February 2006
Volume 44 Number 1

Features

Extension's Role in Homeland Security: A Virginia Perspective

John H "Rusty" Miller
Ph.D. Student
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
rustym@vt.edu

Robert Grisso
Professor
Biological Systems Engineering
rgrisso@.vt.edu

Michael Lambur
Professor and Head
Extension Program and Curriculum Development
lamburmt@vt.edu

Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia

Introduction

Do you remember what you were doing around 10 a.m. on September 11, 2001? This is a day we will long remember. Given the current environment related to the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Cooperative Extension may be in a unique position to provide educational assistance related to the consequences of terrorism because of its strong presence in local communities. What role should Extension play? What is needed in the way of educational assistance? These were important questions that Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) sought to answer in this project.

EDEN (Extension Disaster Education Network) developed a USDA project to identify educational needs in the area of homeland security. As part of accomplishing that task, EDEN conducted two national surveys, one from Extension educators working in field offices and one from agricultural producers (EDEN, 2002). The results of the surveys indicated a need for Extension to be involved in this arena by setting up an informational system to provide state and local governments a way to inform and educate the public in homeland security matters.

Building upon this, VCE conducted a project that was designed to determine what role it might play in assisting local governments in dealing with emergency preparedness issues in the aftermath of a manmade disaster as a result of terrorist activity. The project was funded as a special project through USDA.

Extension can play a critical role in coordination of activities, not just during a disaster, but also before a disaster occurs, and in the period of long-term recovery after consequence management activities. Local governments are actively engaged in safeguarding their counties and cities and most of all protecting their citizens. Many county and city major facilities require upgraded security. Local officials as well as the citizens they represent need additional information for planning emergency preparedness and implementing and managing emergency plans in case of a disaster. Extension could play an important role in providing this type of assistance.

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to collect viewpoints and perspectives on the unique role VCE could play in providing Homeland Security educational assistance to local governments and key professionals involved in the protection of residents from a terrorist attack. Using this information, VCE could position itself to play a key role in addressing this important issue.

Methodology

Community forums were identified as the appropriate data collection method. They were used because they provided a way to bring key individuals together to discuss VCE's potential role in Homeland Security. By identifying local individuals who have a stake in homeland security and facilitating the discussion, VCE could be a catalyst for effective community problem solving.

VCE, through its local Extension Leadership Councils (ELC), held five community forums to determine the need for educational assistance in manmade disasters resulting from terrorist attacks. ELC's are composed of a diverse group of salaried and volunteer staff who truly own an ever-changing Cooperative Extension program in their planning area. The ELC assumes responsibility not only for identifying the needs and concerns that exist in their planning area, but shares a commitment to determining solutions, implementing them, and evaluating and reporting results. The diversity of the ELC enhances discussions, deliberations, and actions. In addition, there is a recognition that each person on the ELC brings unique experiences and information that will contribute to the Extension educational programming process.

The purpose of the community forums was to collect participants' viewpoints on the kinds of terrorist attacks they considered a threat to their community (both directly and surrounding), the kinds of preparations if any that were already underway to deal with these threats, and the kinds of educational assistance that would be needed by the community (citizens and professionals).

Data were collected from community forum participants through the use of eight key questions. Invited participants for this study included:

• Representatives from local government (counties and towns, elected and administrative);

• Public safety, local and state law enforcement, and emergency management personnel (including coordinators, fire and rescue); School personnel (public and private);

• Health care system personnel (hospitals, health departments);

• Nonprofit sector personnel (Red Cross, Autumn Care of Suffolk, Salvation Army);

• State agency personnel, including Extension and ELC members;

• Transportation system personnel, including the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel;

• Court system personnel; and

• Faith community personnel.

A total of 122 people participated in the forums.

Five community forums were conducted from May through August, 2003, in the following locations in Virginia (Figure 1): the Eastern Shore (Accomack and Northampton Counties), Powhatan County, Prince George County, City of Suffolk, and Abingdon (multi-jurisdictions – southwest Virginia).

Figure 1.
Location of Community Forums

The number of participants by site follows:

• Eastern Shore – 32
• Powhatan County – 20
• Prince George County – 10
• City of Suffolk – 16
• Abingdon – 44

At the Suffolk and Prince George sites, questions were posed directly to the participants by a facilitator, with all responses recorded on flipcharts. The number of participants at the Eastern Shore, Abingdon, and Powhatan sites was of a size that participants were divided into small groups. A facilitator posed questions, with each small group responding to the questions within the group and recording their comments on a flipchart.

Community Forum Results

A summary of key results by question is presented below.

Question #1: What Kind of Terrorist Attacks, That May Happen Anywhere, Concerns You the Most?

Participants at all sites mentioned similar kinds of attacks: Biological and chemical events, disruptions to systems (utilities, communications, and transportation), contamination (water and food), and explosives. In addition, participants at the Abingdon, Prince George, and Suffolk sites were concerned about "something" happening at large public events. The Eastern Shore and Suffolk participants were concerned about an attack on the ports and military bases in the area.

Questions #2 & #3: What Types of Attacks Are You Most Concerned About That May Happen Here? From the Created List, What Are the Top Three You Are Most Concerned About?

Responses to these questions mirrored responses to the first question. But when participants were asked to choose the three types of attacks they were most concerned could happen in their communities, there were differences among sites:

• Abingdon – Contamination of water supply, including reservoir, rivers, and streams; disruption to transportation system (road/bridge/dam destruction); and attacks at public events (the races at Bristol, schools, other public events)

• Eastern Shore – Disruption to the transportation corridor, including the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, with disruptions to the following systems: communications, nuclear war fallout, biological and chemical attacks, including the use of agricultural chemicals

• Powhatan – Disruptions at mass gatherings (schools, racetrack, military), attack on chemical plant, attack on Surry Nuclear Plant

• Prince George – Disruption to air navigation system (located in area), disruption to public utilities and communications system, including computers

• Suffolk – Biological (something happening elsewhere and moving into area), contamination of food and water supply (fallout from Surry or shipyards), and Suffolk being used as a target as a diversion to a main target elsewhere

Question #4: To Your Knowledge, What Preparations Are Already Under Way in Your County/City/Community to Deal with an Attack and Its Aftermath?

All sites reported enhanced planning efforts since the September 11, 2001 event, with more serious attention given to potential targets. There are local Emergency Planning Committees in all jurisdictions. Emergency operations plans are in place, and mock drills are being held. Schools have developed crisis plans. Health Departments working with hospitals and other health related organizations have plans. In the eastern part of the state it was mentioned there are transportation plans on how to "move" the people in the event of a disaster. Shelters and distribution centers have been identified. The nonprofit sector and the faith communities (at some sites) have also done planning. Sites also reported the purchase of enhanced equipment/communications systems/weaponry and plans for purchasing additional items when additional funds become available.

Several sites reported educational efforts that had been directed to the general public. In the Suffolk area, there is CERT training that provides information on how to help families/neighbors in emergency situations. The Health Department and Red Cross have done training for civic groups. Civic groups have been asked by fire and police departments to assist in passing information on to others. VCE has provided education on farm security and pesticide storage statewide. In general, the public was more open to the receiving of information.

Although participants reported enhanced coordination among interested parties, there was also surprise at the amount of planning that was ongoing in sectors not known to them. Multiple plans have been developed for the same geographic area focusing on separate segments of the community, i.e., law enforcement, health, civic involvement, faith communities, nonprofit sector. Participants often commented that there needed to be a coordinated effort where all planning entities would meet at least yearly to compare plans and efforts for better coordination. It was acknowledged that the two segments that appeared to be involved in cross-sector planning were emergency management and law enforcement.

Questions #5, #6, & #7: Do You Feel a Need for Information on Preparing for Dealing with Attacks and Their Aftermath? To Whom Should the Information Be Directed? In What Form Do You Think the Information Should Be Made Available?

At no site did the participants feel the need for additional information. The sense was that the information is readily available either from their state/federal counterparts or from other sources via the Web. An observer at the Abingdon forum representing a local newspaper stated she could not get the information she thought she needed for distribution to the public.

However, participants at all sites felt there was a need to provide information to the general public. As one person stated at the Suffolk site, the information that the public needs is available, but it may not be in a form (written in a technical manner or at a too high educational level or it contains too much information) that is appropriate for the public. A participant in Abingdon stated that some information is only available to key officials/agencies/organizations and the public would not have access to it. It was felt there wasn't a need to create any new information but to get available information in a form appropriate for distribution to the public and coordinate its dissemination.

Question #8: What Do You See as Extensions' Role in Supporting the Existing Efforts When Dealing with Preparation for an Attack or Following One?

