1W“WINWW WIN 3 1293 00630 2180 ——————-- v fi‘q‘.. n 7“ "r, :1 35.27 a; ~-.-_.-_'-;u 1.61; I A - Q I I.‘ -/. _._...,._. . '3 ‘_,,~_ lg. .19.“ ’J‘—'\-o"; .—..-a( :‘u—‘v UH” ' .’.-"j‘.-fi”!"‘—J‘.‘ " 51.5; J ;;;.;i This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC' S AWARENESS, PERCEPTION AND USE OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE presented by Darlene Kaye Hanenburg has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MaSter'S degree inLAngCU‘ltura‘l & Extension Education - [(74.0 jxfld’ LLJ/ Major professor Date August 7, 1986 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution RETURNING MATERIALS: ‘PVIESI_) Piace in book’drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from ”no your record. FINES win » be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 4; ' ' 526.1?! 1m; AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC'S AWARENESS, PERCEPTION AND USE OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BY Darlene Kaye Hanenburg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Agricultural and Extension Education 1986 ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC'S AWARENESS, PERCEPTION AND USE OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BY Darlene Kaye Hanenburg The application of marketing principles to government agencies and nonprofit organizations is a growing national trend. These organizations recognize that marketing is a tool for better positioning their programs and services. This study used a telephone interview to determine the awareness, perception and use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service in Kent and Ottawa counties. The random digit dialing technique was used to sample the adult population, 18 years old and over. Forty percent of those surveyed were aware of Extension and 98.5 percent knew about one or more of the four major program areas. 4-H received the greatest recognition by name. Less than 16 percent of the survey respondents had ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension. The findings also indicate that the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is perceived as an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is sincerely indebted to Dr. Maxine Ferris, thesis director, for her patient guidance and counsel during the planning and execution of this study. Special heartfelt thanks is extended to Dr. Ferris for her willingness to step in as the director of committee after Dr. Fred Peabody's retirement, her ready availability and for the many hours she has spent reading manuscripts. The author also wishes to express her sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to Mr. Kirk Heinze who has spent numerous hours reading and editing manuscripts, formulating new ideas and providing guidance, along with temporary diversions and friendship. The author is grateful to Dr. Fred Peabody for his guidance in designing this student's academic program, and to Dr. Jake Wamhoff for serving on the oral examination committee and providing financial assistance which helped make the completion of this degree possible. Special appreciation is extended to Susan L. Chritz for the many hours she spent assisting the author with data collection, her feedback on the questionnaire and her words of encouragement. ii Many thanks are extended to the Office of the Director of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service for funding this study. The author also is grateful to the staffs of the Kent and Ottawa County Cooperative Extension Services for their willingness to participate in this study, and to the residents of that area who responded to the telephone survey. Last, but by no means least, the author is very grateful to her family and many friends for their interest in this study and their words of encouragement throughout this degree program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1 2 3 4 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O I O O I O O O O O 0 Statement of the problem . . . . . Purpose of this study . . . . . . Background and need for the study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of terms . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . The history of land-grant institutions The history of Cooperative Extension . Marketing and public relations for Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies assessing Extension awareness and perceptions . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O Assumptions . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . Survey instrument design Study design . . . . . . Analysis of data . . . . FINDINGS C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Response rate . . . . . . General characteristics of the respondents Analysis of the data . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi viii H OOO‘U‘IN l7 19 28 39 48 50 50 56 69 70 7O 73 81 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Discussion of findings . . . . . . . The survey technique and the sample population . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of the seven research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . A brief discussion on image . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for action and further study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 109 109 109 112 121 126 127 131 146 153 155 156 166 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Selected Characteristics of the Adult POpulation in the Grand Rapids Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Compared , with the State of Michigan Population . . S7 2. Population Distribution by Urban and Rural Residence in 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O 3. Sample of Telephone Numbers Used in the survey 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71 4. Characteristics of Respondents from the 1985 Survey of Adults (18 years and older) in Kent and Ottawa Counties Compared with 1980 Bureau of Census Data . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5. Respondents' County of Residence Compared with Census Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6. Selected Characteristics of Respondents . . . 82 7. Awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and Its Programs . . . . . . . . . 83 8. Awareness of and Involvement in 4-H Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 9. Awareness of the County Extension Service Office 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O 85 10. Individual and Household Use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service . . . . . . . 87 11. Use of the Four Extension Service Program Areas 88 12. Methods of Communication Utilized by Clientele 89 13. Reasons for NOT Attending Extension WorkshOps or Meetings 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 91 vi Table Page 14. Awareness of Extension's Mission . . . . . . . 92 15. Respondent-Identified Priority Rating of Program Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 16. Respondent Ranking of Program Topics . . . . . 95 17. Perceived Citizen Involvement in Program Offerings I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 96 18. Perceived Citizen Input . . . . . . . . . . . 96 19. Satisfaction with Extension in Kent and Ottawa counties 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O 97 20. Perceptions as an Agricultural Agency . . . . 99 21. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency Based on Current Place of Residence 100 22. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency Based on Program Area Contact . . . 102 23. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency by Those Who Had Contacted Extension Regarding Agriculture-Marketing Programs . 104 24. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency by Those Who Had Contacted Extension Regarding Natural Resources-Public Policy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 25. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency by Those Who Had Contacted Extension Regarding Home Economics Programs . . . . . 107 26. Perception of Extension as an Agricultural Agency by Those Who Had Contacted Extension Regarding 4-H Youth Programs . . . . . . . 108 27. Awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and Its Programs Compared with the National Assessment of Extension . . . . . 113 28. Frequency of Program Area Use as Identified by Respondents in the Michigan and National Studies of the Cooperative Extension Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 29. Respondent-Identified Priorities for Extension Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Bridging the knowledge gap between producers and users of technical agriculture information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. The marketing concept vs. the selling concept 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O 3]- viii Chapter 1 INTRODUCT ION Several perceptions about the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) have developed over the years. These notions are frequently repeated by special interest groups, legislators and Extension personnel. The assumptions include: Everyone has heard of the Cooperative Extension Service. . . . Extension is an agricultural agency that primarily serves rural and farm residents. . . . Extension staff members rely heavily on one-to-one contact for reaching clientele. . . . Clients are pleased with Extension's services. . . . The agricultural community is the principal support base for Extension. All perceptions of Extension are not positive, however. Negative impressions of the Cooperative Extension Service have been espoused and, very recently, reiterated. These negative perceptions include: Extension is an anachronism, a remnant of a by-gone era. . . . The Extension Service is a vague government program that lacks "purpose" and is trying "to be all things to all people." . . . Extension has deteriorated to the point that it is not much good to anybody, except maybe 17,000 Extension agents who otherwise would have to look for work. . . . The Extension Service is a classic example of bureaucratic survival: a federal program in search of a mission. . . . County Cooperative Extension Service offices are among Uncle Sam's 10 worst taxpayer rip-offs.1 Are any of these statements true? Or do they simply reflect long-held stereotypes? Statement of the problem The role of the Cooperative Extension Service as a publicly supported educational agency within a rapidly' changing society has been questioned repeatedly by some farm organizations, Congress, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Government Accounting Office (GAO) and land- grant university administrators.2 Issues such as appropriate target audiences, efficient program delivery methods, quality of programing and organizational image have been widely discussed. The chronic questioning has prompted four long-range evaluations of the organization and its programs throughout Extension's 70-plus year history. The most recent study, jointly commissioned by the National Association of State 1Donald Lambro, "Uncle Sam's Ten Worst Taxpayer Rip-Offs," Reader's Digest, July 1986, p. 60-64. 2C. Brice Ratchford, "Extension: Unchanging, But Changing," Journal of Extension 22 (September/October 1984): 8-15. Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the USDA, was completed in 1983. Similar evaluations of CES have been conducted in some states. In 1978, the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) of NASULGC, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, evaluated the consequences of Cooperative Extension educational programs. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 mandated the Secretary of Agriculture to furnish Congress with an evaluation of the economic and social consequences of the Extension Services' programs. A major outcome of the national evaluation was an increased awareness of the need to evaluate more completely and effectively the impacts of all Extension programs. Historically, evaluations of Extension have tended to concentrate on separate program areas, individual projects, specific audiences or the clientele of the agency.3 Changing economic conditions and population demographics, inflation, and budgetary and staffing concerns, however, have forced CES personnel to critically examine their activities and effectiveness from the public's viewpoint. Past studies have revealed that the public has a limited knowledge of Extension's overall role and programs. Whether the public views CBS in the same way as Extension staff and spokespersons has become a critical concern for evaluation efforts. 3Paul D. Warner and James A. Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National AsSessment. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, Inc., 1984), p. 1. In addition, more and more agencies, institutions and organizations are developing programs similar to Extension's. Continuing and adult education areas that once were almost exclusively the domain of CES have become more attractive to other organizations and institutions. As more institutions become involved in continuing education, funds for educational programs are becoming more difficult to acquire. In a highly competitive environment, Extension increasingly will be called on to justify its programs. One of the major challenges facing Extension pro- fessionals today is creating a better understanding of the Cooperative Extension Service. Extension's community visibility, once taken for granted, is now receiving increased attention. CES staff members are taking a marketing manage- ment approach to their programs.4 The application of market- ing principles to a nonprofit organization such as the Cooperative Extension Service is a growing national trend, 4The increased attention given by Extension staff members to a marketing approach is evidenced by the number of staff members attending marketing seminars and workshops. In February 1985, some 200 CES professionals from across the United States attended the national "Marketing Extension" workshop to explore integration of marketing techniques and principles into program delivery. In October 1985, approximately 75 Michigan CES staff members attended the marketing Extension sessions held during Extension school. Interest in the public's awareness and satisfaction with the Cooperative Extension Service's programs is further documented by the number of state Extension Services survey- ing clientele and the public. These state Extension Services, including Vermont, Delaware, Cornell, Oregon and Michigan, are implementing marketing and visibility programs. but Extension personnel first need to understand “what is" before projecting where the agency "ought to be" in the future. Purpose of this study The purpose of this study was to determine the image of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service by assessing the awareness and perception of residents in two Michigan counties. More specifically, this study addressed the following research questions: 1. How aware are Kent and Ottawa County residents of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service in general and specifically of the four program areas of agriculture-marketing, home economics, 4-H youth and natural resources-public policy? To what extent are Kent and Ottawa County residents making use of the services of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? What are some reasons for non-participation by Kent and Ottawa County residents in Michigan Cooperative Extension Service educational programs? What is the level of Kent and Ottawa County residents' understanding of the purpose or objective of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? 5. What program areas or subject matter topics ought to receive greater or lesser attention from Cooperative Extension Service staff members? 6. How satisfied are Kent and Ottawa County residents with the educational services provided by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? 7. Do residents of Kent and Ottawa County perceive the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service as an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents? Background and need for the study The Smith-Lever Act (1914) outlined the primary mission of the Cooperative Extension Service as the dissemination of useful and practical information regarding agriculture, home economics, and related subjects among the people of the United States not enrolled in land-grant colleges. Extension provides information and educational programs in four main subject areas: agriculture, home economics, 4-H youth programs, and community development. These programs help people better understand the world around them, use their resources more effectively and make wise decisions. CES encourages a broad base of citizen participation in the planning and delivery of educational programs to ensure relevance to the community. The Extension Service was created with the flexibility to modify its programs in response to new knowledge, changes in its clientele's needs and alterations in the socio- economic climate. Over the years Extension has added many new programs and reached new clientele, often without eliminating other programs and clientele. To provide services for an expanded audience, it is crucial that Extension personnel know and understand the awareness level or perceptions that potential audiences have toward CES. Extension professionals can do a better job when they know how pe0ple perceive their programs.5 Information supported by data benefits Extension personnel and the groups to which they are accountable. In an assessment of the U.S. adult population, Warner and Christenson found that Extension struggles with multiple identities. Because of its program diversity, Extension represents different things to different peOple. It is known as a youth group, an agency that assists farmers, a home- makers' group, a representative of the state university, and the office where you get soil tested.6 Warner and Christenson found that 87 percent of the population 5John G. Gross, "Farmers' Attitudes Toward Extension,” Journal of Extension 15 (March/April 1977): 19. '6Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 135. recognized Extension or its programs.7 However, only 40 percent of the respondents identified the name of the organization. Warner and Christenson suggest that this latter figure represents a possible underreporting of the true level of Extension awareness. Many clientele do not know the "umbrella" organization name because programs may not carry an organizational identification. However, clientele may identify Extension by other descriptors--agricultural or 4-H agent. The results of the national assessment indicate that 86 percent of the population in the North Central Region--which includes Michigan--is aware of Extension. However, there is little data or research on the perceptions and awareness levels of the Michigan population. While it is possible to generalize from research gathered elsewhere, some effort to determine the public's awareness and perception of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is necessary for designing appropriate messages for selected Michigan audiences. CES administrators need to determine what will be marketed based on the information they receive about their audiences. 71bid., p. 48. Limitations Survey research is valuable in determining the public's awareness of existing policies, programs or services. In addition, surveys are valuable because they provide information derived directly from a population rather than information based on assumptions or beliefs about that population.8 The method, however, does not attempt to measure indicators of economic and social changes resulting from CES programs in Kent and Ottawa counties. This study is limited by the focus on the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service organization as a whole, not on specific program areas. The unique features of each program or activity are not examined. The variability of the Cooperative Extension Service from county to county is also ignored. For example, the Sea Grant program, which can be found in Ottawa County, was not mentioned to participants although the agriculture-marketing, home economics, 4-H youth and natural resources-public policy program areas were specifically mentioned to respondents. This_study also is limited by its scope. It draws only on a sample of the total adult population in Kent and Ottawa counties who have access to residential telephone 8Paul D. Reynolds and G.C. Sponaugle, A Guide to Survey Research: How to Plan a Survey, Estimate Costs, and Use a Survey Research Service (Minneapolis, Minn.: Ufiiversity of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 1982), p. 1. 10 service. Although characteristics of the combined populations resemble those of the State of Michigan, conclusions cannot be drawn for other specific counties. However, the findings are more than a reflection of a two-county survey because of the unique demographic profile of the selected counties. The reasons for selecting Kent and Ottawa counties can be found in the "Methodology" chapter of this thesis. Random sampling techniques can yield research data that can be generalized to a larger population within statistically determined margins of error. The results of the study provide information about the awareness and perception of the general population in those two counties and, if carefully interpreted, the results have important implications for the larger population. Definition of terms The following terms are defined as they are used within the context of this study to assist in the interpretation of the results: The Cooperative Extension Service (also called Extension, Extension Service, CES and now referred to nationally as the Cooperative Extension System) is an organization, created by the passage of the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, that disseminates practical information from the land-grant colleges, state agricultural experiment stations and the United States 11 Department of Agriculture to the peOple of the United States in their communities. Marketing is the process of identifying specific needs and wants, satisfying these needs by the development of appropriate goods and services, letting people know of their availability, and offering them at appropriate prices, at the right time and place. Marketing Coqperative Extension is the process of anticipating, researching, defining and evaluating constituent needs and wants and organizing resources at federal, state (land-grant institution) and county levels to deliver functional educational programs in pre-defined subject areas (agriculture, home economics, 4-H youth, community issues and Sea Grant) to target audiences.9 Market research to determine target audience needs and program evaluation is part of the marketing process. Marketing an organization or product focuses on the target audience. It is a global process that examines every aspect of an organization including its raison d'etre. It examines the organization from the viewpoint of the user, supporter and the impartial observer. An organizational image has been defined as the aggregate, or sum, of perceptions, attitudes, ideas, beliefs 9Bob Topor, Marketing Cooperative Extension: A Practical Guide for County Board Members, Coordinators! Program Leadersy Agents and Volunteers (n.p., Cornell Cooperative Extension Service, 1983), p. 49. 