this sector grew by 3.5% compared to private sector employment that decreased by .7% (Sanders, 2003).

The MED movement has grown in response to unemployment and poverty in the United States (Clark & Huston, 1993; Clark & Kays, 1999; Dabson, 2002; Henderson, 2002). Research on MED training programs shows that MED impacts client's lives and businesses in a variety of ways, including increasing social and human capital and household income, decreasing reliance on public assistance, and generating jobs in the community.

Microenterprise Development in Vermont

Self-employment represented 22% of Vermont's private employment in 2002, which is 2nd highest in the United States (Levy-Benitez, Sanders, & Hansen, 2003). Data from the University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies statewide representative survey showed that 22.7% of respondents were self-employed (Cranwell, 2004). Because self-employment is an important sector to the economy, Vermont offers MED training programs to low- to moderate-income Vermonters through the statewide Micro Business Development Program (MBDP).

The case study reported here examined the impact of MED programs offered by the Vermont MBDP to determine the impact of training and assistance on low-income individuals. The study examined overall MBDP program impacts and the relationship between client demographics and outcomes achieved, with a specific focus on change in reliance on public assistance.

Case Study: The Micro Business Development Program

The Micro Business Development Program (MBDP) is a statewide program of Vermont's five Community Action agencies. The program follows an MED model similar to those in other states (Blair & Klein, 2001; Clark & Kays, 1999; Edgcomb, Klein, & Clark, 1996; Philadelphia Development Partnership, 1999). Through technical assistance, individual counseling, continuous post-start-up support, classroom training, loan packaging services, and referrals to outside resources, these programs educate low- to moderate-income Vermonters on how to start and run a business so they may successfully pursue self-employment. These services provide a foundation for clients to build skills so they may start a business and gain the resources necessary to be a successful entrepreneur (Kolodinsky & Cranwell, 2002; Micro Business Development Program, 2000).

Reasons the Low-Income Seek Self-Employment and MED Services

Research shows that people who seek self employment, specifically the low-income, do so because they need a job, an additional source of income, or are creating jobs for others in their community (Bates & Servon, 2000; Blair & Klein, 2001; Clark & Huston, 1993; Clark & Kays, 1995, 1999; Dabson, 2002; Servon, 1998). Establishing and growing a business in rural America is laden with obstacles and risks such as low population density and geographic isolation, which impede one's access to markets, capital, labor, peers, and infrastructure (Dabson, 2002). MED programs provide low-income persons with access to these and other resources that they might not otherwise have access to from mainstream organizations (Bates & Servon, 2000; Clark & Huston, 1993; Clark & Kays, 1995, 1999; Servon, 1998).

Social and Human Capital Development

Social and human capital models are the essence of the MED philosophy, which recognizes the ability of people to apply their talent, creativity, and hard work to improve their lives and work towards self-sufficiency. These models contribute to long-term economic sustainability rather than traditional models of economic development that focus on external investment in wage employment (Dabson, 2002; Edgcomb et al., 1996). MED training builds social and human capital through an increase in intangible assets, including increased self-esteem and self-worth, positive attitude changes, personal and life skill building, and building community networks and trust (Putnam, 1993a, 1993b; Sherraden, 1991). Once this foundation is built, small business owners are more able to succeed in operating their business (Blair & Klein, 2001; Clark & Huston, 1993; Clark & Kays, 1995, 1999; Dabson, 2002; Edgcomb et al., 1996; Else & Gallagher, 2000; Kolodinsky & Cranwell, 2002; Mount Auburn Associates, 1994; Servon, 1998).

Poverty Alleviation

Research demonstrates that self-employment, either alone or as a supplement to wage income, is a viable option for poverty alleviation and decreasing reliance on public assistance.

• Findings from the Self Employment Learning Program (SELP), a study of 405 low- to moderate-income entrepreneurs from seven programs, showed that after 5 years, 72% of business owners experienced gains in household income, with an average change of $8,484. More than half of low-income entrepreneurs were able to move out of poverty, and 61% no longer received public assistance (Clark & Kays, 1999).

• A similar study of 590 welfare and post-welfare recipients from 10 programs showed that after 2 years of MED training, only 25% reported receiving welfare, compared to 94% at intake, and median household income increased by 87%, from $10,114 to $18,952 (Klein, Alisultanov, & Blair, 2003).

• The Self-Employment Investment Demonstration (SEID) program's evaluation showed 52% of clients no longer received welfare and 43% no longer received Food Stamps after starting their businesses (Raheim & Alter, 1995).

• A Department of Labor study reported that Massachusetts MED participants earned substantially less unemployment benefits ($876) and paid substantially more taxes ($2,229) than the control group after starting their business (Benus, Johnson, Wood, Grover, & Shen, 1994).

Community Impact

MED programs also have substantial impact on communities, especially in rural areas. These businesses allow community members to shop locally, which increases the marketability of other local businesses (Else & Gallagher, 2000). Locally owned businesses return a larger share of revenue back into the local economy, support other local businesses through the purchase of goods and services, and maintain a larger local payroll (Mitchell, 2003).

MED programs also create jobs in their communities. Else and Gallagher (2000) reported that three low-income targeted MED programs created over 2,500 jobs, for an average of .5 jobs for every new venture started. The SELP study found that 34% of MED participants employed people in addition to themselves (Clark & Kays, 1995). A study in Iowa demonstrated that 49% of clients created 225 businesses and an additional 70 jobs, 31 of which were filled by low-income individuals (Raheim & Friedman, 1999). Data for Vermont shows that for every one microenteprise business, 1.7 jobs are created (Levy-Benitez et al., 2003).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of MED training on low-income clients after at least 1 year of training. Impacts examined included:

1. Program outputs of capital accessed, positive attitude gained, and overall satisfaction with services;

2. Personal and business outcomes of business start-up and growth, business sales, change in income, other job creation, and change in reliance on public assistance and unemployment; and

3. Variables that are associated with a client's decreased reliance on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and unemployment as sources of income.

Figure 1 shows the MED program theory used by MBDP (MBDP, 2000).

Figure 1.
Micro Business Development Program Theory (MBDP, 2000)

Methods and Measures

In March 2003, the Center for Rural Studies (CRS) at the University of Vermont (UVM) conducted telephone interviews of MBDP clients who had received at least 10 hours of services between 2001 and 2002 or clients who had started a business. A total of 452 people (76%) had a working phone number, and 140 surveys were completed, for a response rate of 31%. Research shows that a lower response rate is common when surveying lower income persons because of the transient nature of the population (Clark & Kays, 1999; Klein et al., 2003; Servon, 1998). Reasons why clients did not complete the survey included:

• The person did not answer the telephone (58%);
• The number was not in service or the person was no longer at the number provided (31%); and
• The person refused to complete the survey (11%).

MBDP clients were initially contacted by letter 1 week prior to surveying, informing them of the survey purpose and estimated duration, that their participation was optional and would not impact their services, and that responses would be kept confidential. Trained interviewers conducted the survey using computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI), and up to 10 attempts were made for each client.

This study used a reflexive control design that compared participant outcomes after training to the baseline collected at client intake (Clark & Kays, 1995, 1999; Cranwell & Kolodinsky, 2003; Klein et al., 2003; Rugg, 2002). Participants were interviewed on business development, job creation, income changes, attitude change, satisfaction, and feedback. The instrument was developed in collaboration with the MBDP Statewide Facilitator using the models of previous surveys conducted by CRS (Cranwell & Kolodinsky, 2003) and other researchers (Clark & Kays, 1999; Klein et al., 2003).

Frequencies were calculated for all variables. Cross tabulation and McNemar analyses were conducted to determine if a significant change occurred in reliance on TANF and unemployment. Cross tabulation and chi square tests were run to determine the relationship between demographic, program output, and outcome variables change in public assistance. T-tests were conducted to determine change in client income from pre to post and to test the relationship of outcome variables with change in public assistance. Analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 12.0.

