August 2019 // Volume 57 // Number 4 // Research In Brief // v57-4rb3
 In the northeastern region of the United States, agriculture is being affected by climate change, as evidenced by increases in storm variations, precipitation, and temperature.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies for agriculture exist; however, agricultural producers are reluctant to adopt these new technologies.
Understanding how northeastern agricultural producers have observed the environmental conditions they experience daily can inform climate change programming outreach for this target audience.
From an extensive literature review, consisting of over 70 articles on studies conducted across the country and focused on farmer perceptions of climate change, researchers determined that only four empirical studies had been conducted in the Northeast.
Although climate change is felt globally, it is interpreted locally, creating a need to better understand regional, state, and individual perspectives.
Accordingly, we explored Pennsylvania farmers' perceptions of environmental conditions and ways in which researchers and Extension professionals can work with producers to manage impacts experienced from changing environmental conditions.
The conceptual framework we used in our study stemmed from Wheaton and MacIver's  adaptation cycle.
We applied the adaptation cycle, consisting of five key questions for addressing the process of adaptation, to better understand the specifics of adaptation in response to climate change.
The five key questions are as follows: Who adapts?
What do they adapt to and why?
How do they adapt?
How well do they adapt?
We focused on the question Who, or what system, adapts?
by exploring relevant characteristics of agricultural producers in Pennsylvania.
Our study stemmed from a larger one that more comprehensively examined Pennsylvania agricultural producers' perspectives on climate change.
The purpose of our study, specifically, was to examine the environmental conditions agricultural producers perceive.
Two objectives guided the study:  Determine Pennsylvania agricultural producers' perceptions about whether they had observed certain environmental conditions  during the preceding 10 years relative to the broader context of the preceding 20 years and whether they were concerned about those same environmental conditions as they looked toward the coming 10 years, and  determine whether Pennsylvania agricultural producers' perceptions of environmental conditions are related to their demographic characteristics.
The population for our study was statewide Pennsylvania agricultural producers.
On the basis of our sampling list of available Pennsylvania agricultural producers, we had a target population of 3,860 producers.
Using Krejcie and Morgan's  sampling procedures, we determined that we would use a sample size of 357 producers, reflecting a 5% sampling error.
To compensate for sampling limitations, we oversampled, surveying a total of 500 producers.
We developed a six-section survey instrument that was reviewed by a panel of experts; we field and pilot tested the instrument to ensure validity and reliability.
The items on the survey involved the use of nominal, ordinal, and ratio scales.
Five mailings occurred over an 8-week period.
In total, 260 surveys  were returned, with 252 surveys  usable for analysis.
Early respondents, late respondents, and nonrespondents  were compared relative to key questions on the survey.
No significant differences were found among the groups; thus, we determined that the results were generalizable to the target population.
Participants were asked two questions regarding certain environmental conditions: one about their observations of the environmental conditions during the preceding 10 years relative to the broader context of the preceding 20 years and another about their concerns about the occurrence of the environmental conditions in the coming 10 years.
For both questions, the same 14 known environmental conditions for the area were listed, and producers responded by indicating "yes," "no," or "unsure" for each condition.
For the purpose of identifying characteristics of the agricultural producers and their farms, the instrument included demographic questions on eight topics: age, gender, ownership or rental of portions of farmland, generation of farmer, political affiliation, retirement plans, level of education, and annual net income.
We conducted descriptive and nonparametric statistical analyses to summarize the data.
Producers' average age was 59 years old, with a range of 22 to 90 years.
The overwhelming majority of respondents  were male.
A majority of the respondents  indicated that they owned and rented portions of their land and were the primary operators.
Over half of the respondents  were at least fourth-generation farmers.
With regard to political affiliation, the majority of respondents  identified with the Republican Party.
Concerning retirement plans, 53.0% indicated that they were not planning to retire in the subsequent 5 years.
Over half of the respondents  had a high-school-level education, and another 40.8% had education through undergraduate or professional degrees.
As for income level, over half of the respondents  had an annual net income of $74,999 or less.
As shown in Table 1, respondents indicated distinct differences regarding their observations of environmental conditions during the preceding 10 years and their concerns about future environmental conditions.
Regarding environmental conditions observed during the preceding 10 years relative to the broader context of the preceding 20 years, the most frequently observed conditions, as indicated by percentages of responses, were warmer winter temperatures, abnormal precipitation events, and late frosts.
However, respondents' selections of conditions that concerned them relative to the future were not reflective of their past observations.
The top three conditions respondents were concerned about for the future were drought, abnormal precipitation events, and increased pests.
The condition abnormal precipitation events did carry over, but the two other top conditions producers were concerned about relative to the future ranked 7th and 8th as conditions they had observed in the past.
These results indicate a lack of alignment between what producers had observed in the past and what their concerns were for the future.
We calculated Spearman rank order correlation  to determine the agreement between producers' past observations and their concerns about the future.
Although lack of alignment in rankings existed, no significant disagreement was noted.
The obtained value of rs =.452 was similar to the critical value of rs =.457 at the.05 level.
We used chi-square analysis to explore associations between respondents' demographic characteristics and their past observations of environmental conditions.
Of the eight demographic variables studied, only two"generation of farmer" and "political affiliation"were significantly correlated with environmental conditions producers perceived they had observed during the preceding 10 years.
The demographic variable "generation of farmer" was assessed through four response options: first generation, second generation, third generation, and fourth generation or higher.
When we analyzed this variable with regard to association with respondents' perceptions of environmental conditions, we found that the response fourth generation or higher was significant.
The demographic variable "political affiliation" was assessed through four response options: Democrat, Republican, other, or not applicable.
When we analyzed this variable with regard to association with respondents' perceptions of environmental conditions, we found that the response Republican was significant.
These significant relationships indicate that there are associations between one's generation as a farmer and perceptions of environmental conditions and one's political affiliation and perceptions of environmental conditions, specifically concerning producers who are at least fourth-generation farmers and those who affiliate with the Republican Party.
In particular, the variable "generation of farmer" was related to six of the 14 environmental conditions producers had observed in the past, and "political affiliation" was related to seven of the 14 conditions.
To assess how fourth-generation farmers and Republicans compared to their peers, we performed an analysis to identify correlations between firstthrough third-generation farmers and fourth-generation farmers and between non-Republicans and Republicans.
While directionality was not a primary concern, the most notable differences in rank order were that warmer summer temperatures ranked as the 3rd highest condition observed in the past for firstthrough third-generation farmers but ranked 7th highest for fourth-generation farmers.
As for political affiliation, warmer summer temperatures ranked as the 3rd highest condition observed in the past for non-Republicans but ranked 6th highest for Republicans.
We also used chi-square analysis to explore associations between respondents' demographic characteristics and their concerns about future environmental conditions.
Of the eight demographic variables examined, only "political affiliation" was significantly correlated with producers' concerns about environmental conditions relative to the coming 10 years.
As indicated previously, study participants consistently selected the response option Republican, indicating that it is Republican Party affiliation that is associated with the concerns about future environmental conditions.
Specifically, "political affiliation" was related to seven of the 14 environmental conditions.
To assess how Republicans compared to their peers, we performed an analysis to identify correlations between non-Republicans and Republicans.
There were no major differences  between non-Republicans and Republicans with regard to concerns about future environmental conditions.
The results of our study illustrate some similarities between environmental conditions producers had observed in the past and their concerns about the future.
One example is that the condition abnormal precipitation events was ranked 2nd highest relative to both past observations and concerns about the future.
However, there also were discrepancies in participants' responses.
Although many producers indicated having observed warmer winter temperatures and late frosts during the 10 years preceding the study, there did not seem to be a high concern about these conditions relative to the coming 10 years, with the conditions ranking 6th and 11th, respectively, in that regard.
Interestingly, the top concerns relative to the coming 10 years were drought and increased pests.
Previous literature has suggested that both of these conditions are products of warmer winters, with increases in pests occurring as a result of decreases in snowpack, which allow pests to linger.
These results indicate a potential producer disconnect between felt environmental conditions and the cause of those conditions.
As the second objective was to determine associations between perceptions of environmental conditions and select demographic characteristics, it is notable that the average age of our study's respondents was 59 years, which is in alignment with the national average (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 2012); therefore, asking respondents to think about the preceding 10 years relative to the broader context of the preceding 20 years was appropriate.
Specifically considering the variable "generation of farmer," there was a high response rate to the answer option fourth generation or higher, indicating that many respondents were part of a long-standing tradition of farming as a family career choice.
Due to this variable's being significant in relation to observation of past environmental conditions, it stands that there is a connection between the tradition of being a producer and the types of environmental concerns of a producer.
This response is supported by Wheeler, Zuo, and Bjornlund , who tested for a "tradition" factor with farmers in Australia.
They found that belief in climate change was associated with having a less traditional motivation for farming, which is supportive of our findings regarding the role of one's generation as a farmer.
For the variable "political affiliation," the majority of respondents  indicated affiliation with the Republican Party.
This political affiliation, when considered along with respondents' past observations and concerns about the future, could be indicative of ways the producers respond to farm politics.
For example, perhaps Republican respondents had a greater concern regarding certain future environmental conditions due to government management of impacts of the conditions.
Our study provides insight into the environmental conditions Pennsylvania agricultural producers have observed and their concerns about future environmental conditions.
The findings can assist outreach educators in conducting climate change outreach regarding the best ways to engage agricultural producers when conversing about climate change adaptations.
This can be done through being mindful of the generational roles and political affiliations of producers.
Taking proactive steps, such as understanding whether producers are multigenerational farmers, knowing their viewpoint on climate change, and determining their political affiliation, will go a long way toward addressing the impact of observed changes in environmental conditions.
For example, when talking with producers who are thirdor fourth-generation farmers, conversing about environmental changes as seen with temperature or precipitation is likely to be better received than having a direct conversation about climate change, as this conversation is not one previous farming generations have likely participated in.
On the basis of our findings, we make the following observations and recommendations:
 Understanding Corn Belt farmer perspectives on climate change to inform engagement strategies for adaptation and mitigation.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69.
Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Yohe , Climate change impacts in the United States (pp.
Global Change Research Program.
Determining sampling size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607610.
Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Part B: Regional aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp.
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
E., & MacIver, D.
A framework and key questions for adapting to climate variability and change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 215225.
Farmers' climate change beliefs and adaptation strategies for a water scarce future in Australia.
Global Environmental Change, 23, 537547.
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Feature // v51-3a2
 The Extension system exists to disseminate the findings of research beyond the academic community to practitioners, policy makers, and the general public.
Extension educators thus serve as a bridge between scholars and the wider community.
For example, scientists may find a way to apply pesticides more precisely or discover the benefits of serving low-fat milk to children.
Extension staff then educate farmers or parents, respectively, about the new findings.
These examples illustrate what Nutley, Walter, & Davies  called the "knowledge-driven model" of research utilization in policy and practice.
Dating from the beginning of the Extension system, educators have been considered experts in taking the latest university-generated research and making it available to interested publics in the form of science-based information and programs.
Expertise in what has come to be called research translation  is thus a hallmark and necessary core competency of the Extension educator's work.
In many educational and service fields , investigations have taken place regarding how practitioners use research in their work.
However, no systematic investigations have addressed how Extension county educators access research findings, interact with research faculty, or encounter barriers to the use of research findings in their work.
The lack of research on this topic is surprising; as many states' Extension systems face declining numbers of Extension faculty appointments, county educators have a greater responsibility to maintain connections to their university's research base and require skills to stay informed about relevant research findings.
In this context, evidence-based programs  are becoming increasingly prominent to bridge the gap between research and practice.
EBPs are programs or curricula that have been rigorously tested to validate their effectiveness.
Grounded in clearly defined theoretical frameworks, EBPs convey research-based content using empirically validated delivery methods.
The federal government and other major funders now often require grantees to use EBPs rather than locally developed "homegrown" programs.
This pressure, combined with the availability of EBPs for many topics salient to Extension's constituents, make EBPs a valuable tool for Extension to disseminate academic research to communities.
Although Extension is primarily a conduit for disseminating research-based knowledge, it is also a system that can enable wider community participation in research.
There are a variety of Extension programs in which the users of the program also help collect data to inform practice; examples include Integrated Pest Management  and the Teen Assessment Project survey program conducted by the University of Wisconsin.
Combining a firm grounding in their communities with strong ties to their land-grant universities, Extension educators are ideally situated to disseminate EBPs and collaborate on research , as well as to communicate research results.
However, despite how integral research and research awareness are to the responsibilities of Extension educators, our review of the published literature encountered no studies that explored facilitators and barriers to accessing research  in the Extension system.
To address this gap, the current study was undertaken to assess research awareness and involvement across the New York State Extension system and to investigate differences in these components among program areas.
We conceptualized research in the work of Extension educators as having three major components: 1) awareness of and attitudes toward research in Extension; 2) knowledge of research results, especially as embodied in evidence-based programs ; and 3) direct involvement in research activities.
Our goal was to assess each of these components in a survey of New York State Extension educators.
We analyzed responses separately by program area: 1) Agriculture and the Environment, 2) Family and Consumer Sciences, and 3) 4-H Youth Development, because the experience of the New York Extension system suggested that differences would exist among areas in research awareness and use.
Specifically, we hypothesized that research utilization and connections to county researchers would be greater among agriculture and environment educators and those in family and consumer sciences, when compared with 4-H youth development educators.
In agriculture and the environment, educators need to be recognized as scientific experts to be useful and credible to the people they work with, who are themselves often well informed about research.
Educators in the family and consumer sciences often work with agency professionals and tend to be specialists in one or two areas, such as nutrition or child care.
4-H youth development educators, in contrast, work on a very wide array of subjects, drawn from disciplines in both human ecology and agriculture.
Keeping up with a variety of fields from animal husbandry to textiles is difficult and may be impossible.
Moreover, 4-H educators' main responsibilities do not necessarily require scientific expertise in the topic around which a 4-H club is organized; their generic field is youth development, one that is less clearly defined and in which research resources are far more limited than in areas such as nutrition or animal science.
Therefore, we anticipated that 4-H youth development educators would report lower confidence regarding understanding and using research than the other two groups.
We conducted a survey of "research readiness" among off-campus Cornell Cooperative Extension educators in New York State.
In the study, research readiness included knowledge of sources of research findings, awareness of evidence-based programs, and connections to research faculty on the central campus.
We focused on the following questions
 A web-based survey was administered in April 2010.
The sampling frame included all 490 educators in Cornell Cooperative Extension, including community educators, program leaders, and issue leaders.
The response rate was excellent: 81.2%.
In all 58 associations, at least half of educators responded.
In 44% of associations, 100% of educators responded.
We developed four items  that tapped educators' attitudes about the role research plays in their work.
Response choices were on a four-point scale, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
To assess ways in which Extension educators obtain research-based information, we adapted a scale developed by Pravikoff and colleagues  to assess use of empirical evidence in daily practice.
The scale asked how frequently respondents used various resources  and to name Cornell researchers whose work they were familiar with.
For faculty members identified, respondents were asked if they had ever contacted that individual.
Following the questions regarding actual use, respondents were asked to rank the information sources in order of their preference for each source.
We adapted a measure developed by Pravikoff and colleagues  that enumerates potential barriers to finding such information.
Items assessed comfort in reading research articles and understanding statistics, problems accessing materials , and other barriers.
Response choices were on a four-point scale, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
We developed four items to assess educators' confidence in understanding EBPs, their familiarity with programs or the ability to find EBPs, and their endorsement of them.
Response choices were on a four-point scale, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
Five items measured educators' experience with research methods and research projects.
Responses choices were Yes or No.
Respondents are described in Table 1.
Seventy-four percent were female.
Ninety percent identified themselves as Caucasian.
Fifty-eight percent had earned a master's degree, 39% a bachelor's degree, 2% an associate's degree, and 2% a Ph.D.
In terms of years of experience in Cornell Cooperative Extension, approximately a third of the sample fell into each of three categories: 3 years or less, 4-9 years, and 10 or more years.
Respondents indicated their major area of responsibility by choosing one of four categories.
Improved Quality of Life for Individuals and Families includes nutrition and health and children and families.
Because most of this work draws on the College of Human Ecology, we abbreviate this group of educators as HE; they constituted 36% of respondents.
Two of the categories draw primarily on the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: Agriculture and Food Systems Sustainability, and Natural Resources and Environment.
We combined these two and abbreviated them as AG; they accounted for 38% of respondents.
We designate as 4-H those educators who selected Youth Development as their major area: 26% of respondents.
When educators indicated working in more than one area, we assigned them to the category with the largest time commitment.
Results are reported by survey topic below.
In general, percentages refer to the percent of all respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with a survey item, or who use or prefer a given research resource.
We hypothesized that there would be differences in educators' "research readiness" by program area.
We assessed differences by calculating a chi-square statistic for the responses of educators in three program areas.
When there were statistically significant differences  between educators from different program areas , responses are reported separately.
Table 2 shows that 92% of New York CE educators agreed that research is relevant to their day-to-day work and fully 98% agreed that keeping informed about research is important to doing a good job.
Although all educators reported that research is valued in their work, fewer 4-H educators  agreed than AG educators.
AG educators were least likely to agree that more money should be spent on practice and less on research: 27% compared to 48% of HE and 66% of 4-H.
Sources of information used by educators and preferences for these sources are shown in Table 3.
When asked which sources of research they used monthly or more often, three-quarters  of educators named the Web.
Newsletters with reports on current research were next , followed by peers or colleagues , research reports or fact sheets , Cornell websites , Cornell publications , professional or scientific journals , reference texts or manuals , Cornell faculty , other Cornell staff , and conferences or workshops.
In general, AG educators reported relying on original sources of research  and on Cornell faculty more than educators in the other two program areas.
Eighty-seven percent of AG educators reported having directly contacted a Cornell researcher, compared to 65% of HE and 50% of 4-H educators.
AG educators also reported higher use of Cornell publications and websites.
Frequent attendance at Cornell in-service training  was highest for HE educators  and lowest for 4-H , with AG falling in between.
4-H educators expressed the highest preference for learning about research from peers.
Preference for workshops as a source of research information was highest among 4-H and HE educators, but 82.4% of 4-H educators reported actually attending workshops once a year or less.
Table 4 shows respondents' endorsements regarding barriers to research and its use.
A large majority of educators  reported that they did not have difficulty understanding research articles.
An item about the difficulty of understanding statistical analyses was rejected by just over half  of the educators, indicating that statistics are a barrier for almost half.
About two-thirds of respondents said they were confident about their ability to interpret research results , and even more  said they were confident about their ability to use research.
Responses to these questions were similar across program areas.
This self-reported proficiency may result in part from the fact that more than three-quarters of respondents  said they had taken a course in research methods as part of their undergraduate or graduate training.
However, nearly three-quarters  agreed that they did not have enough time to read research.
When asked whether there is a lack of relevant research, 72% disagreed.
Difficulty gaining access to research was cited as an issue by nearly one-third of respondents.
This difficulty appears to be in finding research; it is not a matter of lacking computer access or computer skills; nearly all respondents disagreed that this was a problem.
Educators expressed confidence in their ability to distinguish evidence-based programs from others.
AG and HE staff indicated that they could differentiate between EBPs and non-EBPs at significantly higher rates than 4-H staff.
Educators expressed confidence about knowing where to find information about EBPs , but 4-H educators agreed that they could find such information significantly less than HE , with AG educators falling in between.
The same pattern is seen when respondents were asked if they know about a specific EBP related to their work: HE leads , followed by AG , then 4-H.
A large proportion  said they did not think EBPs are necessarily better than programs educators develop themselves.
Finally, we asked educators about their actual engagement in research projects.
AG educators were more likely than educators in the other program areas to report having had jobs that involved participation in research projects.
Reports of ever having participated in a research project or of having participated in a research project as an Extension educator followed the same pattern, with AG educators highest and 4-H educators lowest.
Ninety-five percent of educators who reported experience with research projects said it had been a positive experience.
Results from the survey reported here suggest that county-level educators are ready and willing to ground Extension even more firmly in research.
Their attitudes, experiences, and preparation are properly aligned with this goal.
However, several challenges must be overcome to achieve it.
Educators' responses demonstrate a strong degree of interest in research and recognition of its value.
Educators expressed confidence in their ability to read and understand research reports, including journal articles, and to learn about EBPs.
They report consulting research frequently.
The nearly unanimously positive view of research only faded when spending for research was directly counterposed to spending for programs.
In that case, many educators preferred funding programs, which may not be surprising from respondents whose job is to run programs in a difficult economic environment.
Two trends in the response patterns raise concerns.
First, analysis of the results by program area highlighted that 4-H educators reported less proficiency in research than educators in HE and AG and less contact with faculty.
This pattern may reflect idiosyncrasies in the Cornell Extension system.
Many more professorial faculty members work in areas supporting AG and HE, whereas only a few specialize in youth development.
As a result, 4-H educators' opportunities for contact with researchers are limited, whatever their preferences might be.
Additional research is needed to determine whether these differences by program area are a New York State phenomenon or hold nationally.
The differences we discovered point to the need to assess research-readiness by program area.
Greater understanding of such differences will be useful in targeting research training to specific groups of educators and in making appointments.
The second trend that deserves further research is educators' dependence on and preference for the Internet and peers as sources of research.
All educators listed the Web as their primary source of research information, followed by newsletters and peers.
It is understandable that educators would look to their peers for information about programs, but peers may not be the optimal source of scientific information.
Similarly, the Web is not always an accurate or reliable source of valid research.
It was not feasible in our survey to ask what kind of information educators glean from peers or what websites they visit to find research.
Understanding how educators assess the quality of informationwhether from the Web or from peersand how research-based information travels within Extension is a promising area of research.
Future research of this nature should be guided by the empirical and conceptual work of such leaders as Rogers  on diffusion, Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace  on implementation, and Nutley, Walter, and Davies  and Weiss  on research utilization.
A broader implication of the study's findings is that Extension should develop and test a variety of new methods to connect faculty researchers with county-level educators.
Electronic methods are clearly essential but not likely sufficient.
Optimal combinations of face-to-face and remote communication should be identified.
Current research on communication and online learning can inform such efforts.
Evaluation research should inform continuous improvement of these efforts.
As effective methods are developed, both content and techniques should be shared among land-grant universities.
Although the issue was not probed in the survey, it is worth asking how much of the gap between research and practice is attributable to a gap between researchers' and practitioners' priorities.
Questions deemed important in the disciplines may not respond to practitioners' needs.
Land-grant universities, which combine research capacity with the responsibility and ability to respond to practitioners' priorities, have unique capacity to link these two domains.
Comparative surveys of research faculty regarding attitudes toward Extension and outreach would shed light on this issue.
In conclusion, we propose that what happens between the production of new knowledge in universities and its use in "the real world" can no longer be treated as a black box.
That process must be examined with care and subjected to systematic and continuous improvement.
The results of the present study provide encouraging data regarding interest in research and awareness of its importance among educators.
Building on these strengths, the Extension system can and should work to create a stronger link between the creation of knowledge and its use by county educators.
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature.
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
The National Implementation Research Network.
Facilitating research utilisation: A cross sector review of the research evidence.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 534-553.
The extension service as a key mechanism for research and services delivery for prevention of mental health disorders in rural areas.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 515-544.
Participatory research in integrated pest management: Lessons from the IPM CRSP.
Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 431-439.
Readiness of US nurses for evidence-based practice: Many don't understand or value research and have had little or no training to help them find evidence on which to base their practice.
AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 105, 40-51.
Diffusion of innovations, Fifth edition.
New York: Free Press.
The CITRA Research-Practice Consensus Workshop Model: Exploring a New Method of Research Translation in Aging.
The Gerontologist, 46, 833-39.
Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project.
Science Education, 84, 265-275.
Research for the public good: Applying the methods of translational research to improve human health and well-being.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
The many meanings of research utilization.
Public administration review, 426-431.
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Tools of the Trade // v51-3tt7
 Cover crops are increasingly used by agricultural producers to address a broad spectrum of ecosystem services affecting crop production and environmental quality.
In response to increased demand for cover crop information, numerous resources have been developed through traditional and electronic media.
Among traditional media, Managing Cover Crops Profitably  has served as a primary source of cover crop information since 1998.
Numerous handbooks, fact sheets, Extension bulletins, and literature reviews have served to supplement information provided in the book, often with a regional focus , functional emphasis , or for specific crops.
To date, traditional and electronic information sources typically organize the presentation of cover crops alphabetically or separately by crop type in an outline format .
Such categorization, while convenient, may fall short in effectively presenting cover crop information by emphasizing a singular focus on select crops and, accordingly, fail to highlight potential complementary functions between crop types.
Moreover, attributes associated with specific crops rely almost exclusively on written descriptions, while use of visual templates and descriptors are rare.
To supplement the growing demand for cover crop information and to address the presentation concerns outlined above, we sought to develop a decision aid using an intuitive, visual interface with an emphasis on cover crops relevant to producers in the U.S.
The decision aid, hereafter referred to as the Cover Crop Chart , was the result of a serendipitous analogy with a common reference in chemistry.
This article describes the development of the CCC.
Cover crops adapted to the northern Great Plains were selected for inclusion in the CCC using an initial list compiled by USDA-NRCS North Dakota personnel and the Burleigh County Soil Conservation District.
The list, which included 29 cover crops, was organized into four types: cool season grass, cool season broadleaf, warm season grass, and warm season broadleaf.
Cover crops were recategorized into six groups: cool season grass, cool season broadleaf , cool season broadleaf , warm season broadleaf , warm season broadleaf , and warm season grass.
The periodic table, developed by Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev , is organized so that elements with identical valence electron configurations are placed in the same column .
Using this framework, the list of crops were placed in columns and assigned a distinct background color within a PowerPoint slide to differentiate the six distinct crop types.
An additional 17 crops were selected from the literature based on their suitability as cover crops and placed in appropriate groups.
The resulting figure was visually similar to a periodic table, and was designated the crop selection page.
Cover Crop Selection Page of the Cover Crop Chart
 To make the crop selection page more informative, supplemental information on growth cycle, relative water use, and plant architecture was added using icons in three corners of each crop box.
Information on growth cycle was added to the upper left corner, with A, B, and P representing annual, biennial, and perennial crops.
Broad categorization of certain crops necessitated using two crop growth icons.
Relative water use of select crops was assigned in the upper right corner using blue shaded raindrops for low, medium, and high categories following guidelines by Merrill, Tanaka, Krupinsky, Liebig, & Hanson.
Finally, a plant architecture icon was placed in the lower right corner of each crop box.
Icons for upright, upright-spreading, and prostrate architecture were selected based on a review of photographs in books and Internet resources for crops at physiological maturity.
Individual crop pages were created to provide additional information for each crop.
Relevant management information was compiled from multiple sources in the U.S.
and Canada.
Attributes presented on the crop selection page were also included as the first four bullets on each crop page.
Photographs, either from the USDA-ARS Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory  archive or from Internet resources, were added to each page.
Once completed, each crop page was connected to the respective crop box on the selection page via hyperlinks within PowerPoint.
An "Additional Information" page was added to the PowerPoint for acknowledgements and disclaimers, and hyperlinked to the crop selection page.
Individual Crop screen for Sunflower
 The CCC is inherently easy to use.
Using the crop selection page as a guide, individual crops are selected by clicking on the crop name, which directs users to additional information about the selected crop.
Hyperlinked icons within each crop page then return users to the crop selection page, thereby facilitating comparisons of different crops.
Increased use of cover crops by agricultural producers underscores the need for helpful decision aids to guide management decisions.
The basic, foundational information provided in the CCC, along with its relative ease of use, make it an ideal educational resource for Extension professionals learning about cover crops for the first time.
We gratefully acknowledge valuable guidance and suggestions from producers and technicians in the Area IV Soil Conservation Districts of North Dakota and NRCS staff throughout North Dakota.
Matt Flink, Jill Gunderson, Marvin Hatzenbuhler, Robert Kolberg, Heather Matthees-Dose, Steve Merrill, Delmer Schlenker, Eric Scholljegerdes, Cal Thorson, Lori Wanner, and Dawn Wetch provided helpful suggestions to improve the CCC.
The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Mention of commercial products and organizations in this manuscript is solely to provide specific information.
It does not constitute endorsement by USDA-ARS over other products and organizations not mentioned.
Cornell cover crop guide for forage turnip and rape.
Managing cover crops profitably.
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network, Beltsville, MD.
Charting a course for cover crops.
Successful Farming 109: S6.
A well-ordered thing: Dmitri Mendeleev and the shadow of the periodic table.
Basic Books, New York.
A., & Hanson., J.
Soil water depletion and recharge under ten crop species and applications to the principles of dynamic cropping systems.
Agronomy Journal 99: 931-938.
Dial-in a cover crop.
The Furrow 115: 28-29.
Northeast cover crop handbook.
The use of turnips for extending the grazing season.
South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD.
February 2009 // Volume 47 // Number 1 // Feature // v47-1a8
 Agriculture is the fifth largest industry in San Diego County, California, with a total reported value of $1.46 billion and the full economic impact estimated at over $5 billion.
Recent quarantines due to exotic pests, rising energy costs, and water quality issues have placed extreme pressure on agriculture producers in San Diego County.
Addressing agricultural non-point source pollution and run-off is no longer an option for growers in San Diego County, but a mandatory regulatory reality.
The Clean Water Act  of 1977 originally focused on "point-sources" of pollution, or readily identifiable discharges from a particular "point," such as a drainage pipe, but in 1987, the C.W.A.
was amended to address non-point source pollution from diffuse sources.
Agricultural non-point source pollution moves with rainfall and snowmelt over and through the ground and may contain numerous compounds, including sediments, fertilizers, pesticides, salts, and animal manure-all of which may contain various nutrients.
Excess nutrients flowing into surface waters can impair water bodies and aquatic ecosystem functionality and are associated with nuisance and toxic algal blooms, health problems, and increased municipal water treatment costs.
A watershed-scale approach to non-point source pollution management and total maximum daily loads  is the current U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency focus in surface water quality regulations.