12 and feelings people have about it.10 Although this study does not completely assess Extension's image, image will be defined as the perceived characteristics of an object, person or organization by other individuals. Images are the result of the observer extracting certain characteristics about objects from his perceptions of those objects.11 Image formation is not based entirely on facts. An image is a stereotype that acts as fact for the image holder. Images are not grounded in fixed events but rather in information and interpretive processes that are constantly changing.12 Awareness implies knowledge through observation or interpretation of what one hears, sees or feels. Awareness of an agency generally precedes use of its services and support for the agency's existence. Awareness of Extension is one of several indicators which, when combined with perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and feelings, provides a clearer understanding of the image that is being projected to the agency's publics. Awareness provides only a partial measure of the organization's visibility. Perception determines what is seen and felt.13 1°1bid., p. 23. 11Grant J. Miller, "Images, Meaning and Organizational Names" (M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1973), p. 2. 12Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 44. 13E. Jerome McCarthy and William D. Perreault, Jr. Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1984), p. 203. 13 Perception implies the individual has a mental grasp of an object, or in this case, an organization. Perception necessarily presupposes awareness; thus, perceptions provide indications not only of visibility, but, more importantly, of credibility. In this study, awareness and perceptions combine to form a partial understanding of the image of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Extension work grew out of a situation. It has come to be a system of service and education designed to meet the needs of peOple. What was the situation which gave rise to this unique American development? It was a period of pioneering and change in agriculture and homemaking. Lincoln D. Kelsey and Cannon C. Hearne Cooperative Extension Work Human ingenuity, innovative technology and a system of interrelated institutions have made United States farmers the world leaders in food production. From 1900 to 1940, U.S. agricultural productivity grew at less than 1 percent per year with essentially no increase during the first 20 years. After 1940, agricultural productivity grew at more than 6 percent per year.14 This improvement in productivity has been attributed to industrial mechanization and scientific advances in plant breeding, livestock genetics, fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals, irrigation technology and improved farm management practices. While change in productivity is usually attributed to technology only, four sources have contributed to changes in agricultural 14Lester C. Thurow, "A World-Class Economy: Getting Back into the Ring," Technology Review 88 (August/September 1985): 30. 14 15 productivity: technology, human capital, institutions and biophysical capital. Good soil, a favorable climate and hardworking farmers certainly helped agriculture achieve its current productivity level. But underlying those inputs was an elaborate industrial strategy that included mechanization, research and development, and education.15 Today, the U.S. agricultural industry is increasingly dependent on high technology. To maintain and improve productivity levels, manage the resource base, provide high-quality products and protect the environment requires a constant supply of agricultural expertise. Several institutions, collectively referred to as the U.S. agricultural research and extension system, have been fundamental forces in helping farmers to achieve today's unparalleled productivity. The agricultural research component of the system, responsible for the scientific and technological advances that have sustained agricultural productivity for decades, includes the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) and the state agricultural experiment stations (AES) as the primary researchers. Land- grant colleges of agriculture and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) also play important roles in the agricultural research and extension system, especially in the areas of applied research and integration and distribution of knowledge. lsIbid. 16 The deliberate industrial strategy applied to U.S. agriculture . . . began with R & D [research and development]. The federal government invested heavily in basic research at state agricultural colleges. The results (new seeds, new procedures) were further refined at experimental state farms, and county agents roamed the countryside explaining the new developments, providing technical aid, and attempting to persuade individual farmers to use the discoveries. While some of the elements of this strategy (the land-grant colleges) were in place before the Great Depression, none achieved a big payoff until coordinated with other ingredients in the 1930s.16 Together, the United States Department of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges of agriculture coordinate and integrate basic science for agriculture, applied science, technology development, extension and formal college education and scientist training nationwide. This nationwide network exceeds that in any other country in size, capacity and accomplishments, and interacts with private industry and other research and education institutions. Perhaps the most significant characteristic of the U.S. system of agricultural institutions is that it is a system of inextricably linked institutions. 16Ibid. 17James T. Bonnen, "Technology, Human Capital and Institutions: Three Factors in Search of an Agricultural Research Strategy," a paper prepared for the binational conference on U.S.-Mexico agriculture and rural development, Cocoyoc, Mexico, 1982, p. 23. 17 The history of land-grant institutions Land-grant colleges, such as Michigan State University, were first established as a system by the Morrill Act of 1862. Each state that accepted the benefits of the Morrill Act was obligated to provide . . . at least one college where the leading objective shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts, . . . in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.18 Since colonial times, Americans have prized education as the provider of individual opportunity and national progress. The Morrill Act and its advocates recognized that "common people"--the industrial c1asses--could benefit from a college education. The concept of higher education as something accessible to all, rather than limited to an upper class elite, was a new, more practical and egalitarian view of education. In the mid-nineteenth century, the emerging land-grant colleges opened up new higher education opportunities for millions. The name "land-grant" was derived from the method of funding established under the legislation. The Morrill Act provided 30,000-acre land grants to each state with the number of grants received equal to the state's number of 18Morrill Act, U.S. Code, vol. 2, secs. 301-305, 307 and 308. 18 senators and representatives. The land was sold and 10 percent of the resulting revenues were used to purchase a college site, including an experimental farm. The balance was permanently invested in United States stocks and bonds or other safe stocks. The United States Department of Agriculture was also established by Congress in 1862 under the Organic Act, but it evolved separately from the land-grant colleges until the 18808. While the colleges struggled to survive and develop a curriculum, the USDA focused almost entirely on developing research capacity and disseminating knowledge.19 As the land-grant colleges of agriculture struggled to establish themselves as effective educational institutions, it became apparent to institution leaders that there was a need for experimentation and research to build knowledge and create a set of agricultural sciences. The first U.S. agricultural experiment station was established as an independent institution in Connecticut in 1875. In 1886, the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture noted that 12 states had established agricultural experiment stations, attached to the agricultural colleges in all 19Bonnen, "Technology, Human Capital and Institutions: Three Factors in Search of an Agricultural Research Strategy," p. 7. 19 20 cases except Connecticut. The Hatch Act (1887) formally established agricultural experiment stations to aid agricultural scientists and provided federal funding. The history of Cooperative Extension Educational efforts of the land-grant colleges of agriculture quickly took an outreaching form and many approaches were pioneered between 1870 and 1900 in an attempt to reach farmers. Lecture series, winter short courses and farmers' institutes were developed. The extension work of the agricultural colleges was an outgrowth of the addresses delivered at meetings of agricultural societies, at fairs, and at other gatherings of farmers during all the nineteenth century. From the beginning these addresses included some on the more technical phases of agriculture and its relations to the sciences, delivered by college teachers or persons having special knowledge of the subjects they treated. In 1861 the Michigan Legislature passed an act which contained a provision that "the professors of the college may give lectures to farmers away from the college." The prevailing philosophy that knowledge should be available for practical use required that it be transmitted to those who could use it. Interest in adult education, or 20Willard W. Cochrane, The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979), p. 244. 21Alfred Charles True, A History of Agricultural Education in the United States, 1785-1925. United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 36. (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1929), p. 276. 20 extension work, developed rapidly in the early 19003. In 1905, the Association of Agricultural Colleges (known today as the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges) established a standing committee on extension work. The first report of that committee defined extension education as follows: Extension teaching in agriculture embraces those forms of instruction, in subjects having to do with improved methods of agricultural production and with the general welfare of the rural population, that are offered to people not enrolled as resident pupils in educational institutions.22 The association committee's report in 1907 showed that 39 agricultural colleges were doing extension work. Finally, the COOperative Extension Service was created by the 1914 Smith-Lever Act. The genius of the land-grant system is the integration of all three of these components--formal college training, research and extension--in such a way that they reinforce 23 The blended roles of teaching, research and each other. public service--what has been called the "trilogy of American ingenuity"--is the fundamental mission of land-grant universities. 221bid., p. 278. 23James H. Anderson, "The Integration of Teaching, Research and Extension in a Global Setting," in Issues Facing Agriculture and Implications for Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, proceedings of a workshop for deans and directors in the North Central Region, Chicago, Ill., 9 October 1985, p. 57. 21 The Hatch and Smith-Lever acts linked the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges in a loose but single administrative structure. With the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, the USDA, agricultural experiment stations and land-grant institutions were linked to provide one educational system with the purpose of successfully communicating relevant research findings to people across the United States. Cooperative Extension was placed under the administration of the land-grant colleges because it is an educational program. Extension was connected to the federal government by means of state acceptance of the Smith-Lever Act, the requirement that states match federal money to support the program, and by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of Agriculture and the land-grant institutions chosen by state legislatures to serve as the 24 The parent institutions for program administration. memorandum has served as the foundation on which extension work has been done since the passage of the Smith-Lever Act. Under the memorandum, the state land-grant institution must organize and maintain a definite and distinct administrative division for the management and conduct of extension work in agriculture and home economics. 24USDA-NASULGC Joint Committee. A Pegple and a Spirit (Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State University, 1968), p. 18-19. 22 The name "Cooperative Extension Service" was derived from the then unique plan for sharing costs by federal, state and county governments which requires dollar-for-dollar matching of federal and state funds and contributions of local funds in amounts that may vary among the states and counties.25 Financial support from counties was not required but evolved as local people began to support the Cooperative Extension Service and see it as their own. The Smith-Lever Act outlined the primary mission of Cooperative Extension as the dissemination of useful and practical information regarding agriculture, home economics and related subjects among the people of the United States not enrolled in land-grant colleges. The congressional charge to Cooperative Extension, through the Smith-Lever Act as amended, is extremely broad. Extension's mission is education. The legislation specifies audiences, general subject areas and educational approaches for Extension. 26 More specifically, the United States Code and the Food 27 Security Act of 1985 specify that 25Joseph L. Matthews, "The Cooperative Extension Service," in Handbook of Adult Education in the United States, ed. Malcolm S. Knowles (Washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1960), p. 218. 26 (1914). 27U.S., Congress, House, Food Security Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99-198, 99th Cong., lst sess., 1985, H.R. 2100, p. 99 Stat. 1557. Smith-Lever Act, U.S. Code, vol. 2, secs. 341-348 23 Cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the development of practical applications of research knowledge and giving of instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, and rural energy and subjects relating thereto to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting information on said subjects through demonstrations, publications, and otherwise and for the necessary printing and distribution of information in connection with the foregoing; . . . The Cooperative Extension Service, a unique achievement in American education, is the world's largest, publicly supported, informal adult education and development 28 It is known as an agency for change and a organization. catalyst for individual and group action. Today, the Cooperative Extension Service system includes the Extension Service, USDA; the 1862 land-grant universities in 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Micronesia, and the District of Columbia plus 16 189029 land-grant universities and Tuskegee University; and more 28Edgar J. Boone, "The Cooperative Extension Service," in Handbook of Adult Education, eds. Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker and James R. Kidd (New York: ‘The MacMillan Company, 1970), p. 265. 29A second Morrill Act, passed in 1890, provided for the establishment of additional land-grant colleges in several states and for annual federal appropriations, based on a standard formula. A key provision of the second Morrill Act was the requirement that the land-grant institutions be opened to both white and black students or that "separate, but equal" facilities be established. These institutions, known as the black land-grant colleges for many years, were established in 17 southern states. 24 than 3,150 county offices. In addition, in 1983, approximately 2.9 million individuals worked with Extension as volunteers--that is approximately one out of every 80 people in the United States.30 Extension has long been recognized as a link between the producers and consumers of scientific knowledge. In its linking role, Extension gathers research-based knoWledge from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state agricultural experiment stations, derives practical information from it, and transmits it in an understandable form to potential users.31 The system is characterized by two-way communication between those who work for Extension and those who use it. CES provides feedback on needs eXpressed by people to state and federal research scientists. See Figure 1. It has been the philosophy and policy of the Cooperative Extension to be a problem-oriented organization.32 People's problems and needs are the bases of Extension educational 3OLocal Volunteers and Copperative Extension Agents: Partners in Action, a report from the national study of the implications of volunteerism in the Cooperative Extension Service (Madison, Wis.: :University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984), P. 1. 31Njoku E. Awa and L. VanCrowder, Jr., "How Extension Stacks Up," JOurnal of Extension 16 (March/April 1978): 20. 32Paul E. Kindinger, "An Analysis of Communications Patterns and Technology for State Extension Specialists--A Marketing Approach" (M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 10 25 .cowumeuoucfi musuasoflumm Hmoflcnomp mo muons can mucospoum cmmSumn mmm mmpmazocx may mcflmofium .H musmflm mucmflao moa>umm soamcmuxm m>Humummoou mcoflumum ucmEfiuomxm amusuasowumm mumum musuasoflumm mo.ummo .m.D muwmum>flcs ucmumlpsmH 26 programs. Although it was originally created to assist farmers and rural residents, it would be a mistake to regard the Cooperative Extension Service as an organization that continues to meet the needs of rural people only. During the 19505 and 19603, government agencies and congressional hearings documented that some 5 million American families were living in poverty in both rural and urban areas. Their need for adequate nutrition and balanced diets led to the development of several Extension nutrition education projects to reach more families in poverty. In November, 1968, Congress began funding the nutrition program and designated the Extension Service and the state Extension Services to conduct the nationwide educational program known as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Today, much of Extension's programing no longer belongs exclusively on the farm page of the local newspaper. In the last 10 to 15 years, Extension has greatly extended the sc0pe of its responsibilities beyond agriculture. CES provides educational assistance on a wide variety of subjects to voluntary participants. Extension provides unbiased information and educational programs in four main subject areas: agriculture, home economics, 4-H youth programs and community development. Extension's program responsibilities also include: EFNEP, urban 4-H and youth programs, consumer education, family relations and community improvement, small farmer programs and natural resource conservation. 27 Today, more Extension staff members are using the mass media to communicate information to urban dwellers and are working closely with agencies and organizations involved in develop- ing and enhancing human resources.33 Teaching people "how" to think, not "what" to think, is a basic philosophy of Extension education. Extension programs help people better understand the world around them, use their resources more effectively and make wise decisions. CES encourages a broad base of citizen participation in the planning and delivery of educational programs to ensure relevance to the community. During a symposium on Extension education research needs, Dr. Paul D. Warner of the University of Kentucky posed the question, "Can an organization started in 1914 as a way to get farmers to adopt improved agricultural practices continue to be relevant in a rapidly changing society?"34 The C00perative Extension Service and the agricultural experiment stations have been credited as major influences on the rapid increase in efficiency of U.S. commercial agriculture. Part of the reason that the COOperative 33Warren Prawl, Roger Medlin and John Gross, Adult and Continuing Education Through the Codperative Extension Service (Columbia, Mo.: University Printing Services, 1984), p. 28. 34Paul D. Warner, "The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment," paper presented at the Symposium on Research Needs for Extension Education, Columbus, Ohio, 23 May 1985. 