October 2005
Volume 43 Number 5

Features

Hearing Their Needs: Voices of Underrepresented Populations

Patreese D. Ingram
Associate Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
pdi1@psu.edu

Amy K. Syvertsen
Graduate Student
akb184@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, Extension organizations have raised diversity to a new level of importance on the organizational agenda. Strategic plans clearly spell out goals and strategies to recruit and retain a more diverse workforce, build capacity to manage diversity, and reach diverse populations with relevant educational programming. Some states have established strategic plans specifically to address their changing audiences and workforce.

Every 4 years, Extension reviews its educational objectives. This allows Extension to consider the changing needs of its potential audiences, and develop a new plan of work (POW) that is relevant and addresses the needs of the clientele. The POW process is an extremely important task, because it provides the direction needed to achieve its primary purpose - to bring the university to the people. It is crucial that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input into the planning process. As Grogan (1991) purported, "The future success of Extension will be determined not only by the relevance of its educational programs, but by the extent to which low-income and minority group citizens participate in and consider them valuable."

In Pennsylvania, stakeholder input is formally gathered via on-line surveys and focus group interviews of current program participants. The on-line survey method was instituted to provide Pennsylvania residents a cost-efficient opportunity to offer input; however, Internet access is limited in many low-income communities. Unfortunately, citizens who do not have easy access to the Internet or have not participated in Extension programming are not likely to have the opportunity to have their insight, needs, and wants reflected in the POW. As stated by Schauber and Castania (2001),

It's time that Cooperative Extension reflect on its start; a time when agents went out and visited with prospective audiences to promote its relevance and learn how Extension could align itself with the values and needs of the people. Now, more than ever, extension educators need to establish open lines of communication with prospective audiences and become attuned to how they can meet the needs of all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or other dimensions of diversity.

Purpose and Methodology

In an attempt to give voice to a diversity of underrepresented audiences, a special effort was made to gain input from ethnic minority and low-income populations on the major programs to be included in the 2005-2009 Pennsylvania Plan of Work.

Five Pennsylvania communities were selected for inclusion in this exploratory study. Each was purposively selected because of the high concentration of racial and ethnic minorities and/or low-income populations. A focus group interview was held by the researcher in a public space in each community. Participants were invited to join the focus group by the local Extension 4-H/youth development or family consumer science educator. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary. Each participant that completed the interview received a credit card redeemable for $10.00 in groceries at a specified store in their community.

Due to the complexities of obtaining informed consent from the parents of minors, participation was limited to people who were 18 years of age or older. Additionally, all were either members of a low-income and/or minority group or a community service professional who served low-income and minority clientele. A total of 52 community members participated. Seventy-nine percent (n = 41) were community members, and 21% (n = 11) were community service professionals. The researcher who conducted the interviews was a member of an ethnic/racial minority group.

Table 1 provides a brief description of the focus group participants. These participants groups included participants with varying levels of familiarity with Extension.

Focus group questions mirrored a subset of questions that were included in the Web-based needs assessment available to all Pennsylvanians. The semi-structured interview questions were based on key issues identified by county Extension educators and faculty in a series of meetings held over an 18-month period of time. Questions used in the focus groups centered on the following general categories: youth, family, community, nutrition, family health, and long-term health needs of middle-aged and older adults.

In each category, participants were asked to think about the next 5 years. Then, participants were asked to discuss what concerned them most, what challenges they expected to face, what type of educational programs Extension might provide to address the issues, and what concerns they had about today's policies that impact the local community, youth, families, health, nutrition, and care of the elderly.

Focus group interviews were at least 1.5; hours in length. Group size varied from 9 to14 participants. All participants were encouraged to respond to the interview questions. Each interview was audio recorded to ensure accurate transcription. The data were analyzed using QSR NVivo 2.0, a software package for qualitative data analysis. Using content-analysis procedures, the findings were separated into content-related categorizes, then grouped by theme: youth, family, community, and nutrition and health. Last, the data were checked for inter-rater reliability. Agreement between the two raters approached 90%.

Findings

This article brings the concerns of the underrepresented voices in our sample into the limelight. It is imperative that Extension include the needs and suggestions of its entire clientele base when developing the POW and designing programs. The following summarizes the needs and suggestions of the focus group participants into content-related categories--youth, family, community, nutrition, family health, and care for the elderly.

Youth

Participants identified several positive youth-engaging organizations/opportunities in their communities. Among them were 4-H programs, Girl Scouts, homework clubs, the library, church youth groups, a community center, and YMCA programs.

When participants reflected on the challenges youth may face and the types of programs needed to address these challenges, a number of issues surfaced. In several communities, participants cited the lack of affordable recreational opportunities for children. In many of these communities the public pools were not operating, and membership costs for the YMCA were prohibitive. Where opportunities existed outside of the neighborhood, there was a lack of transportation for youth to attend.

Youth in low-income families are limited in their opportunities to explore beyond their immediate communities due to financial and transportation constraints. Participants in each of the focus groups expressed the need for exposure to activities, events, and sites that would challenge youth to broaden their horizons. Suggestions included field trips to museums, attending theatrical performances, and traveling to historical and educational points of interest.

Additionally, youth need to be provided the opportunity to explore the academic and career possibilities that exist beyond their immediate experiences. Activities suggested for urban youth included pruning trees and growing produce to sell. Youth are interested in dance, ballet, theatre art, modeling, talent shows, creative arts, cheerleading, and drill teams.

The lack of exposure to sporting activities was of much concern. At the root of the problem participants cited the disorganization of community-sponsored sporting leagues and declining financial sponsorship from local businesses. In particular, participants noted that sporting opportunities for female youth are especially scarce.

In some neighborhoods, safety was a primary concern. The lack of safe places to go outside of the home confined many youth to indoor activities, primarily watching television. Participants expressed a need for a safe place to congregate and engage in learning activities. One participant argued that programs need to be located "in the middle of where the greatest, most crying needs are, where the biggest disconnect exists."

A number of issues related to personal development and social skills were discussed (Figure 1). Overwhelmingly, participants agreed that youth in their communities need educational opportunities that promote their development as strong, self-respecting citizens.

Others were particularly concerned with promoting active civic engagement in youth. Learning what it means to be a good neighbor, opportunities to volunteer, and learning how to vote were specifically mentioned.

Participants also felt that career and college preparation programs would be beneficial. Suggested objectives for such a program were exposing youth to a wide variety of jobs in the workplace, assisting youth in defining their goals and aspirations for the future, and preparing them for post-secondary education. A college prep program could provide basic information on the collegiate experience, how to select a school, the application and management process of financial aid, and preparation for college visits. Youth also need opportunities and transportation to visit colleges.

It's paramount that we create a support network for youth and help them to realize that attending college is a realistic goal. While many of the questions that youth have about college should be provided within the school system, guidance counselors are typically severely overloaded and are unable to reach all of the youth who would benefit from their services.

Attention is needed in the social and psychological domains of youth development. A serious concern was expressed regarding the limited programming at the high school level that addresses use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. While these issues may be introduced at the middle school level, they seem to receive less attention in the upper grades. A few participants supported the implementation of drug prevention programs with elementary school-age children.

There are limited opportunities for adolescents to talk about issues of serious importance to them. Participants identified the following as topics they would be interested in learning more about:

• Pregnancy prevention,
• Sexually transmitted diseases,
• Eating disorders,
• Prenatal care for teen parents, and
• Parenting classes for first time parents.

Although many of these topics may reach beyond the scope of Extension, it is important to acknowledge the genuine needs of these populations. Collaborations with local parenting and/or counseling agencies would be a viable and realistic means of fulfilling these needs.

Finally, a number of policies affect youth in a negative manner. The lack of available transportation makes it difficult for many youth to participate in activities that exist outside of their neighborhoods. Employment opportunities for youth are limited. In some communities, night school is only available to youth with behavior problems. Participants supported this program, yet they expressed a need for alternative education options to specifically serve teen parents who are trying to balance the demands of parenthood and schooling. Unconsciously, we tend to bias the negative impact of teen pregnancy solely on females, often times failing to recognize that the situation has negative impacts for teenage males as well. Court-ordered employment and child support can severely reduce the opportunities for teen fathers to pursue a college education.

Family

Participants repeatedly cited the lack of educational and recreational opportunities designed for whole families as problematic. Community programs tend to focus on either adults or youth; however, few provide opportunities for mothers, fathers, and children to interact together.

The need for parent education programs was frequently voiced. One respondent declared, "We have parents who have never been parented. They have no parenting skills of their own. Yet, we are expecting them to pass this along to their kids." Participants identified needs for parent education in the following areas.

• Selecting appropriate breakfast foods for children,
• Learning how to "connect" with their teenage children,
• Assisting parents in overcoming/coping with the fear and/or ambivalence that they sometimes experience with their teenagers, and
• Developing skills to cope and deal with young adolescent's quest for autonomy and individuation.

Parenting skills are needed not only for parents, but also for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. One community expressed a particular need for programs on how to care for "crack babies" because these children display more challenging behavioral patterns and have special needs.

Parents need assistance to develop skills to successfully negotiate the school system. For many, the communication and relationship between parents and schools is poor. Some parents feel that schools are not making an attempt to include them in their child's education. They feel uncomfortable dealing with school officials. "The administration doesn't want to hear from parents. They want your taxes but they don't want your voice." Parents want more information about the opportunities available so they can help their sons and daughters select the classes and programs that may better their futures.

Participants requested a comprehensive money management program that focused on basic budgeting skills, checking account management, and information on the services commonly offered by banks. Another suggested that information on scams be included. Other areas of need for families included programs that address self-esteem issues for adults, time management skills for single working parents, and anger management. Additionally, citizen education and English as a Second Language programs are needed for migrant adults.

The high cost of childcare for working parents, the lack of affordable housing for low-income families with children, and the lack of employment were mentioned as public policy issues that affect families.

Community

A common concern throughout the study was the lacking of a sense of community among minorities and non-minorities alike. Participants suggested that more community-building activities be sponsored to bring citizens together. Another issue expressed was the need for skills to interact with township and borough officials. Residents want to have a voice in developing the policies related to their community, although many feel they lack the skills and/or knowledge to do so. Additionally, with the changing demographics in some communities, some respondents voiced a need for diversity education to "help people get used to being around and accepting the differences of different kinds of people, cultures, and habits."

Issues relating to the elderly were another area of concern. On one hand, a growing number of elderly are raising their grandchildren (Lugaila, 1998) and are in desperate need of both financial and emotional support. "Grandparents lack the patience and skills to parent today's youth. Some are even angry about the situation. Grandparents raising grandchildren need help." On the other hand, families who must consider placement of elderly relatives in nursing homes need information. What should family members look for in a nursing home? What questions should they ask? How can one ensure that a relative is being properly cared for? Participants expressed fear of maltreatment in nursing homes.

Nutrition and Health

When asked to reflect on issues and concerns related to nutrition and health, a number of areas were discussed. Families would benefit from nutrition education that promotes healthy cooking and eating practices. Learning to determine proper portion sizes, creative ways to use leftovers, and alternatives that provide the family with healthy meals with limited preparation time were specifically mentioned.

Weight control and exercise were high on the list of needs. Affordable group exercise programs for adults, particularly females, are not readily available to many residents of low-income communities. In addition to exercise and weight control, programs that help adults set goals to improve their welfare and self-esteem were desired.

Other health concerns included diabetes, the lack of affordable health insurance, and knowledge about preventive health measures. One participant creatively suggested the development of early protection information sheets to serve as an age-based guideline for medical check-ups. Furthermore, there is a lack of information about medical services that are available to members of the community. Better information about available public services is needed.

Figure 2 identifies the general areas of concern that were repeated in at least four of the five focus group interviews.

Discussion and Recommendations

Current Extension programs are attempting to address some of the needs expressed by focus group participants. Examples include: conflict resolution skills, citizenship education, and tobacco prevention for youth; and healthy eating habits, money management skills, and participation in policies impacting the community for families and adults. While these are areas in which Extension has been successful, it is important to note that even these programs will need to be adjusted in terms of content and teaching delivery to be accepted by, and meaningful to, some low-income and diverse audiences.

There are other areas of need that are not being adequately addressed by current Extension programming or by other community organizations. These may be viewed as special opportunities for Extension to fill unmet needs. Extension can offer programs that encourage the whole family to interact and learn together, provide support groups for parents and parenting grandparents, and create opportunities for group exercise with built-in lessons on self-esteem and healthy dietary practices.

There are clearly opportunities to develop and conduct programs that meet the many unmet needs of youth and older teens. Extension could develop programming that provides opportunities for teenagers to discuss and learn about critical topics that affect the social circumstances of their everyday lives. While traditional 4-H programs provide numerous opportunities for youth to participate in activities at the county, state, and even national level, youth who are not involved in these traditional programs do not have this chance to travel. Exposure to communities beyond their neighborhoods could inspire new perspectives, hopes, and goals for their futures.

Undoubtedly, Extension cannot single-handedly provide all programs for all people. Particularly in times of shrinking resources, it has neither the staff nor the finances to do so. However, through collaboration with other community-based organizations in low-income and diverse communities, Extension can help to meet a greater number of needs. For example, if Extension cannot conduct weekly grandparent support groups, they may be able to develop the curricula and train volunteers or other agency staff to do so. Pooling resources with other agencies might enable the development of community programs that neither organization could do by itself.

