.
,4.
_~

. “a.
W“... .f
l, ".41... .
mg 3

. .?

Y: .
‘mfia
’1

M

am}
.a
s

.5. r.

wwwmumvwfin _.fi...: .
higéz: «NY

A . .

_. aw.» and"...
fa.
2»

 

 

LL 4

. . .53
P

 

 

 

 

 

, m. s a
way . wanna,
. a “1‘:

. .x
. J:

n...

It...

5.... w

:MM .9

r
i. , {2.1.

manumavg
.

3?? F
3.3mm

n

.93. ,
£395.
.a .u, 4,.

‘

. . 2:. .95. _
Maw“ 3:335? .
.r “2.3. a

. a!
.1 I
. .. a. a. t .I
a 3...! 3.1.1.1

is 2

.

Jx} 2!.
In. , V

. ‘\).
Anni“;
. it“.

. a. .3 h
...?..~...l..~ I
anfii
, .

2:: EL.
4 ”2:3...

. «lb...

. .V L
a... “Jun. 3%,...
.» niiu. . . #L.-i‘..V-.v.

{3&1 . U. _ . A. 59‘. .
gammfififi.
.2 (Li... y . .\ .

wd;%.t..urs

. .T.A .

 

 

 

THESIS

ZLCi

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

DIFFUSING AMONG THE PEOPLE: WHAT DO MICHIGAN
RESIDENTS KNOW ABOUT THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO
THEM THROUGH THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

EXTENS ION?
presented by

LAURA KATHLEEN PROBYN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S . degree in Resource Development

 

 

:ZEizgg 2 . AW

Major professor

Date —-Beeember—+4—,—2666

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE iN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
MARC? D {20022
. new i 25:13

Wivem

NOW, 9514 @0338

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chlRC/DaioOuepGS—p.“

DIFFUSING AMONG THE PEOPLE: WHAT DO MICHIGAN RESIDENTS KNOW
ABOUT THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE THROUGH MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION?

By

Laura Kathleen Probyn

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

2000

ABSTRACT
DIFFUSING AMONG THE PEOPLE: WHAT DO MICHIGAN RESIDENTS KNOW
ABOUT THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE THROUGH MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION?
By

Laura Kathleen Probyn

Michigan’s Cooperative Extension Service, now called Michigan State University
Extension, has a long history of serving the state’s residents, especially in agricultural and
rural program areas. Today’s Extension service works to “help people help themselves”
through programs aimed at meeting the needs of urban, suburban and rural residents from
Lawrence to Lansing and L’Anse. But what do the state’s residents know about the
programs that are offered through this organization? This thesis looks at other awareness
surveys related to Cooperative Extension and uses the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the results of the MSU Extension Market Assessment Survey,
a statewide telephone survey conducted to explore what Michigan residents know about
MSU Extension and its main programming areas. Responses were analyzed according to
respondents’ ages, education levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, region of the state and
type of community of residence. Analysis showed just over 50 percent awareness of MSU
Extension among Michigan residents, with wider awareness among older, white and rural
residents. Awareness of MSU Extension programs did not follow this trend. This study
will provide information for Extension administrators and educators in planning future

programming and marketing efforts.

DEDICATION

This paper and the degree that it completes are dedicated to my grandparents, William
and Clara Behrman and Douglas and Louise Probyn

“I well remember vehement discussions whether the pen is mightier than the sword, but I
never heard a debate on the plow, which is really mightier than either. ”

«Liberty Hyde Bailey, another Van Buren County native

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper and degree would never have been completed without the support of
my committee. Joanne Beckwith offered valuable input, Murari Suvedi championed my
graduate school career from its beginning, and my advisor, Rene Rosenbaum, strongly
supported my work through completion of this paper.

Thanks to Dean Solomon and the entire staff of the KBS Land and Water Program
for the professional and moral support through my program and the completion of this
paper. Diane Donham and Melissa Yost of the Morofsky Memorial Library were
perpetually helpful in providing books, papers and reference materials. A host of others
from across the Kellogg Biological Station made me laugh and eat chocolate when I
needed .it most. Thanks for the study breaks, Harvey Liss.

Special thanks to my parents, Ernie and Kay Probyn, who not only told me I could
do anything but made me believe it.

I will never adequately thank my husband Bill Daron for his patience and

unlimited understanding through this entire program.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ......................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations .................................................... ix
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... A ............................................ 1
1.1 Problem Statement ........................................... l
1.2 Background to the Problem .................................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Objectives ........................................ 5
1.4 Study Plan ................................................. 6
1.5 Need for the Study ........................................... 7
1.6 Study Limitations ............................................ 9
Chapter 2 -- Literature Review ............................................ 11
2.1 Purpose of Literature Review ................................. 11
2.2 Review of Literature ........................................ 11
2.3 Summary of Principal Findings from Literature Review ............. 17
2.4 Conclusion ............................................... l 7
Chapter 3 - Methodology ................................................ 19
3.1 Questions from the Literature ................................. 19
3 .2 Database Development ...................................... 20
3.3 Data Collection ............................................ 21
3.4 Population Characteristics .................................... 21
3 .5 Stratification ............................................... 2 l
3.6 Sampling ................................................. 22
3.7 Sample Weights ............................................ 23
3.8 Data Analysis .............................................. 25
Chapter 4-- Outcomes ................................................... 26
4. 1 Introduction ............................................... 26
4.2 Characteristics of Respondents ................................ 28
4.3 Local Issues and Sources of Assistance .......................... 29
4.4.0 Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and its Programs . . 35
4.4.1 Awareness of MSU Extension ................................. 35
4.4.2 Awareness of Community and Economic Development Program ..... 41
4.4.3 Awareness of 4-H Youth Programs ............................. 42