There were differences in responses by site:

• Abingdon – 4-H/youth programming – develop a volunteer force to work on homeland security activities (provide curriculum and projects on disaster preparedness, prepare youth for emergency response); serve as a central information agency (pre-event); act as a liaison to other agencies; compile all emergency plans/efforts; post-event – assist emergency services by providing education and disseminating information; assist in developing volunteer educators in neighborhoods patterned after civic defense units of the 1950-60's; prepare information on food preparation/food safety in times of disasters, pesticide certification, assist with damage assessment (agriculture), facilitate forums for citizens and governments

• Eastern Shore – organize and create an information publication in partnership with all agencies relative to terrorist attacks, serve as an education resource, utilize statewide Extension system for information, develop materials for mass distribution, coordinate with other agencies to develop public information, hold educational meetings for general public, educate youth through 4-H and the schools, provide information to agricultural/farm labor population

• Powhatan – relay information to the public, damage assessment, public awareness and communication, public meetings, training, assist other organizations such as the Red Cross with shelter setup

• Prince George – provide information to deal with incorrect or misleading information, use network to get information to children and families, use the Extension network to identify funds from federal government to obtain grants to support planning and implementation efforts

• Suffolk – reach people in rural areas with information, training provided on use of food/water supplies particularly for families living with well water, water issues relative to a safe supply for livestock, use of the 4-H program to get information out, using sentinel animals, i.e., chickens as the "canary in the mine"

In summary, five key points were identified that have implications for Extension's involvement in homeland security.

1. Since September 11, 2001, all jurisdictions have enhanced their planning efforts, but it has primarily been done within "vertical silos," with each sector of the community doing their own planning, either linking into their state systems, e.g., the Health Departments or standing alone.

2. Participants were often surprised at the amount of planning that has taken place or is currently being done within their communities by various entities.

3. Participants acknowledged the need to "coordinate the plans" among all those that have or are developing plans.

4. Participants did not see a need to develop new information, but they did see a need to take existing information and convert it into a form that is appropriate for use by the general public.

5. There was variance among sites as to the role that Extension can play in supporting existing planning efforts, although all saw Extension as providing information to the general public.

Extension's Role in Virginia: Next Steps

As a result of these efforts, a Web site <http://www.hlseduc.ext.vt.edu/> has been established with the goal of developing materials that agents and local emergency response groups can use to access and prepare for man-made disasters. A community action plan and implementation strategies will be the primary driver for this site. The site will also contain resources and ideas to study and test as the community acts. The materials will aid in the interaction of sharing the current agency plans for homeland security and how they will impact the total action during an emergency. The Extension agent will be viewed as one of the potential facilitators of these local action and development plans, pulling resources and the expertise from the community and helping to identify potential overlaps of missions and potential gaps in responding and preparing for man-made disasters.

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of Judy Burtner, who set up and conducted all of the forums. Presented at the EDEN 2004 Annual Meeting, "Building Relationships with Agencies and People," October 12-14, 2004, The Penn State - Conference Center Hotel, Penn State University State College, PA

References

EDEN, Extension Disaster Education Network. (2002). 2002 Eden Homeland Security Survey [On-line]. Available at: http://www.eden.lsu.edu/hs_surveys.asp

Continuity and Change: Themes of Mental Model Development Among Small-Scale Farmers

Eileen Eckert
Project Coordinator
UC Small Farm Center
University of California, Davis
Davis, California
eeckert@ucdavis.edu

Alexandra Bell
Assistant Professor
University of Connecticut
Department of Educational Leadership
Storrs, Connecticut
sandy.bell@uconn.edu

Small-scale farming is an endangered way of life in many parts of the United States. Agricultural land and family farming enterprises are experiencing heavy pressures from real estate development, consolidation, conflicts over water, and other trends that lead more farmers to exit than enter the occupation every year (Golden, 2004; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1998). At the same time, niches of opportunity exist in farming (Burros, 2002; Ortiz, 2004). Operators of small farms who can produce organic, specialty, or value-added products can often maintain and even improve their economic well-being (Burros, 2002; Greene, 2000). Moskin (2005) noted "the concentration [of these types of enterprises] is especially high in the Northeast, where a small farm near an urban area can now survive solely through farmers' markets, restaurants, farm membership (in which customers pay in advance for a season's worth of produce) and other direct outlets."

Ingenuity and innovation are keys to success, and these qualities are integrated in successful small-scale farmers' mental models of farming (Eckert & Bell, 2005). Mental models are defined as "inventions of the mind that represent, organize, and restructure domain-specific knowledge" (Seel, 2001, p. 408). Related research by Eckert and Bell (Eckert & Bell, 2005; Bell & Eckert, 2005) found that prior experience, values and beliefs, and knowledge influenced a farmer's current mental model of farming. In turn, the mental model served as both a filter and guide for his or her actions, decisions, and use of information. This was true regardless of the type of farming operation, marketing practices, or approach to farming (for example, sustainable, organic, or conventional).

For many farmers, success requires overcoming assumptions embedded in mental models of farming that keep them tied to their current practices and prevent them from seeing possibilities for success (Berton, 2001; Eckert, 2003). A better understanding of how farmers develop their mental models of farming and the conditions under which their models may change is needed for agricultural educators to maximize the impact of services and enable farmers to improve the viability and profitability of their farms. The qualitative study described here, which focused on a group of small-scale farmers in the Northeast, represents a first step towards this goal.

Method

Ten operators of small farms in the northeastern United States comprised the sample for this study. The sample was selected through a process of peer and service-provider referral, which resulted in a list of successful small-scale farmers representing different farming approaches, commodities, marketing strategies, and geographic regions. The sample emphasized sustainable and organic practices to reflect growing trends in the Northeast and the USDA Small Farms Commission (1998) policy recommendations emphasizing sustainable agriculture as a profitable, ecological, and socially sound strategy for small farms. A profile of the sample is presented in Table 1.

Each participant met the operational definition of "successful new farmer" based on a multifaceted typology of new farmers developed by the Northeast New Farmer Network Project (Sheils, 2004). The typology was designed to enable service providers to better meet the needs of the region's new farmer clientele and accounts for differences in levels of farming experience, responsibility, commitment, resources, and risk. By definition (Sheils, 2004), the farmers in the sample had completed re-strategizing efforts, which typically involves going "through a critical phase of modifying or restructuring their operations" (p. 6) and "they were on their way to becoming established farmers" (p. 6). All of the farms were full-time operations, though many of the farmers had additional sources of income.

The 10 farmers who participated in the study were interviewed on site at their farms. Interviews were completed between February and August of 2002. The semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews lasted 60 to 90 minutes. The interview protocol focused on farmers' perceptions of significant experiences in the course of their learning how to farm and the meanings they attributed to being a "successful" farmer. Consistent with qualitative interview strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), the protocol was revised on an ongoing basis to elicit more focused responses from participants and to accommodate themes that emerged in early data analysis.

Data analysis entailed alternating between open coding and thematic coding using themes suggested by the literature on mental models (e.g., Greeno, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 1983; Seel, 2001) and verifying or revising themes based on the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Trustworthiness of data collection and analysis were maximized using a variety of strategies, including member checking, peer debriefing, review of transcripts and interpretations by a farmer advisor, and review of current literature. Results are presented in the following section. Relevant information about interview participants is incorporated into the discussion.

Results

Based on the interview data, the researchers developed a definition of a mental model of farming. A mental model of farming is an individual "mental map" or set of propositions that includes the individual's values and beliefs about the ideal and the actual state of farming. It includes the role and relative importance of values, beliefs, knowledge, and skills, as well as ways of processing information, learning, and applying skills to solve problems (Eckert, 2003; Eckert & Bell, 2005).

Two themes emerged in the data regarding how small-scale successful farmers developed mental models of farming:

1. Continuity. Farmers built upon and reinforced their existing mental models of farming through discovery learning and problem-solving.

2. Change. In some cases, farmers transformed their mental models as a result of an activating event (Cranton, 2002) that triggered articulation, questioning, and revision of their values, beliefs, knowledge, and skills.

Continuity: Farmers Develop and Reinforce Existing Mental Models Through Discovery Learning and Problem Solving

Participants in this study developed, reinforced, and refined their existing mental models of farming primarily through discovery learning and problem solving. Farmers spoke of trial-and-error and of learning without necessarily knowing the outcome in advance, in short, of learning through discoveries. According to Tuovinen and Sweller (1999), "Discovery learning requires learners to discover concepts and procedures that might otherwise be communicated by direct instruction" (p. 334). Seel (2001) attributed mental model development to activities such as exploratory learning and problem solving, including both self-guided and other-guided discovery learning. In the interviews, participants described both types of discovery learning experiences.

Carla and Jim, who operated a goat dairy and grew vegetable crops, provided an example of how their mental model of insect pest control was refined through self-guided discovery learning. They described their use of chickens to eat the bugs in their greenhouse and their use of praying mantises to control harmful insects:

Jim: We found that a way to keep the greenhouse bug free is to let about 20 chickens in there for about . . . (pause in tape) . . . scratch the heck out of everything . . .