It is important to note that many of the concerns and needs such as issues related to parent involvement, parenting skills, limited activities for youth, and long-term care for the elderly, that arose during the present study were also identified by the Community Needs Capacity Assessment conducted by Extension professionals in another Midwestern state (Nieto, Schaffner, & Henderson, 1997). These needs may very well continue to exist in the future unless education professionals within organizations such as Extension take the time to hear the voices of the underrepresented and develop relevant programming and collaborations to fill the unmet needs. In Pennsylvania, for example, the results of this study were posted online <http://pow.cas.psu.edu/pdfs/NontradResponses.pdf> to guide the planning of POW committees.

Although the needs revealed through this exploratory qualitative study are specific to the focus group participants and their communities, these results provide the basis for further research with low-income and underrepresented populations using more rigorous methodologies.

Extension has many opportunities to develop and conduct relevant educational programs with diverse audiences. To increase effectiveness, however, we need to find out what the needs are from all the people we intend to serve and then present the materials in a manner that will invite members of diverse audiences to relate to, and engage in, the learning.

References

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

Lugaila, T. (1998). Marital status and living arrangements: March, 1997 (update). Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nieto, R. D., Schaffner, D., & Henderson, J. L. (1997). Examining community needs through a capacity assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(3). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/1997/june/a1.html

Schauber, A.C., & Castania, K. (2001). Facing issues of diversity: Rebirthing the Extension Service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/comm2.html

Exploring Agricultural Census Undercounts Among Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers with an Alternative Enumeration Project

Victor Garcia
Professor of Anthropology
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, Pennsylvania
vgarcia@iup.edu

Juan Marinez
Michigan State University Extension
East Lansing, Michigan
marinezj@msu.edu

Introduction

According to Agricultural Census 1997, Hispanics or Latinos (henceforth referred to as " Hispanics/Latinos" ) were the largest and fastest growing minority farmer group in the United States (USDA, 2000). (2002 Census results were not available at the time of the writing of this article.) In 1997, Hispanic/Latino farmers numbered nearly 28,000, an increase of 32%, or 8,870 farmers, from 1992 to 1997. As the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) prepares to release the results of Agricultural Census 2002, Hispanic/Latino farmers, minority farmer advocates (e.g., Center for Latino Farmers and The Rural Coalition), and Extension agents are voicing their concerns about agricultural census undercounts among the Hispanic/Latino farmer population.

Recent research suggests that a segment of the Hispanic/Latino farmer population in particular may be at a high risk for not being included in the agricultural census (Garcia & Marinez, 2002). New immigrants, who do not seek assistance from the Farm Service Agency and other USDA providers or may not be familiar with the agricultural census, are likely to be missed. Other possible barriers, such as English language competence and illiteracy and informal farming arrangements, may also keep these and other Hispanic/Latino farmers from participating in agricultural censuses. The unintentional exclusion of these immigrants skews NASS Hispanic farmer profiles, or " statistical totals," that are used by USDA and other government agencies to generate priorities, write policies, and to develop regional and national programs aimed at helping farmers and ranchers.

Nationally and regionally, an undercount of Hispanic/Latino farmers in agricultural censuses also has consequences for Agricultural Extension. One problem is that Extension agents will not have reliable figures on the size and growth of this hard-to-reach farmer population. In fact, Extension agents, as we found, may not always be aware of their existence, if NASS figures do not bring this population to light (Garcia & Marinez, 2002).

Another shortcoming is that unreliable figures, as a result of an undercount, will provide Extension agents with an unsound profile of Hispanic/Latino farmers in their region. Flawed information will keep them from developing new programs or tailoring existing programs to meet the needs of these farmers. Closely related, Extension agents will not be in a position to advocate for their Hispanic/Latino farmer clientele in programming and policy arenas because they will be unable to demonstrate need.

Agricultural Census 2002 provides a timely opportunity to explore the participation of immigrant Hispanic/Latino farmers and to develop approaches for including them in the next agricultural census. Towards this end, we propose a plan for examining their participation in Agricultural Census 2002. We start by briefly discussing how the agricultural census is conducted and why it is important for all farmers to participate. Possible barriers to census participation, based on our field observations of immigrant Hispanic/Latino farmers in southwestern Michigan, follow.

We conclude by suggesting an alternative Hispanic/Latino farmer enumeration, one design to assess if there is an undercount among this group as well as to improve their inclusion in the future. Our enumeration plan is based on an alternative enumeration project conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in Census 1990 to assess the undercount of minority populations and to develop creative strategies for including them in future decennial censuses.

The Agricultural Census

Every 5 years, NASS conducts an agricultural census designed to count the number of farms, gather statistical information about producers, and measure agricultural activity and productivity for county, state, and region in the United States (NASS, 2002a). In Agricultural Census 2002, a "report form," was distributed in two formats: a sample long version or a non-sample short version. The report forms, only printed in the English language (with the exception of those used in Puerto Rico), were designed, according to region (13 regions in all nationwide), to gather information on:

• Crops
• Sales
• Acreage
• Food and fiber production activities specific to the region (NASS, 2002a & b).

The census forms--either a long or short version--were mailed in December to independent operating units, called "operations," or to farms, ranches, and other agricultural businesses with farm acreage under production (NASS, 2002a & b). The forms are mailed to agricultural businesses that participated in the previous agricultural census or that sought assistance from USDA agencies and their programs, such as the Farm Service Agency. Operators, or individuals who make the day-to-day decisions, were to complete the forms and return them by February. By law, under Title VII, United States Code, the recipients of the form, who can be landlords, tenants, corporations, are required to respond factually.

USDA carries out various activities during the census year to get the word out and convince farmers to participate (NASS, 2002a). News releases, public service announcements, and public presentations are used with this objective in mind. Depending on the state and the availability of resources, if the census form is not returned by the due date, several measures are taken. Most often, local Extension agents call farmers who do not return their forms. The farmers are either reminded to return their forms or the census information is gathered over the telephone. If funds permit, Extension agents also visit the farmers and solicit the census information in person.

The data compiled from the forms are used to put together and publish statistical totals of production, sales, and acreage, at the county, state, and national levels. These totals are used for annual crop and livestock estimates. Additionally, service agencies that work with farmers, such as Cooperative Extension and Farm Service Agency, use census information to design programs and offer services and products to producers who need them. More important, Congress employs these same data in considering and implementing farm legislation. Major resource allocations to the counties and states are made on the basis of the information gathered in the agricultural census.

Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers and Agricultural Census Participation

Hispanics/Latinos--mainly Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants--are the largest group of ethnic-minority farmers in the country. By far, they outnumber other immigrant groups, such as Cambodians and Ethiopians, who are also becoming farmers in unprecedented numbers. One of the largest concentrations of Hispanic/Latino farmers is found in the Southwest, but their numbers are also increasing outside of this region. In the Midwest and South, for example, Mexican immigrants--many of them ex-peasants and farm workers--are replacing aging White and African American producers whose children are not staying on the family farm but moving on and pursuing non-farm careers.

Our USDA-funded project, "Farmwork Transition to Farm Ownership" (grant number 00 68-3A75-9-41), provides insights on the reasons for a possible undercount of Hispanic/Latino farmers in the agricultural census (Garcia & Marinez, 2002). We sought to find out whether Hispanic/Latino farmers in Van Buren County, Michigan, were using USDA programs. Working through local contacts and social networks, we found all of the Hispanic/Latino farmers in the county (the majority of who were of Mexican-origin). Thirty-one out of the 33 were interviewed using an open-ended interview guide. Additionally, Extension agents and staff of the Migrant/Bilingual Education Program of the Van Buren Intermediate School District proved to be a source of valuable information regarding Hispanic/Latino farmers in the area. Our final report, which includes a detailed discussion of our field methods and findings, is posted on Michigan State University's Extension Web page at <web1.msue.msu.edu/home/ifo_resource.htm>.

Possible Participation Barriers

Despite their eligibility, we found that the Mexican immigrant farmers, particularly recent arrivals, do not participate in USDA and Extension programs. In fact, the majority had little or no contact with local Extensions. Based on these findings, we suspect that the immigrants, particularly the newcomers, are not participating in the agricultural censuses. We believe the following to be barriers to their participation:

• Missing from USDA Mailing Lists: Surprisingly, we found that the majority of the recent Mexican immigrant farmers were not on the mailing lists of Cooperative Extension or Farm Service Agency--lists used by the USDA to mail agricultural census forms.

• Limited or No Knowledge of Agricultural Censuses: Many of the immigrant farmers, particularly newcomers to farming, are also not familiar with agricultural censuses. They are not aware that the censuses are held every 5 years and that all farmers are to participate.

• Language and Illiteracy Problems: Many of the immigrants are monolingual Spanish speakers who do not comprehend the English language. They also have limited or no formal education in their native language and, as a result, may be unable to read and write in Spanish. These language and literacy constraints may discourage immigrants from completing English language agricultural census forms and mailing them as instructed.

• Apprehension about USDA: Some immigrant farmers prefer not to deal with USDA, fearing that irregularities on the farm, such as the improper storage of pesticides and other chemicals, will be discovered. They also suspect that state assistance comes with strings attached. Believing this, they keep their distance from government agencies, irrespective of their needs.

• Immigration Status: Recently, as a result of the public backlash against immigrants and the call for excluding them from federally funded programs, some immigrant farmers, who are not U.S. citizens but legal permanent residents, are under the misconception that they are not to participate in the agricultural census, a federal government undertaking. Related to immigration is illegal judicial status; that is, residing and working in the country without proper immigration documents. These individuals live a clandestine existence and do not divulge their identity or location to government agencies for fear of deportation.

• Presta Nombres: Another possible barrier is presta nombres (lending one's name). In this practice, family members with good credit obtain loans on the behalf of kinsmen and good friends who are ineligible. On paper, the loan holder appears as the farmer when in reality it is someone else who is farming. The agricultural census form is mailed to the loan holder as opposed to the actual farmer.

• Informal Farming Arrangements: Similarly, informal farming arrangements among immigrant farmers may be another obstacle. In these arrangements, one or two individuals appear as the sole owners on property deeds and other documents, when, in fact, there are others, usually kin, who are also farming on the property. They pool their resources, but farm and market their crops as independent producers.

• Farmers as Farmworkers: We have uncovered cases where producers, who are also farm laborers, consider themselves farmworkers because a significant portion of their income is derived from farm work. However, a close look at their farm production and sales reveals that they are also farmers and, given their farm sales, should be included in the agricultural censuses.

Some of these possible barriers are similar to those identified by the Census Bureau in its decennial censuses. Census studies (e.g., Brownrigg & Martin, 1992; Garcia, 1992; 1995) specifically designed to determine the causes of census undercounts among minority populations found that limited or no knowledge of the census, language and illiteracy problems, fear and apprehension of government agencies, and immigration status keep Hispanics/Latinos and other minority groups from participating in census enumerations and contributes to their undercount.

A Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative Enumeration

To assess the participation of Hispanic/Latino farmers and, more important, to improve their inclusion in future agricultural censuses, an alternative enumeration is needed. This enumeration--a Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative Enumeration--should have two basic objectives:

• To examine the omission of Hispanics/Latinos and
• To develop strategies for improving their inclusion.

Ideally, it should be conducted as soon as possible after Agricultural Census 2002 in order to capture all Hispanic/Latino farmers who were farming during the enumeration and target farm operators as defined in the census, i.e., persons who run the farm, making the day-to-day decisions, and produce $1,000 or more in agricultural products (crops and livestock) on the farm, which are sold or normally would have been sold during the year under consideration (NASS, 2002b). A delay in implementing the alternative enumeration may miss farmers who were farming in 2002 but have quit the business altogether or moved on to another region.

The Census Bureau's Alternative Enumeration

The alternative enumeration should be modeled after the Ethnographic Evaluation of the Behavioral Causes of Undercount Project, successfully carried out by the US Census Bureau during the 1990 decennial census. The objective of that project was two-fold:

• To assess the degree of undercounts in minority populations in Census 1990 and
• To discover the reasons for the undercounts

In all, 24 sites nationwide--representing different ethnic minority populations--were selected for the project. The sites were entire census tracts within cities or rural areas, or parts of tracts if they covered an extensive geographical area. Anthropologists, who had conducted ethnographic or qualitative research at the sites and were well familiar with the local residents, were selected as researchers.

Concurrently or immediately after Census 1990, they gathered information on the size (i.e., number of members) and the composition (i.e., the relationship of the members) of all the households living in both conventional and non-conventional housing. Traditional ethnographic methods, such as participant observation and informal interviews, were used to gather the data. Garcia, one of the authors of this article, was a researcher in this project (Garcia, 1992), and he has also participated in other census studies designed to locate and enumerate Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants and migrants (Garcia, 1995; 2001).

The household data gathered in the alternative enumeration--names, ages, and the relationship of the household members--were compared with similar information recorded in census forms. The researchers were provided with printouts of the information on record for each household. If a household was missed altogether in either the alternative enumeration or the official census, the researcher was required to find out why this occurred. Additionally, any discrepancies in the household information gathered in either of the censuses, such as omitted household members or an inconsistency in the relationships of the household members, were to be explained. For detailed information about the Census Bureau's alternative enumeration project see Brownrigg and Martin (1992).

Hispanic/Latino Farmer Alternative Enumeration and Agricultural Census 2002

Similar to the Census Bureau's 1990 alternative enumeration, a Hispanic/Latino farmer alternative enumeration should be carried out nationwide after Agricultural Census 2002. However, given current financial constraints, a more modest undertaking may be more realistic. Instead, three or four sites in different parts of the country should be selected for pilot alternative enumeration. Care should be taken to include regions with an increasing number of new immigrant farmers, given that they are the largest group of new Hispanic/Latino farmers.

