Comparisons of Extension Program Delivery Strategies for Small and Part-Time Farmers

John G. Richardson Extension Program Delivery and Accountability Leader North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh
Gwyn F. Riddick Associate Agricultural Extension Agent North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
James D. Stephenson County Extension Director North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

Abstract

A project was planned and implemented to seek innovative ways for reaching and providing educational opportu nities for small and part-time farmers. Selected program delivery methods were chosen for use, both individually and in combinations with other methods, in seeking the most effective means for actually reaching this special agricultural audience. A comparison was made between person-to-person methods and self-directed, non person-to-person methods comparing the farmer’s receptiveness for receiving Extension information. Some of the non person-to-person methods were combined to form learning modules, and receptivity by the farmers was tested. Findings indicated that person-to-person methods were not as useful as the self-directed methods. The learning modules were shown to be especially valuable means for reaching these special audiences.

The Cooperative Extension Service has traditionally used a variety of methods for delivery of educational programs. For example, the demonstration was shown by Seaman Knapp to be an effective delivery method at the beginning of the twentieth century (Rasmussen, 1989), and this method continues to be a key method of program delivery (Bruening, 1991, Gor, 1988, Richardson, 1989). Yet, even though demonstrations, newsletters, meetings, and personal consultation may continue to be seen as key means of program delivery by Extension, some audiences may not find such methods practical for their use (Clement, 1994).

In today’s society, with pressing social, economic, time, and other personal demands, audiences must be targeted in order to provide information effectively. Ritter and Welch (1988) made this point when they indicated that their market research made it obvious that many traditional means of delivery were not suitable for some audiences. For example, Obanayujile and Hillson (1988), found that part-time farmers in Virginia hold a much greater preference for personal visits than do full-time farmers, but considerably less preference for using the telephone to obtain information than the full-time farmers. In a Missouri study, Okai (1986) found that small farmers also held preferences for personal visits, and were positive regarding Extension publications as a means for receiving needed information.

Program delivery preferences of targeted audiences in North Carolina who identified themselves as part-time farmers were compatible with the previous studies cited, with personal visits most preferred and newsletters and demonstrations second and third, respectively. The self-directed learning methods found most popular were bulletin/ pamphlets and videocassettes (Richardson, 1993).

Reaching Small and Part-Time Farmers

While full-time farmers can generally be expected to desire and seek information from multiple sources, small or part-time farmers often find their options for receiving information more limited due to time, physical energy, lack of clout with input and supply dealers/representatives, or feeling a sense of being unimportant to information providers. Anecdotal information from Extension agents underscores the difficulty of providing information to these audiences via popular delivery modes such as meetings, tours, demonstrations, telephone calls, and office visits. Also, while studies have shown that one-on-one consultation has been effective for the individuals involved, Extension agents are finding this means of delivery increasingly difficult due to overall public demands for information, fewer personnel, and difficulty in contacting these individuals at convenient times.

A Better Way?

Even though difficulties have been encountered by Extension in effectively reaching smaller and part-time farmers, this audience is regarded as extremely important as a valuable contributor to individual and community social and economic well being as well as stewards of the environment.

Therefore, creative ways to reach these audiences effectively have become a challenge that needed special attention. Both creative and efficient means of delivery were thought to be potential answers to the difficulties of reaching this audience. Thus, a special program delivery project was developed which sought to fit appropriate subject matter to the needs of the target audiences, and to develop innovative delivery means for reaching those audiences.

Project Objectives

There were two primary objectives of this project. One was to determine the responsiveness of small and/or part time farmers to selected program delivery methods or combinations of selected methods for receiving specific information relevant to their farming operations. A second objective was to determine if selected non person-to-person program delivery methods are as effective in bringing about knowledge change as person-to-person delivery methods.

Focus of Project

This project was implemented in six North Carolina counties. Subjects ranged from strawberry production in two of the counties, insect scouting in two others, plant disease control in another county, and animal production practices in the other.

Part-time and small agricultural producers were identified in each of the participating counties, and were randomly selected from a list of those persons identified. In each location, Extension agents made a concerted effort to identify all individuals who were small and part-time agricultural producers, even though in some locations these individuals may not have been known by the agent. An attempt was made to identify anyone who was engaged in production for economic gain, regardless of resource availability. These identifications were made through interviews with other producers, market operators/managers, and personnel of other cooperating agencies.

When contacts were made with the selected individuals, a few elderly persons chose not to participate in the study. Also during the course of the project, some other elderly individuals also expressed a desire to remove themselves from further participation. These individuals who were over 70 years of age were the only ones to actually drop out of the study. They gave reasons such as they were just too old to do anything other than to have a token interest in farming, or were planning to quit farming altogether because of their age.

Altogether, 32 farmers participated and provided information regarding the program delivery methods used to provide them information as well as their change in knowledge resulting from the educational information provided.