Carla: And then we got those praying mantis cases, that's another big--

Jim: All over the farm, we find them everywhere cause we don't spray, so we bring them in to a central location and put them in the greenhouse--

Carla: Two a week.

Jim: Yeah, a couple at a time, and they'll hatch out, and then when we carry our plants out and put them in the field, they're already covered with praying mantis.

Interviewer: So how did you come up with that and the chickens?

Carla: It was his idea.

Jim: It was my idea.

Carla: Chickens are great bug eaters.

Jim: Accidental farming.

Organic vegetable growers Cathy and Mike also described several discovery learning activities, both self-guided and other-guided, that contributed to their proficiency in controlling harmful insects. An example of other-guided discovery learning was their participation in an agricultural researcher's project on controlling Mexican bean beetles with a parasitic wasp. An example of self-guided discovery learning was their planting of nicotiana next to their tomatoes, "just because we happened to like the plant," and then discovering that tomato hornworms liked the nicotiana better than the tomato plants.

Mike described how they incorporated things that they had "noticed over the years that they've been beneficial to our operation." Mike said, "For me, rotation is so important to control the quality of the ground and what bugs are there, and use of green strips in your fields to isolate. The bugs travel, [so] if you put in grass or something like that it's hard for them to sort of get through so they'll stop." The activities that Cathy and Mike described were in keeping with Mike's summary of his own learning as occurring largely through trial-and-error. All the activities occurred within the farmers' established mental model of being successful in organic farming.

The discovery-learning and problem-solving activities described above were undertaken with a conscious awareness on the part of the farmers of how the activities fit their mental model and contributed to their success. Cathy said, "They know at the experiment station that if they have something that is organic that they want to try, that we're very open to trials, we're very open to trying new techniques." Her explanation that she and Mike were open to organic trials indicated her unwillingness to participate in non-organic trials. Non-organic trials would have been outside of her mental model of farming that delimits, or frames, her practices and learning. Cathy described seeking experiences that would contribute to her ability to apply knowledge skillfully and to be successful within her chosen mental model of farming.

Most of the learning activities described by farmers in the sample served to maintain the continuity of an existing mental model. Some experiences, however, were activating events, which triggered articulation, questioning, and sometimes transformation of the farmer's mental model.

Change: Farmers Sometimes Transform Their Mental Models as a Result of an Activating Event

For some farmers, the process of becoming aware of one's mental model or its components happened over a long period of time. In other cases, the farmer's mental model was challenged by an activating event--an occurrence that caused the mental model to become explicit and open to reflection, refinement, and sometimes transformation. Cranton (2002) used the term activating event to refer to an event that "typically exposes a discrepancy between what a person has always assumed to be true and what has just been experienced, heard, or read" (p. 66). Half of the farmers interviewed described experiences that were indicative of activating events.

In his interview, Kevin, a livestock and poultry farmer, explained how he came to understand farming using a different mental model than the "industrial model" that framed most of his learning experiences in college. Upon completing a conventional herdsman program in a vocational college, he believed that he did not have the land, infrastructure, or capital to begin farming for himself, so he worked in a conventional hog farming operation. Kevin described the experience of disease decimating the livestock population, saying, "There was periods of time when we lost every pig in the whole room, and you just, you know, pitching 'em out the door for hours, piles this high outside the . . . it's pretty discouraging." When asked about critical incidents in his development of proficiency, he returned to that experience, saying:

Well, I think my "aha" incident would have been working in the hog barns, 'cause, you know, before that time I thought, "Well, this is the way you go, you know, this is the future, this is the way it is," and after that experience that kind of changed my outlook . . . There was a couple of times when things were just, everything was dead! . . . and we were doing everything we could do, in terms of vaccinating and treating and cleaning and all that to prevent it, but it still happened. So I would say that kind of changed my, totally changed my thinking, which also changed whether I could start farming on my own, because if you don't need a confinement barn to start farming, if all you need's a couple of strings of wire and an electric fence and some animals and some grass, that's all you need, then it makes it a whole lot more practical to start.

Kevin explained that as a result of the change in his mental model triggered by the activating event, he was able to begin farming in a way that was consistent with his transformed mental model and that was not resource-intensive.

Carla described and contrasted two activating events. First was her knowledge of a farmer who died of liver failure after applying pesticides without taking the proper safety precautions. She said, "I had always gardened and had never used chemicals anyway, but that was like the convincing argument for me--OK, this stuff can kill people, we're not gonna use it." Later in the interview, she described the difficulties she and Jim had in learning how to communicate with their customers and asking for their input, saying, "We should have taken the risk of actually communicating the same a couple of years ago rather than waiting so long. And I just, I just didn't think that I was really ready, I didn't know what would happen, I was scared to take that risk, you know, of asking people to come and talk about the future of the farm." Then Carla contrasted the two experiences, saying:

We knew other people [who successfully communicated with their CSA members], we knew the model, in our brains. But it didn't get translated to our hearts, to action, to really believe in it until we did it. You know, there's other things that you believe. Okay, I didn't really see anybody die from getting sprayed . . . but I know that. I didn't need to, you know, kill one of my kids before I got that! So there are some things that you learn that you act on and there are other things that you have the knowledge but not the belief.

Learning of another farmer's experience with unsafe use of chemicals was an activating event that influenced Carla's strategies in managing pests. The event triggered reflection and articulation of values that filtered her learning and her assessment of pest problem solutions. The experience of being "afraid to take that risk" of discussing the future of the farm with their CSA members, and the experience of finally doing so, were activating events that lead to a major change in Carla's mental model concerning the consumer's role in her and Jim's farming operation.

Many of the activating events described by farmers in this study concerned moving from conventional to sustainable agricultural practices and serving special market niches. The changes farmers described included developing a better-articulated and better-integrated understanding of farming and the ability to apply that knowledge more skillfully. While the farmers who were interviewed did not explicitly discuss changes in profitability that resulted from transformation of their mental models, a review of profiles of "innovative" operators of small farms featured in the New American Farmer: Profiles of Agricultural Innovation (Berton, 2001) did address such concerns. In many cases, transformation of the mental model and the resulting changes in practice made the difference between failure and success.

Conclusions and Implications for Agriculture Educators

Previous researchers (e.g., Eckert, 2003; Raedeke & Rikoon, 1997) have identified the important role that mental models of farming play in farmers' learning, decision-making, and adapting to change. The findings of the study described here provide insight as to how farmers develop their mental models of farming and the conditions under which their models may change. For the small farm operators in the study, the processes of discovery learning and problem-solving served as primary means for mental model development. Farmers approached learning in ways that reflected existing mental models, and the outcomes of learning experiences often served to reinforce their models. Sometimes, an activating event threatened the stability of a mental model, triggering reflection, challenging assumptions, and ultimately transforming the mental model.

Because this was a qualitative study, the results cannot be generalized beyond the sample of farmers who participated in the study. The results are consistent, however, with previous research on mental model development indicating that an individual's current mental model can direct the course of learning and problem solving (Seele, 2001) and that an activating event can trigger a significant transformation in a mental model opening up new possibilities for learning (Cranton, 2002).

The mental models of farming held by farmers who were not participants in this study likely reflect a continuum of beliefs, values, assumptions, knowledge, and skill sets. In light of prior research, the possibility exists that regardless of the specific nature of a farmer's mental model, learning and problem solving will be consistent with one's current model. Additionally, the model will be relatively stable, but change may occur following a significant experience that challenges the underlying values and assumptions on which the model is based.

Agriculture educators often direct programs and resources to support farmers in adjusting their practices to improve the viability or profitability of their operations. Because learning experiences appear to shape farmers' mental models of farming and mental models serve as guides for decisions and actions (Eckert & Bell, 2005), understanding how farmers develop mental models can help educators design learning programs and services that better enable farmers to succeed.

The current model of education through presentation or dissemination of information does not take into account how that information will interact with farmers' existing mental models and practices. When educators consult with farmers on their farms and when they bring together farmers with similar practices to share information and experiences, they provide opportunities for farmers to tailor the information they get to their individual needs and situations. While such outreach activities may be less efficient than those that involve presentation by an expert to a group, they are more likely to be effective, that is, actually used to improve farming practices.

In both Extension and academic settings, educators can extend current best practices by:

1. Demonstrating to farmers that they recognize the knowledge, skills, and values farmers have developed through discovery learning, problem solving, and activating events.

2. Using farmers' knowledge, skills, and values as the starting point for assessing needs and offering additional information and resources.

3. Offering opportunities for discovery learning and problem solving within structured educational programs (for example, through problem-based learning and hands-on activities).

4. Creating conditions that support self-directed discovery learning for individual farmers at their sites of operation (for example, through collaborations between farmers and researchers, and consultations with farm advisors).