28 Extension Service has been so successful is because of the system's capacity to modify its programs to meet the needs of people in a rapidly changing society. Paradoxically, Extension's successes have made it the target of criticism. Some critics would argue that the agricultural research and extension system has done an excellent job, that it has made American farmers self-sufficient and that they no longer need research and Extension. What the critics ignore, however, is the fact that a constant stream of new knowledge is needed if farmers are to maintain or improve their position and 35 And, that new farm problems require on-going attention. ironically, while some organizational and national leaders have admonished the CES to broaden its programs, various traditional support groups and clientele have been critical of Extension for doing exactly that.36 Marketing and public relations for Extension It appears Extension has found itself pulled in two directions--to reach out to groups of individuals with specialized needs and, simultaneously, to continue to serve traditional farm and rural audiences. In order for CES staff 35 p. 24. 36Gale L. VandeBerg, The Cooperative Extension Service in Transition. A Report of the National Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin--Extension, 1979). p. 7. USDA-NASULGC Joint Committee, A People and a Spirit, 29 members to provide services to meet the needs of a rapidly changing society, knowing and understanding the perceptions and awareness that current and potential audiences have of the Cooperative Extension Service is critical. Marketing is a tool for better positioning Extension programs and services. Many people confuse marketing with public relations, advertising, fund-raising and other media activities. Although these elements may be incorporated into a marketing strategy, they are not marketing. Kotler37 defines market- ing as . . . the analysis, planning, implementation, and control of carefully formulated programs designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of value with target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It relies heavily on designing the organization's offering in terms of the target markets' needs and desires, and on using effective pricing, communication, and" distribution to inform, motivate, and service the markets. 38 Kratchenberg also provides a usable definition of market- ing for nonprofit organizations: Marketing deals with the concept of uncovering specific needs, satisfying these needs by the development of appropriate goods and services, letting people know of their availability, and offering them at appropriate prices, at the right time and place. 37Philip Kotler, Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982)! p- 6. 38A.R. Kratchenberg, "Bringing the Concept of Marketing to Higher Education," Journal of Higher Education 43 (May 1972): 380. 3O 39 And, as Drucker so clearly states, Marketing is so basic that it cannot be considered a separate function . . . It is the whole business seen from the point of view of its final result, that is, from the customer's point of view. The marketing concept replaces and reverses the logic of the selling concept. The two approaches are illustrated in Figure 2. The selling concept, as defined by Kotler, assumes consumers will not buy or will not buy enough of the organization's products unless their interest is stimulated. The selling concept focuses on existing products and attempts to fit consumer needs and wants to those products. The primary focus of marketing, however, is the consumer's needs with products and programs designed to meet those needs--just the opposite of the selling concept. The above principles are applied in profit and non- profit, public and private organizations. That is, the marketing principles applied to nonprofit organizations are the same as those for profit-motivated businesses. Marketing the Cooperative Extension Service, then, is the process of anticipating, researching, defining and evaluating constituent needs and wants and organizing resources at the federal, state and county levels to deliver practical 39Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974), p. 63. 31 .mm .m .Aomma ..ocH .HHmmlmoHucmum u.h.z .mwmaHO poo3mflmcmv mafiuwxumz mo mmamflosflum .umauox mfiaficmov A:wmmocoo mcHHHmm map .m> ummocoo mcwumxume one .m musmflm nomoummm ummocoo mafiafimm e mEDHo> mmamw mcfluoeoum muoscoum nmsounu mpwmoum can mcflaamm comoumdm ummocoo mafiumxume d :ofiuommmflumm umeoumso msfiumxume mumm: nmsounu muflmoum cmumummucfl Hmeoumso sz m2¢m2 mDUOm 32 educational programs in prescribed subject areas to target audiences. Educational programs must be developed and implemented based on identifiable needs. Central to the marketing concept is an understanding of exchange. According to Kotler, marketing exists when people decide to satisfy needs and wants through transactions.41 Parties to the exchange must place higher value on what is being acquired than what is being given away. Consequently, an understanding of what the potential client values is crucial, along with an understanding of what they are willing to "pay." Exchanges in nonprofit organization marketing frequently are more subtle than the money-product exchange of the private business sector. Products are harder to define and the costs sometimes involve no money. An understanding of the exchange relationship and the needs of consumers and other constituencies permits the organization to design its offerings with the client's needs in mind.42 Nonprofit organizations, however, have four major characteristics that merit special attention when applying marketing principles: multiple publics, multiple objectives, services rather than physical goods and public scrutiny. 41Philip Kotler, Principles of Marketing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980), p. 13. 42Sheila A. Brown, "Marketing Extension Programs," in Extension Handbook, ed. Donald J. Blackburn (Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, 1984), p. 142. 33 The Cooperative Extension Service is characterized by all four major factors. These characteristics require consideration when applying marketing principles because they 43 Until recently, marketing has focused can pose problems. on how to market manufactured goods, especially consumer packaged products. Most public and nonprofit organizations, however, are concerned with services. In addition, the mission of nonbusiness organizations may require that the organization take a long-term view rather than cater to current consumer preferences. However, conflicts could arise between fulfilling the long-term institutional mission and satisfying short-term consumer preferences. For example, a university attempts to transmit knowledge, skills and ways of reasoning that will have an extended value to students. It does not try to amuse and inspire students for a given course or length of time. According to Lovelock and Weinberg, nonprofit organizations tend to attract more public attention than do private firms of comparable size. With people's desire for openness in government and interest in publicly funded activities, coupled with a desire to prevent legislated power abuses, public agencies are subject to ongoing public scrutiny. 43Christopher H. Lovelock and Charles B. Weinberg, Marketing for Public and Nonprofit Managers (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984), p. 32. 34 Furthermore, an organization, such as the Cooperative Extension Service, that has a multiplicity of clients must distinguish these customer groups and their relative importance. An important component of the marketing approach is market segmentation. Market segmentation is the subdividing of a market into distinct subsets of customers, where any subset may conceivably by selected as a market target to be reached with a distinct marketing mix.44 Segmentation serves two purposes: market definition and target marketing. Market definition assists an organization with the identification and selection of segments within the total population that represent appropriate target audiences. Through target marketing, marketing activities are effectively directed at the chosen segments. Marketing, then, includes the selection of target markets rather than a quixotic attempt to serve every market and be all things to all people. Public agencies, such as the Cooperative Extension Service, which have a broad mandate to serve the general population most frequently encounter the problem of having a mission that is too broad. For the Cooperative Extension Service, then, market segmentation becomes audience segmentation. That is, the 44Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 144. 35 overall population is divided into homogeneous subsets of target audiences in order to better formulate tailored messages and programs to meet specific needs. It would be extremely difficult for Extension to customize its offerings to meet everyone's needs. However, there are enough categories of common interest for CES to segment the market for its educational programs. This would allow Cooperative Extension to focus more directly on consumers' felt needs.45 During the on-going program planning and in periodic program reviews, Extension personnel identify people's needs; subsequently, programs are developed and offered in response to those concerns. The marketing concept, in conjunction with the concept of market segmentation, can provide a truly clientele oriented, clientele satisfying system for the Cooperative Extension Service. According to Kotler, organizations typically become aware of marketing when their market undergoes a change. Organization staff members are suddenly concerned when program participants, buyers, members, funds or other resources become more difficult to attract. The Cooperative Extension Service is one such organization. 4SKindinger, "An Analysis of Communications Patterns and Technology for State Extension Specialists--A Marketing Approach," p. 5. 36 The explosion of information and its technology is impacting Cooperative Extension. An amazing revolution in people's abilities to organize, store, retrieve and transmit information is occurring. Microcomputers, cable television and satellite communications are changing people's expectations for individualized delivery of quality information and, thus, are influencing the way adults learn. Related to the advances in technology and information is the increasing competition among educators and information providers for the adult learner's time. Extension is facing increased competition from other state agencies, libraries, school districts, mass media and many others. For example, the community colleges have evolved and have recently expanded their adult education programs. Today's libraries are dynamic learning centers with modern educational resources along with the traditional printed materials. Private enterprises offer conferences, seminars and information distribution plus consulting services, which are frequently combined with computer services. Public and quasi-public groups provide educational programs in agricultural production and marketing, nutrition, child development, financial management, community and economic development, and many more. Some government programs fail because the appropriate target audiences do not receive relevant information about 37 them.46 Some policymakers hold the elitist view that their responsibility is just to provide programs. They do not concern themselves with the dissemination of information or the delivery of those programs to the various relevant publics. An organization must continually strive to communicate its identity to the world around it, because no organization, public or private, can exist independently of its macro- environment. As the size and complexity of society grows, the need for a public agency to communicate with its publics 47 Administrators who have is more crucial than ever before. been concerned about their organization's public image and spend money to improve it have been criticized. However, administrators who do not create an awareness of their agencies may face drastic budget cuts or be eliminated. Organizations that move toward a marketing orientation take on three characteristics that are vital to their survival and effectiveness. They become more responsive, 48 adaptive and entrepreneurial. The organization that wants 46Seymour H. Fine, "Strategic Planning in the Marketing of a Government Program," in Cases and Readings for Marketing for Nonpppfit Organizations, eds. Philip Kotler, O.C. Ferrell and Charles Lamb (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983), p. 61. 47Warner and Christenson, The Copperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 46. 48 p. 26. Kotler, Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, 38 . to be responsive must decide to whom and to what it will be responsive. According to Kotler,49 Responsive organizations have a strong interest in how their publics see the organization and its products and services. For it is the organization's image, not necessarily its reality, that people respond to . . . The same organization will be viewed as responsive by some groups and unresponsive by other groups. Therefore, the organization has a vital interest in learning about its "image" in the marketplace and making sure that these images facilitate rather than impede the delivery of satisfaction. While the marketing process examines the organization from the vieWpoint of the user, supporter and the impartial observer, it also stimulates and creates an awareness of the organization. Awareness implies knowledge through observation or interpretation of what an individual hears, sees or feels. Awareness of an agency generally precedes use of its services and support for the agency's existence. Awareness of Extension, when combined with perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and feelings, provides a clearer under— standing of the image that is being projected to the organization's publics. Awareness provides only a partial measure of the organization's visibility. See the "Discussion and Conclusions" chapter for a discussion of image. 491bid., p. 56. 39 Studies assessing Extension awareness and perceptions In response to changing needs and technological develop- ments, CES periodically conducts studies of its roles and responsibilities. In 1982, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture jointly commissioned and implemented a major study of the Cooperative Extension Service. The fourth study of its kind in Extension's 70-plus year history, it was conducted for several reasons, including: 1. Legislative bodies, clientele groups and two federal government agencies (Government Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget) were questioning whether CES had adjusted its programs to societal and demographic changes and the resulting needs; 2. The same groups were questioning whether Extension had a clear mission and priorities; and 3. Legislative bodies and the CES legal partners were asking for clarification of roles and responsibilities. The study, which surveyed Extension staff members and public leaders, revealed that CES should place first priority on agricultural production and marketing; second priority on 4-H youth programs; third priority on home economics, nutrition and family economics; and fourth priority on community and economic development and natural and 40 environmental resources.50 CES personnel from the various program areas tended to rank their own program area as the area to receive highest priority. Most staff, however, ranked agriculture as next highest in priority, after their own program area. This finding suggests a general agreement among Extension staff members that agriculture should receive high priority within the CooperatiVe Extension Service. It is interesting to note that county Extension pro- fessionals consistently ranked 4-H youth programs as second highest in priority, followed by home economics, natural and environmental resources, and community and economic develop- ment. State Extension personnel, however, ranked the program areas in the following order: agriculture; home economics; natural and environmental resources and 4-H youth (tied); and community and economic development. The public leaders who were surveyed consistently ranked agriculture as the highest priority program area, with 4-H youth and home economics competing for second and third priority. Respondents who were not familiar with Extension, however, ranked 4-H youth programs as the lowest priority program area. 50Laverne B. Forest and Karen R. Eriksson, Extension in the '805 Surveys: Major Findings and Implications (Madison, Wis.: Program Development and Evaluation, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1984), p. 12. 41 Extension staff members and public leaders agreed that CBS programs should reflect locally determined needs more than state level determined needs and that nationally determined needs should be deemphasized. Both groups also agreed that Extension should extend knowledge from the total land-grant university. Comments made by respondents indicated that while subject matter from the total land-grant university is important, care is needed to select needed programs within each program area. One Nebraska staff member commented, "We need to more clearly identify and target audiences. We should not be all things to all people."51 The respondents also said CES must inform all its publics more on program impact and budget management. Both Extension staff and public leaders felt that informing people at the county level was the most important, but that informing governors, state legislators, members of Congress and the executive branch, and the general public was also important. Four-H youth program staff members indicated the greatest need to inform the general public. Comments identified numerous reasons for informing the different publics, including: . 1. Awareness of CES impacts can lead to more funding; 2. Informing people can lead to a better understanding of goals and methods; SlIbid., p. 19. 42 3. CES can attract clientele with increased visibility; and 4. Awareness is needed more at the state and national levels. In 1958, when Cornett started his study of public concepts related to the role of the Jackson County (Michigan) Cooperative Extension Service, it was felt that the Extension program might not be as well known or used as generally assumed, and for that reason support might be weakened by the changing agriculture industry. He surveyed the entire Jackson County memberships of the Jackson County Artificial Breeders Association, the Jackson Rotary, Kiwanis, and Business and Professional Women's clubs. What Cornett found was that most respondents were aware of a program in agricultural extension.52 The study also revealed some indications of misunderstanding of the Cooperative Extension Service. Respondents reported that they had not heard about CES, yet had used Extension- distributed information or family members had participated in 4-H. Cornett found that better identification of Extension activities with the organization was needed. Sometimes the name was not associated with the programs conducted. Cornett also reported that "Both farm and city peOple seem to feel that Extension work is basically a rural 52Elgin M. Cornett, "A Study of Public Concepts Related to the Role of the Cooperative Extension Service" (M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1958), p. 67. 43 program . . ."53 The respondents indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service has some indirect value for city people, but it is primarily an agency to handle technical matters for farmers. Cornett continues, Public concepts of the role of Extension have been built over many years and they are not changing very fast. Extension leaders see agriculture as a shrinking segment of a tightly integrated economy and they see the Extension Service in a rapidly changing role. Public opinion may see the picture in due time, but so far the lag in understanding is holding to older standards. It is the feeling of many Extension leaders, that Extension is being forced into broader fields of activity by changing economic and social conditions. At the same time public concepts of its role do not seem to be changing at the same pace and this may cause trouble spots to appear in tax competition for support. In a wide public service program, the Extension Service has a disadvantage, since it is known as an agricultural or rural service. It also runs the risk of losing support from farm oriented factions faster than it will gain support from others.54 Cosner55 studied the perception of Oklahoma residents toward the Cooperative Extension function of the Oklahoma 53Ibid., p. 71. 54Ibid., p. 72. 55Barney L. Cosner, C. Wesley Holley, Thomas E. Randle, Eddy Finley and James P. Key, "The Awareness of the General Public of Oklahoma of the Instruction, Extension and Research Components of the Division of Agriculture at Oklahoma State University," an Oklahoma State University research project report (Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma State University, 1980), p. 5. 44 State University Division of Agriculture. In a telephone survey of 14 counties, Cosner found that approximately 79 percent of the respondents were aware of having an Extension office in their county. In the specific program areas of Extension, slightly more than 47 percent of the respondents or a member of their family had been involved with the 4-H program, approximately 25 percent were involved with Extension homemakers clubs and 14 percent were involved with the agricultural or related programs. Cosner concluded that there was a high level of aware- ness of the Cooperative Extension Service among the Oklahoma general public. Residents with high awareness of Extension had the following characteristics: a household income of $10,000 to $20,000; 35 to 49 years old; had agriculture or agriculture-related occupations; high school graduate; American Indian; and female. In a national assessment of the general public's perceptions of CES, Warner and Christenson found that Extension struggles with multiple identities. Extension represents different things to different people because of its program diversity. Warner and Christenson also found that 87 percent of the population recognized Extension or its programs.56 56Warner and Christenson, The Copperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 48. 