June 2006
Volume 44 Number 3

Research in Brief

On-Line Professional Development for Extension Educators

Aysem R. Senyurekli
Doctoral Student
Department of Family Social Science
kara0100@umn.edu

Jodi Dworkin
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Family Social Science
jdworkin@umn.edu

Joel Dickinson
Information Technology Professional
College of Human Ecology Administration
jdickins@che.umn.edu

University of Minnesota
St. Paul

Introduction

Extension is experiencing wide-spread budget decreases across the country. This has led to a reduction in field staff, who are now being asked to take on more responsibilities with less support. As a result, the need for professional development is increasing (Radhakrishna, 2001). Unfortunately, budget decreases can mean limited funds available for Extension educators to participate in traditional face-to-face workshops and trainings. On-line learning can provide a less expensive and more convenient alternative. Research has shown that Extension educators are interested in distance education in general (Conklin, Hook, Kelbaugh, & Nieto, 2002; Edwards, McLucas, Briers, & Rohs, 2004) and on-line education in particular (Sherfey, Hiller, Macduff, & Mack, 2000). In this present article, we provide further evidence for the growing interest in and capability for on-line education.

Background

Nearly 72 million American adults use the Internet for school or training (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2004). This type of instruction has several advantages. First, for those who have difficulties accessing traditional face-to-face courses due to lack of time or geographic location, on-line courses can provide access from any computer that has the necessary technology (Brown & Green, 2003). This might be especially pertinent for Extension educators who work in rural areas. Second, depending on the way it is offered, on-line courses can also allow learners to proceed through course content at their own pace on their own time, without being restricted by the instructor or other participants. This is critical in that it enables learners to master each section or module before proceeding to the next (Santovec, 2004).

Research has shown that Extension educators in particular are interested in on-line learning. Washington State University Extension surveyed 300 individuals who manage volunteers and found both a need for and interest in on-line distance training (Sherfey, Hiller, Macduff, & Mack, 2000). The study revealed that participants had difficulties obtaining the training they needed face-to-face due to factors like cost, time off from work, and travel necessities. Although most had no prior experience with distance learning, they had access to the necessary technology through work.

Similarly, a survey of Georgia Extension agents revealed that nearly three-fourths of the 365 agents surveyed were interested in pursuing distance education (Edwards, McLucas, Briers, & Rohs, 2004). The majority could access courses through computers at both work and home, and many had high-speed or fast dial-up Internet access. More than half of the agents surveyed were interested in taking a specific course instead of a degree or certificate program.

The authors of the study described here suggest that future research should explore which particular topics would be of interest to Extension agents. Building on past research, we outline which factors Extension educators think are important when deciding whether or not to participate in a professional development course and what content areas are of most interest to them.

Method

An on-line survey was developed to assess various factors involving the professional development of Extension educators. In particular, Extension educators were asked to:

1. Report how they currently meet their professional development needs;

2. Rate their level of interest in on-line professional development;

3. Describe their access to technology;

4. Rate how likely they are to participate in an on-line professional development opportunity offered by the University of Minnesota Extension Service;

5. Rate the level of importance they place on several factors that affect their involvement in professional development activities; and

6. Identify the professional development topics that are of most interest to them.

An electronic mail message was sent to a list serve of all human and family development Extension specialists across the country. Specialists were asked to forward the survey to all Extension field staff and family educators with whom they work. Because there is no way to know how many individuals ultimately received the survey, it is not possible to identify a response rate.

One hundred and fifty-seven educators from 14 states completed the on-line survey (Table 1). Six participants did not identify which state they were from. The greatest percentage of participants was Extension field staff (Table 2). Because the overwhelming majority was employed by the Cooperative Extension Service, participants are referred to throughout this manuscript as Extension educators.

Results

How Extension Educators Meet Their Professional Development Needs

Nearly all the Extension educators surveyed currently use workshops or seminars as one way of fulfilling their professional development expectations (Table 3). Close to three fourths of all participants use methods that incorporate technology, including video conferencing, on-line classes, and interactive television.

Level of Interest in On-line Professional Development

Results indicate that of the157 Extension educators surveyed, over 95% are "very interested" (40.1%) or "interested" (55.4%) in participating in professional development opportunities available on-line versus attending a traditional class or workshop. Of those who currently use workshops or seminars to meet their professional development expectations, 95.5% are "very interested" (39.9%) or "interested" (55.6%) in participating in on-line professional development opportunities versus a traditional class or workshop. Those who already use on-line classes seem to find some benefit in them, as 97.3% of these individuals are "very interested" (60.5%) or "interested" (36.8%) in continuing to use on-line classes versus traditional classes or workshops.

Factors Impacting Decisions About Professional Development Opportunities

Participants responded to questions about the impacts of their decision to participate in a professional development opportunity. When asked, "when you consider attending an event for professional development, what factors are most important to you," participants most frequently identified "content" as the most important factor, "convenience" and "time commitment necessary" as the second most important factors, and "convenience" as third most important (Table 4). For over one third of respondents, price did not seem to be a top priority. Not only was it identified most frequently as the fourth most important factor (Table 4), but no pattern was identified as to how much participants would expect to pay for one hour of professional development (Table 5). The factor most frequently chosen as the least important was "opportunity to network."

Technological Access

Participants responded to a series of questions assessing their technological connectivity. Over 80% of all participants reported that they would log in to a computer from work if taking an on-line class. Consequently, it is not surprising that close to 60% have some sort of high-speed Internet access, such as DSL (27.4%), T1 lines (23.6%), or a cable modem (8.9%). In addition, 75.8% of those surveyed currently use Internet Explorer to connect on-line.

Participation in an On-Line Professional Development Opportunity in the Future

Having the technological capability to participate in an on-line course is necessary but not sufficient for participation. Learners must also be interested in and willing to use on-line learning opportunities. Nearly three-fourths of all participants surveyed are "very likely" (21.0%) or "likely" (51.0%) to participate in an on-line professional development opportunity offered by the University of Minnesota Extension Service in the next 2 years. In fact, 71.5% of those who do not currently use on-line methods are "very likely" (15.5%) or "likely" (56.0%) to participate in an on-line professional development opportunity provided by the University of Minnesota Extension Service in the future.

Professional Development Topics of Most Interest

Participants were asked to review a list of 17 topics and identify which topics they would be most interested in receiving professional development around (Table 6). When asked to select those that were of most interest, participants most frequently identified "youth development" and "health and nutrition" as their first choice, "youth risk behaviors" and "youth development" as their second choice, and "decision-making" as their third choice. When asked to self-identify other professional development topics of interest, several of the participants identified "childhood obesity" and "immigrants."