5. Balancing offering information and solutions with providing resources that support problem solving.

Sometimes, a component of a farmer's current mental model poses a barrier to change that would lead to improved viability or profitability. When a farmer can benefit from developing further some aspect of his or her mental model, direct instruction or visits to other farms using similar approaches can prime the farmer to consider new possibilities.

However, when the viability of a farmer's operation is in danger because of his or her untenable mental model, change may not be possible until it is triggered by an activating event.

When working with farmers under these circumstances, a purely cognitive, reason-based approach by agricultural educators is probably not enough to trigger such transformation. In these cases, an educator may best facilitate change by supporting the farmer in sharing experiences with another farmer who has undergone a transformation in assumptions and beliefs that underlie his or her practice. If the farmer becomes open to change after this peer learning experience, the educator can follow up with information and resources--but the first step is the experience.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a USDA grant to the New England Small Farm Institute for the Growing New Farmers project.

References

Bell, A. A., & Eckert, E. (2005). Effective farmer education research project executive summary and final report (Report for the Growing Northeast New Farmers Project). Storrs CT: University of Connecticut Department of Educational Leadership.

Berton, V. (Ed.) (2001). The new American farmer: Profiles of agricultural innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.

Burros, M. (2002, May 29). Eating well: The greening of the herd. New York Times, pp. F1.

Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1987). How people construct mental models. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 243-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. In Imel, S. (Series Ed.) & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (Vol. Ed.), Contemporary viewpoints on teaching adults effectively: No. 93. New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 63-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dillon, J. (2003, February 5). New England Milk. All Things Considered [Radio broadcast]. Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Retrieved February 20, 2003, from http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=979162

Eckert, E. (2003). Proficiency-development spirals: Occupational learning among farmers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Eckert, E., & Bell, A. A. (2005). Invisible force: Farmers' mental models and how they influence learning and actions. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(3), Article 3FEA2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/ent.shtml#a2

Golden, C. (2004, May 27). Alliance would build up area agriculture. Davis Enterprise. Retrieved June 6, 2004, from http://davisenterprise.com/articles/2004/05/27/ news/219new0.txt

Greene, C. (2000, April). U.S. organic agriculture gaining ground. Agricultural Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service.

Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing (pp. 285-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Moskin, J. (2005, June 1). Women find their place in the field. New York Times. Retrived June 3, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/

Ortiz, J. (2004, January 2). Suddenly, organic beef is a hot item. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/ story/8034904p-8970674c.html

Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: Like a bridge over troubled water. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427.

Sheils, C. (2004). What does the term "new farmer" mean? In C. Shiels & M. Descartes (Eds.), Working with new farmers: Topics in professional development (pp. 4-7). Belchertown, MA: New England Small Farms Institute.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334-341.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Commission on Small Farms. (1998). A time to act (Publication No. 1545 MP-1545). Washington, DC: Author.

Community Collaboration: Effective Partnerships with Steering Committees

Mary Banach
Associate Professor
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire
mbanach@cisunix.unh.edu

Sharyn Zunz
Associate Professor
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire
sjz@cisunix.unh.edu

Nicole LaPointe
Project Manager
Model Communities
North Country Health Consortium
Littleton, New Hampshire
nlapointe@nchin.org

Introduction

Extension program developers, interested in building a community initiative, often look to some form of citizen association composed of residents who know the local culture and feel a stewardship towards their area's resources (Carlton-LaNey, Edwards, & Reid, 1999). An example of such a mechanism is a community based steering committee. Community-based steering committees have many potential benefits, such as:

1. Engaging a broad spectrum of citizens' experiences and perspectives,
2. Ensuring a program's relevance to the community,
3. Developing indigenous leadership,
4. Creating widespread public awareness of the program, and
5. Allowing diverse input about evaluation and accountability.

The case study described here examines how three similar Extension projects approached the use of community-based steering committees and what their experiences can tell us about their effective use in establishing programs. For the purposes of the study, the effectiveness of a steering committee is defined by whether they cultivated conditions that can lead to program sustainability. This definition was chosen because program sustainability was an initial, articulated goal of the start-up grant period. Figure 1 illustrates a "before" and "after" model of what sustainability might look like for a program in this study.

Figure 1.
Sustainable Program Structures: Before & After

The three studied initiatives were part of a statewide effort to expand rural communities' capacity to support vulnerable and low-income families by providing educational resources and opportunities. These initiatives were to be developed through partnerships between Extension and community-based entities, utilizing community assets to ensure program sustainability, including the formation of a local steering committee.

Program Description

Three rural communities in a Northern New England state that had a high percentage of identified at-risk families were selected to receive start-up grant funding. Data indicated that all three selected communities were above the state averages in: children living in poverty, percent of low wage earners, number of adults with less than a 9th grade education, and the number of students scoring lower on standardized reading tests (Bensen, 1998, Children's Alliance, 2000):

1. Site A was located in a rural community with a population of 3,500 but within commuting distance to a larger population center. Their program goal was to serve 15 to 20 limited income children and families through the development of a resource and child enrichment center in the community's newly built elementary school.

2. Site B was located in a larger community, set in a more rural environment, with a population of nearly 14,000. Their strategy was initially to offer programs for middle school youth that would continue to support them through successive grades. Over time, they hoped to expand to reach out to the families of the program's youth.

3. The community hosting Site C was in the most rural setting, with a population of 4,000. This site targeted 25-35 middle school children to participate in an after school enrichment program, in addition to summer and family support initiatives.

The study looked at data gathered during program evaluations conducted at Sites A, B, & C. Each site received an equal amount of funding over a period of 5 years. While the programs implemented by each community varied somewhat, each site formed a community steering group as part of their implementation strategy.

A branch of Extension managed the grant funding and provided senior level administrative support to the three site managers who were all Extension Educators. Site managers, in turn, provided guidance and oversight to the program staff and steering committee members who interacted directly with the program recipients (Figure 1). Every Extension site manager had other job responsibilities and was expected to devote less than 25% of their time to these projects. Similarly, these projects were neither the sole job responsibility of senior Extension administrators nor of the local program staffs.

Literature Review

A scarcity of literature speaks to successful use of steering committees in development of community initiatives. Therefore, information was gleaned from related topics, such as: work team management, non-profit board management, consumer advisory boards, coalition building, and community development. The literature suggests three interconnected attributes as vital to the effectiveness of community working groups:

1. Adequate resources,

2. Representative committee composition,

3. Leadership that communicates clear goals, roles, and a unified vision. Note: Since one goal of these projects was to eventually turn over the programs to indigenous leaders (Figure 1), leadership was seen to include encouraging steering committee ownership of their program.

A review of the literature on these three attributes is summarized below.

Resources

It is important to analyze what resources the supporting organization is able to commit to establishing a steering committee. Resources might include: 1) leaders' experience with group facilitation, 2) availability of leaders' and members' time, 3) concrete resources, such as space and funds, and 4) commitment of leaders to genuine power sharing (Cohen, 1994). Such organizational supports are common themes in the literature for predicting group effectiveness (Hirokawa, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Hirokawa & Keyton, 1995).

The community's "readiness" is another important resource. Community readiness includes economic and social resources a community is willing to make available to the program. Predicting a community's readiness requires an understanding of the culture, values, history, and politics of the community, as well as the relevance the community sees in the issues addressed by any new initiative (Bergstrom, A., et al., 1995; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001).

Member Composition

Broad representation across the constituent base of a community program is needed to develop feasible and sustainable solutions to complex social problems (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1996). The nature of these problems cannot be fully understood by only a handful of stakeholders. In order to capture a diversity of representation across traditional boundaries of public, private, and non-profit sectors, relationship building is a critical element in steering committee development (Crocker, 2000; Mulroy, 2000).

Efforts aimed at engaging hard-to-reach or excluded groups (including consumers) are important to achieve organizational integrity. Efforts to recruit broad participation should be sensitive to the culture of the supporting organization, including the location and structure of meetings (Pargament, Habib, & Antebi, 1978). In addition, consumers, who are affected by a lack of needed services can become frustrated by a long-term process where their participation does not seem to bring about meaningful and timely change.

Maintaining a diverse membership requires the activity of a nominating committee, or some other standardized process by which citizens can be recruited to participate in the group (Rabinowitz, n.d.; Kolzow, 1995; Herman, Renz, & Heimovics, 1997). However, volunteering on a steering committee can be strenuous and time consuming, leading to member resignations or periods of inactivity (McFarlen, 1999). Therefore, ongoing maintenance of members' interest, (re-)motivation, and engagement are at least as important as recruitment of new members.

Leadership and Ownership

One of the leader's major responsibilities during the development phase of a steering committee is to guide the group in creating a vision, mission, goals, and objectives (Eadie, 1991; Kolzow, 1999; McFarlen, 1999). Leaders must both ensure that new members have an understanding of the vision and values of the committee and that ongoing members undertake a regular review of the organization's direction (Kolzow, 1995; Herman, Renz, & Heimovics, 1997).

