April 2008
Volume 46 Number 2

Features

Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Building Leadership Capacity in Rural Communities

Louis V. Bassano
Extension Professor
University of Maine Cooperative Extension
Machias, Maine
lbassano@umext.maine.edu

James C. McConnon, Jr.
Extension Business and Economics Specialist and Professor, School of Economics
University of Maine
Orono, Maine
jimm@umext.maine.edu

Introduction

The Maine economy is highly dependent upon a thriving small business community to create and sustain jobs that pay livable wages. In 2003, there were 38,700 businesses in Maine, 94% of which had 15 or fewer employees. These businesses employed more than 50% of the Maine workforce (SBA, 2004). Since 1996, businesses with 15 or fewer employees have created 80% of Maine's new jobs (SBA, 2004). Microenterprises, businesses with five or fewer employees, are very important job creators in the rural areas of the state, accounting for 20% of total state employment. Maine's microenterprises contributed an estimated $12.9 billion to the state's economy in 2000 (McConnon, 2006).

Maine Governor John E. Baldacci has identified economic growth through business retention, expansion, creation, and attraction as a key to improving Maine's economic health. An important strategy in achieving the governor's goal is equipping Maine's business owners with the tools necessary to grow and prosper. This is critical in light of research showing that approximately 60% of small businesses fail within 5 years because entrepreneurs lack sufficient business management skills (Muske & Stanforth, 2000). Participation in relevant and effective training has been shown to reduce the failure rate and help business owners avoid costly mistakes (Muske & Stanforth, 2000).

Cooperative Extension can play an important role in strengthening local economies through supporting and enhancing community-based entrepreneurship. In addition, by employing effective community development strategies, Extension can be a catalyst to build leadership capacity within the business community. The importance of supporting community entrepreneurship was recently underscored by the formation of the National Coalition for Rural Entrepreneurship and selection of the "entrepreneurship" theme for the 2006 National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals Conference held in San Antonio, Texas.

Method

The University of Maine Cooperative Extension has a long history of assisting small business owners in Washington County, Maine. Located in a remote rural area of the state with a population of 30,000, Washington County's natural resource-based economy has traditionally had one of Maine's highest unemployment rates. Since 1990, a Washington County Extension educator and a state Extension Business and Economics Specialist have conducted free business consultations and an annual workshop series for aspiring and existing business owners to develop or improve their business management skills. These activities are part of Cooperative Extension's statewide program providing educational assistance to those who operate or are considering starting a small or home-based business.

In 2002, Cooperative Extension faculty organized a meeting with business and community leaders and representatives from business-assist organizations to identify ways to enhance entrepreneurship and small business development throughout Washington County. The need for a highly visible event that would bring together aspiring and existing business owners with a variety of business resources grew out of this discussion.

In 2003, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension, in cooperation with other business assist organizations, business owners, municipal government officials, and a local community college, organized the first Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace. The goals of the conference, now in its fifth year, are as follows:

• To highlight to the general public and community leaders the important contributions to the economy made by small businesses.


• To improve the business management skills of conference participants in a variety of topic areas considered crucial to business success.


• To generate new business start-ups and expansion of existing businesses.


• To address issues or concerns important to the local business community.


• To provide low-cost marketing and networking opportunities for Washington County businesses and business-assist organizations.

Organizing and Funding the Conference

Extension faculty played a key leadership role in organizing the conference by selecting and recruiting potential planning team members and developing a subcommittee structure that incorporated key planning components. These key components included: identifying program content, conference promotion, fund raising, onsite logistics, Web site design, and marketplace development. Extension provided ongoing support to each of the subcommittees to ensure their success. In addition, Extension faculty created the evaluation instruments, and the county Extension educator served as chair of the planning team for the first 3 years.

A total of $50,000 in cash and in-kind contributions was required to hold the conference. In-kind contributions accounted for approximately 30% of the cost. They included the planning committee's time and travel; donated items such as refreshments, postage, and community college facilities; and discounted rates on print and radio advertising.

Funds were secured by sponsorships that ranged in price from $250 to $5,000. Sponsors included financial institutions, state and federal agencies, business-assist organizations, local businesses, chambers of commerce, rotary, municipal government, and local development organizations.

About 50% of the budget was used for promoting the conference. Other costs included designing and printing the brochure and signage 15%, secretarial salary and office overhead 10%, presenter stipends 10%, Web design and maintenance 5%, postage 3%, and miscellaneous 7%.

Conference Content

The annual conference took place each year over 2 days on the campus of Washington County Community College located in Calais, Maine. Extension and other business-assist agency professionals and small business owners offered 25 workshops divided into half-day and quarter-day sessions. The workshop topics fell into the broad categories of business planning, financing, marketing, employee relations, legal, insurance and tax issues, e-commerce, and using technology. A special track of workshops addressed local issues such as the Washington County economy or tourism initiatives that could affect entrepreneurs.

The conference marketplace featured more than 25 Washington County businesses with their products and services on display and offered for sale to the public. Representatives from over a dozen business-assist organizations were also included in the marketplace as a resource to conference attendees. Conference participants were urged to visit each booth to become more knowledgeable about programs available to help small businesses and gain an appreciation for the diversity of business activities in the county.

The importance of small business to the local economy was a theme that resonated throughout the conference. At the inaugural conference in 2003, Maine Governor John E. Baldacci delivered the keynote address in which he unveiled a state plan to support and enhance an entrepreneurial economy in Maine. The theme of last year's conference was "Celebrating Home-Grown Entrepreneurship in Maine."

Results

Demographics

Approximately 350 people registered for workshops at the 2003, 2004, and 2005 conferences. In 2003, the first year of the conference, conference registrations revealed that 90% of the workshop participants were from Washington County. Each year the conference has drawn more participants from outside of the county. In 2005, 22% of the registrants were from Maine's other 15 counties and Canada.

The conference planning team felt that it was important to present workshops that have broad appeal to potential and existing businesses, regardless of type of business or stage of development. Figure 1 shows that 60% of the conference registrants had been in business for up to 5 years. This category included prospective business owners still in the thinking stages. Twenty-three percent of the businesses had been in existence for 15 or more years. Seventeen percent of the businesses had been operating between 6 and 14 years.

Figure 1.
Years in Business

Conference participants were asked to categorize their business as retail, manufacturing, or service. As indicated in Figure 2, service businesses were the largest category with 57%. Thirty-three percent were retail businesses, and the remaining 10% were manufacturing businesses.

Figure 2.
Type of Business

Conference Impacts

In the spring of 2006, a survey was mailed to individuals who registered for workshops at the 2003, 2004, or 2005 conference to determine the effectiveness of the conference in achieving its goals. The survey asked registrants how they used the information they acquired at the conference, what management changes they made, and more important, how those changes affected their business. In addition, registrants were asked to place a dollar amount on the value of the information they received at the conference. Fifty-four completed surveys were returned for a 22% response rate.

As indicated in Figure 3, the results of our post-conference evaluation survey indicated that 98% of workshop participants acquired new knowledge about starting or operating a business as a result of attending the conference. This was consistent with the evaluations completed by participants at the conclusion of each workshop showing participants had increased their knowledge of the workshop topic.

Ninety percent of the respondents reported they used their newly acquired knowledge to improve some aspect of their business. Approximately 70% made three or more practice changes in their business. This also was consistent with the after workshop evaluations showing a high percentage of the attendees intended to make specific changes within 6 months of attending the conference. Some of the changes survey respondents reported included: writing and/or revising a business plan, revising marketing materials, developing a new Web site, changing a booth or exhibit design, establishing a new pricing policy, and changing the form of business ownership. About 50% of the respondents started their first or second business or expanded a business since attending the conference.

Figure 3.
Knowledge and Practice Changes Reported by Respondents

Figure 4 shows the impact of improved knowledge and practice changes on business performance. For example, 55% of the respondents indicated they made more effective business decisions, while 36% reported increased sales or profits. Forty percent reported improved efficiency by reducing business risk or costs. Approximately 70% of the respondents indicated that their improved business knowledge affected their business in two or more ways. Some of the impacts included: increased sales, improved profitability and efficiency, improved decision-making capabilities, reduced business management risks, and reduced costs.

Figure 4.
How Improved Knowledge Affected Business

Finally, conference participants were asked to place a value on the knowledge and skills they acquired as a result of attending the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace. The average value placed on attending the conference by those participating in the survey was an estimated $1,295, a strong indication that attending the conference was a valuable experience.

Discussion

The Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace has been successful in spurring business development in a rural Maine county. It has contributed to job creation; served as a focal point for the area's small and micro-business owners to gain information about starting, expanding, or improving a business; strengthened business support networks and partnerships; and enhanced leadership capacity within the business community.

Those attending the 2003, 2004, or 2005 conference and who responded to our survey reported starting or expanding over 25 businesses. In addition, respondents acquired new knowledge about starting or operating a business and reported making multiple changes in important business management areas such as planning, marketing, pricing, recordkeeping, and advertising. These changes improved business efficiency, reduced costs, increased profits and sales, and resulted in better business decision-making.

One of the things we learned while planning this conference was how important it was to have the active participation of local business owners on the planning team. Engaging business owners in planning the conference exposed them to resources available to help them with their own business. In addition, the planning team benefited from the valuable input provided by the business owners. This partnership has enhanced the planning team's effectiveness and leadership capacity, encouraged planning team members to start or expand their own businesses, and led to further after-conference collaborations among business- assist organizations and businesses.