Results

Participant Characteristics

The demographic profile of participants who participated in the study parallels that of similar studies, with the exception of race (Blair & Klein, 2001; Clark & Kays, 1995, 1999; Philadelphia Development Partnership, 1999; Rugg, 2002). The U.S. Census of Population and Housing (2000) reports that 98% of Vermonters are white, thus the racial profile of MBDP clients resembles that of Vermont. In contrast, most related studies of MED were conducted in areas with higher minority representation. Client demographics include the following.

• Gender: 71% (96) were female; 29% (40) were male.

• Race: 98% (130) self-identified as Caucasian; 2% (3) identified themselves of an ethnic background.

• Age: Age ranged from 20 to 75 with an average of 43 years.

• Family size: Average was 2.5, with a range from 1 to 9, and 30% (27) of those with children were single parents.

• Education: 47% (63) reported having a high school degree or GED equivalent or less education; 53% (72) had from 1 to 4 years of higher education.

• Previous business experience: 32% (44) had prior business experience; 68% (94) had no prior experience running a business.

The following were social-economic statistics of clients at intake.

• Public assistance: 35% (48) received Food Stamps; 34% (46) received disability income; and 19% (26) received TANF.

• Employment status: 24% (32) were employed; 27% (37) self-employed; 24% (39) unemployed; and 24% (33) were not in the labor force (n=135).

• Income: 50% (69) were at or below 100% poverty level, and 90% (123) were at or below 70% HUD median income. Over three-quarters of the respondents reported their income at intake to be $15,000.00 or less.

Services Received

Table 1 presents the services used and completion rate for the courses. Respondents completed between one and five classes, with an average of two (n = 100). The total number of services received (including completed classes only) ranged from 1 to 9 services, with an average of 2.5 (n = 138).

Program Outputs Achieved

Table 2 shows client program outputs achieved, including the number of sources of capital accessed, positive attitude gains, and overall satisfaction with services. Research indicates that these outputs are often necessary stepping-stones to achieve longer term personal and business outcomes (Cranwell & Kolodinsky, 2002; Servon, 1998; Sherraden, 1991). Clients accessed between zero and eight sources of capital, with an average of two. The number of positive attitude changes clients reported ranged from zero and eight, with an average of four. Satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being very dissatisfied and 10 being very satisfied with services. Client satisfaction ratings ranged from 0 to 10, with an average of 7.8, indicating overall high satisfaction with services.

Personal and Business Outcomes Achieved

Clients also achieved personal and business outcomes, including business start-up and growth, business sales, change in income, other job creation, and change in reliance on TANF and unemployment income.

Business Start-up, Growth, and Sales

More than half of clients (52%, 73) reported having an established business at the time of the survey. Of the 73 clients, 56% established their business while working with MBDP, and 44% had a business at intake. Overall, 64% reported achieving business growth through MBDP (n=128) as defined by self-reported movement along a continuum of business stages from planning to expanded. Client business sales in 2002 or the last year the business was open ranged from $75-$475,000 and averaged $36,000, with a median of $6,000 (n=51).

Change in Annual Household Income

Change in client income was calculated by subtracting annual household income reported at the time of the survey from their income at intake. This time frame ranged from 1 to 5 years, with an average of 2 years in the MED. Numbers are presented in actual dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. Change in annual household income ranged from $-29,000 to $64,000, with an average of $4,700, median of $3,400, and mode of $12,000 (n=116). Gains in annual household income ranged from $72 to $64,000, with an average of $11,800, median of $8,600 and mode of $12,000 (n=73). Loss in income ranged from $-12 to –29,000, with an average of $-7,500 and median of $-4,800 (n=43).

A paired sample t-test showed a statistically significant increase from annual household income at program intake to 2003 (t = 3.16; p<. 01). Overall, 25% of clients (35) reported an increase in their annual household income because of their business.

Other Job Creation

A quarter of clients surveyed (25%, 18) reported that their business created employment other than their own job. Number of jobs created ranged from one to 25 jobs, with an average of five jobs. Overall, 80 jobs were created by MBDP clients. Fifty-four were part time, paying an average of $9.00/hour, and 26 were full time, paying an average of $23.75/hour.

Change in Reliance on TANF and Unemployment

Figure 2 shows that respondents reported a decrease in reliance on public assistance and an increase in reliance on self-employment and employment income since their start with MBDP. A cross tabulation and McNemar test showed that reliance on these services had significantly changed from intake to the time of the survey. Table 3 shows that, of the 25 clients who received TANF benefits at intake, 72% (18) reported no longer receiving them at the time of the survey (p<.01). Of the 33 clients who reported receiving unemployment benefits at intake, 97% (32) reported no longer receiving these benefits at the time of the survey (p<.01).

Figure 2.
Change in Client Income Sources from Intake to Survey

Demographic Variables and TANF and Unemployment Changes

Cross tabulation and chi square tests were run for dichotomous participant demographic variables to determine if there was a significant relationship between these variables and change in TANF and unemployment reliance (Table 4). Clients with a two-parent family (8, 100%) were more likely to no longer receive TANF compared to single parents (10, 59%) (x²=4.575, p<.05). Further, clients who entered the program with a business (5, 83%) were more likely to no longer receive TANF, compared to clients who started their business after intake (2, 33%) (x²=3.086, p<.05). All other variables did not show significance.

Thus, the majority of clients were no longer reliant on TANF at the time of the survey regardless of age, educational status, reported increase in annual household income, business growth, or created other employment. No significant relationships were found for the demographic variables and unemployment.

Output and Outcome Variables and TANF and Unemployment Changes

Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the averages of continuous variables with change in reliance on TANF and unemployment (Table 5). Only two variables showed significance. More clients who reported a greater loss in annual household income (average $–5,600) reported no longer receiving TANF compared to those who experienced a more mild loss of annual household income ($-768). Further, clients who reported higher average business sales ($22,900) reported no longer receiving TANF compared to those who earned a lower average of $2,300.

Regardless of number of services received and completed, number of sources of capital, positive attitude gains, satisfaction, months with MBDP, annual household income change, positive income change, and the number of jobs created, clients were no longer reliant on TANF at the time of the survey. Regardless of all variables tested, clients were no longer reliant on unemployment at the time of the survey.

Conclusions

The findings of the study show that MED training programs lead to varying degrees of success, ranging from personal growth and positive attitude changes to business growth, sales, and income gains. Many clients also were able to hire other employees and pay them an hourly wage that is higher than the minimum wage in Vermont of $7.25 per hour worked (Vermont Statutes, 2006).

Further, most clients surveyed reported no longer being reliant on TANF and unemployment benefits after completing MED training. Those from a two-parent family and who started the program with an established business were significantly more likely to no longer receive TANF compared to single parents and those with no business experience at intake. This may be due to the fact that most businesses take three years to break even and start earning a profit, whereas most clients surveyed had worked with MBDP for only two years. Thus, those who started the program with a business would most likely have passed this point to earn a profit. Being no longer reliant on TANF was also significantly related to those who reported a greater loss in annual household income, which is possibly due to an increase in business assets, and higher average business sales.

The findings of the study support similar research that MED programs contribute to rural economic sustainability and development through the establishment and support of microenterprises and their employees. The results also correspond with literature that MED services are a viable option for assisting low- to moderate-income individuals to achieve personal growth, self-employment, and self-reliance towards poverty alleviation.

Extension specialists and social service agencies should promote the development of microenterprises, especially in rural communities, to provide either supplemental or primary income. Rural development councils will want to take note of these findings and incorporate them into their economic development plans and programs.

Microenterprises contribute to local economic development and sustainability by providing good-paying employment opportunities in rural and impoverished areas. Although some clients may be more successful in these programs because of certain characteristics and experience, all clients have the opportunity to achieve success through training and program support. Services should continue to be offered to low- to moderate-income Vermonters and those throughout the United States to assist them to become self-employed, achieve personal gains such as skills and knowledge, and work toward economic self-sufficiency.

References

Bates, T., & Servon, L. (2000). Viewing self-employment as a response to lack of suitable opportunities for wage work. National Journal of Sociology, 12, 23-55.