Culture-sensitive measures should be employed in locating and contacting Hispanic/Latino farmers in the selected alternative enumeration sites. Flyers and other mailings to get the word out do not work. Direct contact as opposed to indirect means should be used. Face-to-face relations are important in the culture of Hispanic/Latino farmers, particularly among the immigrants. The researchers or alternative enumerators should contact the farmers in person--visiting them in their homes or on their farms--and map their social networks. These networks in turn should be enlisted to get the word out about the alternative enumeration and to convince as many immigrant farmers as possible to participate in this worthwhile project.

Information that will allow the researcher to identify a Hispanic/Latino farmer in an agricultural census form should be gathered in the alternative enumeration. Essential information for this task is:

• Name of the Hispanic/Latino farmer
• His/Her address
• Agricultural sales
• Number of years in farming
• Type of crops and livestock sold
• Acreage holdings
• Ownership of acreage

This basic information will allow the researcher to identify a Hispanic/Latino farmer and to see if he or she participated in Agricultural Census 2002. As with the Census Bureau's alternative enumeration, omissions of farmers and discrepancies in the information gathered in both the alternative enumeration and the agricultural census should be noted and explained. The explanations are essential if we are to develop strategies for getting immigrants to participate in future agricultural censuses.

There may be USDA and farmer concerns about non-USDA researchers viewing non-aggregated data from agricultural census forms. The possible breach of confidentiality and privacy will worry some farmers. There were similar concerns in the Census Bureau, but, with proper safe guards in place (e.g., keeping Census information under lock and key or traveling to Suitland, Maryland, to view files in the Census Bureau's facilities), the researchers of the alternative enumeration project were granted permission to view unpublished census data. They were hired as Census Bureau consultants and required to take an oath (similar to one taken by all federal employees) and obligated to refrain from discussing confidential Census information with anyone outside of the project.

Conclusions

Hispanic/Latino immigrants are entering farming in unprecedented numbers. Many are not familiar with the agricultural census and its mission. This lack of knowledge, together with limited or no contact with USDA, keeps many from being included in the census. How many are not participating? We just do not know.

What is certain is that the omission of Hispanic/Latino farmers keeps NASS from coming up with an inaccurate profile of this growing farmer population, and in turn, a skewed profile prevents USDA from developing programs that serve these farmers. It also keeps Agricultural Extension from adequately advocating for and serving the needs of Hispanic/Latino immigrant farmers.

There is growing evidence that these immigrant farmers can benefit from USDA and its many agencies. Many of them are becoming indebted financially as they use their credit cards or high interest rate loans to farm and, in the worst of cases, falling into bankruptcy and losing their farms and homes. This problem and others identified in our study can be addressed effectively through USDA programs, but first we must know their actual numbers and needs. We strongly believe that new programs are not needed, at least, not until Hispanic/Latino farmers start to use existing USDA programs and we learn if they are beneficial.

Following the lead of the Census Bureau, we need to assess to what degree there is an undercount of minorities, particularly immigrants, in the agricultural census. In the last two decennial censuses, the Census Bureau has addressed this shortcoming by developing campaigns and strategies to get the word out to ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other hard-to-reach populations.

USDA needs to take similar action. It needs to assess the omission of minorities and immigrants in the agricultural census and determine the causes behind this problem. With this information, USDA and Extension will be able to develop strategies for including as many of them as possible in agricultural censuses. The census data on Hispanics/Latinos in turn will allow them to develop a more accurate profile that will serve to develop and implement needed programs.

References

Brownrigg, L. A & Martin, E. A. (1992, April). Proposed study plan for the ethnographic evaluation of the behavioral causes of undercount, Paper prepared for the Census Advisory Committee on Population Statistics at the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.

Garcia, V. (1992). Results from an alternative enumeration in a Mexican and Mexican American farm worker community in California: Ethnographic evaluation of the behavioral causes of undercount. Final coverage report for Joint Statistical Agreement 89-29. Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Garcia, V. (1995). Finding and enumerating migrants in Mexican enclaves of the U.S. Northeast: The case of Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. Report, Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Garcia, V. (2001). Generation X? Exploring civic engagement, government views, and census participation among Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants in Dallas, Texas. Report for Generation X Speaks Out on Causes, Surveys, and Civic Engagement project, Center for Survey Methods Research, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Garcia, V. & Marinez, J. (2002). Farmworkers transition to farm ownership: Lessons from Mexican origin farmers in Southwestern Michigan. Final Report, Office of Outreach, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

National Agricultural Statistical Service (2002a). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 11, 2003 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/preliminary/census-faq.html.

National Agricultural Statistical Service (2002b). Report forms & instruction sheets. Retrieved September 11, 2003 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/reportforms/reportformsindex/html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2000). Quick facts. Characteristics of Hispanic farm operators. National Agricultural Statistics Service and Secretary's Hispanic Advisory Council.

Validating Institutional Commitment to Outreach at Land-Grant Universities: Listening to the Voices of Community Partners

David J. Weerts
Assistant Professor
Higher Education
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
dweerts@fau.edu

Introduction

The need for public understanding and awareness of the value of university Extension and outreach is at an all-time high. During the past decade, a confluence of factors has created the "perfect storm" that has threatened the future of public support for outreach and Extension. Ominous clouds began rolling in when the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Colleges declared in 1996 that the public perception of higher education institutions is that they are "arrogant, out-of-touch, and unresponsive to the needs of society" (NASULGC, 1996). Darkening the skies have been other stinging critiques of the modern land-grant institution suggesting that university outreach and public service "is poorly focused and not well internalized in the value system of the modern university," (Bonnen, 1998).

These stormy images have only been compounded by the struggling economy, which has placed intense pressure on state and county governments and has led policymakers to question whether Extension and outreach services should be supported by public money or by user fees (Kalambokidis, 2004). Consequently, many institutions have considered new ways to cut costs or generate revenues in their Extension programs, as federal money appropriated for university Extension programs has remained flat (Hebel, 2002).

To weather the storm, national groups such as the National Association for State Universities and Land Grant College (NASULGC) Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) have convened to broaden traditional Extension programs with the aim of promoting university-wide engagement and more deeply connecting with community partners (NASULGC, 2002). A renewed emphasis on building community partnerships is gaining ground as evidenced by ECOP's call for "engagement with communities and organizations through open, flexible and expanded partnerships that share resources, respond to needs and expectations, and recognize and honor contributions," (NASULGC, 2002).

A central concern to community engagement, however, is the issue of effectively measuring how institutions are succeeding in their efforts to build mutually beneficial relationships with community partners. Often, the voices of community partners are left out of this evaluation process and neglected when considering policies and strategies to foster institutional engagement. This issue is the primary focus of this article.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study reported here is to examine community perspectives on community-university engagement, specifically how community members form their opinions about whether an institution is committed to public engagement. This study addresses one research question: How do community partners validate whether universities are committed to outreach and engagement? In this article, the word "community" refers to geographical regions within states linked by common experiences and concerns (Anderson & Jayakumar, 2002).

Methods/Procedures

The research question in this study is addressed through a multi-case study of three land-grant universities that have historically been active leaders in outreach: the University of Illinois at Urbana/ Champaign (UIUC), the University of Georgia (UGA), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW). Fifty interviews were conducted with campus and community leaders involved in Extension and outreach in the above states. For the purposes of answering the research question proposed this article, interview data will be limited to those representing community perspectives.

Sampling and Coding Strategy

A referral type sampling method, called snowball sampling (Bogdan & Bicklen, 1992), was used in this study to select community engagement sites and guide data collection throughout the study. This technique calls for identifying a first round of interviewees who are then asked to recommend others to be interviewed, and so on. Following this sequence, the campus provost and chief outreach officers overseeing outreach programs at the three institutions were interviewed to shed light on two outreach efforts underway on their campus that were typical of their institution's commitment to engagement. These administrators then provided names of the appropriate leaders of these programs to interview, who in turn provided names of community leaders to interview about these partnerships.

The coding measures used in this study were also guided by the work of Bogdan and Bicklen (1992). First, I searched through my initial data for regularities, patterns, and general topics my data cover. Second, I recorded words and phrases to represent these topics and patterns. Third, I recorded these phrases or codes as they emerged during my data collection. Finally, I created indicators to match related data in my field notes.

The coded areas represented the main themes or factors learned in the study and appear as headings for the findings section of this article. I collected interview data until I reached saturation, the point where the information one receives becomes redundant (Bogdan & Bicklen,1992). Interview protocol stemmed from the study's conceptual framework and is provided in Appendix A.

Engagement Initiatives Studied

Of the six partnerships studied, data from three community partnerships will be discussed in this article: UW Villager Mall project, Clarke County School District--UGA--Athens Clarke County (ACC) Partnership, and the Office for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (MSTE) at UIUC.

First, UGA's 5-year partnership with Athens-Clarke County schools was developed in 2001 to establish at-risk schools as community learning centers "where leadership, resources, and accountability are shared among all the partners, parents, and most importantly, students," (Collaborating for Success, 2001). A wide range of school administrators, community partners, and UGA faculty, staff, and students collaborate in problem solving through action teams that address curriculum, community and parent involvement, educator preparation, and other components of education.

Second, in Madison, Wisconsin, the UW joined a group of neighborhood associations called the "South Metropolitan Planning Council" (SMPC) to improve quality of life on South Park Street, an area of the city troubled by significant urban problems related to lack of affordable housing and persistent poverty. In 1998, the UW made a 5-year commitment to lease space in the Park Street Villager Mall to play a role in training the community, providing expertise and resources to build capacity in neighborhoods, and mobilizing community teams to work on key issues such as housing and transportation. The initiative involves a large group of community partners and UW faculty, staff, and students.

Third, the University of Illinois' MSTE program was established in 1993 to support technology-based teaching and learning at the K-16 level. Over a 10-year period, the MSTE program has evolved into "a set of communities and networks of practice that use advanced technologies to further education reform, particularly in mathematics, science and technology education" (Reese, 2002). Innovative Web-based modules provide standards-based, technology-intensive math and science instruction for students, teachers, and faculty at all levels. The MSTE Web site receives over 100,000 hits per month to access its programs. The program is guided by an advisory board consisting of UIUC faculty, staff, and K-16 teachers and administrators who assist in program design.

Factors Affecting Institutional Commitment to Outreach and Engagement

Before the findings of the study can be presented, it is important to outline the conceptual framework that guides this analysis. The literature suggests that a number of factors are important to explaining institutional commitment to outreach and that the true test of understanding campus commitment to public service is to investigate the organizational attributes of the university that characterize its outreach activities (Holland, 1997). A review of literature suggests that five factors affect institutional commitment to outreach, and this study tests whether these factors are useful for understanding how community partners form their opinion about institutional commitment to outreach.

1. Leadership. Numerous studies cite institutional leadership as a key factor predicting institutional commitment to outreach and engagement (Maurrasse, 2001; Walshok, 1999; Ward, 1996; Votruba, 1996; Zlotkowski, 1998).

2. Organizational structure. Studies suggest that centralized outreach structures or those housed in a president's office are more effective than decentralized structures because they help research universities track, coordinate, and communicate its service to the state and local communities (Weerts, 2002; Weiwel & Lieber, 1998). Outside of the institution, community partners need access to "entry points" where they can obtain information about opportunities for collaboration with university partners (Lynton & Elman, 1987). Structure is also important at the community level, as community participation in the leadership--shared governance, shared staff positions, and committee work--is negotiated and restructured among partners (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000).

3. Faculty and staff involvement. It is known that a strong core of committed faculty and staff is essential to institutionalizing values of service (Zlotkowski, 1998) and that their commitment is shaped by organizational rewards and mechanisms that promote or inhibit their participation.

4. Institutional culture. The cultural aspects of faculty and staff and their ability to work with community members and among disciplines are critical. It is known that faculty are typically socialized to advance restrictive definitions of research and promotion that inhibit community-based work (Dickson, Gallacher, Longden & Bartlett, 1985) and consequently relegate community partners to the role of passive participants, not partners in discovery (Corrigan, 2000).

5. Internal and external communication. Studies suggest that strong centralized communications--supported by a centralized database of service activities--can promote campus collaboration in developing outreach programs and reduce duplication of activities (Mankin, 2000). Campus publications that target external stakeholders and articulate the service aspects of their universities can also serve to advance the institution's public relations efforts (Holland, 1997).

Findings and Discussion: How Community Partners Form Their Opinions About Institutional Commitment to Outreach and Engagement

The data suggests that community partners validate institutional commitment to engagement by monitoring three important domains: the extent to which campus executives are visible and active in their support for community-university partnerships, the degree to which faculty and staff are "ready" to work with community partners, and the extent to which organizational structures housing outreach and engagement are welcoming and accessible to community members.

Monitoring Signals from Campus Leaders

Community perceptions about institutional commitment to outreach and engagement--positive or negative--were greatly informed by the rhetoric and behaviors of top executives at each of the institutions. In the positive cases, community confidence in campus commitment to engagement was bolstered by high profile leaders who delivered public messages about opening an office, starting a new program, or rewarding engagement activity. Community members looked to newspapers and public proclamations that declared the importance of the initiative and provided proof that it was part of an overall strategy to better connect with outside constituencies.

Evidence of commitment was often seen through the convening of events or public announcements. For example, one community partner in Madison observed, "There is a sense among us that commitment to this project runs deep. The Chancellor's Office has highlighted this initiative in a special event and the university can use this initiative to its credit." Similarly, at the UGA, a formal announcement by the dean of the School of Education with the local superintendent generated public attention about the newly formed university-school partnership and helped to legitimize this activity among community partners involved with the initiative.