Organizing a successful business conference required team members to gain, strengthen, and/or use effective communication, team building, and other critical organizational and leadership skills readily transferable to other community endeavors in which they chose to become involved. For example, by applying the skills he gained organizing the conference, a former planning team member partnered with a local chamber of commerce director to spearhead the creation of a successful birding festival. In another instance, a conference planning team member gained the confidence needed to assume a leadership position as chair of the conference planning team the following year. Cooperative Extension will continue to be represented on the planning team in a much-reduced role, as business owners acquire the leadership skills and confidence necessary to assume more responsibility in organizing and leading future conferences.

Finally, we also learned that it is very important who you select to be on the conference planning team and to provide orientation and training to planning team members before conference planning begins. Having a local group of committed people with the appropriate mix of skills is essential for a successful conference.

Conclusion

The success of the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace, its high visibility, partnerships with the community college, business-assist organizations, and the business community has attracted the attention of policy makers and others in Maine state government. They recognize and appreciate the collaborative approach that characterizes the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace because it fosters greater cooperation, builds and strengthens public and private partnerships, and results in more efficient use of limited state resources.

In 2005, the Maine District Office of the U.S. Small Business Administration recognized the outstanding contributions of the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace in supporting and enhancing entrepreneurship in rural Maine by selecting the conference planning team to receive the "Home-Based Business Champions of the Year" award for the State of Maine. In a press release announcing the award, Charles E. Summers, New England Regional Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration said "this team has had an impact on small business in Washington County. They have developed a model which I hope will be replicated throughout Maine."

The Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace has recently become the model for developing regional small business conferences across Maine. This new statewide initiative is being rolled out across Maine as "The Governor's Regional Conferences for Small Business and Entrepreneurship." This effort is led by a statewide planning team including representatives from the U.S. Small Business Administration, Maine's Community College System, the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, the Maine Small Business Development Centers, and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension. Extension is playing a key role in ensuring the success of these regional conferences by assisting local planning team members and by drawing on the lessons learned from organizing the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace.

The 2006 Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace was designated the first "Governor's Regional Conference for Small Business & Entrepreneurship." The statewide planning team has identified locations in southern, central, and eastern Maine where future conferences will take place. In addition, the statewide planning team has secured private and state funds to provide a $15,000 matching grant to each local planning team. At the conclusion of the final conference, the statewide planning team will formally evaluate the impact of the conferences on business development and make a recommendation to the Governor regarding implementation and funding of future conferences.

Implications for Extension

According to Muske and Stanforth (2000), the economic boom of the 1990's was fueled by the growth of small business. These businesses employ about 56% of all workers in the United States today. They argued that future job creation and growth will rely on their continued success. Micro-businesses are especially important in rural communities (McConnon, 2006), and community leaders are becoming increasingly aware of entrepreneurship and its potential to improve local economies.

Cooperative Extension is a reliable source of research-based business management information for all small businesses. Main-street, home-based, natural resource-based, service, and other types of businesses could benefit from the information Extension provides through small business management fact sheets, Web-based educational materials, business workshops, and individual business clinics. Extension can also provide educational support to help entrepreneurs develop networking and leadership skills and assist small businesses in adopting new technologies and reaching new markets. In addition, a highly visible educational program like the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace can be an effective tool for stimulating and strengthening entrepreneurship and community leadership in a rural region.

The Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace has generated strong support for Extension among county commissioners and municipal and business leaders, who increasingly view the conference as the most important annual economic development event in the region. These officials now recognize Cooperative Extension as a significant partner in creating and sustaining jobs in their communities. Their growing recognition of Extension's support for small business has helped to secure funding and generate support for the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

Cooperative Extension, with locations in almost every county throughout the U.S., could play a significant role in supporting and enhancing economic growth and development through entrepreneurship education programming. The Cooperative Extension System employs many individuals with community development skills who could serve as catalysts for building successful coalitions similar to the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace.

Extension staff wishing to replicate the Washington County Business Conference and Marketplace can use the template outlined in this paper as a guideline. The template is based on sound adult education and community development principles, and emphasizes the active participation of each member of the planning team in co-creating this learning event. By following this template, Extension staff can serve a vital role in working with citizens to develop a highly effective educational program to stimulate and enhance entrepreneurship in rural communities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Douglas Babkirk, Debra Eckart, and Louise Kirkland of the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Carletta Bassano for reviewing an earlier draft of this paper. All remaining errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

Atasoy, S., McConnon, J. C., & Gabe, T. (2007). The economic importance and impact of microenterprises to the New England economy. Department of Resource Economics and Policy Staff Paper No. 560, The University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Bassano, L. V. (2006). A report to the Washington County Cooperative Extension Executive Committee on the activities and accomplishments of the Down East Microenterprise Network. University of Maine Cooperative Extension, unpublished paper.

Ede, F. O., Calcich, S. E., & Panigrahi, B. (1998). African American students' attitudes towards entrepreneurship education." Journal of Education for Business, 73(2), 291-296.

Hatten, T. S. (1997). Small business: Entrepreneurship and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McConnon, J. C. (2006). Maine microbusinesses and employment levels by county, 2004. Orono, Maine. University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

McConnon, J. C., Atasoy, S., & Gabe, T. (2006). Microbusiness is

big business in rural America. Selected economic development workshop presented at the National Association for Community Development Extension Professionals Conference, San Antonio, Texas.

Muske, G., & Stanforth N. (2000). The education needs of small business owners: A look into the future. Journal of Extension [On-line], (38)6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000december/a4.html

U.S. Small Business Administration. (2004). Small business profile.

Growing Rural Tourism Opportunities

Kathleen Tweeten
Director
NDSU Extension Center for Community Vitality
Bismarck, North Dakota
kathleen.tweeten@ndsu.edu

Larry Leistritz
Professor
Agribusiness and Applied Economics
Fargo, North Dakota
f.leistritz@ndsu.edu

Nancy Hodur
Research Scientist
Agribusiness and Applied Economics
Fargo, North Dakota
nancy.hodur@ndsu.edu

North Dakota State University

Introduction--In Search of Alternative Enterprises

The northern Great Plains region is characterized by a semi-arid climate and an extensive agricultural economy based on dryland farming and range livestock production. In recent decades, combinations of economic forces and ecological trends have placed farm operators and agriculturally dependent communities in this region under substantial economic stress. Production agriculture in the northern Great Plains region has long been characterized by uncertainty, stemming both from climatic factors and from volatile commodity prices (Dhuyvetter, Thompson, Norwood, & Halvorson, 1996). Periodic droughts have resulted in severe economic stress for the region's farmers and ranchers (Leistritz, Ekstrom, Wanzek, & Mortensen, 1989). Further, some observers question whether some of the lands of this region can be cropped on a sustained-yield basis. As a consequence, some of the region's farm and ranch operators have been considering alternative enterprises to increase and stabilize their incomes.

Farm families in the northern Great Plains region have faced serious economic challenges. In 2002, net cash farm income for North Dakota averaged $31,129 per farm (USDA, 2004). For the neighboring northern Great Plains states of South Dakota and Montana, net cash farm income averaged $26,763 and $10,715, respectively. Net cash farm income is the farm's cash receipts less cash expenses. From this amount, the farm family must make any principal payments on long-term debt and also provide for capital replacement [depreciation] and family living expenses. Given the relatively low levels of net farm/ranch income, farm and ranch families have become increasingly reliant on off-farm earnings. For example, over the period 1993-2002, off-farm wages and salaries of North Dakota farm households more than doubled (Swenson, 2003).

In the face of these conditions, many farm and ranch operators have examined the possibility of adding new enterprises to diversify and enhance their incomes. One of the fastest growing forms of new enterprise has been nature-based or agri-tourism (Schroeder, 2004; Leistritz, Hodur, & Wolfe, 2004). Many farm and ranch operators are creating new on-farm tourism (agritourism) enterprises, hoping to attract some of the out-of-state visitors to their business. Types of new on-farm businesses range from trails to guided hunting and fishing to corn mazes and wineries, and the timing could not be better. There is a growing national touring population that is looking for new, educational, physical, and authentic cultural hands-on experiences (Wilkerson, 2003; Gartner, 2005).

While North Dakota and other Great Plains and Midwestern states have not traditionally been major tourist destinations, entrepreneurs have increasingly discovered opportunities to launch successful enterprises. North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension and the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station have attempted to respond to the needs of this clientele, and the efforts and activities undertaken in doing so offer a case study that may be of wider interest.

This article briefly describes an integrated research and Extension program developed by North Dakota State University to support development of the agritourism and nature-based tourism sector in the Great Plains and other rural regions. This was a challenging undertaking because the state's rural tourism sector has only recently begun to develop, and little information was available regarding the attributes of either the state's agritourism and nature tourism businesses or of the visitors who make up their clientele. The North Dakota experience may be of particular interest to Extension personnel in states where the rural tourism sector has developed only recently and where the information base and support infrastructure for the sector is limited.

Initial Programming

In response to numerous requests for information about how to start on-farm tourism businesses, NDSU Extension began offering programs in agritourism enterprise development for farm/ranch families in 1999. At that time there was little information and only a few successful examples of rural tourism businesses in the state. The North Dakota Extension Service, with the assistance of a Montana State University Extension specialist David Sharpe, delivered an innovative educational program to assist farm and ranch families who were considering starting tourism related businesses. North Dakota State University Extension also identified and introduced a network of agencies and partners that could assist those considering a business start-up. This network continues to grow. A typical agenda for the 1-day workshop contained the following key components.