45 However, only 40 percent of the respondents identified the name of the organization. Recognition of program area names (agriculture, 4-H, home economics, and community development) was greater than recognition of the organizational name. The 4-H program, the most widely identified, was recognized by 77 percent of the respondents. The agriculture program had the second highest level of awareness (52 percent). Warner and Christenson also found that 23 percent of the persons questioned had personally used the Extension Service or contacted an Extension agent sometime during their life.57 Sixty-four percent of those users live in metropolitan counties (in a standard metropolitan statistical area). At the same time, Extension serves a larger pro- portion of nonmetro residents than it does urban residents. Jennings, in a study of Arkansas residents' perception of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, concluded that Arkansas residents seem to have a fairly high level of awareness of Extension. The study, which involved five Arkansas counties, indicated that 63 percent of the respondents reported that they had heard of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Almost 68 percent of the 57Ibid., p. 59. 46 respondents indicated that they were aware of the county Extension office.58 She concluded from the findings of the study that Extension personnel need to recognize that the most common reason for non-participation in Extension educational programs is that people are not aware of the services offered by CES. This finding was borne out by an earlier study of Indiana families.59 The study surveyed families' perceived educational needs, educational program priorities and program delivery preferences related to home economics programs. Three reasons for attending Extension-sponsored programs accounted for more than 60 percent of the total number of responses. The three most common reasons were: 1. I like the topics of the programs. 2. I feel a need for better information about personal and family life. 3. I'm a member of a Homemakers Club. The reasons reported for not attending were even more clustered. Three of the statements accounted for almost 75 ' percent of the total: 1. I don't know when and where Extension programs are offered in my community (28.3 percent). 58Jo Lynn Jennings, "Arkansas Residents' Perception of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1983), p. 96-97. 59Raymond T. Coward, "Greater Awareness--Extension's Key to Program Success," Journal of Extension 16 (September/ October 1978): 11-17. 47 2. I've never seen or heard any publicity on what type of programs are offered by Extension (26.7 percent). 3. I don't understand what Extension is all about (19.1 percent). From the Arkansas and Indiana studies, it appears that it was not that respondents knew about Extension, understood its purpose, and then rejected the programs. Rather, the respondents simply did not know what Extension was or what services it offered. Given the nature of extension education and its great dependency on the involvement and support of people at all levels, it is apparent that Extension's effectiveness and success will be largely determined by its ability to effectively communicate its programs to the public. Past studies have revealed that the public is aware of the Cooperative Extension Service and its programs but has a limited knowledge of Extension's role and programs. Assessment of the public's awareness, perceptions and image of Extension moves the organization closer to a marketing orientation. Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Several recent studies have surveyed opinions about the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) and its programs. These studies have been conducted in several states, including New York, Indiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Iowa. The majority of these studies have looked at one program area only, one specific audience or the clientele of the agency. Historically, evaluations of Extension have tended to concentrate on separate program areas, individual projects, specific audiences or the clientele of the agency.60 This study, however, will look at the whole Extension organization and its publics. All constituents affected by Extension's programs, either directly as program participants or indirectly as taxpayers, are in a position to evaluate Extension. Because public agencies, such as Extension, depend upon the legislative process for funding support, the survival of the organization can be determined as much by those who are unaware of the organization as those who are aware.61 Administrators and CES information specialists should be concerned with the public's perception of the 60Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. l. 61 Ibid., p. 35. 48 49 Extension organization in order to better position the agency in the marketplace. A critical concern is whether the public views CES in the same way as Extension staff members and spokespersons. Misconceptions in the perception of reality lead to evaluation designs that confirm inaccurate assumptions62 and poorly marketed and used programs. During its 70-plus year history, the Cooperative Extension Service has responded to congressional charges and mandates, changing socio-economic conditions and clientele needs, and new knowledge. To continue as a dynamic, audience-based agency, Extension will need to monitor its clientele's and the public's needs, awareness and perceptions of Cooperative Extension. Almost three decades have lapsed since the last Michigan study of the public's awareness and perceptions of Extension.63 While it is possible to generalize from research gathered elsewhere, some effort to determine the public's awareness and perceptions of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is necessary for designing appropriate messages for selected Michigan audiences. Information from this study, then, can 62Paul D. Warner and James A. Christenson, "Looking Beyond Extension Stereotypes," Journal of Extension 21 (September/October 1983): 28. 63To the author's knowledge, Elgin M. Cornett's study, cited earlier, was the most recent assessment of the public's awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. His study was conducted in 1958. 50 serve as a foundation for a statewide assessment of the public's awareness and perceptions of Extension. Assumptions The focus of this study and its design were based on the following assumptions: 1. People from all socioeconomic levels in the Grand Rapids standard metropolitan statistical area (Kent and Ottawa counties) had access to telephone service. People who had telephones were representative of the population in Kent and Ottawa counties. The responses made by the survey participants were accurate and sincere. The survey instrument adequately assessed the respondents' perception of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Hypotheses Based on the review of literature and the results of the national assessment of the Cooperative Extension Service conducted by Warner and Christenson, the following hypotheses were developed: 51 l. 4-H youth programs will be the most widely recognized program area throughout the total population. 2. The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service has a pluralistic identity instead of a single identity. More respondents will recognize each of the four program areas (agriculture-marketing, 4-H youth, natural resources-public policy, and home economics) than the "umbrella" organizational name (Michigan Cooperative Extension Service). 3. Both rural and urban respondents view the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service primarily as an agricultural agency designed to help farmers and rural residents. 4. The public's perception of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is related to an individual's experience(s) with the organization. Survey instrument design A variety of techniques can be used to secure information from and about a population. A telephone interview was selected as the vehicle for this survey, rather than a mail questionnaire or personal interview, because it offered the following advantages: Rapid completion of the entire survey process, high response rate 52 when surveying the general population, opportunity for frequent callbacks at a low cost and contact with a broad accessible population. The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service (MCES) awareness survey was patterned after the national assessment of Extension's image conducted by The University of Kentucky Survey Research Center in 1982.64 The 59-question MCES survey instrument included 41 questions from the national assessment. The questions were modified to correspond with the programs of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. In addition, six questions from a Purdue University study65 were also incorporated into the MCES questionnaire. Close-ended questions with ordered and unordered response choices were chosen for this questionnaire because they were less demanding on respondents and provided greater specificity of response. This question format also offered interviewing ease, when asking a series of attitude and belief questions, and data coding ease. The questions were designed to assess the public's awareness and knowledge of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The cover sheet and survey instrument were reviewed by Dr. Fred Peabody, Dr. Maxine Ferris and Mr. Kirk Heinze. 64Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. 65Coward, "Greater Awareness--Extension's Key to Program Success," p. 11-17. 53 Both forms were also informally pretested on members of the Lansing and Grand Rapids area populations. The instrument and cover sheet were modified based on feedback. A copy of the cover sheet and survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The respondent's county of residence was established at the beginning of each successful contact. Since only residents of Kent and Ottawa counties were to be interviewed, calls reaching residences outside of either county were discontinued after confirming the telephone number and county. The county and sex of each respondent were recorded on the cover sheet. The first nine questions assessed the respondent's awareness of and participation in Extension-sponsored programs. Respondents were asked questions 10 through 45 based upon their responses to the first nine items. Questions 1 through 5 were designed to determine the number of respondents who had heard of the Cooperative Extension Service or one of its four program areas. Explanations of the types of programs offered through each program area were included in case the respondent sounded uncertain. Questions 6 and 7 asked respondents if they had participated in 4-H youth programs either as a member or volunteer leader. 54 Questions 8 and 9 attempted to determine if the respondent or a member of the respondent's household had contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension. Questions 10 through 13 attempted to identify which program areas a respondent may have used if he/she had contacted an Extension agent. These questions were included because a respondent's organizational image of Extension results from his/her perceptions of the organization. The individual's experience with Extension determines what is perceived. Questions 14 through 18 tried to determine what media a respondent used to obtain information from Extension. Questions 19 through 24 asked the respondent to identify why he/she had not attended an Extension-sponsored meeting or workshop. These questions were included to determine if the respondent had heard about Extension and its programs or if he/she rejected the programs perhaps because the subject matter was not useful or of interest to the respondent. Questions 25 through 31 attempted to determine a respondent's knowledge about the Cooperative Extension Service. Questions 26 through 30 were designed by the author to assess the respondent's knowledge of the goals of the Cooperative Extension Service. The statements included in the questions were taken from promotional materials 55 describing MCES, the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and academic programs in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Respondents were also asked to rate a variety of program topics (questions 32 through 41). These ratings attempted to assess the respondents' perceptions of Extension's program priorities. Question 42 actually prioritized the program areas for respondents. Space was left for recording respondents' order of priorities, if they volunteered a different listing. Questions 43 and 44 asked respondents about citizen input in determining the educational programs offered by Extension. These items were designed to assess respondents' awareness of the local influence on Extension-sponsored programs. Question 45 attempted to determine respondents' satisfaction with the Cooperative Extension Service. Questions 46 through 59 provided demographic data about respondents, including residence, age, race, education, employment, marital status and income. The data will provide a basis for statistical comparison with the general population of the Grand Rapids standard metropolitan statistical area. 56 Study design This research study utilized a cross-sectional survey to assess the public's awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. With the cross-sectional survey, standardized information is collected from a sample drawn from a predetermined population at one point in time. A survey instrument that could be implemented in a statewide survey of the public's perceptions of the Michigan C00perative Extension Service was developed and tested in the Grand Rapids standard metropolitan statistical area (GR-SMSA). The GR-SMSA was selected for several reasons. First, it was important to maintain population validity throughout this project. Population validity, in this study, referred to the extent to which the results could be generalized from the specific sample taken to a larger group of subjects. Characteristics of the respondents should have approximated those of the general Michigan population. Of foremost concern was the urban-rural population distribution. See Table 1 for a comparison of selected characteristics. There are 12 standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) in Michigan. Each SMSA has one or more central counties containing the area's main population concentration: an urbanized area with at least 50,000 inhabitants. An SMSA may also include outlying counties which have close economic and social relationships with the central counties. The 57 o.HH o.o pwmonEmcs m.mm m.mm coonmEm msumum undemofimem memo» m.~H mumwm o.~H pmumfimsoo Hoonom mo mummm scape: m.va m.mH mooHHoo mo mummm duos Mo v o.mm v.on mmumsomuo Hoonom moan m.m m.H mumucmemam munch m cmnu mmmH "umpao new mm mcomumm e.m m.m mmmaaoo no name» wuoe Ho e m.nh v.0m mmumspmum Hoonom no“: "pao munch vmlma msomumm cofiumospm m.H m.m swmfluo nwflsmmm o.o m.o HousmHmH vamaomm can amend v.0 v.0 unma< .oeflxmm .CMHch :mofiume< ¢.~H m.m xomHm o.mw «.mm opens comm m.mv m.mv mama N.Hm m.Hm mamemw xmm Anamoumoo Aucmoummv oaumaumuomumno :moflnoflz «mzmlmo coaumfismom amofi20fiz mo mumum ecu spas omummeou mmu< Hmoaumfiumum cmufiHomouumz pumpcmnm mpfldmm cameo we» a“ coflpmfismom uflspa may no moflumflumuomumno pmuomflmm .H magma 58 e e ooo.omm can» once m m mma.ae n ooo.mmw m ma mmm.em n ooo.mmw m.eH mmm.e~ a ooo.o~w 4 mm mmm.ma a ooo.oaw m ma mam.m u ooo.mw m m ooo.mm menu mama msoocH Aucwoummv Aucmoummv oaumflumuomumnu smownoaz a no Eumwso: can Amman m.oa mo Show pomflmu muons moswpflmmu mo momfim m.o H 3osx u.coo e.pm omm loco.om can» muos. when >.H> swans m.om moa Aooo.om cmnu mmmav :30» ¢.mH mm Eumwco: pcm Amman m.m~ Hows“ a.m NH Eumm mocmpflmou mo momHo unmuuso H.om H.>~ moa MBMpuO a.mb m.mn mmm puma mocmpflmwu mo mpcsou Aucmoummo Aucmoumov AZ. moflumflumuomumnu msmcmo amzmumo mm>usm «mzmumo mumo msmcmo mo smousm omma nufi3 commoaoo mwflucsou mzmuuo new puma CH Aumcao can once» may nuance mo mw>usm mama ecu soum mucmpcoommm mo mofiumwumuomumnu .v wanna 75 Nounmcomoo o OLDOOOHO m om mma com (Vi-(romeo mm omm momaaoo mo mummh muoe no G mmumSpmuo Hoonom now: humacmemam mummm m cmnu mmmH “umpao pcm mm mcomumm mmmHHoo mummm duos Ho e mumscmuo Hoosom noes ”0H0 mummm wmlma wcomumm pomsmmu mmummc mumsomuo mmmHHoo Hoonom sown Hoozom compo :owumosom pomswmu Hmsuo owcmomflm amuswauo cmwccH cmofiume< xomam mafia; wumm Aucmuummv meGOU usm mmzmumo mofiumfiumuomumno 1.6.»:663 .6 mHnma 76 m.m om mmmsmmu «.4 AH 302x u.:om «.4 ~.e mm ooo.omw amen muos «.0 mm ooo.om u ooo.o¢w m.>a am ooo.o¢ n ooo.cmw m.m~ moa ooo.om u ooo.o~m v.m~ «.om me ooo.om u ooo.on a.mH o.e em ooo.oa n ooo.mw m.m m.m om ooo.mm amen mmma meoucH u: m.o m pmmsmmu p.mm p.ma me pmauums nm>mc m.o m.m mm mesopes m.m m.m mm mmouo>fim m.H m.H A mmumumdmm a.mm v.6p omm pmfluums msumuw amuflumz m.o H pmw:mmu e.m Hm ucmpsum «.ma mo umxmsmson a.HH we mmueumu 6.6 H.¢ SH pmmoflmsmcs a.mm H.mp Hem pmsofiaem msumum unmeaonEm Aucmoumoo Anemoumov sz moflumaumuomumnu msmcmo «mzmnmo Nm>usm amzmumo A.c.u:oov .¢ magma 77 m. o N GOmDNOH m.oa ow um>o pew mm o.n em so u op m.m am am u om p.ma mm me u ow m.h~ woe an u on a.mm «NH pfio mumps am I ma .mmma :Ho mm< m.m mmm.me . ooo.mmw m.ma mmm.¢m u ooo.mmw m.vH mmm.e~ u ooo.o~w A. U . uGOOV OEOOGH Ausmoummv Aucmouwmv sz woflumflumuomumnu msmcwo nsm mmzmnmo A.p.ucoov a manna 78 a.mm H.5N mom mncsoo msmuuo a.mh a.me mmm mucsou name unmoumo unmoumm z mocwpfimmu mo mucsou mschU usm mmzmnmo mumo wsmcmo nuflz pmummeou mocmoflmmm mo mussou .mucmpcommwm .m magma 79 population. While this result was unanticipated, it should not limit the study but, rather, suggests a possible under- reporting of the total population's awareness of Extension, since Warner and Christenson documented that persons from farms, rural areas and small towns were more aware of Extension than were those who live in large cities.77 Of the respondents, 64, or 16.5 percent, said their current place of residence was a farm or rural and nonfarm. According to 1980 census data, 28.3 percent of the Kent and Ottawa County population was classified as rural. The low percentage of respondents residing in rural areas could result from faulty telephone company equipment. In one particular rural area, several potential clusters of numbers had to be discarded because of consistent misconnections. Local operators and residents told the interviewers that bad underground telephone cables were the source of the problem. The sample was also representative of the different races present in the Grand Rapids standard metropolitan statistical area. The largest percentage of respondents, 90.2 percent, identified themselves as being White. The second largest group, 5.9 percent, classified themselves as being Black. The remaining respondents identified themselves as American Indian, Oriental, Hispanic and other. The 77Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 50. 