Water quality rules adopted in 2001 by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board created additional requirements for growers to manage surface run-off entering waterways, storm drains, and coastal areas with the potential to affect drinking water, recreational locations, and wildlife habitat.
Responsibility lies with the grower in identifying potential compliance issues and selecting best management practices  to comply with regulations or risk fines.
In contrast to other locations in the U.S., San Diego County has unique challenges related to non-point source pollution and run-off, including extensive irrigated agriculture, heavily developed urban areas, seasonal rainfall, hilly and mountainous topography, and 11 coastal watersheds that drain into the Pacific Ocean.
Due to a favorable climate, southern California coastal watersheds are particularly vulnerable to degradation from urbanization, and as coastal watersheds undergo increased conversion, nutrient loading is expected to increase.
Only 5% of San Diego's drinking water comes from local ground and surface water supplies , but the water quality of waterways has implications for wildlife and aquatic habitat and the coastal beaches that are important to San Diego's tourism economy.
In recent years, land management has increasingly focused on watersheds and reversing the trend towards declining fish and wildlife populations and improving drinking water quality.
Average rainfall in San Diego County is approximately 10 inches per year and occurs between October and April.
Algal blooms and eutrophication from nutrient overloads and excessive sedimentation can create problems for aquatic life, along with contaminants and other run-off entering any of the 11 watersheds that feed coastal waters.
Although residential and urban landscaped areas also contribute to these problems, agriculture is targeted as a major contributor of these contaminants.
The primary pollution concern from greenhouses and plant nurseries is irrigation run-off, but "dry weather run-off," including wash run-off, water treatment system discharge, and liquid spills, must also be contained and managed on the property, according to water quality regulations.
Growers are required to prevent contaminants, sediments, fertilizers, pesticides, hazardous materials, trash, green waste, and organic matter that may occur in "wet weather run-off" from entering storm drains and waterways through proper materials storage, equipment maintenance, and erosion control.
Nitrate concentrations from greenhouse operations in California was determined to average 4.4 pounds per acre per inch of storm water over a 2-year period.
With the onset of wet weather, nutrient concentrations can be high due to accumulated dry season deposition of fertilizers and other nutrient sources, although, initially, storm discharge is low because of high soil moisture deficits.
With continuing storms, however, storm discharge can increase as soil moisture levels meet or exceed field capacity and groundwater and shallow subsurface waters flow into storm discharge.
Additionally, pesticides may create problems.
Within a 100-acre commercial nursery in California, researchers found significant amounts of two synthetic pyrethroid pesticides, biefenthrin and permethrin, in nursery run-off.
Self-assessment tools have been developed for a wide variety of topics, such as environmental audits to ensure farmers' compliance with applicable legislation in Great Britain.
The term "audit" and the concepts behind an audit are similar to a self-assessment, as both involve assessing or analyzing inputs and potential impacts.
Previous research has shown that participants in self-assessments will be motivated to make changes to reduce pollution risks if these issues are perceived as threatening to family well-being, the value of their property, and the quality of their environment.
Many agricultural self-assessment tools exist in the U.S., including the USDA Farmstead Assessment System , a nationwide program that was designed to expand farmer knowledge regarding pollution risks to groundwater associated with storage and use of pesticides and fertilizers  and the Greenhouse*A*Syst program to assess water management, environmental risk and business profitability.
Other examples include an educational tool in Kansas to address total maximum daily load  regulations ; the "Livestock System Environmental Assessment"  tool developed for producers to identify the level of risk for current practices, such as land application of manure and runoff controls for outdoor feedlots in Nebraska ; and an advanced self-assessment tool that results in a set of recommended BMP's for the livestock producer to protect water quality.
Self-assessments have also been used to illuminate the true state of pollution risks from nutrient loading from livestock feed rations.
With pressure from encroaching urban areas and an increasing emphasis on clean water initiatives, practical, inexpensive approaches to regulatory run-off issues must be developed to help growers remain viable.
In response to this need, personnel at the University of California Cooperative Extension Service in San Diego County have developed education and research programs, including a self-assessment tool for growers for managing agricultural run-off and to aid in improving water quality in San Diego County.
The "Run-off and Non-Point Source Pollution Self-Assessment for Greenhouse and Container Nurseries" tool was developed in 2002 in response to San Diego County growers' expressed confusion regarding new water quality regulations.
The need arose to assist growers with determining which aspects of their operations could be considered out of compliance with these regulations and BMPs that could be instituted to remedy potential problems.
The overall goal of the Agriculture Water Quality Research and Education Program at UC-Extension, San Diego, is to maintain clean drinking water for all citizens of San Diego County and to assist growers in meeting clean water regulations.
Because greenhouses and plant nurseries must be inspected for run-off and contaminated storm water as part of new regulations in San Diego County, the objective of the study reported here was to develop and administer a self-assessment tool to help greenhouse and nursery managers identify existing run-off and non-point source pollution issues and to begin a self-education process of developing BMPs for their operations.
By engaging growers in developing and administering the self-assessment tool, Extension personnel gained understanding of the challenges faced by growers and the need for future programs to address these challenges.
Requirements for the self-assessment tool were simplicity and ease of use in addressing all run-off regulations pertinent to greenhouse and plant nursery growers.
The major resources for topic questions and explanations were the Extension publication Management Options for Nonpoint Source Pollution, Greenhouse and Container Crop Industries  and the San Diego County run-off regulations.
The Extension publication provided practical answers to the growers' questions, and the San Diego County run-off regulations were used as a checklist to ensure all required items were being addressed.
In addition to these resources, personal observations and experience obtained while visiting numerous greenhouse and nursery properties assisted in designing questions and writing explanations.
In the process of deigning the self-assessment tool, several agricultural operations were surveyed to determine average quantities of irrigation run-off and factors affecting run-off volume, such as irrigation efficiency, weather, crop moisture requirements, topography, proximity to drainage areas, and soil permeability.
Run-off volumes observed in San Diego County greenhouses ranged from 3 to 15 gallons per 1000 ft of greenhouse surface , signifying a need to modify practices to comply with regulations.
After evaluating all factors affecting run-off in a typical operation, the self-assessment tool was written and pre-tested on six nursery and greenhouse growers who expressed interest in evaluating their operations.
After the questionnaire was revised based on input from the pre-testing sector, the final questionnaire was written and distributed.
The final self-assessment tool contained 50 major questions , with additional sub-questions.
The questionnaire was designed to serve as a checklist for property attributes and potential compliance issues.
Previous research determined that worksheets that translate technical and legal information into a format non-experts can apply to their property are the most useful to prevent pollution.
The questionnaire was designed to function as an educational tool without requiring outside assistance or references, except in the most complex of issues.
Similar to other self-assessments, worksheets prompted growers to examine different aspects of their facilities and activities to uncover pollution risks.
The major outline of the self-assessment tool included six categories: 1) property management; 2) road management; 3) irrigation practices; 4) leaching and run-off; 5) nutrient assessment and fertilizer management, and 6) pest management.
A simple yes/no format was designed in a two-column table for ease of use.
A "no" response did not always indicate a pollution problem or violation of a regulation, but may have indicated to the grower a need to further investigate a potential problem.
Questions were followed by brief explanations of the importance of the question to run-off, pollution, and/or BMPs, and included brief suggestions to resolve any problems raised under each issue.
All irrigation and other dry weather run-off is prohibited from entering the storm drain system, which includes street gutters, public waterways, and other conveyances that drain to public waterways.
Other dry weather run-off includes all types of wash run-off and discharge from reverse osmosis systems.
Discharging dry weather run-off onto neighboring properties is not allowed unless done with consent.
Dry weather run-off may also not be discharged onto or across public streets and roads.
A higher potential to pollute exists when public water bodies are located directly on or adjacent to a growing operation.
In addition, commercial operations near public water bodies designated as "impaired" under Clean Water Act section 303, or regulated under a "total maximum daily load"  requirement may have more stringent requirements.
The self-assessment tool was made available to growers through the Extension Web site and distributed at monthly educational seminars and tours conducted by the Extension office.
Growers voluntarily completed the self-assessment, and their responses were anonymous.
Results of the survey were recorded, and response percentages were tabulated for each question.
The clientele associated with the self-assessment tool consisted of full-time growers.
Due to the considerable time commitment required to execute the detailed, 13-page questionnaire, we were fortunate to have 33 growers complete all pages of the self-assessment and allow sufficient time to meet with Extension personnel to discuss their results during an individual site visit.
These 33 questionnaires contained thorough, detailed responses and were critical in evaluating the current state of knowledge and compliance with water quality regulations among San Diego County nursery and greenhouse growers.
Assessment by growers themselves, as opposed to Extension staff completing the questionnaire for them, was integral to the success of the project.
The size of the operations in the study ranged from 2 to 200 acres, with an average size of 26 acres.
Of the 33 respondents, the largest group  was greenhouse operators, 41% operated container nurseries, and the remainder of respondents had mixed operations.
Forty-one percent of growers surveyed had open surface waters  present on their properties, which would increase the need to monitor the volume and content of run-off from their property.
Unlike typical rural agricultural operations across the U.S., 91% of respondents used municipal water sources, with 18% using recycled irrigation water.
Fifty percent of respondents reported that their employees received training in run-off, spill, waste, and sanitation management and all applicable regulations.
A major challenge for horticultural operations in San Diego County is the poor quality of imported irrigation water, which, along with many local wells, contains high levels of soluble salts that accumulate in plant containers and root zones.
Excessive salts are often leached by applying more water than is necessary for crop moisture needs in order to flush the water and salts below the root zone or out of a container.
In some field situations, this extra water will simply soak deep into the soil.
In other situations, the topsoil may be shallow and subsurface run-off will drain to bedrock or hardpan and begin to move down-slope.
In container situations, the extra water will flow out of the container and either soak into the soil below or create surface run-off.
Another challenge to maintaining water quality is the practice of injecting soluble fertilizers through the irrigation system.
Leachate from containers or the field soil root zone can create a higher risk for discharging run-off that is very high in nitrates.
Forty-nine percent of growers reported regularly monitoring their water quality, and 81% of those reported keeping water quality records.
Despite the water-saving efficiency of drip irrigation, only 54% of respondents were relying of this method, and only 18% of respondents used tensiometers or other instruments to base watering on plant needs versus predetermined schedules.
Regarding potential run-off contaminants, 64% of respondents practiced constant liquid fertilization , and 22% added wetting agents to pot media, with 100% using synthetic or readily mobile forms of fertilizers, predominantly ammonium nitrate.
Per local regulations, 91% collected irrigation run-off and 63% stated that they were able to contain all run-off on their properties.
A total of 36% of those surveyed based fertilization schedules on plant nutrient requirements, and of those, 27% use plant tissue testing and 37% use soil tests.
Injector systems designed for different ratios of fertilizers were employed by 27% of respondents, thus applying fertilizers at rates more sensitive to plant needs.
Another major challenge in managing run-off in San Diego County is the rolling topography on which many nurseries and greenhouses are located.
Even if irrigation run-off can be eliminated during dry weather, soil and substrate erosion control is a constant challenge during wet weather.
Certain management practices, such as terraces, can help manage run-off and erosion on slopes.
Thirty percent of respondents stated that they managed their non-production areas of their properties to prevent erosion, and 46% managed these areas to prevent run-off and contamination from fertilizers and pesticides.
Despite BMPs to prevent run-off, 90% of respondents stated that some of their irrigation exited their properties.
The majority  managed drainage pipes on their properties that were connected to storm water systems.
With the advance of Integrated Pest Management  in California agricultural operations, the use of persistent pesticides has declined.
All respondents reported using monitoring before spraying pesticides, with 36% monitoring with traps.
The majority of pest species managed in these operations were aphids , spider mites , and mealy bugs , with the next highest ranking  assigned to thrips, snails, and whiteflies.
Over 15 pesticides were reported from these operations, with 18% reporting using pesticides approved for organic production.
Fifty-one percent reported using biological controls.
Other methods of preventing excessive application of pesticides included the use of resistant or tolerant cultivars.
Twenty-seven percent reported using these in their operations.
Water quality issues related to pesticide and nutrient run-off will continue to exert great pressure on greenhouses and plant nurseries nation-wide.
Initially, the 2001 water quality regulations affecting San Diego County growers were perceived as confusing for many growers, and some were skeptical about allowing outside persons, including Extension personnel, to analyze their properties.
Similar to other Extension surveys on the West coast , growers were very knowledgeable about water quality issues, but self-assessment results verified that additional training and action was needed for all growers to be in full compliance.
Because of the strong commitment in the U.S.
to voluntary approaches to pollution prevention that are centered on education, technical assistance, and economic incentives , Extension staff members were able to elicit accurate responses by developing and distributing a simple self-assessment tool in concert with growers.
This assessment process helped identify key areas in need of attention, such as improving containment of run-off on production properties, while recognizing and reinforcing BMPs already implemented by the affected grower.
While cost-share incentives for preventing water pollution may encourage behavior change more than educational material , growers in San Diego County who completed the self-assessment nevertheless requested additional training on computer-based water quality monitoring systems that scheduled fertilization based on plant nutrient requirements and BMPs for least-toxic pest management for ornamental crops.
Further extending the utility of the self-assessment tool, BMPs described for surface run-off in the self-assessment tool could also be applied towards groundwater protection in general, as evidenced by an Extension office in Ventura County, California, that used the information to guide the development of water quality self-assessments for their local growers.
Innovative responses to regulations, such as a group of California growers' implementation of BMPs, including optimizing irrigation, creating sediment traps and ponds, establishing vegetative strips, and adding polyacrylamide to the effluent to bind pollutants, can significantly reduce pesticides in nursery run-off.
In this era of rising urban populations and increased scrutiny of the agricultural sector, Extension is in a unique position to help guide compliance of clean drinking water regulations through self-assessment tools that are designed to alert, as well as educate, the agricultural community, particularly in highly urbanized areas.
Non-point pollution on surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen.
County of San Diego.
Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance.
County of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Greenhouse run-off flow monitoring in San Diego Report.
University of California Cooperative Extension, San Diego, CA.
Implementation of TMDLs in Kansas.
In Ali Saleh.
Total Maximum Daily Load  Environmental Regulations-II Conference Proceedings.
Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays and seas.
Pesticide run-off and mitigation at a commercial nursery site.
Pesticide contamination and detoxification.
Management options for nonpoint source pollution, greenhouse and container crop industries.
University of California Cooperative Extension San Diego County, San Diego, CA.
Steps towards modeling nutrient export in coastal Californian streams with a Mediterranean climate.
Agricultural Water Management 77:144-158.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs.
Report for the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, EPA 841-B-99-007, p.
October 2001 // Volume 39 // Number 5 // Ideas at Work // 5IAW5
 Abstract An irrigation systems management college credit course was offered in the state of Nebraska for a period of 6 years with an on-campus instructor lecturing via satellite and off-campus Extension Irrigation specialists delivering instruction at research and Extension centers across the state.
Agency personnel were in need of training to assist them in redirecting their expertise to assist and educate farmers in the area of irrigation water management.
Eighty-nine professionals across the state completed the basic irrigation course that gave detailed instruction on water management as well as background for conducting one-on-one water management assistance.
One of five goals outlined by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service  states the need for " greater harmony between agriculture and the environment".
One of the objectives stated for this goal is "to develop, transfer, and promote adoption of efficient and sustainable agricultural, forestry, and other resource policies, programs, technologies, and practices that protect, sustain, and enhance water, soil and air resources." Extension personnel throughout the U.S.
are encouraged to identify state and federal agencies with whom to establish a partnership with the purpose of maintaining agricultural profitability and protecting or improving the environment.
Nebraska has over eight million acres of irrigated land , ranking second in the nation.
Nebraska agriculture is diverse, with a variety of crops grown, a climate ranging from semi-arid to sub-humid, and irrigation methods divided among center pivot and surface systems and major sources of water from both surface and ground water supplies.
Given the size and diversity of the state, it is important that educational efforts be widespread in order to focus on protecting water quality and using water resources efficiently.
The goal of this educational outreach effort described here was to provide professionals with the knowledge necessary for making good water management recommendations.
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service  wanted its personnel to deliver on-farm water management assistance.
However, many of the NRCS personnel lacked water management expertise and were in need of training.
The NRCS and the University of Nebraska outlined a training program for NRCS personnel with the following issues in mind:
 Meier  discusses the importance of prioritizing education clientele and the need for collaborative efforts to meet the needs for future Extension programming.
For this program, the solution was to combine formal teaching associated with a college credit course with the informal and broad outreach of Cooperative Extensions adult education programming.
There are other examples of college courses being taught to the agricultural sector.
Breece  described an economics course taught to farmers wanting more detail than what the traditional Extension meeting could provide.
However, this irrigation training program required students to not only obtain in class training but also hands-on experience.
Irrigation Systems Management is a senior/graduate level course for engineering and non-engineering students.
The course is taught one semester during each year in the Biological Systems Engineering Department at the University of Nebraska.
The course objective is to develop a working understanding of irrigation systems and methods of managing irrigation systems.
It stresses fundamentals and application of irrigation technology.
The three credit hour course consists of two 1-hour lectures and a 3-hour lab each week.
Beginning in 1993, the semester course was offered to distance education students as a series of three 5-week modules.
Students could enroll for one or more module in a given semester.
The modules allowed students to commit to a short training period yet still complete other duties associated with their jobs.
At the end of each module, a test was given over material covered.
More than 50% of the students were asked by their employer to complete the semester course over a 2to 3-year time period.
The course was taught in conjunction with the Irrigation Systems Management on-campus course offering and broadcast via satellite.
An Extension Irrigation specialist or educator was located at each of four off-campus delivery sites.
Even though the course was delivered to four locations across the state, some students still traveled up to 100 miles to reach the delivery sites.
For this reason, off-campus students attended class only 1 day per week.
This reduced travel time for off-campus students and allowed 4 days a week at their work stations.
During a class day, off-campus students viewed a recorded lecture, heard a live lecture, and completed a lab exercise.
Off-campus instructors taught lab exercises and designed some to address local irrigation issues.
To utilize the hydraulics lab on-campus, the on-campus instructor videotaped the data collection process, and students used the results to complete their lab reports.
To provide faster response time for the students, off-campus instructors graded course exercises and tests.
Delegating duties to the off-campus instructors provided both on-campus and offcampus students easy access to a course instructor.
A total of 89 off-campus students completed the 3-hour Irrigation Systems Management course offered between 1993 and 1998.
Students included Nebraska NRCS personnel, Wyoming NRCS personnel, Crop consultants, research technicians, Educators, and Wyoming Conservation District personnel.
The average grade for students off-campus was a high B+.
This was slightly higher than for traditional on-campus students.
At the beginning of the course, off-campus students were encouraged to phone in questions to the on-campus instructor.
Because of the delay in receiving questions and the subsequent interruption that it caused to on-campus students, this process gradually gave way to off-campus instructors providing answers for questions at their respective sites.
Off-campus students were not actively involved in the on-campus lecture, yet the on-campus instructor noted that when broadcasting, on-campus students responded less to questions and were less likely to engage in discussion.
On those occasions when filming was not taking place, students tended to be more relaxed and actively took part in class discussion.
Students were pleased with the methods that were used to deliver the course.
Comments from students included: "I have already used some of the material on my job" and "The course is very good and is very relevant to our work in the NRCS and irrigation water management."
 As a result of this course, professionals gained irrigation water management training that can be used when working with farmers to improve irrigation water management decisions.
The program also enhanced linkages between Extension and NRCS as a result of the relationships developed during course instruction.
Examples are increases in the number of co-lead demonstrations and joint information development and delivery.
However, as personnel change and additional water management strategies develop, training like that documented here will likely be necessary in the future.
Volume 51, Number 1.
Pros in Parks: Integrated Programming for Reaching Our Urban Park Operations Audience Abstract In addition to regular job duties, such as tree care, mulching, irrigation, and pesticide management, urban park workers have faced environmental changes due to drought, wildfires, and West Nile virus.
They simultaneously have endured expectations to manage growing, diversifying park usage and limitations on career development.
An integrated programming approach is used to provide training to frontline parks department employees in the cities of Arlington and Fort Worth, Texas.
Results indicate high levels of adoption of practices, enhanced staff morale, and identification of potential future leaders.
The program also introduces an urban audience to the broaden array of Extension programming and services.
Park employees must be trained to manage these matters in addition to maintaining the knowledge needed for their regular duties, such as custodial work, tree care, mulching, irrigation, pesticide management, and attending to safety issues.
Training is necessary to keep staff up-to-date on best practices and changing regulations as well as to improve employee retention and provide opportunities to identify potential managers.
Current budget and staffing situations, coupled with the need to keep staff proximate to work sites, limit opportunities for park employees to attend regional, state, and national programs.
Furthermore, most training topics require tailoring to meet specific local operational needs.
Program Development In 2006, Tarrant County's horticulture agent worked with the parks and recreation departments of the cities of Arlington and Fort Worth to provide employee training in horticulture.
Committee members expressed interest in further developing the training, and in 2008, it evolved into the Pros in Parks program.
Primary goals included increasing job knowledge, professionalism, safety, environmental practices, and job satisfaction.
Topics for instruction were expanded beyond horticulture basics to include land management issues and trends and to emphasize career development related to parks, communications, community development, and management and personal development.
Program Delivery Planning Committee Initially, topics were chosen and evaluated by the Tarrant County Commercial Horticulture Advisory Committee.
Over time, a Pros in Parks Task Force was developed, and it currently comprises park operations managers from four local municipalities, urban foresters, the county horticulture agent, and the municipal parks specialist.
A task force-driven approach allows for topics and trends to be identified with input from stakeholders , expands access to trainers on interdisciplinary topics and skills, and creates an unbiased, evidence-based curriculum.
The task force devises a list of issues facing frontline staff; the specialists and agent identify emerging practices and research relevant to land management, parks, and career and personal development; and attendees provide topic suggestions through previous session evaluations.
The result is a program series covering horticulture and land management basics, emerging land management and parks practices, and relevant topics for career and personal development.
Topic Selection Criteria for Pros in Parks Required job skills, such as tree pruning, weed identification, mulching, and safety Content specific examples, such as pesticide training with examples specific to park employees Current issues, such as drought, wildfires, and West Nile virus Trends, such as population densification, nature-based play, diversification in urban populations and recreation uses, and park design trends Relevant content for career or personal development Requests from previous session evaluations Other relevant curriculum or research  Table 2.
Select Examples of Session Topics Athletic field management Money management Pruning and maintenance Basic horticulture Park safety Quality control perceptions Customer service Park trends Social media Drought Personal safety Tree hazard identification Earth-kind landscape Pesticide applicator Turf management Equipment and safety Plant disease Urban stream diagnosis management Event management Plant identification Water conservation Health and wellness Planting and pruning Weeds Leadership in changing Playground Wildlife in your park times maintenance Logistics Pros in Parks is a series of regularly scheduled educational events.
Employees attend the entire series or specific sessions.
Each topic is offered once a week in two cities, Arlington and Fort Worth.
Training space is provided by the host parks department.
Operations staffs from other communities are welcome to attend when space is available.
Trainings are offered during the winter months, the best time for attendees.
A small educational fee is paid by each city.
Extension specialists and agents in pesticide, turf, water, forestry, entomology, and horticulture serve as the core group of instructors for land management topics.
The municipal parks specialist, other Extension subject matter specialists, or experts from local parks departments, universities, and businesses are used for the related career and personal development topics.
Teaching Methods It is crucial to understand the culture of the audience  and use a balance of teaching and hands-on or action-based activities.
Assessments indicate that attendees are accustomed to active workdays, so a variety of teaching methods are used for Pros in Parks.
In the classroom, computer-generated presentations are most common, but these are enhanced with activities such as working in small groups, participating in question-and-answer sessions, and using classroom response systems.
Such activities engage participants and ensure that important concepts are understood.
When appropriate, longer segments of time are spent on outdoor activities, such as surveying urban streams, participating in photo scavenger hunts, pruning trees and shrubs, rebuilding a pitcher's mound, conducting inspections, evaluating hazards, mapping, and practicing safety activities.
Because some park employees have limited English proficiency, a translator is available on-site.
Outcomes To determine program effectiveness, retrospective postsession surveys are administered after each session.
Select examples of learning outcomes and self-reported knowledge gain and intentions to adopt are shown in Table 3.
Select Examples of Percentage of Attendees with Reported Increase in Understanding and Intention to Adopt Practice Increase in Intentio Understandin n to Topic g Adopt Customer service 69.0% 84.0% Good cultural 73.7% 80.0% practices for turf management Insect repellents 52.0% 85.0% Plant problems 58.7% 84.0% caused by too much and too little irrigation Plant selection for 63.0% 89.5% water conservation Planting and 90.0% 94.4% pruning techniques Park safety and 83.0% 80.0% playground maintenance Park type 78.0% 84.0% classifications Social media 77.0% 84.0% Staying safe 46.0% 85.0% Sun protection 39.0% 85.0% Trends in parks 79.0% 84.0% Weed 75.7% 92.3% identification and herbicide selection Supervisors from participating cities indicate that although reported increase in knowledge is inconsistent, intention to adopt practices is consistently high.
From their perspective, the sessions serve as knowledge gain opportunities for newer employees and skill enhancement for long-term employees.
They also indicate that the program serves as a team-building exercise and contributes to staff morale, in addition to helping them identify future managers.
Conclusion As municipalities continue to work with constrained budgets, changing environmental impacts, increases in density and park use, and a high number of retirements, trainings will grow in need and demand.
Data from previous participants' feedback indicate a need to further develop the program by offering a certification and by placing additional emphasis on topics that can support attendees' career retention and advancement.
Feedback also emphasizes a need for the program to incorporate more hands-on and interactive learning opportunities and sessions offered in various languages, particularly Spanish.
Pros in Parks is replicable for urban audiences throughout Texas and nationally.
By using a committee-driven approach to select and package Extension expertise, agents can offer an impactful educational and personal development program for urban parks operations staff.
Pros in Parks strengthened the partnership between Texas AgriLife Extension in Tarrant County and the participating parks departments.
Furthermore, many of the participants  indicated that they were not aware of the breadth of Extension services.
Thus, by using an integrated Extension planning approach, the program serves as a way to introduce this urban audience to broader Extension programs and resources.
Current and future water availability: Public opinion in the southern United States.
Forth Worth 2014 comprehensive plan.
Should parks and recreation care about climate change?
Park and Rec Magazine.
Why water conservation matters to parks and the public.
Park and Rec Magazine.
An Extension education program to help local governments with flood adaptation.
Park and Rec Magazine.
Big-city imperative: Agenda for action.
A systems approach: Maximizing individual career potential and organizational success.
Do job satisfaction and commitment to the organization matter when it comes to retaining employees?
FAQs about aerial spraying for West Nile virus mosquitoes [Web log post].
Cooperative Extension and climate change: Successful program delivery.
2013 Parks and recreation national database report.
A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations.
Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5, 5263.
Improving urban tree care in the Great Plains: Impacts of the Nebraska tree care workshops.
Annual city parks data released by the trust for public land.
Park and recreation maintenance management.
Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Exploring the challenges for Extension educators working in urban communities.
Analyzing the natural resource Extension needs of Spanish speakers: A perspective from Florida.
Kentucky's urban Extension focus.
Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal.
Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities.
If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Feature // v51-3a3
 Extension has a long and successful history of engaging with researchers across the social and natural sciences.
Yet Extension programming on climate changea focus of university research across disciplines for decadeshas been noticeably absent, at least until recently.
The scale and scope of climate change, as well as the topic's politically charged nature , are undoubtedly some reasons why Extension has not led the charge on outreach efforts.
It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that waiting is not an option and that Extension has a role to play in climate change programming.
Farmers represent a large group of Extension stakeholders who stand to be greatly affected by the changing climate.
Changes in absolute values and variation in temperature, precipitation amounts and distribution patterns, cloud cover, and carbon dioxide levels affect plant growth, field practices, pests, and plant diseases.
And, as agriculture strives to meet the needs for food, fuel, and fiber for a growing population, farmers need knowledge and skills to adapt to changes in the climate and to help mitigate climate change.
But how to design climate Extension programming for farmers, given the sensitive and complex nature of the topic?
A solid body of literature recommends using facilitated dialogue to solve complex, value-laden community problems.
The National Research Council, in its publication Public Participation in Assessment Environmental Decision Making , recommends using "deliberation with analysis" as the method that best supports decision-making around complex environmental and social issues such as climate change.
Deliberation with analysis includes the following four steps:
 In line with this framework, we designed a project using a modified deliberation with analysis process to move climate change programming forward for Michigan State University  Extension.
Our ultimate goal was to prepare Michigan field crop farmers for the changing physical climate and to protect and preserve the quality of the environment.
To do this, we targeted Extension educators who work with field crop farmers across the state.
Here we present results from this four-phase design, which we believe could be adapted for other sectors of agriculture as well as all Extension program areas.
During July 2010 through January 2011, we gathered information from key stakeholder groups associated with field crop agriculture in Michigan.
The objectives were to: 1) identify the values and issues central to field crop agriculture and climate change and 2) develop potential programming approaches that Extension educators could implement to help farmers with these issues.
In total, we conducted:
 As an incentive for the farmer and environmentalist focus groups, we offered participants travel reimbursement  or a $50 check.
We framed the groups as a listening session where MSU Extension sought to learn from stakeholders how we could best meet their educational needs.
The focus group format relied on group dynamics and intentional information flow from participants to moderators and included networking and facilitated discussion.
At the beginning of each focus group, we asked for permission to record the discussion and explained the purpose of the research.
Institutional Review Board  approval was granted for the project.
After introductions, we asked questions related to the following topics:
 Following the interviews and focus groups, we transcribed the recordings, coded the responses, organized them into themes, and then pulled out five responses to our central research question: "How should Michigan State University Extension help Michigan field crop farmers adapt to and help mitigate a changing climate?" These responses are potential climate change programming approaches that Extension educators could pursue and span a broad spectrum, as displayed in Table 1.
Each response contained a target audience, rationale, and counterclaim against taking this approach.