• Panel of successful agritourism entrepreneurs


• Discussion and information on tourist needs and expectations


• Discussion of appropriate facilities


• Agency panel for funding and business assistance


• Agency presentations: tax department, health department, and state tourism


• Financial feasibility


• Legal issues


• Marketing strategies

A total of 486 participants attended the Extension programs, and several new businesses were launched. In 2005, 24 of 53 workshop participants (45%) responding to a survey indicated that they had started a business as a result of the program. One successful example of a business that participated in the Extension program and responded to the survey is West Bay Resort, LLC <http://www.westbayresort.com/>.

Need for Research--What Do We Offer in Rural Communities?

While the program was successful and NDSU Extension specialists knew that the number of agritourism ventures was growing, better information on current attributes, outlook, and perceived needs of rural tourism business operators was needed in order to facilitate future Extension program development in the state and region. A statewide survey of agritourism and nature-based tourism operators was conducted by the NDSU Department of Agribusiness & Applied Economics to meet these program needs. Information was obtained from 194 tourism business operators (approximately 47% of the active agritourism and nature-based tourism businesses in the state).

A hunting-related service (guiding, hunting lodges) was the most common business focus, while lodging and/or a meal was the service most often provided (Hodur, Leistritz, & Wolfe, 2004). Only 28% of the businesses had paid employees, but a majority (52%) had unpaid family members who helped with the business. Most of the businesses operated seasonally, with only 36% reporting operating year round. Most of the businesses were relatively recent start-ups, and 85% had begun operations since 1990.

Most of the businesses (58%) reported 100 or fewer customer days during their most recent year of operation. The median number of customer days was 90, up from 74 2 years earlier. The bulk of the clientele (69%) were from out of state. Most of the businesses (71%) reported net revenue of $10,000 or less; the median value of $2,000 is likely representative. These income levels were consistent with the seasonal nature and relatively small scale of most of these businesses.

Most operators felt that demand for their type of business had increased in the past 3 years (72% agreed) and that more customers were needed to operate at full capacity (64% agreed). Less than one-third of respondents reported difficulty attracting new customers. More than three-fourths of the respondents (78%) felt that outdoor recreation-based tourism activities offered rural areas economic development opportunities (Hodur, Leistritz, & Wolfe, 2004). Finally, more than three-fourths of respondents felt that there should be more promotion of the state as a tourism destination.

Affordable liability insurance was frequently identified as a critical issue for the tourism business operators. While only 13% indicated they were unable to purchase liability and/or comprehensive insurance, 51% believed liability insurance was prohibitively expensive.

The issues critical to North Dakota rural tourism operators are issues in other states as well. Insurance issues are beginning to be addressed through changes in state law. For example, Texas has established a liability cap or limit for agritourism operators who have liability insurance up to the liability cap amount. Nebraska and other rural states are considering similar approaches.

Developing the Nature and Rural Tourism Sector

New business operators soon discovered that starting an agritourism business is the easy part. In follow-up discussions with new business owners in North Dakota, it was found that they needed to network with others with similar interests and business operations across the state to become more efficient and effective at attracting tourists to their individual businesses. However, networking was impossible because the operators did not know each other and no database existed to help them. In response, the NDSU Extension Center for Community Vitality facilitated, along with the Garrison Conservancy District, the creation of the North Dakota Nature and Rural Tourism Association in 2004. The association created an environment for sharing and learning to take place.

The members of the new association quickly identified two issues that required action, affordable insurance and cooperative marketing. As a result of the association's recommendations and lobbying for affordable liability insurance, the North Dakota legislature in 2005 directed the North Dakota Insurance Department to conduct a study to examine the cost and availability of liability insurance for recreation and agritourism related businesses. The study has been completed, and the results were reported to the 2007 legislature. Cooperative marketing efforts using visitor packages, Web sites, and brochures have become more prevalent. A good example of a cooperative marketing effort (Dakota West Adventures) can be seen at <http://www.dakotawestadventures.com/>.

Research and Extension personnel continue to actively support the North Dakota Nature and Rural Tourism Association by providing research and educational programming. For example, in response to the growing interest in birding festivals, researchers from the Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics surveyed participants in a rural birding festival (Hodur, Leistritz, & Wolfe, 2005). They found that more than three-fourths of participants were visitors to the area, with most coming from out of state. Visitors came from locations as distant as Oregon and Tennessee, and spent an average of $235 per person during the course of the 4-day event.

Visitors were asked how they had learned of the event. More than two-thirds of out-of-state visitors mentioned a birding magazine as their source of information. On the other hand, visitors from within North Dakota much more often learned of the event through local media or from a brochure distributed by the festival organizers. This information was used by the organizers to plan their future marketing efforts.

As interest in organizing birding festivals and other agricultural and tourist-related events has grown in rural communities, the NDSU Extension Center for Community Vitality and Cass County Extension Office offered a 6-day University of Minnesota Extension certification training in Festival and Events Management. Because the potential economic impact of visitor spending is often an important local issue in planning festivals and events, the program was augmented to include a seminar by Dr. Larry Leistritz and Nancy Hodur of the NDSU Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics on the principles of estimating the economic impact of events and festivals.

They first developed a conceptual framework for estimating an event's contribution to the local economy (e.g., visitors' spending would generally be counted as part of the economic contribution or impact, whereas local residents' spending generally would not). They applied this framework to various types of events in both rural and urban settings (e.g., a Birding Festival held in central North Dakota, various events held at the FARGODOME in North Dakota's largest city). Their presentation emphasized key issues that event organizers need to consider when estimating the local impact of their event. A major message was that a well-designed survey of event participants can provide the information needed to estimate local economic impact, as well as providing insights that can aid in planning and marketing future events (Hodur, Leistritz, & Wolfe, 2005).

Conclusion

Tourism is a growing industry in the Great Plains region and other rural, predominately agriculture states. Spending by out-of-state visitors has become an important part of rural states' economies. For example, it is the second largest component of North Dakota's economic base, contributing $3.6 billion annually to the state's economy. According to the North Dakota State Tourism Division Director addressing the 2006 ND State Tourism conference, agritourism is growing and is an increasingly important component of the tourism industry in all rural states.

As nature-based and agritourism expands in states which historically have had relatively limited tourism activity, a variety of questions and issues arise. These can range from questions specific to starting a tourist-oriented business to issues relating to how private firms and public entities can best use their resources to promote their state and region. Extension professionals are uniquely positioned to assist individuals and groups seeking to promote rural tourism, based on both established relationships with rural constituencies and the ability to draw on applied research and outreach capabilities within the university system. North Dakota's experience provides an example of how Extension can provide the educational programming and applied research necessary to help facilitate growth and sustainability in the rural and nature based tourism industry.

References

Dhuyvetter, K. C., Thompson, C. R., Norwood, C. A., & Halvorson, A. D. (1996). The economics of dryland cropping in the Great Plains: A review, Journal of Production Agriculture 9 (2), 216-222.

Gartner, W. C. (2005). A perspective on rural tourism development. The Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 35 (1), 33-42.

Hodur, N. M., Bangsund, D. A., & Leistritz, F. L. (2004). Characteristics of nature-based tourism enterprises in North Dakota. AAE Rpt. No. 537. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness & Applied Economics. Available at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/

Hodur, N. M., Leistritz, F. L., & Wolfe, K. L. (2005). Assessing the economic development potential of nature tourism, Great Plains Research 15:279-296.

Leistritz, F. L., Hodur, N. M., & Wolfe, K. L. (2004). Developing the outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism sector in southwestern North Dakota. AAE Rpt. No. 549. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness & Applied Economics. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=15405&ftype=.pdf

Leistritz, F. L., Ekstrom, B. L., Wanzek, J., & Mortensen, T. L. (1989). Economic effects of the 1988 drought in North Dakota: A 1989 update of the financial conditions of farm and ranch operators. Agricultural Economics Report No. 248. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.

Schroeder, T. (2004). Motivations of resource-based tourism operators in North Dakota. Journal of Extension [On-line] 42 (6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a6.shtml

Swenson, A. L. (2003). Financial characteristics of North Dakota farms, 2000-2002. AAE Rpt. No. 522. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness & Applied Economics. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=11181&ftype=.pdf

U. S. Department of Agriculture. (2004). 2002 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, County Level Data. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/

Wilkerson, C. (2003). Travel and tourism: An overlooked industry in the U.S. and Tenth District. Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City) 88 (3), 45 - 71.

Building Wealth Through Ownership: Resident-Owned Manufactured Housing Communities in New Hampshire

Charlie French
Extension Associate Professor
Community and Economic Development
Charlie.French@unh.edu

Kelly Giraud
Associate Professor
Resource Economics and Development
Kelly.Giraud@unh.edu

Sally Ward
Professor
Sociology
Sally.Ward@unh.edu

University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire

Introduction

Between 1984 and 2006, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, referred to as "The Loan Fund," has helped residents from 82 manufactured (mobile) home parks to purchase the land on which their homes are situated. Each of these cooperatively owned parks, known as "Resident-owned Communities" (ROC's), formed a self-governing corporation to manage their park. Through this model of resident ownership, residents have gained financial and managerial control of their park and their lives.