80 Hispanic segment of the population was underrepresented in this sample. Census data indicated that 92.4 percent of the population were White, 5.3 percent were Black, 0.4 percent were American Indian, 0.5 percent were Oriental, and 2.3 percent were Hispanic. The census data confirm the conclusion that the sample population was representative of the two-county population and the findings can be extended to the population of Kent and Ottawa counties. Data in Table 4 indicate, however, that the sample contains a disproportionate number of females and individuals with higher levels of education. Females in the sample numbered 242, or 62.4 percent, and males comprised 37.6 percent of the sample, or 146. The percentage of females in the sample was higher than 51.5 percent, which was the reported percentage of females in the population according to the 1980 census for Michigan. The data indicate that 53.1 percent of the respondents were high school graduates, and 35.1 percent had some college coursework or completed a four-year degree. The census data were classified into somewhat different categories and split into two age groups. This made comparisons difficult. ' A higher percentage of households with large incomes is also included in the survey sample. According to census data, 52.8 percent of the population in Kent and Ottawa counties have annual incomes of less than $20,000. However, 81 only 32.6 percent of the sample respondents had incomes of less than $20,000. The largest percentage of survey respondents had incomes in the range of $20,000 to $30,000. Once again, census data were classified into slightly different categories. Caution should be used in census data comparisons because of the age of census data and the possible change in population demographics. Table 6 contains an abbreviated respondent profile. Analysis of the data The data are analyzed within the framework of the seven research questions examined in the study. Hypotheses are stated and tested as they relate to specific research questions. A discussion of the findings and their implications can be found in the following chapter. Question 1: How aware are Kent and Ottawa County residents of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service in general and specifically of the four program areas of agriculture-marketing, home economics, 4-H youth and natural resources-public policy? Table 7 reviews name recognition of the Michigan C00perative Extension Service and its four program areas. Kent and Ottawa County residents seem to have a very high level of awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. As shown in Table 7, 382 of the 388 respondents, 82 Table 6. Selected Characteristics of Respondents GR-SMSA Survey Characteristic (N) (percent) Age less than 30 124 32.0 30 - 39 108 27.8 40 - 64 114 29.4 65 and over 40 10.3 Sex male 146 37.6 female 242 62.4 Race White 350 90.2 Black 23 5.9 other 12 3.1 Income less than $10,000 47 12.1 $10,000 - 19,999 79 20.4 $20,000 - 29,999 103 26.5 $30,000 or more 122 31.4 Education grade school 24 y 6.2 high school 206 53.1 college 136 35.1 graduate degree 20 5.2 Residence farm 12 3.1 rural and nonfarm 52 13.4 urban 323 83.2 Farm occupation farmer 16 4.1 nonfarmer 370 95.4 83 Table 7. Awareness of the Michigan C00perative Extension Service and Its Programs Name and/or program area GR-SMSA Survey (N) (percent) Cooperative Extension Service 155 39.9 Agriculture-marketing 85 21.9 Home economics 149 38.4 Natural resources-public policy 53 13.7 4-H youth 373 96.1 Combined total 382 98.5 (N = 388) or 98.5 percent, indicated that they had heard of the ' Michigan Cooperative Extension Service or one of its program areas. The most widely recognized name was 4-H youth programs, which was identified by 96.1 percent of the respondents. Cooperative Extension Service was the second most widely recognized name (39.9 percent), closely followed by home economics (38.4 percent). One might have expected that the agriculture-marketing program area would have been the most widely recognized given Extension's history. However, that was not the case. Both the home economics and 4-H youth program areas and the organizational name were more widely recognized by GR-SMSA 84 survey respondents. The low percentage of rural respondents coupled with the high percentage of female respondents in the sample population may be partially responsible for these findings. Hypothesis 1: 4-H youth programs will be the most widely recognized program area throughout the total population. The hypothesis was confirmed because as shown in Table 7, the 4-H youth program was recognized by 373 survey respondents, or 96.1 percent of those individuals surveyed. It is interesting to note, however, that of the respondents who had heard of 4-H, only 27.8 percent indicated that they had been 4-H members or 4-H volunteer leaders (see Table 8). Table 8. Awareness of and Involvement in 4-H Youth Programs Involvement in 4-H frequency percent Awareness of 4-H youth programs 373 96.1 Respondent was a 4-H member 78 20.1 Respondent was a 4-H leader 30 7.7 (N = 388) Table 9 shows the distribution of respondents by awareness of an Extension office in their county. Almost 77 percent of those who had used Extension, or a member of 85 o.m o.o~ zocx u.:oo mofimmo m.o m.m mofl>umm coamcmuxm wucsoo mo mum3mco v.ma m.o> moflwwo moa>umm :ofimcmuxm mucsoo mo mumzm Ammm u zo Ame u zv Hmu0p mo unmoumm moanmmopmfizocx mo unmoumm moflmmo mucsoo mo mumBm mpflonmmsom moflmwo mucsoo mo mmomazocx moflmmo mofi>umm cofimcmuxm mucsoo may mo mmmcmum3< .m magma 86 their household had used Extension services, were aware of an office in their county. Hypothesis 2: The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service has a pluralistic identity instead of a single identity. More respondents will recognize each of the four program areas (agriculture- marketing, 4-H youth, natural resources-public policy and home economics) than the "umbrella" organizational name (Michigan Cooperative Extension Service). The hypothesis was not confirmed because, as indicated in Table 7, only one program area--4-H youth--was recognized more frequently than the organizational name. The fact that more respondents recognized the 4-H youth program area name than the organizational name suggests that the Cooperative Extension Service struggles with multiple identities. However, the finding that more individuals recognized the name "Michigan Cooperative Extension Service" than the other program area names implies that ties between programs and the organization exists. Question 2: To what extent are Kent and Ottawa County residents making use of the services of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? Questions 8 through 13 were used to determine if the respondent, or a member of the respondent's household, had contacted an Extension agent or used the services of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. If a respondent had contacted Extension, he/she was also asked to identify which 87 >.e H.~ 30px u.:oa m.H m.H pmum3msm uoz m.m p.ma no» p.mm m.om oz Auswoummv Aucmoumov mucoommm mm: .mumneme hafiemm mm: amcomumm Ammm u z. «coamcmpxm mo mmoa>umm one new: no cowmcmuxm cm pmpomucoo Hm>m mafiemm Mao» mo mumnEmE nonuo m>mm m:0flmcmuxm mo mmoa>umm on» com: no ucmom coflmcmuxm cm pmuomucoo um>m haamcowumm sow m>mm "onemmoO moa>umm :oflwcouxm m>flpmumooou cmmfinofiz on» Mo on: oaonomsom cam Hm5pfi>fich .oa magma 88 program areas he/she may have used. Table 10 shows that 61 respondents, or less than 16 percent of the survey participants, have used the services that Extension offers. Based on information provided by 69 survey respondents who had contacted Extension, Table 11 shows that the most frequently used program area is home economics. Agriculture- marketing and 4-H youth programs were second and third, respectively. Use of the 4-H program is likely to reflect an underreporting since respondents were adults. Table 11. Use of the Four Extension Service Program Areas Program area used frequency percent Agriculture-marketing 26 37.7 Home economics 32 46.4 4-H youth 24 34.8 Natural resources-public policy 10 14.5 (N = 69) The most used method of communication was written material, including bulletins, newsletters, publications or correspondence courses. On the other hand, the meeting or workshop was least used by clientele. Information on the communication methods used by clientele is presented in Table 12. 89 m.¢a o.m monmxuo3 no onflumwz o.mm m.m mofl>umm mconmmfima Ammmusoo cosmocommmuuoo no mGOADmUHHQSQ a.mm 0.5 .mumuumam3mc .msflumaflsnv Hmwumume :muuwuz m.om o.m Emumoum >9 a.ma ¢.m Emuooum oflpmm Imp u 21 .mmm u 21 open: mo unmoumo Hmuou mo unmoumm moonumz 602nm: were manuafifipa mpfionmmsom mamucmflflo mp pwuflflfiua coflumuacsssoo mo moonumz .NH magma 90 Question 3: What are some reasons for non-participation by Kent and Ottawa County residents in Michigan Cooperative Extension Service educational programs? The two reasons most frequently identified, by the 59 respondents who had answered the questions, for not attending Extension-sponsored workshops were "I don't know when and where Extension programs are offered in my community" and "I've never seen or heard any publicity on what types of programs are offered by Extension." The problem appears to be that these respondents do not know what, where or when Extension programs are offered in their community, not that they are not interested in Extension programing. Question 4: What is the level of Kent and Ottawa County residents' understanding of the purpose of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? Data in Table 14 indicate that the respondents who had contacted Extension are aware of Extension's purpose, but that a large percentage of these respondents cannot differentiate between the mission of the Cooperative Extension Service and the mission of the Michigan State UniverSity Agricultural Experiment Station. Slightly more than 94 percent of the respondents who have contacted Extension or used CES programs agreed to the statements, 91 .muasseeoo m.o he CH memumoum Momma u.:mmOp coamcmuxm o.ha .mEfiu ocou3 mnu um pawn mum memumoum one a.mm .mowoou Emuooum on» Ca cmummumucw no: E.H .usonm Ham m.mH we :oncmuxm umzz ccmumumpcs u.cop H .coamcmuxm an omummmo mum memumoum mo momma umn3 so muflowanso m.mm ham pumps no comm um>mc m>.H .wuwcseeoo he :a pwummmo mum memuooum coamcmuxm v.vo mumnz cam cons Bocx u.:op H Amm u 21 mcapcmuum no: mmonu mo unmoumm Comflwm mocfiummz Ho moonmxuoz coflwsouxm mcflpcmpud 902 How mcommmm .ma magma 92 1mm u 21 N.h v.¢ m.¢H N.vm N.mo m.hm .mmumum moans: one no «Hoops one on mmqflmcnm nonmomou mnfiun ou oemumonm HmnofiumOSpo mopfl>oum oofi>uom noflocouxm o>flumuomooo one .moousomou onw>uomnoo pnm muaamso Hmunoenouw>no onw>uoooum oHfin3 madman coco onEm nm mopfl>ono umnu noumomou pospnoo on ma nofimnouxm mo Hmoo oumeuHs one .nofiumeuomnfi commn Incumomou .Hmoauomuo nuw3 onoom opfi>oum on ma Aomomusm Ho nOn. nonoHE o.nofimnouxm .moousomou Hmnsumn pnm ououfisofiuom nH memuoonm oouoop umomlusom onm Io3u muommo cam peoouo Mom momusoo moofl>onm oofl>uom noflonouxm o>Humuoooou one .uH coon on3 onoom mo monmn one once noflumauomnfl poumoulhuflmuo>wnn .HmOHuomum poo ou we noflmnouxm mo noh one 3onx u.noo Honuflon ooummmflp ownommou unoouom unoeoumum COHmmflz m.COflwG®#Nm MO mmOCOHMDSN oflH @HQMB 93 The job of Extension is to get practical, university- tested information into the hands of people who need it; and The Cooperative Extension Service provides educational programs to bring research findings to the people of the United States. Just over 65 percent of those who answered the question, however, indicated that they thought the ultimate goal of Extension is to conduct research that provides an ample food supply while preserving environmental quality and conserving resources. Whether or not Extension offers two- and four- year degree programs is also unclear to respondents. Question 5: What program areas or subject matter topics ought to receive greater or lesser attention from Cooperative Extension Service staff members? According to data presented in Table 15, more than 65 percent of respondents who had contacted Extension or used its services agree or strongly agree that CES should place first priority on agricultural production and marketing programs. This was further reinforced by the ratings that the respondents gave to the food production and farm manage- ment program topics. Respondents, however, identified human nutrition as the program topic that should receive the greatest amount of importance. More than 90 percent of the respondents who answered the question indicated that Extension should give great or very great importance to the human nutrition topic. Table 16 presents the ranking of 94 m.H m.o 3ocx u.:on In m.mm couozmcm uoz m.HH H.m ooumo hamcouum a.mm m.m ooumc m.e m.o ooumomflo no ooumm Honufioz o.vm v.w . ooumomfla m.m m.o ooumomwo mamsouum .ao u zv Ammm u zv mcfluooflocfl ucoouom Houou mo ocoouom omcommom :mmoouoOmou Hmucoecouw>co poo Honouos coo ucoemoHo>oo Ufleocooo poo muacssaoo co muwuowum nuusom cam «mcuoocoo waflsom oco cowuwuuss .mofleocooo oeon :o hpfluowum UHHQH unusom mlv co mufluowum pcooom “msfluoxuoe Ugo coauosooum Honouasoflumm so mufluoflum umufim woman ofisonm mmo. «unmemumum was» usonm Home so» on 30m ”onammoo wmoum Eoumoum mo mswuom mufluoflum poflwflucooHlucoocommom .mH oHnoB 95 Table 16. Respondent Ranking of Program Topics Ranking Program topic 1 Human nutrition 2 Food production 3 Natural resources and environment 4 Farm management 5 Youth development 6 Community services and facilities 7 Family life and personal development 8 Forest management 9 Economic development 10 Home gardening and lawn care program topics by respondents. A more detailed presentation of respondent-identified priorities for Extension programs can be found in Appendix D. Information on respondents' perceptions of citizen input into CES program offerings is shown in Tables 17 and 18. Only 23, or 33 percent, of the 69 respondents who answered the question thought citizens had input into determining Extension's program offerings. 96 Table 17. Perceived Citizen Involvement in Program Offerings QUESTIONS: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? ”Michigan citizens have had no input in determining the educational programs offered by Extension.“ (N = 69) Response percent frequency Disagree I 33.3 Agree 26.1 Neither agree or disagree 4.4 Don't know 36.2 Table 18. Perceived Citizen Input QUESTION: How much input do you think Michigan citizens have had in determining the programs offered by Extension? (N = 24) Response percent frequency None 4.2 Slight 33.3 Moderate 33.3 Great 4.2 Don't know 25.0 97 Question 6: How satisfied are Kent and Ottawa County residents with the educational services provided by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? According to this study, 51.5 percent, or 35, of the 68 respondents who answered the question are satisfied with the Extension Service. On the other hand, almost 37 percent said that they did not know enough about Extension to answer the question and almost 12 percent said they were dissatisfied. Table 19. Satisfaction with Extension in Kent and Ottawa Counties Response Percent total Percent users (N = 388) (N = 68) Dissatisfied 2.1 11.8 Satisfied 9.0 51.5 Neither satisfied or --- --— dissatisfied I don't know enough about 6.4 36.8 Extension to answer Not answered 82.5 --- 98 Question 7: Do residents of Kent and Ottawa counties perceive the Michigan COOperative Extension Service as an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents? Question 31 asked 69 respondents who had contacted Extension or used its services if the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is primarily an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents. Table 20 shows that 47.8 percent of the respondents agree or strongly agree that CES is an agricultural agency for farmers and rural people. However, 42 percent said they disagree or strongly disagree with that statement. Hypothesis 3: Both rural and urban respondents view the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service primarily as an agricultural agency designed to help farmers and rural residents. The hypothesis was confirmed, based on information in Table 21. Almost 22 percent of the respondents who answered the question and who lived on farms or in rural and nonfarm areas agreed or strongly agreed that the Cooperative Extension Service is an agricultural agency while only 5.8 percent disagreed. Those who resided in urban areas, however, were split in their perception of Extension. Table 21 shows that 34.6 percent of urban respondents, who had contacted CES, either disagreed or strongly disagreed that Extension is primarily an agricultural agency. On the other 99 m.o m.~ song u.noo II N.mm oouo3wno uoz H.0H m.H ooumo mamnouum e.em e.m . ooumn m.e m.a ooumomflp no ooumo nonueoz m.¢m m.o oonmomwo ~.e m.a ooumomeo hamnouum Ame n zv Ammm u zv muons mo unoouom Houou mo unoouom ownommom ammunooemou Houou ono muosumm umemmo ou nonmewoo monomo Honsnasoeumo no NHeHoEeum we ooe>uom nowmnouxm o>HuoHoQOOU nomenOfiz one. manoeououm menu usono Hoom so» on 30m "onemmao eonomn Housuasoeumn no mo mnoflamoouom .om oanoe 100 .mm u zv Hooo.o u mocmoHMHcmflm .am n no .m.mm u oumsvmlenu o.o m.H m.a 0.0 0.0 3onx u.noa o.o m.m m.H m.¢ m.a ooumo wamnouum o.o o.ma e.m H.0H m.m ooumn o.o m.m m.m o.o m.H ooumomeo Ho ooumm uonueoz m.H v.4a a.ma m.m o.o moummmfio o.o m.m m.v o.o o.o ooumomeo hamnouum Aunoouomv zonx u.noo mueo n3ou Euomnon\emusu snow omnomwom wUCGUH wmh HCQHHDU oonoofimom mo ooon unouuou no oomom monomn Homopfisoeumn no mo noemnouxm mo coaumoouom .HN oHnoe 101 hand, 26.1 percent of urban respondents perceived Extension as an agricultural agency. Hypothesis 4: The public's perception of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is related to an individual's experience(s) with the organization. Based on information presented in Tables 22 through 26, the hypothesis was not confirmed. Tables 22 through 26 show that the contact an individual has with a particular program area may or may not significantly affect the individual's perception of the Cooperative Extension Service. Table 22 presents a synopsis of respondents' program area contact and their perception of Extension as an agricultural agency. Twenty-six of the respondents answering the questions indicated that they had contacted Extension regarding agriculture-marketing programs, 32 respondents had contacted Extension concerning home economics, 24 individuals had contacted CES about 4-H youth programs and 10 people said they had contacted Extension about natural resources- public policy programs. Note that many respondents had contacted CES regarding more than one program area. Slightly more than 17 percent of the 26 respondents who had contacted Extension regarding agriculture-marketing programs agreed or strongly agreed that CES was primarily an agency to assist farmers and rural residents. On the other hand, almost 16 percent of those 26 respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed. 102 3OC¥ u. . GOD o.o m.m m.m m.e ooumo mamnouum e.m m.ea a.ma H.oa oouma m.H m.H m.H m.v ooumomep Ho ooumm Honueoz m.v h.m a.ma a.ma mmummmfla o.o m.m m.m o.o ooumomen memnouum mmnmz mlv moaeonooo oson mneuoxuoEIoununnoeumo omnommom mono Eoummum nooo pouoounoo non on3 munopnommou unoouom noun Eoumoum no pomom monomn Honsuanoeumn no mo nonnouxm uoounou mo noeumoouom .NN oHnme 103 Table 22 also shows that the 32 respondents who had contacted CES about home economics programs were equally split in their perception of Extension as an agricultural agency. However, almost twice as many people who had contacted Extension about 4-H youth programs agreed or strongly agreed that Extension is primarily an agricultural agency. And, more than twice as many respondents who contacted CES regarding natural resources-public policy programs perceived Extension as an agricultural agency as those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Tables 23 through 26 presents more detailed information about respondents' perceptions of CES and their contact with a program area. An important finding is that 30.4 percent of those who had not contacted Extension for agriculture- marketing information perceived the agency as an agricultural one. Table 24 shows that twice as many people who had contacted CES regarding natural resources-public policy programs perceive Extension as an agricultural agency as those who do not perceive Extension as such. Tables 22 and 24 clearly show that 8.7 percent of the 10 respondents who had contacted Extension regarding NR-PP programs agreed that Extension is an agricultural agency, compared with 4.3 percent who disagreed with that perception. Note, however, that those respondents who had not contacted Extension about NR-PP were evenly split in their perceptions. 104 Ame u z. 0.0 u moamoflmncmnm .ma u no .N.mam u mumswmnfino m.m 3onx u.non m.e m.m oonmo mnmnouum H.oa m.em ooumn m.v m.m ooumomflo no ooumo monpeoz a.ma a.ma oonmomen m.a o.o m.m ooumomwo mamnouum Aunoouomv 3onx u.noo mom on omnommom meonmonm mneuoxuoeumo mnepuomou mmo pouoounou msoumoum mneuoxnoZIounanoenmn mneouomom nOemnouxm oopoounoo pom onz omone an monomn Hounuanowumn no mo noemnouxm mo noeumoonom .mm oHnoe 105 Amm u z. 0.0 u oonoUAMflanm .mH u up .m.a~v u ouonvmlenu o.o m.m 3onx u.non o.o H.0H ooumo mnmnouum m.H e.m m.em ooumn m.H m.m ooumomwo no ooumo Honpwoz m.v v.om ooumomfla o.o m.e ooumomeo hamnouum Aunoouomv Bonn urnoo mom on omnommom meonmoum mmlmz mneouomon mmv oopoounou maoumoum mowaom owannmlmoouoooom Hounuoz mnecuomom nowmnouxm pouoounou oom onz omone an eonomn Hounufinowumn no mo nonnouxm mo nOeumoouom .vm oHnoe 106 As a group, respondents who had contacted Extension regarding home economics programs were divided in their perception of CES as an agricultural agency. Twice as many respondents strongly disagreed (5.8 percent) with the statement as those who strongly agreed (2.9 percent). However, 21.7 percent of 32 respondents who had contacted Extension regarding home economics programs perceived Extension as an agricultural agency and 21.7 percent of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed. Of the 24 respondents who had contacted CES regarding 4-H youth programs, almost twice as many perceived Extension as an agricultural agency (20.2 percent) as those who did not (11.6 percent). 107 Amw u zv o.o u monounmncmnm .NH a mo .m.¢Hv u ouosvmlfinu m.H m.a 3onx u.noa m.~ N.e ooumo hamnouum a.mH m.mH ooumn m.a m.m ooumomeo no ooumo nonueoz a.ma a.ma ooumomen m.m m.a ooumowwo eflmnouum Aunoouomv no» on omnommom msoumoum moeeonooo oson mmepuomou mmu pouoounoo meoumoum meronoom osom mneouomom noewnouxm oonoounoo com on; omone an monomn Hounuanoeumn no mo nowmnonxm mo nowumoouom .mm oHnoe Ame u z. 108 o.o u mocmofioficmfim .NH u no .m.mov u mumswmuflno m.a m.H zonn u.non m.m N.e oonmo wamnouum m.ea m.om ooum< m.a m.m ooumomflp no ooumo nonuwoz e.m a.mm oouwomeo m.m m.v ooumomeo Mamnouum Aunoonomv mom on omnommom msommonm nnnom mlv mmeouomon mmu oouoounoo meoumoum nunoe mlo mnflouomom noemnouxm oouoounoo pom onz omone an wonomn Hoununnoeumn no mo noemnouxm mo nOeumoouom .om oHnoe Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents a discussion of this study's findings and their implications for the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. A discussion of the relevant literature on image is also included in this chapter. Conclusions and recommendations for further study are also presented. Discussion of findings The purpose of this study was to gather baseline data of the public's awareness, perceptions and use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The awareness of Michigan residents was determined by seven questions which assessed: 1) name recognition of the parent organization or program areas, 2) participation in programs offered by the Cooperative Extension Service, and 3) knowledge of an Extension office in the county. The findings will be discussed and explained within the contexts of the survey technique and the sample population and the seven research questions stated for this study. The surveyytechnique and the sample population. As was noted earlier, the random digit dialing (RDD) technique provides a systematic sample of a population that reflects 109 110 population density and geographical distribution. The sample population used in this study approximated the population distribution between Kent and Ottawa counties very closely. However, it did not reflect the urban-rural population distribution as closely as the author would have preferred. This does not mean that the use of a telephone survey or the random digit dialing technique was the wrong approach. The RDD technique is superior to directory sampling when surveying a population with a high percentage of unlisted telephone numbers (i.e., the Grand Rapids SMSA). The overrepresentation of females in the sample population might have resulted from the method used to select respondents within households. Following comparison checks of four sample populations with census data, Kish reported that males appeared to be underrepresented among the respondents of three of the four surveys. "Although the difference was small, its presence in three surveys pointed to possible occasional deviation from rigorous procedure in the field."78 Kish identified two sources of bias, both due to the fact that males are more difficult to find at home even with repeated call-backs: overrepresentation of males among the non-respondents (or refusals) and an occasional substitution on the part of interviewers. 