Benus, J. M., Johnson, M., Wood, N., Grover, & Shen, T. (1994). Self-employment programs: A new reemployment strategy. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Labor.

Blair, A., & Klein, J. (2001). Microenterprise as a welfare to work strategy: Client characteristics. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Clark, P., & Huston, T. (1993). Assisting the smallest businesses: Assessing microenterprise development as a strategy for boosting poor communities. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Clark, P. & Kays, A. (1995). Enabling Entrepreneurship: Microenterprise development in the United States. Baseline year report of the Self-Employment Learning Project. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Clark, P., & Kays, A. (1999). Microenterprise and the poor. Findings from the Self-Employment Learning Project five-year study of microentrepreneurs. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Cranwell, M., & Kolodinsky, J. (2002). The impact of microenterprise development on low-income Vermonters: Building social and human capital to work towards economic self-sufficiency. Consumer Interests Annual, 48. Available at: http://www.consumerinterests.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageid=3644

Cranwell, M., & Kolodinsky, J. (2003). Micro Business Development Program of Vermont: Client outcome report. Burlington, VT: The University of Vermont, Center for Rural Studies.

Cranwell, M. (2004). Micro and small business ownership in Vermont: the Vermonter poll 2004. Burlington, VT: The University of Vermont, Center for Rural Studies. Available at: http://crs.uvm.edu/vtrpoll/2004/mbdp04.pdf

Dabson, B. (2002). Entrepreneurship: a new generation of economic development tools. Local Community Economic Development Conference. Springfield, Il: Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs.

Edgcomb, E., Klein, J. & Clark, P. (1996). The practice of m icroenterprise in the U.S. Strategies, costs and effectiveness. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Else, J. F., & Gallgher, J. (2000). An overview of the microenterprise development field in the U.S. Scott County, Iowa: Institute for Social and Economic Development.

Henderson, J. (2002). Will the rural economy rebound with the rest of the nation? Economic Review, 87, 65-83.

Hipple, S. (2004). Self-employment in the United States: An update. Monthly Labor Review, 127, 13-23.

Klein, J., Alisultanov, & Blair, A. (2003). Micro enterprise as a welfare to work strategy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Levy-Benitez, M., Sanders, S., & Hanson, J. (2003). Microenterprise employment statistics in Vermont. Arlington, Virginia: Association for Enterprise Opportunity. Available at: http://www.microenterpriseworks.org/services/policy/mees/index.htm

Micro Business Development Program, Vermont Community Action Agencies. (2000). Assisting low and moderate-income Vermonters to start and operate micro businesses. Available at: http://vtmicrobusiness.org/index.html

Mitchell, S. (2003). Ten reasons why Vermont's homegrown economy matters. Burlington, Vermont: The Preservation Trust of Vermont.

Mount Auburn Associates. (1994). An evaluation of the Working Capital micro enterprise lending program. Manchester, New Hampshire: New Hampshire College, Institute for Cooperative Community Development.

Philadelphia Development Partnership. (1999). Community voices and experiences. A study of microenterprise development in the City of Chester. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Available at: http://www.pdp-inc.org/

Putnam, R. (1993a). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. (1993b). The prosperous community: Social capital and economic growth. American Prospect, Spring, 35-42.

Raheim, S., & Alter, C.F. (1995). Self-employment investment demonstration final evaluation report. Iowa City, University of Iowa.

Raheim, S., & Friedman, J.J. (1999). Self-employment as a self-sufficiency strategy for TANF recipients in Iowa 1993-1998. Journal of Microfinance, 1, 59-83.

Rugg, C. (2002). Improving microenterprise training and technical assistance: Findings for program managers. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute

Sanders, S. (2003). Microenterprise employment statistics rural-urban breakout three-year analysis. Arlington, Virginia: Association for Enterprise Opportunity. Available at: http://www.microenterpriseworks.org/services/policy/mees/

Servon, L. (1998). "Credit and social capital: the community development potential of U.S. microenterprise programs." Housing Policy Debate, 9, 115-149.

Severens, A, & Kays, A. (Eds). (2002). 2002 directory of U.S. micro enterprise programs. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics, State of Vermont [Data file]. Available at: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Vermont Statutes Online. (2006). Title 21: Labor, chapter 5: employment practices, — 384. Prohibition of employment. Available at: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=21&Chapter=005

African Americans' Views on Access to Healthy Foods: What a Farmers' Market Provides

Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar
Professor
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
ysuarez@uic.edu

Louise I. Martinez
Research Specialist
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Lmarti5@uic.edu

Ginnefer Cox
Research Assistant, Nutritionist
Loyola University
Chicago, Illinois
ginnefercox@hotmail.com

Anita Jayraj
Research Assistant
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Ajayraj234@aol.com

Introduction

Access to Fresh Produce in Working Class and Low-Income Neighborhoods

Individuals living in low-income communities face many barriers in accessing fresh produce, such as lack of adequate transportation and high fresh food prices. Furthermore, low-income Latino and African-American neighborhoods have a fewer number of supermarkets that are easily accessible to them compared with higher income neighborhoods (Morland, Wing, Diez Roux, & Poole, 2002). According to the above-cited scholars, fruit and vegetable intake increases for each additional supermarket available in one's neighborhood. Individuals in low-income communities find it easier to purchase low-cost, readily available, highly appetizing foods full of fats and sugars over the more high-cost, nutrient dense foods, which often results in unhealthy diets (Lu, Samuels, & Haung, 2002).

What Farmers' Markets Provide

The number of farmers' markets in this country has steadily increased over the last 10 years (1994-2004) (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2002, 2004) as farmers' markets are becoming increasingly popular in urban neighborhoods. This popularity is not restricted to middle and upper class communities, but it also occurs in working class neighborhoods, as consumers opt for fresh fruits and vegetables at reasonable prices. According to previous Extension studies, individuals buy produce from farmers' markets because of the high-quality fresh produce (Abel, Thomson, & Maretzki, 1999; Govindasamy, Italia, & Adelaja, 2002; Brown, 2002). By promoting farmers' markets, Extension has played a critical role in their expansion.

Little research has been conducted to examine the impact of farmers' markets on urban, low-income, minority communities. The study reported here aimed to remedy this through an examination of perspectives on access to healthy foods from African American consumers of an urban farmers' market. This article also provides recommendations for Extension professionals based on the study's findings.

Project Background

With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Chicago Food System Collaborative (CFSC), a consortium of community-based organizations, universities, and technical assistance providers who serve low-income communities, was formed with the purpose of facilitating the creation of food choices for residents in an African-American working class community. One of the projects of the CFSC was to examine the impact of the farmers' market in this community.

At the time that this study was being conducted, Block (2004) introduced the results of a study conducted in this community, reporting that there were more liquor stores than supermarkets available in this area. Block also indicated that the available food in the community was sold, for the most part, at high prices by small stores with a limited selection of poor-quality food with low nutritional content.

Participants and Setting

The community in which the study was conducted had a population of 117, 527 people, and 90% of these residents were African American. The average family size was 3.77, the median household income was $34,000, and 27,852 individuals lived below the poverty level (City of Chicago, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The farmers' market was located in the parking lot of a grammar school in this working class African American community. Five farmers participated throughout the summer.

Methods

Procedure and Instruments

To examine the impact of the farmers' market, researchers used a survey research strategy. The survey measured the benefits, costs, and satisfaction that farmers and consumers experienced through participation in the farmers' market. To examine how prevalent the problem of access to fresh foods was, we also examined the impact of the farmers' market in a nearby comparable community. This project began in the third year of the farmers' market.

The selection of shopper respondents was done by convenience, and as many shoppers as possible were approached. This was facilitated by the fact that, at any given time, there were about a dozen shoppers at the market. The survey was about four pages long, had 25 questions, and took about 10 minutes to complete. As shoppers were ready to leave the market (indicated by a customer holding shopping bags in hand and walking in the direction of either of the two exits), the interviewer approached the shopper, introduced herself, explained the purpose of the survey, and asked for his or her participation in the survey.