However, community leaders who are heavily involved with these programs looked beyond public relations and more carefully monitored the actual behavior of these leaders. Throughout the case studies, astute community partners were keenly aware of the pressure faced by faculty and the institutions to stay focused on traditional research.

Community partners looked to the top ranks of the institution to get a sense of whether a long-term commitment to engagement was "for real" and whether these leaders played an active role in supporting faculty and staff who participated in this work. For example, in one case, community partners noticed that institutional leaders were applying pressure to transform an outreach program into a traditional research-oriented venture. This action raised questions among community partners about the validity of the community-based mission of the program and the "real" intentions of the institution.

More generally, community leaders observed whether campus leaders had an impact in changing institutional culture to be more community focused. One community member in Georgia summarized this point, "It took the Deans level leadership to change the culture--the feeling that they [faculty] were doing service work despite their real duties of research." Community members throughout the initiatives wondered about the effect that leadership turnover would have on these partnerships.

Attention to Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors

Community partners form their opinion about the institutional commitment to engagement by examining whether faculty and staff have the appropriate attitudes, training, and social skills to work effectively with community partners. Throughout the case studies, there was evidence that faculty and staff can, at times, be either the best evidence of institutional commitment to outreach and engagement or the most damning evidence against it.

The cases of successful faculty and staff involvement with the community were primarily evident at the level of providing expertise and service to the community on a particular project, such as housing, transportation, or educational issues. As the ACC-UGA example demonstrated, faculty and staff made trips to the school and offered expertise and personal support in a way that "inspired success," as one community partner put it. Others alluded to the strong personal relationships that some faculty members have built with the community over time and how this affects the perception of the institution's commitment to engagement. As one community partner involved with the MSTE program pointed out,

They [MSTE staff] are good people who got into education for the right reasons and they are passionate and believe that their work will improve education. The partnership with MSTE works because they [MSTE staff] care about being successful for the kids versus protecting their own curriculum.

However, the most obvious barriers to successful engagement in these case studies are centered in the governance of these partnerships and how skilled faculty and staff were in working with community partners to set up the partnerships. It was clear that power issues are continually negotiated throughout the formation of the partnerships and that trust may wax and wane during its formation. Evidence of conflict arose in two of the three partnerships related to the attitude of some faculty. Said one frustrated community member,

The university must do what they say they are doing . . . if this is an initiative of equals, act like equals. Turn off your cell phone. Don't take the call in front of all of us--if you are that important have someone else join us.

Similarly, use of language was important as some community partners smirked that the university typically lists "university" first when describing "university-community" partnerships, asserting that the institution often puts its agenda ahead of the community's agenda.

In sum, community partners were not just concerned about the availability of faculty and staff to work on community-based issues, but rather how effective they were in relating to people who were unlike themselves. The behavior of campus faculty and staff toward community partners sent a strong signal about whether the institution is serious about outreach and engagement, and more important, whether the campus is ready to take on this endeavor.

Breaking Through the Ivory Tower

The complexity and size of the land-grant institutions also affected community perceptions about institutional commitment to outreach and engagement. In this study, community partners were skeptical about the ability of the campuses to effectively engage community partners due to the existence of impenetrable structures that impede access to the university.

Many of the community partners interviewed bemoaned the fact that institutions were very hard to tap into without having a contact on the inside. One community respondent summarized, "It is hard to get to know a place as complex as the UW. We often don't know what is available on campus to even ask for help." Said another who expressed frustration with the organizational structure of the decentralized nature of campus, "I felt like I was sent through this maze to the point that I almost lost interest [in participating in the program]. It is overwhelming in size and we didn't know who to talk to first."

On the other hand, community partners in Georgia and Illinois noted the importance of a highly visible office that helped forge connections between community members and the institution. In Illinois, for example, community participation in UIUC programs was enhanced through the formal creation of the Partnership Illinois program facilitated by the Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement. One community member said, "We tried for two years for UIUC people to work with us and nobody would even talk to us. Our opportunities expanded when the Vice Chancellor [for Public Engagement] got involved."

Despite these successes, a central challenge to engagement is that outreach activities are happening far beyond the boundaries of a central administrative unit, even within the most centralized outreach structures. Consequently, the complex web of outreach and engagement programs makes it difficult to understand the breadth and depth of these activities, even at the highest levels of leadership. However, the three partnerships had success when community partners were given access to steering committees and other governing opportunities that engaged outside constituencies in policymaking. These opportunities were shown to be important organizational structures that signaled institutional commitment to engagement and sent a message to community partners that their input was important.

Conclusions and Implications: Validating Institutional Commitment to Engagement

The conceptual framework outlined in this study pointed to five factors that are known to influence institutional commitment to outreach and engagement. Within this framework, this study suggests that community partners validate campus commitment to engagement through three primary domains: leadership, institutional culture, and organizational structure.

First, a key finding of this study is that leadership is not only important to supporting engagement at the campus level, but is also an important signaling mechanism to community partners about the degree to which a campus is committed to community issues. In other words, the study suggests that symbolic actions by university leaders are important to community partners' validation that outreach and engagement are a campus priority.

Second, the study suggests that one must go beyond observing the symbolic actions of campus leaders to explore the actual "substance" of engagement at the ground level. In other words, community partners must observe that symbolic commitment to engagement is actually transformed into action. This is evident when a faculty/staff culture has emerged that respects the participation of community partners. For example, community partners form opinions about campus commitment to engagement by asking questions such as: Do faculty and staff respect community members? Do they care about solving problems versus protecting their own method of doing things? Are they willing to listen to us?

Third, it is evident that leadership and culture change among faculty must be accompanied by welcoming organizational structures that facilitate entry into the institution and help provide a voice for community decision making on community-based problems. This issue was a challenge at each of the institutions in the study due to the size and complexity of the campuses. However, community partners noted that the establishment of these structures was not only a symbol of commitment, but spurred facilitation of a shared community-university agenda. Open structures promote access to the institution and allow for community voices to influence decision making on community-based problems.

As a whole, this study suggests that community partners are mostly concerned about the cultural change that underlies shifts in campus policies and structures to facilitate engagement. This is an important point because much of the literature on benchmarking engagement focuses on promotion and tenure, and organizational issues that enable faculty and staff to take on leadership roles in outreach and engagement (Holland, 1997).

An implication of this study is that policy and structural changes must be accompanied by a cultural "readiness" toward engagement. In other words, university partners must reshape their own thinking about what it means to be an engaged institution and prepare themselves to act in new ways that reflects this thinking. A cultural shift toward engagement could be institutionalized through campus training on community-based work or an academy or institute that prepares faculty and staff to take on outreach and engagement. Table 1 summarizes the study's findings and implications, and provides practical recommendations for incorporating the voices of community partners into policy decisions.

References

Anderson, J. L. & Jayakumar, U. M. (2002). An intergenerational research symposium on higher education for the public good: Areas of research and collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

Berry, R. (1972). The Wisconsin idea...Then and now. University Extension: The University of Wisconsin.

Bogdan, R. C. & Bicklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The Land Grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In, R. M. Lerner & L. A. Simon (Eds.) University-community collaborations for the 21st century: Outreach to scholarship for youth and families. New York: Garland Press.

Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 71(3) 273-290.

Corrigan, D. (2000). The changing role of schools and higher education institutions with respect to community–based interagency collaboration and interprofessional partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 75 (3) pp 176-195.

Dickson A., Gallacher J., Longden, B. & Bartlett, P. (1985). Higher education and the community. Higher Education Review. 17, (3) 49-58.

Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30-41.

Hebel, S. (2002). Land Grant Colleges consider cuts or new fees for Extension efforts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 48, (21) A22.

Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the Public Value in Extension Programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.shtml

Lynton, E. A. & Elman, S. E. (1987). New priorities for the university. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.

Mankin, L, (2000). Gearing up for community service: Overcoming informational barriers. Journal of Public Service and Outreach. 5, (1) 45-49.

Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities: New York, NY: Routledge.

National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), January 30, 1996 Press Release: New commission to bring reform to state and Land-Grant universities funded by Kellogg Foundation. Washington, D.C.

National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), (2002). The Extension system: A vision for the 21st century. Report of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Reese, G. C. (2002) Technology-enhanced education reform: An historical analysis of a learning system--the evolution of the Office for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education at the University of Illinois, 1993-2002. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Votruba, J. C. (1996). Strengthening the university's alignment with society: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1 (1) 29-36.

Ward, K (1996). Service learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on institutional commitment. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 3, 55-65.

Walshok, M. L. (1999). Strategies for building the infrastructure that supports the engaged campus. In Bingle, R. G., Games., R., & Malloy, E.A. (Eds), Colleges and universities as citizens. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Weerts, D. J. (2002). State governments and research universities: A framework for a renewed partnership. New York: Routledge.

Weerts, D.J., (2000). Outreach as a critical link to state support for research universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 6, (1) 49-56.

Weiwel, W., & Lieber M. (1998). Goal achievement, relationship building, and incrementalism: The challenges of university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 17: 291-301.

Zlotkowski, E. (1998). (Ed.). Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Background about the partnership

Describe the engagement initiative or partnership from your perspective.

What is the problem/issue the partnership is trying to address?

What was the process for creating the partnership?

Community perceptions of campus commitment to engagement

What criteria do you use to evaluate the commitment of institution X on your community initiative?

What factors are most important to developing a productive working relationship with institution X?

Leadership

Tell me about the campus leadership of the initiative and their level of support for this initiative. Tell me about the community leadership of the initiative. How are they involved?

Organizational Structure and Governance

What are the roles and responsibilities of the campus and community partners?

What is the structure of the partnership or initiative (in addition to roles, decision-making, accountability)?

How do you perceive the accessibility and coordination of service and outreach activities at institution X? Discuss examples that help you form your opinion.

Faculty and Staff Involvement

Discuss your perceptions about faculty and student commitment to your activities.

To what degree are the problems, solutions, and definition of success with your partnership jointly defined by your organization and institution X?

Institutional Culture

What sense do you have about whether the climate of institution X is supportive of working with your organization?

What do you perceive to be your impact or influence on the university? What is your sense of inclusion, respect and mutual trust?

Does the university demonstrate an understanding of your mission and expectations for the partnership? What has the university told you about their expectations? Discuss examples that help you form your opinion.

Internal and External Communication

Do you know how to get information or assistance on this project from institution X?

Has the institution properly publicized its activities and resources?

Have they made an effort to increase awareness of their resources and programs? Discuss examples of accessibility that help you form your opinion.

Diamonds in the Rough: A Case Study of Team Development Across Disciplines, Distances, and Institutions

Susan Fritz
Associate Professor
sfritz1@unl.edu

Amy Boren
Graduate Research Assistant
aboren2@unl.edu

Valerie Egger
Staff Assistant
vegger1@unl.edu

Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska

Introduction

For decades social scientists have examined how small groups and teams function (Deutsch, 1949; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Tuckman, 1965). Research explored team development (Tuckman, 1965), cohesion (Gammage, Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001), effectiveness (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997), team building (Hart & McLeod, 2003) and related topics. However, few studies have explored the development of teams from different organizations and different disciplines. Yet multi-disciplinary teams from different institutions are becoming the norm in higher education and Extension (Leholm, Hamm, Suvedi, Gray, & Poston, 1999). Competitive federal and state grant programs emphasize multi-disciplinary collaboration in research and Extension (Leholm et al., 1999).

Purpose

As research and Extension shift toward collaborative efforts between different institutions and disciplines, a better understanding of the dynamics of such groups is critical for success. The purpose of the ethnographic case study reported here was to explore team-building strategies by describing faculty reactions to their participation in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team project conducted via distance.

Method

To understand faculty perceptions toward multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional teamwork, ethnographic case study methods were employed (Merriam, 1988; Spradley, 1979). A case study is " chosen precisely because researchers are interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing" (Merriam, 1988, p.10). Ethnographic case studies provide in-depth descriptions of the culture of the social group being studied (Wolcott, 1980) by collecting data that is not only extensive, but intensive.

Consistent with case study design, researchers identified 10 faculty members engaged in an Extension team project as sources of data (Merriam, 1988). The team members were from five different universities and had Extension appointments in diverse agricultural disciplines. Data were collected from interviews over a 2-year period at the beginning, middle, and end of the project. Interviews were conducted in person or over the phone, transcribed, verified, and analyzed for themes.

Results

The team in this study came together to work on a grant-funded project to develop online educational resources. Figure 1 depicts this team's development by integrating team events with Tuckman's (1965) team development model.

Figure 1.
Integration of Tuckman's (1965) Small Group Development Model into One Team's Experience

Motivation for Collaboration

Most team members were motivated by a desire to further their knowledge of Web-based instruction. One participant noted, "I think this gives you a chance to get involved in distance education. The process of developing a module and writing objectives is different when you're doing it online."

Other team members expressed utilitarian motives. As one commented, "This electronic library containing these modules will be valuable to me . . . a useful, tangible product that I can use in my program."

Though their reasons for collaboration varied, all team members were convinced that creating the lessons would be essential as Extension becomes more involved in distance delivery. One participant commented:

Do we really use the right tools or the right methods to teach these things on the Web? And these . . . non-traditional students, how well can they relate to these units? We are used to teaching in the classroom. We look at the students' eyes and can see whether they understand. When you put things on the Web . . . it really makes us think about whether we can modify it to make it better.

Though two team members were motivated to collaborate by the prospect of a useful end product, most were motivated to improve their methods of instructional delivery.

