|
April 2006
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageSpread the WordThose of you who read this page know from the last issue that JOE's acceptance rate in 2005 was 32%, down from 52.5% in 2003 and 48% in 2004. Our acceptance rates are posted in JOE FAQ #2 for all to see, and they are updated every February, in the "JOE by the Numbers" section of the Editor's Page and then added to FAQ # 2. The problem is that many people don't--see the acceptance rates, that is. Nor do they see the high submission rates (JOE FAQ #3) or the impressive readership rates (Usage Statistics). Because they don't see them, they don't realize the extent to which JOE has "raised the bar." This is too bad for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the authors of some published JOE articles don't always get the credit they should. I know of a department that, last year, told its candidates for promotion and tenure that the JOE acceptance rate was 85%, which it was--a long time ago. (Don't worry. I got that misunderstanding cleared up.) A new colleague of mine told me he'd been on a promotion committee at his previous institution last year and that being published in JOE was not very highly regarded. (I set him straight, too.) I'm asking all of you to spread the word. Two words, really. First, there's a wealth of information about JOE posted on our site, much of it under About JOE. Second, JOE is increasingly rigorous and has become an increasingly popular journal in which to be published and which to read. Old reputations die hard. Again, I'm asking you to help in updating ours. Out with the old. In with the new! April JOEMany of the articles in this issue (11 of 29, by my count) deal in one way or another with economic development, entrepreneurship, or helping business development. It's a "hot topic" and an area getting increasing attention from Extension. Judging by article/author count, this is especially true at Oklahoma State, Oregon State, and Purdue. Eleven is too many articles to discuss specifically, but they appear first in the Features, Research in Brief, Ideas at Work, and Tools of the Trade categories. The issue also has a fine Commentary, a Feature that continues the dialogue of scholarship in Extension, and one on leadership in Extension. And the other 15 articles are excellent, too! Laura Hoelscher, Editor joe-ed@joe.org
Is There Justice? Seeking Fairness in Cooperative Extension Programs During Times of ChangeRyan J. Schmiesing R. Dale Safrit IntroductionThe Cooperative Extension Service continues to be challenged to address: (a) balancing budgets under extreme federal, state, and county/local fiscal constraints; (b) repositioning educational efforts in an evolving, global society, (c) integrating and balancing technology with traditional teaching and delivery methods; (d) reorganizing and reducing staff; (e) implementing cost-recovery strategies; and (e) managing risks associated with community-based programming. As decisions are made, it is expected that Extension employees will question the outcomes and how they are made, including the frequencies and effectiveness of communication. Organizational JusticeOrganizational justice, peoples' perceptions of fairness in an organization, consists of four constructs, including the outcomes or decisions made (distributive justice); process by which decisions are made (procedural justice); opportunity for input and having a voice in the decision-making process (interactional justice); and the overall structure of decision-making (systemic justice) (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2001; Greenberg 1987) As Extension administrators across the country address new and evolving challenges, there will continue to be new decisions, new strategies of communication, involvement of stakeholders, and the influence of the underlying, informal networks. All individuals, regardless of their roles in their respective organizations, are affected by major decisions. With decisions come both positive and negative reactions from employees, depending on the perceived impact. Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton (1992) stated that "persistent justice typically produces immediate and direct consequences, such as equitable pay improves individual performance, equal treatment raises group spirit, voice creates commitment to a decision, and access creates a loyal ally" (p. 102). Pursuing justice in the organization potentially leads to: (1) increased performance effectiveness; (2) a sense of community among employees; and (3) a sense of individual dignity and humanness among employees (Buegre', 1998; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). Positive perceptions of organizational justice typically result in positive attitudinal (job satisfaction, commitment, and trust) and behavioral (organizational citizenship, behavior, turnover, and workplace aggression) reactions (Beugre', 1998). StrategiesExtension administrators can take many steps and implement a variety of strategies to help ensure positive perceptions of organizational justice that will ultimately improve job satisfaction, commitment, citizenship, and behavior, while potentially reducing turnover and workplace aggression. All administrators should consider the following strategies.
ConclusionWhen the country's economic engine begins to roar again, faculty and staff positions begin to be able to be filled, and organizational budgets increase, the desire will be, by many, to return to previous staffing patterns and implement programs or processes that were lost during the downsizing. However, administrators must not allow this mentality to take over the organization as they make the tough decisions that align and advance the organization as society continues to evolve and face new challenges. Organizational leaders must face the reality that all future decisions are going to be difficult. It will be imperative to identify alternative reward structures, involve employees in decision making in creative ways, clearly articulate procedures used, and nurture the informal and formal networks in order to maintain or improve satisfaction, commitment, and trust in the organization that undoubtedly will continue to change. ReferencesBeugre', C. D. (1998). Managing fairness in organizations. Wesport, CT: Quorum Books. Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The history of organizational justice: The founders speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61. Sheppard B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York, NY: Macmillan, Inc. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
The Impact of Microenterprise Development Training on Low-Income ClientsMichele Cranwell Schmidt Jane M. Kolodinsky Carol Flint Bruce Whitney IntroductionMicroenterprise 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 VermontSelf-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 ProgramThe 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 ServicesResearch 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 DevelopmentSocial 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 AlleviationResearch 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.
Community ImpactMED 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 StudyThe 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:
Figure 1 shows the MED program theory used by MBDP (MBDP, 2000). Figure 1.
Methods and MeasuresIn 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:
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. ResultsParticipant CharacteristicsThe 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.
The following were social-economic statistics of clients at intake.
Services ReceivedTable 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 AchievedTable 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 AchievedClients 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 SalesMore 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 IncomeChange 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 CreationA 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 UnemploymentFigure 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.
Demographic Variables and TANF and Unemployment ChangesCross 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 ChangesPaired 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.
ConclusionsThe 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. ReferencesBates, 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 ProvidesYolanda Suarez-Balcazar Louise I. Martinez Ginnefer Cox Anita Jayraj IntroductionAccess to Fresh Produce in Working Class and Low-Income NeighborhoodsIndividuals 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 ProvideThe 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 BackgroundWith 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 SettingThe 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. MethodsProcedure and InstrumentsTo 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. ResultsShoppersParticipant CharacteristicsIn 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' MarketRespondents 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' MarketRespondents 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 StoresRespondents 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 CommunityTo 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. FarmersTo 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. ConclusionThe 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.
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 RecommendationsExtension 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 OfferedIt 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 MarketsParticipants 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 ShoppersThe 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 UseCoupons 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 CommunityObtaining 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. ReferencesAbel, 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 SustainabilityKathryn J. Brasier Timothy Collins Timothy W. Kelsey Martin H. Lenihan Walter Whitmer IntroductionAlong 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 CommunityThe 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.
Pilot ProgramThe 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 ResultsTo 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. ParticipationTable 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 QualityMost 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