Conclusion

Although nearly all the Extension educators surveyed currently use workshops or seminars as one way of fulfilling their professional development expectations, an overwhelming majority of those surveyed are interested in participating in on-line professional development. Nearly 25% of all participants are already using on-line courses to fulfill their professional development expectations, and those that are not have the interest and technological means to do so. With respect to the factors that are most important for Extension educators when deciding to participate in a professional development opportunity, content, convenience, and time commitment necessary were ranked as the most important, respectively. Youth development, youth risk behaviors, and decision-making were the top three choices of professional development topics of interest, respectively.

Limitations

The high level of interest this sample had in on-line professional development may not be representative of Extension educators nationwide. Because participants could only access, complete, and submit the survey on-line, this select group of Educators who responded may have an affinity for using the Internet. The geographical location, budget constraints, and technical training of other Extension educators might not be as conducive to engaging in on-line professional development opportunities as they were for this group.

Recommendations for Teaching On-Line Courses

The growing evidence that on-line education might be a viable option for Extension educators prompts us to consider ways to make this type of education a success. For those interested in offering an on-line professional development course, there are several key points to keep in mind.

The first is to make the topic relevant. This includes choosing a topic that is known in advance to be of interest to the target audience. It also means sorting through what is probably a vast body of knowledge on that topic and only placing the most relevant pieces on-line (Carter, 2004). The importance of this point is underscored by the findings in the study described here; content was found to be the most important factor for Extension educators when deciding to participate in a professional development opportunity.

The second key point is to reward participation. Just as is the case with a face-to-face course, the audience needs to be motivated to stay engaged in the course. Engagement can be encouraged in a variety of ways, from entering participants in drawings if they contribute to on-line discussions, to offering certificates at the end of the course or providing continuing education units (Carter, 2004).

The third key point is to teach technological literacy. Just because the audience has the technology necessary to access the course does not mean they have the skills needed to maneuver easily through the course. Offering an orientation course or providing access to volunteers who can assist participants throughout the course can make an on-line education experience more pleasant (Carter, 2004). Creating a site navigation interface that is intuitive to participants, appropriate for the course, and consistent with general web standards and practices (e.g., placing main navigation options on left side of page) can also help participants through this process.

Last, it is important that the facilitator be prepared to teach an on-line course. He or she should work closely with someone who has the technological skills necessary to help address problems should they arise. The facilitator should also build face-to-face meetings into the course if needed (Carter, 2004). This is an important consideration if there are participants in the course who have little social interaction with their peers outside of face-to-face seminars or trainings (e.g., educators who work in rural areas). An online course could further limit their opportunities of learning from their peers (Brown & Green, 2003).

Facilitators in this situation could offer a blended course. These courses combine on-line instruction with live interaction. The course begins and ends with a face-to-face meeting between all the participants and the facilitator; all that is in between is completed by the participant at his or her own pace and location in an on-line environment. As a result, the participant can benefit both from the flexibility of on-line education and the social interaction of face-to-face meetings (Carter, 2004). If the goal is to increase social interaction between participants, technologies such as blogs (Web logs), message boards, chat rooms, Web casting, and customized synchronous environments can also be viable options.

Acknowledgements

Data collection and analysis were supported by the Office of Continuing Professional Studies in the College of Human Ecology at the University of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

References

Brown, A., & Green, T. (2003). Showing up to class in pajamas (or less!): The fantasies and realities of on-line professional development courses for teachers. The Clearing House, 76(3) 148-51.

Carter, K. (2004). Online training: What's really working? Technology & Learning, 24 (10) 32-6.

Conklin, N.L., Hook, L.L., Kelbaugh, J.B., Nieto, R.D. (2002). Examining a professional development system: A comprehensive needs assessment approach. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/a1.shtml

Edwards, C.M., McLucas, B., Briers, G.E., & Rohs, F.R. (2004). Educational interests of Extension agents: Implications for the delivery of educational programming at a distance. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004february/a5.shtml

Internet Activities. (May-June 2004). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved January 14, 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Internet_Activities_4.23.04.htm

Radhakrishna, R.B. (2001). Professional development needs of state Extension Specialists. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001october/rb4.html

Santovec, M.L. (2004). Doing online professional development ¬ Online. Distance Education Report, 8(18) 4, 7.

Sherfey, L. E. B., Hiller, J., Macduff, N., & Mack, N. (2000). Washington State University on-line management certification program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38 (4). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/2000august/tt1.html

Technology Transfer Preferences of Researchers and Producers in Sustainable Agriculture

Rhonda L. Miller
Associate Professor
Agricultural Systems Technology and Education (ASTE)
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
rlmiller@cc.usu.edu

Loralie Cox
Cache County Horticulture Agent
Utah State Extension Service
Logan, Utah
loraliec@ext.usu.edu

Introduction

The adoption of new management and production practices is often the key to maintaining a profitable agricultural operation. Therefore, the identification of new management and production practices through agricultural research should be a valuable resource for agricultural producers. Although this information is available to all farmers, most are reluctant to adopt new production practices directly from research sources.

Several models of technology transfer exist (Climent, Palmer, & Ruiz, 1995; Foster, Norton & Brough, 1995; Lanyon, 1994). The technology transfer model, a traditional "top-down" approach, moves from research and development, through Extension personnel, to the producer. As a result of academic and research training, researchers often have a different perspective than agricultural producers. This difference may influence the methods used for technology transfer.

Brashear, Hollis, and Wheeler (2000) noted that swine producers do not rely on university specialists as a primary information source. King and Rollins (1999) observed that although university specialists were considered a trustworthy source of information, they were one of the least used. Are university specialists using an effective method of information transfer?

Part of the land-grant mission is to disseminate research information. The method used to transfer technical research to producers may influence whether a producer accesses, and uses, this information.

The purpose of the study described here was to identify the methods of technology transfer used by research professionals and to compare these with the methods preferred by agricultural producers in sustainable agriculture. Specific objectives were to:

• Compare information transfer methods utilized by principal investigators versus agricultural producers in sustainable agriculture;

• Compare the perceived effectiveness of technology transfer methods described by agricultural producers and principal investigators in sustainable agriculture; and

• Identify the preferred methods for technology transfer as identified by agricultural producers and principal investigators in sustainable agriculture.

Methods

The sample for this qualitative study was selected from sustainable agriculture projects funded by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) Program. The WSARE region includes 13 states and four island protectorates. Projects were screened based on the identification of a good sustainable agricultural practice and the stage of technology transfer. Using discipline, location, and complexity as criteria, six projects were selected to cover a broad range of production and management technologies.