Another major role of any leader is the development of clear, efficient information pathways (Hirokawa, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Hirokawa & Keyton, 1995). It is especially important that there be clear and candid internal communication regarding member roles and leader expectations. Additionally, strong external channels of communication between the steering committee and other community organizations can increase the potential for program effectiveness and sustainability (Kolzow, 1999). Reliable communication channels can: identify community assets, prevent duplication of efforts, find ways to share existing resources, and create a sense of working within the community-as-a-whole.

There is a relationship between high expectations from the leadership and effective performance by the steering committee (Hirokawa & Keyton, 1995). Leaders who encourage members to function independently help the committee develop the competency to take on larger and more complex tasks (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Axelrod, 1997). By delegating tasks and being open to dissenting opinions, leaders illustrate trust in, and respect for, the steering committee.

In summary, a review of the literature points to three interrelated areas that affect program effectiveness and sustainability. These areas are: 1) resources, 2) steering committee composition, and 3) leadership and community ownership. The case study described here examines how these areas manifested themselves in the development of the three selected programs.

Methodology

The study analyzed data gathered from interviews with Extension managers and steering committee members in three sites during a first- and second-year program evaluation. Faculty and graduate student research assistants from the social work department of a local university conducted the semi-structured, telephone interviews. Interviewers asked managers to comment on several content areas, including: steering committee functioning, sustainability, grant administration, progress towards program goals, suggestions for future planning, and the way their individual skills had been used.

First-year evaluation interviews analyzed from the three sites included eight managers and 19 steering committee members. Responses from eight managers and 22 steering committee members represent the second-year evaluation data analyzed. Responses were grouped by site and by the year the interview was conducted.

Respondents' interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Transcript excerpts were examined for data that pertained to committee, site managers, and leadership functions as well as the project's interface with the overall community. Qualitative analysis of the data utilized standard activities of data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing, and verification for a grounded theory approach identifying key concepts. All transcript excerpts were coded using theories, concepts, and categories that emerged through the data. Particular attention was paid to themes relating to the use and development of the steering committees and variances among the three sites in moving toward sustainability.

Verification was achieved through a process of triangulation involving each of the three authors examining transcripts and analyzing data for theories and concepts, which were then compiled into data tables under the most robust themes.

Findings

The analysis of the case study's data allowed a comparison of steering committee development in the three programs. The discussion below delineates the study's findings using the broad categories supported by the review of the literature and which emerged as themes in the data analysis: resources, steering committee composition, and leadership skills and ownership issues. Table 1 presents a summary of the findings.

Resources

The resources discussed in this section include: those already available in the communities at program start-up; those developed at each site during the first two years of the project; and those in process of being, or that have yet to be, developed by manager.

Year One

Few resources were found in any of the small, rural communities for the three programs. Sites A and C both had initial difficulties with recruitment and retention of staff and steering committee members. Such personnel shortages left little opportunity for any discussion of sustainability. Site B managers found that local residents were very responsive to their after-school program aims and more easily recruited committee members with pre-existing skills.

The resources of staff time and energy were at a premium in all three sites. All site managers expressed difficulty balancing this project with their other, concurrent Extension responsibilities. Some managers felt overwhelmed by the enormity of the project and perceived little support.

In all three sites, managers thought more training and better preparation were required to meet their responsibilities. For example, managers expressed the need for additional training on:

1. Community development,
2. Management of steering committees,
3. Examples of program models that worked,
4. Grant management, and
5. Time management

Year Two

Site B was the only site to accomplish the goal of sustainability as the local Board of Education took ownership of the program late in the second year. This was especially noteworthy given the political and legal battles over state and local school financing that had gained prominence in this particular district. The Site B managers and steering committee demonstrated a high degree of political sophistication as they deliberately remained politically neutral in the battle over school funding and thus were able to maintain a positive working relationship with the school board.

By contrast, the other two sites were hindered by continuing confusion about the use of grand funds and communication problems with school administrations. Site C managers faced additional challenges as relationships with school officials had deteriorated to the point that rebuilding relationships became a pre-requisite step to finding any sustainability solutions.

Coordinating multiple tasks and roles remained a challenge for managers in all three sites. Extension staff expressed mixed feelings about the project because of its time demands and the limited funding allocated to support it. Training needs also continued to be an issue. Although improvements were noted, all site managers requested additional training on: facilitated group processes, community development, public relations, and financial management.

Member Composition

Year One

Due to small rural community settings, identifying steering committee members who were interested and able to engage actively was a challenge in all three sites. Both Sites A and C experienced challenges with poor attendance and steering committee dropouts. Reasons for these problems may be attributed to: a loss of interest, confusion regarding the mission and goals of the program, or over-commitment by steering committee members to other activities. On the other hand, attendance was very high at Site B, and the perceived "unwieldy" size of the group was managed by creating smaller work groups and clustering sub-committees of members with similar interests. However, despite the large size of Site B's steering committee, it was felt that actual consumers of program services were still not adequately represented and thus a shifting of member composition was required.

Year Two

All site managers and committee members recognized that there seemed to be a few, very active volunteers in their rural communities. Numerous things vied for the time of the existing committee members, and many members had become "inactive supporters." Even at Site B, where the steering committee remained large, diverse, and fairly representative, there was a debate about whether to put energy into retaining members or into recruiting interested individuals with fresh ideas. Some members were beginning to appear "stretched thin," and there was concern that talented members might burn out.

Leadership and Committee Ownership

Year One

All sites struggled to clarify their relationship with upper level grant administration. For example, some managers felt the leadership from upper level Extension staff provided unclear communication and expectations were unrealistic and confusing. Many site managers wanted assistance resolving their ambivalence about this new project that reduced their available time for other long-standing endeavors. Other managers thought that administrators could have fostered more communication among the project sites, allowing for mutual support.

In terms of relationships between site managers and steering committee members, results were variable. Although Site A managers saw themselves as working well as a team, some steering committee members perceived these managers to dominate meetings with a top-down leadership style. At Site C, managers were confronted by changes in personnel with associated time pressures, which in turn hindered their ability to effectively develop and communicate with the steering committee. In comparison, managers in Site B responded to the increased time demands by encouraging cooperation, delegating leadership responsibilities, and reaching out to those members who had skills that could benefit the program.

Year Two

All sites reported progress. Managers felt clearer about their role and about the program goals. They understood the need for the steering committee to take a more active role in decision-making, and site managers became more adept at:

1. Supporting the transition of committee members into leadership roles,
2. Encouraging problem solving strategies, and
3. Developing effective work teams.

Positive communication and working relationships among the Site B managers continued in year two. Therefore, Site B managers began to engage in a more sophisticated dialogue about accountability as well as the benefits and shortcomings of a grass-roots leadership model.

The steering committee in Site C felt that gains had been made in the structure of the meetings, use of members' time, and appreciation shown for member contributions. Members perceived the level of collaboration between managers and the steering committee to have increased. The committee was taking ownership of the program, and indigenous leadership was emerging from within the group. The committee members felt unified in their understanding of the program's goals, and failures in meeting goals were mainly due to their continuing struggle to adequately staff the program.

Summary of Findings

In examining the data, several observations can be made regarding resources, steering committee composition and leadership/ownership issues. It should be noted that as of this writing, only Site B had gained financial sustainability for its program. Both Site A and Site C were still trying to explore alternate funding sources. What contributed to Site B's success?

In looking at resources, Site B began with a considerably larger population and therefore a larger pool from which to draw participation. Individuals already existed who were previously active in other community initiatives, interested in at-risk families, and had previous experience in resource development. Thus, Site B demonstrated the benefit of having a large enough recruitment pool to ensure that committee members had sufficient expertise and committee tasks were widely shared. They were better able to encourage and advance collaboration, and, as a result, Site B steering committee members articulated an ownership of their committee early into its development. Clear communication, group decision-making, and engaging members in task involvement appeared to assist in this process.

The Site A and C communities, although similarly identified as needing programs for their at-risk families, had not previously been mobilized as a community the way Site B had been by a longstanding, acrimonious debate about public school funding. Therefore, site managers in Site A and C faced greater start-up challenges in identifying and attracting diverse steering committee members, and in readying them for task acceptance.

Implications for Practice

Several implications for Extension program developers can be drawn from the study. These implications are particularly important given the emphasis on collaboration with community stakeholders, which is the foundation of Extension-sponsored endeavors. Recommendations can be identified in three areas: the need for adequate preparation, leadership tasks and skills, and maintenance of a focus on sustainability.

Preparation Process

All participants often underestimate the time and effort needed to develop a new program with a steering committee. Unfortunately, there is usually a demand, either by consumers or funding sources, for immediate start-up services and demonstrable results. Such demands can shortchange the time needed to develop clear task assignments, draft initial program goals, and consider a steering committee's composition. Therefore, suggestions include:

1. Realistic project time lines to allow sufficient time for the formation of policies and initial steering committee development.