While a number of studies examine the social and economic benefits of home ownership (Haurin, Deitz, & Weinburg 2003), few studies examine the social and economic benefits of cooperative home ownership. In fact, the concept of cooperative (resident) ownership of manufactured home communities is relatively new, with the first ROC having been established in New Hampshire in 1984. Yet ROC's have already had a significant impact on the state's affordable housing sector. Today, over 4,000 New Hampshire families reside in ROC's--more than in any other state.

Due to the dearth of literature examining ROC's as a model of home ownership, the Ford Foundation and The Loan Fund commissioned the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire to conduct an independent evaluation of the social and economic outcomes of resident ownership of manufactured home communities in New Hampshire. (Note: According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, a manufactured home is constructed in a factory environment and built to federal safety standards known as HUD Code, whereas a mobile home is simply a manufactured home built prior to 1976, before the HUD Code went into effect [2005].)

While there are many theories as to why ROC's have proliferated in New Hampshire, this evaluation examines four specific advantages that ROC's are believed to have compared to investor-owned communities (investor-owned communities, or IOC's, are manufactured housing parks where residents rent the land on which their home is situated). Based on preliminary data collected by The Loan Fund (Bradley, 2002), these advantages are:

• Better access to mortgage financing


• Greater stability in housing costs


• More opportunity to build equity


• Enhanced sense of ownership and control

Additionally, the team was charged with providing The Loan Fund with recommendations that would help them to strengthen the resident ownership model in New Hampshire. Provided that there is strong evidence supporting the advantages outlined above, the hope is that the resulting recommendations will also highlight opportunities for Extension Services to provide educational outreach to help build the capacity of existing and potential ROC's and thereby help promulgate the resident ownership model nationally.

Background

Home ownership is the main source of equity for most Americans. However, due to rapidly escalating housing costs relative to personal income, an increasing number of Americans cannot afford to purchase a home (Apgar, 2005).

Of those who were able to purchase a home in the United States between 1980 and 2000, 29% opted to purchase a manufactured home (Genz, 2001). The vast majority of these manufactured homes are located in IOC's, where residents rent their plot from a landlord. Only a small fraction of manufactured homes are located in ROC's.

A number of factors explain why ROC's have not proliferated nationwide. Foremost, few lenders are willing to provide financing with interest rates comparable to conventional mortgage loans for the purchase of manufactured homes located in parks. Most lenders only provide access to personal property loans or variable-rate loans for the purchase of manufactured homes. Interest rates for these loans are typically several percentage points higher than conventional home loans (Bradley, 2003). And, without access to mortgage-competitive financing, prospective homeowners may not see advantages to buying a home in an ROC.

In New Hampshire, however, mortgage-rate financing is increasingly becoming available for the purchase of manufactured homes in ROC's.

Another factor limiting the expansion of ROC's is the lack of technical, financial, and managerial support to the ROC Boards responsible for managing and maintaining their respective parks. New Hampshire is one of the few states where support is readily available to ROC Boards. Without this support, it is unlikely that residents of New Hampshire's 82 ROC's would have been able to purchase their parks in the first place.

Methods

To determine if resident-owned parks pose certain advantages over investor-owned parks, a study was designed to compare ROC's with IOC's on a range of social and economic variables. Overall, seven New Hampshire towns with at least one ROC and one IOC were selected for the study to encompass a wide geographic distribution and a broad range of demographic characteristics (Figure 1). Within each of these towns, one to two ROC's and an equivalent number of IOC's were selected for comparison. The parks within each town were selected to be comparable in terms of location, size, and demographics of the park residents. The final sample consisted of eight ROC's and 12 IOC's (Ward, French, & Giraud, 2005).

Figure 1.
Towns in Study Sample

The primary sources of data for the study were a mailed questionnaire, secondary data from town tax cards and the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), and interviews with ROC Board Members and Town Officials.

Surveys

Using elements from Don Dillman's Total Design Method for conducting surveys (1978), a self-administered survey was mailed to residents of both ROC's and IOC's to query them about basic demographic information, household economic factors, as well as their perceptions about living in their park. All of the residents in the sampled parks were mailed surveys, with the exception of one town, where only 50% of the homes were sampled due to the town's large size and the possibility that a full sample could skew the results. Of the 1,187 surveys sent out, 698 were returned for an overall response rate of 59%. Overall, the response rates were very similar between the two groups, with 356 surveys completed by residents of ROC's and 342 completed by residents of IOC's (Ward, French, & Giraud, 2005).

Town Tax Records and Multiple Listing Service Data:

Town Tax Cards were accessed in order to analyze and compare information on assessed value of homes. Likewise, data from the state's Multiple Listing Service (MLS) were used to compare lot rent fees and the number of days on the market for homes sold in ROC's and IOC's.

Interviews:

In-depth, structured interviews were conducted of Board members from 20 ROC's across the seven sample towns to get their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of living in cooperatively owned parks. Because IOC's do not maintain formal leaders, there was no way to obtain a compatible sampling for IOC's. In spite of this, the interviews of ROC Board members provided valuable insight regarding how each of the ROC's changed since they converted from an IOC to an ROC. The positions of the ROC Board members interviewed included:

• 7 Board Presidents/Chairs


• 2 Vice Chairs


• 4 Treasurers


• 2 Secretaries


• 1 Infrastructure Coordinator


• 4 Members-at-large

In addition, one to two town officials were interviewed in each of the seven sample towns to determine their perceptions of ROC's and IOC's. The 12 town officials who were interviewed fell into one of three categories; safety officer, elected representative, or administration professional (e.g., planner, assessor, etc.).

Findings

Although there were a number of economic variables examined in the study, only four are addressed in the following section, as they relate to the four advantages that were proposed above. These variables are access to mortgage-competitive financing, stabilization of housing costs, opportunity to build equity, and sense of ownership and control.

Access to Mortgage-Competitive Financing

Data on home loans were collected from the surveys to determine whether ROC residents have better access to financing than IOC's. One theme that appeared in numerous surveys was the stated lack of availability of low interest loans for the purchase of manufactured homes.

As Figure 2 below illustrates, homeowners from ROC's obtained more loans to help finance their home purchases than those from IOC's between 1995 and 2005. Moreover, the number of loans to ROC's increased dramatically over the past few years as new lenders made mortgage financing available to homeowners. In contrast, residents of IOC have had fewer loans and were often forced to purchase their homes outright in order to avoid the high interest rates available through personal property loans or variable-rate loans.

Figure 2.
Number of Mortgage Loans by Community Type, 1999-2005 (2005 Partial Yr.)


Adapted from Ward, S., French, C., & Giraud, K. (2005). The effect of cooperative ownership on appreciation of manufactured housing. Cooperative Housing Journal. 2005/2006 Annual Issue, p. 22.

Stabilization of Housing Costs

The second hypothesis is that ROC's provide more stable housing costs than IOC's. This was tested by comparing monthly lot fees paid by homeowners in ROC's and IOC's. The monthly lot fees paid by homeowners in ROC's are used to pay off their share of the mortgage for the land, as well as for maintenance and improvements. In contrast, monthly lot fees paid by homeowners in IOC's go to the landlord for land rent, much of which is converted to profit.

As Table 1 above illustrates, the average lot fee for ROC's ($265.93) is nearly $12.00 per month less than the lot fees for IOC's ($277.62). Taking into consideration that lots in ROC's tend to be larger than lots in IOC's, this appears to be a significant factor. In effect, homeowners in ROC's pay less in lot fees in spite of the fact that, on average, their homes reside on more land. Additionally, the monthly lot fees for ROC's tend to drop after the ROC has been in operation for 11 or more years, after which average monthly lot fee for ROC's drops to about $242. In contrast, monthly lot fees tend to go up over time in IOC's (Ward, French, & Giraud, 2005).

Albeit there are certainly other costs associated with living in a manufactured housing park aside from monthly lot fees. However, because lot fees are somewhat less on average for ROC's than IOC', and because these fees tend to go down over time, this suggests that there is more stability with regard to housing costs in ROC's. It is in ROC residents' own interest to keep costs down, as each owns a collective share of the park.

Opportunity to Build Equity

The third hypothesis, that ROC's provide residents more opportunities to build equity than IOC's, was tested by comparing homes' assessed value, as well as the sale price of homes sold recently in both IOC's and ROC's. The assessed values of individual homes were pulled directly from tax cards, while data on recent sales of homes in the study-sample parks were derived from the local Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

As Table 2 shows, homes in ROC's sold for $4566 more, on average, than homes in IOC's between 1999 and 2005. Part of this price differential might be attributed to the fact that the homes tend to be slightly larger. However, just looking at sales from 2004 to 2005, the price differential increases to $7234. Paul Bradley, with The Loan Fund, believes that this is due to the fact that potential homeowners, lending institutions, and other supporting organizations are finally realizing the financial advantages that ROC's pose to homeowners by virtue of the fact that each owns a share of their park.

The fact that homes in ROC's spend, on average, 23 fewer days on the market than homes in IOC's suggests that they may be more desirable to potential homeowners. And, the more demand that there is for a particular housing sector, the more likely it is that it will increase in value. This provides existing and future homeowners in ROC's with enhanced opportunity to build equity, something which lending institutions in New Hampshire are beginning to recognize in their lending habits.

Sense of Ownership and Control

The data collected via mail survey and interviews were coded and analyzed using NVIVO 2.0, a qualitative analysis software package. The results of the analysis suggest that ROC's pose a number of social and economic advantages to park residents as compared to IOC's. Foremost of these benefits is the increased sense of ownership and control over their homes and their communities that is perceived by ROC residents.