Counterclaims are important for helping participants weigh the tradeoffs of each approach.
All five approaches were printed as an "issue guide," which was used during the third phase of the project.
Immediately after the training, we held a deliberative discussion.
We asked the 22 participants to pull their chairs into a circle, then distributed the issue guide and explained its development.
We emphasized its use as framework for discussing the tradeoffs and benefits of each of the five approaches outlined to address the key question: How should Michigan State University Extension help Michigan field crop farmers adapt to and help mitigate a changing climate?
We made clear that a sixth approach might emerge from the discussion, one that contained elements of the other approaches or that articulated an entirely new approach.
We reviewed ground rules for discussion, and then began by discussing Approach 1.
One of us moderated the discussion, focusing on the benefits and tradeoffs of each approach, while the other served as recorder and timekeeper, writing participant comments on large flip-chart paper.
These toolssitting in a circle, reviewing ground rules of respectful discussion, and recording commentsare commonly used in community dialogue and deliberation, and are intended to keep the discussion on track and respectful in the face of high emotions.
For this group, the issue was not particularly contentious, and participants arrived at Approach 5  90 minutes into the discussion.
They noted it was important to address climate change across all programming areas of MSU Extension; that administrative backing for this approach was needed; and that the term "climate variability and change" should be used to more accurately capture the shorter-term impacts of the changing climate.
They identified the need to include climate in Extension programmatic logic models and to have a vision statement that addressed Extension's role in climate change education.
The group self-selected members to form a steering committee to implement their recommendations.
Results of Phase 1  are summarized in Table 1.
Phase 2  was evaluated using a paper survey distributed at the event to collect demographic information and to assess outcomes of the training.
Phase 3  was evaluated with an online survey sent via email to participants immediately after the event.
The online survey also asked questions about the overall training that included the deliberative discussion experience.
The majority of survey respondents to the scientific training event were Extension educators and specialists , and the remaining were farmers, researchers, postdocs, and students.
Nearly all of the audience  worked directly with farmers; the exceptions were a postdoc and a graduate student.
The evaluation survey assessed knowledge gained on 10 items that were related to the program objectives and content delivered during the training.
Table 2 shows the topics presented and the percentage of participants who indicated their knowledge increased a little, a moderate amount, and a great deal.
Due to the survey design, we know that those who reported no change in the topic knowledge knew this information prior to the trainingtherefore, lack of knowledge gain was not due to lack of understating the topic.
Survey respondents reflected on how they would apply the material they learned at the training and how they might use the information for themselves, at work, or in their communities.
Respondents indicated that they would use the information to seek more professional development and that the training increased awareness of climate issues.
Nearly 45% mentioned using the training information to plan programs, inform research projects, and write grants.
The most common response to using the information at work was sharing with colleagues and informing farmers.
Two respondents mentioned using the information to "lobby" and "guard against unwanted accusations towards farmers as being responsible and divers for climate change." For some, shifting views on climate variability began with greater personal understanding that then grew to include wider circles of influence.
All the responses to using the information in their communities related to discussing, sharing, and informing others of what they learned.
Attendees reflected on perspectives missing from the deliberative discussion event that could have added to the discussion.
A coding of this open-ended question revealed that 25% believed agribusiness representatives should have been present.
Other mentions included environmental groups, policymakers, additional farmers, Farm Bureau, Extension leadership, and students.
One participant wrote: "I believe everyone there was open minded, willing to look at the evidence, and I believe came away with a much healthier respect for the difficult issues surrounding climate change."
 Instead of asking about satisfaction with the deliberative discussion, we wanted to know the likelihood of future use of the approach.
Most  indicated they might use or were unsure about using a deliberative discussion approach in their future work.
A smaller percentage  indicated that they would definitely use the approach, and 5% indicated that they would not use deliberative discussions in their future work.
Two themes emerged from open-ended descriptions of how the deliberative discussion was useful for developing climate change programming related to agriculture.
Overall, the event was positively reviewed by all participants: 100% of attendees stated that they would  recommend the training to Extension colleagues and  attend a follow-up event on the topic.
Eighty percent of participants provided ideas for future training topics, with most  requesting further training on agronomics and climate variability.
Specifically, participants requested information on what farmers need to do to adapt crop and livestock practices and examples from farmers of field-tested, proactive, and reactive strategies.
Economic comparisons of climate variability planning, mitigation, and adaptation also were requested, including tools educators could provide to the agricultural community.
Another 25% responded that basic education for Extension professionals is needed on climate science.
Participants stated that three aspects of the training contributed to the quality of the deliberative discussion: the research presentations, a summary of the focus group results, and the discussion guide document with the five approaches.
The research presentations contributed the most to an effective discussion.
The summary of focus group findings was the second most helpful.
The discussion guide was the most varied, with 56% indicating it helped a great deal, 32% agreeing it was somewhat helpful, and 12% believing it helped a little.
Seeking stakeholder inputand eliciting early participationin a decision-making process is important for a topic as complex as climate change.
In addition, using a deliberative dialogue approach allows people to engage in fruitful communication around contentious issues.
Combining these approaches of seeking stakeholder input and deliberative dialogue helped move MSU Extension forward toward the goals of preparing Michigan field crop farmers for the changing physical climate and protecting and preserving the quality of the environment.
Overwhelmingly, the audience who attended the climate change and agriculture training showed increased knowledge gain on all topics.
This is evidence that professional Extension audiences , many whom are already well-educated and experienced, can learn a great deal from trainings focused on climate change issues.
Evaluation results suggest that future training topics should be positioned around strategies to implement the new knowledge; that more information was needed on crop and livestock management options; and that more basic information is needed to inform both educators and farmers to work toward common understanding and solutions for climate change issues.
We believe that all three aspects  are needed to prepare for an effective deliberative discussion.
Furthermore, the focus groups provided an unforeseen benefit: many participants reported enjoying the opportunity to discuss climate change in a safe and neutral environment.
This confirms research findings that 87% of farmers prefer discussion as a learning tool.
A benefit of holding a deliberative discussion immediately following scientific presentations was that questions about the science did not sideline the deliberation that focused on the pragmatic trade-offs and benefits of each approach.
A drawback of using the four-phase process to assess programming needs is the time and human resources required.
From the time the first focus group was held until the presentation and training at Fall Conference, 15 months elapsed.
An online or paper survey distributed to farmers and stakeholders at winter meetings could have resulted in more data in less time.
This method, however, would not have built the support nor delivered the richness of the data that have enabled us to move ahead with institutional and stakeholder support.
Not only did participants positively evaluate the process, but also actions after the project showed its effect.
Immediately following the March 2011 training and deliberative discussion, a steering committee was formed: the MSU Extension Climate Variability and Change Action Team, or CV-CAT.
Members now include Extension educators and specialists across all areas of MSU Extension programming.
In the fall of 2011, the CV-CAT organized a half-day session on climate change at Michigan State University's Fall Extension Conference.
The session included an overview of the principles of climate change and implications on Michigan's natural systems and the built environment.
At this event, educators expressed appreciation for the scientific findings on climate change, but shared that they were having difficulty finding ways to dialogue with their communities about the topic.
Indeed, it is well documented that simply providing more information about climate change is not enough to create effective action.
As a result, the CV-CAT hosted a climate change communication workshop in the spring of 2012.
Mixing theory, history, tools, and practice, the training focused on the social science of climate change.
It described the politicized nature of climate change , the importance of understanding the audience , values identification , and becoming an effective messenger of climate change information.
Future plans for the CV-CAT include more in-service trainings for Extension educators, development of curriculum, and creation of a website.
Given the complexity of information and educational realities in the 21st century, we believe an approach like oursone that assesses stakeholder needs through face-to-face interactions and then frames their responses into alternative approaches, the tradeoffs and benefits of which are deliberated over by Extension educators and stakeholdersholds much promise for Extension programming on climate change.
Information is not enough.
Dilling , Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dilling , Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
E., & McCright, A.
A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change.
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 26-35.
Climate impacts on agriculture: Implications for crop production.
Agronomy Journal, 103, 351-370.
Moral ground: Ethical action for a planet in peril.
San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making.
Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
America's climate choices: Adapting to the impacts of climate change.
Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
A role for dialogue in communication about cliamte change.
Dilling , Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crop and pasture response to climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 19686-19690.
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Research In Brief // v51-3rb8
 How individuals present themselves has a powerful effect on future opinions.
As the old saying goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression." For first-time visitors, the way a community presents itself is of equal importance.
The look and feel of the community experienced by a visitor will most likely influence how long they stay, if they will return, and whether or not they will speak about the community positively or negatively.
The West Virginia University  Extension Service views the Community First Impressions Program as an important tool in the community development process.
The program draws from goals and processes of both traditional needs assessments  and asset-based community economic development strategies  to construct an inventory of both a community's assets and challenges that can be used to raise local awareness and guide public action from within.
Although the spotlight is on outward appearances, the observations not only yield suggestions and project recommendations to improve aesthetic appeal and visitor experiences, but ideally stimulate discussion and the collaborative process leading to endogenous community development and an enhanced quality of life.
The First Impressions Program was developed by Andrew Lewis, University of Wisconsin, and James Schneider, Grant County, Wisconsin Extension Service, in the early 1990s.
Since then it has been adapted for use by Extension programs across the nation.
The WVU Extension Service Community, Resources and Economic Development  Team adapted the program more than 10 years ago to meet the needs of West Virginia communities.
To date more than 60 communities have participated.
The current process followed by WVU Extension Service begins with identifying community champions that make up the community leadership team.
Anonymous visitors are then identified to conduct the assessment.
These individuals are not affiliated or directly familiar with the location, enabling them to provide their unbiased impression of the community.
Visitors use a manual of established procedures and guidelines to record their first impressions of seven community factors.
Many sites are evaluated; no individual establishment or entity is considered as a First Impression of the total community.
Upon completion, manuals are returned to the faculty specialist for data entry and analysis.
A final report is provided to the community leadership team, including all observations and comments.
Photographs accompany the report to illustrate points raised by visitors.
Results are presented to the community at large, and recommendations for improvement and asset development are included.
Despite its long history and widespread use, there is little published research about the First Impressions Program's impacts.
Shannon  highlighted its role in Recruitable Community Program activities and credited the program as one component leading to the recruitment of 27 medical providers in seven communities.
However, specific recommendations and initiatives that led to provider recruitment were not addressed.
Likewise, university program descriptions often indicate participating communities are eligible for follow-up consultation, but provide little detail about how the First Impressions Program translates into long-term use of services offered by Extension or other community development organizations.
The evaluation presented here documents the impacts of the First Impressions Program in West Virginia and surrounding areas 7 to 14 years after communities' participation in the program.
The importance of evaluation in Extension programming is well documented.
However, Workman and Scheer  emphasized the need for long-term evaluation with a special focus on "higher level" outcomes that extend benefits beyond program participation and enhance community well-being long after program completion.
In line with their recommendations, and the United States Department of Agriculture  and Extension logic model process , the research reported here evaluated both short and medium-term actions from First Impression Program recommendations, and long-term, public value impacts of the program extending to the broader community development process.
Specific objectives were as follows:
 Thirty-two communities were selected based on final report availability and sufficient duration  from the program visit for impacts to occur.
Communities were located throughout West Virginia and one neighboring county in Pennsylvania.
Surveyed participants included city officials, Extension agents, and community representatives.
Multiple contact attempts were made; however, many communities experienced turnover in leadership between initial program visits and this evaluation.
Overall, 18 communities produced a representative willing and/or able to complete the survey, for a 56% response rate.
Data collected via telephone surveys included both openand closed-ended questions chosen to quantitatively and qualitatively measure outcomes.
Location of Surveyed First Impressions Program Communities, 1999-2005
 The majority of responding communities reported that the First Impressions Program led to positive changes in community and economic development conditions.
Overall, 16 survey respondents  reported beneficial impacts as a result of participation, and 12  reported that the general condition of their community had improved as a result of the program.
Even those communities that did not report general improvements attributable to the program had implemented projects or initiatives specifically recommended in the report.
The most common community improvements were to the built environment.
These included adding or improving signage and community beautification programs ; improvements to historic sites and community recreation amenities and the promotion of these sites ; infrastructure improvements such as repairing sidewalks, the addition of benches, increasing Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and updates to street systems ; and increased lodging to attract and retain visitors.
Four communities  indicated that the First Impressions Program spawned new partnerships.
Examples included cooperative efforts between the community, state, and regional entities for beautification, tourism promotion, and regional economic development, as well as broader participation within communities.
Other community initiatives included business recruitment programs in five communities , developing or expanding communities' Web presence in two places , and the establishment of a farmers market in one community.
In addition to providing an outsider's perspective, the First Impressions Program often resulted in new introspection and self-reflection by the community.
As representatives from Wellsburg and Bluefield noted, the program "made everybody stop and look at the community" and was "one of the first programs to bring many [community] issues to light." As a result of the new self-awareness created by the First Impressions Program, nine  of the communities reported impacts from other improvements emerging from the process though not specifically addressed by the First Impressions report.
Projects were divided between increasing community visibility via tourism assets and opportunities, and initiatives encouraging community pride, such as aesthetic improvements, enforcing codes regulating property upkeep, and establishing community festivals.
Although communities were overwhelmingly successful in implementing at least some program suggestions, barriers to both project initiation and completion were common.
Overall, 16  communities identified barriers that limited their ability to carry out improvements: 13 communities  reported money and resources, five communities  reported human capital and vision, and two  indicated turnover in government leadership.
In many communities these barriers were overcome by engaging in partnerships with other state/regional initiatives and development organizations.
Beyond the partnerships described previously, five  community representatives indicated participating in West Virginia University's Community Design Team, a community-centered visioning, planning, and design process that matches university and private sector practitioners based on community needs; six  participated in state and university downtown revitalization programs; and four  were involved with broad community leadership and revitalization initiatives provided by state, non-profit, and/or regional financial institutions.
Seven communities  reported actively seeking and/or receiving grants.
Five communities  received Appalachian Regional Commission/West Virginia Development Office Flex-E-Grants providing between $3,000 and $10,000 per community for leadership and community capacity building programs.
Two communities  received awards from the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, which provided $5,000 and support for the rehabilitation of abandoned industrial sites.
The ability to secure funding was a noted characteristic of those communities also reporting improvements in the general condition of their community.
The results of the First Impressions Program evaluation revealed positive outcomes from program participation.
These included shortand medium-term outcomes based on program recommendations, such as improving the built/physical environment, increasing tourism and recreation opportunities, and establishing new partnerships to make projects possible.
More important, the program's public value was demonstrated.
Many communities recognized improvements extending beyond program recommendations to the broader community development process: communities began to self-evaluate, build new networks, and seek out additional money and programing resources for sustained community development.
In addition to revealing the success of the First Impressions Program, the evaluation highlighted opportunities for program improvement and identified issues that should be addressed by WVU Extension Service CRED faculty in conjunction with the First Impressions Program or through additional and/or future community programming.
The lack of external funding, community vision and initiative, and turnover in leadership are challenges common to the larger community development process, and the First Impressions Program may play an active role in better addressing these challenges.
The First Impressions Program is often used as an entry point for the Community Design Team and Recruitable Community Program community development efforts.
Increasing partnerships with other development groups, especially funding agencies already familiar with the program, could further streamline the development process and more easily connect the communities with monetary resources and specialized skill sets necessary for asset development project implementation.
Putting these resources to use requires multiple community champions and leaders willing to mobilize the community and follow through on program recommendations and future development projects.
Where sufficient buy-in is not present, efforts focused on community capacity building is recommended before the program is undertaken.
Such efforts could:  develop community leaders outside the local government, potentially minimizing turnover in project leadership;  provide the community a better understanding of local leaders' interests and affiliations, allowing the community to effectively recruit, place, and retain leaders in the most appropriate projects; and  provide multiple points of contact for program follow-up and future evaluation.
A First Impressions Program community forum for the sharing of ideas, successes, questions, and new opportunities would provide additional program evaluation opportunities and, over time, enhance the program impacts.
The forum would provide obvious benefit to the participating communities, and would help Extension and partner organizations identify specific projects for focused community coaching and follow up.
A future study could examine the role of the First Impressions Program and other service engagement programs' effectiveness in increasing faculty's understanding of the challenges facing rural communities.
The results of the First Impressions Program evaluation indicate the program's success and highlight its usefulness in the community, resources and economic development field.
The program is relatively easy to implement, and the observations and initiatives arising from the program have led to other community-driven development projects.
Community, resources and economic development programs and other program units throughout Extension may find the program useful.
Opportunities for program expansion should be considered, including adoption by other Cooperative Extension Services and the development of focused First Impressions Programs for specific community and regional assets, such as tourism resources and community events.
The value of evaluation in Cooperative Extension.
Rennekamp , Program evaluation in a complex organizational system: Lessons from Cooperative Extension.
New Directions for Evaluation, 120, 87100.
Building communities from the inside out, Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a Sstrategy for community-driven development.
Development in Practice, 13 474-486.
A community development approach to rural recruitment.
Journal of Rural Health, 19, 347-353.
Needs assessment: A digest, review, and Ccomparison of needs assessment literature.
Performance Improvement, 37 40-53.
October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Tools of the Trade // v55-5tt9
 Extension professionals strive to achieve excellence and organization while keeping everyone in the know, yet at some point we all hear "there has been a breakdown in communication." In a world of global accessibility and digital infiltration, we struggle to communicate with diverse audiences in manners considered most effective.
As we navigate competing interests vying for our time and attention, we are stretched to balance community/client needs and professional skills amid workload shift created as new programs are launched.
This situation is exacerbated when Extension professionals struggle to maintain effective communication with program teams and supervisors.
After receiving a grant to implement a multiyear program, we soon realized that there was a communication breakdown between the Extension professional and the program implementation team.
The Extension professional, in this case, is the "communication-challenged Extension agent." So as the Extension professional and supervisor, we took steps to address communication challenges by adopting four strategies:
 We found a starting point in the research conducted by Golnaz and Hoa , who advocated for establishing a supportive environment in the workplace as a means of meeting the needs of a diverse workplace.
Moreover, they recommend two strategies for accomplishing better supervisorsubordinate communication: managing personal growth and mentoring.
Still, supervisor-prompted change can be hard for employees who work as autonomously as Extension agents unless they feel supported and not criticized.
This is affirmed by the 1997 study by Bond, Galinsky, and Swanberg, which showed a direct connection between performance in high-quality jobs and fostering of supportive workplaces.
They went on to conclude that creating a highly supportive workplace is a challenge that is worth the effort.
Questioning someone's ability to do his or her job while simultaneously acknowledging the person's value as an employee requires a delicate balance.
We adopted three practices in an attempt to foster a supportive environment:
 Our team was being affected by unknown, unrealized, and incongruent individual expectations, which led to frustration and confusion as we attempted to plan.
In his 1994 work "Communication Needs in Extension," Weigel stated, "Knowing the organizational communication needs of Extension staff can be useful in enhancing an effective and dynamic organization" ("Implications," para.
So we defined our organizational communication needs with reference to timing, roles, and individual differences:
 Improving communication involves more than establishing and operating within a supportive environment and setting expectations.
Researching and using readily available tools saves time and still serves communication needs.
We found value in using the following tools:
 Maintaining program momentum while adopting communication skills was imperative for success.
The supervisor was able to observe the communication strengths and weaknesses of the Extension agent firsthand and provide feedback on an ongoing basis by attending meetings.
As a result of our experience, we were able to identify practices that both the supervisor and the supervisee could implement to ensure forward motion of the program.
To effectively address the communication gaps we experienced between Extension agent and department chair, we adopted research-based strategies to effect change.
Implementing these strategies positively affected team satisfaction and work output.
If you find yourself in the midst of a "breakdown in communication," consider using these strategies to benefit your team.
National study of the changing workforce, No.
New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Managing your diverse workforce through improved communication.
Journal of Management Development, 2, 227237.
Darien, IL: Heritage Arts Publishing.
December 2016 // Volume 54 // Number 6 // Feature // v54-6a1
 Sound needs assessment and audience analysis activities are critical to impactful Extension programming.
Mass messaging approaches broadly directed toward the general population are likely to be less effective than tailored strategies based on individual traits and preferences.
This article addresses the application of a tool used in recreation sciences to Extension needs assessment in the context of residential landscape water conservation programming.
Importance-performance analysis  is a quantitative approach for measuring how people feel about certain characteristics of an issue or a thing.
Often, this technique is used to evaluate various attributes of recreational facilities or destinations.
A benefit of IPA is that it generates a clear picture of how important certain elements are in comparison with how satisfying they are to clients or customers.
The visual output of this method, an IPA matrix, is created by plotting individual attributes' importance values and satisfaction values on a two-dimensional graph having four quadrants.
Importance and satisfaction are each measured through the use of a Likert-type scale, and the parameters of the matrix's quadrants are based on the means of the two measures.
In a traditional interpretation of IPA, each quadrant is interpreted as having implications for prioritization and management of attributes.
Resources need to be focused on elements in the "Concentrate here"  quadrant, or clients will be lost; resources should continue to be focused on the "Keep up the good work"  quadrant to maintain client satisfaction; and resources can be allocated away from the "Lower priority"  and "Possible overkill"  quadrants.
Adapted from "Importance-Performance Analysis," by J.
James, 1977, Journal of Marketing, 10, p.
A benefit of IPA is that it allows the practitioner to identify elements that clients perceive as important but have dissatisfaction about.
Attributes falling into quadrant 1 are considered the highest priority.
For example, Hugo and Lacher  studied the attributes of community festivals by using IPA and found that the cultural aspect of the festivals  was not important to festival attendees.
However, there were satisfaction gaps related to relaxation and entertainment elements of the festivals that needed to be improved to encourage continued participation in the events.
Well-structured and relevant communications can activate recipients' minds in ways that lead to environmentally responsible actions.
For example, one study demonstrated that specific message frames elicited change in certain predictors related to intent to engage in conservation behaviors in the context of home landscape water use.
More generally, research has indicated that Extension professionals can promote engagement and action on an issue by communicating on the basis of what is relevant and important to the audience.
An individual who is unsatisfied with something that is important to him or her may be motivated to resolve the situation by taking action to improve it.
Expanding on the aforementioned findings, we applied the concept of IPA to the context of Extension communications, considering the method to be a possible way to identify the most salient dimensions of an issue for a target audience and to guide the development of meaningful corresponding messages.
Specifically, we explored the idea of using IPA to develop messages that would be salient for a target audience by assigning priority to communicating about elements clustered in the "Concentrate here" quadrant, that is, elements that represent conflicting levels of importance and satisfaction in members of the target audience.
The objective of our research was to explore the potential application of IPA to water conservation Extension programs.
Consequently, the study addressed the use of IPA in the context of residential landscape water conservation.
However, although IPA has not previously been used in this way, we propose that Extension professionals can use it broadly to assess motivating factors for target audiences for the purpose of selecting possible messaging and communication strategies.
We used IPA methodology to assess the levels of importance and satisfaction respondents felt related to the existence of clean and plentiful water for various purposes.
We collected data by using a researcher-developed electronic survey instrument with a convenience sample of residents in Alachua County, Florida.
We invited participants who were engaged in a separate irrigation-use study to participate in our study.
The instrument first screened individuals to ensure that they lived in homes with irrigated lawn or landscape and that they had responsibility for irrigation decisions.
Among 351 individuals who opted to participate, 133 were eligible to complete the survey, and 79 complete responses were received, for a completion rate of 59%.
According to the literature on IPA, individual statements should be plotted on IPA matrices.
However, best practices in survey methodology generally involve developing indexes formed by a number of individual variables.
Therefore, we developed six indexes each for clean water and plentiful water, using 38 individual statements.
Respondents were instructed to identify the levels of importance they associated with 19 items related to clean and plentiful water.
The response set for each item was a 5-point Likert-type scale, with possible response options ranging from 1  to 5.
Respondents also were instructed to identify the levels of satisfaction they associated with the same set of 19 items.
The response set for each item was a 5-point Likert-type scale, with possible response options ranging from 1  to 5.
We calculated mean index scores  by averaging the individual statements within each index.
In a prior study, we had established the face and content validity and reliability of the instrument.
To apply IPA to Extension communications, we developed a guide for interpreting the quadrants around different dimensions of an issue.
We considered items with high importance and low satisfaction to be "target motivational areas," which should be addressed when communicating with an Extension audience.
We plotted the mean importance and satisfaction values for each index on a matrix where satisfaction comprised the x-axis and importance comprised the y-axis.
We divided the matrix into four quadrants by using the grand mean score for importance  and the grand mean score for satisfaction .
New IPA Interpretation Matrix
 Adapted from "Importance-Performance Analysis," by J.
James, 1977, Journal of Marketing, 10, p.
The overall importance means ranged from 2.97 to 4.81 across the indexes, and the overall satisfaction means ranged from 2.85 to 3.40 across the indexes.
The overall grand means for importance and satisfaction were 3.82 and 3.37, respectively.
As noted previously, we used the grand means to establish the parameters of four quadrants and plotted the mean values for the indexes on the resulting matrix.
The data points that fell into the "Target motivational areas" quadrant were for the following indexes: "Importance of/satisfaction with clean water for local and large water bodies," "Importance of/satisfaction with clean water for recreation," and "Importance of/satisfaction with plentiful water in local water bodies."
 Importance-Performance Analysis for Clean and Plentiful Water
 The data point labels denote indexes: AClean water for consumption, BClean water for local and large water bodies, CClean water for recreation, DPlentiful water in local water bodies, EPlentiful water for business, FPlentiful water for people.
We present this application of IPA as a means of selecting dimensions of water-related issues that are likely to be salient with an Extension audience, and we used nonprobability data to demonstrate what could emerge from a study involving this method.
Participants were already participating in a larger irrigation-use study, and, therefore, respondents may have perceived higher levels of importance for water issues than the general public would have.
As this was a convenience sample, results should not be applied to any larger population.
However, the findings demonstrate the utility of using IPA.
In communications with this audience, an Extension professional would be advised to encourage behavior change by conveying ways in which audience members' water conservation actions relate to clean water for local and large water bodies, clean water for recreation, or plentiful water in local water bodies.
The Extension professional looking to connect with this audience could associate the adoption of landscape water conservation practices to the ocean, local springs, or water-based recreation.
In the current environment of limited resources, this approach provides a strategic way to prioritize efforts and resources in a broad variety of contexts.
Considering importance and satisfaction together provides a holistic picture for Extension educators' communication decisions.
This audience assigned low importance and low satisfaction to the concepts of plentiful water for business and plentiful water for people.
We interpreted this result to mean that communications around these areas would be less effective.
One interesting and positive finding was that no item was deemed to be associated with low importance and high satisfaction , which we interpreted to mean that this audience placed substantial value on water, concluding that no dimension of water-related issues should necessarily be de-emphasized.
Further research should involve using a random sample to describe a specific target audience, such as residents who use home landscape irrigation in a specific geographical area.
If future results from probability samples are similar to those presented in this article, all of the indexes explored in our study could, therefore, be relevant to Extension communications about water conservation.
We hypothesize that IPA could reveal differences in communication needs on the basis of people's experiences with water-quality and water-quantity issues.
Also, future research should incorporate message testing to address the effect of communications tailored to an audience's motivating issues on the basis of this application of IPA.
We hypothesize that messages tailored to the target motivational areas would resonate more strongly among target audiences than nontailored messages would.
IPA is a robust methodology that, along with traditional needs assessment activities, can be used by Extension professionals to guide communications.
Across the country, Extension is challenged to increase accountability despite reduced funding.
IPA can help Extension professionals prioritize communications and guide the use of messages that resonate well with their target audiences.
While designing programs for water conservation, Extension professionals should consider importance and satisfaction together, using IPA methodology.
Extension professionals should consider using IPA to map audience perceptions of an issue and decide which frames or messages may be more motivating for their clientele.
The application described here occurred in the context of residential landscape water conservation programming, yet the potential application is broad.
Measuring the importance and satisfaction Extension clients associate with characteristics of different issues may help Extension professionals communicate using the concepts most likely to motivate target actions.
This research was supported by the University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology.
Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual programming model.
Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Improving environmental behavior in companies: The effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored interventions.
Environment and Behavior, 32, 229248.
The nature of complex organizations: The case of Cooperative Extension.
Rennekamp , Program evaluation in a complex organizational system: Lessons from Cooperative Extension (pp.
New Directions for Evaluation, 120.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Going beyond importance-performance analysis to analyze the observance influence of park impacts.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14, 4562.
Cognitive dissonance theory: An update with a focus on the action-based model.
Gardner , Handbook of motivation science (pp.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory.
Mills , Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Applying importance-performance analysis to evaluate e-business strategies among small firms.
E-service Journal, 3, 2948.
Journal of Marketing, 10, 1322.
Tourism Management, 22, 617627.
Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement.
Environment and Behavior, 45, 6085.
Education through Cooperative Extension.
Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
Using importance-performance analysis to evaluate training.
Performance Improvement, 47, 3035.
The evaluation of information campaigns to promote voluntary household water conservation.
Evaluation Review, 24, 539578.
[Scale development: importance-performance analysis applied to dimensions of water].
The effect of strategic message selection on residents' intent to conserve water in the landscape.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 56, 5974.
August 2019 // Volume 57 // Number 4 // Tools of the Trade // v57-4tt4
 The Western Extension Directors Association  Awards of Excellence program was created in 2005, with the first awards presented at the joint summer meeting that year.
The purpose of the WEDA Awards of Excellence is to recognize Extension programming that has achieved outstanding accomplishments, results, and impacts in addressing contemporary issues in one or more of the states or Pacific Islands U.S.
Territories that comprise Extension's Western Region.
The processes used in the WEDA Awards of Excellence program can be adapted or replicated for use elsewhere within Extension.
Many Extension institutions in the Western Region provide faculty status to fieldand campus-based Extension professionals.
Promotion and tenure  is integral to employees' status and success within the university.
Awards constitute one measure that can contribute to a successful P&T dossier.