Results

In a comparison of person-to-person, delivery methods versus non person-to-person methods, practically all of the participants were quite positive in their reception of non person-to-person delivery methods. For the person-to-person methods, participation levels were lower, so mixed results were indicated. Those persons who had depended on person-to-person consultation in the past were positive toward those methods, but many others simply did not show up for meetings or showed little interest in pursuing subjects via the telephone. Of the 32 program participants, 30 demonstrated a gain in knowledge at the conclusion of the educational programs as compared to their knowledge at the beginning, regardless of the means of delivery. On locally developed tests which contained from 11 to 15 questions, average knowledge gains of participants ranged from 15% to 60% for the counties involved. Another positive aspect of the program was the responsiveness of the individuals to participation in the study. Most individuals expressed appreciation for the special attention and especially for the efforts that Extension was making to serve them better. Many had little contact with Extension in the past, and had not depended on Extension as one of their primary information sources.

Non Person-to-Person Delivery Methods

In the comparison of program delivery methods, the non person-to-person methods included audiocassettes, fact sheets, miniature booklets, photographs, fax, novelty, bulletin/pamphlet, notebooks, posters, and videocassettes. The notebooks, audiocassettes and videocassettes, miniature booklets, and fact sheets were especially mentioned by the farmers as being viable means for providing information to them, when they otherwise would not likely have sought such information from Extension.

Combinations of Methods

In each county, some of the non person-to-person methods were used in combination to form a learning module, and the entire module was provided to the farmers for their assessment. The module containing strawberry information included a notebook with four localized fact sheets, photographs, two pamphlets, and four audiocassettes in which the agent described the information in the fact sheets and photographs. Other combinations were fact sheets, notebook, bulletin/pamphlet, and videocassette; miniature booklet and audiocassette; and fact sheets, audiocassette, and poster. These modules of information were especially well received by the part-time and small farmers, because they felt that they were receiving information that they could study in a self-directed manner, yet have essentially all of the information that they may need on a particular subject.

Person-to-Person Methods

For the person-to-person methods, which were personal visits, meetings, and telephone calls, people participated at low levels or simply were not interested in receiving information unless they requested it. Their reasons for not attending meetings ranged from having to dress appropriately to attend a meeting, or being too tired, to simply having more important things to do with their time. Person-to-person delivery for these individuals was not depended upon for receiving information from Extension. Generally, the farmers indicated that the person-to-person methods are not convenient means for receiving information.

Other Delivery Methods

The fax, as a program delivery method, was tested in only one county by three individuals who did not own a fax machine and indicated they never expected to own one. While each of their reactions to this means of delivery was positive, one responded so positively that he is purchasing his own machine in order to continue to receive Extension information. His testimonial following completion of the project indicated more than $800 per year savings in crop disease control by using the fax machine for obtaining information. Also, in this same county, a magnetized information card was developed as a novelty item for program delivery. The farmers also found this means of information useful. Finally, posters were used in another county, and little positive response was obtained from this means of information delivery. However, poster design and/or delay in locating the posters may have influenced the receptiveness of this means of information by the farmers.

Conclusion

Evaluation of the program included pre and post tests that were developed for each subject area. These were administered to the participants at the beginning and end of the program. With the data obtained, plus observation by agents, and anecdotal information received from the farmer participants, it was concluded that appropriate development of educational materials of a non person-to-person nature will be a valid means for educational program delivery by Extension in future educational programming for this audience segment. Altogether, one of the greatest indicators of the acceptance of the modular educational format for program delivery was that more than one-half of the farmers indicated a willingness to pay for these types of materials in the future.

Appropriately packaging information into learning modules and summarily making them available to this audience for their self-study appears to be a highly desirable mode of program delivery for both the farmers and Extension. This means of program delivery was found to be much more efficient and successful in educating these audiences than expending considerable time and other resources through person-to-person methods in which specific technology is transferred, but few long-term educational results anticipated.

References

Bruening, T.B., 1991. Communicating with farmers about environmental issues. Journal of Applied Communications, 75(1):34-41.

Clement, D.M., 1994. Barriers that keep clientele from using extension information and program delivery preferences. Unpublished Master of Education paper. NC State University, Raleigh, NC.

Gor, C.O., 1988. Sources of information on new and/or innovative farming practices and how they are accessed by farmers in nez county of the state of idaho. Unpublished Master of Science thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Obanayujile, J. and J.H. Hillson, 1988. Now hear this/delivery method for farmers. Journal of Extension, 26:1:21-22.

Okai, M.N., 1986. The delivery of agricultural information to small farmers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Rasmussen, W.D., 1989. Taking the University to the People. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Richardson, J.G., 1989. Extension information delivery methods, detecting trends among users. The ACE Quarterly, 72(1):23-27.

Richardson, J.G., 1993. Clientele preferences for receiving information from extension: a north carolina study. Paper presented to the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Ritter, E.M. and D.T. Welch, 1988. Reaching and teaching. Journal of Extension, 26(3):5-7.