2. Cultivation of the community's awareness and buy-in to the program in order to facilitate sustainability. If services are initiated prior to input from the community-based steering committee, then the committee will be less empowered to take on the responsibility and roles necessary to achieve ownership.

Leadership Tasks and Skills

Leadership issues are a second concern for Extension personnel attempting effective steering committee development. Leadership of a community-based initiative may not be a well-developed skill, particularly if concentration has previously been on education or direct services to clients. Effective leadership seemed to require the following:

1. The ability to actively recruit steering members. Community-based committees are reliant on volunteers, and the study illustrates how other constant demands on civic-minded volunteers can result in attrition. Vigilance over steering committees composition must be maintained so that a few key members are not over-extended.

2. Attention to the optimal size for a steering committee to achieve efficiency, specialization, and representativeness.

3. The ability to facilitate the steering committee's process and eventually relinquish their own leadership role. Indigenous leaders should be supported through the transition from Extension-led to community-led efforts.

Maintaining a Focus on Sustainability

A final implication is to remain focused on the goal of sustainability. Although this is particularly important for programs funded with time-limited start-up grants, all programs can benefit from constantly monitoring viability. A focus on sustainability requires:

1. Monitoring whether the community has embraced a program and its efforts through steering committee member feedback.

2. Advancing public relations to highlight the need for the program and publish its successes.

3. "Keeping an eye on the clock." The pursuit of multiple sources of funding is needed early on. Consideration of steering committee composition is important to ensure that there are members who are knowledgeable about financial considerations and avenues for future funding.

In conclusion, the study illustrates several elements important to effective steering committee development by Extension Educators. However, the small sample size and geographically specific, rural setting may mitigate its generalizability. Additional research is needed to determine the degree to which the finding would be replicated in other settings and with different types of programs. Further testing of how various aspects of preparation effect steering committee development would be valuable to expand upon this study's findings.

References

Axelrod, N. (1997). Beyond good intentions: Qualities of successful non-profit board leaders. Directorship, 23(5), 12 - 13.

Bensen, C. H. (1998). Demographic guide to New Hampshire towns, cities and places: 1990 census edition. Lake Ridge, VA: Polidataë Political Data Analysis.

Bergstrom, A., Clark, R., Hogue, T., et al. (1995). Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity. National Network for Collaboration Framework. 18 pp. Retrieved: September 9, 1999, from: http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/framework.html

Bowen, D. J., Kinne, S., & Urban, N. (1997). Analyzing communities for readiness to change. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(4), 289-298.

Carver, J. (1990). Boards that make a difference: A new design in leadership for nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Children's Alliance of New Hampshire (2000). Kids count: New Hampshire 2000. Concord, NH: Children's Alliance of New Hampshire.

Cohen, M. B. (1994). Overcoming obstacle to forming empowerment groups: A consumer advisory board for homeless clients. Social Work, 39(6), 742- 749.

Crocker, J. (2000). Reflections on the program for community problem solving. National Civic Review, 89(2), 155-120.

Eadie, D. C. (1991). Economic development and inter-board leadership. Economic Development Review, 8(3), 24 - 28.

Herman, R. D., Renz, D. O., & Heimovics, R. D. (1997). Board practices and board effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(4), 373-385.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (May, 1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy. Small Group Research, 21(2), 190-204.

Hirokawa, R. Y., & Keyton, J. (1995). Perceived facilitators and inhibitors of effectiveness in organizational work teams. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 424-446.

Kolzow, D. R. (1995). Smooth sailing with your board of directors. Economic Development Review, 13(3), 20-23.

Kolzow, D. R. (1999). A perspective on strategic planning: What's your vision? Economic Development Review, 16(2), 5-9.

Kretzmann J., & McKnight, J. P. (1996). Asset based community development. National Civic Review, 85(4), 23-29.

McFarlen, F. W. (1999). Don't assume the shoe fits: Working on nonprofit boards. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 64-75.

Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. B. (2001). Complexities of coalition building: Leaders uccesses, strategies, struggles and solutions. Social Work, 46(1). 63 - 78.

Mulroy, E. A. (2000). Starting small: Strategy and the evolution of structure in a community-based collaboration. Journal of Community Practice, 8(4), 27 - 43.

Pargament, K. I., Habib, M., & Antebi, D. (1978). Community participation in mental health. Social Casework, 59(10), 597-604.

Rabinowitz, P. (No date). Developing a board of directors. The Community Tool Box. B. Berkowitz (Ed.). pp.27. Retrieved September, 27, 1999, from: http://ctb.ku.edu/

Large-Scale Dairies and Their Neighbors: A Case Study of the Perceived Risk in Two Counties

M. Susie Whittington
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
whittington.1@osu.ed

Kellie J. Warner
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Teacher of Agricultural Science
Edgewood High School
Trenton, OH
warnerk@butlertech.org

Introduction

In 1998, Ohio's agriculture industry contributed $67.7 billion to the state's economy and employed one-in-six Ohioans in areas such as wholesaling, retailing, farm production, marketing, processing, and agribusiness (Ohio Department of Agriculture, 1998). The swine, poultry, and dairy industries represented a $1.85 billion farm gate value in the state of Ohio. Ohio ranked eleventh in the nation in milk production, with several large-scale diary units being planned (National Agricultural Statistic Service, 2000).

While Ohio is rich with agriculture, it is equally rich with metropolitan culture. Because Ohio ranked 6th in population, yet 35th in landmass among all states in 1998 (Ohio Department of Agriculture, 1998), its unprecedented margins of rural/urban interface became a crucible for "large-scale animal agriculture" versus "the community" conflicts. Due to the strong reactions of such communities, Ikerd (2002) referred to large-scale farming as, ". . . one of the most contentious issues to confront rural America in recent history" (p. 3). On the contrary, despite the numerous potential threats associated with large-scale animal agriculture, some communities in Ohio accepted the enterprises with little or no opposition.

The reactions of Ohio communities to large-scale dairy farms were similar to the reactions of communities that faced the siting of other risky enterprises, such as nuclear power plants, waste facilities, and prisons. Research consistently concluded that trust accounted for a significant portion of the variance in perceptions of risk in such situations (Slovic, Flynn, & Layman, 1991; Siegrist, 2000). Slovic (1999) concluded that activities perceived as high in benefit and low in risk were considered acceptable. However, a high degree of trust in those responsible for controlling unacceptable activities led people to participate in the risky activities. Numerous attributes of trust were identified, including confidence in the institution(s) responsible for controlling the risk and perceptions that the institution(s) responsible for controlling the risk acted in the best interest of the community.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study reported here was to describe the perceived attributes of the manager of the risk that were present in a community that was generally unopposed to the siting of a large-scale dairy farm and to describe the perceived attributes of the manager of the risk that were present in a community that was generally opposed to the siting of a large-scale dairy farm. The specific questions that guided the study were:

1. How was the manager of the risk, associated with the large-scale dairy farm, defined by the communities?

2. How confident were communities in the manager(s) of the risk?

3. How did communities perceive that the manager(s) of the risk acted in the best interest of the community?

Methods and Procedures

An embedded, multiple case study was used (Yin, 1994). A combination purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was selected to identify cases for the study that met the criterion of importance: size, ownership, location, and the overall community reaction to the proposed farm. Cases were identified in which the proposed dairy farm was large-scale, but under the state regulation limit of 700 cows. Chain sampling (Patton, 1990) was utilized to ultimately identify the best two Ohio communities for comparison: Liberty Township, located in Wood County, and Jackson Township, located in Wyandot County.

A unique strength of the case study design is the use of multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1994). The study utilized transcribed interviews as the primary source of data and reviews of documents and archival records as secondary sources of data. Two rounds of informant interviews were used to learn information about the culture being studied (Pelto & Pelto, 1978).

During the first round of interviews, seven individuals were interviewed in Wood County, and five individuals were interviewed in Wyandot County. Interviewees from both counties were one of more of the following county/township representatives: the Agricultural Education instructor at the public high school closest to the proposed farm; the Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Agent who was working in the county when the farm was proposed; the Farm Bureau Organization Director who was working in the county at the time of the proposed siting; a Township Trustee in the township of the proposed siting; a representative of the county Soil and Water Conservation District; or a representative of the local media. These original sources provided five names each for the chain sampling. As recommended by Glesne (1999), a pilot study was conducted prior to the main interviews.

The second round of informant interviewees was determined through criteria (affected by the siting of the farm) and chain sampling (Patton, 1990). Twenty interviewees for each county were selected: owners of the proposed farms, neighbors of the proposed farms, operators of farms in close proximity to the proposed farms, individuals who vocally opposed the proposed farms, individuals who were vocally unopposed to the proposed farms, and individuals who were knowledgeable about citizen interactions in the communities. A combined standardized open-ended interview and interview guide approach (Patton, 1990) was utilized. A tape recorder was used only during the interviews in which participant consent was given. Notes were taken during the interview to document key points and behaviors of the participant. A member check was conducted to ensure that participants felt the information they provided was accurately reported.