The selected projects involved organic production in California, the use of nitrogen-fixing trees in Hawaii, soil quality in Oregon, the use of non-neuroactive insecticides in Washington, late-calving in Wyoming, and composting in Utah. The projects covered a range of new technologies, from those that could be implemented fairly easily into an existing operation (composting), to those that required a major shift in the entire operation (late calving).

In-person interviews were conducted with the principal investigator(s) and producers who adopted the technology. One person interviewed all of the investigators and producers to eliminate variation. Eighteen sustainable agriculture professionals reviewed the interview questions to ensure validity. All interviews were tape recorded.

Four of the six projects had more than one principal investigator: group interviews were held in these areas. A total of 14 principal investigators were interviewed. The interviews lasted from 3 hours to 2 days, depending upon time constraints of the researchers and the amount of information shared.

Principal investigators were asked:

• Methods used for information transfer;

• Effectiveness of information transfer methods used; and

• Possible alternative methods of information transfer.

The principal investigators were asked to line up three to seven producers who had adopted the sustainable practice. The producers may or may not have been associated with the project administered by the principal investigator.

A total of 24 producers were interviewed, typically on their farm, to examine information sources used by the producers. Interviews with the agricultural producers took from one to four hours.

Producers were asked:

• Principal source(s) of new information (e.g., magazines, peers, agencies);

• Preferred methods of information transfer for self and peers; and

• Alternative methods of information transfer.

Results

Generally, principal investigators relied on the technology transfer model, a "top-down" approach, for educating farmers. Principal investigators cited workshops, in conjunction with field days, as the primary method of information transfer, followed by periodicals and handouts (newsletters, articles, or handbooks). Principal investigators ranked direct contact with university research personnel, the Internet, and books as last in importance for relaying information to the producer.

Geographic location influenced how producers acquired information about new practices (Table 1). Producers from Hawaii listed talking with professionals and peers first, followed by reading about the practice in publications (magazines, newsletters, newspapers, and books). Workshops and field days were seen as places where groups of producers could gather together and share ideas. The Internet and professional organizations were cited last.

Producers from California named others in the business as the most influential form of information. Extension personnel and university researchers were cited next, with trade publications also playing an important role in technology transfer. Workshops in conjunction with field days followed in significance. The Internet was the least used source of information.

Wyoming ranchers live in somewhat isolated conditions. Many were introduced to ideas through trade publications, and when they wanted more detailed information they mentioned agricultural professionals (i.e., Extension and university research personnel) as a primary source of information. The Internet was a source of information mentioned more so than in other geographic areas. Associations with peers, along with attendance at workshops, were also cited as sources of information.

Oregon producers felt that demonstration farms, field days, and workshops were valuable sources of information for dealing with reduced tillage techniques. Peer associations were critical components of field days and workshops. University personnel, and industry field representatives were cited first as information sources, then trade publications, followed by the Internet.

Field representatives and horticultural professionals were the most important source of information for orchardists in Washington. Demonstration projects, coupled with the association of peers during field day events, were also highly valued by the producers. Workshops, trade publications, and the Internet were cited last in significance for technology transfer for these producers.

The practice of composting in Utah did not require big changes in the management practices used by the producer. Consequently, issues related to technology transfer were somewhat different than those requiring drastic changes in management practices. Producers involved in on-farm composting became aware of the practice through trade publications. Next they sought specific information through university and Extension personnel, peers, field days, conferences presented through public and private organizations, and current literature.

Paradoxically, when principal investigators were asked about the effectiveness of the methods used in the information transfer process, field days or workshops were listed as the most helpful method, although they did not necessarily use these methods. Networking with other farmers was seen as a large part of the field day or demonstration project encounter. A number of principal investigators felt that it was more effective if the producer was exposed to a new practice before attending a workshop or field day. They also believed it was more helpful if a fellow producer shared his experiences involving the new practice. Several principal investigators cited the County Extension Service as a vital link between research and the producer in supporting the information transfer process.

Similarly, producers were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in which they had been involved. Producers consistently referred to workshops as "good to a point," time consuming, often held at inopportune times, and redundant, although many went to workshops as a way to meet peers involved with the new practice. Field days, when held on a producer's farm rather than an experimental plot, were viewed as good places to gain information from both the demonstration itself and from other producers in attendance. Agricultural producers were much more receptive to new innovations when put in plain words by peers rather than by research specialists. When considered part of the management team, consultants and/or field representatives were a trusted source of information.

Principal investigators were asked to suggest preferred methods for transferring information to producers. Again, field days were noted first, but with inclusion of a follow-up procedure to help answer any questions. The principal investigators felt that these follow-ups could include personal visits and/or written material that producers could review when questions arose. The researchers advocated the use of grower panels and cooperating producers, along with a strong interpersonal relationship linking researchers and producers. Finally, participation with Extension, targeted newsletters, and association with the Young Farmer organizations, 4-H, and FFA were cited.

Producers were asked to suggest preferred methods of technology transfer. Opportunities to spread information by word-of-mouth, or talk to others in the business (their peers), were first on the list of preferences. Cooperative interaction between researchers and producers on demonstration farms was a frequently cited method of information dissemination. "Trade secrets" were not generally an issue even when producers were competing in the same geographic market. All but one agricultural producer was eager to share experiences. The least important methods were bulletins or newsletters distributed through Extension.

Discussion

Individuals go through stages of discovery when presented with innovative information. Different methods of technology transfer facilitate these different stages of learning. One principal investigator identified the stages and associated sources of information that producers utilize as they learn about a new practice:

• Initial awareness through trade journals or peers;

• Information gathering by attending field days or conferences; and

• Assessment by contacting someone actively engaged in the practice (peers), or university personnel.

Other principal investigators apparently understood the same concept, but were not specific in identifying it.

Trade publications were identified by both researchers and producers as a good way to introduce a new technology to the producers, but limited in detailed information.

The Internet was used the most by producers in remote locations. Internet usage, and its importance as a source of information, may increase as advances are made and more producers use computers.

In general, field days and workshops were considered by principal investigators to be one of the best methods for transferring information to the producers. Yet producers tended to think that they (especially workshops) were redundant and held at inopportune times. Many producers said that they carefully chose which field days or workshops to attend. One of the primary benefits of attending the workshops was the interaction with the other producers. This supports the findings of Visser (1998), that farmers receive the greatest satisfaction when they are able to share experiences with peers in group interaction.

Demonstrations located on a producer's farm were most favored by producers, followed by field days in which producers conducted some of the presentations. Although there was great respect for university studies, concerns were often expressed that the small plots and conditions associated with research farms were not indicative of what they might encounter on their own farm. When the practice was tried on a producer's farm, they tended to believe what they saw.