78Kish, "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection Within the Household," p. 386. 111 In the Oklahoma State University telephone survey conducted by Cosner et al., the representation of respondents by sex was skewed toward females. Approximately 62.9 percent of the respondents were female. Cosner reported that "Since individuals were randomly selected from randomly selected counties rather than from the state as a whole, the generalizability to the total general public might be more limited than the generalizability to the general public of those 14 counties."79 Jennings also noted that more females than males were present in the sample population. In her Arkansas telephone survey, 56.9 percent of the respondents were female. Census data for 1980 indicated that 51.7 percent of the population was female. The fact that survey data and census data on levels of education and income were split into different categories made comparisons difficult. Different conclusions may have been derived if the survey instrument had used Bureau of Census categories. Census categories were not used initially, because the survey was a two-county specific replication of Warner and Christenson's national assessment of Extension. 79Cosner et al., "The Awareness of the General Public of Oklahoma of the Instruction, Extension and Research Components of the Division of Agriculture at Oklahoma State University," p. 2. 112 Discussion of the seven research questions. The following discussion is presented by research question. It includes implications of the findings and compares the results of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service survey with the results of Warner and Christenson's national assessment80 of the Cooperative Extension Service and other relevant studies of Extension and its clientele. Question 1: How aware are Kent and Ottawa County residents of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service in general and specifically of the four program areas of agriculture-marketing, home economics, 4-H youth and natural resources-public policy? Kent and Ottawa County residents who were surveyed have a very high level of awareness of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and its four program areas. The 4-H youth program was the most widely recognized program area with 96.1 percent of the respondents indicating that they had heard of 4-H. Table 27 compares this study's name recognition results with the data from the national assessment of Extension's image. In both studies, 4-H was the most widely recognized program area name, although the difference in the percentage of respondents recognizing the name was rather 1arge--96.1 80Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. 113 Ammm u z. em m.mm «mm Houou ooanEou we H.0m mum nusom mnv we unoemo~o>oo huenneeou p.ma mm moefiom oeannmlmoouoomou Hounuoz mw v.mm mva mueeonooo oeom mm m.a~ mm mafiumxumsumusunsoflumm ov a.mm mma oow>uom noemnouxm o>auouomoou Aunoonomv Annoouomv Ann mo>unm Honofluoz mama No>unm nmzmlmo oouo Eoumoum uo\ono oeoz noemnouxm mo unoEmmommn Honoepoz onu nuHB oouomeoo meoumoum muH ono o0fl>uom n0emnouxm o>fluonomoou nomenoez onu mo moonouozn .hm oHnoe 114 percent in the MCES survey compared with 77 percent in the national study. Warner and Christenson suggest that the reason that 4-H has the greatest name recognition is because the name is short, easy to remember and has not changed over time.81 The 4-H program also reaches a larger number of people in diverse geographical regions. The organizational name Michigan Cooperative Extension Service was the second most widely recognized name, followed by home economics, agriculture-marketing and natural resources-public policy program areas. The same percentage of respondents in the Michigan and the national studies recognized the organizational name, Cooperative Extension Service. A much smaller percentage of MCES survey respondents recognized the agriculture-marketing, home economics and natural resources-public policy program area names than respondents recognized in the national assessment. The low percentage of rural respondents may be partially responsible for these results. A second explanation for the low name recognition, especially of the agriculture-marketing program area, requires consideration of the structure of Michigan agriculture and the role agriculture plays in Michigan's economy. The automobile industry dominates the Michigan 811bid., p. 49. 115 economy, followed by agriculture and tourism. The Michigan agriculture industry is highly diversified, producing more than 50 food and fiber commodities. In addition, Michigan farms tend to be smaller than the national average and, most importantly, their operators have other sources of income. Wright, in 1983, analyzed Michigan farm structure.82 He characterized Michigan farms as small, averaging 168 acres in 1978. Michigan farms averaged approximately 40 percent the size of the national average. In 1985, according to the Michigan Department of Agriculture, an average Michigan farm has grown in size to 181 acres. The Michigan Agriculture Reporting Service's southwest district, which includes Kent and Ottawa counties, had 26 percent of the state's farms under 50 acres and 18 percent of all farms, in 1983. The district is one of two districts with the smallest average farm size and was one of three districts with the highest percentage of farmers working ZOO-plus days per year off the farm. Wright also found that 55 percent of Michigan's farmers identified their occupation as other than farming. Given this information, coupled with Extension's history and perhaps an individual's perception of CES, it is 82Karl T. Wright, A Comparison of Farm Sizes in Michigan (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service, 1983): P. 2. 116 not surprising that the agriculture-marketing program area name was not as widely recognized or used as the Extension agriculture program nationwide. Part-time farmers may not be aware of Extension's programs or may consider themselves ineligible to use Extension's services. In addition, many MCES agriculture-marketing programs may not target this part-time farm operator audience, present information of use to these individuals or be held at times convenient for them. Extension staff members should recognize that a high name recognition rate does not imply anything more than awareness. Question 2: To what extent are Kent and Ottawa County residents making use of the services of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? Less than 16 percent of the Michigan survey respondents had ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension. In the national study, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they had personally contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension at some point in time. The most frequently used program area identified by respondents in the MCES study was home economics. This finding may be a reflection of the disproportionate Percentage of females in the sample. Slightly more than 117 percent of the respondents had contacted Extension about home economics information, compared with 43 percent of respondents in the national survey. In the Michigan study (agriculture-marketing programs were the second most frequently used, closely followed by 4-H youth and finally, natural resources-public policy. Results of the national assessment indicate, however, that the most frequently used program of Extension is agriculture. Home economics was second, followed by 4-H and community development. Table 28 compares the frequency of program area use for the two studies. From the information in Table 28, one can conclude that Kent and Ottawa County residents do not utilize the services of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service nearly as much as the national assessment indicates that Extension is used nationwide. Given the high awareness level people have of CES, it is ironic that Extension's services are not used by more people in Kent and Ottawa counties. The finding suggests that those who do utilize Extension's services and information are repeat and frequent users. In the national survey, almost all respondents who had contacted Extension indicated that they had received some printed material from Extension. Over 90 percent indicated that they had listened to a radio program or watched a TV Program conducted by Extension personnel. These findings 118 Hm m.¢a mofifiom DeannmlmooHDOmou Hounuoz mm m.vm name» one me «.mv moeeonooo oeom mo e.em mneuoxuoeuonnuanoeumn Aunoonomv Aunoouomv oouo Eoumoum >o>uom HonOeuoz mo>unm mmoz ooe>uom noemnouxm o>euouomoou onu mo moflosnm Honofiuoz ono nomenoez onu nH munopnommom an powweunopH mo own ooun soumoum mo monooqoum .mm oHnoe 119 sharply contrast with findings from the MCES survey. Of the Michigan respondents who had contacted Extension, only 39.1 percent indicated they had received printed material (compared to 99 percent in the national assessment). Another 39.1 percent indicated that they had watched a television program or listened to a radio program conducted by Extension personnel. Question 3: What are some reasons for non-participation by Kent and Ottawa County residents in Michigan Cooperative Extension Service educational programs? The two reasons most frequently identified for not attending Extension-sponsored programs were "I don't know when and where Extension programs are offered in my community" and "I've never seen or heard any publicity on what types of programs are offered by Extension." Coward,83 in a study of Indiana families, found the same two reasons were most frequently reported for not attending Extension- sponsored programs. Jennings,84 in a survey of Arkansas residents, also found that the largest percentage of the respondents did not participate in Extension programs because they were not aware of the educational services. 83Raymond T. Coward, "Greater Awareness--Extension's Key to Program Success," Journal of Extension 16 (September/ October 1978): 11-17. 84Jo Lynn Jennings, "Arkansas Residents' Perceptions of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service," p. 103. 120 These findings suggest that respondents do not know what educational opportunities the Cooperative Extension Service can provide and suggest that Extension's programs are under-publicized. Question 4: What is the level of Kent and Ottawa County residents' understanding of the purpose of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? Survey respondents seem to be aware of the mission of the Cooperative Extension Service but the distinction between the missions of CBS and the Agricultural Experiment Station is not clear. Such confusion could result from the respondents' unfamiliarity with the agricultural experiment station, as well as the Cooperative Extension Service. Question 5: What program areas or subject matter topics ought to receive greater or lesser attention from Cooperative Extension Service staff members? A majority, more than 65 percent, of the respondents agree that the Cooperative Extension Service should place first priority on agricultural production and marketing. The fact that a large percentage of respondents placed first priority on agriculture further suggests that they perceive Extension as primarily an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents. 121 Question 6: How satisfied are Kent and Ottawa County residents with the educational services provided by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service? Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the services provided by Extension. However, almost 37 percent said that they did not know enough about Extension to answer the question. Question 7: Do residents of Kent and Ottawa counties perceive the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service as an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents? The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is perceived as an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents. The intensity and strength of that perception varied with the respondents' contact with Extension and place of residence. A brief discussion of image Most of the emphasis on image has come from profit- oriented businesses and product promotion. These same principles can also be applied to and are true of nonprofit organizations and services. People have images of nonprofit and public organizations along the same dimensions that they do for commercial organizations. 122 The concept of "image" is a vital and often discussed aspect of today's advertising, public relations and market- ing practices. An examination of the literature on image reveals two different but related concepts. The distinction between the two lines of thought is based on the controlling source of the image. Images are thought to be controlled by the source of the image or by the observer viewing the imaged object. This writer would argue that images are simultaneously controlled by both the source and by the observer. Kotler defines image as "the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions 85 but goes on to say that that a person has of an object" an image is influenced by the objective characteristics of the perceiver. Boorstin defines an image as "an artificial imitation or representation of the external form of any object, . . ."86 He describes an image as a carefully crafted personality profile of an individual, institution, corporation, product or service. The image is planned, created to serve a purpose and to make a particular impression. Once the image is in place, it commonly becomes the more important reality, merely perceived to be supported by the organization's conduct. 85Kotler, Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, p. 57. 86Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1962), p. 197. 123 The other school of thought regarding image is that it is the perceived characteristics of an object or person by other individuals. Images are the result of the observer drawing out certain characteristics about objects from his perceptions of those objects.87 Image formation is not based entirely on facts, but is a result of all the past experiences of the possessor of the image. An "image" is a stereotype that acts as fact for the image holder. Images are not grounded in fixed events but rather in information and interpretative processes that change.88 Images are also individual in nature, because values, experience, needs, thinking and perceiving are found in people. Consequently, there are many variables which affect an individual's image of another person or organization. According to Boorstin, an image must serve an intended purpose. If a corporation's image of itself is not useful, it can be discarded. But according to Boulding,89 an image resists change. When an individual receives messages which conflict with his image of an object, the messages are usually rejected as being false. Kotler refers to this 87mi11er, "Images, Meaning and Organizational Names," p. 2. 88Warner and Christenson, The CoOperative Extension Service: _A National Assessment, p. 44. ' 89Kenneth E. Boulding, The Image (Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 1956), p. 8. 124 change resiliency as image persistence. "Image persistence is explained by the fact that once people have a certain image of an object, they tend to be selective perceivers of further data."90 And adding further to its change resistance, part of an image is the history of the image itself. Hence, image is controlled by both the source and the perceiver. These theories have important implications for Cooperative Extension Service marketing strategies, especially in the area of image promotion. It must be recognized that members of the general public also have an image of the organization which affects their use of and legislative support for the organization. That image does not have to be a product of the individual's personal experience with the organization in question, but people can derive their image from what they have read or heard from family and friends. A market-oriented organization needs to monitor how it is seen by the public and take action to improve its public image if necessary. In a dynamic society, there is continuous change in demographic, economic, technological, political, and social forces. New client needs and wants appear, new competition emerges, social values change, new laws are passed, and radically different technostructures appear. The organization that sticks to its historical business may find itself serving a declining market. Organizational survival is not just a matter of being efficient-- . . . --but of being 90Kotler, Marketing for Nopprofit Organizations, p. 62. 125 adaptive, that is, managing to do the appropriate things in the changing environment.91 Warner and Christenson reached a slightly different conclusion than other researchers regarding the Cooperative Extension Service's image. Not only does Extension have multiple identities, but identities that are inconsistent with its touted image. The predominant message that has been formally communicated to congressional representatives, government officials, and other policy makers is that Extension is an agency that serves agricultural producers. In other words, Extension has been represented almost exclusively as an agricultural agency. And, yet, that image is not reflective of the distribution of resources of current Extension programs nor the public's perception of the agency. The majority of Extension resources are devoted to programs in home economics, 4—H, and community development, not agriculture as has often been suggested.92 A check of funds used by program areas for fiscal year 1978 revealed that agriculture and natural resources (ANR) programs received 38.4 percent of Extension monies; home economics and nutrition, 28.0 percent; 4-H and other youth programs, 26.2 percent; and community and rural development, 911bid., p. 76. 92Warner and Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment, p. 136. 126 7.4 percent.93 Warner and Christenson's conclusion is valid if one considers that agriculture and natural resources programs received 38.4 percent of Extension funds compared with 61.6 percent of funds that were used for other programs, including home economics, 4-H and community development. ANR is generally acknowledged as the largest program area within the Cooperative Extension Service. Nationwide, about 40 percent of professional staff time and 36 percent of the total CES budget have been allocated to this program area in recent years. Conclusions Several externalities potentially affect the population's use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and its programs. These factors include the structure of Michigan agriculture, Extension's historical background and mission, and the individual's awareness and perception of the Cooperative Extension Service. Based on this study, the following conclusions can be made: The Michigan 4-H Youth Program is the most widely recognized Cooperative Extension Service program area in Michigan. 93United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration--Extension, Evaluation of Economic and Social Conseguences of Cooperative Extension Programs (washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), P. 28. 127 The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and its program areas enjoy a high level of public awareness. Awareness, however, does not imply understanding. Data indicate that many respondents do not understand the purpose of Extension. The services offered by the Kent and Ottawa County Cooperative Extension Services are not utilized by a large segment of the area's population. The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service struggles with both pluralistic identities and a single identity. The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is perceived as an agricultural agency regardless of an individual's prior experience with the organization. Recommendations for action and further study Because respondents indicated a lack of information about what, when and where Extension programs are offered, and about the CES organization, a planned, ongoing marketing program, with a strong public relations component, should be implemented. All Michigan CES personnel need to actively support and use a marketing approach to focus their programs. If the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is to continue to target the public through its four program areas, it must do a better job of communicating its purpose and programs to all Michigan residents. 