To ensure that people did not respond more than twice, the interviewer asked the resident if he or she had already, on a different day, completed the survey. If the resident said "yes," the researchers stated that his or her participation was appreciated and then moved to the next person exiting the market. Additionally, an individual was asked to complete the survey if he or she had never completed the survey before and was willing to participate. It is plausible, then, to assume that a few individuals may have chosen to complete the survey more than once.

The farmers' survey was three pages long, included 19 questions, and took about 6 minutes to complete. Survey questions measured the satisfaction, benefits, revenue, and costs of participating in the farmers' market on a particular day.

Once the surveys were completed, descriptive analysis was conducted. Results from the study were made available to the community through the project's newsletter, Good Food.

The comparison farmers' market was in a nearby African American neighborhood. Shopper surveys were administered, using the same procedure and the same survey as was used at the target farmers' market. A comparison site was chosen to examine the extent of the problem of access to healthy foods.

Results

Shoppers

Participant Characteristics

In the target community, sixty-four respondents completed the consumer interview during the summer farmers' market season. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents were women, and 22% were men. The majority of respondents (58%) were 61 years old or older, 33% were between 41 and 60, and 10% were between 21 and 40 years old. Fifty percent of the respondents came from households with three or more people, 30% were from two-person households, and 20% were from one-person households. Most respondents resided in the target community (61%), 14% were from nearby adjacent areas and 25% were from other areas. Over three-fourths of the respondents used a car, and almost one-fourth walked or used public transportation. Half of the respondents visited the farmers' market once a week, one fifth were first-time visitors, and less than one third visited the market from one to three times a month.

Spending Patterns at the Farmers' Market

Respondents were asked about how much money they spent at the farmers' market on the day that they were interviewed. Seventy-three percent spent less than $20, and 25% spent more than $20. Thirteen respondents used senior discount coupons, 10 used farmers' market coupons, and three used a LINK card (food stamp card). Thirty-nine percent of the respondents stated that having access to the LINK card was important or very important to them; for 46% of the respondents, LINK was not applicable.

Best Attributes of the Farmers' Market

Respondents were asked to identify the things they liked best at the market and the type of produce they wanted to buy and to make suggestions for improving the farmers' market. According to the majority of shoppers, the top three things that they liked best about the farmers' market were the fresh produce, the reasonable prices, and the cleanliness of the market. Most shoppers attending the farmers' market were looking for vegetables (e.g., greens, okra) and fruits (e.g., apples, peaches, and plums). Respondents reported that, in order to improve the farmers' market, they would like to see more vendors and a greater variety of produce and other food products. Almost 100% of the respondents would recommend the farmers' market to a friend, and 95% would return to the market again.

Farmers' Market in Comparison to the Local Stores

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with certain aspects of the farmers' market as well as access to food in the community in general, through use of a five-point Likert scale from "Very Satisfied" to "Very Dissatisfied." According to Table 1, the majority of respondents were satisfied with several dimensions of the farmers' market, including location, cleanliness, variety, price, and quality of produce. Overall, 92% of respondents were satisfied with the farmers' market, while only 41% were satisfied with access to fresh produce at the local stores in the community. Similar data were reported for price, location, quality, and variety (Table 1).

Target Community Compared to Another Nearby Community

To examine the extent of the problem surrounding access to fresh produce in working class African American neighborhoods, data were gathered from a comparison community that had similar incomes, age distributions, education, and marital status patterns as the target community. Sixty-four shoppers in the comparison neighborhood completed the survey. The target community was designated as target site, in part, because the CFSC project staff was working with the farmers and the market organizers to increase the market's visibility in the community and was working with the residents to develop a community-owned grocery store. These efforts were not happening in the comparison community.

The majority of shoppers at the comparison farmers' market were satisfied with the market, especially its price, location, and quality. Overall, shoppers in the comparison community were dissatisfied with the local stores' prices, location, quality, and variety and availability of organic produce. Respondents were twice as satisfied with the farmers' market as they were with the local stores. These results are comparable to those from the target community, indicating, possibly, a widespread problem of access to fresh produce in urban working class African American neighborhoods.

Farmers

To assess the farmers' perspectives on the market, five farmers at the target community were interviewed. Farmers participating in the farmers' market were from a predominantly African American farming community located 2 hours away from the city. Farmers were asked to identify top-selling produce and the aspects of the market that they liked best and to make suggestions for improvement. According to the farmers, the top-selling produce included peas, okra, greens, beans, apples, and plums. The top three things they liked best about the farmers' market were the friendly people, the location, and the small size of the market. Farmers reported that, in order to improve the farmers' market, they would like to see an increase in shopper attendance, a tent covering to provide shade, and more marketing and publicity.

Conclusion

The study provided important data on African Americans' perceptions and satisfaction with a farmers' market and access to fresh foods in their overall community. The following conclusions are drawn.

• The majority of community residents felt that they were underserved by local stores, since the stores lack fresh, healthy, and organic produce at affordable prices.

• Residents were more satisfied, overall, with the access to fresh fruits and vegetables provided by the summer farmers' market than they were with the access, quality, variety, and prices of products available to them year round through local stores. The same results were replicated at a nearby community.

• The majority of consumers at the farmers' market consisted of females between the ages of 40 and 75.

• Consumers at the market spent about $10 to $20 each week.

Farmers' markets are a venue for residents in working class communities to access fresh and healthy produce; however, this is not a year-round option. Thus, year-round options for the provision of fresh foods need to be explored. These might include community co-ops, farmers' supplying of year-round products to local mom and pop stores, an extension of the duration of the farmers' market, or business incentives for large chain stores to relocate in working class neighborhoods.

The role of Extension is essential in supporting these initiatives. For instance, in middle and upper class neighborhoods, farmers' markets are likely to begin in mid May and end in early November. In urban working class neighborhoods, markets are likely to begin in mid July and end in early October, which was the case in the communities described in this paper. In addition, working class neighborhoods are more likely to attract low-income farmers who might lack the government support necessary to maintain a more sophisticated farming enterprise. Furthermore, because farmers' markets in middle and upper income neighborhoods have become a popular trend, 20 to 50 farmers may be present at these markets. The number coming to low-income areas is few. Extension experts may play a role in expanding farmers' markets in working class neighborhoods, given that this may be one of the few ways in which residents will be able to access fresh produce.

Future initiatives to increase access to fresh produce should not only include market coupons and transportation to the market, but they should also include a support system for the farmers. Conrey, Frongillo, Dollahite, & Griffin (2003) found that viability of the farmers' market increased when a program hired a part-time coordinator to be in charge of the farmers' market promotion activity, community capacity building, support and technical assistance to farmers, and educational materials dissemination.

Extension Recommendations

Extension can play a key role in expanding farmers' markets in low-income minority communities in which the access to fresh produce is limited. The following recommendations might be useful to Extension professionals working with farmers' markets.

1. Tailor the Market to the Needs of the Community Regarding the Products Offered

It was observed that shoppers would wait in line before the farmers' market opened so that they could buy popular produce items. These items included greens, Swiss chard, and black-eyed peas. People are more apt to buy items that they need and want, and this encourages them to continue patronizing the farmers' market.

2. Support Minority Farmers Who Want to Enter Minority Markets

Participants in this study were happy to see African American farmers at the farmers' market. Farmers came from a low-income farming community and were eager to enter the city markets. For further entry into these markets, farmers might benefit from agricultural technical assistance and consultation with Extension professionals.

3. Increase Number of Vendors and Shoppers

The low number of farmers and/or shoppers creates a vicious cycle, as farmers do not want to attend if there are only a few shoppers, and shoppers do not want to come back to the market if there are only a few vendors. Therefore, cash incentives based upon attendance, waivers of insurance fees and table fees, or subsidized rates can encourage greater participation at working class, low-income farmers' markets.

Extension professionals can play a role in publicizing the market, encouraging farmers to participate in low-income communities, as well as encouraging shopper attendance by disseminating information about farmers' markets in working class communities. In the study reported here, some of the farmers were fortunate enough to leave the market with no produce left, especially those farmers who sold greens. However, after 11 a.m., shopper attendance dwindled. To encourage shopper turnout, the farmers' market had special market days and events. On one of the special market days, a press conference was held, and the lieutenant governor of the state came to the market to promote the farmers and to buy local foods.