Principal investigators found that on-farm demonstration projects were difficult to implement and monitor for research purposes. Often the researcher has limited control: the producer may decide to plant a different crop than originally planned or alter the proposed management procedure. Successful on-farm trial demonstrations are the result of a coordinated effort between researchers and producers. Research studies conducted on a strategically located producer's farm seemed to have the attention of all the neighbors and were highly effective in transferring information.

Before a new technology was adopted, almost all of the producers contacted someone else (even if located across the country) who was using the technology before they made the decision to adopt the new practice. This was especially true for those technologies that were costly or required a major shift in the farming/ranching operation.

This extreme need to see the new practice in operation, or talk to someone who is using it, indicates that one of the most effective ways to speed up the technology transfer process is to use producers in demonstrations and field days. This is especially true for those technologies that are costly, complex, or require a major shift in the operation.

The qualitative study described here examined the technology transfer preferences of early adopters of sustainable agricultural practices, which may or may not represent the preferences of all producers. This study does, however, support the findings of other studies (Barao, 1992; Brashear, Hollis, & Wheeler, 2000; Stephenson, 2003).

Acknowledgment

Funding for this study was provided by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.

References

Barao, S. (1992). Behavioral aspects of technology adoption. Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a4.html

Brashear, G.L., Hollis, G., & Wheeler, M.B. (2000). Information transfer in the Illinois swine industry: How producers are informed of new technologies. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb4.html

Climent, J.B., Palmer, C., & Ruiz, S. (1995). Omissions relevant to the contextual domains of technology transfer models. Journal of Technology Transfer 20(1), 93-103.

Foster, J., Norton, G., & Brough, E. (1995). The role of problem specification workshops in Extension: an IPM example. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/a1.html

King, R.N., & Rollins, T.J. (1999). An evaluation of an agricultural innovation: Justification for participatory assistance. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/rb2.html

Lanyon, L.E. (1994). Participatory assistance: An alternative to transfer of technology for promoting change on farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(3), 136-142.

Stephenson, G. (2003). The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of the Extension service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a1.shtml

Visser, I., Cawley, S., & Roling, N. (1998). Co-learning approach to extension: Soil nitrogen workshops in Austrailia. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5(3), 179-191.

Farm-Level Human Resource Management: An Opportunity for Extension

Kathryn Brasier
Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology
kjb24@psu.edu

Jeffrey Hyde
Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics
jeffhyde@psu.edu

Richard E. Stup
Senior Extension Associate
res10@psu.edu

Lisa A. Holden
Associate Professor of Dairy and Animal Science
lholden@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Successful dairy farm businesses must rapidly adapt to changing conditions to survive. For larger dairies, farm operators and top management must focus on achieving strategic (long-term) goals, while middle management and front-line employees achieve tactical (day-to-day) goals. Increasing complexity in the dairy business makes it imperative to have talented employees in every position to accomplish these strategic and tactical tasks.

Prior research indicates that farms that dramatically increased productivity also frequently improved their human resource management (HRM) practices (Stahl, Conlin, Seykora, & Steuernagel, 1999). Dairy producers undertaking major changes such as herd expansion or facility modernization identify human resource management (HRM) as an important part of dairy farm performance (Bewley, Palmer, & Jackson-Smith, 2001). Despite the importance of hiring competent, motivated, industrious employees, anecdotal evidence suggests that producers often do not place a high priority on HRM practices.

Because HRM is often not a part of a producer's skill set, Extension educators have the opportunity to effect change in farm management by training the producers, developing and enhancing their skill sets related to managing employees. In addition, results of a recent survey of Pennsylvania dairy farmers indicate a significant opportunity to provide training to mid-level managers and employees. The objective of this article is to identify those educational opportunities that exist in Pennsylvania and to draw conclusions relevant for a broader audience of Extension educators.

Research Methodology

In 2003, 121 Pennsylvania dairy producers completed a mail survey regarding employees currently on their farms and the producers' future employment plans. The survey instrument was constructed by a multi-disciplinary team of faculty and Extension staff and pre-tested with two dairy producers prior to distribution. The survey covered several aspects of human resource management, including job duties, compensation and benefits, qualifications and training, as well as general farm characteristics. The final survey packet included a cover letter, a 4-page booklet of general farm questions, plus separate 4-page booklets about employees in each of 9 job titles. Respondents were asked to complete only those booklets for which they had employees in the respective job titles.

The intended target population was producers with herds of 150 cows or more, because smaller farms were not likely to have many employees. Two mailing lists were used to construct the population list: (1) the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture list of dairies of 150 cows or more and (2) Dairy Business Communication's list of subscribers to the Northeast Dairy Business publication. This combination created a final mailing list of 566 farm addresses, each of which was indicated to have at least 150 cows.

The 566 farms in our sample received an initial mailing, including the survey and a cover letter, in the fall of 2003. This mailing was followed 2 weeks later with a postcard reminder. After 2 more weeks, non-respondents received a second copy of the survey.

Of the 566 surveys disseminated, seven were undeliverable, and 121 were returned with valid data, indicating a valid response rate of 21.6% (121/559). The low response rate may be attributed to several factors. The survey may have seemed prohibitively long to respondents upon first opening the envelope. Also, the survey was distributed in September, near the time of crop harvest. Of the 121 valid responses, 72 (59.5%) reported employing any workers in 2002. These farms serve as our study group.

In general, the farms we surveyed were significantly larger than the average dairy farm in Pennsylvania. It was necessary to select our sample in this fashion to target farms most likely to have employed hired farm labor. Figure 1 compares the size of the 72 farms in our sample to all Pennsylvania farms, as reported in the 2002 Census of Agriculture (USDA/NASS). Notice that some farms in our sample contain fewer than 100 animals. Thus, error in the mailing lists led to sampling from a group of smaller farms than was desired. However, if the respondent indicated that hired labor was employed, the farm remained in the sample.

Figure 1.
Distribution of Farms by Herd Size--Sample Farms Versus 2002 Census Data

Through pre-testing, nine distinct job titles were identified:

• Herd manager and assistant herd manager,
• Calf manager,
• Crop manager,
• Heifer manager,
• Milking manager,
• Milker,
• Feeder,
• Mechanic, and
• Machinery operator.

Farm operators were asked to describe the duties, qualifications, supervisory responsibilities, and compensation packages for each of these positions. If farms had multiple employees in a position, operators were asked to provide compensation information for each employee.

Results

Results are summarized in two categories of questions: responsibilities typically delegated to individuals with a given job title and the qualifications indicated as either necessary or desired for each job title. These findings indicate areas in which Extension educators could provide training for farm operators to improve the organization of work for their employees and the recruitment of effective workers.