The researcher committed to the ethical guidelines outlined by Christians (2000). To increase trustworthiness, the researcher reflexively identified his/her experiences and feelings that may have influenced the study: (1) a personal and educational background in agriculture; (2) an appreciation for rural life and traditional agricultural practices; (3) a belief in the need for agricultural progress; and (4) a concern for the well-being of the environment. These potential influencers were shared in the standard protocol used for each interview. The interviews are synthesized and reported in the findings.

Findings

Wyandot County

Defining the Manager of the Risk

In defining the manager of the risk, community members were asked to identify who was responsible for controlling the risks associated with the farm. Three categories emerged: (1) the farm operators; (2) government and environmental agencies; and (3) Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development.

The Farm Operators. Numerous community members identified the operators of the farm. One participant commented, "The farmer is the only person who can control what goes on over there. No one else can do anything because he doesn't have to be regulated." Others recognized that the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Vreba-Hoff were useful for consultation, but that ultimately the operator of the farm had control of the risks.

Government and Environmental Agencies. Numerous government and environmental agencies were identified. County and township government was recognized as being responsible for ensuring the quality of the roads, as well as dealing with social concerns within the community. One informant indicated that the Health Department was responsible for managing the water quality and that the Department of Natural Resources would manage the rivers, streams, and aquatic life. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was identified by one informant because the agency regulated the employees at the farm. The EPA and SWCD were also identified because of their involvement in working with the farm to develop waste management plans.

Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development. Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development was identified. While some informants felt that Vreba-Hoff was solely responsible, others meshed Vreba-Hoff with the dairy operators and gave both the responsibility. "I'm talking about everything from the family, all the way up to the corporation. They all share some responsibility." Informants' confidence in Vreba-Hoff's ability to manage the risks was mixed. One person said:

I think they want to. It gets back to the scale thing. I think they got 600-700 cows there now. Yeah, that's manageable, I think they can do that. Now, if they go up to the 1,500 or 2,000 or whatever the next level is, I don't know, I don't know.

Confidence in the Manager of the Risk

When asked to rate their confidence in the operators' ability to manage the risks, community members who supported the dairy were very confident. One farmer who contracted with the operators said, "I'd give him a 10. [The operator] is even going to build another lagoon to be safe. He has one of the best milk qualities with low bacteria. He does an excellent job." On the contrary, neighbors of the farm who were directly affected by some of the negative impacts were not confident in the operators. One angrily stated:

He can't control it himself though. He built on a marsh and he just can't do anything about it. He doesn't have any experience over here either. There's just no way he can take care of the odor, flies, and manure.

Community members' confidence in the government and environmental agencies varied. One citizen said:

But from what I can see in the design, I would say their chances of keeping that in control is probably a seven or eight [on a ten-point scale]. I think they've taken a lot of steps. I think the owner has tried to work with these agencies and seek help when he needed to.

However, one informant who vocally opposed the farm said, "No one in government has helped us – trustees, commissioners, people in Columbus – none of them want to get their hands dirty with this problem."

Acted in the Best Interest of the Community

Living on the premises, working closely with SWCD, being friendly and open to other members of the community, being active in local organizations, injecting the manure, spraying for flies, and running a clean operation were given as ways that the operators acted in the best interest of everyone around them. Comments included, "To me, they are trying to do everything by the book," "From being over on the farm a lot, I know that [the operator] is concerned about his operation," and "He doesn't seem to be a person who is just out being selfish."

On the contrary, one informant felt that the farm enjoyed not having to follow the strict rules in the U.S. as they had to follow in the Netherlands and that the operators did a poor job managing the farm, which hurt the air and water. The participant said, "He just wants to make money and isn't concerned about what he's doing to other people."

Informants who identified government and environmental agencies as the managers of the risk felt that they were operating in the best interest of the community as indicated by their comments on the cooperation between the farm and such organizations and indicating that the outcomes of the relationship were positive for the entire community. One individual who did not recognize government and environmental agencies as the managers of the risk felt that the organizations were not acting in the best interest of the community, as indicated by their delay in fixing roads and their apathy toward citizen concerns.

Conclusions and Discussion for Wyandot County

Participants identified three managers of the risk: operators, government, and Vreba-Hoff. Participants identifying Vreba-Hoff perceived the farm operators to be part of the Vreba-Hoff organization. Informants identifying Vreba-Hoff as the manager of the risk were confident that the company could control the risks of the dairy at its current size, but not during future farm expansion.

Individuals supporting the dairy and identifying the farm operators as the manager of the risk were confident in the abilities of the farm operators to control the risk. Neighbors of the farm who opposed the dairy and identified the farm operators as the manager of the risk were not confident in the abilities of the farm operators to control the risk due to lack of experience, poor quality soil, and a record of poor management.

Informants with high confidence in government agencies perceived that the agencies had done their best to work with the farm in the past. Informants with low confidence in the agencies believed the agencies were unwilling to get involved.

Informants identifying the farm operators as the manager of the risk felt that the operators acted in the best interest of the community by: living on the site of the farm, working closely with SWCD, being friendly and open to the community, participating in local organizations, injecting the manure, spraying for flies, and operating a clean facility. Citizens opposing the farm felt that the operators did not act in the best interest of the community, as evidenced by their record of poor management and apathy for the community.

Informants identifying government and environmental agencies as managers of the risk felt that they acted in the best interest of the community by cooperating with and assisting the farm. A participant who opposed the farm felt that the government and environmental agencies did not act in the best interest of the community, as evidenced by their apathy toward handling citizen concerns.

Wood County

Confidence in the Manager of the Risk

The Farm Operators. One common response, when being asked to identify the manager of the risk, was that no one could control the risks associated with the farm, as demonstrated by the "hands-off" approach taken by most individuals and agencies in handling the concerns raised by citizens. However, the most commonly identified managers of the risk were the operators of the farm. Several people unopposed to the farm identified the farm operators, whereas one person opposed to the farm identified the farm operators. However, all of the informants were confident in the operators' ability to control the risks associated with the dairy. One participant said, "I'd give them a seven (on a scale of one to ten). You don't stay in business unless you're efficient and take care of your cows. You treat your farm as a part of you because you need it to run well to make a living."

Government and Environmental Agencies. A group of citizens opposed to the farm identified politicians as the managers of the risk. However, the group unanimously rated the politicians as a zero on a one-to-ten scale stating that the politicians would not control the risks until the negative impacts effected them personally. In addition, the group felt that the politicians had not acted in the best interest of the community, as indicated by their lack of initiative in solving the problems brought to them by community members. One person said, "They have done nothing, they haven't done a thing. They're worried about their own personal agenda and that's all that matters." One participant identified the ODA as the manager of the risk, but expressed very low confidence in the agency: "I met him [Director of ODA] and thought, 'Oh my God, we're in deep trouble.' He could not answer one question that I had."

Acted in the Best Interest of the Community

Informants unopposed to the farm believed the operators were acting in the best interest of the community primarily for the well-being of their operation. The informant opposed to the farm thought the operators were not acting in the best interest of the community mainly because they were buying materials outside of the area and were bringing odor and flies into the neighborhood.

Conclusions and Discussion for Wood County

Commonly noted among the opposition was that no one could control the risks associated with the dairy farm because most individuals and agencies did not make sufficient efforts to alleviate the concerns raised by citizens. Individuals who did identify a manager of the risk often identified the farm operators. Citizens opposed to the farm identified politicians and the ODA as managers of the risk.

All informants identifying the farm operators as the manager of the risk were confident in the abilities of the farm operators to control the risk because "the operators had to run a clean, efficient operation in order to stay in business and make a profit." Those identifying politicians as the manager of the risk were not confident in the politicians' abilities to control the risks because they felt that the politicians were only looking-out for their own political well-being and not the well-being of the entire community. The individual who identified the ODA as the manager of the risk expressed very low confidence in the agency's ability to control the risk.

Participants unopposed to the farm felt that the farm operators acted in the best interest of the community, primarily for the well-being of the operation. On the contrary, the participant who opposed the farm thought the operators did not act in the best interest of the community because the operators purchased materials from outside of the community, and brought in flies and odor. Citizens identifying politicians as the managers of the risk perceived that the politicians did not act in the best interest of the community, as demonstrated by their lack of initiative in solving the problems brought to them by citizens.

Implications

The wide variety of managers of the risk identified suggests that communities do not know who is actually responsible for controlling the risks associated with the farm. Information of an educational nature such as flow charts indicating key personnel and their duties must saturate the community prior to the siting of a large-scale dairy operation.