4. Encourage Coupon Use

Coupons from the senior farmers' market program and WIC program are important for residents on a fixed income, especially for seniors and families with young children. One critical concern for farmers is the length of time necessary for coupon reimbursement. For farmers on a fixed income, this in itself might be a deterrent not to participate in a farmers' market. This issue needs to be addressed in order to attract farmers from a broad income spectrum and draw in shoppers from working class and low-income communities.

In addition, Extension professionals may need to examine more closely how to actively promote farmers' markets in minority communities, which may be accomplished through means such as increasing advertising (Anderson et al, 2001; Balsam, Webber, & Oehlke, 1994). Offering coupons is a possible promotion, but it also has disadvantages, such as the delays in reimbursement, that must be considered.

5. Obtain Support from the City, State, Outside Funders, and the Community

Obtaining community support for the market is critical for its sustainability. In this case, the local school allowed the farmers' market in the school parking lot. In addition, some community organizations, churches, and schools were active in handing out information about the farmers' market. However, to ensure success wide support from the city and local business might be necessary. Farmers in this community often complained about the low attendance at the market, and residents also mentioned the lack of support coming from the city. Extension experts may play a role in expanding the importance of farmers' market at the city, state, and local levels.

Acknowledgment

This project was funded, in part, by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to the Chicago Food System Collaborative.

References

Abel, J., Thomson, J., & Maretzki, A. (1999). Extension's role with farmers' markets: Working with farmers, consumers and communities. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html

Anderson, J. V., Bybee, D. I., Brown, R., McLean, D. F., Garcia, E. M., Breer, M. L. et al. (2001). 5 a day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a low income population. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101, 195-202.

Balsam, A., Webber, D., & Oehlke, B. (1994). The farmers' market coupon program for low-income elders. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 13(4), 35-41.

Brown, A. (2002). Farmers' market research 1940-2000: An inventory and review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 17(4), 167-176.

Block, D. (2004). Market basket study. Chicago, IL: Policy Research and Action Group.

City of Chicago. (2000). Map and demographics: Area 25. [On-line]. Available at: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/

Conrey, E. J., Frongillo, E. A., Dollahite, J. S., & Griffin, M. R. (2003). Integrated program enhancements increased utilization of farmers' market nutrition program. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(6), 1841-1844.

Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., & Adelaja, A. (2002). Farmers' markets: Consumer trends, preferences and characteristics. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb6.html

Lu, N., Samuels, M. E. & Huang, K. C. (2002). Dietary behavior in relation to socioeconomic characteristics and self-perceived health status. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,13(2), 241-57.

Morland, K., Wing, S., Diez Roux, A., & Poole, C. (2002). Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(1), 23-29.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Income. [On-line], Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html

United States Department of Agriculture, USDA (2002). Improving and facilitating a farmers market in a low-income urban neighborhood: A Washington, DC, case study. Washington, DC: USDA. [On-line], Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/PDFpubList/anacostia.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, USDA (2004). Farmers market facts. [On-line], Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/facts.htm

The Future of Agriculture in Our Community: A Pilot Program to Increase Community Dialogue About Agricultural Sustainability

Kathryn J. Brasier
Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
kbrasier@psu.edu

Timothy Collins
Assistant Director, Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs
Western Illinois University
Macomb, IL
t-collins@wiu.edu

Timothy W. Kelsey
Professor of Agricultural Economics
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
tkelsey@psu.edu

Martin H. Lenihan
Graduate Research Assistant
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
mhl126@psu.edu

Walter Whitmer
Extension Associate
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
wew2@psu.edu

Introduction

Along with increasing interest in direct marketing and value-added production of agricultural products is an increased awareness of the role that communities play in creating a supportive environment for such businesses to grow. Recent literature suggests that community characteristics and the engagement of the citizenry can be crucial factors in the development of a vibrant, strong agricultural system (Lyson & Guptill, 2004). However, communities interested in improving the sustainability of agricultural production at the local level often have few resources and lack formal mechanisms for identifying the future directions of agriculture, developing a vision of what an enhanced agricultural system could be, and gathering the appropriate mix of people and local agencies to achieve that vision. For example, very few communities have economic development plans that identify agriculture as a viable economic sector in which the community should invest to sustain and enhance its growth.

This article describes a program that provides such a process for communities interested in creating a supportive climate for agriculture. The program is described in greater detail, providing results from an initial evaluation of the program and offering suggestions for Extension educators interested in creating a similar program.

Future of Agriculture in Our Community

The Future of Agriculture in Our Community (FOA) is a structured process developed by Penn State Cooperative Extension for communities to assess and improve the local agricultural business climate. A community-wide coalition (farmers and non-farmers) identifies the barriers and opportunities for the sustainability of agriculture and develops specific projects to address those barriers and develop existing opportunities. More important, however, the process demonstrates to farmers that non-farmers care about the success and long-term viability of agriculture.

In addition to developing the economic climate for agriculture, the program has a number of more subtle goals. These goals include increasing the knowledge of agriculture among community residents; increasing interaction among farmers and non-farmers; creating a network of volunteers within the community; increasing awareness of community resources and the local political structure; developing individual problem-solving, communication, and organizational skills; and increasing activism and civic engagement regarding agriculture and other community issues. These are the goals for which we provide evaluation data below.

The program develops in four phases.

• Coalition building: local Extension educators and community leaders inform potential participants about the process and benefits, and assess interest. This core group recruits participants and develops the Leadership Team (8-10 people who guide the program) and the Task Force (a community-wide group of 35-45 people).

• Information gathering: the Task Force conducts two activities to gather information from farmers: Let's Talk sessions (open discussions with farmers about farming in the community) and a survey of area farmers. The discussions from the Let's Talk sessions are used to customize the survey questions. Both sets of information inform the strategic planning process.

• Strategic planning: the Task Force identifies concerns and opportunities, prioritizes these issues, and develops a set of goals, objectives, and projects.

• Implementation: Action Teams are developed to work on specific projects, drawing on Task Force members and other community members as needed.

Pilot Program

The initial program was developed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in the winter of 2002-2003. Cumberland County is in south-central Pennsylvania, near the capitol city of Harrisburg. This county contains 1,116 farms (USDA-NASS 2002), with dairy (22%), hay (19%), beef (16%), and grain (13%) the most common commodities. The farms tend to be larger than the state average: 25% sell $100,000 or more annually (compared to 14% statewide), while 41% have less than $5,000 in annual sales (compared to 52% statewide). The majority of operators in the county (60%) list farming as their primary occupation.

The future of farming in the county is in question because of low profits, development pressures, and related loss of farmland. An informal group of farmers, political officials, and Extension educators had been meeting for several years to discuss the future of farming in the county. In the fall of 2002, this group enlisted the help of an economic and community development educator and a state specialist to conduct a survey of farmers, the results of which would guide the development of strategies to help farming survive. The program that resulted was adapted from two existing programs: the economic development program, Business Retention and Expansion (Blaine, Hudkins, & Taylor, 1999; Haugaard & Levins, 2002; Morse & Loveridge, 1997), and the community visioning program, Charting the Future of Your Community (Shuffstall, Whitmer, O'Neill, Kowalski, & Kelsey, 2002).

Three Let's Talk sessions were held, in which farmers discussed three simple questions: (1) What's going well with Cumberland County agriculture? (2) What challenges do you face as a farmer in Cumberland County? and (3) Overall, what is the future of agriculture in Cumberland County?

The Task Force used the comments from these sessions to adapt an existing survey. As with Business Retention and Expansion programs, the survey was enumerated by pairs of trained citizen volunteers in face-to-face interviews. Each pair of "volunteer visitors" intentionally included one farmer and one non-farmer to ensure that at least one member would understand any technical terminology used by the respondents and to further educate the non-farm participants.