Timeline

The goal of all team members was to produce a superior instructional Web site. However, as the project progressed and deadlines were frequently unmet, many members questioned that goal. One interviewee expressed her frustration, "I keep wondering if we're going to get our lessons done in time . . . if we're going to be finished before we run out of time and money."

Some team members began lowering their expectations. One team member shared, "Even if we only manage to do a good job completing 80% of our objectives, I think it will be a successful outcome."

Overall, each team member went through a period of questioning team objectives. The anxiety they expressed was consistent with the reactions of other, similar teams (Younglove-Webb, Gray, Abdalla, & Thurow, 1999).

Evaluation and Rewards

There was overwhelming concern about the lack of concrete evaluation methods for their participation (Frost & Gillespie, 1998; McKenzie & Lee, 1998; Wageman, 1995). Most team members felt their administrators encouraged collaboration, but were unprepared to evaluate and reward such endeavors. One participant observed:

I think the problem comes [in evaluating] your particular role . . . [Administrators] have difficulty determining whether you are a big player or just a bit player taking the credit for work other people did. So while they promote it on the one hand, they have difficulty rewarding participation.

An undertone of cynicism taints this participant's words about administrators:

We are in a crunch for funding so people get together in order to get certain things done . . . I'm going to say that the administration likes to see us deliver certain results and if the multi-disciplinary approach is the way to deliver the right results then I'm sure they're going to be favorable to it.

Additionally, though their peers were not unsupportive, they were generally unaware of their departmental colleagues' collaborations. One interviewee quipped, "I'm not sure that they know that I'm involved and I'm not sure that they would care."

Overall, team members felt little support from their colleagues and administrators.

Team Leader

Critical to the team's success was a facilitator who was the driving force behind the completion of the work (Burns, 1994; Gersick, 1989; Proehl, 2000; Schrage, 1995; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). Without the constant cajoling of the facilitator, team members agree the project would never have progressed. One participant admitted, "I think the person in charge has done an excellent job. She's got the right touch of encouragement and reminding you of the need to deliver."

Though the team leader was relentless in keeping the other team members on track, she still maintained a positive relationship with them. One participant expressed, "The leadership was awesome! Unfortunately, we're not all good followers; so I don't think we finished in a timely manner. [The team leader's] patience and the way she encourages were very positive."

By fostering open, trusting relationships with the team members, this team leader created a working environment conducive to collaboration (Schrage, 1995).

Cohesion

An initial face-to-face meeting in which team members became acquainted with one another; clarified and defined roles, objectives, and deadlines; and set ground rules for communication was critical in achieving team cohesion (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Scholtes, 1991; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). But many team members still missed the interaction of face-to-face meetings. According to one interviewee, "It would have been nice . . . to have gotten together more often as a group. I think it will be twice during . . . the whole process that we have ever been together as a group."

The distance separating team members added to difficulties in achieving the fusion necessary for successful collaboration (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). In the beginning, one team member expressed, "We want to make sure this set of modules doesn't look like a six room house built by six different contractors! We need to have enough interaction so that we have a common view."

In spite of the distance separating them, the team evolved from a mere work group into a synergistic entity. One interviewee noted at the project's end, "We talk as a group much more often now. Many of the modules reflect the thinking of the entire group . . . the lessons are better than they would have been if they were developed by an individual."

The team's transformation followed Tuckman's (1965) team development model. The forming and storming stages of this team were rife with doubts and uncertainty about how the project would be carried out. As the team reached the norming and performing stages of development, trust and camaraderie were prevalent.

Interaction

Communication problems are widespread in teams collaborating via distance and can be harmful to productivity and cohesion (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). One interviewee observed, "We're all so far away, I think it made it harder for us to put this project on our platter as a real goal."

Several team members believed that more face-to-face interaction would have produced more materials more quickly (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Spargo & Kelsey, 1996). One interviewee recounted, "I wish we had more time that we could spend as a group . . . it would be nice [to] talk to each other face-to-face."

These feelings of isolation and stilted productivity were evident at every stage of the team's development. However, the attitudes of the team members shifted from uncertainty to wistfulness about not spending more time together in person.

Trust

The team members felt comfortable enough with one another to be honest about their opinions and ideas. This dialogue was vital in bridging the space between team members (Tan, Wei, Huang, & Ng, 2000). One interviewee reflected, "If a team doesn't talk very often, they begin to disintegrate as a team, so [the facilitator] made sure that didn't happen and kept us in a dialogue . . . that also builds a sense of movement and progress in the group."

Most felt the initial face-to-face meeting helped to forge a bond that helped them to face project difficulties and achieve success (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). One interviewee expressed:

I think that the travel money we put in to bring people [together] has been very critical. I like that kind of time because it feels more like a team; you're not the lone rangers trying to conquer this project.

Each member noted how critical the leader's role was in promoting communication among all the team members. This encouragement to be candid led to a deeper project commitment.

Miscellaneous Findings

A curious dynamic that emerged was the respect all team members held for the leader. According to one team member:

She's been doing a great job pulling us all together! You have to keep in mind that in order to pull 10 or 15 scientists together, you're going to have to have a lot of nerve and a lot of patience.

Respect for a team leader is not an unusual phenomenon in most functional teams, particularly when that leader is considered to be of a higher status than the other team members (Meyers, Meyers, & Gelzheiser, 2001; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). Research indicates that team members with the most status typically dominate communication, are critical and aggressive, and expect deference from lower status members (Meyers, Meyers, & Gelzheiser, 2001; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). The team leader in this study had the least amount of status in the group, yet held the respect and admiration of the other team members. This could be due to the technical expertise the team leader possessed. Team members depended on her expertise in creating the Web-based resources they designed.

In addition, though the team leader was the principal investigator for the project, she encouraged team members to participate in the formation of project roles and deadlines. This inclusiveness, coupled with empathy, endeared her to the team. One team member expressed:

I can't thank [the team leader] enough for her leadership . . . I can call her at any time and she'll help me through a glitch or any number of silly little things . . . she's just always receptive to helping us improve our capabilities.

The ability to empathize with others has been identified as a component of effective leadership (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002). Empathy has also been shown to "not only contribute to leadership emergence, but may also strengthen team member participation and engagement . . ." in self-managing teams (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002, p. 520). This leader's ability to empathize with team members may have assisted her in prodding the team members along without pushing them too far.

Implications

Universities as well as funding agencies are emphasizing multi-disciplinary collaboration (Komives, 2003). The study reported here explored the perceptions of faculty involved in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team project. As expected, the team's development followed the four stages of team development described by Tuckman (1965) (Figure 1).

Many of the obstacles to this team's success were due to pressures from their respective institutions. Strategies for evaluating and rewarding faculty participation in these projects must be developed. Systems for rewarding individual team members have been developed and used in industrial settings (Kerrin & Oliver, 2002; Sarin & Mahajan, 2001). Until a rewards framework is designed, faculty will remain torn between participating in collaborative projects for needed funding and the need to fulfill departmental requirements that reward individual efforts (Edwards, 1999; Frost & Gillespie, 1998; McKenzie & Lee, 1998).

The lack of recognition for collaborative efforts can be remedied. Departmental administrators can begin by acknowledging multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional projects as viable components of the faculty workload. They must recognize that although individual efforts are an important measure of faculty productivity, collective efforts are equally important. Allowing faculty release time to participate in collaborative endeavors could validate faculty involvement in joint efforts.

In addition, examining the characteristics of successful team leaders will be critical for future research. In this study, the team leader was pivotal in determining the team's successes. Profiling leadership skills in successful multi-disciplinary teams could encourage future collaborative successes.

Another area begging further research is the role of empathy in the leadership of multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional teams. Participants in this study identified their team leader as a determinant in their success. The study of empathic leadership in multi-disciplinary teams has not been examined; this will be critical for future research.

The complexity and diversity of the problems facing today's Extension clients have heightened the need for Extension teams representing multiple disciplines, and in some cases, multiple institutions and multiple countries. To ensure the success of those teams, the results of this study and others must be used to form the basis for addressing obstacles to, and exploring the foundations of, team success.

References

Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distance and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams. Washington, DC: APA.

Burns, C. (1994). Innovative team building: Synergistic human resource development. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 22(1), 39-48.

Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 11, 199-231.

Edwards, R. (1999). The academic department: How does it fit into the university reform agenda? Change, 31(5), 17-27.

Frost, S. H., & Gillespie, T. W. (1998). Organizations, culture and teams: Links toward genuine change. New Directions for Institutional Research, 100, 5-15.

Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort. Small Group Research, 32(1), 3-18.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274-309.

Hart, R. K., & McLeod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking team building in geographically dispersed teams. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 352-361.

Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877-904.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 523-544.

Kerrin, M., & Oliver, N. (2002). Collective and individual improvement activities: The role of reward systems. Personnel Review, 31(3), 320-337.

Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work, 57-80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Komives, S. (2003). The changing nature of work in higher education. Retrieved September 12, 2003, from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trends6/htm

Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, I., & Poston, F. (1999). Area of Expertise teams: The Michigan approach to applied research and Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/a3.html

McKenzie, R. B., & Lee, D. R. (1998). Managing through incentives: How to develop a more collaborative, productive and profitable organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, B., Meyers, J., & Gelzheiser, L. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared decision making: A preliminary analysis of three teams. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(4), 277-312.

Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277-291.

Proehl, R. (2000). Cross-functional teams: An innovation or just another committee? Higher Education Management, 11(3), 55-71.

Sarin, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross functional product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 35-53.

Scholtes, P. R. (1991). The team handbook. Madison, WI: Joiner.

Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Spargo, L., & Kelsey, B. (1996). How two universities crossed the border. ISOC Proceedings. Retrieved October 29, 2003, from http://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/c8/c8_1.htm

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Huang, W. W., & Ng, G. N. (2000). A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 43(2), 153-165.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180.

Wolcott, H. (1980). How to look like an anthropologist without actually being one. Practicing Anthropology. 3(1), 6-7, 56-59.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. A. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505-522.

Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W., & Thurow, A. P. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425- 440.

Determining the Quality of Youth-Adult Relationships Within Community-Based Youth Programs

Kenneth R. Jones
Assistant Professor
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
kenrjones@uky.edu

Daniel F. Perkins
Associate Professor
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
dfp102@psu.edu

Introduction

There has been some difficulty in assessing where society stands in terms of recognizing the value of positive youth-adult relationships (Benson, 1997; Gilliam & Bales, 2001). One challenge is the lack of research on the practice of incorporating youth voice and participation in youth programs. Youth are well informed about their neighborhoods and can serve as worthy contributors when working with adults as community partners.

One characteristic researchers noted as fundamental to successful youth-adult relationships (e.g., mentoring) is the quality of interactions between youth and adults (Dubois & Neville, 1997; Dubois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Grossman & Johnson, 1999; Herrera, Sipe, McClanahan, Arbreton, & Pepper, 2000; Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002; Rhodes, 2002). Researchers have asserted that the process of youth-adult participation can provide action-based learning experiences that enable youth to contribute through decision-making processes at the community level (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Israel & Ilvento, 1995; Mayo, 2000; Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes, & Calvert, 2000; Villaruel, Perkins, Borden, & Keith, 2003).

Although previous empirical studies have provided insight into the benefits of youth decision making, very little reference is directed toward various types of relationships that may exist between youth and adults. A few scholars have presented models that attempt to explain how youth skills can be evaluated and utilized in leadership roles (Hart, 1992, 1997; Mitra, 2000). These models also present a hierarchical framework, where certain positions are perceived as positive and others perceived as negative, thereby posing the threat to practitioners who may feel as though their program may be unacceptably low in certain areas (e.g., youth leadership and adult involvement).

This article introduces a new measure that assesses perceptions of youth and adult participants working together on various types of community-based efforts. The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale is presented as a useful instrument to identify the strengths and weaknesses within existing youth-adult groups. Participants can also use the scale to rate the quality of their own experience within their group, based on specific criteria or themes.

The scale gives practitioners a way to assess which category along the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships model (e.g., Adult-Centered Leadership, Youth-Adult Partnership; see Jones, 2004) best describes their group. After the assessment, if practitioners want to realign a group into a different category, they can be intentional about adding certain activities that foster specific linkages to categories along the continuum. For example, an Adult-Led Collaboration may want to increase the level of youth voice within its group. This could be done by employing some of the strategies of a Youth-Adult Partnership or Youth-Led Collaboration, which incorporate higher levels of youth engaging in discussions that lead to decision making.

Identifying Various Relationships

Within the literature and practice, there remains a lack of clearly defined criteria for what signifies various types of relationships among programs (e.g., 4-H/Youth Development Programs, YMCA) and community-based efforts (e.g., Youth-Adult Partnerships or a community collaborative designed to address community issues), from those that are adult-centered (i.e., only allowing youth to participate) to those that are youth-centered (i.e., youth lead with little or no adult involvement).

Two scholars have presented models to better explain how youth skills can be utilized in leadership roles. Hart's (1992, 1997) Ladder of Children's Participation offers choices where young people may choose to participate at the level most suitable for her or his ability.

The other model involves a pyramid that displays a hierarchy of three varying forms of student (youth) voice: information, collaboration, and autonomy (Mitra, 2000). Mitra's research focused on older students (i.e., high school juniors and seniors) who had formed ideas about educational change, particularly at the high school level. The information level of the model depicts the minimal and most common form of involvement, where students share their ideas with adults who sequentially interpret the data without youth input. The next level, collaboration, is where students and adults work together to define problems, interpret data and execute action plans to promote change. The final level, autonomy, is where students are self-directed to design and implement their own plans. This model serves as a clear indication that student voice can be solicited and utilized in numerous forms, thus allowing students to serve as valuable contributors in youth-adult relationships.