A primary reason why residents pursued the formation of a co-op was to gain a greater sense of control over their park and over their lives; they did not want their community to be subject to someone else's decisions. As one co-op Board member described it:

I am a part owner of this whole community. I have a say in everything that goes on here whether I'm on the board or not . . . that is something that you don't normally have in a mobile home park . . . I own this.

That same individual suggested that this sense of ownership was not present when an investor owned the park just a few years prior.

The interview data also suggest that ROC residents are motivated to take care of their homes and their yards because they own them. In fact, when ROC Board members were asked how the physical appearance of their park has changed since transitioning to a cooperative, the majority responded that their park improved. One ROC Board member said:

I've heard more from outside people how much nicer the park looks since we've taken over . . . a lot of the changes are gradual changes . . . [p]eople that don't come in here often are the ones that notice the difference.

This sentiment was echoed by the town officials who were interviewed, most of whom stated that ROC's were better maintained.

Last, it is important to note that many of the ROC Board members interviewed in the study have become involved with informal leadership roles as a direct result of their experience on the board. Such roles include coordinating volunteer beautification projects, organizing social events, and heading up a recreation committee. Others have taken on formal leadership roles, including serving on the Parent Teacher Association, Planning Board, Town Council, emergency services coordinator. One Board member became so well known for her success at advocating for her ROC with the state legislature that she was subsequently elected as President of the Manufactured Home Owner Tenants Association of New Hampshire (MOTA).

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of data acquired via personal interviews, tax records, and the Multiple Listings Service, we conclude that resident ownership provides a range of economic and social benefits. Foremost, resident-owned communities provide homeowners with greater access to mortgage financing, whereas homeowners in investor-owned communities are often limited to securing personal property loans or variable-rate loans at a significantly higher interest rate.

A second benefit that resident ownership provides to homeowners is the stability in monthly lot fees compared to monthly lot fees paid by homeowners in investor-owned communities. Not only are the fees lower on average in resident-owned communities, but they also appear to decrease over time. Fees in investor-owned communities generally go up over time.

Resident ownership also appears to have positive implications on home values. On average, manufactured homes in resident-owned communities are valued 10% higher than homes in investor-owned communities and perhaps even more so over the last couple of years, as new lenders have made mortgage loans available to ROC's.

Finally, ROC's pose a number of social advantages, such as residents' increased sense of ownership and control over their homes and their communities that is manifest in how they take care of their homes and yards.

These findings suggest that resident ownership could be an important sectoral strategy to help low and middle-income families attain social and economic well-being. That is not to say that resident ownership goes without its challenges, such as negative stereotypes that many have of the manufactured housing sector, and the financial and organizational challenges that self-management poses. However, if New Hampshire is any indication, then perhaps the resident ownership model could help manufactured homeowners around the country achieve social and economic well-being.

Implications for Extension

The resident ownership model poses a number of advantages to homeowners. In spite of this, the model has not taken off across the country because most states provide little in the way of technical, financial, and managerial support to help manufactured homeowners form ROC's and manage them once they are established. The fact is, there is a host of financial, managerial, legal, and infrastructural challenges involved with starting and managing ROC's. Overcoming many of these challenges requires material resources. Perhaps equally important, overcoming these challenges requires a high level of technical and organizational skills that are not likely to be maintained by the residents of manufactured home communities without some external support.

Given that Cooperative Extension specializes in providing individuals, organizations, and communities with educational outreach, perhaps there is an opportunity for Extension to provide ongoing training to ROC Board members (or potential Board members) to build their capacity to address complex issues pertaining to ROC management and thereby increase their likelihood of achieving success through the resident-ownership model.

Based on interviews with 20 ROC Board members, the most crucial skill-building gaps appear to be in the following areas:

• Organizational management (e.g., running meetings, board decision-making, sharing responsibilities).


• Financial management (e.g., billing, business contracts, accounting).


• Maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., contracting, sewer/water maintenance, landscaping).


• Conflict resolution (e.g., interpersonal relations, addressing park violations, resolving disputes with park neighbors and municipalities).

Cooperative Extension already provides training in the above-mentioned areas. Thus, developing training specific to ROC Boards might simply be a matter of tailoring existing curriculum to address issues that ROC's face. Through the provision of training, Cooperative Extension could help advance the ROC model nationally.

With the exception of one or two states, including Minnesota, Cooperative Extension services have not yet worked extensively with ROC's. Perhaps the concept of resident ownership is so new that Extension has not had time to focus its energies on this important affordable housing sector. Or perhaps collaborative partnerships have not yet been established with organizations, agencies, and institutions whose expertise is needed to ensure the success of ROC's.

But one thing is certain; if housing costs continue to rise faster than incomes, the housing crisis will only worsen. The resident ownership model provides Extension with an opportunity to get involved at the ground floor in helping low to moderate-income communities to build wealth through home ownership.

References

Apgar, W., Calder, A., Collins, M., & Duda, M. (2002). An examination of manufactured housing as a community- and asset-building strategy. Report to the Ford Foundation by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.

Bradley, P. (2002). No longer a secret: The manufactured housing sector can create long-term value for homeowners. Rural Voices. 8(2), 16-20.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Genz, R. (2001). Why advocates need to rethink manufactured housing. Housing Policy Debate. 12(2), 393-414. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1202_genz.pdf

Haurin, D., Dietz, R., & Weinberg B. (2003). The impact of home ownership rates: A review of theoretical and empirical literature. Journal of Housing Research. 13(2), 119-151. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/jhr/pdf/jhr_1302_haurin.pdf

Manufactured Housing Institute. (2005). How is a manufactured home different from a site-built home? Isn't a 'manufactured home' just a fancy name for a mobile home? Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from: http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=231&cat=1#4

Ward, S., French, C., & Giraud K. (2005). The effect of cooperative ownership on appreciation of manufactured housing. Cooperative Housing Journal. 2005/06 Combined Issue, 16-24.

US Census Bureau (2005). Housing vacancy survey. Washington, D.C.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Educational Needs of Employers and Non-English Speaking Workers in Arboriculture

Robert M. Ricard
Senior Extension Educator
Urban Natural Resources and Public Management
University of Connecticut Department of Extension
West Hartford, Connecticut
robert.ricard@uconn.edu

Ana I. Legrand
Assistant Extension Professor of Entomology
Department of Plant Science
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
Ana.legrand@uconn.edu

Diane Wright Hirsch
Extension Educator
Food Safety and Nutrition
University of Connecticut Department of Extension
North Haven, Connecticut
diane.hirsch@uconn.edu

Tricia Gabany-Guerrero
Associate Director and Assistant Professor
Office of International Affairs and Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
t.gabany-guerrero@uconn.edu

Narcizo Guerrero-Murillo
Soil Conservationist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Norwich, Connecticut
Narcizo.guerrero@ct.usda.gov

Introduction

Cooperative Extension has identified the need to increase organizational diversity and works to adjust organizational culture and structure to meet the challenges presented by demographic change (Seevers, Treat, Cummings, & Wright, 1996). This is primarily in anticipation of addressing future client needs in natural resources, agriculture, and other educational areas. In 1992, for example, Chesney (1992) predicted that the workforce would change dramatically in only a decade. He argued that while in 1992, "15% of the agricultural workforce are minority," in 2000, "more than 42% will be minority or immigrant" (Chesney, 1992).

Additional claims about future minority or immigrant participation in the national workforce support a continuance of such trends. Grogan (1991) argued that by the year 2010, "one-quarter to one-third of all Americans will belong to racial or ethnic minority groups." He points out that people from these groups will have varying histories, customs, values, and sensitivities and that it is wise, prudent, and fair to understand the specific needs of these workers and design and implement programs to help transition them into the mainstream (Grogan, 1991).

Significant dialog and programmatic interest exists to provide for the needs of non-English speaking people--primarily of Hispanic/Latino heritage and descent--working in the arboricultural industry. This is due to the belief that such workers form an increasingly large population in the arboricultural industry, with anecdotal evidence supporting this claim. For example, the arboricultural supervisor for Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) stated that,

CL&P has entered into a two year, renewable contract with ABC Professional Tree Company based in Houston, Texas. ABC is minority owned and provides utility tree services to utilities from Texas to New England. Our brief experience with ABC workers is that they have a very good work ethic, and are hard working" (A. Carey, per. comm., March 9, 2006).

While scholarship on the immigrant workforce exists (e.g., Reitz, 1998; Trucios-Haynes, 2002), there is little specifically targeting arboriculture and outreach education. Three excellent and recent studies have addressed this issue (Bragg, 1998; Kuhns, Bragg, & Blahna, 2002, 2004), but they focus primarily on minority professionals in urban forestry and arboriculture and do not address outreach education.

The study reported here addresses this empirical gap. The motivation is that in spite of the perceived significant contribution minorities and immigrants make to the arboricultural industry, there has been little research concerning non-English speaking arboricultural workers, with only one known scholarly study identified to date (Mendoza 1995). It seems reasonable that a better understanding of worker needs would help better focus scarce resources of time, money, and talent (Pride, 1997; Farner, Rhoads, Cutz, & Farner, 2005).