According to O'Neill , "Extension personnel are periodically evaluated against performance and productivity measures for promotion and merit-based pay" (para.
In essence, awards provide powerful proof of program success.
O'Neill  further emphasized that "the more refereed publications, professional conference presentations, grants, and awards [one has], the better" ("6.
Document Scholarship/Extension Practice" section), as these provide more evidence that a candidate for P&T has attained distinction and excellence.
Beyond their contribution to successful P&T dossiers or promotion packets, awards can contribute to collegial recognition  and personal satisfaction and professional respect.
Even awards without monetary incentives can motivate educators to acquire additional competencies.
Nonmonetary awards may include certificates, plaques, pins, or commendations.
The WRPLC, of which we are members, developed an extensive rubric to guide applicants on how scoring is conducted on the basis of needs assessments, outcomes, and long-term impacts.
In this article, we examine the criteria and scoring used in the rubric and offer recommendations on how to stimulate productivity through awards.
The WEDA Awards of Excellence scoring rubric is organized in seven sections.
Each section has a set of criteria and scoring that helps applicants communicate how their programs address critical issues important to WEDA.
Applicants must clearly define the needs as well as the issues or problems that were or are being addressed.
Needs assessments in Extension provide a basis for gauging an existing situation as compared to desired outcomes or conditions.
Issues must be directly associated with community problems, and the processes of engagement with those communities must be clearly identified and articulated.
Top scores are awarded for clearly identified audiences, customers, or stakeholders.
Applicants must clearly state the processes used to obtain audience input for development, implementation, and dissemination of information or research results from the Extension program.
This requirement emphasizes the outreach education focus of Extension.
Applicants must identify the key research and/or experiential learning foundation on which the program is based and the details of what was done.
In addition, a brief bibliography citing key references used to guide the program or project must be included.
This information directly contributes to the scholarly outcomes requirement of the award program.
Most successful Extension programs are multidisciplinary and/or collaborative in nature.
Proposals should clearly present key multidisciplinary components, collaborations, and the nature of partnerships developed, including the role of each discipline within the program.
Successful applicants showcase why or how each of the collaborations and multidisciplinary approaches helped strengthen the outcomes of the program.
Applicants must be able to describe innovative approaches used to effectively address the issues identified.
They must clearly explain and provide evidence on why the approach, method, or program is viewed as innovative.
Documented impacts in Extension form the foundation of what sets Extension apart in terms of accountability to stakeholders and funders.
Impacts are critical for advancing an award recommendation.
Applicants must identify the evaluation methods used and clearly present the significant impacts, outcomes, and results achieved by the program in addressing the identified issues.
Programs that do not result in scholarly outputs usually do not have sustained impacts.
Programs with strong scholarly outcomes are impactful and visible beyond local boundaries.
Scholarly products may include, but are not limited to, journal articles, magazine articles, education manuals, fact sheets, new curricula, new websites, news articles, digital technology , and other methods of disseminating outputs and outcomes.
Significant effort is devoted to the award process, including application development, review, and recognition.
So it is important to answer this question: Do awards make a difference?
We asked WEDA Awards of Excellence recipients from 2014 to 2017 whether the awards enhanced program success at the individual or team level.
Results are shown in Figure 1.
Prominent observations  suggested that the awards contributed to
 Importance of Influences of Western Extension Directors Association Award on Personal and Team Success
 Extension must heed the call to transform from individual expertise and knowledge transfer to a more collaborative approach in which educators work together, and with communities, to generate new knowledge, collectively known as engagement.
With regard to future evolution of Extension award programs, we recommend the following approaches:
 We recognize and acknowledge contributions of the following WEDA award recipients to informing our overall understanding of how awards help shape Extension programs throughout the West:
 2017, Jeanne Gleason, New Mexico State University
 2017, Clive Kaiser, Oregon State University
 2017, Silvia Rondon, Oregon State University
 2016, Adrian Card, Colorado State University
 2016, Edmund Gomez, New Mexico State University
 2015, Maggi Kelley, University of California, Berkeley
 2015, Terry Messmer, Utah State University
 2014, Kelly Kopp, Utah State University
 2014, Irene Shonle, Colorado State University
December 2002 // Volume 40 // Number 6 // Feature Articles // 6FEA7
 Abstract Knowledge does not always result in the adoption of recommended behaviors that can prevent or detect illness.
This article synthesizes the research of psychologists, health advocates, and other social scientists to identify the factors other than knowledge that influence decisions regarding healthful behaviors.
The article also presents guidelines to help Extension personnel optimize messages and programs designed to encourage preventive health behaviors based on findings concerning  perceptions of risks;  perceptions of self;  environmental conditions, both physical and social; and  perceptions of costs and benefits of recommended behavior.
Why are recommended health-promoting behaviors so often rejected?
A common response to this question is "lack of education." Conventional wisdom holds that knowledge levels should correlate with adaptive preventive health behaviors.
Thus, health advocates spend much time and effort optimizing message design, presentation, and distribution to share knowledge effectively with publics.
However, many cases exist in which knowledge does not result in the adoption of healthful behaviors.
Reconciling the paradox presented when knowledge does not translate into logical behavioral outcomes can be difficult--and frustrating.
Fortunately, psychologists, health advocates, and behavioral scientists have conducted research that identities factors other than knowledge that are likely to influence preventive health behavior adoption.
This article synthesizes that literature, examines the factors influencing adoption of healthful behaviors, and develops guidelines to help Extension personnel optimize messages and programs designed to encourage healthful activities.
Four factors emerged from the current review of literature addressing why people adopt or reject recommended preventive health behaviors.
To say that these four factors exhaustively cover all factors contributing to preventive health compliance would be an oversimplification.
However, the four factors provide strong foundations for developing guidelines that enrich the design of preventive health campaigns and for increasing the likelihood that individuals adopt healthful behaviors.
It is also important to acknowledge overtly that this synthesis specifically examines factors associated with preventive health behaviors, meaning activities undertaken by people who believe themselves to be healthy for the purpose of preventing or detecting illness in an asymptomatic stage.
Preventive health behaviors are distinct from sickrole behaviors, which are actions taken after symptoms are diagnosed.
Furthermore, this work assumes that message consumers are active, interpreting, choosing individuals rather than passive absorbers of messages.
Rejection of recommended behaviors is conceptualized as an expression of the individual's own health beliefs and values.
Perceptions of risks are a well-established factor associated with preventive health behaviors.
Several health communication models explicitly consider perceptions of risk to be a determinate of preventive health behaviors.
Generally speaking, when risk perceptions are low, people are unmotivated to change preexisting behavioral patterns.
However, the relationship between perceptions of risks and adaptive responses is not linear.
Excessive risk perceptions may lead to fatalistic or avoidance behaviors.
Strong fears about cancer, for example, may lead one to delay consulting a physician and, therefore, miss opportunities for early detection.
Hundreds of studies have examined perceptions of risk, and many of those studies support the Extended Parallel Process Model that gained prominence in the early 1990s.
The Extended Parallel Process Model provides a strong rationale to explain why intensity of risk perceptions is not a good predictor of adoption of recommendations and teaches us that risk perceptions must be considered in relation to self-efficacy and response efficacy.
The Extended Parallel Process Model  predicts that high levels of perceived risk, especially in combination with low perceptions of self  and/or low evaluations of the recommended response , often lead to rejection of recommendations and may result in negative, maladaptive responses.
For example, people who have extreme anxiety about heart disease but doubt their ability to alter eating habits  may justify eating high-fats foods by rationalizing that they may die tomorrow in a car accident.
In another scenario, people who have extreme anxiety about heart disease but believe heredity, not diet, determines risks  may continue eating a high-fat diet, rationalizing that poor health is predetermined genetically.
Therefore, messages should be designed to stimulate appropriate levels of concerns while also considering the receivers' beliefs about themselves and the recommended action.
The use of comparisons, statistical data, and testimonies are techniques that may be applied to either stimulate feelings of concern where too little exist or to allay risk perceptions when they are excessive.
In sum, risk perceptions or feelings of concern are needed to motivate change, but excessive depictions of risk in health messages can lead to avoidance, denial, and other maladaptive responses.
The Extended Parallel Process Model 
 A variety of personal characteristics have been identified as factors influencing health behavior.
Perhaps most prominent is the concept of self-efficacy.
Bandura , who coined the term, defined the concept this way:
 An efficacy expectation is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes.
Outcome and efficacy expectations are differentiated, because individuals can believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the necessary activities such information does not influence their behavior.
Like Witte, in the Extended Parallel Process Model, Bandura clearly draws distinctions between perceptions of self and perceptions regarding the recommendation.
If a smoker doubts his ability to kick the habit successfully, for example, he likely will not attempt to quit smoking, even if he believes that quitting smoking would increases personal health status.
Self-efficacy beliefs, Bandura says, affect the extent to which individuals exercise control over the vitality and quality of their health (1997a, p.
In general, higher evaluation of one's own efficacy to perform some action correlates with the likelihood of action.
Recent works have examined self-efficacy's association with weight loss , immunizations , protective sexual behavior , nutrition , and exercise.
Findings from studies support Bandura's claim that when self-efficacy is low, people rarely attempt behavior change.
Therefore, messages should bolster people's belief that they can successfully adopt the recommended behavior.
Techniques for bolstering self-efficacy include telling the readers that they are capable or demonstrating that recommended behaviors are easily accomplished.
A third factor affecting the likelihood of preventive health behavior adoption is the environment--both physical and social--in which an individual operates.
Clearly, the physical environment affects the likelihood of adopting health behaviors.
Availability of health services, costs, and transportation needs, for example, have long been recognized as barriers to adoption of healthful behaviors.
Such considerations are particularly pivotal in rural locations or low-income areas.
Like physical environmental conditions, one's social environment also affects behavioral decisions.
Backer, Rogers, and Sopory  argue that after health messages are distributed via media, interpersonal channels of communication become a crucial link in achieving compliance.
The extent and quality of social contacts may not only affect health behaviors by the transmission of health values but also affect how individuals form opinions about the social desirability of recommended behaviors.
In the case of food safety, social norms strongly influence behaviors, including which foods are consumed and how they are prepared.
For example, the American traditions of preparing whole turkeys at Thanksgiving and eggnog containing raw eggs at Christmas represent social behaviors that affect likelihood of foodborne illness.
Ratzan, Payne, and Massett  state that "[f]amily, friends, and peer groups provide the context to massage the importance of health care messages" (p.
For example, a health message promoting sunscreen usage may be rejected if one's social contacts value tanned skin and downplay the importance of skin cancer prevention behaviors.
Both physical and social environments play a critical role in personal health decisions and are a factor contributing to preventive health behavior compliance.
Therefore, messages should acknowledge social and physical environmental restraints and provide suggestions and motivations for overcoming such obstacles.
Perceptions of Costs and Benefits
 A final factor affecting the likelihood of adopting healthful behaviors is that of perceived costs and benefits.
This factor refers to how an individual assesses the advantages versus the disadvantages of a particular recommended course of action.
Such emphasis is the crux of a variety of value expectancy models applied to many different human behaviors.
In short, if one expects the benefits to exceed costs, then one is more likely to adopt recommended behaviors.
Such a model of understanding human behavior is intricately tied to the notion of response efficacy, meaning that one believes the recommended response will prevent or mitigate negative outcomes.
If one doubts the efficacy of the recommended behavior, the benefits hardly seem worth the effort.
The perceived cost of adopting a high fiber diet, for example, may be loss of pleasure.
If people doubt high fiber diets are physically beneficial , they may calculate the costs as exceeding benefits and continue pre-existing eating behaviors.
Therefore, health promotion messages should heighten perceived benefits of the recommendations while also discounting the costs of adoption.
In the high fiber diet example, the message should emphasize the benefits of a high fiber diet and overcome the faulty perception that all high fiber foods are dry and tasteless.
In sum, messages should present the recommended behavior as a clear, reasonable, and effective route to health while also anticipating and counteracting the audience's costs of adoption.
Beyond developing messages that communicate knowledge, writers need to address perceptions of risks, perceptions of self, one's physical and social environments, and the costs and benefits of recommendations.
The identification of the factors likely to influence preventive health outcomes allows for the development of five specific guidelines regarding message design.
The degree to which messages should attend to specific factors will depend on the situation at hand and the audience being targeted.
The best way to optimize message design is to research the target audience's specific obstacles to adoption of recommended behaviors and then to design messages and programs which attempt to overcome those obstacles.
The following text is from a flyer from the Partnership for Food Safety Education's FightBac campaign, which is designed to reduce incidence of foodborne illness through encouraging individuals to adopt safe food-handling practices in the home.
But you don't have to be one of the unlucky ones.
Most cases of foodborne illness can be prevented through some simple food handling and storage steps.
All it takes is a little know-how and such everyday weapons as soap water, a refrigerator and a food thermometer to check the temperature.
Common symptoms of foodborne illness include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, fever, headache and vomiting.
However, the consequences can be severe and may require hospitalization and even lead to death.
Bacteria are invisible enemies.
But you have four powerful weapons to Fight Bac!TM So, be a BAC Fighter and make the meals and snacks you serve the safest possible.
In these few sentences, the writer has addressed many factors that influence the likelihood that the audience will adopt recommended food-handling behaviors.
By describing symptoms, the writer has addressed perceptions of risks.
The audience members' self-efficacy is bolstered through statements that encourage them to not think of themselves as unlucky but to think of themselves as fighting back with "weapons." The audience is told that recommended actions are easy and effective, which may positively affect the evaluation of the costs-benefits ratio by increasing perceived response efficacy.
The writer, of course, provided content elsewhere in the flyer that communicated knowledge and provided specific behavior recommendations.
Beyond those knowledge-based components, however, the writer addressed other factors that increase the likelihood that readers will adopt the recommended behaviors.
This writing sample demonstrates how careful attention to the psychological considerations of the audience and the factors that affect the likelihood of preventive health behavior adoptions can translate into good message design.
Psychologists, health advocates, and other social scientists have identified several factors other than knowledge that predict the likelihood that individuals will adopt healthful behaviors.
While knowledge and education are important parts of effective message and program design, other factors that affect health decisions should also be considered.
People's perceptions of risks, perceptions of their ability to adopt recommended behaviors, physical and social environmental factors, and the perceived costs and benefits are four factors that inform personal health decisions.
Incorporating the message design guidelines presented here can help Extension more effectively promote behavior changes that result in enhanced health status.
Review of self-efficacy and locus of control for nutrition and health-related behavior.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97, 1122-1133.
Designing health communication campaigns: What works.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Reliability and validity of a self-efficacy instrument for protective sexual behaviors.
Journal of American College Health, 11, 113.
Weight control self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women.
Addictive Behaviors, 21, 103-117.
The Health Belief Model: Origins and correlates in psychological theory.
Health Education Monographs, 2, 336-353.
Social science and illness prevention: An overview of the Health Belief Model.
Journal of Social and Economic Studies, 3, 345-357.
Effective health message design: The America responds to AIDS campaign.
American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 294-309.
The influence of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy on the behavioral intentions of novice exercisers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 618-625.
The effective use of fear appeals in persuasive immunization: An analysis of national immunization intervention messages.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 264-293.
Putting fear back into fear appeals: The Extended Parallel Processing Model.
Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Tools of the Trade // v51-3tt4
 Audience response devices  are used to provide information to the instructor and classroom.
A question is asked by the instructor, and the audience provides an answer using a device that is received, compiled with other responses, and presented in real-time in a histogram format.
In nearly all cases, these devices are used in a formal classroom setting at an educational institution for the purposes of attendance, testing, and review.
Much research has been directed toward the effects that ARDs have in these classrooms.
Some of the benefits identified in a review article of ARDs include enhanced attention, participation, and engagement; quality of learning; and feedback.
These benefits would also enhance Extension meetings where adults were the target audience.
There is very little published, however, in relation to the implementation of these devices in this type of setting.
Salmon and Stahl  may be the only group to do so, and even though they did not see significant improvements in short-term retention when ARDs were used in an Extension meeting, they did note that there was a trend of greater test scores with ARDs.
They also noted that there was an overwhelming belief that they were useful in a seminar setting.
This perception was mirrored by those who used ARDs in an educational institution, where 36 out of 38 articles examining attitudes toward ARDs observed positive opinions.
One of the key benefits noted by Kay and LeSage  was the use of ARDs to provide real-time feedback so that teachers could change their focus on the fly toward areas where additional explanation was needed.
This could be applied to Extension meetings, where demographic information could be retrieved from the audience to identify certain topics to provide more or less specific information (e.g., large vs.
small farmers, large vs.
small households, etc.) and has been suggested by Bird and McClellan.
Another area where ARDs may be advantageous in Extension meetings is for the evaluation component.
By incorporating the assessment into the seminar, greater feedback may occur.
In waiting until the training is over to fill out a paper-based survey, many participants may elect to leave instead.
There could also be more perceived anonymity provided by the use of ARDs than by direct collection of a completed survey by the instructor.
As there is little information on the use of ARDs in Extension, the ARDs were implemented in an Extension meeting to identify the feasibility and potential advantages and disadvantages of using these devices.
Information on using switchgrass for forage and biofuel production was presented to an audience as part of an Extension conference for stakeholders in 2012.
The ARDs used were the ResponseCard RF LCD from Turning Technologies.
They were passed out to audience members and were used to answer questions at the beginning and end of the presentation.
At the beginning of the presentation, specific demographic and subject matter interest questions were asked, and at the conclusion of the presentation specific evaluative questions were posed.
Questions Posed Before and After Presentation Using ARDs
 There were 11-13 responses for each question posed.
Based on the responses, the majority of the audience was over 50 years of age and had operations on <50 acres.
Most of the participants were interested in switchgrass for bioenergy and forage.
There may have been slightly greater interest with respect to forage because the response for "very interested" was 55% as opposed to the same response to bioenergy, with 38%.
The majority of the participants believed that their knowledge of and interest in using switchgrass for biofuel production increased.
Last, 100% of participants  liked using clickers in Extension meetings.
Though not used in this circumstance, the demographic information retrieved from the audience in real time would allow an Extension professional to change focus slightly to information that would be most appropriate to older farmers with small farms.
If there had been little interest in one of the two subjects , one could have expanded more on the one that was of greatest interest to the audience.
and Abrahamson  noted that this kind of contingent teaching may be difficult.
Therefore, the Extension professional would need to anticipate in advance how a seminar may need to be amended based on potential feedback and adjust accordingly in preparation for the seminar.
Overall impressions of using the ARDs were positive.
The technology worked well with Microsoft Powerpoint, and reports could be saved and uploaded to Microsoft Excel with ease.
Though not used in this meeting, responses to multiple questions can be tied to individual devices for greater analysis of results.
Salmon and Stahl  identified one of the disadvantages as cost because purchasing their system would cost $16,530.
For the system used here , the cost was $1,826, which seemed reasonable.
Based on use in this and other settings, it is advised to use ARDs with audiences that will contain at least 10 or more participants because the time involved in preparation may outweigh the benefits of using them with such a small group.
Parmer, Parmer, and Struempler  observed positive results when using ARDs with large numbers of children  in an Extension setting for testing purposes.
The ARDs traditionally used in the classrooms of educational institutions for formal instruction were used in an Extension meeting to identify its feasibility in these settings.
Questions posed initially could be used to identify the makeup of the audience and focus on the most pertinent information in real time.
Questions posed after the meeting could be used to assess the meeting and may provide more feedback.
Overall, use of the ARDs was well-received by the participating audience, and ARDs seem to be a low-cost tool that has the potential to be very effective for Extension practices.
A brief history of networked classrooms: Effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications.
Banks , Audience response systems in higher education (pp.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Wireless interactive teaching by using keypad-based ARS.
Banks , Audience response systems in higher education (pp.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
H., & LeSage, A.
Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature.
Computers & Education 53:819-827.
February 2016 // Volume 54 // Number 1 // Research In Brief // v54-1rb5
 This article discusses a study that explored livestock feed growers' choices of fields for manure application.
The study involved a mail survey of farmers supporting livestock production along the South Platte River in three northern Colorado counties.
Understanding the farmers' decision process was deemed important because of manure's contribution to excess levels of nutrients in the rivers and water tables of industrial-scale livestock production areas.
In parts of these rural study areas, approximately 70% of the household wells were found to contain water with nitrate levels above 10 mg/L, the level designated as acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency .
Heavy manure application densities could be reduced by applying manure to more fields, thereby covering larger areas at lower densities.
Although about half of the respondents housed livestock, only 3% of this group's operations were large enough to be required to file nutrient management plans.
Most operations were unregulated and free not to use best management practices if they chose not to.
Farmers are de facto stewards of the land and water.
Therefore, it behooves us, as a society, to be aware of factors that affect farmers' resource management choices and the long-term ecological implications of those choices.
In addition to having an impact on water quality, manure application decisions are relevant to air quality and mountain ecosystem protection.
Natural resource managers and researchers have become aware of pollution and biodiversity loss resulting from airborne nutrients released through manure redistribution.
Farmers make decisions under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty.
McCown  suggests that interested parties are more likely to successfully influence farmers' decision making not by telling farmers what they should do but by understanding what factors affect their decision making regarding specific resources and considering the variables particular to those decision situations.
As a small step toward that end, I explored some factors related to farmers' choices of field on which to apply manure.
This article discusses factors that make one field more appropriate, in the farmer's mind, for manure application than another field.
This discussion is based on a section of the mail-survey questionnaire that addressed differences in field characteristics between a "typical manured field" and a "typical nonmanured field," for farmers who used manure on some fields.
The research questions were based on the expectation that the choice of whether to apply manure on a specific field would relate to certain factors for the reasons described below.
The mail survey was conducted in two areas along the South Platte River in Colorado where there is a prevalence of large feedlots, supported by numerous farming operations.
The first survey round was conducted in Weld County, and the second was conducted in Logan and Morgan Counties.
We asked farmers to consider a typical manured field and a typical nonmanured field from their previous growing season and to answer a set of questions relating to the above-mentioned factors for each of the two fields.
This methodology provided appropriate data for matched-pair comparisons of the field characteristics that might distinguish manured fields and nonmanured fields in our sample areas.
Having pairs of fields matched by the operator-respondent means that each pair comparison controls for all other operation-related characteristics; only the field-specific data for the manured field and the nonmanured field are different in each case.
A dozen follow-up phone interviews were conducted with a few farmers, manure hauler-spreaders, and crop consultants to gain insights into some of the mail-survey results.
In the first survey round, we addressed the questionnaires to approximately 1,100 farmers in the feedlot area of Weld County, using a list obtained from the Farm Service Agency.
We sent a follow-up postcard 3 weeks later and a second copy of the questionnaire 3 weeks after that.
On the basis of questionnaires returned with notes from some farmers or their families, we determined that approximately 200 of these farmers were no longer active.
Given the return of 273 valid questionnaires, the return rate was approximately 30%.
Two years later, we sent approximately 600 questionnaires to the farmers of a similar livestock area farther east along the South Platte River.
This area included two counties , and those lists were provided by the Colorado State Cooperative Extension Service and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service.
These mailings yielded a similar return rate of around 32%.
Because of the differences in time and locale of the two survey rounds, a location variable identifying each case as part of the eastern or western sample was designated.
Farms in the eastern, more rural, sample were roughly twice as large in field size and total acreage.
Later, the phone interviews were conducted with informants in various roles within the livestock industry to gather personal opinions to explain some of the survey results.
This section presents the statistical results found by modeling the data using conditional logistic regression.
The likelihood of a farmer's applying manure to a particular field appears to be correlated  to the distance of the field from a manure source and to the expected corn-yield potential of the field.
The relationship between likelihood of manure application and field size is more complicated.
Distance from a manure source is inversely related to likelihood of manure application largely because transportation is a major cost factor: Longer distances result in higher transport costs.
More than one interviewee stated that a standard practice is to haul manure from a feedlot to a field about the same distance as that from which the farmer had previously hauled corn or silage to the feedlot.
This practice apparently represents a "nutrient replenishment," or "nutrient recycling," approach.
The fact that farmers actually follow this practice is corroborated by the relationship of the variable "Expected Yield" and the odds of a field being manured.
Expected corn yield is positively associated with using manure.
This may be because applying manure to a high-yield field does not likely harm the yield, and might even boost it.
A lower yield expectation might lead a farmer to stick with the more conventional  approach of using strictly commercial fertilizers.
This finding is consistent with a study indicating that farmers are less interested in monitoring the amount of nitrogen applied to a crop where they rely on manure to supply much of the nitrogen.
Several interviewees mentioned that a field is often used to produce corn for several seasons in a row.
So the reported yield may have been boosted additionally by fertilizer and manure applied over a period of several years.
Reduction of commercial nitrogen fertilizer applied provides a distinct cost savings.
Substituting manure as fertilizer for its cost reduction creates reliable savings.
Whether a farmer chose to lower operation cost for a field by applying manure or chose to apply manure to the field and was thereby able to reduce commercial nitrogen applied is not clear, as this analysis only indicates correlation.
The relationship is consistent with either decision type.
Field size has a complicated relationship to likelihood of manure application.
Because manure is available in finite amounts and farmers often prefer to handle an entire field uniformly, we might expect smaller fields to get manured.
However, one farmer explained, larger fields are more suited for efficient manure spreading because less vehicle turning is required.
Commercial fertilizer is lighter and easier to apply and can be applied in virtually any amount; matching supply to fields is not an issue.
Size of a field, thus, has countervailing implications, which may imply interactions with other factors.
In Model 3 , the interaction of field-size with sample location is included.
The eastern sample had notably larger fields, and its typical manured fields were larger than the nonmanured ones.
For future research, field size could be considered in conjunction with amount of manure available.
Location was a significant factor.
The effect of yield was somewhat different between the two areas studied.
This may involve physical and cultural differences between these areas.
One area receives about 40% more annual precipitation, and in one area, there is a higher diversity of crops.
While this relationship was not as statistically significant, it was nevertheless substantive and would be worth exploring through further research comparing the manure management criteria of farmers in different counties or regions.
In Model 3, I have included location in interaction with field size.
Field ownership data showed that rented fields were more likely to be manured than owned fields, possibly as a less costly way to maximize yield than using commercial fertilizer.
A typical farmer may see the extra cost of renting the field as a reason to keep other costs down for that field.
Because this relationship was not statistically significant, it was not included in the models.
Other factors were not statistically significant but did show a tendency toward influencing manure-application decisions, and some of these were mentioned by interviewees.
Soil testing, where it is used, can indicate the need for organic matter and other nutrients.
One hauler-spreader said he recommends basing manure-application choice not on a need for nitrogen but rather on the idea of supplementing soil organic matter.
For nitrogen, he recommends spreading commercial nitrogen.
A dairy operator expressed his disagreement with water-quality regulations that limit manure application on sandy soils; he said that these soils are exactly the ones needing augmentation through the addition of manure's organic matter and nutrients.
Soil fertility, he said, is the key to healthy plants that can effectively use excess nutrients.
In this study of northern Colorado farmers, the most significant criteria in a farmer's choice of fields for manure application are characteristics that reduce the overall cost of fertilizing through substitution of manure while still obtaining a high expected yield.
Although manure-management best management practices typically emphasize strategies such as containment of manure away from open water flows, use of grass filter strips, and agronomic application rates, farmers' decisions are also influenced by field-specific factors.
Like many farming decisions, the choice of fields on which to apply manure appears, not surprisingly, to be driven largely by the bottom line.
Any attempt to influence manure management practices, whether to protect water quality or air quality, are more likely to be effective if they reduce costs and/or provide increased likelihood of financial success for the operation.
Understanding and discussing pragmatic issues such as those described above may help Extension agents encourage practices that protect water quality and air quality while making farmers' work lives easier and improving yields.
For example, an agent might discuss the value of substituting manure for commercial fertilizer in relation to the expected yield for the field.
Or an agent could help a farmer identify the benefits of applying manure on a field that might otherwise have been perceived as too small or too large to be appropriate.
Avoiding manure application on windy days might be seen as beneficial in that more nitrogen might actually be incorporated into the soil and become available to crops.
In some cases, special incentives, or at least some additional benefit to the farmer, might be required to achieve cooperation.
Ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado front range.
Atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Simulation of nitrates in a regional subsurface system: Linking surface management with groundwater quality.
Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Pressures and preferences affecting willingness to apply beef manure on crops in the Colorado High Plains.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29, 461480.
New thinking about farmer decision makers.
Hatfield , The farmer's decision: Balancing economic successful agriculture production with environmental quality.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Differences in Englemann spruce forest biogeo-chemistry east and west of the continental divide in Colorado, USA.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education .
Reducing environmental contamination from feedlot manure in the South Platte River basin through agronomic, economic, and social analysis and education (Project No.
October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Feature // v55-5a3
 Few occupational groups in the United States face greater risk to their health than farmers and farm workers as farming ranks among the most dangerous occupations in the United States.
Farming families who are uninsured or underinsured can accrue crushing medical debt, which can increase financial risk, lead to farm foreclosure, and reduce overall quality of life.
Farmers, especially those farming full time, have had historically high rates of being uninsured and underinsured.
Although health insurance policy changes over time, the need for the farming population to understand health, health care, and health insurance is constant.
Scholars have argued that Extension is well poised to respond to health insurance needs ; however, there has been no research examining how Extension is approaching health insurance outreach and education for the farm population or what support tools and resources Extension needs for doing so.
To fill this research gap, we used an exploratory research format to understand the role Extension can play in the dissemination of health insurance information to farmers.
Specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions:
 We provide a brief overview of current Extension health insurance education programming, followed by the results from our series of national focus group discussions with Extension professionals.
We conclude with recommendations and strategies for health insurance programming targeting farmers.
Farmers must navigate the health insurance landscape from two perspectives: as individuals/family members and as employers.
As a result, health insurance policy can affect farmers through both individual and employer requirements.
Federal and state health insurance policies require individuals, families, and employers to make decisions within a complex, market-based environment in which consumers are expected to be "informed shoppers".
Recognizing both the complexity of health insurance and the role Extension can play in health insurance education, University of Maryland Extension developed a general-audience health insurance literacy curriculum called Smart Choice Health Insurance.