One hundred farms were randomly selected from the county Extension mailing list. Survey participants were first contacted by letter and then called by the volunteer visitors to arrange the interview. The volunteers successfully interviewed 73 of 99 farms they contacted. Taking into account those no longer farming, deceased, or outside the county, the effective response rate was 82% (73 completed / 89 possible).

The Task Force held a retreat in which they used the Let's Talk session comments and survey results to develop a strategic action plan. Task Force members identified and prioritized goals to improve the sustainability of agriculture in the county and developed action plans and implementation steps for achieving those goals. Four goals were identified: agricultural education for the public, farmland preservation, educating local officials about development, and marketing alternatives. A separate action team was developed to implement each goal. An official organization, Future of Cumberland County Agriculture (FOCCA), formed to pursue funding for these plans.

One other county (York) has finished the formal process. Four counties pursued the program during the winter of 2004-2005.

Evaluation and Results

To evaluate the FOA program in Cumberland County, surveys were sent to all individuals who had expressed interest in the program (146). Twenty-one indicated that they were "mailing list" members only, and did not participate. Fifty-five completed questionnaires were received, for a valid response rate of 45%. Given the distribution of respondents by program group, the respondents represent the majority of regular participants (Table 1).

Respondents were asked to evaluate the program; describe changes in their knowledge of agriculture and their community, skills working with community groups, levels of trust in community members, social interaction with varying community groups, and civic engagement in community organizations; and describe their farm and demographic backgrounds.

Several survey questions used a post- then pre-test format, in which respondents were asked to assess their knowledge, skill, or interest before the program and after its completion. This approach avoids response-shift bias found in pre- and post-test formats, in which respondents may not be able to accurately assess themselves prior to participation. Program impact can be more easily discerned using the post- then pre-test format (Rohs, 1999; Kohn & Rockwell, 1989).

This summary provides suggestions regarding volunteer recruitment and program design for Extension educators interested in developing a program. Survey results related to respondents' participation, perceptions of program quality, and evaluations of program goals are provided below.

Participation

Table 1 describes the distribution of respondents by program group. Participation in program groups is not mutually exclusive, and is additive, such that Leadership Team members are asked to serve on the Task Force; Leadership Team and Task Force members are asked to be Volunteer Visitors. Action Team members are self-selected, tend to be fewer in number, and are drawn from across the community. In Table 1, respondents are categorized by the highest commitment group in which they reported membership. For example, if a respondent selected volunteer visitor and task force, they were classified under the task force category.

The main reasons for participation relate to concern for agriculture in the community. Just over half of respondents (55.6%) reported participation because of quality of life concerns; this suggests that these respondents link improving the agricultural climate with improved quality of life in the county (Table 2).

Recruitment for the program tended to be primarily through personal contact with county Extension educators. Other important means of recruitment included local newspaper coverage of the program, word of mouth, and direct mailings from Extension and other organizations affiliated with the program (Table 3). The more directed forms of communication (personal contact and mailings) seem to be particularly important means of recruiting volunteers.

The 55 volunteers reported committing 1126 hours to the formal program. The median across all volunteers was 15 hours, although 16 volunteers (29%) reported spending 25 or more hours. These volunteers are scattered across the program groups; this suggests that the report of hours reflects personal commitment to the program regardless of formal role.

Program Quality

Most respondents gave positive evaluations of the program. Over 80% of respondents thought that the objectives had been clearly stated; nearly 90% thought the program had the right amount of support from Penn State Cooperative Extension. Some participants reported concerns about the structure of the meetings and the mix of people involved in the program.

Another measure of participants' experiences is whether they would volunteer again. Nearly 75% said that they were either somewhat or very likely to take part in another Penn State Extension program. Nearly 80% would recommend that other counties undertake a similar program.

Respondents identified program features they particularly liked and elements that could be improved. Participants liked the team structure and the processes that encouraged expression of ideas. Respondents felt that the program brought together a diverse set of "like minded people" to solve local problems. A frequently cited benefit was that of "meeting many different, but dedicated farmers." Volunteers felt the program had created awareness of agricultural issues and built an organizational structure to oversee the development of needed projects. Overall, people felt the program gave them a chance to demonstrate the community's support for agriculture.

Suggestions for improving the program included expanding the range of people involved, particularly more farmers, elected officials, and young people. More publicity was needed to emphasize the positive work of the program. Some concerns were raised about the organization of the meetings, reflecting a desire for more advanced preparation to make meetings shorter and more productive. Finally, participants would have liked more time to study the survey results before the strategic planning process. This request indicates the complexity of discussing large quantities of data, reflecting on these findings, and identifying key issues. It also suggests that, by this point in the process, participants were heavily invested and wanted to make the best decisions they could.

Evaluation of Program Goals

To gauge the extent to which the program has made progress toward increasing community capacity around agricultural issues, we asked respondents to assess their levels of knowledge, interest, skills, activism, and trust both before and after program participation. Table 6 reports those elements in which respondents reported a statistically significant increase after program participation.

These results suggest that the program achieved many of its stated goals related to increasing knowledge of the community, encouraging community involvement and activism, improving problem-solving skills, and increasing trust. In particular, respondents reported increased knowledge of agriculture (45.9%), community residents and businesses (42.0%), and an understanding of how agriculture fits into community life (40.0%).

Significant numbers of respondents said that they are interested in becoming actively involved in community decision-making (42.0%) and are more likely to become active (such as by attending public meetings). Over 40% of respondents reported increased trust in other program participants, although the percentages were lower for other categories. When asked if program participants expected to increase their interaction with other county residents, positive responses for two groups stand out – farmers (45%) and elected officials and other community leaders (40%). Over 40% suggested that they are likely to become involved in farmers groups.

Lessons for Program Development

The following program elements led to the positive evaluations and significant community impacts. These elements would be essential for Extension educators interested in crafting a community-based agricultural economic development program based on this pilot program in Pennsylvania.

• Emphasize direct contact and interaction among program participants through structured program activities. The results here indicate that this leads to greater knowledge of each other and the community; trust in other participants; interest in learning about their community; and likelihood of participation in community decision-making.

• Involve both farmers and non-farmers. The participation of both farmers and non-farmers resulted in greater interaction and discussion of issues, greater likelihood of learning about other community members' views, and better representation of diverse perspectives. It is also essential to have a diversity of farm types represented, to create greater discussion about farming possibilities, learning opportunities, and community resources.

• Involve local officials and community leaders/decision-makers. Develop linkages with local, regional, and statewide governments and agencies through direct involvement in the program, through organizational sponsorship, and/or through regular communication. This lends legitimacy to the process, acquaints residents with their local politicians and political system, and offers faith that programs developed through the process can be implemented.

• Recognize that Extension needs to maintain a "backseat" role. Extension educators need to remain neutral about the outcomes and be willing to hand over projects to community groups. Extension should facilitate and support the program, but should not be seen as leading it. The community coalition that forms needs to have significant autonomy to tailor the program to the needs and concerns of local residents (Loveridge & Smith, 1992; Warner, 1999).

• Recognize that the Leadership Team should be the public face of the project, providing leadership, speaking for the program, and running meetings. Leadership Team members should be responsible for as much as they can handle, as early as possible, and empowered to follow through on the strategic action plan.

• Lay the groundwork early. Recruitment of volunteers needs to result in a Leadership Team and Task Force with diverse members, representing key skills (such as communication), community composition, and local networks (farm organizations, businesses, local government, schools).

• Ensure that participants see the connections among the "information gathering" phase, the strategic planning process, and the implementation of projects. Don't let early discussion of potential solutions pre-empt the strategic planning process. Good solutions and long-term engagement in agricultural issues depend on learning from and involving all different types of people in the community.

• Be flexible and allow for modifications to the initial plan. The Task Force in an on-going program requested more time to digest the survey information, so additional meetings were organized. This resulted in an improved strategic planning process and demonstrated greater buy-in of community residents.

• Recruit local publicity, which will create community awareness (a "buzz"), generate support and discussion outside of the program, and recruit additional volunteers (particularly those who might be outside existing networks).