Methods

There are challenging barriers and constraints to conducting needs assessments of immigrant workers, and trust is an obvious one. It has also been shown that interviewing recent legal immigrants can be challenging due to prejudices and bias at least perceived, and sometimes experienced by, a potential interviewee in such research (Batson, 1990). Hence, an interdisciplinary, multilingual research and outreach education team was formed to assess the needs of non-English speakers in the green industry in Connecticut with the arboricultural industry as one of several target groups.

A mixed-methods approach was used because this has been shown to be a superior way to collaborate data (Egan, Jones, Luloff, & Finley, 1995; Neuman, 2004). The first part of the project sought information from arboricultural employers about (1) whether there are non-English speaking workers in their company, (2) what employers think about the work characteristics of such employees, and (3) what do employers believe their non-English employees need for information. In the second part, face-to-face field interviews of non-English speaking workers was conducted concerning their needs related to arboricultural work.

Part One: Survey of Arboricultural Employers

Survey Instrument

A survey instrument was developed to: (1) establish whether non-English speaking people were in the arboricultural workforce, (2) identify or clarify a number of perceptions and opinions concerning arboricultural business owners concerning the non-English speaking arboricultural workforce, and (3) determine whether or not permission to interview workers would be granted by employers (to complete the second, face-to-face survey of workers).

A four-page survey instrument was developed using the procedures by Bradburn, Seymour, and Wansink (2004), specifically regarding question saliency. The first question posed asked what type of industry the survey recipient operated, and this was done to verify whether or not the company in fact performed arboricultural services. The second question asked if they employed non-English speaking workers. If they responded "no," then they were instructed that they were finished and asked to return the survey. If they responded "yes," then they were asked to complete the remainder of the questions. The next question asked about worker nationality.

This was followed by a series of 36 five-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly agree [5] to strongly disagree [1]). These questions were written to explore issues employers encounter due to employing non-English speaking workers, such as problems encountered (e.g., difficulty training workers, language barriers), tools workers may need (e.g., non-English educational materials, workshops), and educational topics (e.g., plant diseases, pesticide safety). Employers were then asked if workers could be interviewed face-to-face.

Survey Procedures

Survey procedures followed the methods suggested by Folz (1996) and Fowler (2002). In Connecticut, the licensing of arborists has been required by the state for almost a century. Connecticut Tree Protection Association (CTPA) is the principal nongovernmental arboricultural organization composed mostly of licensed arborists. The organization possesses a well maintained mailing list including owners of arboricultural companies who might employee non-English speaking workers in the state. The mailing list was obtained in early 2005 and was purged of people known not to be owners of arboricultural companies (e.g., researchers, government officials), resulting in 648 people included in the survey.

The first mailing included cover letter, survey instrument, and self-addressed, stamped return envelope. This mailing was followed by a reminder postcard 10 days later. A second mailing like the first was mailed 10 days later, with one postcard mailed again as a reminder. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. Return envelopes were coded to inform surveyors which employers had returned surveys so they could be removed from subsequent mailings.

Survey research design seeks to minimize systematic error and to achieve as high a response rate as possible; unfortunately, return rates have been decreasing in recent decades even in salient samples (Egan et al., 1995). Out of the 648 surveys mailed, eight were returned by the postal service. A total of 311 completed, valid surveys were returned for a 52% response rate. The response rates in this census survey approximate the range of current national averages for sample surveys (Rylander, Propst, & McMurtry, 1995), especially when considering the sensitivity of survey research surrounding immigrant workers (Egan et al., 1995; Neuman, 2004). Data were entered into an SPSS data file and analyzed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations.

Part Two: Non-English Speaking Arboricultural Worker Field Surveys

Structured survey questions were developed following the methods suggested by Bradburn, Seymour, and Wansink (2004). A face-to-face interview (in the first language of the interviewee) was arranged between the interviewer and the employee through the employer and was done to acquire detailed arboricultural worker information. The goal was to acquire direct responses from non-English speaking workers and then compare and contrast the qualitative worker information with the quantitative arboricultural employer information. Employers indicating regularly employing non-English speaking workers were asked if they would permit interviews of their workers. A sample of those responding affirmatively was selected based on cost efficiency and access restrictions. A semi-structured survey was developed and largely mirrored the mail survey. Trained, Spanish speaking interviewers visited work sites after gaining permission from employers.

Results

Employer Responses

Employers were first asked, "What type of work does your company perform?" Eighty-three percent (N = 276) indicated they provide arboricultural services. Some also indicated they provide other services as well: landscape installation (23%), turf management (15%), forest management (12%), and other (14%). The second survey question asked, "Do you regularly employ workers whose primary language is not English?" Seventy-one percent (N = 215) of the respondents indicated that they do not employ non-English speaking workers and this concluded their participation.

Of greater interest, 29% (N = 96) of the respondents reported employing non-English speaking workers, and they were asked to continue the survey (the remainder of the survey analysis is based on 96 responses). Employers stated their workers' first languages were as follows: Spanish/Central American, 19%; Spanish/Mexican, 15%; Spanish/Puerto Rican, 11%; Portuguese 5%; Patois English, Jamaican, 1%; and French, 0.5%. The next question was, "What is the greatest 'job' non-English speaking workers perform for you?" Respondents indicted 85% of the work was arboricultural in nature, followed by landscape installation (37%), turf maintenance (19%), grounds maintenance (14%), and nursery production (3%).

The next set of questions addressed communication issues (Table 1). Results show that employees generally agree with all four statements. That is, on-the-job communication is generally good and for the most part effective. However, there is a slightly less agreement with workers speaking English well enough to function on the job. This indicates that language is at least somewhat of a barrier.

Another set of questions asked employers their impressions about some of the problems when employing non-English speaking workers. Results again suggest that language barriers pose challenges (Table 2). Notable is the frustration expressed by workers and employers concerning language. Employers seem to have a need to have qualified bilingual crew leaders. These results suggest that the language barriers caused by employing non-English speaking workers would not be such a challenge if bilingual, qualified crew leaders were more available.

Employers were next asked what they feel would be the best tools to educate and train non-English speaking workers. Results show that employers feel that workers learning English would be best solution (MN = 4.26) (Table 3). They also feel that a manual of common English-Spanish words would help (MN = 4.1). Various methods of learning cluster close together indicating that employers believe any of these methods, except visual/picture type training manuals (MN = 3.49), would help. Interestingly, employers generally agree that a language course/workshop teaching Spanish to employers would be helpful (MN = 4.00).

Table 4 provides employer opinions of what topics are most important and, in general, there is agreement that all are important with some more important than others (none were not important). Tree care principles was the most important topic (MN = 4.53), with little disagreement (SD = .58). This is followed closely by a similar item, best arboricultural practices (MN = 4.44, SD = .63). Planting and care of landscape ornamentals is ranked third, followed by pesticide safety and pesticide application. Interestingly, personal hygiene is closely associated with the pesticide education needs.

Employee Responses

Of the 96 arboricultural employers who indicated that they regularly employ non-English speaking workers, 26 stated they would not permit their workers to be interviewed, and 20 did not respond to that question. Two said there was "no time," and one stated that he "worried that workers would feel threatened and he did not want to risk losing their trust." Fifty (52%) employers responding indicated they would permit interviews, yet only five employers and 13 non-English speaking workers could in fact be scheduled due to scheduling conflicts.

Respondent countries of origin were Brazil (five), Guatemala (one), and Mexico (seven). All respondents were male, with an average age of 30.6 years, and ranging from 18 to 43 years. Of these, the majority (seven) indicated they were married, with six respondents indicating they were not married. Seven respondents indicated they did not have any children, one had one child, two had two, two had four, and one respondent had five.

Eight respondents said their first language was Spanish, two spoke Portuguese, and three provided no response. Respondents indicated they speak their first language very well, and all but two indicated that they read in their first language very well. The two Portuguese speaking workers indicated that their second language was Spanish and that they speak this very well but read it only a little and do not write Spanish at all. Their third language was English, and they speak, read, and write in this language only a little. Others indicated English was their second language: one speaks English very well, five a little, and two not at all; one said he reads English very well, one only a little, and five said not at all; and three said they write English a little, five not at all, and three did not respond.

Education varied greatly: three respondents had received 12 years of education, one had 11, one had 10, three had nine, two had six, and one each had three, two, and one years of education. All grew up on farms. When asked what type of work they perform primarily, seven said tree pruning, while others stated they performed various tasks. All indicated they are required to speak English at work, with two required to read and write in English at work, and all are required to understand English in the workplace. Ten respondents said there is a person at the work available to translate. Only six respondents indicated they worked for more than a year (2.5 years was the longest), and seven stated this was a permanent position. Six indicated they move from work site to work site, with seven stating they work in one location.

When asked what they would be most interested in learning, the majority (nine) selected learning about U.S. culture and English language. Of those who first selected U.S. culture English language, plant cultivation was the second preferred topic. All indicated that they would be willing to receive free educational assistance, with their preferred learning methods being personal workshops (10 respondents), the Internet (one respondent), video (one respondent), and radio (one respondent). Seven said they would prefer learning at work, whereas three prefer a community center and three others a school. Obstacles to learning were English language challenges (three respondents), time (three respondents), and transportation (six respondents). Only one respondent indicated he is currently participating in any training program. It should be noted that workers did not provide any open-ended responses of any depth.