Riportella and O'Neill  produced a complement to Smart Choice called You and Health Insurance: Making a Smart Choice for Farm Families.
called for Extension to further tailor health insurance outreach efforts to target farmers and farm workers.
As trusted members of and advisors in the community, Extension educators have both credibility as information providers and access to hard-to-reach populations through well-established outreach channels.
However, there is currently little understanding of Extension professionals" approaches to health insurance programming for farmers.
A clearer understanding of the issues and problems Extension professionals encounter can lead to the development of tools and resources that will increase the efficacy of outreach efforts and help promote social and economic development of the agricultural sector.
We collected qualitative and quantitative data through a series of national online focus group sessions run through Adobe Connect in March 2015 and October 2015.
Krueger and Casey  define focus group research as a planned series of discussions allowing researchers to identify issues, emotions, contradictions, tensions, and other nuances that can be missed through other research methods.
The small size of focus groups and interaction of participants allow researchers to explore the breadth of experience and knowledge about a particular issue.
Although our results are not generalizable, they are transferable to Extension professionals who work in the spheres of agriculture and health.
An online focus group methodology allows for polling and immediate discussion of tabulated frequencies.
In our study, focus group members answered 16 closed-ended poll questions and seven in-depth discussion questions, responding to questions orally through a phone connection.
Participants reported on existing Extension programming, problematic issues they had observed, health insurance literacy, opportunities to bolster Extension programming, and desired future resources.
We transcribed recordings from the discussions verbatim and analyzed the transcriptions qualitatively for patterns and themes in HyperRESEARCH using a grounded theory approach.
We analyzed quantitative data from the poll questions by using Excel.
Herein, we report the findings most salient to our research questions.
We recruited participants through the four U.S.
Department of Agriculture Rural Regional Development Centers and Cooperative Extension electronic mailing lists.
We used snowball sampling techniques to increase the size and scope of our focus groups.
Snowball sampling is a nonprobability sampling technique in which participants refer others they think would be interested in and appropriate for the study.
Participants included 15 Extension professionals.
The majority  represented the agriculture and natural resources  program area, and a third  represented the family and consumer science  program area.
The sample was fairly evenly gender-balanced, comprising 60% women.
Participants identified that they were either actively working on health insurancerelated and health carerelated issues or were participating to learn more about health insurance policy and how to integrate this topic into their programming.
Overall, Extension professionals recognized the importance of appropriate health insurance plans to farmers' livelihoods.
All participants responded that it was important or very important for a farmer to have a plan that fit the needs of his or her family and farm.
However, participants also acknowledged that farmers are not equipped with the tools to select appropriate plans because, in their opinion, farmers lack health insurance literacy.
Health insurance literacy is an individual's capacity to find, select, and use appropriate health insurance plans.
By contrast, participants reported high personal health insurance literacy levels.
Extension participants anticipated that low levels of health insurance literacy among farmers would lead this population to seek resources from Extension.
Over half  of the participants expected that farmers were turning to Extension with health insurance questions.
Despite perceiving that farmers needed and wanted to talk about health insurance, participants reported having low levels of engagement with farmers on the issue.
More than half  reported that they infrequently talked with farmers about health insurance plans; only 7% frequently discussed the topic.
Furthermore, nearly three quarters  of participants reported feeling either neutral or ineffective at helping farmers choose health insurance plans.
Thus, there is a gap between the belief that farmers need assistance from Extension and the degrees to which Extension professionals engage in relevant conversations, feel effective in assisting farmers, and take the initiative to raise health insurance literacy levels.
On the basis of the focus group discussions, we identified three main issues that led to the perception of ineffectiveness among the participants:  difficulty understanding federal and state health insurance policy as it applies to farmers,  different experiences, and  lack of reliable resources.
Health insurance options and requirements vary on the basis of state and farm structure.
Trying to decipher broad requirements is confusing due to the complexity of health insurance laws, regulations, and terminology.
One participant summed up his confusion related to understanding farmers' responsibilities as employers by stating that he needed "just kind of a fine-tuning on the employer piece.
when are you considered an employer versus a contractor?
Where is that line?
When are you responsible [for health insurance]?" This participant had considerable confusion about when farmers were required to provide health insurance options to employees and interns due to differences in federal and state employer requirements.
Differences in federal and state policy implementation and perceptions of public opinion can create confusion about how best to help farmers.
Whereas some participants felt encouraged and supported to work on health insurance education, others did not.
One ANR participant noted that political contentiousness around health policy changes can create challenges for Extension professionals and affect their ability to provide factual, objective information.
According to the participant, "The first year that we were doing health insurance education.
the restrictions on what could be said and couldn't be said were very defined.
And pretty much we were told not to leave the scripts.
And so it gets in the way of writing articles for the popular press and just doing some sort of frontline information spreading about what's possible and where the risks are."
 These experiences of uncertainty and ineffectiveness reflect the varied state policy environments within which Extension conducts programming.
Often, study participants reported viewing state-specific differences as barriers to comprehending and disseminating accurate information about health insurance options and requirements.
Participants noted that Extension's ability to act as a resource is further constrained by the fundamental disconnection between the experiences of Extension agents and their constituents.
Extension professionals emphasized that as public employees with state health benefits, they do not have to make as many health insurance choices as their constituents.
One noted, "Personally, all I do is check box X on line Y and say I have full-year health insurance, and I'm done.
But the people in this country who probably have the least health literacy are the ones that are dealing with the 8962 forms and the 1095a forms, and so I think as Extension educators, we've got to get into that process, even though we don't use it personally."
 Indeed, farmers have many more decisions to make regarding health insurance than Extension professionals do.
Yet our findings suggest that Extension workers rely on their personal health insurance decision-making processes to educate farmers rather than tailor messages specifically to the unique experiences and needs of farmers.
When discrepancies in health insurance needs become apparent, Extension workers may find that their perceived high personal health insurance literacy is not sufficient to help their agricultural audiences.
Participants reported addressing their own lack of knowledge by turning to others for information or making referrals to outside experts.
Because of the lack of agriculturally specific health insurance knowledge within Extension, 67% of participants reported that they turned to others in Extension when they had questions about health insurance.
Participants also said that they often referred health insurance questions to the "experts." The majority of participants  indicated that they refer constituents to service providers explicitly set up to assist with health insurance issues.
One noted, "It is an important decision, and I don't want to steer them wrong.
I keep it very basic and repeat about 10 times, 'You need to talk to an expert.
You need to get advice from somebody who really knows this.'"
 However, despite the propensity of referrals to experts, only 23% of participants thought farmers were actually seeking information from health insurance service providers.
They acknowledged that even the established experts can be inadequate resources, suggesting that "[farmers'] attorneys, CPAs and.
insurance people don't even understand the full complexities of the laws and policies from the [farmers'] perspective." Although health insurance service providers are trained on health insurance issues, participants reported that they feared referring farmers to health insurance service providers who may have little understanding of the unique needs of farmers.
Currently, FCS educators lead the majority of Extension programming related to health and health insurance, with little crossover to ANR or community development  programming.
ANR Extension professionals are well-informed about the details of agricultural livelihoods and could potentially be a great resource when it comes to health insurance information.
Participants identified two ways in which Extension could improve its ability to assist farmers:  Span the boundaries between the agriculture and health insurance sectors, and  increase professional development and knowledge of applicable resources for Extension professionals.
Extension can engage in boundary-spanning activities to bridge the low-to-no communication gap between the agriculture and health insurance sectors.
Participants noted a lack of frequent or effective communication among Extension professionals, health insurance service providers, and health insurance brokers or agents.
Table 3 illustrates participant frequencies of working with state health insurance resources.
Nearly half  of the participants indicated that they had never talked about health insurance with state health insurance personnel, further compounding the lack of agriculturally specific health care knowledge within Extension.
Participants addressed this communication gap when they noted the unique opportunity for Extension to facilitate conversations between the agriculture and health insurance sectors.
Individuals such as health insurance service providers can deliver specialized health insurance information; however, accessing these resources can be costly in terms of time and energy.
One participant suggested that Extension's interfacing with such resources to create learning opportunities would provide farmers with the opportunity to ask questions and listen to one another and to "realize they're not alone in their inability to navigate or to get an answer to something." This participant imagined that by bringing a health insurance expert to the community, into a supportive space, Extension would be encouraging farmers to participate with and learn from a well-informed health resource.
Additionally, Extension's established credibility may encourage greater farmer participation in programming.
One participant indicated that his relationship with farmers was vital in getting them to attend health insurancespecific workshops by stating, "Before I started dealing with the insurance side of things, a lot of people already knew who I was, so.
when I [did] a program, it didn't really matter what the topic wasthey'd show up."
 Extension represents a trusted resource that is already embedded in agricultural communities.
Health insurance experts can glean audiences and credibility by relying on this preestablished trust in Extension.
In addition to boundary spanning, participants identified a need for Extension as an organization to provide its personnel with relevant training across program areas.
Participants noted that there has been a lack of professional development related to health insurance within Extension in general.
About half  of participants had attended one or two health insurance training sessions, the majority of which were in FCS; 27% reported that they had never attended a training session.
Participants identified health insurance access as an important issue; however, many of them did not have experience with health insurance issues or know about existing Extension resources.
Participants were asked to identify the types of training and resources they would find useful.
We provided them a list from which to select as many options as were applicable.
The top three requests were for assistance in identifying preexisting educational materials, identifying key stakeholders in decision making, and assessing farmer health insurance literacy.
Although Extension has yet to develop a comprehensive health insurance literacy program for farmers, participants described more narrowly focused but successful programming efforts already aimed at this target audience.
Three strategiesidentifying key decision makers, embedding health insurance issues in broader programming, and disseminating health insurance information through multiple channelsprovide a foundation for building formal training programs to teach Extension professionals how to work with farmers on health insurance issues.
This sentiment suggests greater potential success with health insurance outreach characterized by face-to-face interactions.
Additionally, face-to-face interactions are important due to the relative isolation of farmers and the complexity of farm business structures.
As one participant noted, "The more rural the location, the more difficult it is for farm businesses to access professionals other than through the Internet.
which isn't always convenient [for] or well accepted [by] the more senior members of the ag community." Participants indicated that a combination of face-to-face and online programming is most appropriate for agricultural populations.
As health insurance policy evolves, the ability of farmers to access health insurance information and navigate options will become increasingly critical to assuring successful farm enterprises.
Extension professionals have an opportunity to innovate by taking a key role in deciphering the health insurance landscape and connecting the agriculture and health insurance sectors.
We found that Extension professionals are actively asking for professional development and educational resources to address health insurance literacy in the agriculture sector.
Innovation occurs when individuals and groups recognize they have needs  but lack the capacity to respond knowledgeably.
The next steps are to offer opportunities for professional development and to generate research-based educational materials.
Our study can be used as a baseline from which to develop and conduct additional quantitative research with larger sample sizes and across a wider range of Extension professionals.
Extension investments in professional development and health insurance education are vital for ensuring continued rural development efforts and solidifying Extension's role as a crucial health insurance community resource.
Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Innovation and Extension relevancy in the 21st century.
School of Public Affairs, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD.
Diffusion of innovations.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Research In Brief // v55-5rb2
 Grazing corn residue has been practiced for many years and was researched as early as the 1970s.
Vetter, Weber, and Gay  studied the effects of grazing cornstalks on beef cow performance, and Ward  analyzed the feeding value of crop residues.
Additionally, the effects of grazing corn residue on subsequent crop yields  and soil properties  have also been researched.
Grazing of corn residue can lower winter feed cost for cattle producers by allowing them to extend the grazing season rather than feed harvested and stored forages.
However, Stalker et al.
stated that only 25% of corn residue acres in Nebraska are currently grazed.
Much of the cropland, and thus corn residue, is under the control of producers who specialize in crop production and do not have cattle themselves.
Renting corn residue for grazing to cattle producers can be a source of extra income for such crop producers, but whether there is wide awareness of this concept is unclear: The perceptions of crop consultants who provide advice to crop producers and the perceptions of crop producers themselves regarding grazing of corn residue have not been studied.
Therefore, we conducted a survey to better understand the perceptions and factors influencing behaviors of crop consultants and crop producers regarding grazing corn residue.
The results led us to conclusions about opportunities for targeted Extension programming.
Industry crop consultants were asked to fill out a 16-question survey, and crop producers were given a 14-question survey.
Some questions were similar across surveys to allow comparison of consultant and producer responses.
We estimated that it would take 15 to 25 min to complete the survey.
We used online survey software, Qualtrics Version 2015, for creating the survey instruments and storing data.
An electronic mailing list developed by University of Nebraska Extension educators from educational programming contacts was used for distributing the surveys.
A cover letter emailed to the participants explained the purpose of the survey and provided instructions for survey completion.
A web address link directed participants to the survey.
Three emails  were sent.
The survey was open from January 15 to February 15, 2015.
We did not incentivize the participants for completing surveys.
The institutional review board at the University of NebraskaLincoln approved the study.
We analyzed the data using SPSS, Version 19.
We computed and compared means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percent responses.
According to the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, the data did not follow a normal distribution; therefore, we were required to use nonparametric tests for the comparisons.
Using the Mann-Whitney U test, we detected significant differences as determined by nonparametric, independent samples, at p <.05.
The return rate was 24.9%  for the crop consultant survey.
Seventy-six percent of consultants influenced 4,000-plus acres.
Consultant responses indicated that the majority of influenced acres were irrigated  and that the majority of the consultants' clients used a no-till  management system.
The crop producer survey had a return rate of 23.9%.
The majority of producers farmed between 200 and 3,999 ac.
The land managed by producers was predominantly managed under no-till systems  and was equally split between irrigated  and rain-fed  conditions.
Number of Acres Influenced by Crop Consultants and Directly Farmed by Crop Producers
 The majority  of crop consultants in our survey recommended grazing corn residue to their clients.
Of the crop producers surveyed, 63% indicated that their corn residue was used for grazing.
Crop Consultant Corn Residue Grazing Recommendations and Crop Producer Corn Residue Grazing Practices
 Crop producers who allowed grazing reported significantly less  rain-fed acres  contributing to their total cropland compared to those who did not allow grazing .
Due to greater cow numbers in western Nebraska, we estimate that more corn residue acres are grazed in western Nebraska than in eastern Nebraska.
Annual precipitation amount gradually decreases from east  to west  in Nebraska.
As a result, irrigated corn acres are greater and rain-fed corn acres are fewer in western Nebraska than in eastern Nebraska.
Thus, location within Nebraska may explain why crop producers with fewer rain-fed acres were also more likely to allow grazing.
Regarding survey questions on tillage and planting practices , 34% of crop consultants indicated that "some to all" of their clients changed tillage and planting practices after grazing, and 64% indicated that "very few" changed tillage or planting practices.
However, 93% of crop producers who allowed grazing responded that they did not change tillage or planting practices as a result of allowing cattle to graze corn residue.
The majority of crop consultants recommended grazing; thus, a statistical analysis comparing those who recommended and those who did not recommend grazing could not be conducted.
However, the majority of both crop consultants recommending grazing, and crop producers allowing grazing perceived the effect of grazing on subsequent grain yields to be neutral or positive.
Producers who did not allow grazing were more likely  to perceive negative effects of grazing corn residue on subsequent corn yields  and soybean yields  relative to producers who allowed grazing.
Using a scale ranging from 1  to 7 , producers who did not allow grazing rated the effect on corn yield at 3.79  1.5 and the effect on soybean yield at 3.86  1.8, whereas producers who did graze corn residue ranked the effect on corn yield at 4.86  1.2 and the effect on soybean yield at 4.54  1.3.
Crop Producers Allowing Versus Not Allowing Grazing: Perceptions of the Effect of Grazing Corn Residue on Subsequent Corn Yield
 Crop Producers Allowing Versus Not Allowing Grazing: Perceptions of the Effect of Grazing Corn Residue on Subsequent Soybean Yield
 The majority  of the crop producers who rented out corn residue for grazing charged $15 or less per acre.
Interestingly, a large proportion  of producers who did not allow corn residue grazing indicated that they would allow cattle to graze their corn residue for a rental fee of $15 or less per acre.
However, an equally large proportion  of producers who did not allow grazing of corn residue responded that they would not allow grazing regardless of the rental fee offered.
When crop consultants who did not recommend grazing were asked to rate the importance of reasons why, the three reasons receiving the highest ratings were as follows :
 When crop producers who did not allow grazing were asked to identify their reasons why by indicating all applicable answer choices for a "select all that apply" question, the top three reasons were
 However, when we compared responses of crop producers who did not allow grazing but indicated that they would for a fee and crop producers who indicated that they would not allow grazing regardless of fee offered, we found differences in their reasons for not grazing.
The majority of crop producers who would not allow grazing regardless of rental fee offered indicated that they felt grazing caused compaction  or had a negative effect on their tillage or planting operation.
However, 60% of the producers who would allow grazing for a rental fee selected "other," and according to their comments, approximately 70% of those respondents indicated that they did not have access to livestock for grazing.
Thus lack of access to livestock was the highest ranked reason  for not grazing among crop producers who were not grazing but indicated that they would allow grazing for a fee.
We found that personal observation is often used by crop consultants and crop producers as a source of information.
Crop Consultants' and Crop Producers' Sources of Information Regarding Grazing Corn Residue
 Limitations of our survey include the potential for population bias due to the distribution method used and response population.
All crop consultants and crop producers who were surveyed likely collaborate with University of Nebraska Extension service providers because the mailing list used was collected from Extension educators.
Another bias that can be difficult to control and account for is nonresponse bias.
An increased variety of survey delivery formats and reminders could have increased the response rate.
Incentives also could have encouraged increased participation by consultants and producers.
However, the return rates of both the consultant survey  and the producer survey  are similar to those for other recent agriculture-related surveys, such as 21%  and 22%.
The majority of crop consultants and crop producers did not perceive that grazing corn residue negatively affects subsequent crop yields.
Instead, crop producers' reasons for not allowing grazing were related to concerns about soil compaction, lack of access to livestock, and perceptions of negative effects on farming practices.
On the basis of these responses, we believe there is an opportunity to increase the number of corn residue acres grazed in Nebraska through targeted Extension programming.
Lastly, when crop consultants and crop producers were asked about sources of information they used to make decisions regarding corn residue, "personal observation" was ranked highest by both groups.
We believe that the reliance on "observations" indicates a need to help both consultants and producers understand that without a proper control treatment an individual has no way to truly compare effects of management practices and thus may be misled.
Education on the value of using information based on scientific methods will help consultants and producers make sound management decisions.
We gratefully acknowledge North Central Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education  for funding our project.
Many thanks also to the Nebraska Extension educators who provided contact information for participants and the Nebraska crop consultants and farmers who contributed to the survey.
Producer concerns and perceptions regarding the effect of methane on cattle production and the environment: A survey of Nebraska producers.
The Professional Animal Scientist, 31, 601607.
Soil surface property and soybean yield response to corn stover grazing.
Agronomy Journal, 96, 13641371.
Long term corn residue grazing improves subsequent soybean yields in a corn-soybean rotation.
Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management, 2.
Provo, UT: Qualtrics Labs Inc.
Impacts of cattle grazing of corn residues on soil properties after 16 years.
Soil Science Society of America Journal.
Grazing crop residues with beef cattle.
Lincoln, NE: University of NebraskaLincoln Extension.
Grazing cornstalks: A decision support tool to evaluate the economics.
Lincoln, NE: University of NebraskaLincoln Extension.
F., & Zhang Y.
Soil compaction, corn yield response, and soil nutrient pool dynamics within an integrated crop-livestock system in Illinois.
Crop Science, 48, 12111218.
Grazing cornstalks and feeding corn plant refuse to beef cows.
Iowa City, IA: Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station.
Utilization of corn and grain sorghum residues in beef cow forage systems.
Journal of Animal Science, 46, 831840.
October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Research In Brief // v55-5rb1
 Everyone faces the potential of emergencies and disasters every day whether they are prepared or not.
Accordingly, the federal government developed a National Preparedness Goal and has defined National Preparedness Goal success as "a secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats and hazards that pose the greatest threats" (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2011, p.
Formal governmental emergency and disaster response and management education and planning has existed in the United States for about 110 years.
Yet as Haddow, Bullock, and Coppola  stated, "Perhaps the most difficult component of emergency management preparedness training is the one that focuses on the general public" (p.
Institutions of higher education are emerging as important actors in disaster preparedness and disaster relief assessment and education.
The Cooperative Extension System has played a role in educating and motivating the public in emergency and disaster preparedness education for several decades , including related to aspects of homeland security.
Cooperative Extension has focused on a wide range of disaster and emergency preparedness programmatic areas.
These include emergency first aid ; families, communities, and business ; 4-H teen and community preparedness ; economic assessments in response to disasters ; business contingency planning ; farm preparedness and recovery ; disasters and communication ; and emergency exercise participation.
Notable is that the Cooperative Extension System institutionalized engagement in disaster education nationwide in 1979, as explained by Koch :
 The Extension Disaster Education Network  helps CES faculty and staff share information related to emergencies.
The informal organization is a model for Extension to develop other interdisciplinary collaborations across state lines and within states to meet needs with minimal investment of time and money.
States are invited to join EDEN, and staff and the public are welcome to use the information offered through the cooperative Web site.
While Extension educators train and prepare their stakeholders for disasters and emergencies, it is important that Extension personnel prepare as well.
Donahue and Tuohy  pointed out that virtually all institutions, including academic ones, are susceptible to "lessons we Don't learn" (p.
We suggest that workplace disaster preparedness is regarded as important but that institutions commonly fail to prepare accordingly.
The University of Connecticut , including UConn Extension, is no different.
Increasing the preparedness of faculty and staff will make more people safe and secure.
In January 2015, UConn EDEN reconvened, with one of the four purposes being to improve workplace disaster and emergency preparedness.
Included in this preparedness planning was a primary focus on basic life support .
We conducted an attitude and opinion survey of UConn Extension personnel regarding workplace and home preparedness.
We did this to assess BLS needs in the Extension workplace, with our primary focus being cardiopulmonary resuscitation  and automated external defibrillators.
Our secondary focus was on other forms of preparedness.
We first hypothesized that UConn Extension personnel would be receptive to BLS training.
We further hypothesized that UConn Extension personnel would be more receptive to learning BLS for family and home than for the workplace.
The hypothesized outcome was that Extension personnel would be willing to learn and implement BLS at home, leading to workplace preparedness as an added value.
Our findings will inform UConn Extension and UConn EDEN workplace and home preparedness education, especially concerning BLS, CPR, and AEDs.
We based our survey research methods on current disaster and emergency research science.
Too often, preparedness education programs are developed in the absence of a needs assessment and do not incorporate program evaluation outcomes.
We developed an online survey using Qualtrics, a commercially available statistical analysis software suite.
Our overall survey research design followed Dillman's  tailored design for Internet surveys.
Our university's institutional review board cleared our human subject research methods following development of a research participant rights protocol.
Survey research questions were developed with guidance from Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink.
We constructed five hypotheses to guide our research:
 The survey contained 35 Likert scale questions with five response options that ranged from 1  to 5 , with "Don't care" and "not applicable" as other options.
The survey contained three additional  questions with the response options "yes," "no," "maybe," "don't know," "don't care," and "not applicable."
 UConn Extension administration provided the list of eligible personnel for the survey.
We sent the first email survey to all personnel with UConn Extension appointments.
Once a participant had returned the survey, we removed that participant from the email list so that he or she would not receive the survey again.
There were three mailings total.
The appointments included personnel at the eight county offices, the University of Connecticut main campus, and the Avery Point campus.
The target audience included Extension administrators and staff, as well as faculty in academic departments  with Extension appointment percentages ranging from 10% to 100%.
We started with 137 online surveys and obtained a 45% response rate.
We found that respondents were aware of the benefits of CPR , with a majority also having taken a CPR course in the past.
Only a minority of respondents stated that they thought of themselves as skilled in CPR.
An interesting finding was that a majority said they had taken a CPR course whereas 34% said they had not.
Although respondents were aware of the benefits of an AED , only 13% had taken a course on using one.
Respondents clearly believed that they should know how to perform CPR and use an AED.
Most importantly, we found that participants would be willing to take courses in the level of BLS that involves the use of CPR and AEDs and that they would use CPR or an AED if needed.
They also believed that it is important that an AED be placed strategically at each county Extension center, with only 2% strongly disagreeing that this should occur.
The majority of respondents indicated being aware that workplace preparedness for emergencies and disasters could help save their own or someone else's life.
They were generally uncertain whether their Extension center had emergency preparedness plans, with a majority also unsure whether there were preparedness training courses available to them.
However, respondents stated a preference for Extension centers having preparedness plans in place and indicated a willingness to participate in emergency and disaster preparedness training for Extension personnel at their Extension centers.
A minority of respondents had taken a preparedness course or preparedness courses, and a majority  had not.
Participants indicated being aware of the benefits of knowing how to perform CPR and how to use an AED at home.
Respondents strongly agreed or agreed  that they should be trained in CPR and the use of AEDs; no one disagreed.
We found that participants knew of the importance of CPR/AED preparedness, they welcomed taking the needed courses, and they would implement CPR/AED as needed in their homes, for family, and during travel.
Participants indicated having awareness that knowledge and skills in CPR and the use of AEDs are applicable at work as well as at home.
In response to the statement "I am mostly interested in CPR and AED training for me, my home and family rather than for my workplace," participants tended to have weak opinions, mostly responding by agreeing , expressing neutrality , or disagreeing .
They did indicate that knowing how to perform CPR and use AEDs would benefit them and others in the home as well as at work.
We first hypothesized that Extension personnel would be informed and prepared for other emergencies in the workplace following natural/human-made disasters.
We further hypothesized that Extension personnel are trained in BLS for emergencies in the workplace, including being trained to perform CPR and use AEDs.
The hypothesized outcome was that UConn Extension personnel responding to the survey were informed and knew about workplace preparedness.
In addition they were aware of the benefits of knowing about and being skilled in the use of CPR and AEDs in the workplace.
In general, respondents indicated that they were unskilled in CPR and AED use but would be willing to take courses to learn and acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.
They also indicated that they would act if needed.
As one respondent stated, "They [AEDs] are a wonderful tool.
My husband's company has an AED and it has been used twice in the past five years.
Both individuals' lives were saved as a result." As stated by another participant, "It's very important faculty/staff take this course, it could save a life.
The more people know, the better." A few respondents expressed concern about medical preparedness, as they worried about liability and their ability to attend to a victim.
Third, we hypothesized that Extension personnel are informed and prepared for emergencies at home and during travel following natural/human-made disasters.
Fourth, we hypothesized that Extension personnel are trained in BLS for emergencies at home and during travel.
The hypothesized outcome was that UConn Extension personnel indicated that they were informed about emergencies at home and during travel.
Another hypothesized outcome was that UConn Extension personnel are not BLS trained but would be willing to be.
We found that participants were generally not BLS trained.
Lastly, we hypothesized that Extension personnel's BLS training and preparedness for emergencies at home and during travel informs their workplace preparedness.
Survey participants generally preferred to be trained to be prepared for home emergencies rather than for workplace emergencies.
However, they indicated that they welcome both workplace and home preparedness training.
Our research shows that UConn Extension personnel believe workplace preparedness should be an institutional priority.
Extension administration can pursue this ideal through existing institutional education means, such as education provided by the UConn Office of Public Safety  and through UConn EDEN.
Our findings further suggest that emergency and disaster preparedness training be focused on both home and workplace as a means of motivating participants to be prepared and because there is overlap in preparedness education for the two venues.
As respondents recognized, training for home preparedness likely would result in workplace preparedness, including preparedness for performing CPR and using AEDs.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The emerging role of higher education in educating and assessing future leaders for disaster relief.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 6673.
Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Household risk perception, preferences, and preparedness.
University of Connecticut DIEM: A DHS Center of Excellence, UConn Department of Public Policy Disaster Risk Perception, Preferences, and Preparedness Project.
Household risk perception, preferences, and preparedness.
University of Connecticut DIEM: A DHS Center of Excellence, UConn Department of Public Policy Disaster Risk Perception, Preferences, and Preparedness Project.
Lessons we Don't learn: A study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them.
Homeland Security Affairs, 2, 1.
Contribution to change: An approach to evaluating the role of intervention in disaster recovery.
Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Introduction to emergency management.
Organizational adaption to disaster.
Dynes , Handbook of disaster research (pp.
New York, NY: Springer.
From research to praxis: The relevance of disaster research for emergency management.
Dynes , Handbook of disaster research (pp.
New York, NY: Springer.
Introduction: 110 years of disaster response and emergency management in the United States.
Rubin , Emergency management: The American experience 19002010  (pp.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Education and natural disasters: Education as a humanitarian response.
Department of Homeland Security.
June 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 3 // Ideas at Work // v51-3iw6
 According to the U.S.
Energy Information Administration's 2011 Annual Energy Outlook Report, it is estimated that 33% of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2010 to 2035 will come from non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources.
Controversial social, economic, and environmental issues associated with energy have fostered ongoing debates about: carbon dioxide emissions; climate change; growing population; energy independence; and revitalizing U.S.
These critical discussions are shaping new energy policy, industry regulation, and market investment, which are setting the stage for rural America to provide the energy of tomorrow.
Extension agents have a growing responsibility to provide research-based data to our customers about these emerging opportunities.
Most states have established a Renewable Portfolio Standard  or goal requiring electric supply companies to generate a specified amount of electricity from renewable energy sources.
In 2008, Ohio passed Senate Bill 221, which included the state's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards.
This new law requires that 25% of electricity sold by investor owned utilities must be obtained from alternative energy resources by the year 2025.
With the passage of this new law, the stage was set for Ohio's first generation-scale renewable energy projects.
The PSEG Wyandot Solar Farm is an 85-acre 12-Megawatt solar facility that is currently the largest solar field in Ohio.
Generating carbonand pollution-free energy, the 159,200 solar panels provide enough electricity to serve more than 9,000 homes when the sun is shining.