Work Responsibilities by Job Title

Herd managers and assistant herd managers (referred to simply as "herd managers") have a very diverse set of responsibilities across the farms in our sample. These responsibilities include reproduction (and calf and heifer management), herd health, milk production records, and supervision of other employees. The supervisory functions include delegating work, training, scheduling, and evaluating other employees. By contrast, calf managers tend to have a very small set of responsibilities, focused on calf management and feeding, but are also asked to perform similar supervisory tasks.

Crop managers' responsibilities include tasks such as keeping crop production records, purchasing and managing inputs including seed, machinery, chemicals, etc. Although some of these individuals perform supervisory tasks, it is much less prevalent with crop managers than with the other management positions reviewed above. Heifer managers also rarely perform supervisory functions on dairy farms. Rather, their time is spent in developing calves and heifers such that they are able to enter the milking stream in a timely manner and to be productive herd members.

Some of the milking managers' most important tasks are related to supervision of other employees. Training, evaluating, scheduling, and delegating are all frequent responses. Also listed is making employment and termination decisions. This responsibility was not found in the results for the other job titles. The other important tasks include those related primarily to milking and reproduction.

Milkers, not surprisingly, are most often charged with milking the cows. On a small number of farms, other tasks such as heat detection, monitoring herd health, and feeding may be included. Likewise, feeders have the primary responsibility for feeding the herd. To do this, some are charged with operating machinery. The tasks associated with being a mechanic or a machinery operator are similar. The two most prevalent are operating machinery and machinery repair and maintenance.

Desired or Required Characteristics by Job Title

This section focuses on those characteristics that may provide opportunities for Extension educators to offer training to farm employees. It also offers education opportunities for farm operators to create adequate job descriptions, recruit and screen potential hires, and facilitate training of all employees.

Table 1 provides a summarized report of responses related to desired or required characteristics by job title. These show some opportunities for Extension programming targeted at middle managers and workers on Pennsylvania dairy farms. Pesticide credits, which are important for continuing certification of pesticide applicators, are often obtained at Extension programs. Thus, this group's needs may already be met through existing programming.

While artificial insemination is a widely desired or required skill, breeding cooperatives offer educational programs in that area. In some instances, this may present an important opportunity for Extension to partner with the cooperatives. Such a partnership may enhance the training in artificial insemination by also focusing on important human resource management topics such as standard operating procedures, training, or performance feedback.

The remaining characteristics present significant opportunities to develop dairy farm employees' skills. Communication skills are required or desired by a majority of the respondents for all but one of the job titles. Where they do not already exist, Extension educators should work to develop materials, workshops, or courses in developing verbal and written communication skills. These skills are at least desired on these farms and presumably will increase the ability of the employee to move up the organizational chart over time.

A similar pattern holds for problem-solving skills. This indicates employers' needs for employees to be able to operationalize their knowledge by applying it to real-world problems that arise on the job. Such skills can be developed through the use of hands-on training and case study applications in lecture settings. For example, a 1-day course in identifying common milk quality issues in dairy cows may be most effective if supplemented with problem-based segments in which attendees work through issues that arise frequently and develop potential solutions.

Supervision skills are either required or desired for many across the different job titles. This indicates a real opportunity to apply much of the programming currently targeted at upper-level managers to middle managers on these same farms. As dairy farms grow, middle managers will be expected to perform more of the functions related to training, scheduling, and evaluating others. Extension should be able to modify existing programs for these audiences.

Finally, computer skills are of significant importance across the job titles. Although the survey did not ask for any further detail, it might be assumed that specific computer skills include working with spreadsheets, word processors, dairy management software, financial management software, Web browsing, etc. This result provides evidence that computers should be increasingly integrated into training sessions for employees at all levels of the organization. Extension educators may also be encouraged to expand their offerings focusing directly on common computer applications, such as spreadsheets and word processors, because these are increasingly prevalent in managing a farm business.

Conclusions

The results and accompanying discussions indicate some important opportunities for Extension educators to address the needs of middle managers and employees on Pennsylvania dairy farms. With trends toward larger farms, programs targeted to improve management and specific technical tasks will be increasingly vital due to increasing numbers of middle managers and employees. For this reason, the results can easily be extended to include other types of farm businesses in other regions of the United States.

The primary conclusions from this research are that middle managers need to be trained through programs similar to those currently targeted to general managers. They must manage production, including purchasing inputs, making decisions about the production process, and storing or marketing output. They will take on supervisory functions currently held by only the general manager on many farms. Middle managers and front-line workers will increasingly be expected to display communication and problem-solving skills that they may not possess. All employees will need to be computer-proficient to be successful in farm businesses of the future. The development of these skill sets provides a great opportunity for Extension educators to create specialized educational programming for an evolving industry.

References

Bewley, J., Palmer, R.W., & Jackson-Smith, D.B. (2001). An overview of experiences of Wisconsin dairy farmers who modernized their operations. Journal of Dairy Science, 84: 717-729.

Stahl, T.J., Conlin, B.J., Seykora, A.J., & Steuernagel, G.R. (1999). Characteristics of Minnesota dairy farms that significantly increased milk production from 1989-1993. Journal of Dairy Science, 82: 45-51. 

USDA/NASS. Retrieved January 2005 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/

Farmer Willingness to Enter into Manure Exchange Agreements: Differences Based on Age and Farm Size

Robert D. Battel
Extension Educator, Farm Management
Michigan State University Extension
Reed City, Michigan
battelro@msu.edu

Introduction

Phosphorus content of manure is an important consideration in the Kalamazoo River watershed portion of Calhoun County, Michigan. To help farmers change their behaviors in an effort to reduce phosphorus loading of surface waters, Extension educators must be aware of farmers' differing attitudes toward manure use. Specifically, the study described here looked at farmers' willingness to exchange manure from farm to farm based on differences in farmers' age and farm size.

A review of literature related to farmers' willingness to adopt conservation practices based on age and farm size shows mixed results. Pampel and Van Es (1977) compared profitable agricultural practices, or commercial practices, with unprofitable practices, or environmental practices. They found that predictors of the adoption of commercial practices were different from those of environmental practices. Variables relating to farm size predicted adoption of commercial practices accurately, but years farmed predicted the adoption of environmental practices inaccurately.

In another study, Napier, Thraen, Gore, and Goe (1984) considered factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage. They found that as the size of farm operations increased, farmers used conservation practices less frequently.

Finally, Featherstone and Goodwin (1993) studied factors that influenced farmers' decisions to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Their results suggested that farms with greater acreage had a higher probability of spending money on conservation practices. They also determined that older farmers, as a group, are less likely to invest in conservation practices than are younger farmers, as a group.

Survey Questions

To better understand farmers' perception of manure-exchange issues in Calhoun County, farmers were asked the degree to which they agree or disagree with the following statements.