Discussion and Conclusions

It has been well established that cultural background plays a rather dramatic and significant role in peoples' perceptions of urban forestry (Fraser & Kenney, 2000), tree planting (Ames, 1980), landscape design and management (Kaplan, Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998), and other environmental and occupational values and schemes (Spaargaren & Mol, 1992). It is equally important, however, to also understand the social networks that bring immigrants to the United States and sustain them; people cannot learn if personal and social needs are not met (Tilley 1990). Sociologists have consistently shown that social networks not only are critical in a persons decision to migrate, but for cultivating and sustaining relationships in order to gain financial and informational resources (Powel & Smith-Doerr, 1994).

This is obviously important--outreach education efforts will be unsuccessful unless relationships are established. This means that there is no way to guarantee that by simply placing a Spanish language publication into the hands of a worker this will result in that person adapting the arboricultural practice prescribed. Evidence for this is supported by another study (Ricard & Bloniarz, 2006) that found that tree wardens learned best in social educational settings. This suggests the best way to educate and motivate non-English speaking workers is by direct contact with people they trust (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Hobbs, 2001; Hoorman, 2002; Farner et al., 2005).

The study reported here found that language is clearly important--both non-English speaking workers and their employers emphasized communication is, more often than not, a barrier regarding job performance and possibly safety. This is supported by social science research that has repeatedly shown that, "with a generally poor command of the receiving country's language, immigrants' economic destinies depend heavily on the structures in which they become incorporated and, in particular, on the character of their own communities" (Portes & Sesenbrenner, 1993) and that language is one of the most defining elements in any community (Powell & Smith-Doerr, 1994).

The literature suggests that while simply providing uni- or bilingual material may obviously provide information about arboricultural practices, it is unlikely to promote adoption of the practice. Even though there seems to be nearly universal agreement about the high value of work performed by non-English speaking employees, this study also suggests that there is a lot of variation among arboricultural employers about how and what to provide Spanish speaking workers: from employers who suggest workers should learn English absolutely to others who maintain they have benefited from learning a second language.

Recommendations

The findings presented here strongly suggest that face-to-face forms of educational events are the best method of reaching non-English speaking workers in the arboricultural industry. However, the natural resource literature has suggested that "mentoring may be the best way to go" regarding helping minority forestry professionals adapt and thrive in the profession of their choice (Bosworth, 1996). During the course of the face-to-face field interviews, it became clear that social networks are the primary means of garnering information leading arboricultural workers to acquire then stay with a specific employer.

It seems prudent to develop mentoring programs within companies--especially larger arboricultural and utilities--that employ immigrant workers or contract out for such services. It is suggested that this may be the best way of securing a stable and committed workforce because a high percentage of interviewees wanted to learn English, but could not because of time, travel, and financial constraints. In addition, it is suggested that educational materials and outreach education efforts address topics such as American culture, language, and public health. While arboricultural information in Spanish is clearly beneficial, results here strongly suggest such information is insufficient to ensure practice adoption. These findings suggest that Extension professionals might consider building social networks in communities of interest and based on trust and reciprocity.

Additional empirical research is also clearly needed. Macro-level needs assessment, such as nationwide surveys of arboricultural employers, is one way to follow worker needs and trends. However, ethnographic studies at the micro-level are more likely to flesh out the nuances of the real needs and expectations of arboricultural workers themselves (Feldman, Skoldberg, Brown, & Horner, 2004). This, of course, is a more difficult approach, but is likely to yield more valuable information (Neuman, 2004). With this information, more effective and efficient outreach education programs and material can be developed (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Hoorman, 2002).

It is clear that a better understanding by management of any arboricultural workers values and motivations will lead to the design of better recruitment, training, and retention programs, and comments by employers responding indicate a general willingness on their part to do so. In addition, the study reported here demonstrates that Extension professionals can better develop outreach educational efforts based first on empirical research conducted on the community of interest programs are intended to serve.

References

Ames, R. G. (1980). The sociology of tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture, 6(5), 120-123.

Bailey, T., & Waldinger, R. (1991). Primary, secondary, and enclave labor markets: A training systems approach. American Sociological Review, 56, 432-445.

Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychology, 45(3), 336-346.

Bosworth, B. (1996). Mentors are key to SAF growth. The Forestry Source, March, p. 2.

Bradburn, N., Seymour, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bragg, H. A. (1998). Attitudes and Roles of Women and Minorities in Community and Urban Forestry Professions. Unpublished master's thesis, Utah State University, Logan.

Chesney, C. E. (1992). Work force 2000: Is Extension agriculture ready? Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/fut2.html

Egan, A. F., Jones, S. B., Luloff, A. E., & Finley, J. C. (1995). The value of using multiple methods: An illustration using survey, focus group, and Dephi techniques. Society & Natural Resources, 8, 457-465.

Farner, S., Rhoads, M. E., Cutz, G., & Farner, B. (2005). Assessing the educational needs and interests of the Hispanic population: The role of Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005august/rb2.shtml

Feldman, M. S., Skoldberg, K., Brown, R. N., & Horner, D. (2004). Making sense of stories: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory, 14(2), 147-170.

Folz, D. H. (1996). Survey research for public administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2002). Survey research methods (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fraser, D. G., & Kenney, W. A. (2000). Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(2), 106-113.

Grogan, S. (1991). Targeting audiences for the 21^st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/fut1.html

Hobbs, B. B. (2001). Diversifying the volunteer base: Latinos and volunteerism. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a1.html

Hoorman, J. J. (2002). Engaging minority and culturally diverse audiences. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/tt2.shtml

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Kuhns, M. R., Bragg, H. A., & Blahna, D. J. (2002). Involvement of women and minorities in the urban forestry profession. Journal of Arboriculture, 28(1), 27-34.

Kuhns, M. R., Bragg, H. A., & Blahna, D. J. (2004). Attitudes and experiences of women and minorities in the urban forestry/arboriculture profession. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 11-18.

Mendoza, R. E. (1995). The role and training of Hispanic field workers in Chicago area tree care. Journal of Arboriculture, 21, 277-282.

Neuman, W. L. (2004). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Beacon.

Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320-1350.

Powell, W. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1994). Networks and economic life, pp. 368-402. In Smelser, N.J. and Swedberg, R. (Eds.). The handbook of economic sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pride, M. L. (1997). Designing educational programs for minority entrepreneurs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997december/a3.html

Reitz, J. G. (1998). Warmth of the welcome: The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ricard, R. M., & Bloniarz, D. V. (2006). Learning preferences, job satisfaction, community interactions, and urban forestry practices of New England (USA) tree wardens. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 1-15.

Rylander, R. G., Propst, D. B., & McMurtry, T. R. (1995). Nonresponse and recall biases in a survey of traveler spending. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 39-45.

Seevers, B. B., Treat, K., Cummings, M., & Wright, S. (1996). Building bridges: Leadership development for the 21^st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a3.html

Trucios-Haynes, E. (2002). Temporary workers and future immigration policy conflicts: Protecting U.S. workers and satisfying the demand for global human capital. Immigration and Nationality Law Review, 23, 357-406.

Engaging Youth as Active Citizens: Lessons from Youth Workforce Development Programs

David Campbell
Community Studies Specialist
University of California, Davis
Davis, California
dave.c.campbell@ucdavis.edu

Jean Lamming
Evaluation Associate
University of California, Davis
Davis, California
jlamming@gmail.com

Cathy Lemp
Independent Research Consultant
Sonora, California
cathyl@mlode.com

Ann Brosnahan
4-H Youth Development Advisor
San Joaquin County Cooperative Extension
Stockton, California
babrosnahan@ucdavis.edu

Carole Paterson
County Director, 4-H Youth Development Advisor
Solano County Cooperative Extension
Fairfield, California
capaterson@ucdavis.edu

John Pusey
4-H Youth Development Advisor, retired
Los Angeles County Cooperative Extension
Los Angeles, California
jcpusey@ucdavis.edu

Effective youth development practices engage youth in active roles, viewing them as community resources rather than as passive recipients of services. This tenet underlies a wide range of programmatic approaches, including 4-H leadership development, youth in governance (Fiscus, 2003; Goggin, Powers, & Spano, 2002; MacNeil, 2005; Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes, & Calvert, 2000), youth-led research and evaluation (London, Zimmerman, & Erbstein, 2003; (Youth in Focus, 2002), and organizing public work projects by students (Boyte, 2004). Comparatively little attention has been paid to how youth engagement might be practiced within traditional government social programs. Can youth engagement strategies work in settings where bureaucratic procedures tend to cast service delivery contractors and the youth they serve into fairly rigid roles marked by one-way provider-client relationships?

In this article we describe youth engagement strategies identified during a University of California, Davis and UC Cooperative Extension evaluation of government-funded youth workforce development programs. Funded under the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and implemented in California by state and local Youth Councils and Workforce Investment Boards since 2000, these programs are intended to help young people facing serious obstacles to gain meaningful employment. WIA legislation features a new, more comprehensive approach to youth development, opening the door to more robust youth engagement strategies. For example, one of the 10 required elements expected of all WIA-funded programs is providing youth with "leadership development opportunities." A planning guide used to educate local WIA stakeholders in California defined the youth development approach as follows (Youth Council Institute Guidebook, 2003, p. 79):

Youth development . . . envisions youth as partners in progress, rather than simply recipients of services. Projects and programs using a youth development approach enable youth to build skills, exercise leadership, meet high expectations, form relationships with concerned adults and improve their communities.

We examine three specific youth engagement strategies, which correspond to the planning, execution, and evaluation phases of the policy and program planning process:

• Giving youth seats on local Youth Councils, the policy and planning body for WIA youth programs,


• Designing work experience programs that engage cohorts of youth in public work projects, and


• Engaging youth in evaluating youth workforce programs.