Both Hart's (1992, 1997) ladder and Mitra's pyramid (2000) attempt to explain how youth skills can be utilized in leadership roles with increased autonomy. However, Hart's ladder is geared towards the involvement of children, not emphasizing the importance of adult interaction with youth in their role as mentors and being experiential learners throughout the process. In contrast, Mitra's pyramid does address youth and adults collaborating together, but centers on groups within a school or classroom. Although Mitra's concepts can be adapted from an environmental context, community organizations are much more varied; therefore, many programs may be inappropriately classified if only three categories were utilized.

Jones and Perkins (2004) developed the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships model that specifically targets community efforts (Figure 1). This model includes five key categories to identify groups consisting of varied levels of youth and adult involvement. The continuum focuses on individual choices, and enables organizations to exist at any point depending on the level of engagement of youth and adults. Each level serves a purpose, and neither is better than other levels because their functionality is dependent on the purpose they serve. The categories on the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships include: Adult-Centered Leadership, Adult-Led Collaboration, Youth-Adult Partnership, Youth-Led Collaboration, and Youth-Centered Leadership. The categories are described in detail below.

Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships

The continuum model was derived from an extensive literature review on types of youth-adult relationships that provide insight on how specific youth-adult relationships are positioned along the continuum (see figure 1). Therefore, the emphasis of this article is to demonstrate how the Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale can be employed to distinguish between the various youth-adult relationship categories of the continuum model.

Figure 1.
Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships

An Adult-Centered Leadership relationship consists of programs that are conceived and driven completely by adults, without employing any youth decision making. An Adult-Led Collaboration includes programs or situations where adults provide guidance for youth, but the youth have some input in decision making, albeit limited by adults' discretion.

The Youth-Adult Partnership category is located centrally on the continuum. This is a point of stasis where a partnership is achieved between youth and adults. Youth and adult participants have equal chances in utilizing skills, decision making, mutual learning, and independently carrying out tasks to reach common goals.

Youth-Led Collaborations are programs or projects where youth primarily develop the ideas and make decisions while adults typically provide needed assistance.

Youth-Centered Leadership includes programs or activities led exclusively by youth, with little or no adult involvement (for more specific details on the model, see Jones, 2004).

Assessing Community Efforts Through Youth and Adult Involvement

Research studies on group interaction have revealed that positive outcomes (e.g., positive perceptions, strong social ties) can occur when individuals from diverse backgrounds come together to accomplish common goals (Allport, 1954; Brewer & Miller, 1984; Pettigrew, 1998). Researchers and practitioners have also found value in examining how participants perceive their own experiences within youth-adult relationships (Herrera et al., 2000). The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale is an instrument that allows youth and adult to measure their perceptions of their experiences when interacting at some level in youth development programs or working together as community partners. The instrument assesses three constructs: youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction.

The constructs used were selected and adapted from existing literature and instruments (see Camino, 2002; Yohalem, 2002; Zeldin, Day & Matyzik, n.d.) to more accurately fit the uniqueness of this investigation. Some of the rating scale's items were based on the mentoring and youth-adult partnership literature and modified to accomplish the objectives of assessing various types of youth-adult relationships as identified on the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships (Jones & Perkins, 2004).

A high rating in youth involvement also indicates that youth worked primarily with their peers to carry out a task (e.g., organizing an event and collecting signatures for a petition) related to the project. The individual items of the youth involvement construct assesses whether young people demonstrate high or low levels of youth voice and decision making, responsibility, and commitment to the project. Adult involvement, the second construct, entails adults working together in a given situation (e.g., raising funds or handling other administrative duties). This construct also utilizes items that measure adults' support, through their commitment to nurturing youth voice and decision making and their dedication to the project.

A high rating of youth-adult interaction indicates that youth and adults work collectively, engaging in one or more components of a project and fully exercising an equal opportunity to utilize decision making and other leadership skills. High youth-adult interaction would also reflect civility and mutual respect for one another. Jones (2004) also used the measure to conduct a comparison of individual responses between the various groups to determine the differences in relationship quality, experiences, and level of youth and adult involvement to further distinguish the contrasts between the various types of relationships. Table 1 lists the items used for each of the three constructs.

Rating Scale Development

The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale rates relationship quality on a 10-point scale that assesses the three previously discussed constructs (i.e., youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction). The scale ranges from: 1-2 (very poor); 3-4 (poor); 5-6 (fair); 7-8 (good); 9-10 (excellent). The 38-item rating scale includes bipolar (i.e., positive and negative) statements to measure participants' perceptions of their experiences (i.e., "Youth are fully committed to their duties/Youth are not committed to their duties"; "Adults always listen to the suggestions of youth/Adults never listen to the suggestions of youth"). Parallel forms were developed for youth and adult participants.

Due to the length of the rating scale, bipolar statements on a 10-point scale were used to minimize response bias (Tuckman, 1994). This scale also allowed more variance in the responses, being that the sample size was relatively small. In addition, having two (bipolar) statements provides clarity of the items for the youth as well as the adult participants. If one statement is unclear to a respondent, there is a chance that they may be able to understand the opposite item and give a more accurate response. Negative statements were reverse coded to reflect positive aspects.

The authors considered a confirmatory factor analysis to determine if there was a goodness of fit for the items and the specified constructs. However, the sample size used for this procedure (N= 108) was smaller than recommended for this form of multivariate analysis. General guidelines have ranged from a minimum of 100 participants for less than 10 variables/items to 10 participants per item (Kachigan, 1986). Thus, to meet the guidelines, the sample size for assessing the Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale would be approximately 380 participants. The authors are continuing to gather data in order to establish more validity and to accurately report the results of a factor analysis model at a later point in time.

Expert Panel Review

The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale was reviewed by a panel of seven individuals (five faculty members, two graduate assistants) with knowledge in survey design and/or knowledge about youth-adult relationships. Members of the panel hold doctoral degrees in the areas of adult education, agricultural and Extension education, educational theory, and policy and human/child ecology. These experts were asked to review the instruments for content validity and to examine the items for cultural sensitivity.

The panel concluded that the items were representative of the content and were appropriate to assess perceptions and experiences of youth and adults interacting and/or working together within community-based youth development programs. An evaluation team from the practitioner-based United Way's Center for Youth Development (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) also reviewed the instrument. Adaptations were made based on feedback from the panel and the evaluation team.

Reliability Analysis

As a measure of reliability for the Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale, a post-hoc test was conducted by the researcher, which reported an overall Cronbach's Alpha of .94. The instrument contained three groups of items that measured the constructs: youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients for each of the constructs were as follows: Youth Involvement (.83), Adult Involvement (.84), and Youth-Adult Interaction (.87).

Understanding Levels of Involvement and Interaction

Community participation levels vary, thus resulting in different experiences for youth and adults. Factors contributing to participation may include participants' abilities and willingness to commit to such a project. Table 2 notes the various relationship descriptions and the level (i.e., high and low) of youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction expected to exist among participants engaged in community programs and projects. These constructs were selected as measures of involvement because they include all participants as they work in subgroups (i.e., youth working with youth, adults working with adults) or as a cohesive unit (youth and adults working together as partners). Investigating each level of involvement separately helps to attain a more accurate assessment of the group dynamics that may occur.

Conclusion

The purpose of the Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale is to assess the perceptions and experiences of youth and adults interacting together at some level within youth development programs. However, the scale's use does not have to be restricted to a structured youth program (e.g., 4-H/youth development, school projects), but can be used to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a youth-adult partnership created to address community issues (e.g., neighborhood peace rally, organizing a faith-based initiative). Specifically, the measure assesses youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction to determine the appropriate category of a group's youth-adult relationship, based on the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships.

The scale also serves as a means for participants to evaluate their own experiences, which may be helpful in determining the quality of experiences and areas that need strengthening. For example, a youth service provider may sense that a program is of high quality because youth and adults seem to be working well together. However, a more accurate assessment could be conducted by allowing the participants to complete the rating scale to discover whether they rate their experiences as high or low (i.e., positive or negative).

The youth service provider can also utilize Table 2 to discover whether the youth and adults perceive high levels of youth involvement, adult involvement, and youth-adult interaction among their group. If the findings reveal that the group is experiencing an unsatisfactory relationship, the results of the group members' responses should give some indication as to what component(s) of the relationship needs improvement (whether more motivation for youth or adult involvement or more emphasis on youth-adult interaction.). Empowering participants to assess their experiences provides a youth service provider with pertinent information to determine what may be necessary to improve or maintain the quality within youth-adult relationships.

An asset of the Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale is that it empowers youth and adults to participate by evaluating their own experiences (thus minimizing the assumptions of the researcher or youth development professional), while allowing a more specific identification of characteristics that exist among various youth-adult relationships. The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale provides a meaningful and practical tool that contributes to the literature on youth-adult relationships, including youth-adult partnerships. In turn, it allows us to move closer to determining the criteria for achieving positive development for all youth.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Constance Flanagan, Rama Radhkrishna, and Dana Mitra for their critical review and feedback related to this manuscript. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Penn State University's Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service and National 4-H Council (Engaging Youth, Serving Communities Initiative).

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Books.

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, M. B. & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.). Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Camino, L. (2002). CO-SAMM:A tool to assess youth leadership. CYD Journal, 3, 39-43.

Dubois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002, April). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197.

Dubois, D. L., & Neville, H. A. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship characteristics and perceived benefits. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 227-234.

Flanagan, C. A. & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development: Implications of research for social policy and programs. Social Policy Report, 15(1). A report of the Society for Research in Child Development. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.srcd.org/sprv15n1.pdf

Gilliam, F. D., Jr. & Bales, S. N. (2001, July). Strategic frame analysis: Reframing America's youth. Social Policy Report, 15(3). A report of the Society for Research in Child Development. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.srcd.org/sprv15n3.pdf

Grossman, J. B., & Johnson, A. (1999, June). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring programs. In Contemporary issues in mentoring. (J.B. Grossman, ed.). Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.ppv.org/pdffiles/cimentoring/cim_3.pdf

Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hart, R.A. (1997). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Hart, R. A. (1992). Children's participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy:UNICEF/International Child Development Center.

Herrera, C., Sipe, C.L., McClanahan, W. S., Arbreton, A. J. A., & Pepper, S. K. (2000, April). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Public Private Ventures. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.ppv.org/pdffiles/mentorreldevel.pdf

Israel, G. D., & Ilvento, T. W. (1995, April). Everybody wins: Involving youth in community needs assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995april/a1.html

Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J. (2002, February). Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development (research brief).Washington, DC:

Child Trends.

Jones, K. R. (2004). An Assessment of perceptions and experiences in community-based youth-adult relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2004). Youth-adult partnerships. Chapter to appear in: C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (In preparation). Applied developmental science: An encyclopedia of research, policies, and programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statistical analysis: An interdisciplinary introduction to univariate and multivariate methods. New York, NY: Radius Press.

Mayo, M. (2000, April). Learning for active citizenship: Training for and learning from participation in area regeneration. Studies in the Education of Adults, 32, 22-35.

Mitra, D. (2000). Making reform real: Involving youth in school change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998). JUMP: Juvenile mentoring program, 1998 Report to Congress, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/952872.pdf

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, pp. 65-85.

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tuckman, B.W. (1994). Conducting educational research (4^th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Villarruel, F. A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., & Keith, J. G. (2003). Community youth development: Practice, policy and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yohalem, N. (2002). Defining, assessing, and improving youth program quality: Where Are we and where do we need to go? A summary of youth program assessment Tools. Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/youthprogqualpremtg.htm

Zeldin, S., Day, T., & Matysik, G. (n.d.). Program and activity assessment tool. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/4h/paat/

Zeldin, S., McDaniel, A., Topitzes, D., & Calvert, M. (2000). Youth in decision-making: A study on the impact of youth on adults and organizations. A report developed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development, Chevy Chase, MD.

A Model for Recruiting and Training Youth Development Volunteers in Urban Areas

Martin H. Smith
Assistant Cooperative Extension Specialist
Veterinary Medicine Extension
University of California – Davis
Davis, California
mhsmith@ucdavis.edu

H. Steve Dasher
Youth Development Advisor
University of California Cooperative Extension, San Diego County
San Diego, California
hsdasher@ucdavis.edu

Donald J. Klingborg
Associate Dean
Veterinary Medicine Extension
University of California – Davis
Davis, California
djklingbor@vmdean.ucdavis.edu

Introduction

Extension educators from the University of California designed and implemented a unique method of recruiting and training volunteers for Youth Development Programs in urban areas. The Community Science Education and Leadership (SEAL) Project utilized a formal college course to recruit and train teen and adult volunteer leaders to implement a science literacy program with elementary-age children in after-school settings. To accomplish the recruitment, training, and implementation phases of the Community SEAL Project, a close association among partner institutions and organizations was required.

Background

The balance of 4-H membership has shifted since the program's inception over 100 years ago, when 4-H served primarily rural youth (Enfield, 2001). Currently, 8% of the 4-H members nationally reside in the suburbs, and 25% live in the metropolitan areas of cities over 50,000 (USDA, 2003). With this change in membership demographics comes a need to recruit and train new volunteers to lead Youth Development Programs in urban areas.