Some citizens feel hopeless because governmental agencies have not alleviated the concerns of the citizens. Local agencies need action plans in preparation for pre-siting of these operations.

Large-scale animal operations bring about a cultural shift in many Ohio communities, representing a type of agriculture that is not business-as-usual. Large-scale operations are a business and must take steps in the community to gain the trust of citizens, as all businesses must. Operations must maintain a history of excellent management, and provide open communication to the community through public relations initiatives such as farm open-houses and school tours. Representatives of the farm must be active and friendly in the community.

Two-way communication with the public allows for easier access into communities. Large-scale animal management firms must share information about the intentions of the farm, the farm operators, the benefits and threats presented to the entire community, and the involvement of the management firm. In addition, the management firm must listen to concerns of citizens and make adjustments to the siting plans accordingly. Presenting information to civic organizations, cooperating with neighbors of the farm, and acting on concerns of the community will lead to better acceptance, as well as a healthier community environment in which to live.

Extra efforts made by the farm to ensure a safe operation leads to greater acceptance by communities. The study suggests that farm operators abide by state laws for CAFOs, even when the farms operate under the CAFO limits.

References

Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed (pp. 133-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Ikerd, J. (2002). Large scale, corporate hog operations: Why rural communities are concerned and what they should do, [On-line]. Available at: http://ssu.agri.missouri.edu/Faculty/JIkerd/papers/top-10h.htm

National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2000). Profile of Ohio Agriculture 2000 [On-line]. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/oh/bull00/table02.htm

Ohio Department of Agriculture. (1998). Quick facts from Ohio's agriculture industry [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ohioagriculture.gov

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

Pelto, P. J., & Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.

Slovic, P. (1999). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Lofstedt, Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 42-52). London: Earthscan Publications.

Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991, December 13). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1557-1696.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Effectively Disseminating Information to Limited-Scale Landowners in the Urban/Rural Interface

D. Dwayne Cartmell II
Assistant Professor
Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma
dwayne.cartmell@okstate.edu

Chandra L. Orr
Copy Editor
American Paint Horse Journal
Ft. Worth, Texas
c_orr77@yahoo.com

Danna B. Kelemen
Graduate Associate
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
danna.kelemen@okstate.edu

Introduction

Information dissemination is a core principle of Extension (Orr, 2003). If information is to be used, it must be disseminated in a way that best facilitates its use by agricultural producers. However, information is delivered in a multitude of methods, and the challenge is to determine which method is most appropriate to the targeted.

Knowing where people look for information is only half the battle for Extension communicators; knowing where people find information is the other half (Pounds, 1985). Studies clearly show clientele preferences do exist and may be quite different depending upon the audience being served. Considering the variability among groups and indicated personal preferences, it is likely that no single delivery method is suitable for everyone (Richardson, 1995).

Previous studies have noted farmers' preferences for informational delivery methods depend on a variety of demographic characteristics such as age, income, formal education, and farm size (Iddings & Apps, 1992). Landowners living in the urban/rural interface have diverse interests and unique concerns (Creighton, Baumgartner, & Gibbs, 2002).

Extension must provide information that makes a difference (Astroth, 1990). Extension provides an important linkage between farmers and researchers, and farmers have come to value the services they receive from Extension (Ekanem, Singh, Tegegne, & Akuley-Amenyenu, 2001). Today, in this information- and technology-laden world, the sharing of information becomes easier and yet more complex. New methods for dispersing information have surfaced, yet not all individuals have adapted to this new form of communication via electronic media such as DVDs and the Internet.

The challenge arises in how best to disseminate information to target populations. Not only does Extension strive to meet the needs of large-production farms, but also it seeks to fulfill the needs of small-farm landowners, non-traditional producers, and homeowners (Polson & Gastier, 2001). Consequently, Extension must seek the most effective means of reaching individuals based on their preferences for receiving information.

Research indicates that people use different sources depending on the kind of information they are seeking (Pounds, 1985). One study showed family, friends, and neighbors, along with newsletters, bulletins and fact sheets, magazine articles, printed dealer/sales materials, and farm organizations/associations were most frequently used as information sources (Phipps, Murphy, Maddox, & Neas, 2001). However, Richardson reported (1995) regardless of a great diversity in the interests of a targeted audience, preferred delivery methods were remarkably similar. Extension uses many methods to disseminate information to select audiences (Orr, 2003). Orr stated that while Extension still uses meetings, on-farm visits, and field days to some extent, much information can be found in media formats such as the Internet, videos, and computer software packages. Thus, the need to know the audience is imperative to determine the preferred methods of information dissemination.

In urban counties and counties adjacent to urban areas, the farm population is an even smaller proportion of the rural population due to the increased movement of non-farm residents from city to countryside (Sharp, Imerman, & Peters, 2002). In Oklahoma, approximately 36.8% of the state's population lives in the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City (Population Statistics, 2003). In 2002, 33% of Oklahoma's population was classified as living in rural areas (Development Alliance, 2002). However, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, the urban/rural interface between Tulsa and Oklahoma City, 82.8% of the population is considered rural (Development Alliance, 2002).

Purpose/Research Objectives

The purpose of the study described here was to examine methods of information dissemination to limited-scale landowners in Lincoln County, Oklahoma. The following research objectives were used to guide this study.

1. To determine the preferred information dissemination method/s of limited-scale landowners in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.

2. To determine what method/s of information dissemination the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service uses to reach limited-scale landowners in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.

3. To describe the preferred information dissemination method/s based on demographic variables of limited-scale landowners in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.

Methods

The research design used for the study was a descriptive telephone interview. The survey used a random sample of Lincoln County landowners. The authors recognize results of this study can only be generalized to the original population. However, the authors hope this study serves as a guide for how to study target audiences.

The population was landowners who owned 50 acres of land or less (N=808) in Lincoln County. The landowners' information was compiled by the Lincoln County Cooperative Extension Service (Jones, 2001). Lincoln County was chosen in Oklahoma because of the concentration of limited-scale landowners, and it is an ideal representation of the urban/rural interface because it is located between Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Individuals on the original list who were duplicates or did not have a phone number were removed from the population. The final population used in this study numbered 707. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), approximately 254 responses were needed to reach a 95% confidence level for generalizability. The Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service conducted the telephone interviews. The OASS generated 300 useable responses.

Instrument

A 42-question telephone survey was developed. A pilot study was conducted, and the instrument was revised to improve validity and to reduce confusion on the part of the respondents and those administering the survey. The questions were short-answer, "yes/no," interval, and multiple-choice.

In the pilot study, some wording issues were identified. A committee was formed to review the pilot study, analyze the problem areas, and clarify the instrument. This not only made the survey easier to administer and respond to, but also allowed the results from the instrument to be more valid and reliable.

Reliability was assessed by pilot study participants' ability to consistently answer the questions without confusion. Because there were no scaled items in the instrument, it was unnecessary to run a Chronbach's Alpha.

The Associate Director of the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, the Associate Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service, and the State Statistician of the Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service were used to establish content validity of the instrument.

Data Collection and Analysis

The Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service administered the telephone survey. A postcard was sent to the population prior to data collection. Both genders were surveyed; however, gender was determined by the landowner who answered the phone. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.

Findings

Findings Related to Information Dissemination Methods and Information Dissemination Methods Used by Extension

The first and second research objectives addressed the preferred information dissemination methods of limited-scale landowners in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, and the methods used by Extension to reach these landowners. To address these questions, it was necessary to know how respondents use Extension.

Limited-Scale Landowners in the Rural/Urban Interface of Lincoln County, Oklahoma, Who Use Extension

Of the responses generated in this survey, 32.7% (n=98) answered that they did use Extension, 66.7% (n=200) answered that they did not use Extension, and 0.7% (n=2) failed to answer.

Of those respondents who did use Extension, 85.7% (n=84) also provided a response of how they used Extension (Table 1). The primary usage was for information purposes about soil conservation, types of vegetation to plant, water testing, supplies for livestock, and breeds of livestock that are suitable to Oklahoma.

Important Information Sources and Media Formats for Limited-Scale Landowners in the Urban/Rural Interface in Lincoln County, Oklahoma

Information Sources

For Extension to better serve its audience, it needs to know the information sources its audience is already using. Those respondents who completed the survey were asked where they received their agricultural information. They were allowed to respond with more than one source. From this question, the survey generated 437 responses. The primary response was Extension, with 108 responses, which was more than the 98 respondents indicating they used Extension as noted above. This was followed by the Internet, with 59. Numerous other responses were generated such as: magazines (11.5%), other people (11.5%), local co-op (11.1%), Oklahoma State University (6.1%), agricultural organizations (5.8%), local agriculture teacher 5.6%), feed store (4.6%), coffee shop (4.0%), library (0.6%), reading (1.5%), courthouse (0.8%), T.V. (0.6%), trial and error (0.4%), mail (0.2%), newspaper (0.2%), radio (0.2%), and fairs (0.2%) (Table 2).