128 The Cooperative Extension Service administrators and their information staffs need to decide if they will promote individual program area identities or extend an organizational identity to all program areas. It is recommended that a concerted effort be made to extend the organizational name and identity to the four-program areas. It is strongly recommended that the CES logo and slogan, "Helping you put knowledge to work," be prominently used whenever possible. Color, size and placement should be consistent from county to county and from state administrative offices to county agents'newsletters. :The ANR Information Services staff should have the responsibility for insuring proper usage of the design. Extension staff members should identify themselves as representatives of the Cooperative Extension Service, not only the 4-H or agriculture agent or home economist. The organization could benefit from the high level of awareness that 4-H enjoys. This could be achieved if agents would take a minute at the beginning of their programs to explain 'how their program area complements the parent organization. Extension personnel should be aware of the fact that the most common reason for non-participation in Extension educational programs is that people are not aware of services or opportunities offered. Staff members can and should make greater use of the mass media, especially local county newspapers, as information sources. 129 Extension staff members need to carefully assess the public's as well as the clientele's programing needs to better tailor program offerings. This might be done during program reviews by surveying a random sample of the public coupled with a survey of past program participants. Several items in the questionnaire need to be rewritten or eliminated. The following two questions could be eliminated: Q. 28. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "Extension's mission (job or purpose) is to provide people with practical, research-based information." Q. 30. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The Cooperative Extension Service provides educational programs to bring research findings to the peOple of the United States." They are a rewording Of the following question: Q. 26. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The job of Extension is to get practical, university-tested information into the hands of people who need it." Question 48 would be rephrased to ask respondents their age, using census data categories. Also census data categories would be used for the question on family income. A revised survey instrument is included in Appendix E. Since this study involved only two Michigan counties, it is strongly suggested that a more comprehensive study be conducted. The second study should be statewide in scope, 130 with the sample population containing residents from each Michigan county, and following the methodology used in this study. A survey of Extension staff members should also be undertaken to assess their image of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The data from this study and the two suggested studies could then be compared for similarities and differences between how the public views Extension and how its members view the organization. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER SHEET AND SURVEY 131 ID # for office use only COVER SHEET Hello, my name is . I'm calling from Michigan State University in East Lansing. Here at MSU, we are working on a study for the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. First, I need to be sure that I dialed the right number. Is this ? (telephone number) 1. Yes 2. No . L———- END CONTACT WITH, E.G.: I'm sorry, I have the wrong number. (IF NOT CLEAR) Since this telephone number has been generated by a computer, I don't know whether this number is for a business or a home. Is this a business or home telephone? 1. Business 2. Home |T3. Both Does anyone live there on the premises? 1. Yes 2. No l END CONTACT Is there another phone number in the residence or is this number used for personal calls? 1. Have other] 2. Use this END CONTACT \) wk '4' As I said, we are conducting this study for Michigan State University's College of Agrnculture and Natural Resources. It's a survey of people randomly selected throughout Kent and Ottawa counties regarding an educational program. I What county do you live in? 1 - 1. Kent 2. Ottawa 3. Other (write in name of county) (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT LIVE IN KENT OR OTTAWA COUNTIES, END CONTACT WITH, E.G.: Thank you for your time. I'm sorry to have bothered you.) CONTINUE 2-2-2 cover sheet 132 I vunlld like to interview someone in your household. But first, let me assure you that your identity is and will remain anonymous. We are calling numbers that are generated by a computer. We don't have names. For'lnost people, the survey will take about fiVe to 10 minutes. Is this a convenient time for me to call? F———'" ‘ 1. Yes 2. NO I # Is there a day and time when I can call back? lfir 1. Yes 2. No (schedule day and time for recall) ()kay. In order to determine whom I need to interview, I'll need a listing of the Inembers of your household--not their names, just their sex, age and relationship to you. Let's start with you--how old are you? (IF UNCLEAR: Are you male or female?) Now I'd like the sex and age and relationship to you of each of the other members of your household who are 18 or older. relation to informant sex age eligible person number* informant *Number males first, in order of decreasing age. Number females in the same order. Selection table: CONTINUE 3-3-3 cover sheet 133 Now I'll use a selection procedure--I'm going to number the people in your household to determine who I need to interview--It will take just a second . . . Okay, I need to interview C(relation to informant) (IF NOT THE PERSON ON THE LINE) May I speak with (him/her)? 1. Yes 2. No When may I call back to reach (him/her)? So that I will know who to ask for, what is (his/her) name? (IF RESPONDENT OBJECTS TO PROVIDING NAME: We only need the person's first name, the last name isn't necessary.) (L Before we start, I would like to assure you that the interview is completely voluntary. If I ask a question that you don't want to answer, just let me know and we'll go on to the next question. START INTERVIEW RESPONDENT IS A: 2 - 1. Male 2. Female CONTINUE 4-4-4 cover sheet 134 CALL RECORD Primary numbers were called 10 times, if necessary. Secondary numbers were tried five different times. call number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 date time result code for recalls Abbreviations for result: Code for recalls: NA = no answer A = respondent not selected NH = not home B = respondent selected only NR = will return C = have talked with respondent REF = refused (give any instructions helpful IC = interview completed for interview) PIC = partially completed WN = wrong number DISC = disconnected CALL AND APPOINTMENT NOTES call number notes ' day/date time l. 4. 135 SURVEY Have you ever heard of the Cooperative Extension Service (Sometimes called the Extension Service or Extension)? 3 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NOt applicable 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension agriculture and marketing programs? (Extension agriculture and marketing programs refer to any aspect of crop and livestock production and marketing. This includes such things as lawn and garden care as well as farming.) 4 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension home economics programs or homemaker clubs? (Extension home economics programs and homemaker clubs refer to programs in areas like nutrition, clothing and textiles, family resource manage- ment, housing and home furnishings, and health.) 5 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension natural resources and public policy programs? (Extension natural resources and public policy programs refer to any aspect of forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation. This program area also includes the solution of oomnunity problems like the expansion of businesses and industry, taxation and the formation of local develop- ment organizations.) 6 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. ‘NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 136 Have you ever heard of 4-H youth programs? (4-H youth programs stress the development of young people through projects, activities and leadership development.) If yes to any of 4 7 - questions but pp to k 4-H question, go to ‘~-‘ question 8 . ~ . 6. Were you a 8.. 7. 9.. ‘V 1. 2. 7. 8. 9. NO If 92 to all 5 questions, go to question 46. Yes - If yes to 4-H A question, continue. NA Don't know Refused 4-H menber as a youth? 1. 2. 7. 8. 9. Have you ever 1. 2. 7. 8. 9 No Yes NA Don ' t know Refused been a 4-H leader or helper? NO Yes NA Don' t know Refused Have you personally ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension? 10- \OGDQNH No Yes NA Don ' t know Refused Have other merrbers of your family ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension? 11- 1. \oooqro No - If _ng to questions 8 and 9, go to question 46. Yes NA Don't know Refused LIf yg to question 8 or 9, continue.l 14. 15. 137 10. Did you or other members of your family contact or use Extension concerning: agriculture and marketing programs 12 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 11. Home economics programs 13 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 12. 4-H youth programs 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 13. Natural resources and public policy programs 15 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. ‘NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Within the past year, have you listened to a radio program conducted by Extension personnel? 16 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Within the past year, have you watched a television program conducted by Extension personnel? 17 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 138 16. Within the past year, have you received any written material (such as bulletins, newsletters, publications or correspondence courses) from Extension? 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 17. Within the past year, have you called an Extension telephone service for information? 19 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 18. Within the past year, have you attended a meeting or workshop conducted by Extension? 20 - 1. No -- If pp, continue with - next question. If yes, go to question l—— 2. Yes ' 25. 7. NA ' ' 8. Don't know 9. Refused 19. Which of the following statements describe why you have fl attended an Extension program? I will read each statement separately and ask you to respond "yes" or ”no. " You can identify more than one statement. I have not attended an Extension program because . . . (INTERVIEWER: REPEAT AS NECESSARY.) I don't know when and where Extension programs are offered in my comnunity. 21 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know ¢ 9. Refused 25. l 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 139 I've never seen or heard any publicity on what type of programs are offered by No Yes NA Don't know Refused I don't understand what Extension is all Extension. 22 — 10 2. 7. 8. 9. about. 23 - l. 2. 7. 8. 9. No Yes NA Don't know Refused I'm not interested in the program topics. 24 - 000qu No Yes NA Don't know Refused The programs are held at the wrong time. 25 - 1. NOCDQN No Yes NA Don't know Refused Extension doesn't offer programs in my community. 26 - 1. 2. 7. 8. 9. No Yes NA Don't know Refused Do you have an Extension Service office in your county? 27 - \OG’QNH o No Yes NA Don't know Refused 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 140 Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The job of Extension is to get practical, university-tested information into the hands of people who need it." 28 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The Cooperative Extension Service provides courses for credit and offers two- and foureyear degree programs in agriculture and natural resources.” 29 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "Extension's mission (job or purpose) is to provide people with practical, research-based information.” 30 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The ultimate goal of Extension is to conduct research that provides an anple food supply while preserving environmental quality and conserving resources.” 31 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The COOperative Extension Service provides educational programs to bring research findings to the people of the United States." 32 - . Disagree Agree Neither agree or disagree NA Don't know Refused \oooxzwwe C 31. 141 How do feel about this statement? "The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is primarily an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers Do you . . . and rural residents." 33 - Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree NA Don't know Refused \OmQUlubWNI-J 0 Next, I would like to ask you to rate some program topics. I would like you to tell me if Extension should give a slight, moderate, great, or very great important to the topic. The first topic is . . . 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Food production Human nutrition Ckmnmrfity'services and facilities Forest.nanagement Home gardening and lawn care Ybuth development Natural resources and environment Farm management Family life and personal develOpment Economic deve10pment 34 (Should a slight, moderate, 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 (INTERVIEWER: REPEAT QUESTION AS NECESSARY.) very slight moderate great ygreat NA DK RF - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 great or very great importance be given to . ) - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - l 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 - l 2 3 4 7 8 9 42. 43. 142 How do you feel about this statement? "CES should place first priority on agricultural production and marketing; second priority on 4-H youth ; third priority on hone economics, nutrition and family concerns; and fourth priority on conmunity and economic deve10pment and natural and environmental resources . " Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree NA Don' t know Refused 42a. IF THEY SHOULD VOLUNTEER A DIFFERENT LISTING OF PRIORITIES, PLEASE RECORD THEIR PREFERENCE. 1. 2. 3. 4. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "Michigan citizens have had _n_o input in determining the educational prograns offered by Extension." If disagree, continue 45 - 1. Disagree with next question. 2. Agree * 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 44. How much input do you think Michigan citizens have had in determining the programs offered by Extension? 46 - 10 \Omxluwa O None S 1 ight Moderate Great NA Don ' t know Refused 143 45. Are you satisfied with the Cooperative Extension Service in general? 47 - 1. 2. 003% :50) Dissatisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied I don't know enough about Extension to answer NA Don't know Refused I‘would now like to ask you a few questions for background purposes. No individual responses can be identified. 46. Were you raised on a farm, in a rural area but not on a farm, in a town of less than 50,000 people or in a city of 50,000 or more people? 48 - \Omflbwwh‘ 0 Farm Rural and nonfarm wan (less than 50,000) City (50,000+) NA Don't know Refused 47. Do you now live on a farm, in a rural area but not on a farm, in a town of less than 50,000 peOple or in a city of 50,000 or more peOple? 49 - \OmxlobUNl-J 0 Farm Rural and nonfarm Town (less than 50,000) City (50,000+) NA Don't know Refused 48. In what year were you born? (last two digits) TOT-1‘ 49. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 52 - \omxlwaI-d 0 Grade school High school College Graduate degree NA Don't know Refused 144 50. Are you currently employed? 53 - Employed Unemployed Retired HOmemaker Student NA Don't know Refused \DCIJ\lUlanUfoJl-m| O 51. Do you own or operate a farm? If no, go to I question 57. I 52. 53. 54. 55. 54 - 1. No 2. Yes - If es, continue with next question. 8. Don't know 9. Refused How many acres do you operate? (write in) 55 56 57 58 Did your gross farm sales exceed $20,000 in 1984? 59 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Is your operation primarily crop or livestock? 60 - 1. Crop 2. Livestock 3. Both 4. Other 7. NA 8 9 . Don't know . Refused In addition to farning, do you have an off— farm job? 61 - 1. No ‘ 2. Yes - If yes, continue. J 7. NA ' * 8 9 . Don't know . Refused 145 56. Is the job part-time or full-tine? 62 - 1. Part-time 2. Full-tine 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 57. Which one of the following groups do you consider yourself a member of? (INTERVIEWER: READ RESPONSE OPTIONS 1-6) 63 - White Black Hispanic (Puerto Rican, Mexican, ) American Indian Oriental Other NA Don't know Refused \OCDQONm-bUJNH O 58. Are you married, separated, divorced, widowed or have you never been married? 64 - Married Separated Divorced Widowed Never married NA Don ' t know Refused \DGDQUluhUJNH O 59. Finally, in 1984 was your total family income before taxes . . . (INTERVIEWER: READ RESPQ‘ISE OPTst 1-7) 65 - Under $5,000 $5 to $10,000 $10 to $20,000 $20 to $30,000 $30 to $40,000 $40 to $50,000 $50,000 or more Don't know Refused \OQQO‘UthONH 0 These are all the questions I have. Thank you very much for your time and your help with our research. APPENDIX B CLUSTER PACKET MI CHI GAN COOPERATI VE EXTENSION SERVI CE 1 4 6 CLUSTER SHEET (MCES) PAGE 1 CLUSTER NUMBER: 295 EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, .MI PRIMARY TELEPHONE NUMBER: 616/776-2591 PRIMARY ID#: 29500 PRIMARY TELEPHONE NUMBER RESULT: HOUSEHOLD NOT A HOUSEHOLD > DROP CLUSTER MAKE INITIAL COVER SHEETS CLUSTER SIZE: ID# 02 COVER R E s o L T 10# 02 TELEPHONE GENERATING SHEET NOT COVER SHEET ID# NUMBER COVER SHEET MADE HI'I HH GENERATED 29501 616/776-2504 1_> .__> 29502 616/776-2574 .__> .__> 29503 616/776-2507 ___>(__l ‘ > ,_.J __ 29504 616/776-2589 ._>‘_ ‘_ > 29505 616/776-2539 1—> 1—> 29506 616/776-2531 ___>___‘ ‘_—- .__> 29507 616/776-2552 _.> ‘ ,__, ._._> 1.. _. _.J 29503 616/776-2595 _> N ,__1 w_> 29509 616/776-2536 _.> ‘_‘ ___.> 29510 616/776-2516 ._> I fi_> 29511 616/776-2502 > .._.> 29512 616/776-2586 .__> _l_> MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (MCES) 147 CLUSTER SHEET PAGE 4 CLUSTER NUMBER: 295 EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER R E S U L T ID# OF TELEPHONE GENERATING SHEET NOT COVER SHEET Tog NUMBER COVER SHEET MADE HH HH GENERATED 29513 616/776-2535 _.> ,___> 29514 616/776-2556 »_> ._> 29515 616/776-2576 _..> ,__> 29516 616/776-2546 ._> _—> 29517 616/776—2513 1..) ._.> 29518 616/776-2526 .__> .._> 29519 616/776-2551 1_> - 1....» 29520' 616/776-2554 __> ,._> 29521 616/776-2569 ._> .__.> .__1, 29522 616/776-2538 > .._> ' 29523 616/776-2524 __> .._> 29524 616/776-2509 1—> 1—> 29525 616/776-2529 > ._> 29526 616/776—2562 1__> 1.....> 29527 616/776-2567 > __> 29528 616/776-2598 1—> .—> MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (MCES) 148 CLUSTER SHEET PAGE 3 CLUSTER NUMBER: 295 EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER R E s U L T ID# OF TELEPHONE GENERATING SHEET NOT COVER SHEET ID# NUMBER COVER SHEET MADE HH HH GENERATED 29529 616/776-2582 1..., ._> L_. 29530 616/776-2510 1—> 1—> . 29531 616/776-2570 ._> ._> 29532 616/776-2532 .__> > { 29533 616/776-2580 1_> _..> 1___), 29534 616/776-2517 r" ._> 29535 616/776-2540 _..> fi_> ‘—-) 29536 616/776-2533 .—> 1)——-> 29537 616/776-2545 w._..> flt_> - 1 29538 616/776-2557 ._..> 1__> 29539 616/776-2525 > F? fl.» 1L.— / NE! ‘— ‘— 29540 616 776-2593 1 > __> F— ..u LJ, 29541 616/776-2528 w._> __> 29542 616/776-2543 _...> __> 29543 616/776-2599 ~—> ~—> fi.—, 29544 616/776-2543 {-7 _J > CLUSTER ID# 29545 29546 29547 29548 29549 29550 29551 29552 29553 29554 29558 29559 29560 MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (MCES) NUMBER: 295 TELEPHONE NUMBER 616/776-2537 616/776-2563 616/776-2512 616/776-2542 616/776-2505 616/776-2515 616/776-2534 616/776-2585 616/776-2596 616/776-2575 616/776-2568 616/776-2556 616/776-2578 616/776-2590 616/776-2553 616/776-2503 —> ——> 1..__> ——> 1—> 1—> —-> —> -——> 1—> 1—> 149 CLUSTER SHEET ID# OF COVER GENERATING SHEET COVER SHEET MADE 1-—-> .__n 1——> —> 1—> L 1— .L—> Ill l l IIHJI HH | l EXCHANGE: R E S U L T NOT MB > -—T > —> 1——> ._J, 1—> —-—> ‘ 1——-> __J w—> 1 > __JT_ _> 1——> A 1—> -—-> 11-—> __> PAGE 4 GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER SHEET GENERATED CLUSTER ID# 29561 29562 29563 29564 29565 29566 29567 29568 29569 29570 29571 29572 29573 29574 29575 29576 MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (Mces) 150 CLUSTER SHEET NUMBER: 295 TELEPHONE NUMBER 616/776-2511 616/776-2559 616/776-2521 616/776-2523 616/776-2597 616/776-2514 616/776-2583 616/776-2541 616/776-2522 616/776-2579 616/776-2519 616/776-2560 616/776-2572 616/776-2549 616/776-2573 616/776-2564 ID# OF GENERATING COVER SHEET —-> .——> Ih—> 1-—> 1.__> <—> 1——> —> 1—> 1—> —> -—> —-> 1—> COVER SHEET MADE | l IEII R E S U L T HH NOT V ..._.> —> 1—> -——> 1——> 1h—> 1—> 1—> 1—--> | l 1—> 1—> I l 1——> ._—..> 1-—> PAGE 5 EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER SHEET GENERATED CLUSTER ID# 29577 29578 29579 29580 29581 29582 29583 29584 29585 29586 29587 29588 29589 29590 29591 29592 MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (MCES) 151 CLUSTER SHEET NUMBER: 295 TELEPHONE NUMBER 616/776-2594 616/776-2561 616/776-2571 616/776-2501 616/776-2555 616/776-2508 616/776*2550 616/776-2520 616/776-2500 616/776-2506 616/776-2592 616/776-2588 616/776-2587 616/776n2565 616/776-2516 616/776-2577 PAGE 6 EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER R E S U L T ID# OF GENERATING SHEET NOT COVER SHEET COVER SHEET MADE HH GENERATED ——> 1——> u——-> 1—> -—> 1——> __> -——> <——-> 1——> 1——> 1-—-> ._> 1——> > > ——> .__> ,——> »——o -——> 1—> <1-—> 1—> 1—> 1-—> CLUSTER ID# 29593 29594 29595 29596 29597 29598 29599 MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (MCES) 152 NUMBER: 295 TELEPHONE NUMBER 616/776-2547 616/776-2581 616/776-2544 616/776-2566 616/776-2530 616/776-2584 616/776-2527 GENERATING COVER SHEET CLUSTER SHEET COVER SHEET MADE R E S U L T NOT PAGE EXCHANGE: GRAND RPDS, MI ID# OF COVER SHEET GENERATED ..___> 1—-> 1——> ..___> 1—> ——> 1——> 1——> —> .__> ,._> 1——> 1—> APPENDIX C RESPONDENT SELECTION TABLES Table Bl B2 E1 E2 153 RESPONDENT SELECTION TABLES If number eligible is: Interview person: mUl-bWNH GUTIbUJNl-d OSU'I-hLRJNH mmfile-d (JNU'11>LAJI\Jl--| GUI-hulk)!