Extension Youth Development Programs are built upon a foundation of volunteer leaders. In 2003, 562,923 volunteers from across the nation worked directly with 4-H youth (USDA, 2003). Traditionally, the recruitment of volunteers is accomplished by contacting individuals who have direct connections to Youth Development Programs. These volunteers typically have children involved in 4-H, and the length of time they commit corresponds with the length of time their children are engaged in a project or activity (Fritz, Karmazin, Barbuto, & Burrow, 2003). However, Fritz et al. (2003) describe these 4-H volunteer recruitment strategies as "timeworn and possibly a mismatch for the urban population."

In order to expand the pool of volunteers, recruitment strategies must be broadened and diversified to reflect the current youth population (Ewert & Rice, 1994). To accomplish this goal, recruitment must extend beyond those individuals with family ties to the program (White & Arnold, 2003). Furthermore, to operate successful Youth Development Programs, it is essential to train volunteers effectively (Smith, et al., 2004).

Effective training improves volunteers' skills and abilities, thus enhancing the programs they lead (Hoover & Connor, 2001). Furthermore, training increases the potential for sustaining programs over time (Snider, 1985) and improves the rate of volunteer retention (Van Winkle, Busler, Bowman, & Manoogian, 2002). Strategies for improved recruitment and training of volunteer leaders are especially pertinent in urban areas because program delivery methods and techniques vary widely due to the diversity of the audiences served (Fehlis, 1992). In the current study, an innovative approach to recruiting and training volunteer leaders in an urban area was applied and evaluated.

Methods

The Community SEAL Project involved teen and adult Extension volunteers enrolled in a course offered through Grossmont College. Part of the California Community College system, Grossmont College provides a diverse 2-year program to students in the El Cajon/San Diego metropolitan area. The Community SEAL Project was offered twice, once in each of two academic years. In year one, 10 adult volunteers participated; in year two, 15 volunteers (seven adults; eight teens) enrolled.

The teen and adult volunteers were recruited through the Grossmont College's Community Service Learning Program, general campus announcements, and associations with Service Learning and Career Education Departments at area high schools. The volunteer leaders who participated in the Community SEAL Project were from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds representative of metropolitan San Diego, including African American, Anglo, Chinese, Korean, Iraqi, Latino, Phillipino, and Vietnamese. Additionally, although some individuals had experience volunteering in other capacities (e.g., church youth programs, community arts and culture programs), only one participant had prior experience as a 4-H leader.

Participants received three units of undergraduate credit for a one-semester (16 weeks) elective course Community Science Education and Leadership. The course was developed and taught by academic staff from the University of California, Davis, Veterinary Medicine Extension, and the University of California Cooperative Extension, San Diego County, 4-H Youth Development Program.

Course content included weekly seminars on topics related to effective science outreach with youth audiences, including: inquiry-based science methods, questioning strategies, age-appropriate teaching methods, curriculum content and implementation strategies, team building, evaluation, and education to diverse audiences. Additional topics included community college-to-university transfer procedures and career exploration. Among the guest seminar speakers were other Extension educators, academic personnel from the University of California and California State University, and individuals from local and regional community organizations (e.g., San Diego City Schools, San Diego Zoo Education Department).

In addition to the course seminars, there were weekly "community laboratories" that served as authentic applications of educational theories and curriculum methods. Participating teens and adults worked in teams of four or five individuals to implement a hands-on, inquiry-based science curriculum with upper elementary age children enrolled in after school programs co-operated by the San Diego County 4-H Education Foundation, the Cajon Valley Elementary School, and El Cajon Park and Recreation District. This applied element of the Community SEAL Project focused on the children's understanding of curriculum content and their acquisition and use of science process skills.

Results

The Community SEAL Project's organizational approach combined educational theory and authentic experience to address specific project goals. One major goal was to contribute to the development and/or enhancement of skills important to the success of volunteers in Youth Development Programs. A post-project survey was administered to participating teens and adults in order to evaluate the impact of the Community SEAL Project on this construct. Using a Likert scale, responses were rated as: SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree; or NA = not applicable. Additionally, data from a post-project focus group interview with the participants were used to triangulate the survey results. The data presented represent the combined results from both years the Community SEAL Project was offered.

Post-Project Survey

Outcome data from post-project surveys (N = 19) revealed that the Community SEAL Project helped the teen and adult volunteers strengthen important career and life skills, including leadership, teamwork, communication, organization, and problem-solving (Figures 1 – 5). Results also showed that 89% (63% Strongly Agree; 26% Agree) of the participants surveyed indicated that they will volunteer their time again in the future.

Figure 1.
Volunteers' Responses to Post-Project Survey: Through My Participation in Community SEAL, I Have Improved My Leadership Skills.

Figure 2.
Volunteers' Responses to Post-Project Survey: Through My Participation in Community SEAL, I Have Improved My Teamwork Skills.

Figure 3.
Volunteers' Responses to Post-Project Survey: Through My Participation in Community SEAL, I Have Improved My Communication Skills.

Figure 4.
Volunteers' Responses to Post-Project Survey: Through My Participation in Community SEAL, I Have Improved My Organizational Skills.

Figure 5.
Volunteers' Responses to Post-Project Survey: Through My Participation in Community SEAL, I Have Improved My Problem-Solving Skills.

Post-Project Focus Group Interviews

Focus group interviews provided evidence that the Community SEAL Project was successful in recruiting and training new volunteer leaders for a Youth Development Program in an urban area. Participants revealed that they would not have become involved with youth in their community had it not been for this project. The teens and adults also reported that the training seminars prepared them for facilitating inquiry-based activities with the children at the after-school sites. They stated that their participation in the Community SEAL Project changed the way they viewed teaching and science education, and many volunteers expressed that their participation in Community SEAL had sparked their interest in pursuing a career in education.

Focus group interview data also supported survey outcomes and provided additional insights into impacts on participating volunteers. Data revealed that participation in the Community SEAL Project had influenced the volunteers' own learning styles. They stated that they were applying the project's inquiry approach and its associated problem-solving skills to situations they encountered in their own lives.

Furthermore, through their involvement in the "community laboratories," volunteers reported that they had discovered they could work with children in a nurturing manner that they did not think they were capable of prior to their participation in the project. The volunteers revealed that the children communicated openly with them and that their positions as cross-age teachers took on mentorship qualities. The teens and adults believed that their roles as cross-age teachers benefited the children in a broader context, viewing themselves as positive role models for the children to emulate. They recognized and reported reciprocal positive relationships that developed and endured throughout the project.

Impact on Targeted Youth Audience

Effective training makes volunteers better educators (Hoover & Conner, 2001). Although youth audiences are not involved directly in the training of volunteers, through their improved learning they are the beneficiaries of training activities and thus represent the overarching goal of these efforts (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998).

The teen and adult volunteers who participated in the Community SEAL Project were effective in implementing a hands-on, inquiry-based science curriculum with upper elementary age children enrolled in urban after school programs. An additional project goal was to improve the science literacy of participating children by increasing their use of the Scientific Thinking Processes (Lowery, 1992). Changes in the target audience's use of the process skills observation, measurement, communication, classification, prediction, and inference were measured using the Test of Basic Process Skills (BAPS) (Padilla, 1991), a multiple-choice test that has been validated and reliability-tested with elementary-age children. Data from 28 pre-/post- matched sets (16 girls; 12 boys) of upper-elementary age children (mean age = 10) were analyzed. Significant improvement (ANOVA testing; pre-test M = 12.29; post-test M = 14.54; F [1,54] = 11.79, p = .001) was found in BAPS scores for all children from pre-test to post-test administrations.

Discussion

With the shift in national 4-H membership to where one in four youth lives in metropolitan areas (USDA, 2003), Youth Development Programs need to expand their pool of volunteers through innovative recruitment and training strategies. The Community SEAL Project provides a unique model for recruiting and training teen and adult volunteers in urban areas. Individuals were recruited for this project through community partners, which served to diversify the age, ethnicity, background, and experience of the participants enrolled. Furthermore, by sharing responsibilities in working toward a common goal, this recruitment approach enhanced communication and helped strengthen ties between Extension and community collaborators.

For participating teen and adult volunteers, the Community SEAL Project provided weekly trainings that paralleled concurrent Youth Development Program applications, as well as recurring opportunities for peer reflection and mentoring by trainers. Previous studies have demonstrated that this incremental training approach serves to strengthen volunteer leader capacity over time (Smith & Enfield, 2002). Accordingly, volunteers enhanced career and life skills as a result of their participation.

It is important to reward volunteers for their service to the Youth Development Program. Rewards serve as key motivators for volunteer participation and retention (Hiller, 1998; Rouse & Clawson, 1992). In the Community SEAL Project, teen and adult volunteers earned formal academic credit through Grossmont College; teen participants also received service learning credit from their high schools.

Conclusion

It is critical for Extension to recruit and train new volunteers to extend Youth Development Programs to urban populations. The volunteer base needs to be broadened and diversified in order to reflect the demographics of current 4-H members and to reach new youth audiences. The Community SEAL Project was effective in developing and enhancing the skills of participating volunteers, and, in turn, the volunteers were effective in having a positive impact on their target audience. Project administrators believe this approach could serve as a model for the recruitment and training of Extension volunteers for other urban-based Youth Development Programs.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Cheryl L. Meehan, Post Graduate Researcher, Veterinary Medicine Extension, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, and Richard P. Enfield, 4-H Youth Development Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo County, California.

References

Enfield, R. P. (2001). Connections between 4-H and John Dewey's Philosophy of Education. FOCUS. Davis: 4-H Center for Youth Development, University of California, Winter.

Ewert, M. D., & Rice, J. A. K. (1994). Managing diversity within Cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 32(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a1.html

Fehlis, C. P. (1992). Urban Extension programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a3.html

Fritz, S., Karmazin, D., Barbuto, J., & Burrow, S. (2003). Urban and rural 4-H adult volunteer leaders' preferred forms of recognition and motivation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003june/rb1.shtml

Hiller, J. (1998). Recognizing volunteers: Right from the start. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/ttl.html

Hoover, T., & Connor, N. J. (2001). Preferred learning styles of Florida association for famiy and community education volunteers: implications for professional development. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a3.html

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Corwin Press.

Lowery, Lawrence F. (1992). The Scientific Thinking Processes. Full Option Science System (FOSS), Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley.

Padilla, M. J. (1991). S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton. (Eds.). The psychology of learning science [Science activities, process skills, and thinking]. Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rouse, S. & Clawson, B. (1992). Motives and incentives of older adult volunteers. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992fall/a1.html

Smith, M. H., & Enfield, R. P. (2002). Training 4-H teen facilitators in inquiry-based science methods: The evaluation of a "step-up" incremental training model. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a3.shtml

Smith, M. H., Meehan, C. L., Enfield, R. P., George, J. L., & Young, J. C. (2004). Improving county-based science programs: Bringing out the science teacher in your volunteer leaders. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a5.shtml

Snider, A. (1985). The dynamic tension: professionals and volunteers. Journal of Extension [On-line], 23(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1985fall/sa2.html

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2003). Annual 4-H Youth Development Enrollment Report. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/2003-es237.pdf

Van Winkle, R., Busler, S., Bowman, S., & Manoogian, M. (2002). Adult volunteer development: Addressing the effectiveness of training new 4-H leaders. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a4.shtml

White, D. & Arnold, M. (2003). Why they come, why they go, and why they stay: Factors affecting volunteerism in 4-H programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/rb5.shtml

Fit 2-B FATHERS: The Effectiveness of Extension Programming with Incarcerated Fathers

Joseph J. Maiorano
Extension Educator, Family and Consumer Science
Harrison and Jefferson Counties
maiorano.2@osu.edu

Ted G. Futris
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Human Development and Family Science
Columbus, Ohio
futris.1@osu.edu

Ohio State University Extension

Introduction

The number of adults in the correctional population has been growing. Recently, the Department of Justice reported that 6.9 million adults were either incarcerated, or on probation or parole in the United States at yearend 2003--about 3.2% of the U.S. adult population, or one in every 32 adults (Glaze & Palla, 2004). This translates to roughly 4.8 million males and 885,000 females within the adult correctional population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). Not only is the number of incarcerated adults overwhelming, but so is the rate of recidivism, or criminal acts that result in the re-arrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a 3-year period following the prisoner's release. A 15-state study found that over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within 3 years (Langan & Levin, 2002).

This epidemic of arrest and recidivism causes negative consequences to those directly involved but also to their children, families, and communities. Nearly 56% of all incarcerated men have at least one child under the age of 18; 76% have two or more minor children (Mumola, 2000). The majority (58%) of these children are less than 10 years old, and about 43% of the fathers lived with their children prior to imprisonment (Mumola, 2000). Consequently, these children are emotionally, economically, and socially scarred because of their parent's incarceration, and without intervention these youth are five times more likely than other children to become incarcerated themselves (Mazza, 2002).

In general, fathers in prison do care about their children and about how their children perceive them as fathers. Most fathers express concern for their children, worry about them, and worry about being replaced in their children's lives by someone else. Many readily acknowledge they are not currently doing, or may not have done, the things a good father does. (See Hairston [1998] for a complete review of the major issues and challenges facing incarcerated fathers.)

Prisoners often do not exhibit internal locus of control and the ability to empathize with others (Winters, 2000), both key factors influencing positive social and parenting behaviors. The correctional education literature suggests that social and parenting skills education for the corrections population can improve social behaviors (e.g., Schippers, Maerker, & DeFuentes-Merillas, 2001). In fact, prisoners who gain personal, family-life, and social skills are empowered to make a positive reentry into the community following release (Reinhart, 1991; Williams, 1996), are less likely to recidivate (Carlson, 1995; Jancic, 1998), and potentially are more likely to be the good fathers they desire to be (Hairston, 1998).