The project represents an investment of roughly $35 million dollars, fostering community benefits including job creation, revenue generation, installation of solar panels on high schools, and positive marketing.
At 305 Megawatts and with 152 wind turbines, the Iberdrola Blue Creek Wind Farm located in Van Wert Ohio is considered "large." The project represents an investment of over $600 million, fostering community benefits including job creation, lease payments totaling over 1.1 million, 2.4 million in local tax revenue, and an enormous spinoff of economic activity in the region.
Across the country, there is promising evidence of new investment, new companies, and new jobs being created through higher education's efforts.
In this example, OSU Extension played a significant role in facilitating the development of two of Ohio's first generation-scale renewable energy projects.
In both examples, Extension educators provided leadership to the local Economic Development Office through development and delivery of community economic development programming.
After learning of the proposed projects, local leaders had a number of questions on wind, solar, energy policy, economic influence, and related community impacts.
To answer these questions, local leaders turned to OSU Extension.
Reacting swiftly, the educators started by researching literature to better assist community leadership in making informed decisions regarding the energy projects.
The economic developer's challenge is to recognize the economic changes being driven by clean energy and to help his or her community visualize future implications and opportunities.
Extension educators played a multi-faceted role, facilitating or attending meetings on the projects with decision makers and in open public forums to share what they learned and to gather input.
The meetings provided the educators an opportunity to distribute information and deliver presentations that assisted in the decision-making process.
To make effective economic decisions, communities must understand how changes in the global, national, and regional economies affect the opportunities they have.
Community leadership and citizenry relied on Extension educators, to provide non-biased information.
Extension played an important role in setting the stage for building trust by facilitating education and encouraging public interaction.
According to Van Wert County Commissioner Clair Dudgeon, "The research, expertise, and resources available through OSU Extension have been very advantageous to us, especially in a sector so new as wind energy".
Serving as a third party resource for research-based information, Extension's education efforts benefit renewable energy projects by increasing the communities' collective understanding of energy development and the related social, economic, and environmental impacts.
Based on existing energy policy influences, the integration of renewable technologies into rural America seems inevitable.
As of June 2012, RPS requirements or goals have been established in 37 states, driving the implementation of renewable energy technologies such as wind, concentrated solar, Photovoltaic solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, landfill gas, and tidal.
Renewable energy development is ramping up in rural communities across the country, promising to play a role in meeting our future energy needs.
Local officials and community residents have many questions on renewable energy and how the proposed development will affect their community.
Extension can use its understanding of broad socioeconomic trends and its experience with other communities to help community decision makers ask the right questions.
Extension educators should engage communities in renewable energy education to build the capacity of local officials, preparing them to successfully assess the impacts of renewable energy projects.
Fortson predicted this critical contribution in her 2006 article, "Extension agents [Educators] across the country are in the best possible position to both introduce this new [renewable energy] industry to America's farmers and ranchers and support them through the tides of change.
In doing so, we'll help create a crop of entirely new possibilities".
Our experiences in Ohio indicate that Extension is in a strategic position to fill a critical role in delivering educational programming on renewable energy.
To effectively address this emerging need Extension must:
 Reflecting on the impacts from renewable energy programming delivered in Ohio, the authors recommend that Extension systems across the country engage communities in renewable energy education.
The Basics of Soybean Irrigation in Tennessee Brian Leib, Associate Professor, Irrigation Systems and Management Tim Grant, Extension Assistant, Soil and Water Resources Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Angela McClure, Professor and Extension Specialist, Corn and Soybean Avat Shekoofa, Assistant Professor, Crop Physiology Water Stress and Irrigation Department of Plant Sciences Financial support from the Tennessee Soybean Promotion Board, the Southern Soybean Research Project and USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Quick Facts 1.
The four essential factors for making effective irrigation decisions in soybean are growth stage, water-use rate, soil type and rainfall pattern.
On silt loam soils, in most years consider irrigating soybeans at first pod  and full pod  when water use first peaks.
Monitor soil water status during first seed , as this is one of the most sensitive growth stages for drought stress in soybean.
In high rainfall years, yield reduction in soybean has been observed in silt loam and poorly drained soil when irrigation was added during late vegetative and early reproductive stages.
In sandy soils, soybeans are more likely to require irrigation in late vegetative and early reproductive stages  with the later reproductive stages  being even more critical for providing adequate soil moisture.
Since variable rainfall can create soil conditions too wet or too dry for optimal soybean yield, a managed depletion irrigation  approach is recommended.
MDI prescribes a significant withdrawal of soil water before initiating irrigation to create storage capacity for capturing rainfall that alleviates crop stress from water logging while maintaining a buffer of easily available soil water to prevent drought stress.
Once the MDI level is reached, water should be applied at a rate equal to crop-water use from rainfall and supplemental irrigation.
Center pivot application amounts should be set as high as possible without creating significant run-off: 0.3 to 0.5 inches per revolution on sloping fields and 0.5 to 0.8 inches per revolution on flatter river bottoms.
Soybean irrigation should be terminated by early to middle full seed.
Adequate soil moisture and/or rainfall can allow termination before R6.5.
Slight but consistent yield loss has been observed when irrigating up to beginning maturity.
MDI can be implemented by a water balance method that keeps track of both the water added to the soil by rainfall and irrigation as well the amount used and removed by the crop.
MDI also can be implemented by soil sensor methods that are a direct measurement of soil water status at a specific locations and depths.
Soybean irrigation recommendations for Tennessee are based on more than five years of AgResearch and Education Center trials and farm demonstration sites.
A more detailed understanding of these recommendations is provided in the remainder of the publication.
Water Use, Soil Type, Rainfall and Irrigation Approach 1 Figure 1: Historic average weekly crop-water use of soybean shown as a solid red line.
Crop-water use of any given time period can vary from this line by up to 15 percent, as the weather conditions vary from normal.
Soybean water use varies by growth stage and weather conditions.
The rate of water use is an important factor for deciding when and how much to irrigate.
As shown in Figure 1, water use is 0.5 inches per week during most of the vegetative growth stages, increasing to almost 1.0 inch per week by first flower.
From first flower  to first pod , water use increases rapidly from 1.0 to 1.5 inches per week.
Thereafter, water-use averages almost 1.5 inches per week through first seed  to full seed.
Note that these are historic averages, and a sunny, hot week could require up to 15 percent more water while a cloudy, cool week could require up to 15 percent less water.
2 Soil type is also an important consideration when making irrigation decisions.
A soil profile that is deep silt loam could contain 3 inches of readily available water in a soybean root zone when it is at field capacity.
However, a soil profile that is sandy throughout may only contain around 1.0 inches of readily available water when it is at field capacity.
If a deep silt loam and a sandy soil are refilled to field capacity by a large rain event after pod formation , how long would it be before we would need to irrigate each soil?
Since water use is averaging 1.5 inches per week at this point, we can expect the sandy soil to need water in five days.
On the other hand, the deep silt loam soil can provide enough readily available water to supply that crop for two weeks before the crop starts losing yield potential.
The differing abilities of soils to hold water can have implications on irrigation management across fields and even within the same field.
3 Adjusting to rainfall in combination with cropgrowth stage and soil type is the key to good irrigation management in soybean.
Yet, this can be complex since rain is extremely variable in a humid region like Tennessee.
To illustrate the impact of highly variable rainfall patterns, consider this question that is faced by Tennessee irrigators: What is coming next a four-week drought, a 4 inch rain, or something in between?
If we knew a four-week drought was coming, we would irrigate frequently to keep soil moisture close to field capacity to avoid stress and ensure high yield.
If we knew a 4-inch rain was coming, we would let the soil dry out in order to utilize that rainfall and avoid overly wet conditions that could harm yield.
Since we do not know what weather is on the horizon with a high degree of accuracy, we need to allow soil moisture to deplete to a reasonable level that will facilitate the capture and use of rainfall yet not lose yield potential.
Since center pivots are usually designed to "keepup" with crop-water use during peak demand periods with no rain, and cannot "catch up" and return the profile to field capacity once significant depletion has occurred, these systems are best managed by maintaining a desired level of soil water depletion.
A guiding principle of our irrigation approach is to allow a significant but safe soil water depletion to develop according to soil type and crop-growth stage, and then use center pivot irrigation to maintain a "managed depletion" of soil water that facilitates rainfall capture while preserving some readily available water to prevent crop stress.
We are calling this approach managed depletion irrigation or MDI.
Initiating Irrigation Tennessee-based research has verified the importance of irrigating during seed fill  as consistent yield responses have been noted in silt loam soils  even in wet years.
In higher than average rainfall years, 1 to 2 inches of irrigation during R5 where able increase yield by 10 percent to 25 percent in silt loam soil.
Soybean irrigation will be necessary before R5 and in higher amounts during drier years and in sandier soils with lower water holding capacity.
However yield loss has occurred from irrigating during vegetative growth stages and early reproductive stages in silt loam soil during some wet years.
Over-irrigation, either too early or too much, can certainly lead to yield loss in poorly drained soils.
In most years on silt loam soils, we would recommend beginning to consider irrigation in R3 and R4 when water use first peaks, and especially monitor soil water status during R5.
Irrigation will be needed at earlier growth stages in lower water holding soils and we have just initiated soybean irrigation trials in sandier soil to provided better recommendations on when to initiate irrigation under these conditions.
4 We have discussed the impact of soil textural differences on irrigation initiation, but much of our soybean acres are grown on rolling loess hills where the texture is consistently silt loam.
In this case, we expect topography to be the primary driver of irrigation decisions with side slopes requiring earlier irrigation than hilltops and low lying areas due to soil erosion limiting the rooting depth on the side slopes.
However, from 2013 to 2017 in several fields across West Tennessee, this pattern has not appeared, and, in fact, the opposite has most often been true with higher soil moisture measured on the sloping ground due to the fragipan impeding drainage of water in wetter years.
Yield maps tell us that in a dry year, sloping ground can certainly become water-limited, and in those years the sloping ground could benefit from either earlier irrigation or more irrigation.
In wet years, though, there does not appear to be much merit to irrigating sloping grounds differently than level ground on the loess hills of Tennessee.
5 Irrigation Amounts Another important part of irrigation decisions is how much water to apply and rates of 1.5, 1.0 and 0.5 inches per week were tested as a combination of rain plus irrigation.
In silt loam soils with higher than average rainfall, soybean yield was sometimes optimized with supplemental irrigation lower than the 1.5 inches per week rate during seed fill  while it should be noted the 1.5 inch per week rated did not diminish yield when irrigation was delayed allowing for a significant but safe depletion of soil water.
In drier years and sandier soils, the supplemental irrigation plus rainfall rate of 1.5 inch per week will most likely be required before R5, perhaps requiring water at an R1 or a vegetative growth stage.
Therefore, we recommend allowing soil to dry to the desired "managed depletion" level and then providing water input equal to crop-water use through rainfall and supplemental irrigation in order to maintain soil moisture near the "managed depletion" level.
4 There are also some practical considerations concerning the amount of water applied per irrigation.
Most center pivots are designed to be capable of applying 0.3 inches over 24 hours, meaning you potentially could apply just over 2 inches in a week.
In flat river bottom ground, where many of our sandy soils are found, it is appropriate to apply higher amounts like 0.5 to 0.8 inches per revolution where runoff is not a substantial concern.
However, on sloping fields or fields where infiltration is an issue, limiting irrigation to 0.3 to 0.5 inches per revolution will lead to a more effective irrigation application.
We recommend setting pivot application amounts as high as possible without creating significant runoff.
6 Terminating Irrigation Soybean irrigation should be terminated in early to mid R6.
Beans are still filling later developing pods and finalizing seed weight during the early part of R6, therefore irrigation could add to dry weight at harvest if soil moisture or rainfall is insufficient.
Irrigating past this point could put unnecessary moisture on plants and could lead to wetter soils and harvest issues.
Tennessee trials have shown a slight, yet consistent, yield decrease from irrigating all the way until R7 when pods have turned light green to yellow with some brown pods in the canopy.
4 Irrigation Management Tools Variation in soils, maturity group differences, a wide range of planting dates and unpredictable rainfall make real-time irrigation decisions for soybean challenging.
Soil moisture sensors, a water balance or both methods together can be utilized to manage soybean irrigation.
The water balance method keeps track of both the water added to the soil by rainfall and irrigation as well the amount used and removed by the crop.
Table 1 presents MDI  target values depending on soil type and growth stage for a water balance.
Also shown is the Maximum Allowable Depletion  of 45 percent, beyond which point yield loss is likely.
These values are percentages of plant available water that has been removed from the soil profile such that field capacity is O percent depletion and permanent wilting is 100 percent.
Maintaining soil moisture around the MDI value creates storage space in the soil to capture rainfall while keeping a buffer of easily available soil water to prevent yield Irrigation Scheduling by Water Balance WATER IN Rainfall Irrigation High Water Table WATER OUT Crop Water Use Soil Evaporation Run-off & Drainage loss.
Water balance tools like the MOIST  spreadsheet can help you maintain soil-water in a reasonable depletion range, thus increasing the potential of obtaining optimum yield with minimum irrigation.
7 A water balance approach can be very inexpensive  while soil moisture sensors require the purchase and installation of sensor equipment.
Soil moisture sensors are a direct measurement of soil water status at a specific location.
Matric potential sensors  measure how difficult it will be for a plant to extract moisture from the soil while volumetric sensors  measure the percentage of water in bulk soil.
More detailed articles are available to describe the differences between sensor types and how to best use each sensor type.
8 6" sensor UT's recommendations are built around matric potential sensors because their readings are more transferable across soils than volumetric sensors, which require very different trigger points based on soil type compounded by the fact that not all types of volumetric sensors are calibrated the same.
Soil moisture sensors should be installed at more than one depth because the soil profile does not dry or rewet uniformly.
This means there will be multiple values to consider when making irrigation decisions.
A shallow sensor or sensors are needed to detect rainfall and irrigation events while deeper sensors reveal whether water is being used throughout the entire root zone.
While soybean needs adequate soil moisture somewhere in the root zone, it does not necessarily need easily available water throughout the soil profile.
Soil at some sensor depths should be allowed to dry significantly in an MDI approach as long as water is easily available to the crop at other points in the root zone.
Table 2 presents the MDI target values for matric potential sensors.
The MPS-6/Terros-21 values have been incorporated into the MOIST+ APP.
9 18" sensor 30" sensor Water Balance Maximum Allowable Depletion of 45% Target  Sand Silt Loam Late Veg  to Begin Seed  30 35 Begin Seed  to Full Seed  20 25 Table 1: Maximum allowable depletion and managed depletion irrigation  Levels.
The MDI Target Value is not the only soil water depletion target level that can result in optimum yield.
It is recommended as a means to balance the effect of unpredictable rainfall patterns by leaving enough water in the soil to prevent drying below the maximum allowable depletion  and over wetting the soil from excess rainfall; both conditions can lead to yield loss.
Watermark  Easily Available Soil Water Range Sand Silt Loam Late Veg  to Begin Seed  8 to 55 8 to 100 Begin Seed  to Full Seed  8 to 40 8 to 60 MPS-6/TEROS-21  Easily Available Soil Water Range Sand Silt Loam Late Veg  to Begin Seed  11 to 70 11 to 150 Begin Seed  to Full Seed  11 to 40 11 to 70 Table 2: Guideline matric potential values for Watermark and MPS-2 sensors in soybean to maintain a managed depletion irrigation  strategy by growth stage and soil type.
Saturated conditions occur at values less than the range minimums.
Easily available water is not required or recommended in the entire soil profile.
Only one sensor needs to be within the recommended range.
Yield loss may occur if all parts of the crop root zone are greater than the range maximums.
UT Extension provides several resources to assist producers in implementing soybean irrigation scheduling.
Additionally, several crop consultants in Tennessee are offering irrigation management as part of their services.
10 Supplemental Publications 1.
Irrigation Water Management A Simple Analogy.
How Much Water Is Your Crop Using?
How Soils Hold Water, a Home Experiment.
Summary of Soybean Irrigation Studies in Tennessee.
Determining Irrigation Management Zones for Center Pivots.
What Is Your Center Pivots Application Rate?
Using a Water Balance to Make Irrigation Decisions: MOIST spreadsheet.
Using Soil Moisture Sensors for Irrigation Management in Tennessee.
Automating and Combining Water Balance and Sensor Based Irrigation Scheduling: MOIST+ APP.
List of Irrigation Consultants in Tennessee.
December 2002 // Volume 40 // Number 6 // Feature Articles // 6FEA1
 Abstract For Extension practitioners, research is typically considered an ominous practice reserved for ivory tower academics, and evaluation is nearly as mysterious.
Therefore, Extension agents often shy away from using scientific methods to evaluate educational programs.
However, research is simply a methodical way of finding answers to questions used to discover new information or prove scientific theories.
And research methods can also be useful to effectively evaluate an educational program or its participants in the most objective way.
This article presents an overview of research methods that Extension agents can use in program evaluation.
It includes a bibliography of helpful resources.
For the Extension practitioner, research is typically considered an ominous practice reserved for ivory tower academics, and evaluation is nearly as mysterious.
Therefore, Extension agents often shy away from using scientific methods to evaluate educational programs.
However, research is simply a methodical way of finding answers to questions, to be used to discover new information, or to prove scientific theories.
And research methods can also be useful to effectively evaluate an educational program or its participants in the most objective way.
For evaluation purposes, the questions to be answered might be "Did this program meet its objectives?" or "How effective was the program in achieving desired results?" The challenge for the evaluator is to choose the most appropriate methods to systematically answer such questions.
This article presents an overview of the types of research that might be used in program evaluation, organized by the prospective purposes of your study.
Research methods don't seem so intimidating when you're familiar with the terminology.
This is important whether you're conducting evaluation or merely reading articles about other studies to incorporate in your program.
To help with understanding, here are some basic definitions used.
One of your first decisions to make is whether to use qualitative or quantitative research methods.
Quantitative research focuses on measurement and counting, attempting to categorize and summarize using numbers and labels.
Qualitative research aims more at thoroughly describing a situation or explaining reasons for a problem or circumstance.
It is typically thorough and provides in-depth understanding of a situation or group of people but does not attempt to quantify results.
Often, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used in a research study or evaluation effort because they provide complementary information.
This article deals primarily with quantitative methods.
To select the most appropriate methods to achieve the results you are trying to achieve, it is important to match the purpose of your study with the type of research to use.
If you are looking to gain insight into a problem or issue to better focus additional study or develop a clear research hypothesis, then the end sought is exploration.
If you want to illustrate accurately and clearly the characteristics of a group or situation, then the purpose is description.
It is common for any type of research to include descriptive methods.
Also, a descriptive method  is often used as the data collection technique for all kinds of research.
Start with a research question or research objective.
Examples of research questions:
 Examples of research objectives:
 Types of descriptive studies include survey research and developmental and case studies.
The researcher gathers data from a large group of subjects, usually via mail, telephone, or in-person interviews.
Because information is gathered at one point in time, survey research is sometimes referred to as a "status" or "normative" study.
Relationships between variables are not explored.
Examples include public opinion surveys, needs assessments, follow-up studies, etc.
A developmental study is survey research where surveys are taken at different points in time and compared.
For instance, take longitudinal studies.
A case study is conducted for similar purpose as the above but is usually done with a smaller sample size for more in-depth study.
A case study often involves direct observation or interviews with single subjects or single small social units such as a family, club, school classroom, etc.
This is typically considered qualitative research.
In a relational study you start with a research hypothesis, that is, is what you're trying to "prove."
 Examples of research hypotheses for a relational study:
 Types of relational studies include correlational studies and ex post facto studies.
A correlational study compares two or more different characteristics from the same group of people and explains how two characteristics vary together and how well one can be predicted from knowledge of the other.
A concurrent correlational study draws a relationship between characteristics at the same point in time.
For example, a student's grade point average is related to his or her class rank.
A predictive correlational study could predict a later set of data from an earlier set.
For example, a student's grade point average might predict the same student's grade point average during senior year.
A predictive correlational study could also use one characteristic to predict what another characteristic will be at another time.
For example, a student's SAT score is designed to predict college freshman grade point average.
Ex Post Facto  Study
 An ex post facto study is used when experimental research is not possible, such as when people have self-selected levels of an independent variable or when a treatment is naturally occurring and the researcher could not "control" the degree of its use.
The researcher starts by specifying a dependent variable and then tries to identify possible reasons for its occurrence as well as alternative  explanations.
Such confounding  variables are "controlled" using statistics.
This type of study is very common and useful when using human subjects in real-world situations and the investigator comes in "after the fact." For example, it might be observed that students from one town have higher grades than students from a different town attending the same high school.
Would just "being from a certain town" explain the differences?
In an ex post facto study, specific reasons for the differences would be explored, such as differences in income, ethnicity, parent support, etc.
It is important to recognize that, in a relational study, "cause and effect" cannot be claimed.
All that can be claimed is that that there is a relationship between the variables.
For that matter, variables that are completely unrelated could, in fact, vary together due to nothing more than coincidence.
That is why the researcher needs to establish a plausible reason  for why there might be a relationship between two variables before conducting a study.
For instance, it might be found that all football teams with blue uniforms won last week.
There is no likely reason why the uniform color had any relationship to the games' outcomes, and it certainly was not the cause for victory.
Similarly, you must be careful about claiming that your Extension program was the "cause" of possible results.
An experimental study start with development of a research hypothesis, that is, what you're trying to "prove." Such a research hypothesis is likely based on professional experience or review of prior studies.
Examples of research hypotheses for an experimental study:
 Experimental research is a methodical way of comparing two or more groups to determine differences in the effect of different treatments received by each group.
In experimental research, the researcher purposely manipulates a treatment  to see if it causes a change in the dependent variable.
A treatment can be an educational program, new drug, herbicide, or procedure that is being tested for its "effect" on the dependent variable.
An example would be giving a new reading program to one group of students and using the old way of teaching reading to a different group of students to see if the new way yields higher reading scores.
Extraneous variables are also controlled by the researcher so they can be ruled out as other possible" causes." Experimental research is the only type of study where true "cause and effect" can be claimed.
A true experiment requires the random assignment of subjects  to a treatment group.
Random assignment is the only way that groups can be considered statistically equivalent.
In a quasi-experiment, groups of subjects are constructed using a method other than random assignment.
When using human subjects, it is often impossible to do random assignment.
They are often part of intact groups such as school classrooms, community organizations, neighborhoods, 4-H clubs, or nursing homes.
Although groups might be reasonably similar in a practical sense, using data from intact groups limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding program effects.
Still, quasi-experiments are useful in providing valuable evidence of program impacts.
This is a highly under-utilized evaluation method that has great potential for determining the impact and value of educational programs.
A pre-experimental design has little control over environmental factors that could affect the outcome of a study.
For example, a one-group, pretest/posttest design doesn't even use another group for comparison.
But such a design does provide some evidence of program impact  and is commonly used when more elaborate designs are not possible.
One-group designs can be strengthened as an evaluation method by simply adding a comparison group.
Each research method has benefits, but no method alone is likely to solve all your problems or answer all your research questions.
That is why methods are often combined.
It just may not be possible to conduct a single study to give a complete and definitive result.
Studies are often repeated over time.
The most important recommendation is to choose methods that meet your needs and to conduct the study in a careful, thorough, and objective way.
Then, you can be confident that your findings can be believed.
Therefore, pay attention to the purpose of your study and match up the methods that help achieve that purpose.
The following references will provide help as you select the research methods to use.
Introduction to research in education.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Program evaluation: A practitioner's guide for trainers and educators.
Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research.
Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally Co.
Choosing appropriate research methods to evaluate educational programs.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet #FS943.
Measuring impact of educational programs.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet #869.
Educational research: Competencies for analysis & application.
Bell & Howell Company.
Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education.
New York, New York.
John Wiley & Sons.
Evaluating occupational education and training programs.
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
October 2001 // Volume 39 // Number 5 // Research in Brief // 5RIB1
 Abstract Recycling education programs have constituted an important component of Extension outreach in the past decade.
The study reported here used a two-stage statistical modeling procedure to predict the characteristics of residents who participate in a recycling program and to explain frequency of visiting the drop-off sites.
The results reveal that older respondents in large households in more remote sections of the community are more likely to use the drop-off centers than others.
Those participants who show more satisfaction with the convenience and quality of the drop-off sites visit more frequently.
An unintentional consequence was a spirited competition among the seven townships involved to claim the highest participation rate.
Over the past decade, Extension agents and specialists across the U.S.
have become increasingly involved with recycling education programs.
This involvement has been the result of several factors.
In Ohio, the passage of House Bill 592 in 1988 required communities to begin planning the management and reduction of solid waste generated locally.
To comply with this legislation, communities began the creation of Solid Waste Management Districts , typically at the county level.
In Mahoning County, Ohio the SWMD, in cooperation with the County Commissioners, applied for and received a grant from the USDA Rural Development Administration for the purpose of developing, planning, and conducting a Rural Recycling Education & Awareness Program.
The program began in April of 1995 and was housed at the Ohio State University Extension Office in Mahoning County.
The mission of the RREAP is to provide the less densely populated rural communities in Mahoning County with an aggressive and comprehensive educational awareness program that will integrate the concepts of pollution prevention, recycling, and solid waste reduction into the daily activities of the rural population.
Rural recycling is often a more difficult challenge to communities than urban or suburban recycling because in densely populated areas curbside pickup of waste is feasible, while in rural areas residents must take their materials to drop-off sites.
The targeted area includes seven townships in the southern part of the county.
These townships are 5-mile square geographic areas, with one drop-off site per township, usually located near the geographic center of the township.
One of the USDA's requirements for funding was that the RREAP conduct a survey of residents in order to identify characteristics of those who use the drop-off sites and what residents' views are concerning these sites.
The specific objectives of the survey we conducted were to learn:
 In order to obtain a random stratified sample of residents in the area, we obtained enlarged township maps from the County Engineer's Office.
We required a total of approximately 350 responses in order to obtain a plus/minus 5 percent margin of error for the seven-township area.
Thus, we decided to survey 50 residents per township.
Each township was divided into four quadrants, with approximately 13 residents surveyed per quadrant.
We adopted a door-to-door survey procedure, with a total of five volunteers undergoing training on survey practices, including appropriate one-on-one interview techniques.
The volunteers were instructed on how to introduce themselves as well as the RREAP program and on the intent of the survey.
General surveying etiquette and safety tips were included in the volunteer training sessions.
Interviews lasted an average of about 15-20 minutes.
At the conclusion of each interview, the volunteers gave respondents a magnet with the local township's recycling center's site location and hours of operation, along with an information booklet on recycling.
Respondents were asked whether they had ever used a local drop-off site and if they had, their frequency of use.
Next they were asked to rank three characteristics of their local site on a 1-5 scale, with 1 indicating poor and 5 indicating excellent.
These characteristics were: convenience of location, convenience of hours, and quality of assistance.
Respondents were also asked about how they heard about their local site and what suggestions they had to increase participation.
Finally, they were asked to provide some basic socio-demographic information including number of members in the household, age, and occupation.
A total of 52% of the respondents stated that they had used one of the drop-off facilities at least once.
Of that group, the average number of visits was 22 times per year, or slightly less often than every other week.
Of those who had never used a center, only 33% knew of the location of the center in their township.
Participation rates varied significantly by township, ranging from a low of 34% to a high of 72%.
Our first research goal was to determine whether we could identify characteristics of users versus non-users of the drop-off sites.
A logistic  regression is a procedure that estimates a dichotomous variable  as a function of a set of independent variables.
This procedure is not new to Extension educators.
The result yields an equation that is capable of predicting whether someone with a given set of characteristics is more or less likely than someone else to use or not use a facility.
We coded non-users as a zero and users as a one.
We expected that five components of the survey might play a role in a household's decision to use or not use the drop-off facility.
Table 1  shows the results of the logit regression that specifies use as a function of the five variables stated above.
The results demonstrate that three of the variables are significantly associated with use.
Larger households with an older head of household located in more rural settings are more likely to have used one of the facilities.
Type of dwelling and distance to the nearest site played no significant role.
These two variables were discarded from the equation, which was re-estimated.
The results of the second estimation are listed in Table 1.
Note that the parameter estimates and the standard errors are not sensitive to the different estimation.
One of the advantages of using a logistic procedure is that, based on the characteristics of the members of the sample, we can use the equation to predict who uses the facility and who does not, and then compare our predicted outcomes to the actual use patterns of the members of the sample.
Table 2 shows the results of this comparison.
This table reveals that our equation predicts that, of the 144 households who use the facilities, 99 would be predicted to do so on the basis of their characteristics.
This yields a predictive success rate of 69%.
The success rate in predicting non-users is smaller , indicating that we know less about why respondents do not participate than why they do participate.
The overall success rate in predicting use is 65%, somewhat typical to high for this type of analysis.
We most likely could have produced a higher prediction success rate had we included demographic variables such as income and education.
But we excluded these from the survey because they tend to reduce response rate, and we did not believe that this information would be of specific use in tailoring Extension programs on recycling education.
Next we set out to identify and measure the effects of selected variables upon frequency of visitation to a drop-off site.
In this analysis we used frequency of visits as a dependent variable in an ordinary least squares  regression equation.
In addition to the three independent variables that were found to be statistically significant in the logistic regression equation, we added a variable that combined the ratings of the three categories upon which the respondents were asked to evaluate the sites.
These categories were: convenience of location, convenience of hours of operation, and quality of assistance.
These characteristics were only evaluated by users and thus could not be included in the logit model.
The combined variable was calculated as the mean of the three ratings and is referred to in Table 3 as Convenience/Quality.
This table demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of users are highly satisfied with the convenience/quality of the recycling centers.
A total of 92% ranked this variable between good and excellent.
Table 4  includes the results of the initial OLS estimation.
Two of the five independent variables were found to be statistically significant.
The other three were discarded from the equation, which was re-estimated.
The results of this estimation are presented in Table 4.
People who ranked Convenience/Quality higher visit more often than others.
For every one point increase on the 1-5 scale in Convenience/Quality, respondents average visiting nearly six more times per year.