1. Farmers feel manure is too variable (not consistent enough) to be a reliable fertilizer source.

2. Farmers are concerned that neighbors may complain about manure applications on fields not usually receiving manure.

3. Odor concerns cause farmers to not apply manure on certain fields.

4. Farmers are concerned that manure may contain weed seeds.

5. Farmers are concerned with the potential compaction caused by manure application equipment.

6. Farmers are concerned that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring planting or other aspects of their cropping operations.

7. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm only if it were available at no cost.

8. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, as long as the cost was less than commercial fertilizer.

9. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, even if the cost was about the same as commercial fertilizer.

10. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm only if none of their time or labor were required to get it applied.

11. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm even if they had to supply some of their time and labor to get it applied.

Research Questions

Responses were grouped, and comparisons were made between groups to answer the following research questions.

Research question 1:

• Are there differences between the responses of farmers 18 to 50 years old and those of farmers age 61 and older?

Research question 2:

• Are there differences between the response of farmers who farm fewer than 200 acres and those who farm more than 399 acres?

Limitations and Assumptions

Results of the study can be generalized only to Calhoun County, Michigan, farmers within the Kalamazoo River Watershed. It was assumed that the survey results accurately portrayed surveyed farmers' perceptions of the potential of managing nutrients by transferring manure among farms.

Methods Used

A survey was mailed to all Calhoun County farmers within the Kalamazoo River Watershed (n = 349). The distribution list was compiled using the list of farmers maintained by the Calhoun County Michigan State University (MSU) Extension office. It was determined whether an entry on the mailing list was within the Kalamazoo River Watershed by comparing each address with a map of the watershed. A weakness of this method was the exclusion of any farmers who reside outside of, but farmland within, the Kalamazoo River Watershed.

The survey instrument was developed by studying two similar instruments used by MSU Extension educators for manure management programs. The questionnaire consisted of three parts:

• Filtering questions,
• Likert-type statements, and
• Personal data.

The statewide manure management educator for MSU Extension established face validity of the survey instrument by reading it and suggesting improvements. The instrument was changed to reflect the improvements suggested.

Cover letters and surveys, with preaddressed, stamped envelopes, were mailed to potential respondents. A week later, a reminder postcard was mailed to nonrespondents, encouraging them to respond to the original mailing. A second cover letter and survey, again with a pre-addressed, stamped envelope, was sent to each nonrespondent about 1 month later.

Respondents returned 244 surveys (69.9% of those mailed). Seventy-one surveys were unusable, the majority of which were returned marked "I do not actively farm." Respondents returned 173 completed and usable surveys, making the final completed and usable return rate 49.6%.

Data were analyzed using frequencies and independent-samples t tests. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 12.0, was used to analyze the data. Incomplete responses and confusing marks were treated as missing values, and were not included in the analysis.

Nonresponse error was controlled for by comparing the mean responses of early and late respondents, using an independent samples t test. Surveys returned on or before August 8, 2003, were considered returned by an early respondent. There were 126 early respondents and 47 late respondents. There was no significant difference in the mean response to any question when early and late respondents were compared; therefore, results of this survey can be generalized to the entire population (Goldhor, 1974).

Findings

Research Question 1

Research question 1 asked whether differences exist between how surveyed farmers age 18 to 50 years and those age 61 and older respond to the survey statements.

Four questions differentiated between farmers' opinions based on age. Younger farmers were more concerned about manure containing weed seeds; they were also more concerned that manure application equipment may cause compaction and that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring cropping operations. Older farmers indicated a greater willingness to accept manure only if it were available at no cost. Survey responses by age of farmer are listed in Table 1.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asked whether differences exist between the response to the survey statements of farmers of fewer than 200 acres and those who farm more than 399 acres.

Three questions differentiated based on farm size. All three showed stronger agreement by respondents farming greater acreage. Lower-acreage farmers were more concerned with the potential compaction caused by manure application equipment. They were also more concerned that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring cropping operations, and that manure may contain weed seeds. Survey responses by farm size are listed in Table 2.

Conclusion

Agronomic considerations were the dominant concerns separating younger farmers from older farmers and lower-acreage farmers from greater-acreage farmers. Specifically, both younger farmers and greater-acreage farmers were more concerned about:

• Manure containing weed seeds,
• Manure application equipment causing compaction, and
• Manure application interfering with the timeliness of springtime field activities

The data also suggest that older farmers were less willing to accept a neighboring farmer's manure if they had to pay for it.

These results support the findings by Napier et al. (1984) that as the size of farm operations increased, farmers used conservation practices less frequently. These results also support findings by Featherstone and Goodwin (1993) that older farmers are less likely to invest in conservation practices than younger farmers.

Implications for Extension

The results of the study described here were not surprising. Younger farmers with greater acreage are more concerned about practices they perceive to interfere with the efficient production of a high-yielding crop.

As Extension educators work with livestock farmers to manage manure nutrients in a sustainable manner, it may become apparent that exchanging manure with a neighboring farm is a desirable option, because of a lack of suitable land at the farm or for other reasons. The neighboring farmer, however, may resist the idea.

The results of the study should help Extension educators begin to identify barriers that preclude a farmer from entering into a manure-exchange agreement. Does the farmer show resistance because he or she is concerned about spreading weed seeds, compaction, or interfering with spring work? An Extension educator skilled in facilitating negotiations and in solving problems can help farmers address their concerns related to manure exchange.

For example, Blackshaw and Rode (1991) demonstrated that the seeds of many weed species do not survive both the ensiling and digestion processes and that the seeds that do survive these processes have low viability. Therefore, the prospect of spreading weeds from one farm to another through manure should, in most cases, be a minor concern. If a farm neighbors a dairy farm that harvests forages from fields heavily infested with weed species known to survive rumen digestion and ensiling, however, the recipient farmer should be concerned about spreading weed seeds through manure.

For all respondents, a concern that neighbors may complain about manure application and odor represents the most significant barrier to manure exchange. On this point, there was no difference between respondents based on age or farm size.

References

Blackshaw, R.E., & Rode, L. M. (1991). Effect of ensiling and rumen digestion by cattle on weed seed viability. Weed Science, 39, 104-108.

Featherstone, A.M., & Goodwin, B. K. (1993). Factors influencing a farmer's decision to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Land Economics, 69 (1), 67-81.

Goldhor, H. (1974). The use of late respondents to estimate the nature of non-respondents. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. (ERIC Document ED 083 309.)

Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., Gore, A., & Goe, W.R. (1984). Factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39 (3), 205-209.

Pampel, F., Jr., & Van Es, J.C. (1977). Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociology, 42 (1), 57-71.