“ mmwaI-A or or or or or or or more more more more more more more unnnawraei EONJNFJF‘H mawraeaera eraeuueae bbWNNH U'lUlIb-UJNH UTUJUJCUNH 154 Table If number eligible is: Interview person: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ONUTDUJNH or more APPENDIX D RESPONDENT-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES FOR EXTENSION PROGRAMS 155 now u zv 11 e.m 6.05 o.oe H.0H Dcoemon>mo unaccoom unosooHo>oo m.H G.HH o.me a.mm m.m Hmcomuon cam moan Ransom 11 ~.mm m.mv 0.5m m.m unosomonoe Euom unoEnoufl>no 5.H o.mm 5.05 «.mm 11 can moousomou Housumz 11 m.a~ m.55 ~.m~ v.5 DEEEAOH6>EG nose» OHMO m.n m.on v.om m.e5 H.0H Egan oco acfiaooumm oeon m.m a.mn m.mm m.em G.HH Dcoaomonoe Dmouom mononnnooo m.a o.ma o.~5 m.5m e.m ocm moon>oom moncseaoo 11 m.em a.mo e.m 11 :oHoHuDBE aoesm 11 m.mm a.mm 6.ea 11 conooaooom Goon 3onx u.noo nooum muo> uooum onouocoe unmenm oemou eonmonm mneuoOAUnH unoouom meoumoum noHnnouxm Mom moHanoaum ooflmeunocHlunocnommom .mm oHnoe APPENDIX E REVISED SURVEY l. 3. 4. 156 SURVEY Have you ever heard of the Cooperative Extension Service (Sometimes called the Extension Service or Extension)? 3 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. Net applicable 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension agriculture and marketing programs? (Extension agriculture and marketing programs refer to any aspect of crop and livestock production and marketing. This includes SUCh things as, lawn and garden care as well as farming.) 4 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension home economics programs or homemaker clubs? (Extension home economics programs and homemaker clubs refer to programs in areas like nutrition, clothing and textiles, family resource manage- ment, housing and home furnishings, and health.) 5 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Have you ever heard of Extension natural resources and public policy programs? (Extension natural resources and public policy programs refer to any aspect of forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation. This program area also includes the solution of community problems like the expansion of businesses and industry, taxation and the formation of local develop- ment organizations.) 6 - 1. NO 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 157 Have you ever heard of 4-H youth programs? (42H youth programs stress the development of young peeple through projects, activities and leadership development.) If y__ to any of 4 questions but no to _~ 4¥H question, go to question 8. 1) 7 - 1. No - If gg_to all 5 questions, go to question 44. 2. Yes -— If yes to 4-H _ question, continue. NA Don't know Refused 6. Were you a 4-H member as a youth? 8— \DQQNH o No Yes NA Don't know Refused 7. Have you ever been a 4—H leader or helper? 9- 1000qu O No Yes NA Don't know Refused Have you personally ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension? NC Yes NA Don't know Refused Have other members of your family ever contacted an Extension agent or used the services of Extension? 11 - 1. \OGQN o No - If p9_to questions 8 and 9, go to question 44. Yes NA Don't know Refused If ye§_to question 8 or 9, continue. 14. 158 10. Did you or other members of your family contact or use Extension concerning: agriculture and marketing programs 12 - . No . Yes . NA . Don't know . Refused \OCDQNH 11. Home economics programs 13 - . No . Yes . NA . Don't know . Refused LDQQNH 12. 4—H youth programs 14 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 13. Natural resources and public policy programs 15 - No YES NA Don't know Refused \OmQNI-P 0 Within the past year, have you listened to a radio program conducted by Extension personnel? 16 - . No YES NA Don't know Refused \OQQNH 0 Within the past year, have you watched a television program conducted by Extension personnel? 17 - No Yes NA Don't know Refused 0(9qu 0 16. 17. 18. 159 Within the past year, have you received any written material (such as bulletins, newsletters, publications or correspondence courses) from Extension? 18 - 1. No Yes NA Don't know Refused Within the past year, have you called an Extension telephone service for information? 19 - 1. No Yes NA Don't know Refused Within the past year, have you attended a meeting or workshop conducted by Extension? 20 - lo If yes, go to question 25. t—— 2. 7. . 8. 9. 19. Which of program? "no.” ,, 9. No - If p9, continue with next question. Yes ‘ NA Don't know Refused the following statements describe why you have not attended an Extension I will read each statement separately and ask you to respond "yes" or You can identify more than one statement. I have not attended an Extension program because . . . (INTERVIEWER: REPEAT AS I don't knOW'when and where Extension are offered in my community. No Yes NA Don't know Refused NECESSARY.) Programs 21 - 10 2. 7. 8. 25. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. (L 159 I've never seen or heard any publicity on what type of programs are offered by Extension. 22 - . No . Yes NA . Don't know . Refused \OCDKJNH O I don't understand what Extension is all about. 23 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused I'm not interested in the program topics. 24 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused The programs are held at the wrong time. 25 - 1. No . Yes . NA . Don't know . Refused \oooxno Extension doesn't offer programs in my community. 26 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you have an Extension Service office in your county? 27 - 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 26. 27. 28. 29. 160 Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The jOb of Extension is to get practical, university-tested information into the hands of peOple who need it." 28 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The Cooperative Extension Service provides courses for credit and offers two~ and foureyear degree programs in agriculture and natural resources.“ 29 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "The ultimate goal of Extension is to conduct research that provides an anple food supply while preserving environmental quality and conserving resources.” 30 - 1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. ‘NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused HOW do feel about this statement? "The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is primarily an agricultural agency designed to assist farmers and rural residents." Do you . . . 31 - Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree NA Don't know Refused meU'IDbLA-INH o 161 Next, I would like to ask you to rate some program topics. I would like you to tell me if Extension should give a slight, moderate, great, or very great important to the topic. (INTERVIEWER: REPEAT QUESTION AS NECESSARY.) The first topic is . . . very slight moderate great great NA DK RF 30. Food production 32 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 (Should a slight, moderate, great or very great importance be given to . 31. Human nutrition 33 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 32 . Comnunity services 34 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 and facilities 33. Forest management 35 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 34. Heme gardening and 36 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 lawn care 35. YOuth development 37 — 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 36. Natural resources 38 — 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 and environment 37. Farm management 39 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 38. Family life and 40 - 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 personal development 39. Economic development 41 - l 2 3 4 7 8 9 40. How do you feel about this statement? "CES should place first priority on agricultural production and marketing; second priority on 4-H youth; third priority on home economics, nutrition and family concerns; and fourth priority on.connunity and economic development and natural and environmental resources.” 42 - Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree NA Don't know Refused \OWQU‘IDWNH O [I D in. O I. 162 41. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "Michigan citizens have had 29 input in determining the educational programs offered by Extension." [If disaggee, continue J 43 - 1. Disagree with next question. 2. Agree ' 3. Neither agree or disagree 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 42. How much input do you think Michigan citizens have had in determining the programs offered by Extension? 44 - 1. NOne 2. Slight 3. Moderate 4. Great 7. NA 8. Don't know 9 . Refused 43. Are you satisfied with the Cooperative Extension Service in general? 45 - 1. Dissatisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 4. I don't know enough about Extension to answer 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused I would now like to ask you a few questions for background purposes. No individual responses can be identified. 44. Do you now live on a farm, in a rural area but not on a farm, in a town of less than 50,000 people or in a city of 50,000 or more people? 2. Rural and nonfarm 3. Town (less than 10,000) 4. Suburb 5. City (50,000+) 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 163 45. What is your present age? 47 - l. 18 - 24 years old 2. 25 — 29 years 3. 30 - 39 years 4. 4O - 49 years 5. 50 - 59 years 6. 60 - 64 years 7. 65 and over 8. Don't know 9. Refused 46. What is the highest grade that you have completed in school? 48 - Grade school Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate degree NA Don't know Refused \DCDQO‘U‘TIBUNH O 47. Are you currently employed? 49 - Employed Unemployed Retired HOmemaker Student NA Don't know Refused NomQU'lthJNH O 48. Do you own or Operate a farm? _Ifno,goto' 50-1. No , ’ question 54. 2. Yes - If yes, continue with next question. 7 8. Don't know 9. Refused 164 49. How many acres do you operate? 51 - 1. Less than 50 acres 2. 50 - 99 acres 3. 100 - 249 acres 4. 250 - 499 acres 5. 500 - 999 acres 6. More than 1,000 acres 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 50. Did your gross farm sales exceed $20,000 in 1984? 52 — 1. No 2. Yes 7. NA 8. Don't know 9. Refused 51. Is your operation primarily crop or livestock? 53 - . crop Livestock Both Other . ‘NA . Don't know . Refused \OmQIbUJNl-A O 52. In addition to farming, do you have an off- farm job? If pp, go to I 54 - 1. No [question 54. J 2. Yes - If yes, continue. 7. NA ' 8. Don't know 9. Refused 53. Is the jOb part—time or full-time? . Part—time . Full-time . NA . Don't know . Refused 55 - \OCDQNH . . 165 54. Which one of the following groups do you consider yourself a member of? (INTERVIEWER: READ RESPONSE OPTIONS 1-6) 56 - 'White Black Hispanic (Puerto Rican, Mexican, ) American Indian Oriental Other NA Don't know Refused ®m\J@WIbWNH O 55. Are you married, separated, divorced, widowed or have you never been married? 57 - Married Separated Divorced Widowed Never married NA Don't know Refused \oooqmanI-b O 56. Finally, in 1984 was your total family income before taxes . . . (INTERVIEWER: READ RESPONSE OPTIONS 1-7) 58 - 1. Under $5,000 2. $5 to $10,000 3. $10 to $20,000 . $20 to $25,000 . $25 to $35,000 . $35 to $50,000 $50,000 or more . Don't know . Refused \OQQO‘U’lh These are all the questions I have. Thank you very much for your time and your help with our research. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, James H. "The Integration of Teaching, Research and Extension in a Global Setting.” In Issues Facing Agriculture and Implications for Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture. Proceedings of a workshop for deans and directors in the North Central Region. Chicago, Ill., n.p., October 1985. Awa, Njoku E., and VanCrowder, L., Jr. ”How Extension Stacks Up," Journal of Extension 16 (March/April 1978): 19-25. Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1983. Bagozzi, Richard P. "Marketing as Exchange." In Marketing Management and Strategy; A Reader, pp. 49-58. Edited by Philip Kotler and Keith Cox. Revised edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. Beale, Lucrece. People to People: The Role of State and Land-Grant Universities in Modern America. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Information, National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges, no date. Benson, Sharon. R.L. Polk & Company. Telephone conversation, 29 May 1985. Berg, Herbert A. The State of Michigan and the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1965. Blackburn, Donald J., and Vist, Diane L. “Historical Roots and Philosophy of Extension." In Extension Handbook, pp. 1-10. Edited by Donald J. Blackburn. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, 1984. Bonnen, James T. ”Technology, Human Capital and Institutions: Three Factors in Search of an Agricultural Research Strategy." Paper prepared for the binational conference on U.S.-Mexico agriculture and rural development. Cocoyoc, Mexico, 1982. 166 .3 ED I “EU 3c 1'9 167 Boone, Edgar J. "The Cooperative Extension Service.“ In Handbook of Adult Education. Edited by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker and James R. Kidd. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1970. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Image. New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1962. Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Longman, Inc., 1983. Boulding, Kenneth E. The Image. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 1956. Boyle, Patrick G. "Tension and Change: Extending the University.” Paper presented at the national meeting of the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education, Philadelphia, Penn., November 1983. Brown, Sheila A. ”Marketing Extension Programs." In Extension Handbook, pp. 141-149. Edited by Donald J. Blackburn. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, 1984. Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1979. Cornett, Elgin M. 'A Study of Public Concepts Related to the Role of Cooperative Extension Service.” M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1958. Cosner, Barney L., and Key, James P. "Does the Public Know?” Journal of Extension 19 (November/December 1981): 19-23 0 Coward, Raymond T. "Greater Awareness-~Extension's Key to Program Success,” Journal of Extension 16 (September/ October 1978): 11-17. Cunningham, William H., and Cunningham, Isabella C.M. Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., 1981. Dick, Robert N. "Watch Your Stereotype,” Continuum 43 (March 1979): 29. Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978. 168 Drucker, Peter F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. The Cooperative Extension Service . . . Today. 1958. Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Challenge and Change . . . A Blueprint for the Future--Extension Service, USDA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Fine, Seymour H. "Strategic Planning in the Marketing of a Government Program.“ In Cases and Readings for Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, pp. 61-72. Edited by Philip Kotler, O.C. Ferrell and Charles Lamb. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. Forest, Laverne B., and Eriksson, Karen R. Extension in the '805 Surveys: Major Findings and Implications. Madison, Wis.: n.p., 1984. Freeh, LaVern A. ”Public Relations--What, Why and Wow!" Journal of Extension 16 (November/December 1978): 9-14 0 Gross, John G. ”Farmers' Attitudes Toward Extension,” Journal of Extension 15 (March/April 1977): 13-19. Groves, Robert M. "An Empirical Comparison of Two Telephone Sample Designs,“ Journal of Marketing Research 15 (November 1978): . Hazlitt, James R. "A Study Indicating the Future Direction of the COOperative Extension Service in Order to Meet the Problems and Needs of the People.” M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1961. Heeringa, Steven G. University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Memorandum, 9 September 1985. Houston, Franklin 8., and Homans, Richard E. “Public Agency Marketing: Pitfalls and Problems,“ MSU Business Topics 25 (Summer 1977): 36—40. Jennings, Jo Lynn. ”Arkansas Residents' Perception of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1983. Kantner, David L. "How Agents and Clients View Programs," Journal of Extension 20 (May/June 1982): 4-9. 169 Karr, Albert R. "Reagan's Plan to Cut Extension Service Brings Storm of Protest in Farm Areas." Wall Street Journal, 21 February 1986, sec. 2, p. 42. Kelsey, L.D., and Hearne, C.C. CooPerative Extension Work. 3rd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock Publishing Associates, 1963. Kindinger, Paul E. "An Analysis of Communications Patterns and Technology for State Extension Specialists--A Marketing Approach." M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1971. Kinnear, Thomas C., and Taylor, James R. Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983. Kish, Leslie. "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection Within the Household,” American Statistical Association Journal 44 (September 1949): 380-387. Kotler, Philip. Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982. Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976. Kotler, Philip. Principles of Marketing. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. Kotler, Philip; Ferrell, O.C.; and Lamb, Charles. Cases and Readings for Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. Kotler, Philip, and Levy, Sidney J. ”Broadening the Concept of Marketing." In Cases and Readings for Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, pp. 3-10. Edited by Philip Kotler, O.C. Ferrell and Charles Lamb. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. Knowles, Malcolm S. A History of the Adult Education Movement in the United States. Revised edition. Huntington, N.Y.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. Kratchenberg, A.R. "Bringing the Concept of Marketing to Higher Education,“ Journal of Higher Education 43 (May 1972): 369-380. 170 Local Volunteers and Cooperative Extension Agents: Partners in Action. A report from the national study of the implications of volunteerism in the Cooperative Extension Service. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984. Lovelock, Christopher H., and Weinberg, Charles B. Marketipg for Public and Nopprofit Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984. Matthews, Joseph L. ”The Cooperative Extension Service." In Handbook of Adult Education in the United States, pp. 218—229. Edited by Malcolm S. Knowles. Washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1960. Matthews, Joseph L. "The Cooperative Extension Service of the United States." In Rural Social Systems and Adult Education, pp. 51-80. Edited by J. Allan Beegle. Baltimore, Md.: Waverly Press, Inc., 1953. McCarthy, E. Jerome, and Perreault, William D., Jr. Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood, III.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1984. Miller, David J. ”So That He Who Runs May Read“. Columbia, Mo.: Agriculture Communication & Training Systems, 1984. Miller, Grant J. “Images, Meaning and Organizational Names.” M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1973. Morrill Act. U.S. Code, vol. 2 (1862). Oren, John William, Jr. "An Appraisal by Clientele of the Ohio C00perative Extension Service.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1970. Prawl, Warren; Medlin, Roger; and Gross, John. Adult and Continuing Education Through the Cooperative Extension Service. Columbia, Mo.: University Printing Services, 1984. Ratchford, C. Brice. “Extension: Unchanging, But Changing," Journal of Extension 22 (September/October 1984): 8-15. Reynolds, Paul D., and Sponaugle, G.C. A Guide to Survey Research: How to Plan a Survey, Estimate Costs, and Use a Survey Research Service. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 1982. 171 Shapiro, Benson P. "Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations," Harvard Business Review 51 (September-October 1973): 123-132. Smith, Keith L., and Kahler, Alan A. ”Iowa Adult Farmers' Perception of the Value of Educational Programs," The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture 23 (November 1982): 41-50. Smith—Lever Act. U.S. Code, vol. 2 (1914). Thurow, Lester C. "A World Class Economy: Getting Back," Technology Review (August/September 1985): TOpor, Bob. Marketing Cooperative Extension: A Practical Guide for County Board Members, Coordinators, Program Leaders, Agents and Volunteers. Cornell Cooperative Extension Service, 1983. True, Alfred C. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States, 1785-1925. United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 36. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1929. U.S., Congress. House. Food Securipy Act of 1985. H.R. 2100, 99th Cong., lst sess., 1985. United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration--Extension. Evaluation of Economic and Social Consequences of C00perative Extension Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1980. Vol. 1, Number of Inhabitants, pt. 24, Michigan. USDA-NASULGC Joint Committee. A People and a Spirit. Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State University, 1968. USDA-NASULGC Joint Committee on the Future of Cooperative Extension. Extension in the '805: A Perspective for the Future of the Cooperative Extension Service. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Program Development and Evaluation of the Cooperative Extension Service, 1983. VandeBerg, Gale L. The Cooperative Extension Service in Transition. A Report of the National Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin--Extension, 1979. 172 Warner, Paul D. "The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment.” Paper presented at the Symposium on Research Needs for Extension Education. Columbus, Ohio, May 1985. Warner, Paul D., and Christenson, James A. "Looking Beyond Extension Stereotypes," Journal of Extension 21 (September/October 1983): 27-33. Warner, Paul D., and Christenson, James A. The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, Inc., 1984. Wright, Karl T. A Comparison of Farm Sizes in Michigan. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service, 1983.