Although the program described above is specific to agriculture, several of the recommendations apply to building community-wide efforts in multiple program areas and the evaluation materials could be adapted to assess the effects of volunteer participation.

References

Blaine, T. W., Hudkins, S., & Taylor, C.R., (1999). Taking R&E to the next level. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(6). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/1999december/a2.html

Brasier, K., Collins, T., & Kelsey, T. W., (2004). What is the future of agriculture in your community? University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension Bulletin UA-393.

Haugaard, C., & Levins, R.A., (2002). Swift County farm business retention and enhancement program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/2002april/iw6.html

Kohn, H., & Rockwell, S.K., (1989). Post-then-pre evaluation.Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html

Loveridge, S., & Smith, T.R., (1992). Factors related to success in business retention and expansion programs. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23(2): 66-78.

Lyson, T., & Guptill, A., (2004). Commodity agriculture, civic agriculture and the future of US farming. Rural Sociology, 69(3): 370 – 385.

Morse, G., & Loveridge, S., (1997). Implementing local business retention and expansion visitation programs. University Park, PA: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. NERCRD Publication No. 72.

Rohs, F. R., (1990). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating leadership development with self-report pretest-posttest measures. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4): 28-37.

Shuffstall, W., Whitmer, W., O'Neill, K., Kowalski, J., & Kelsey, T. W., (2002). Charting the future of our community: Setting our course. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension Bulletin.

Shuffstall, W., Whitmer, W., O'Neill, K., Kowalski, J., & Kelsey, T. W., (2002). Charting the future of our community: Where we are. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension Bulletin.

Shuffstall, W., Whitmer, W., O'Neill, K., Kowalski, J., & Kelsey, T. W., (2002). Charting the future of our community: Where we want to be. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension Bulletin.

Shuffstall, W., Whitmer, W., O'Neill, K., Kowalski, J., & Kelsey, T. W., (2002). Charting the future of our community: Making the trip. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension Bulletin.

U.S. Census Bureau, (2000). Census of Population. Washington DC. United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

USDA-NASS, (2002). Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp

Warner, M., (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural Sociology, 64(3): 373-393.

Web-Based Communities as a Tool for Extension and Outreach

Sanna M. Kallioranta
Ph.D. Graduate Assistant
Forest Products Marketing Program
School of Renewable Natural Resources
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
skalli1@lsu.edu

Richard P. Vlosky
Director, Professor and Extension Specialist
Louisiana Forest Products Development Center
School of Renewable Natural Resources
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
vlosky@lsu.edu

Scott Leavengood
Wood Products Extension Agent
Dept. of Wood Science & Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
scott.leavengood@oregonstate.edu

Introduction

Modern society is often said to lack community due to weak connections with local places (e.g., village or neighborhoods) and changing models of social interaction. By not being bound by spatial constraints, the Internet can be a tool to facilitate community development in the virtual realm (Driskell & Lyon, 2002.) According to Nielsen/NetRatings (cited in ClickZ, 2004), in July 2004, the United States had over 136 million in-home Internet users. The Internet is not only the global super-warehouse of information but is also modifying traditional models of social interaction. In the broadest terms, the Internet can be described as an online community.

However, community in the Internet environment is typically specific to interest groups, cultural genres, and commercially motivated entities or sectors. Meshing the concept of focused industry-specific Extension outreach with the infrastructure of the Internet has led to the development of Web-based communities. The authors, Forest Products Extension Specialists at Oregon State University and the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center have developed state-level forest sector Web-based communities for their respective states. In this article we describe some basic concepts about what communities are and then share some experiences regarding the Web-based communities we are creating.

On-Line Communities

A community can be described as a group of people who share social interactions and links between themselves and the other group members and who occupy the same area for some time (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.) Wellman (2001) believes that the Internet can facilitate the creation of networks and sustain community ties, thus forming meaningful and supportive relationships. On-line communities are social networks that use computer support and the Internet to communicate on a topic of interest among members (Andrews, Preece, & Turoff, 2002; Bellini & Vargas, 2003.) They are designed to facilitate interaction and collaboration among people who share common interests and needs without barriers of time and place.

On-line communities can be private or open to the public. Virtual community may be used as a synonym for on-line community. Virtual community is defined by Castelles as "a self-defined electronic network of interactive communication organized around a shared interest or purpose" (Marshall, 2000.)

Others disagree with the notion that an on-line community constitutes a real community. For example, Driskell & Lyon (2002) argue that on-line communities are not true communities because they do not include close, emotional, holistic ties of unity. Snyder (cited in Galston, 2000) argues that a community is more than people in 24 time zones discussing the latest news in a topic. Although many believe newsgroups, listservs, and chat rooms to be communities, Snyder (cited in Galston, 2000) suggests that a community is a group of people who have more in common than simply a fascination with a narrowly defined topic. Galston (2000) notes that this objection to on-line groups' community status revolves around the substance of what members of groups have in common, not the nature of the communication among them.

In any event, communities require communication among members. The Internet has radically changed the way people communicate, allowing global many-to-many communication channels compared with the telephone (primarily one-to-one) and television (few-to-many) (Schwartz, 1995.) Transmission of ideas and information in an on-line mode is rapid and available regardless of how geographically dispersed community members are (Marshall, 2000.) On-line communication can be informational, transactional, or communicational. Further, the Internet can facilitate complex technical information sharing that would otherwise be problematic to communicate using other means of communication such as telephone or fax (Cothrel & Williams, 1999a.)

On-line communities do not require spatial proximity for members. Galston (2000) cites the near prophetic argument written 30 years ago by Licklider & Taylor that "life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity."

According to Schwartz (1995), an on-line community is "a group of people who have in all likelihood never met face to face, but who enjoy spending time in cyberspace with one another debating politics, discussing their hobbies, conducting business, spilling their guts, or just flirting and playing games with one another." Thus, on-line or virtual communities are social arrangements of functions and structures highly dependent on information technology and relatively independent of space and time limits (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.) As shown in Table 1, Driskell & Lyon (2002) describe on-line communities as: "spatially liberated, socially ramified, topically fused, physiologically detached with limited liability."

People can have numerous reasons for seeking an on-line community involvement, including a shared interest, a desire to interact and/or cooperate with like-minded people regardless of proximity, an opportunity to conduct discussions with experts, educational interests, entertainment, and conducting commercial transactions (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.)

On-line communities must create and maintain tangible reasons for people to join, stay, and be active in the community. It is important that an on-line community provide information-rich content on the specific issues of interest to the community members (Andrews et al., 2002).

Foundations of On-Line Communities

There are a number of constructs found in the literature that support on-line community development. We have observed that seven foundation elements of on-line communities are fairly common themes in the literature. These are 1) mission and focus, 2) content, 3) sociability, 4) roles, 5) technology and usability, 6) trust and 7) participation motivation. Following is a brief discussion of each.

Mission and Focus

An on-line community's mission and purpose need to closely parallel the needs of the targeted demographic group (Andrews et al., 2002; Bellini & Vargas, 2003; Williams, 1999a.) The first steps toward establishing an on-line community should be to identify the reasons and audience for its existence, define the mission, and develop an identity (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.)

Content

Andrews et al. (2002) emphasize the importance of providing information-rich content on the specific issues of interest to the community members. Community members want access to relevant information, discussions, and expertise. Content should be updated frequently. Bellini & Vargas (2003) list the following content tools and services that can support communities: on-line training, library and news services, analysis of community-related themes, forum and chat tools, bookmark management, advertisements, search engine, electronic commerce, auction services, and calendar for community events.

Sociability

Sociability is defined by Andrews et al. (2002) as social interaction that occurs in an on-line community. They argue that sociability creates a culture where people feel comfortable communicating and interacting with other on-line community members. On-line communities often use anonymity as a way to help members to feel comfortable contributing their ideas (Cothrel & Williams, 1999a), although Andrews et al. (2002) report that prior studies indicate that knowledge of other member identities positively influences sociability. Proponents of Internet-mediated communication as the source of new communities stress the development of "affective ties" among on-line group members (Galston, 2000).