Unfortunately fathers in prison frequently are overlooked or excluded from parenting programs (Hairston, 1998). Although scant, the research on the effectiveness of parenting programming on fathers suggests that such programs can improve fathers'

• Knowledge and attitudes regarding positive parenting practices (Bushfield, 2004);
• Acceptance and perceptions of their children as well as their stress associated with fathering (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998); and
• Parental locus of control and satisfaction with parenting (Wilczak & Markstrom, 1999).

Overall, this is an appropriate population that could benefit from Extension, particularly Family and Consumer Sciences, programming. Although Extension has been offering programming to this audience (e.g., Gao, Dupree, & McKee, 1995; Kazura, Temke, Toth, & Hunter, 2002; Maiorano, 2001), research on the effectiveness of such programming is limited (e.g., Debord, Head, & Sherrill, 2004).

The Program: Fit 2-B FATHERS

Fit 2-B FATHERS (F2BF) is an educational curriculum in which research-based information about inmate education and parenting education have been combined with the author's professional experiences to create a social and fathering skills program. The goal of the program is to help males involved in the corrections system (e.g., incarcerated, sentenced to an alternative to incarceration, or participating in other forms of community-transition programming) to become better men and fathers.

The short-term goal of this program is for participants to improve their knowledge, confidence, and skills as these pertain to social and family relations. The intermediate goal is for participants to exhibit better social and fathering behaviors (e.g., healthy relations with their children and positive interactions with others, including family, friends and co-workers). As a result, participants may become less of a security risk during the remainder of their sentence, and less at-risk for recidivism when compared to non-participants (Brenner, 1998).

In regards to the long-term impacts of the program on their children, research shows that children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers (Horn & Sylvester, 2002).

Overall, F2BF promotes physical, practical, and social fitness:

• Physical fitness. A physically fit father has the strength to perform the duties of fatherhood and to keep up with his children. To promote physical fitness, each session begins with 5 minutes of stretching and light calisthenics.

• Practical fitness. A father with practical knowledge about parenting and social interactions is equipped with the tools to effectively perform his paternal and social responsibilities. This 50-minute portion of each session utilizes individual self-disclosure, group discussion, direct teaching, and role-play situations to present social and parenting skills.

• Social fitness. A socially fit father is one who can relate to children and other adults as thinkers, doers, and communicators worthy of respect. He is also able to have healthy relationships with his peers and colleagues.

The development of F2BF was guided by The National Extension Parent Education Model (NEPEM) (Smith, Cudaback, Goddard, & Myers-Walls, 1994). Over time, the program has evolved from nine sessions (see Maiorano, 2001) focused primarily on parenting (e.g., child development, importance of play, communication, guidance and discipline, promoting literacy and school success) to 17 sessions that now incorporate more general life skills training as well (e.g., job planning, money management, balancing work and family, healthy lifestyles). Those who complete at least 80% of the sessions receive a certificate of completion during a graduation celebration where they have the opportunity to invite family members to share in their accomplishment. For more information about the individual sessions of Fit 2-B FATHERS and the program visit <http://jefferson.osu.edu/fcs/fathers.htm>.

Current Study

The following provides a general description of those who have participated in F2BF during the past 5 years and assesses the effectiveness of F2BF in achieving its short-term goals. In other words, did participants' attitudes about themselves, their role as fathers, and positive parenting practices improve? Parent education programming often assumes that changes in attitudes and knowledge are precursors to changes in parenting behaviors (Wilczak & Markstrom, 1999). Although we could not assess the impact of the program on positively influencing their social and familial behaviors following release, we did examine their rate of recidivism: were participants less likely to recidivate as a result of participation in the program?

Who Participated in F2BF?

The program was conducted at a community-based correctional facility that serves six mostly-rural Appalachian counties in East Central Ohio. Inmates are low-level felons who serve, on average, a 180-day (6- month) sentence.

• Between September 1999 and August 2004, F2BF was delivered to 227 inmates across 15 program series.

• As summarized in Table 1, most participants were Caucasian (81%), between 20-39 years old (79%), not married (76%), and fathers (74%).

• Based on data collected from those participating in the more recent 10-, 12- and 17-session groups (not shown), most participants tend to be high school graduates (74%), employed prior to being incarcerated (54%), and earning less than $20,000/year (58%).

What Are the Level of Participation in and Graduation from F2BF?

• F2BF has grown over time to be integral to the correctional facility's rehabilitation efforts. As such, inmates who are mandated to attend a parent education program are given the option to attend F2BF in order to fulfill this requirement (Table 2).

• Overall, most (77%) participants attended at least 50% of the classes offered and 60% graduated from the program (i.e., attended at least 80% of the sessions).

Graduation rates were affected by whether the inmates started the program late, were "unsuccessfully released" (e.g., broke the rules and were taken to prison), or were successfully released prior to completing a series. To determine whether other factors (i.e., demographic characteristics) may be associated with graduation rates, analyses (ANOVAs and Chi-square tests) were performed.

• There were no statistically significant differences between those who graduated and those who did not in age, race, marital status, level of education, prior employment status, or whether their participation in the program was voluntary or mandated.

• Of those inmates who reported being fathers (n=183), 65.0% graduated from the program compared to only 30% of all non-fathers (n=30). The difference was statistically significant, X² (1) = 13.2, p < .001.

Program Impact

Pre-and post-tests were administered during the first and last session of the program to assess changes in participants' attitudes about being fathers, their self-esteem, and knowledge of appropriate parenting skills. Earlier in the program, a True/False survey was used, and scores across 10-items (1=correct response) were summed, with higher scores reflective of more positive attitudes. In order to observe variability in the participants' attitudes and level of knowledge, the survey was revised in 2001 to 9-items with a 6-point Likert scale (1=Disagree; 6 = Agree). Mean scores were computed, and again, higher scores reflected more positive attitudes about themselves, fathering, and parenting practices.

Who Completed Both Pre- and Post-Test Evaluations?

• Overall, 74 of the 227 participants (33%) provided complete data on both the pre- and post-test evaluation survey.

• No statistically significant differences were found on pre-test scores between those who only completed the pre-test (n=71) and those who completed both tests (n=74).

• Not surprisingly, those participants who completed both tests were more likely to attend a greater percentage of the sessions (M = 93.8%) than those who did not complete both tests (M = 57.9%), F (1, 224) = 115.6 p < .001.

• Mandated participants were more likely to complete both surveys (47.1%) compared to participants who enrolled in the class voluntarily (23.6%), X² (1) = 16.1, p < .001.

• Those who graduated from the program were more likely to complete both surveys than those who did not (54.4% vs. 0%), X² (1) = 73.5, p < .001.

• Although the majority of program participants were Caucasian (n=184; 81.1%), only 29.3% completed both surveys compared to 46.5% of all non-Caucasian participants, X² (1) = 4.7, p = .03.

• Fathers were more likely to complete both surveys compared to non-fathers (35.2% vs. 16.1%), X² (1) = 4.4, p = .04.

• Overall, 93.2% of the pre- and post-test surveys were completed by fathers. Thus, the findings are primarily reflective of the program's impact on fathers.

What Impact Did the Program Have on Participants' Attitudes?

• Overall, the findings demonstrate a statistically significant (yet modest) program impact on improving attitudes (Table 3). In fact, most (n=47; 63.5%) participants demonstrated higher scores on their post-test compared to their pre-test scores.

• Examination of the responses to the individual items (for those who completed the Likert scale only, n=61) revealed that participants felt better about themselves, felt in control of their lives, better understood effective discipline practices, and were more likely to recognize play as an important way of learning for children and the importance of giving children choices (Table 4).

What Impact Did the Program Have on Recidivism?

Data to assess program impact on recidivism rates was available for 201 of the program participants. Table 5 summarizes the number of participants who recidivated following release.

• As of August 2004, 136 of the 201 participants (67.7%) who have been released have not been charged with another crime.

• According to a report provided by the Eastern Ohio Correction Center (EOCC; Martha Ghenne, personal communication), of the 183 inmates successfully released in 2000, a total of 58 (31.6%) were re-incarcerated by 2003. A similar trend was found for F2BF participants who also were released that same year.

• Among the120 Fit 2-B FATHERS participants who were released on or before August 2001, 59.2% were not charged with a new crime within 3 years. Analyses show that there is no statistically significant difference between those who did and did not recidivate on the percent of sessions attended, graduation status, paternal status, or change in attitudes scores.

Discussion

Evaluation of F2BF indicated that the social and parenting skills program had a positive impact on improving participants' attitudes about themselves, their role as fathers, and their understanding of positive parenting practices. Although the current measures are yielding statistically significant results, the practical significance of these findings is modest. As such, retrospective/post-then-pre evaluation tools have been designed and are now being implemented that may yield more variance between pre- and post-test scores than are currently revealed using traditional pre- and post-tests (e.g., Raild et al., 2004; Rockwell & Kohn, 1989).

Also, per-session evaluation tools are now being administered to assess changes in participants' knowledge, confidence, and skills as they relate to each session's topic. Furthermore, whether these fathers take the knowledge and skills that they have learned and actually apply them is uncertain; further research is needed to examine participants' parenting behavior after release in order to determine if the program achieves its intermediate goals.

Findings also showed that recidivism rates for F2BF participants are very similar when compared to the recidivism rates of the general population of the EOCC. However, there are differences between the definitions each uses for "recidivism."

For example, the EOCC definition of recidivism accounts only for released inmates who have committed a more serious crime (e.g., non-misdemeanor) than the one for which they have previously served time. However, when compiling the recidivism data for this article, all criminal charges were counted as recidivism. The F2BF recidivism rate, by definition, could therefore, be more accurately compared with the national recidivism rates; yet because the EOCC serves a different population (first-time, low level felons compared to state and federal inmates who are higher-classified and possibly repeat offenders), even this is not a valid comparison.

After F2BF is offered in other types of correctional settings and recidivism data is collected on a variety of participants, there may be more accurate findings on which to report. But until then, the data still indicates a slight reduction in the recidivism rate of participants.

Overall, F2BF shows promise for providing Family and Consumer Sciences Extension programming with a particular focus on social and fathering skills education to males in the correction system. Although the program has yet to be used in institutions that house higher-classified felons serving longer sentences, it is believed that this curriculum will work as well with that population as it has with the current one. Also, offering F2BF as a community-based post release program could increase the likelihood of successful reintegration and decrease the recidivism rate of ex-prisoners (La Vigne, Thomson, Vischer, Travis, & Kacknowski, 2003).

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1997. Key facts at a glance: Correctional populations by gender 1986-97. US Department of Justice. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/cpgendtab.htm

Brenner, E (1998). Fathers in prison: A review of the data. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Fathers and Families, University of Pennsylvania. Available at: http://www.ncoff.gse.upenn.edu/briefs/brennerbrief.pdf

Bushfield, S. (2004). Fathers in prison: Impact of parenting education. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55 (2), 104-116.

Carlson, J. R. (1995). Usefulness of educational, behavior modification, and vocational programs as perceived by female inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22 (3-4), 65-76.

Debord, K., Head, S. & Sherrill, C. (2004). Parenting education with a captive audience. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96.

Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2004). Probation and parole in the United States, 2003 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 205336). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf

Gao, G., Dupree, K. & McKee, S. (1995). Rehabilitation misdemeanor offenders at county jail through extension education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/iw3.html

Hairston, C. F. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated fathers' relationships with their children. Child Welfare. 77(5), 617-637.

Horn, W. & Sylvester, T. (2002). Father facts: 4th Edition. National Fatherhood Initiative.

Jancic, M. (1998). Does correctional education have an effect on recidivism? Journal of Correctional Education, 49 (4), 152-161.

Kazura, K., Temke, M., Toth, K., & Hunter, B. (2002). Building partnerships to address challenging social problems. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/iw7.html

La Vigne, N. G., Thomson, G. L., Vischer, C., Travis, J., & Kacknowski, V. (2003). Research for safer communities: A portrait of prisoner reentry in Ohio. Urban Institute. Available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410891_ohio_reentry.pdf

Landreth, G. L. & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers. Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental, stress, and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157-165.

Langan, P. A & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Maiorano, J. J (2001). Fit 2-B FATHERS. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001october/iw7.html

Mazza, C. (2002). And then the world fell apart: The children of incarcerated fathers. Families in Society. 83(5-6), 521-529.

Mumola, C. J (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf

Raild, M., Johnson, S., Gardiner, K., Denham, M., Spain, K., Lanting, R., Jayo, C., Liddil, A., & Barron, K. (2004). Use retrospective surveys to obtain complete data sets and measure impact in Extension programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/rb2.shtml

Reinhart, M. L. (1991). Improving parenting skills of incarcerated males in a community correctional center. Ed. D. practicum report No. 043). Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 037).

Rockwell, S. K., & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-then-pre evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html

Schippers, G. M.; Maerker, N.; DeFuentes-Merillas, L. (2001). Social skills training, prosocial behavior, and aggressiveness in adult incarcerated offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. 45(2), 244-251.

Smith, C. A., Cudaback, D., Goddard, H. W., & Myers-Walls, J. (1994). National Extension Parent Education Model. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Available at: http://www.ksu.edu/wwparent/nepem/

Williams, D. (1996). Project LEAD builds bridges. Corrections Today, August, 80-82.

Wilczak, G. L. & Markstrom, C. A. (1999). The effects of parent education on parental locus of control and satisfaction of incarcerated fathers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43 (1), 90-102.

Winters, C. A. (2000). Promising practices in adult correctional education. Journal of Correctional Education, 51 (4), 312-414.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. 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. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.