While all three strategies have strengths and limitations, they demonstrate that it is possible to build a youth engagement emphasis into mainstream government social programs. The findings also suggest the possibility of expanding partnerships between the Cooperative Extension and workforce development systems.

Studying Youth Workforce Programs in California

Between March 2005 and September 2006, a team comprised of youth and community development experts from the University of California, Davis and UC Cooperative Extension partnered with the California Workforce Investment Board and the Employment Development Department to study WIA-funded youth workforce development programs in California. The purpose of our research was to investigate how WIA provisions for youth programs are being implemented in local workforce areas, to gain an understanding of what is working and what is not, and to make this information available to decision-makers, primarily at the state level.

Consistent with other studies of public policy implementation, we used a "field network approach" (Lurie, 2001; Nathan, 2000) in which the local workforce area was the primary unit of analysis. Guided by common protocols, the research team prepared case studies of local WIA Youth Councils and youth programs in 10 of California's 50 local workforce areas. The 10 areas were selected to maximize variation in location, economic conditions, size, and administrative structure (Table 1). Collectively, these 10 areas serve about one-third of the state's population and receive almost 30% of all the state's WIA allocations.

In preparing the case studies, the research team conducted 104 interviews with youth, WIA service providers, Youth Council participants, and community members between March 2005 and May 2006. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Making use of qualitative analysis software (QSR N6), we then performed a content analysis on the transcripts and field notes, looking for common themes, patterns, and issues both within and across the 10 local cases. We also observed at least one WIA Youth Council meeting in nine areas, conducted eight focus groups with youth, explored Web sites, reviewed documents, and developed comparative data profiles of the local areas. A detailed cross-case report summarized overall findings and recommended policy and programmatic strategies (available at <http://www.ccp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/pdf/Youth.pdf>).

As Extension professionals with youth and community development assignments, we were particularly interested in identifying promising engagement strategies employed by WIA youth programs. As our field work progressed, we used triangulation to determine strategies that had been nominated by multiple respondents. We also worked to incorporate youth voice and leadership development by enlisting young people as co-leaders of focus groups with program participants. In this article, we review selected findings that illustrate some of the promise and challenges associated with these youth engagement strategies.

Engagement Strategy No. 1: Seating Youth Representatives on Local WIA Youth Councils

Current WIA legislation requires that local Youth Councils include at least one youth representative. We found that some local areas have been more successful than others in finding adolescents willing to join their Youth Councils and participate in the meetings. Orange County boasted four youth members with full voting rights, drawing them from current youth programs and from regional Youth Advisory Committees. Merced County has always been able to find at least one youth to serve on the Youth Council, in part because they decided to have a youth co-chair. By contrast, Solano County has two youth seats, neither of which was filled at the time of our fieldwork, and the NoRTEC Consortium, due to its unique multi-county structure, has no youth seats at all.

Although placing youth representatives on a Youth Council sounds logical, even obvious, we found that it doesn't always work as adult planners intend. For example, we discovered that the youth that are successfully engaged do not necessarily represent the youth served by WIA programs. Sonoma County has an active young woman who has served on the Youth Council for 2 years and has taken part in several Youth Council projects. Although her interest and forthright manner have been very helpful to the adult members in selecting projects and providing insights into youth issues, she represents Sonoma County's more affluent youth rather than the WIA-eligible youth who could better acquaint the Youth Council with issues facing that population. This point concerns a member of the Los Angeles City Youth Council as well:

I think it is really important to have more low-income youth. I think that if they had more youth who were definitely low-income more involved with the Youth Council, it would help in terms of the program design and the program requirements. Because you might have a high functioning youth who might not have all the same challenges and the same barriers as the youth that we are dealing with who are in public housing.

More helpful in reflecting the needs and attitudes of low-income youth is the Tulare County youth member, who has taken part in a WIA-funded program. He is proud to use his credibility with similar youth to recruit them for a variety of youth conferences and other activities and to present their point of view on the Youth Council subcommittees on which he serves. In both Verdugo and Santa Ana, we encountered similar examples of youth who were not only active leaders on Youth Councils as individuals but saw themselves as community liaisons who engaged a broader segment of youth in public dialogue about the shape and character of youth workforce services.

Barriers to Youth Participation

At least three common barriers to youth participation affect all current WIA Youth Councils.

1. They tend to be at school or working during the times that Youth Council meetings are held.


2. Transportation to meeting sites is often a problem, particularly in rural areas.


3. The meetings are rarely designed to be interesting to young people.

In addition, the position by its very nature is a temporary one, since youth members grow up and move on. As a result, filling youth positions requires continual recruitment.

In Merced and Solano Counties, the Youth Council scheduled its meetings for later in the day so that there was no conflict with school, but the Solano County youth who served on the Youth Council still needed a round-trip ride to the meeting. Orange County has shifted its meetings from 1:30 to 4:00 and moves them around the county, but transportation remains an issue since public transportation isn't a viable option for traveling between cities. San Joaquin County has offered transportation to potential youth members but finds that they have other priorities. For example, some have found jobs, an excuse that is difficult to fault.

Some local areas find themselves caught between attracting youth and accommodating the rest of the Youth Council members. Tulare County's Youth Council meetings are deliberately scheduled for the convenience of the adult members of the council, and the lead staff member sees no likelihood that this will change: "The Youth Council just doesn't want to do that and I understand because these are very busy people that we have on our Youth Council. They are all running programs with the whole county."

Perhaps the greatest barrier to youth participation tends to be the way Youth Council meetings are conducted, as we heard from youth and adults alike. One staff member explained,

We have had four youth over a couple years that were on the Youth Council. They just kind of faded away as youth will do when they're not entirely engaged. They just went on about the business of doing the things that youth do, like staying in school, finishing school, going to college, playing sports, and things like that. This big system approach that we talk about a lot, and the way that we look at those things, that's not engaging for kids, for most of them. They like, 'Here's a project! We're going to build this thing and do this work and we want you to design it, help us implement, and help us do all of this!' Now, that they can get behind. But it has to be real, it has to be concrete, and there has to be something they can learn from it.

Successful Strategies for Engaging Youth on Youth Councils

A few general strategies for engaging youth in Youth Councils emerged from our discussions.

1. Give young members an engaging hands-on job to do, something with short-term goals and the potential to make a difference in the youth community.


2. Treat them as expert consultants, as ambassadors from a foreign land, and listen to what they have to say about local youth and about issues before the Youth Council.


3. Pair them with an adult mentor, someone they can admire and emulate, and around whom they can be themselves.


4. Review the Youth Council agenda with youth members before the meeting, so they know what is coming, can make suggestions of their own, and can more fully engage.


5. Give them alternatives to attending the full Youth Council meetings, such as serving on an active subcommittee with finite, tangible goals.

Engagement Strategy No. 2: Work Experience Projects as Pride-Generating Public Work

A key component of most job training programs is some form of work experience. However, previous evaluations found that many work experience programs provided minimal opportunity to learn skills, gain confidence, and receive adequate adult supervision. By contrast, our study identified a number of work experience projects that are worthy of broad emulation. We found two important keys to the success of these programs: first, the youth work together as teams, enabling them to identify with a supervised group of peers, and second, the programs focus on meaningful public work. Because the work creates visible public benefits, the youth engaged can take pride in contributing to their community. The following two examples, one rural and one urban, illustrate the promise of this approach to youth engagement.

Workforce One

Workforce One is a project of the Tehama County One-Stop (part of the NoRTEC Consortium), situated in a rural area in Northern California. The program creates a work crew with one supervisor assigned to five youth. The supervisors function as boss, trainer, mentor, coach, parent, counselor, and drill sergeant as the crews perform a variety of general labor, maintenance, and grounds keeping jobs.

Crew members not only acquire job skills (basic construction, repairs, painting, plumbing, electrical, horticulture, use of tools, safety, etc.), but are also taught the behaviors, attitudes, and responses that employers expect. They receive minimum wage and are expected to meet work standards for productivity, quality, attendance, and following instructions. Work-related mistakes and soft skill problems are approached as a learning opportunity, but youth who do not respond to instruction and warnings must then face the real world consequences and are suspended or fired.

Originally, Workforce One performed only community service work, such as refinishing and painting the city pool; rebuilding the dugouts, fences, and restrooms at the Little League ballpark; and planting trees as part of a downtown beautification effort. An unexpected outcome was the sense of accomplishment and civic pride that the youth experienced as they saw the fruits of their labor and as they received accolades from city councils, county department heads, and community leaders.

As the reputation of Workforce One grew, requests for their assistance started coming from private sector business and home owners struggling to find trustworthy day laborers for minor clean-up and repair projects. Filling this niche, Workforce One regularly does minor sprinkler and fence repair, pruning and planting, painting, and simple building repairs. Although crews continue providing community service work at no charge, word of mouth advertising for fee-based services brings in a steady stream of paying customers, enabling youth crew members to learn and earn at the same time. After 1 year, Workforce One is generating enough revenue to cover the wages and payroll costs for a crew of five full-time workers.

Glendale Youth Alliance

The urban example comes from the Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA), the primary youth services contractor for the Verdugo Consortium in Los Angeles County. GYA is a nonprofit organization that puts at-risk youth to work in supervised crews clearing brush from hillsides. The work addresses community concerns about gangs while contributing to the prevention of wildland fires. Youth participants ge