Roles

On-line community interaction is guided by tacit and explicit policies and roles to support and mediate the social interaction (Andrews et al., 2002.) Assuming that on-line communities will rapidly evolve to be self-sustaining is a common misperception; most online communities require a significant investment of time and effort to maintain (Williams, 1999a.) Thus, on-line communities require active organizers, moderators, and contributors.

Technology and Usability

Any Web-based community should be easy to navigate and invoke on browsers and accommodate the wide breadth of bandwidths and communication infrastructures. Technology employed must be aligned with the users' needs and level of technology sophistication and willingness to use different tools. (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.) Sophisticated Web-base technologies such as tele-immersion, 3-D, and high-resolution video can simulate face-to-face communication in on-line communities. However, Preece (2001) argues that less sophisticated technologies are sufficient and that it is how the community is designed and supported that matters.

Trust

Trust in virtual communities is based on the community norms, policies, and behavior (Andrews et al., 2002.) One definition of trust that they offer in this context is "an individual's ability to feel comfortable with the Website and on-line community owner's ability to protect users' personal safety and privacy." They further argue that trust can be established among group members who do not posses any prior knowledge of other members if they trust the sponsoring entity.

Participation Motivation

Cothrel and Williams (1999b) found that people's contribution to on-line community is related to their personal attributes like passion, desire for recognition, and sense of obligation to "give back" to the community. In order for an on-line community to be successful, sustained participation is necessary. The demographic cluster of interest must be thoroughly researched in order to identify needs, value desired, and prerequisites for participation.

Challenges in Creating and Maintaining On-Line Communities

Based on the Yankee Group estimate, American corporations have invested over $300 million in setting up and managing on-line communities (Schwartz, 2001.) Schwartz (2001) argues that much of the money invested in on-line communities is wasted because companies have done a poor job in designing and implementing these tools. On-line communities are more unstable and have shorter life spans than face-to-face communities (Marshall, 2000.) Galston (2000) hypothesizes that when barriers to leaving and joining new on-line communities are low, exit will be the predominant response to dissatisfaction. On-line relationships are more easily replaced (by click of a mouse) than in the face-to-face world (Driskell & Lyon, 2002.) Thus, managing the volatility of membership has become one of the most challenging tasks in on-line community management (Bellini & Vargas, 2003.)

Both Schwartz (2000) and Williams (1999a) suggest that the main gaffe has been not realizing that the community is "not an end in itself"; the community function needs to be attached to a working business model, and the participation needs to give real benefit for participants. On-line communities offer opportunities to extend the interactions of face-to-face communities, but their ability to create value is easy to exaggerate (Williams, 1999a.)

A thorough understanding of the target group's characteristics is needed to build an effective and successful on-line community (Cothrel & Williams, 1999a; Andrews et al., 2002.) This includes "appropriate informational content, selecting the right on-line community technology, attracting people to the community, encouraging continued participation, and evolving the right balance of fact-finding and empathetic opportunities" (Andrews et al., 2002.)

People can sometimes be hesitant to interact on-line even though they would regularly use the Internet for e-mail and information purposes (Andrews et al., 2002.) Not all demographics are equally receptive to on-line communities. Based on the Pew Internet and American Life Project survey in 2003, only 52% of rural residents use the Internet, compared to 67% of urban and 66% of suburban residents (Bell, Pavani & Lee, 2004.) On-line communities in rapidly changing industries and environment tend to be more active in collaboration and contribution than in environments that are less subject to constant change. In stable industries, people are more likely to accumulate than disseminate information (Cothrel & Williams, 1999a).

Web-Based Communities as Tools for Outreach and Extension

As Barta, Woods, Dauffenbach, and Wallace (2004) point out, data and information are increasingly becoming available on-line. They suggest that Extension educators recognize this fact and are taking advantage of the Internet as a vehicle for disseminating community economic development information through ORIGINS, a Web-based system developed at Oklahoma State University (OSU). Understanding the ORIGINS Website will make it easier for educators to deliver data and information to their clients. Technological advances, they point out, such as affordable wireless networking, are also making it easier for Extension Educators at OSU to take information resources to the public.

In a study of the use of information technology by county Extension agents of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service conducted by Gregg and Irani (2004), it was concluded that agents have embraced information technology and are using it on the job more than ever before. More than two-thirds of the agents reported using their computers from 16 to over 20 hours a week (including use at home). Additionally, the vast majority of agents in this study used e-mail to communicate with clientele, over three-quarters use presentation software, and just over 20% responded that they could edit or create Web pages. They suggest that a shift is occurring in the way Extension agents conduct their jobs and a potential change in the way Extension outreach is delivered. In addition to face-to-face interactions with clientele, agents may also be using information technology to facilitate routine communication and information dissemination (to their clientele).

On-line communities allow Extension faculty to better focus their educational efforts. For example, in the absence of readily available, up-to-date, and sector-specific directories, Extension faculty often spend a fair portion of their time responding to requests for buyers and/or sellers of specific raw materials or products. By investing their efforts in on-line communities, Extension faculty will be better able to fulfill their intended role of providing unbiased, research-based technical information. At the same time, Web-based communities are a means by which Extension faculty can facilitate economic development by providing a means by which private entities may establish business connections. Further, interactive (e.g., those that allow members to log-in and update their own information) Web-based communities shift the burden of keeping track of detailed data (for perhaps thousands of individuals and companies) from Extension to the firms and individuals themselves.

Examples of Forest-Sector Web-Based Communities in Oregon and Louisiana

The Oregon Forest Industry Directory <www.orforestdirectory.com>

The Oregon Forest Industry Directory (OFID) is a collaborative effort of the Oregon State University Extension Service, Oregon Small Woodlands Association, and the Northwest Wood Products Association. There were a number of motivating factors for developing the site.

First was the change in Oregon's primary processing infrastructure due to a loss of markets for private landowners for large diameter logs. This created a strategic transition at the state-level to manufacturing wood products from small logs and an increased emphasis on the state's value-added secondary wood products sector, which includes furniture, flooring, cabinets, and other consumer products. Second, there was a lack of information on infrastructure (e.g., firms with sawing and drying capabilities) for "underutilized species" (e.g., western hardwoods). Third, there was, in general, a lack of information for Oregon wood-producing manufacturers regarding potential raw material suppliers and markets. And fourth, the state needed a tool to promote Oregon forest-sector products and foster market development.

Planning and implementation of the OFID site took place in the year before launching the Website. Steps in this stage included benchmarking or comparing similar industry-level Websites used in other states and to "borrow" best practices and features. These comparison Websites were not limited to the forest products industry. Based on benchmarking results, preliminary functional specifications for the OFID were developed and mock screen layouts were generated.

Through an iterative process of specification and layout revisions based on input from key manufacturer, association, and policymaker stakeholders, a final set of specifications and associated functionality was developed. The next step in the process was to secure funding for Website development and programming and to identify a project manager (i.e., Website administrator) to guide the process to implementation. Funding was provided primarily through state government grants, and an Oregon State University Wood Products Extension Specialist was assigned project manager responsibilities.

The project manager provided programmers on staff at Oregon State University with functional specifications and worked closely with them through Website development. Web development is being conducted by the Web services technical group at Oregon State University. Once the Website shell was completed, the project manager gathered content, which consisted of existing data from existing Oregon forest industry directories and personal communications with companies that may not have been listed in published directories.

Access to a secure demo beta version was provided for selected companies to help test the system, identify any site navigation problems, and provide input on suggested modifications to increase the utility of the Website. Concurrently, the Extension Specialist conducted workshops throughout the state on Web-based marketing to increase awareness in general about the value of using the Internet for business exchange and to solicit suggestions on site improvement. Based on beta testing, suggested changes were implemented. The OFID site went live in March 2004. Enhancements continue to be made to the Website as additional suggestions and recommendations are communicated to the Webmaster.

The OFID is not simply an electronic Web-accessible wood products manufacturer directory. In the spirit of creating a community, the Website emphasizes information dissemination and promotes networking and interaction between industry members. Community members are companies that si