The Effectiveness of a Public Nutrition Education and Wellness System Program

Wash A. Jones
Director
University Scholars Program
Prairie View A&M University
Prairie View, Texas
wajones@pvamu.edu

Carolyn J. Nobles
Program Leader
Cooperative Extension Program
Prairie View A&M University
Prairie View, Texas
c-nobles@tamu.edu

Alvin Larke, Jr.
Professor
Department of Agricultural Education
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
a-larke@tamu.edu

Introduction: Need for Program Evaluation

Public nutrition education programs, designed to improve public health and well being, began about 100 years ago. Through this process, we assist people in making decisions regarding their eating practices by applying knowledge from nutrition science about the relationship between diet and health. Increasing interest in rigorous evaluation of public programs has resulted in widely believable evaluations indicating that a number of targeted programs have been effective in meeting their goals. Evidence supports the theory that nutrition education programs that provide culturally sensitive educational activities and opportunities have proven to result in positive behavior change in the targeted audience (Blank, 1997).

But how can one be sure if educational programs are effective and worth the investment of money, energy, and time? Existing studies indicated that food programs should include a nutrition education component, and the effectiveness of nutrition education when coordinated with a food assistance program should be researched further (Sexauer, 1978). Multiple factors affecting eating practices must be assessed if effective educational approaches and nutrition messages are to be developed for all segments of the population (Anderson, 1994). Formal evaluation is a vital element in determining program success and preventing unwarranted expenditure of resources without adequate results.

Evaluating the United States Department of Agriculture's nutrition education effort remains difficult. A combination of factors--paucity of data, inadequate funding, and change in expected evaluation outcomes--has created a challenging environment for USDA to assess the overall effectiveness of its nutrition education activities. Activities that do have an evaluation component indicate varying degrees of effectiveness (The State of Nutrition Education in USDA, 1997).

Measuring performance of individuals who complete an educational program is a recognized method for evaluating the effectiveness of training programs (Wehrenberg, 1983). Government accountability rules and public scrutiny are leading to a closer evaluation of the effectiveness of educational programs. Regulatory agencies and educational entities must continue efforts to keep decision-makers and other stakeholders informed about how the educational needs of clientele are being met in order to merit support (Carpenter, 1997).

Purpose

The study described here evaluated the effectiveness of the Families First: Nutrition Education and Wellness System (FF NEWS) Program in Texas, a culturally sensitive nutrition education program organized by four 1890 institutions of the Southwest Region of the United States Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). The study examined differences that existed between pre-and post-test as it related to participants' food preparation, food purchase, and health status.

To accomplish the purpose of this study, the following research questions were addressed.

• What changes in food-preparation practices occurred among program participants as related to (a) age, (b) ethnicity, (c) education, and (d) gender?

• What changes in the adoption of food-purchase practices occurred among program participants as related to (a) age, (b) ethnicity, (c) education, and (d) gender?

• What statistically significant differences existed in the health status of program participants as related to (a) age, (b) ethnicity, (c) education, and (d) gender?

The study sought to identify the following:

• The impact of nutrition education to limited resource clientele;

• If changes were warranted to improve the program outreach, content, and methodology; and

• If improved strategies, approaches, and technologies deemed crucial for ongoing program effectiveness were warranted.

Methods and Procedures

Population and Instrumentation

The study's population were participants in the Families First: Nutrition Education and Wellness System (FF NEWS) Program in Texas, which is a nutrition education intervention program designed to help families select and prepare meals consistent with their cultural traditions while improving their overall health. Useable surveys (n=62) were derived from the 66 Food Stamp recipients or low income African Americans, European Americans, and Hispanics from four of the nine counties enrolled in the FF NEWS Program between October 1998 and May 2000. Survey forms that were incomplete were not included in the study.

The four counties in this study were selected because of their density and proximity to urban areas. Additionally, these counties had large numbers of food stamp recipients and diverse populations when compared to other counties served. Pre- and post-test surveys were used with program participants to measure knowledge, skills and behavior changes as a result of program delivery.

The FF NEWS program consisted of 55 lessons organized into four instructional modules: (1) Balancing Food Preferences with Knowledge of Nutrition, (2) Health Status and Age-Related Nutritional Needs, (3) Enhancing Management Skills, and (4) Ensuring Food Quality and Safety. Each module ranged from six to 19 class sessions, which lasted 1 1/2 hours each. The program included a curriculum developed to integrate themes on basic nutrition, physical activity, resilience, self-reliance, self-esteem, and personal responsibility. The curriculum also featured specific goals and objectives that recognize and appreciate the role of family and culture in fostering lifestyle changes in nutritional practices. Participants volunteered to enroll in the classes.

Data were collected from program participants using a two-part written survey designed by an 1890 five-state consortium:

• Part I (a Family Profile) sought the following information:
  • Participants' personal characteristics (mainly demographics);
  • Persons living in the household;
  • Head of the household;
  • Health conditions of household members;
  • Services received from the Department of Human Services;
  • How participants were informed of the FF NEWS Program.
• Part II (a 33-item, three-point Likert scale survey) collected pre- and post-test data regarding nutrition practices such as meal planning and preparation, food consumption, recipe modification, sanitation practices, and food safety.

Likert scale values and levels of practices were (1) rarely, (2) sometimes, and (3) most of the time. Results of the survey identified changes in food-preparation practices, food-purchase practices, and health status of the targeted population.

Procedure and Data Analysis

The survey data generated were both descriptive and comparative. Descriptive statistics were used for reporting personal characteristics of the participants, knowledge gained, and effectiveness of the FF NEWS Program. The SAS 6.12 procedure (SAS Institute, 1999) was employed to calculate frequencies, percentages, central tendencies, and variability for all of the variables.

Results were reported using numerical and graphic techniques. Analysis of interpretation of the data followed principles prescribed in Educational Research: An Introduction by Borg and Gall (1989). An alpha level of P≤0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results and Discussion

Demographics

The following describes the survey respondents' predominant demographic characteristics:

• Gender: 90% female
• Age Range: 15 years old to 94 years old (45% between 31 years old and 46 years old)
• Ethnicity:
  • African Americans--55%
  • European Americans--21%
  • *Hispanics--20%
• Educational Attainment Level:
  • GED--27%
  • High school diploma--27%
  • Less than GED or diploma--32%

* Statistical analysis of information on those designated as Hispanic showed that no matching tasks existed or they did not complete all items needed to analyze across demographics; thus, information was not reported on this group because reliability was not considered sufficient.

Differences in Food-Preparation Practices

Table 1 summarizes the cumulative pre-test and post-test mean scores regarding food-preparation practices. The mean difference score of 5.4 yielded a t value of 2.59, P≤0.05, indicating that participants had increased their knowledge of food-preparation practices.