Thus, a person who ranked Convenience/Quality at a 1  would average one visit per month, while someone ranking it a 5  would average three visits per month.
The age variable was as important in determining frequency of use as it was in determining participation in the previous model.
The regression parameter in this result indicates that for every 10 years increase in the age of the head of household, respondents average visiting roughly two more times per year.
Thus a person in his/her seventies would tend to make an average of 10 more visits per year than someone in his/her twenties.
Recall that participation rates were higher for older respondents as well.
This study revealed several interesting phenomena.
Older respondents are more likely to have visited one of the centers and visit more frequently than younger users.
People in larger households in rural settings are more likely to have visited, but they do not visit more frequently than others.
Those who are more satisfied with the location, hours, and quality of assistance associated with their local sites visit more frequently.
As a result of this study, Extension began an effort to ensure that more residents would be aware of the location of the drop-off site in their township.
A modified edition of RREAP's newsletter was distributed to 17,000 households through a local circular delivery service in the target area.
This special issue featured a highlight of the locations of drop-off sites and pointed out benefits to the community associated with recycling.
Based upon the profiles of users/non-users explained above, we assumed that families with young children represented a substantial portion of the population not using the drop-off sites.
Working on this assumption, RREAP initiated a program to acquaint primary school students with the recycling sites.
Each child received an information packet to take home.
The packet contained local drop-off site locations, operating hours, and a list of items that were and were not accepted for recycling.
Perhaps the most significant impact on the community was the prompting of a local controversy, something that had been totally unexpected when RREAP began the project.
When the survey results were released, the local media published the results.
They tended to focus on participation rates by township.
Some of the township recycling coordinators working in townships with reported low participation rates began to debate the issue vigorously, citing statistics on volume of recycled waste as refuting the survey results showing they had low participation rates.
The survey had not attempted to measure volume, and in any case, although the sample size was large enough to generalize about the seven-township area, it was not large enough to distinguish participation rates by township.
The sample size would have to have been roughly four times what it was  to have accomplished this.
The positive outcome of this event was that it spirited a lively competition among townships to increase participation for "bragging rights." To the extent that this occurred, the survey was a tremendous success.
Future survey work may be able to quantify the magnitude of this impact.
Determining sample size for research activities.
In Educational and psychological measurement.
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
Zarembka , Frontiers of economics.
New York: Academic Press.
August 2019 // Volume 57 // Number 4 // Feature // v57-4a2
 It was universally agreed near the end of the 20th century that elected officials are an audience essential to the existence, relevance, and funding of Extension.
It has been argued, however, that Extension does not always know enough about its customers and that many audiences do not know enough about Extension and its offerings.
County-level elected officials and personnel comprise one such group.
For Extension programming to continue to be successful, elected officials must be aware of Extension's effectiveness.
Moreover, suggesting that awareness alone is inadequate, Frederick  noted that "it's not enough [for Extension] to provide elected officials with an overview of programs offered to the general public" but that instead Extension must "offer programs that directly benefit [elected officials] in their role as policymakers" ("Policymakers as Customers for Public Policy Education" section, para.
Extension can support elected officials in solving local problems, building consensus, and improving strategic planning.
More specifically, one opportunity Extension professionals have to better serve county commissioners is to assist them in implementing an engaged evaluation process to achieve organizational change.
Vines  noted a dichotomy between expert and engagement models.
This dichotomy can be important with regard to supporting and serving elected officials.
The difference is one-way communication  versus two-way communication.
Using their expertise, Extension professionals can engage commissioners in a meaningful exchange to achieve success for both a county and Extension within that county.
We are part of a Washington State University  Extension team that has supported Ferry County, Washington, in such a way.
In our case, Extension and county officials and personnel, working together, implemented an evaluation model featuring two-way communication and consensus building to establish continuous process improvement that has led to sustainable programs.
In other words, county officials wanted to develop an engaging annual evaluation process that would inform strategic planning, budgeting, and governance efforts, which in turn would support local Extension programs deemed important to the county, and we are achieving that goal.
There are often financial challenges associated with the ability to gather and use data in rural areas.
County leaders are faced with expensive options when they need to conduct an evaluation or otherwise collect critical information.
Simply put, research and evaluation can be expensive or cost prohibitive.
One way for Extension to help counties achieve effective evaluation is by assisting in the application of utilization-focused evaluation.
Providing such assistance generates the opportunity for organizational development and organizational change within the county and leads to a close, engaged relationship between Extension and the stakeholders.
Developed by Michael Quinn Patton, UFE is based on the premise that evaluation should be judged on its usefulness to the intended users.
Therefore, evaluators should design an evaluation and facilitate the process with careful consideration of how everything that is done, from beginning to end, will affect use of the evaluation.
UFE is particularly appealing to Extension practitioners for a couple of reasons.
First, UFE allows for customization of the evaluation process.
Second, UFE is likely to foster buy-in as it engages stakeholders in developing the evaluation methodology and instrument.
Herein, we describe our example of applying the engagement model and UFE to assist a county in creating effective two-way communication between county commissioners and county employees.
In the case we present, WSU Extension collaborated with Ferry County to leverage UFE after the county experienced a series of economic setbacks that culminated in the closure of an important gold mine and the state's highest unemployment and poverty rates.
Ferry County needed to assess its organizational climate on a regular basis to better understand changes in infrastructure, operational needs, economic development issues, and budget challenges that were affecting resources, funding, and morale.
According to Patton , an engaged approach has been found to improve the probability that both the evaluation process itself and an evaluation's findings will be used for informing decisions and improving performance.
Beyond benefits to the county, WSU Extension's efforts to support the commissioners also demonstrated that collaborating with counties to develop effective evaluations is an important role that Extension leaders are highly capable of filling.
Following the stark change in county economic conditions and disappearance of critical industries, the integrated and engaging support Extension provided was of great value to Ferry County and served as a reminder of Extension's importance.
When gold mine officials announced the mine's closure and the company's exit strategy in early 2014, county commissioners asked Extension to evaluate the situation.
Then in late 2014, commissioners again turned to Extension for assistance with ongoing economic development programming and planning.
As a result of ensuing work by Extension and the county, a long-term sustainable annual evaluation process, achieved through a county climate survey, is now in place.
A high level of annual collaboration stemming from a model of engagement between Extension and county commissioners has led to a valid UFE process for informing community and economic development.
Since the point at which consensus was reached on the evaluation framework and approach, Extension faculty have continued using the engagement model to facilitate and contribute to two-way communication involving department heads and county employees, key intended stakeholders in the UFE process.
Collective efforts have been made to distribute the evaluation findings to employees each summer.
Monthly meetings with county department heads are used for reviewing the findings, analyzing the data, and disseminating results to the commissioners for use in strategic planning and budget hearings.
The evaluation framework and approach are explained herein.
The original UFE framework introduced by Patton in 1978 has five steps for coordinating useful surveys.
Each step contributes to maintaining focus on the usefulness of both the process and findings of the evaluation.
The latest version of UFE involves 17 steps; however, for our collaboration with Ferry County, we applied the original five steps.
Using this approach shortened the process and streamlined input, allowing us to implement an online survey, collect data, and begin analysis in a few short weeks.
UFE focuses on specific users of an evaluation, such as commissioners and county employees, and specific uses of the evaluation, such as for strategic planning, rather than on general or abstract users and uses.
Along with five critical steps, UFE as described in Patton's original work involves two essential elements.
An examination of how we initially applied the five steps and two essential elements of UFE in an engaged effort in Ferry County can illustrate how others in Extension may directly engage and benefit elected officials in a meaningful and valuable way.
Identify primary intended users.
In the case of Ferry County, the intended users of the evaluation process and findings are all county employees, elected or not.
Originally, the commissioners needed input from county employees due to perceived changes in service and morale coupled with a drastic downturn in the local economy.
Gain commitment to UFE, and focus the evaluation effort.
The commissioners were intentional in having Extension faculty use their social capital and resources to engage in UFE because they realized the value of anonymously collecting useful information to identify needs, challenges, and opportunities correlating to governance and public service offerings.
In this case, the UFE element of inclusion led to commitment to a sustainable evaluation process that would involve distribution of an annual survey.
The stakeholders focused the evaluation effort by further agreeing that the sustainable evaluation process would include the following procedures:
 Make decisions about and develop the evaluation methodology and survey instrument.
Extension faculty worked with the county to accomplish the following goals as part of the commitment to annual evaluation:
 In this case, Extension's role as the evaluator was inclusive, rather than one performed in isolation as an expert developing an evaluation methodology.
WSU Extension professionals engaged the intended users, county employees, in developing and implementing the survey.
They worked with these intended users to connect with other faculty, researchers, and subject matter experts.
The subject matter experts communicated with both commissioners and county employees  and contributed to developing a useful and effective survey.
Using input from employees gained through monthly department head meetings, WSU Extension faculty established the three-pronged approach that would be used to develop the survey instrument and conduct the survey:
 This three-pronged approach was approved by the institutional review board at WSU and agreed on through consensus building among the intended users.
Analyze and interpret findings and reach conclusions.
Analysis and interpretation of the findings were achieved through engagement with departments and individuals, which took place at department head meetings and in individual follow-up sessions.
Specifically, our team of collaborating Extension professionals and Ferry County officials and personnel quantified the data and devised displays of the findings using standard visuals , data presentation options available via most online survey products.
An example of a conclusion based on our analysis was that questions that were not equally relevant to all county employees may have contributed to a high number of "neutral" responses by survey takers.
This observation in the analysis phase created open and ongoing dialogue between commissioners and frontline staff, who seldom have direct input in the analysis and interpretation aspects of evaluation processes.
Other conclusions related to addressing concerns identified in the survey responses.
Disseminate evaluation findings and demonstrate utility.
The intended users of the UFE process also were engaged in disseminating findings, including in the annual report.
Upon completion of data analysis, department heads shared the findings with county employees before sharing them with the commissioners.
Extension faculty followed up with commissioners to further disseminate the findings and to help them prepare for use of the findings in budget hearings, strategic planning, and future decision making.
A final meeting during budget hearings was also part of the process to further disseminate the findings.
Utility was demonstrated with regard to both the evaluation process and the evaluation findings.
For example, one illustration of the utility of the process is that the survey itself became a motivator for participation, as demonstrated through increased response rates over time.
Additionally, analyzing the data through an engagement model, rather than an expert model, established not only a baseline data set but also a process for continual improvement.
With regard to the evaluation findings, feedback loops throughout the process helped commissioners and Extension faculty make decisions to address concerns identified through the survey responses.
UFE aligns decision making with the results of a survey of intended users, and the UFE framework aids in facilitating decision making.
In the case of our initial application of UFE in Ferry County, findings informed decision making related to both county governance and collaboration with Extension on countywide programming.
For example, the process led to Extension's offering grant writing workshops and obtaining funding for 4-H newsletters.
In other words, an engagement model coupled with UFE coupled helped align the county's annual strategic planning and budgeting processes with Extension's needs and funding.
Although other evaluation methods were options for Extension professionals and commissioners, UFE provided a useful framework for exploring the needs, challenges, and opportunities of an economically distressed community.
Through the engagement model we applied, a quasi-advisory board and an environment of skillful experts were created, and feedback loops informed decisions.
Kern  emphasized that advisory boards and subject-matter expertise are essential to "economic development, good governance, and other concepts" ("Background" section, para.
The literature on strengthening the connection between Extension professionals and core audiences is as relevant today as it has been in the past.
Flourishing technology and better access to information suggest that Extension's relevance may be in question.
Moreover, Houser, Denny, Reimer, Marquart-Pyatt, and Stuart  revealed that declines in public funding and cutting-edge private sector advancements have contributed to low use of Extension for support with agriculture and crops.
Obviously, demonstrating Extension's relevance and value, especially to funding stakeholders, is important work.
Bull, Cote, Warner, and McKinnie  noted that agriculture and rural programming should align with the needs of the public and those elected to serve them because "Extension is a living, evolving, market-driven organization that responds to society's changing needs" ("Conclusion" section, para.
Thus, UFE, applied via an engagement model, is a great tool for achieving collaboration that helps leaders use data for evidence-based decisions and organizational change and further demonstrates Extension's value.
Using UFE in Ferry County helped commissioners bring county employees into the decision-making process and created an informed environment leading to useful exchanges that resulted in organizational change over time.
Underscoring the success of the endeavor, one county employee said, "The County Climate Survey [UFE] helped me see the need for changing or improving Ferry County services.
I also realized that changes to our county policies needed to happen."
 In describing a similar collaboration with the public that involved use of a different evaluation tool, Robinson and Shepard  revealed that conducting a comprehensive needs assessment can be a valuable method for identifying priorities on which to focus programs or services, just as the collaborators in our case realized.
For instance, once the needs of Ferry County were understood, the departments implemented new technology, partnered on projects, strategically shared resources, reorganized processes, and created new services.
Additionally, the UFE process improved morale and services, according to the data.
As important, by employing the engagement model, Extension benefited from the process and became a valued resource in countywide economic development, strategic planning, and budgeting.
These outcomes reflect the suggestion by Robinson and Shepard  that the intersection of needs assessment and programming ensures that collaboration supports cognizant decision making and that diverse voices  are incorporated.
In the case of Ferry County, Extension professionals achieved success in shaping change and creating stronger collaborations while building consensus that revealed opportunities to evaluation participants.
Use of the UFE framework resulted in an engaged, evidence-based approach to addressing limited budgets and resources.
The overarching implications for Extension professionals are twofold.
One, this kind of UFE work is an effective way for Extension to demonstrate its value and relevance to elected officials and counties.
Two, the UFE framework can provide an engaging opportunity to offer relevant programming, which could assist with maintaining or improving Extension funding and resources.
From the Morrill Act to the Smith-Lever Act, it is clear that land-grant universities are charged with engaging communities to provide the best available research and science.
According to Gavazzi and Gee , it has been said that in pursuit of increased research, engagement, and teaching, land-grant universities should be fierce in leveraging the abilities of Extension to interface with communities.
In keeping with the land-grant mission, university and Extension faculty are well equipped to engage resources throughout the university for achieving public benefit and teaching elected officials basic tenets of research and evaluation.
As demonstrated in the case presented here, personnel in county Extension offices can work with university experts to engage leaders in their communities with valuable evaluation or research support.
Ferry County Commissioner Nathan Davis explained Extension's usefulness in this way:
 Because WSU is a tier one research institution, Extension personnel are known for surveys, evaluations, and research.
We wanted all of our leadership and public servants to benefit from this collective institutional knowledge as we deal with the fact that our gold mine is closed.
Better understanding the attitudes and perceptions of our employees is important as we move forward in fighting rural or economic decay and shrinking budgets, as well as the stresses that come with those issues at a County level.
Through the engagement model and UFE lens, an additional benefit the university brings to the table for local government is the ability to serve as a neutral, nonpartisan provider with significant experience working with multiple partners.
University involvement brings academic and scientific rigor to bear on complex problems communities are facing.
UFE has evolved from education evaluation into a powerful tool that can be used for change and leadership.
For example, the literature revealed that the progression of basic evaluation to the UFE model has affected publicprivate partnerships and created change related to conservation education programming , water quality assessment , quality of life or health services , medical orientation programs , court reform or balance of power , and Extension program evaluation.
What this means to community leaders and to local government officials is that by working with local Extension professionals, who are already familiar with the people, players, and politics in their communities, they can, as in the case described here, gain access to expertise from across the university.
This access to university resources will assist leaders in better understanding the needs of their communities and efficiently obtaining scientific or evidence-based recommendations on how to meet those needs that affect organizational change.
Blazing an evaluation pathway: Lessons learned from applying utilization-focused evaluation to a conservation education program.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 165171.
Land-grant universities for the future: Higher education for the public good.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation.
American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 419429.
Utilization-focused evaluation: Evaluating the effectiveness of a hospital nursing orientation program.
Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 16, 202208.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
A utilization-focused and theory-based evaluation of an arsenic well testing program.
In Proceedings of the Best Education Practices  Symposium for Water Outreach Professionals: Defining BEPs, Refining New Resources and Recommending Future Actions (pp.
Evaluating Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit using a utilization-focused evaluation framework: Successful strategies and prerequisite conditions.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 9197.
October 2001 // Volume 39 // Number 5 // Research in Brief // 5RIB5
 Abstract The study reported here examined the nature of the nutrition messages communicated by the media about the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Upon the release of the 1995 Guidelines, a mass media content analysis was conducted to determine the nature of the media messages communicated to the public.
Media channels included were national and local newspapers, national television news and news type programs, magazines, and National Public Radio.
Findings indicate that the Dietary Guidelines are not covered adequately by the media.
Nutrition educators are encouraged to take a more active role in making their expertise available to the various media channels.
The mass media are the primary vehicles used by the lay public to obtain health and nutrition information.
The latest American Dietetic Association Nutrition Trends 2000 survey  emphasizes the importance of the various media as sources of nutrition information.
Survey results indicate that television and magazines were the two primary sources mentioned by 48% and 47% of respondents, respectively, followed by newspapers  and reference/general books.
The power of the mass media is apparent and easily explained.
The various media channels reach the majority of Americans on a daily basis.
For instance, more than 98% of total U.S.
households own a television (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1996), and on any given night, over 91 million Americans are watching their televisions.
Such statistics show that the media are very efficient at reaching consumers.
They require minimal cost per contact and are geographically accessible to most people.
In addition, they offer consumers nutrition information in many different forms and with multiple contacts to reinforce the message.
The media increase public awareness and have a significant influence on people's thinking and decision-making about food and nutrition.
For nutrition educators, working with the media has become a professional obligation.
To effectively fulfill this obligation, nutrition professionals must first understand the nature and characteristics of the nutrition messages conveyed in the media.
The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were released on January 2, 1996.
On that date, a copy of the Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans  document was obtained from the World Wide Web  and was reviewed to establish keywords for media searches.
The mass media content analysis was conducted in the Twin Cities area in Minnesota from January 2 through March 2, 1996.
Media channels included in the analysis were national and local newspapers, national television news and news type programs, magazines, and National Public Radio.
Media channels, databases, and keywords used for the searches are presented in Table 1.
Local television stations were not continuously monitored because of the lack of resources to follow several television stations, 24 hours daily, for the 2 months period of the study.
Journal Graphics  was the database used to monitor television news programs and NPR.
This database limits the searches to pre-established topic codes.
Therefore, for television and radio programs, topic codes instead of keywords were selected for the analysis.
Media citations were reviewed by the principle investigator and three graduate students.
Based upon the citations, the group convened to decide if each article or broadcast either:
 After reading the article, a decision was made whether or not any messages from the Dietary Guidelines were conveyed.
A mass media log was compiled to determine:
 During the 60-day monitoring period, 118 reports were published containing messages about the Dietary Guidelines.
Of those, 64 reports discussed at least two guidelines, resulting in a total of 185 guideline messages conveyed.
The majority of the stories appeared in January  rather than February , with four additional stories published in the January/February issues of bimonthly magazines.
A total of 10 articles were retrieved in the 2 days of coverage in March, mostly from magazines.
A total of 49 reports about the Dietary Guidelines were retrieved from magazines, 37 from newspapers, 29 from television, and 3 from NPR.
Table 2 lists the total number of Dietary Guidelines articles per researched magazine and newspaper.
The Cable News Network  channel aired the majority of the television broadcasts.
The Guidelines' release was reported in 22 stories, all of which appeared in January, with the most coverage aired on CNN  or published in newspapers.
Content analysis revealed that, upon the release of the Guidelines document, reports simply stated the new guidelines and addressed the changes from the previous version.
One of the changes that attracted the most media attention was the alcohol recommendation, discussed in 10 of the 22 reports.
The coverage of the alcohol recommendation continued even after the initial period when the guidelines were released, with 8 additional stories appearing in February.
Most of the reports about alcohol discussed how its consumption in moderation may help reduce the risks for certain chronic diseases.
Other modifications to the Guidelines that caught media attention were the weight and exercise recommendation , the new weight chart that does not account for weight gain with age , and the text recognizing vegetarian diets.
The guidelines about variety, sodium, and sugar received little attention.
Of the seven guidelines, the dietary fat recommendation received the most media coverage, appearing in a total of 55 reports.
However, this guideline was not fully communicated.
Only one report mentioned saturated fat, and six discussed cholesterol.
In addition, this guideline was often communicated as a strategy to lose weight , with popular themes proclaiming how low fat foods did not have to mean foods low in flavor and recommending the use of herbs and spices in cooking as a substitute for fat.
A number of reports  discussed the association between dietary fat and chronic diseases.
Most of the stories about dietary fat appeared in newspapers , followed by magazines , CNN , and television morning programs.
The weight and physical activity guideline was discussed, at least in part, in 52 reports.
Most of these references focused on weight loss solely by means of dietary restriction, with exercise mentioned in only 17 of the 52 reports.
Several of the articles or broadcasts  included testimonials of weight loss success stories.
Tips, strategies, or recipes to promote weight loss were also included in several of the reports.
By far, the majority of the reports regarding this guideline appeared in magazines , with 6 of the 33 published in Weight Watchers, 3 in Family Circle, 2 in Prevention, and 2 in Redbook.
Controlling portion size was mentioned in only 2 articles, both published in Weight Watchers magazine.
The fruits, vegetables, and grains guideline was discussed in 26 reports, mainly in newspapers  and magazines.
Nine of the 26 stories did not discuss grain products, and only 2 stories mentioned dietary fiber.
Topics covered varied from promoting weight loss, to decreasing the risk for chronic diseases, to warning Americans that they are not meeting their fruits and vegetables needs.
Two articles discussed a research study findings that beta-carotene supplements were not a substitute for fruits and vegetables in cancer prevention.
Very rarely were nutrition and health professionals cited in the reports.
Research scientists were featured in 7 reports, medical doctors in 6 reports, and registered dietitians in 5 reports.
Four articles or broadcasts mentioned "diet experts" without further specification about their credentials.
Finally, 15 reports included negative messages that were based on fear or guilt.
The majority of these negative messages  appeared in newspapers.
Findings from this research indicate that the different Dietary Guidelines recommendations did not receive the same degree of media coverage.
For instance, most of the 22 reports featuring the release of the new Guidelines document were discussed in terms of one of the four following subjects:
 Considering the characteristics of what makes "news" , the contents of these stories are not surprising.
Newsom and Wollert  describe newsworthy information as being unusual, reflective of change, interesting, timely, informational, impactful, and/or surprising.
Therefore, we presume that the media considered the aforementioned changes to the Guidelines as newsworthy messages.
The alcohol recommendation especially received much of the media coverage making headlines, such as "Good news on drinking, fries with that please" , and "Toasting yourself?".
Besides being new, another likely explanation for the alcohol guideline making big news is the novelty that a behavior, typically identified as "unhealthy," is now declared to foster good health.
Also, unlike most nutrition messages usually perceived to result in a potential reduction in enjoyment, this recommendation is allowing consumers to engage in a gratifying behavior.
Of the seven dietary guidelines , decreasing fat intake and losing or maintaining weight were, by far, the two recommendations with the most media coverage.
Given the public's interest in losing weight and in lowering their fat intake , these two guidelines most likely receive much of the media coverage year-round.
Unfortunately, the dietary fat guideline was not completely communicated by the media.
There was almost no mention of specifics regarding intake of saturated fat or of any other types of fat.
Possibly, the characteristics of the media in communicating simple and short messages  provide an explanation for the exclusion of saturated fat from the reports.
Explaining the different types of dietary fat may be too complicated and confusing to the public.
As a result, the media purposely avoid delving into the particularities of the topic.
The fact remains that dietary fats are not discussed appropriately in the media.
If the public is receiving most of its nutrition information from the various media sources, it is no wonder consumers' knowledge of fats and cholesterol is poor.
Nutrition and health professionals need to work closely with the media to improve the coverage on dietary fats.
One of the limitations of the present study is that television programs monitored did not include an analysis of local news programs; therefore, television coverage of the Dietary Guidelines may have been underestimated.
It is possible that a number of local stations' news included their own reports about the different guidelines.
Due to time limitations, it is unlikely that these reports would have been long enough to provide complete coverage of the complex nutrition topics of the guidelines.
On the other hand, if long time segments  were set aside to thoroughly discuss the guidelines, they were not captured by this study.
This limitation should be considered when interpreting the findings of this research.
In conclusion, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the nutrition policy document of the U.S.
Government, is not covered adequately by the media.
Nutrition and health educators need to take a more active role in contacting the media and making their knowledge and expertise available to the various media channels.
In addition, public and private nutrition organizations should be closely involved in bringing the guidelines report to the forefront of the news.
Some recommendations about accomplishing this feat include:
 Effective nutrition education for behavior change.
Clarksville, MD: Wolf Rinke Associates, Inc.
Qualitative research: What do we know about teaching good nutritional habits?
Journal of Nutrition, 124 , 1808S-1812S.
Changing the American diet.
Impact on cancer prevention policy recommendations and program implications for the American Cancer Society.
Trends in the United States: consumer attitudes and the supermarket.
Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute.
Communication and education skills for dietetics professionals.
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Denver, CO: Journal Graphics, Inc.
Factors perceived to influence dietary fat reduction behaviors.
Journal of Nutrition Education, 31, 134-144.
Use of food nutrition labels is associated with lower fat intake.
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 99, 45-53.
Media writing; Preparing information for the mass media.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
1993 Nielsen Report on television.
Keep it short and simple.
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 94, 971-973.
B., & McDowell, A.
Nutrition knowledge and attitudes of cardiac patients.
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 95, 442-446.
Chef's attitudes toward healthful food preparation are more positive than their food science knowledge and practices.
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 98, 165-169.
An Examination of the Media Coverage and the Public's Knowledge of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
What do consumers really think about dietary fat?
Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 1997 , S73-S75.
Consumer attitudes to nutrition labeling.
British Food Journal, 99, 283-289.
Education and communication strategies for different groups and settings.
FAO Food and Nutrition Paper, 62, 71-107.
Bureau of the Census.
Statistical abstracts of the United States: 1996.
Department of Agriculture & U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Nutrition and your health: Dietary guidelines for Americans.
Home and Garden Bulletin No.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Department of Agriculture & U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Nutrition and your health: Dietary guidelines for Americans.
Home and Garden Bulletin No.232.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
Making health communication programs work: A Planner's guide.
Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Media choice in nutrition education of general practitioners.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65, S2013-S2015.
Using Standardized Evaluation Metrics to Demonstrate Collective Statewide Impacts of Diverse Water Conservation Programming Abstract Although the diversity of Florida Cooperative Extension landscape water conservation programs creates evaluation challenges, it is possible to measure their impacts as a whole.
We conducted pilot testing of a statewide evaluation strategy and identified behavior changes resulting in an average monthly water savings of 3,257 gal and utility bill savings of $10.78 per participant.
Here we explain the approach we used, providing details about underlying research on water conservation practices and technologies, standardized metrics for demonstrating environmental and economic impacts of behavior/technology adoption, and reporting tools.
A focus on statewide impacts based on standardized metrics can be extremely valuable to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.; Wolters, 2014).
In Florida, a state well known for its pleasing landscapes, residents pump thousands of gallons of water into their landscapes daily in amounts that exceed what is required by turfgrass and other landscape plants, sometimes applying more than two thirds of their total household water use toward irrigation.
More efficient residential irrigation is considered a key to saving water, and Feature the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences  offers statewide Cooperative Extension programs  to encourage water conservation practices among residents.
One of the highest priorities is the reduction of landscape water use.
Cooperative Extension is known for delivering educational programs based on local needs.
However, evaluating statewide impacts can be difficult.
In Florida, evaluating the statewide impacts of water conservation programs is a major challenge, due to the variability of programs around the state.
To address this challenge, we assembled a team of researchers and Extension professionals with expertise in water issues, agricultural engineering, natural resources economics, survey methodology, and program evaluation.
We collaborated to develop an evaluation approach that would allow us to use standardized metrics to demonstrate the statewide impacts of Florida's diverse water conservation programming efforts.
Minimal information is available in existing literature on evaluating similar outcomes across diverse programs , and this initiative addressed that gap.
Overview of the Evaluation Approach To achieve our goal, we developed an evaluation "package" comprised of three stages : Stage 1-capturing behavior/technology adoption resulting from UF/IFAS Extension programs; Stage 2-demonstrating environmental and economic impacts of behavior/technology adoption; and Stage 3-sharing impacts.
This evaluation package is innovative because it allows for demonstration of unified statewide impacts of diverse water conservation programming efforts in Florida.
The package includes survey tools for measuring behavior change , resources for converting behavior changes to gallons of water saved  and gallons of water saved to financial and other impacts  , and a data presentation tool.
Stages of Evaluation Package for Demonstrating Unified Statewide Impacts of Water Conservation Programming Efforts in Florida Pilot Test To test the new evaluation approach, we collected postprogram data via paper survey from 75 individuals who attended one of three Florida Cooperative Extension water conservation programs selected for the pilot test.
The pilot test instruments were designed to examine standard water conservation practices promoted by UF/IFAS Extension.
The instruments were validated by a panel of experts with expertise in agricultural and biological engineering, landscape water conservation practices, survey methodology, and Extension program development.
Out of 75 participants who completed the study's retrospective pre-/posttest survey, 49 provided their email addresses for follow-up.
Six months later, we sent the electronic follow-up survey to those 49 participants.
Out of 49 emails sent, 44 were deliverable to Extension program participants, and we received a total of 23 completed surveys, for a completion rate of 52.2%.
Stage 1 Capturing Behavior/Technology Adoption Resulting from UF/IFAS Extension Programs We first used a retrospective pre-/posttest survey to measure Extension program participants' water conservation behavioral intentions attributable to participation in the programs.
The retrospective pre-/posttest survey was administered by Extension agents in electronic or paper format.
We then used a companion followup survey to measure participants' water conservation behavior changes resulting from participation in the programs.
The follow-up survey was designed to be administered electronically by Extension specialists 6 months after program participation.