Regarding participants' food-preparation practices, statistically significant differences existed between pre- and post-test mean scores as related to participants' age, ethnicity, and education attained. Compared to younger individuals, older individuals were more apt to adopt food-preparation changes. Findings suggested that mean scores of participants with vocational certification revealed a statistically significant difference from participants who completed a bachelor's degree. However, no statistically significant difference was found regarding participants' food-preparation practices in terms of their gender.

Differences in Food-Purchase Practices

In analyzing changes in food-purchase practices that occurred as a result of participation in the program, researchers observed the following:

• Participants adopted enhanced food-purchase-practice skills following training;

• Age and gender did not affect adoption of food-purchase practices;

• Participants who had a vocational certificate adopted food-purchase practices most of the time.

Table 2 shows differences in scores related to food-purchase practices.

Differences in Health Status

The following was noted regarding differences in participants' health status as measured by level of physical involvement and status of chronic illness:

• The mean score rating of participants' health status improved from pre-test to post-test, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.19);

• Level of education played a critical role in knowledge gain and health status in that participants with higher levels of education revealed evidence of receiving a greater impact from the program;

• Analysis indicated some degree of success in improving participants' health status as measured by level of physical involvement and status of chronic illness.

Most Effective Program Recruitment Strategies

• Word of mouth was the most prevalent method in recruiting individuals to participate in the program (22 participants learned about the program through a friend);

• As suggested by Blank (1997), the culturally sensitive curriculum was considered a positive factor in participant recruitment.

Conclusions and Implications

Positive Effects on Dietary Habits

• The culturally sensitive curriculum allowed program staff to be effective in program delivery, thus achieving a primary goal of improved dietary habits (Blank, 1997);

• The hands-on, practical approach allowed the program participants to gain the practical skills necessary to make positive behavior changes in dietary habits (CSREES, 2000);

• The program's effectiveness can be determined best by the participants' retention of knowledge and adopted practices (Extension Review, 1987);

• The program is an effective nutrition education program enhancing participants' knowledge gain in food-preparation and food-purchase practices.

Recommendations

• Evidence showed that the program's impact on participants was affected by their level of education. Knowing the types of courses that the participants had taken would be useful to offer a more meaningful explanation to the observed trends. If the courses taken related to food handling/processing or closely allied medical fields (e.g., vocational nursing), that would easily have explained why those participants with a vocational/technical background had much higher adoption ratings than the rest of the respondents.

• Regulatory agencies and educational entities must continue efforts to keep decision-makers and other stakeholders informed about how the educational needs of clientele are being met in order to merit support (Carpenter, 1997). Nutrition education programs that provide culturally sensitive educational activities and opportunities, like the FF NEWS Program, have proven to result in positive behavior change in the targeted audience (Blank, 1997). Because the FF NEWS Program proved to be valuable and had a positive impact on participants, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Texas Department of Human Services should continue to fund and expand these types of nutrition education programs.

• This program should be used as a mechanism for enhancing food-preparation and food-purchase practices for selected audiences. As suggested by Willis (1998), improved nutrition and health have been proven to reduce absenteeism, health care costs, and infant mortality and increase longevity, employability, worker production, and quality of life.

References

Anderson, J.E. (1994, September). What should be next for nutrition education? American Institute of Nutrition. 124 (9s), 1828s-1832s.

Blank, R.M. (1997). It takes a nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman Publisher USA.

Carpenter, Zerle L. (1997, September). FY 98 brings challenges, opportunities. Inside Extension, 7 (1), pg. 1.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. (2000). Expanded food and nutrition education program. Washington, DC.

EFNEP-Nutrition education in action. (1987, November). Extension Review, 10, 4-6. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

SAS Institute, Inc. (1999). Statistical Analysis System Program 6.12. Cary, NC.

Sexauer, B. (1978, September). Food programs and nutritional intake: What evidence. Agriculture Food Policy--United States Department of Agriculture. 13 (2), 39-43.

The State of Nutrition Education in USDA. (1997) Family Economics and Nutrition Review. 10 (2), 38-41.

Wehrenberg, S.B. (1983). Training: Evaluation of training. Personnel Journal. 62, 698-702.

Willis, L.W. (1998). Annual report: Making an impact in Texas. Prairie View, TX: Prairie View A&M University, Cooperative Extension Program.

The Influence of the Youth Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program on Nutrition Knowledge and Self-Reported Behaviors of Elementary School Children

Marilyn Rabe
Extension Educator
Franklin County, Ohio
rabe.9@osu.edu

Punam Ohri-Vachaspati
Assistant Professor and Extension Educator
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
punam@ag.osu.edu

Scott D. Scheer
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist
Columbus, Ohio
scheer.9@osu.edu

Ohio State University Extension
The Ohio State University

Introduction

Statistics concerning the health status of children in the United States are startling. Results from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate that compared to 1980, the proportion of children and adolescents who are overweight has gone up three times to an estimated 15% (National Center for Health Statistics, 2000). Assessment of dietary intake of children indicates that an over-consumption of calories, saturated fats, sugar, and sodium coexists with under-consumption of calcium, iron, fiber, fruits, vegetables, and milk (Nicklas et al., 2004). According to USDA's Healthy Eating Index, 88% of children 7-9 years of age had diets that were poor or needed improvement (Carlson, Lino, Gerrior, & Basiotis, 2003).

Overweight during childhood and adolescence is associated with overweight during adulthood (Guo, Roche, Chumlea, Gardner, & Siervogel, 1994). In addition, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and high blood lipids occur more often in overweight youth (Dietz, 1998).

There is evidence that establishing healthy eating habits in childhood is critical as these patterns are carried over to adulthood (Keldar, Perry, Kleppo, & Lytle, 1994). It is easier to establish good habits at an early age than to make changes of poor ones as an adult (Ritchie et al., 2001). While poor nutrition is seen in all segments of the population, there is a link between poverty and poor nutrition (Adams, Grummer-Stran, & Chavez, 2003). Effective nutrition education has been suggested as a means to help children learn the basics of good nutrition to make healthy food choices (Center for Disease Control, 2002).

The federally funded Youth Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is designed to provide nutrition education to disadvantaged urban youth. It is offered through schools as an enrichment of the curriculum, in after-school programs, through 4-H EFNEP clubs, day camps, residential camps, community centers, neighborhood groups, and home gardening workshops (CSREES, 2004). In Cuyahoga County, the program is implemented in four sessions, over a 2- to 4-week period during the school year as enrichment to the class curriculum or in after-school settings. In the summer months, youth-EFNEP is implemented at summer camps. Each year, youth-EFNEP in Cuyahoga County reaches over 3000 children.

Although there have been numerous studies in the recent years on the benefits and effectiveness of nutrition education programs, no thorough eva