The survey tools were accessed by members who had been added to a water conservation evaluation group, and we designed the tools so that data could be accessed in real time and filtered by agent, county, or district.
In addition to capturing behavior change, the surveys  addressed square footage of irrigated landscape and frequency of irrigation.
The survey design was informed by the water conservation potential of various behaviors identified through Florida-based research on irrigation practices and technologies  conducted by Boyer and Dukes.
Table 1 presents the estimated quantity of water saved as a result of 11 landscape irrigation behavior changes.
Water Conservation Potential Associated with the Adoption of Landscape Water Conservation Behaviors Water Water Savings Conservation  cost  Documentation Install expanding 2,541 200 Rationale: Meeks et al.
disk interrupt rain found that using rain sensors sensor resulted in an 8% irrigation savings for a two days/week irrigation schedule.
CrdenasLailhacar et al.
observed a 13%-24% irrigation savings using a rain sensor during dry conditions.
In an earlier study, Crdenas-Lailhacar et al.
observed irrigation savings of 3%-44% depending on the rain sensor type and setpoint.
Calculation: A conservative estimate of irrigation savings is 8%:   = 2,541 Calibrate sprinkler 7,9422401 Rationale: Trenholm and Unruh system to deliver 15,884  recommend 0.5-0.75 1/2" or 3/4" water in/irrigation event.
Calculation: instead of 1" By using 0.75 in/event, there is a 25% savings as compared to the baseline; and by using 0.5 in/event, there is a 50% savings:   = 7,942;   = 15,884 Use UF/IFAS 12,707 2402 Rationale: Dukes  notes recommendations that a 60% ET replacement and calibrate schedule is generally adequate to sprinkler system maintain turf, although some to replace 60% ET supplemental hand watering may instead of 100% be necessary during warm months.
Calculation: By replacing only 60% of water, 40% will be saved:   = 12,707 Install soil 11,118500 Rationale: Several studies have moisture sensor 22,872 demonstrated the water savings or potential of soil moisture sensor evapotranspiration  or evapotranspiration  controller controller.
When using an ET controller and rain sensor, Rutland and Dukes  observed a 41% irrigation reduction under wet conditions, and Davis et al.
found a 43% reduction under dry conditions.
In an SMS study in Gainesville, Florida, CrdenasLailhacar et al.
observed irrigation savings of 72% during wet conditions and of 35%  to 54%  during dry conditions.
SMSs and ET controllers tend to reduce irrigation by 35%-72%.
Calculation:   = 11,118;   = 22,872 Convert turfgrass 15,569750 Rationale: Trenholm et al.
area to 31,767 recommends that ornamental landscaped bed plants be irrigated only as needed with micro once established.
This irrigation recommendation is based on studies of ornamentals grown in Florida (Scheiben et al.
2008; Wiese et al.
Alternatively, Haley and Dukes  reported that mixed turf and ornamental landscapes that used microirrigation in landscaped beds irrigated 74 mm/month over the entire landscape, which is equal to 55 mm/month  for the ornamentals, as compared to 105 mm/month for irrigation with sprinklers only.
Calculation:  = 15,569 Convert spray 2,859 2963 Rationale: MSMT nozzles apply head nozzles to water more evenly and have multi-stream, lower application rates.
Southern Nevada  nozzles Water Authority and Eugene Water and Electricity Board (Sovocool et al.
2013; Petersen 2012) have both observed an improvement in distribution uniformity that could translate to a 9% savings based on the Irrigation Association's scheduling multiplier.
Calculation:   = 2,859 Install pressure 2,224 2724 Rationale: At a higher pressure, a compensating spray head will apply a greater heads rate.
By reducing pressure from 50 to 30 psi, the flowrate could be decreased by approximately 7%.5Calculation assumes that 60 psi is the minimum municipal pressure maintained for fire protection, 50 psi is a reasonable on-site pressure, and 30 psi is the sprinkler manufacturer's recommended operating pressure.
Calculation:   = 2,224 Reduce irrigation 10,483 o Rationale: Reduction from 3 from 3 days/week days/week to 2 days/week yields to 2 days/week an annual 33% savings.
Calculation:   = 10,483 Reduce irrigation 22,555 o Rationale: Reduction from 7 from 7 days/week days/week to 2 days/week yields to 2 days/week an annual 71% savings.
Calculation:   = 22,555 Reduce irrigation 8,259 o Rationale: During the period frequency during between daylight savings the winter  March), irrigation would be skipped every other week.
During the weeks the irrigation system would run, irrigation would be reduced from two times per week to one time per week.
Irrigation savings would be achieved through 9 weeks of no irrigation and 9 weeks of 50% reduction in irrigation.
Total annual irrigation reduction would be 26%.
Calculation:   = 8,259 Reduce irrigation 5,718 o Rationale: The summer months frequency during typically have sufficient rainfall to the summer provide the majority of the turfgrass's water requirements.
Summer  savings could be approximated by the savings obtained using a soil moisture sensor.
In a SMS study in Gainesville, Florida, CrdenasLailhacar et al.
observed irrigation savings of 72% during wet conditions.
Calculation:    = 5,718 1,2Based on a four-hour irrigation contractor service call at $60/hr 3Based on 8 nozzles per 1,000 sq ft area at $7/nozzle and a four-hour irrigation contractor service call at $60/hr 4Based on eight pressure regulating spray heads per 1,000 sq ft area at $4/spray head and a four-hour irrigation contractor service call at $60/hr 5Reduction based on Toro Precision Series with arcs Q, H, and F and with radii of 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 ft.
The baseline annual water use  is estimated for Central Florida and based on University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommendations, with irrigation twice per week with 100% evapotranspiration replacement and an irrigation rate of 1.0 in./hr.
Table is reprinted with permission from "Estimated Water Savings Potential of Florida-Friendly Landscaping Activities" , by M.
Dukes, 2015, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL, pp.
To ensure a useful end product, we used an ad hoc feedback process with Extension professionals that guided multiple rounds of revision during development of the survey tools.
For example, although rain barrel installation is not a target behavior from a water savings standpoint, it is an important part of many programs, and participating agents requested associated data.
Stage 2: Demonstrating Environmental and Economic Impacts Based on Pilot Test Data Using the results from the pilot test follow-up survey, we calculated gallons of water saved by participants using the known savings associated with each behavior change along with the average area of irrigated landscape in square feet.
We then identified the statewide average utility bill cost per thousand gallons of water to estimate the savings for program participants.
Number of Participants Who Adopted Specific Conservation Behaviors and Associated Savings Associated Average Average water monthly water monthly savings savings water Number   by bill of per 1,000 follow-up savings Behavior responses ft2/month residents/month  Used different irrigation 1 1,059 1,839 6.09 zones/zone run times based on plants' irrigation needs Adjusted irrigation times 1 582 1,011 3.35 seasonally Followed watering 4 1,147 7,968 26.37 restrictions Eliminated irrigated 6 2,647 27,588 91.32 areas/Turned off zone or cap irrigation heads for established woody plants Converted turfgrass 4 1,972 13,700 45.35 areas to landscaped bed/Replaced high-water plants with droughttolerant plants/Replaced high-volume irrigated areas with low-volume irrigated areas Total 16 52,106 172.48 Average for 16 3,257 10.78 respondents Note.
Out of 23 follow-up responses, only 16 responses were included in further analysis.
Average Irrigated Landscape Area We calculated the average irrigated landscape area (1,737 ft2 by identifying the mean of respondents' reported irrigated landscape square footages.
Respondents' average irrigated landscape area was much lower than the average size for residential irrigated landscapes ; this may be because these respondents had already adopted relevant water conservation practices, such as replacing irrigated landscape with nonirrigated landscape.
Irrigation Water Use The annual baseline irrigation for turfgrass by Central Florida homeowners is 31,767 gal per 1,000 ft2.
We multiplied this number by the average size of the irrigated landscape to calculate the baseline annual irrigation water use among the 23 Extension participants, resulting in an average 55,179 gal of water used by each participant annually [31,767  = 55,179 gal].
To estimate the average monthly irrigation water use, we divided 55,179 gal per year by 12, for a result of 4,598 gal per month.
Total Water Use The estimated indoor water use in a 12-person household is 67.6 gal per day, or 4,521 gal per household per month.
We added this number to the average monthly irrigation water use , for a result of 9,119 gal of total water used per household per month.
Calculation of Estimated Water Savings Resulting from Adopting Landscape Water Conservation Behaviors Research has not yet explored the cumulative effects of adopting multiple landscape water conservation behaviors.
Therefore, when participants indicated that they had made multiple changes to their irrigation, we opted to calculate water saved conservatively by using only the single behavior that corresponded to the highest water savings.
To simplify calculations, we grouped behaviors that resulted in same amounts of water savings and had five different groups based on similar water savings.
For example, water savings when a participant had seasonally adjusted irrigation times was 6,988 gal per 1,000 ft2 per year , which corresponds to a monthly water savings of 582 gal per 1,000 ft2.
We multiplied this value by the average irrigated landscape area  to determine that the average water savings for a participant who adopted this practice was 1,011 gal per month.
We calculated water savings for the other four landscape water conservation behavioral groups in this manner as well.
Calculation of Estimated Financial Savings Resulting from Adopting Landscape Water Conservation Behaviors We calculated water rates using reported water rates based on an average consumption of 4,000 and 8,000 gal per month from 187 water and wastewater service providers in Florida.
We excluded wastewater charges and possible taxes or fees collected by water utility providers.
The average statewide bill for 4,000 gal per month water consumption was $21.56, and the average statewide bill for 8,000 gal per month water consumption was $34.15 Most of the utilities use minimum water charges and apply inclining water rates, with water price per thousand gallons increasing with water use.
To identify the average reduction in water bill per thousand gallons of water saved, we estimated the difference between the bills for 8,000 gal and 4,000 gal  and divided the difference by 4.
The average savings due to reductions in water use was $3.31 per thousand gallons of water saved.
For example, we calculated water bill savings relative to the practice of seasonally adjusting irrigation times by multiplying the monthly water savings  by the statewide average cost per thousand gallons of water.
The resulting water bill savings averaged $3.35 per person per month.
Results: Estimated Water and Financial Savings Resulting from Adopting Landscape Water Conservation Behaviors The total savings that corresponded to the reported behavior changes in the group of respondents was 52,106 gal of water per month, or 625,272 gal per year, which is valued at a monthly overall total of $172.48, or $2,069.76 per year, a savings of about $10.78 per participant per month.
Additionally, we calculated water delivery cost reductions , which corresponded to a savings of $135.48 per month for Florida water utilities, or approximately $1,625.76 per year.
Stage 3: Sharing Impacts To highlight the statewide impacts we identified using our innovative evaluation approach, we used the pilot test data to create an infographic showcasing the most common behavior changes, the corresponding quantities of water saved, and the resulting financial benefits to both residents and water utilities.
We then distributed the infographic to Extension professionals through various sources, such as social media platforms and personalized emails.
The informal feedback we received was positive, and we plan to modify the image annually.
Our strategy for sharing impacts was not limited to the infographic; we also generated news releases and provided a template for agents' annual report of accomplishments.
Because impact measurement is important for empowering communities, demonstrating the value of UF/IFAS Extension, and guiding Extension program planning, we presented the impacts of water savings as metrics that relate to communities.
Also, along with using various formats to present information , we used various options for information dissemination, such as social Figure 2.
Infographic Presenting Pilot Test Water Conservation Outcomes and Impacts Considering that the pilot test data were collected from a very small sample and that over 80,000 people participate in UF/IFAS water conservation programming in Florida each year (D.
Craig, personal communication, December 7, 2015), our pilot test demonstrated the substantial impacts Extension programs can have on water resources.
Further, it points to the great need to measure and document these otherwise unreported impacts.
Encouraging Participation by Extension Professionals Efforts are under way to standardize water conservation impact reporting throughout the state.
We have conducted several in-service trainings to raise awareness of the tools, explain the process, and encourage Extension professionals to use the available resources in their program evaluation efforts.
Additional support was provided through an informal monthly webinar open to all interested Extension professionals, through which they could learn and ask questions about the project.
In 2016, 9 months after the full version of the evaluation packet was launched, 34 Extension agents had accessed the tools for their use.
Florida Extension administration is encouraging Extension professionals to engage in standardized water conservation impact reporting.
District Extension directors have been helpful in disseminating information and have encouraged Extension professionals to participate.
Discussion The approach we used for standardized water conservation impact reporting has multiple advantages.
The estimated water savings can be supported by the available literature.
Additionally, the format allows for flexible reporting at the individual, local, and state level and provides a mechanism for examining the impacts of alternative delivery methods or program designs.
The endeavor of developing a standardized evaluation process has some limitations and challenges.
Although the tools for standardization have been requested by Extension professionals  and feedback has been very positive, the tools have not been used in the manner we anticipated.
We have found that many agents have adopted and adapted the tools for use in their individual programs and reported at the local level, but not at the state level.
We have overcome this challenge by modifying our approach and focusing on helping agents report on standard indicators in their annual reports of accomplishment.
We now focus on providing support to agents as they modify the approach for use with their local programs and then collating the data from their reports.
Overall, we have seen increased accountability in water conservation programs.
Furthermore, it is very difficult for Extension program participants to estimate the square footages of their irrigated landscape areas.
We tried different ways of helping participants provide accurate responses, and our solution was to provide a reference statement that helps the participant visualize the size of the irrigated landscape.
In moving forward, we have used an average residential irrigated area, a value that is available from University of Florida research.
Although self-reported data is considered a standard for Extension evaluation, responses may be affected by factors such as social desirability bias.
Even though resources limit the extent of data that can be collected , we hope to incorporate water supply utility company data to verify selfreported and estimated water savings in future evaluations.
Although the standardized evaluation approach simplifies the evaluation process, it does not account for the potential variability in water conservation results among households or different weather conditions, and this drawback can be addressed by the analysis of data from water supply utility companies.
Finally, whereas water conservation reduces customers' water bills and utility companies' treatment and delivery costs (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2004), it also affects the companies' revenues.
We did not address the relationship between customers' water use, utility companies' revenues, and water prices in this evaluation framework.
It is important to recognize, though, that given the population growth rate in the state, water conservation allows utility companies to delay costly investments in expanding capacity and acquiring additional water sources that also can be associated with increases in water prices.
As others have found, developing tools for standardization that reflect group consensus can be highly time consuming  and resources need to be invested into training the intended users of the tools.
Additional potential challenges include establishing a mechanism to measure statewide water savings impacts while enabling Extension professionals to personalize and access their own data.
Finally, this approach focuses on water conservation only and does not capture other impacts, such as increases in social capital, water quality improvements, protection of aquatic ecosystems, and improved plant health.
Recommendations Extension services across the United States face the challenge of standardizing data collection and reporting systems to demonstrate real impacts.
We recommend that program evaluators and Extension professionals collectively develop standardized evaluation tools that can centralize data collection and improve the quality of reporting.
We detailed the process we used to convert postprogram water conservation evaluation results into statewide impacts metrics so that this process can be replicated or modified by others.
We emphasize that it is possible to measure impacts across diverse programs, and we encourage Extension professionals to conduct economic evaluations of their programs in order to demonstrate impacts to funding agencies and legislators.
Although we consider the development of an approach based on standardized evaluation metrics a promising accomplishment, we have found that changing the process of statewide evaluation is time and resource intensive.
A remaining challenge is to incorporate reported impacts that are obtained through other methods, such as collection of actual water use data.
We are engaging a network of Extension professionals to encourage reporting on the statewide impacts.
On the basis of our experiences thus far, we recommend that Extension professionals establish a communication plan when they begin developing instruments for standardizing evaluations.
Extension professionals also should communicate regularly with administrators to ensure that centralized data collection and reporting will meet the needs and vision of the organization's leadership.
Future collaboration with water utility companies will facilitate the incorporation of quantitative water use data before and after Extension program attendance to measure the impact of a program.
Conclusions Our intention was not to report statistical results, given the small sample size; instead our purposes were to discuss our experiences and to demonstrate that diverse programs within a state can, and should, be collectively evaluated to demonstrate impacts.
We hope to further discuss and share the approach and tools presented in this article as we work to improve our process.
It is our hope that our experiences will be helpful to Extension professionals across the United States and will support others' reporting of environmental and economic program impacts to stakeholders, funding agencies, and legislators.
Overall, we learned several lessons and experienced several challenges, which have led us to improve our evaluation approach by focusing our efforts on standardizing agent-level reporting.
Strengths of the project include the availability of experts who brought research findings to instrument development-focused evaluation and acceptance of the standardized evaluation concept by Extension professionals.
The cooperation of Extension professionals who were enthusiastic about the process and willing to secure participants for the pilot test was critical to our success, and the pilot test helped establish the instrument's validity and reliability.
The availability of research on water savings  and utility rates  was essential in calculating the impact of specific landscape water conservation behaviors.
In the era of complex funding and strict accountability requirements, Extension professionals are challenged to report the economic impacts of their programs.
Sharing cost-based information with stakeholders, funding agencies, and legislators will enable Extension administrators to justify investments in their programs.
Presenting unified statewide environmental and economic impacts of diverse water conservation programming is a good way to meet this requirement.
The influence of water attitudes, perceptions, and learning preferences on water-conserving actions.
Natural Sciences Education, 42, 114-122.
Evaluating multiple prevention programs: Methods, results, and lessons learned.
Analysis of residential irrigation distribution uniformity.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 131, 336-341.
Exploring the effects of Extension workshops on household water-use behavior.
Estimating benefits of residential outdoor water conservation: A step-by-step guide.
Estimated water savings potential of Florida-Friendly Landscaping activities.
Methodologies for successful implementation of smart irrigation controllers.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 141, 1-9.
Master gardeners' role in encouraging water conservation using a rain gauge network.
The nature of complex organizations: The case of Cooperative Extension.
New Directions for Evaluation, 2008, 5-14.
Educating for sustainability: Competencies & practices for transformative action.
Journal of Sustainability Education, 2, 1-20.
Identifying 4-H camping outcomes using a standardized evaluation process across multiple 4-H educational centers.
Malhotra , Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.
London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Residential irrigation water use in Central Florida.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 133, 427-434.
Educating large landscape water users.
Defining audience segments for Extension programming using reported water conservation practices.
B., & McDonald, D.
Common evaluation tools across multi-state programs: A study of parenting education and youth engagement programs in children, youth, and families at-risk.
Principles of effective behavior change: Application to Extension family educational programming.
Enhancing and protecting water quality, quantity, and supply.
Drinking water costs & federal funding.
Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrccatalog.nsf/7322259e90d060c885256f0a0055db68/11ee7c3d286ab8b385 256f6c007134b9!opendocument U.S.
Climate impacts on water resources.
Enhancing the capacity to create behavior change: Extension key leaders' opinions about social marketing and evaluation.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 55, 176-190.
Attitude-behavior consistency in household water consumption.
The Social Science Journal, 51, 455-463.
Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal.
Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities.
If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support
Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support Abstract Incubator farms are a fairly new model developing across North America to address barriers to beginning farmers, including access to land, capital, and credit, and opportunities to learn and develop skills in farm business planning.
The number of incubator farms is increasing nationally.
A sub-sample of existing incubator farm programs are described and compared side by side, providing evidence of the variation in program design.
Extension may serve alternative roles, beyond the educator, in design and development of these programs.
edu Problem Statement Simply put, America needs new farmers.
However, support for new farmers is more complex than training up a new cohort.
The average age of farmers is 57 and rising , and reasons for farmer and farmland loss are multifaceted.
Farming continually grows more financially challenging, in part due to diminishing supplies of affordable inputs and competition with global exports.
Constraints vary, and reasons families do not stay in farming are often based around very personal, complex situations.
There is also increasing interest, from many non-farmers, in exploring farming as a new career.
This is encouraging, but constraints deter aspiring farmers from pursuit of their dreams.
These include access to land, access to capital, and farm business planning training and support.
Background The terminology "incubator farm" is fairly new and still somewhat variable in meaning.
An incubator farm is typically a place where people are given temporary, exclusive, and affordable access to small parcels of land and infrastructure, and often training, for the purpose of honing skills and launching farm businesses.
Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support A 2012 database developed by New Entry Sustainable Farming Project at Tufts University catalogued 61 programs across North America that consider themselves land-based incubator farms , with three of those programs in North Carolina.
Today, we are aware of nine distinct programs in NC.
North Carolina Incubator Farms | Incubator Farm Location Status Elma C.
Lomax Incubator Farm Cabarrus County Existing Hines Chapel Preserve Incubator Farm  Inter-faith Food Shuttle Incubator Farm Wake County Existing LINC Urban Farm Initiative New Hanover Planning County Maverick Farms Farm Incubator and Grower Watauga County Existing Program Onslow County Incubator Farm Onslow County Existing PLANT @ Breeze Farm Enterprise Incubator Orange County Existing Town of Robbins Incubator Farm  Moore County Planning Transplanting Traditions Community Farm Orange County Existing Theory of Change The theory of change behind incubator farm development is: By providing opportunities for new farmers to access land, develop the skill set and experience essential to run a successful farm, and help developing a business plan, these farmers have a better chance of securing capital, accessing their own land, and ultimately being successful in achieving their farm business goals.
This theory of change is based upon assumptions: The large number of consumers willing to pay premium prices for healthy, locally grown food has brought farming into the realm of possibility for a new cohort of farm entrepreneurs.
Market opportunities around towns and cities elicit small farm market viability.
Incubator farms provide lower-risk environments for beginning farmers to hone skills and establish markets before major financial investment in land and infrastructure.
Comparison of Programs To better understand the current design of incubator farm programs, we collected information on a subsample of programs from NC and around the U.S.
.
Programs selected represent outwardly Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support successful, longer-running incubator programs as a beginning guide to possible approaches to establishing future programs.
Review of the programs included interviews with key staff members and data gathered from program websites.
Data points included: Management structure, Infrastructure, Training, Markets, and Evaluation Our findings: Considerable variation exists among incubator programs, in their financing, land tenure, staffing, facilities, and fee structures.
Although common challenges exist for beginning farmers across the country, there is no "cookie cutter" approach to designing incubator farm programs.
Program evaluation of many incubator farms, to date, has been minimal; therefore, documentation of successes is limited.
Extension's involvement in programs varies across the U.S.
Programs are engaging many community and regional partners in their development and implementation.
Business Structure, Land Tenure, Staffing, and Financing Incubator Financing / Farm / Management Farm Management / Revenue 2012Location Structure Land Tenure Staff 2013 data ALBA 5013 Non-profit Rural Development 8 program and Grants/contracts Center  89leadership staff Salinas acre organic farm.
and Las Farm Training and Lomas, CA Research Center Sales through 55-acre farm.
501 3 Non-profit Using 9 acres of 30.6 Part-time Farm Participant fees.
Lomax including total acres.
Superintendent ; two Cooperative Partial funding Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support Farm Cabarrus County County.
Extension Agents annually by government and provide Cabarrus County Cabarrus Cabarrus County training/technical from deferred County, NC Cooperative assistance.
taxes paid on Extension farmland coming out of present use tax valuation.
Partial funding from county annual budget.
Grant funds supported initial development.
Intervale 5013 Non-profit 350 acres managed 15 employees  50% programs, Center by Intervale Center.
products, & Burlington, services.
Ownership: City of VT Burlington, Intervale 38% grants and Center, and private restricted landowners.
12% community support and business partners.
New Entry A partnership Using 10 acres on 8.5 FTE 80% grants.
Sustainable project between three sites.
Farming Tufts University and Ownership: Privately 10% programs.
Project Community held leased land.
Lowell, MA Teamwork, Inc.
5% individual 3) with donor support.
Advisory Board 5% other.
PLANTO @ Program of Orange Using 5 acres of 269 0.5 FTE Orange County Participant fees.
Breeze County Cooperative total acres (99 acres Ag.
Economic Farm Extension and open) and 40 acres Development Orange County Enterprise Orange County fenced and leased for Coordinator; two annual budget Incubator Economic grazing livestock.
Development staff support the farm Orange Ownership: NC State as a portion of their Grant funds to County, NC Planning University.
support Committee Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support infrastructure Part-time farmer Friends of Breeze development.
is a 5013 that Cooperative receives tax Extension deductible coordinates contributions.
Facilities and Participant Fees Annual Participant Fees Incubator  Location Facilities / Infrastructure 2012-2013 data ALBA Tractors and various implements, resource center, classrooms, Land Salinas and maintenance workshop, produce cooler, distribution facility.
$1,820/acre/year Las Lomas,  CA Irrigation  Elma C.
Greenhouse, high tunnel, post-harvest shed, walk-in cooler, Land $240/year for Lomax tractor, irrigation hookups, security and deer fencing, tools in 0.3 to 0.7 acres of Incubator secure shed, office, classroom, and restroom.
Farm Tractor usage fee Cabarrus $4/tractor hour.
County, NC Intervale Vegetable washing stations, coolers, tractors, hand tools, two Land $156-195/acre Center greenhouses, multiple well water access points.
Burlington, Intervale Farmers VT Equipment Corporation, owned by farmers, run like a cooperative.
Irrigation  New Entry Hoop houses, storage sheds, irrigation, small equipment and Land $665/acre Sustainable tools, produce wash stations, electric fencing, walk-behind Farming tractors, walk-in cooler.
Equipment Project $150/season Lowell, MA Pesticides  $55/season Cooler use $175/season Technical Assistance $300/season Custom tractor services available  PLANT@ BCS with rototiller and plow, mowers, small bush hog tractor , 40hp New Holland tractor with mower, front bucket and Farm rototiller, hand tools, irrigation system, two hoop houses, walk-in Enterprise cooler, post-harvest wash area.
Incubator Orange County, NC Many incubator farms are reporting strong interest and participation.
In North Carolina, educational workshops at three Extension-associated incubator farms are eliciting annual interest from 25-50 participants.
Generally, 10-15% of those participants go on to use incubator land to start their businesses.
Interest in the programs increases each year, despite lack of focused recruitment activities, highlighting the participant need for the program offerings in these particular programs: Farm business planning education, Access to land and equipment, and Early market assessment.
Some incubator farms work across the value chain, i.e.
a food systems approach to local food economic development.
For example, several incubator farms have established associated marketing programs, providing market outlets for participants and, in some cases, generating program revenue.
This value-chain approach to beginning farmer support may encourage: More robust economic activity across the value chain, as well as Farmland maintained in active production, Rural revitalization, and Increased healthy food access.
The number of incubator farms in North America is increasing.
It is evident from the distinct programs across North Carolina and the country that many communities consider incubator farms an idea ripe for exploration for beginning farmer support.
Extension: Partnering to Address the Problem Throughout its history, Extension has: Focused on addressing issues facing rural America , and Developed a complex model to help individuals develop skills necessary for success in agriculture and other fields.
Since the problems faced in modern market-responsive agriculture are numerous and complicated, Extension's theory of change must adapt beyond the traditional educator framework.
Diverse interests and passionate individuals are often supporting incubator farm programs.
Extension can serve a traditional role as educator and also has the opportunity to facilitate community partnerships as described by Patton  and, specifically related to local food systems work, Raison.
Conclusions We believe incubator farms are worthy of continued exploration and research, and have the potential to influence food system change locally.
In order for programs to support this local change, we conclude: Diverse expertise is needed for planning and implementation of programs, e.g., business planning, marketing, production, customer satisfaction, supply chain, and others.
Extension may be suited to provide support to incubator farm programs beyond the traditional educator framework.
As others have recently suggested, this includes: Facilitation  "Leader-as-catalyst" , and "Leveraging the concerns of the communities in which they are embedded into lasting food system change".
Based on the complexities of the "farmer shortage" problem, as well as unpredictable social and environmental change, it will be important to train incubator farm participants on adaptable business and profitability strategies.
Standard evaluation metrics for programs and additional research on success rates of incubator farm participants relative to those following alternative paths to farming will benefit the movement.
References Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.
Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy-Science and Technology Committee.
A Science Roadmap for Food and Agriculture.
Developing programs in adult education.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Planning the future of your farm: A workbook supporting farm transfer decisions.
Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
From farm to fork: A guide to building North Carolina's sustainable local food economy (p.
Educator and institutional entrepreneur: Cooperative Extension and the building of localized food systems.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development.
Catalytic leadership: Reconsidering the nature of Extension's leadership role.
Extension's partnership with the future.
Clarifying Extension's role in the emerging local food systems movement.
Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative Extension.
Ames, IA: lowa State University Press.
Building a future with farmers: Challenges faced by young, American farmers and a national strategy to help them succeed.
New York: National Young Farmers Coalition.
Department of Agriculture.
2007 Census of Agriculture Fact Sheet: Farmers by Age.
National incubator farm training initiative.
Symposium conducted at the Southeast Beginning Farmer Conference.
If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support
December 2013 // Volume 51 // Number 6 // Feature // v51-6a8
 The audience for Extension programming continues to change both demographically and culturally, prompting agents to seek new tools to adapt to community needs, priorities, and lifestyles.
Extension agents can improve program outcomes on public issues such as water conservation in the landscape or preserving natural resources by borrowing a tool from social marketing and strategically identifying audience segments for targeted programs.
In these Extension fields, educational outcomes are often not enough to motivate behavior change, and agents need additional strategies.
Social marketers focus on target audiences as corporations do with customers, profiling them through research and directly engaging them to actually change their behavior.
Since the 1970s, the social marketing approach has proven effective in changing behavior in such areas as public health, driving safety, teen tobacco use, occupational safety, and natural resources conservation.
Social marketing uses the tools and concepts of commercial marketers: audience segments are studied and then selected, new behaviors are considered a "product" that offers benefits that are desired by consumers, and the barriers to the adoption of new behaviors are deliberately lowered.
The primary difference between commercial and social marketing is that for the latter, the ultimate beneficiary of changed behavior is the individual and the wider community and not a company.
The "product" that social marketers promote is some change in behavior by the public that will ultimately benefit the environment, community health, quality of life, or the capacity of citizens.
When it comes to conservation and sustainability programming, we suggest that Extension would be more effective if agents explicitly defined audiences based on their attitudes, demographics, lifestyles, and current behaviors.