V

4.4.4 Awareness of Family Strengths Program ......................... 44

4.4.5 Awareness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program .......... 45
4.5.0 Nature of Participation in MSU Extension Programs by Region ...... 47
4.5.1 MSU Extension Participant Satisfaction by Region ................ 51
4.6 Conclusions on Awareness and Participation in MSU Extension ...... 52
Chapter 5 - Conclusion and Recommendations ............................... 55
5.1 . Summary of Findings ........................................ 55
5.2 Conclusions and Implications ................................. 56
5.3 Recommendations for Further Study ............................ 61
Appendix ................................... S .......................... 64
Bibliography ........................................................... 74

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Five most important problems facing respondents’ communities. .......... 29
Table 2. Five most often stated sources of help to stated community problem . ....... 30

Table 3. Five most commonly stated natural resource or environmental problems facing
respondents’ communities .......................................... 31

Table 4. Five most commonly mentioned sources of help for stated natural resource or

environmental problem ............................................ 31
Table 5. Five most commonly stated problems facing children and youths .......... 32
Table 6. Sources of help to problem facing children and youth ................... 33
Table 7. Five most-stated problems facing farmers ............................. 33
Table 8. Five most frequently mentioned sources of help for farm problem .......... 34

Table 9. Percent of responses that mentioned MSU as a source of help for problems in
questions X2C, MlA, X4C, and WA ................................. 35

Table 10. Awareness of MSU Extension and its main programming areas by Michigan
region ........................................................... 36

Table 11. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, Agriculture and Natural
Resources Program by age category ................................... 37

Table 12. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural
Resources Program by respondents’ racial backgrounds .................... 38

Table 13. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development

Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, Agriculture and Natural
Resources Program by respondents of Hispanic background. ............... 38

vii

Table 14. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural
Resources Program by community type ................................. 39

Table 15. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural

Resources Program by education level ................................. 40
Table 16. Participation in MSUE and use of MSUE educational materials, by MSUE

Region, during the past year. ........................................ 48
Table 17. MSUE notice in media and contact with MSUE educators by region ....... 49

Table 18. Rating of MSU Extension services by respondents with contact during
previous 12 months. ............................................... 51

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MSUE Michigan State University Extension

CES Cooperative Extension Service

IPPSR Institute for Public Policy and Social Research

ix

Chapter I - Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) is in the process of developing a
marketing plan for its programs and activities. One of the plan’s objectives is to achieve
80 percent awareness of MSUE and its programs among all Michigan residents. But there
are no current studies addressing Michiganians’ awareness of MSU Extension and its
programs to know where the organization stands in relation to this goal.

This paper offers a study of what Michigan residents know about MSU Extension
and its programs. It uses the MSUE Market Assessment Survey, which was designed by
MSU Extension and administered by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research
(IPPSR) in the summer of 2000. It includes analysis of survey respondents’ characteristics
and how they relate to awareness of MSUE and its programmatic areas. The study will
generate information useful to Extension in developing a statewide marketing plan and
lays the groundwork for further studies that might lead to consideration of resource
reallocation and possible changes in program direction. The research findings also
contribute to the literature on public awareness of the Cooperative Extension Service
(CES) and its programs. It serves to confirm or disconfirm whether previous research
findings on how much residents in other states and at the national level know about the

Cooperative Extension Service and its programs is also true in Michigan.

1.2 Background to the Problem
The United States Congress initiated the Cooperative Extension Service more

than 85 years ago in 1914 with the passing of the Smith-Lever Act. It was the
-1-

- continuation of a process begun in 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the
Morrill Act, which mandated that every state set aside [and for use in educating citizens,
especially rural residents in “agriculture and the mechanical arts” (Drabenstott, 1999).

When Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, 80 percent of the nation’s people lived in
rural areas and more than half lived on farms. Though a rural population decline was on
the horizon, following closely on the heels of a burgeoning industrial revolution, the rate
of exodus from agriculture was not rapid. At the onset of World War II, the rural
population was still 44 percent, with the farm population about 25 percent (Drabenstott,
1999).

The Extension system was set up for “diffusing among the people of the United
States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home
economics, and to encourage the application of the same” (Rassmussen, 1989, pg. 223).
This would be accomplished through research conducted by the Land Grant universities
in an educational system jointly supported by the county, state and federal govemmentu
hence the name “Cooperative”.

Through the years Extension’s role has grown and expanded, as has the US.
population. By 1940 4-H Programs were being established to serve youths in urban areas
(Rasmussen, 1989), and in 1953 the Smith-Lever Act was amended with language that
broadened Extension’s subject matter to include “agriculture, home economics, and rural
energy, and subjects relating thereto” (Terry, 1995). Much later (1988), the Cooperative
Extension System further broadened its scope by adopting this mission statement:

The Cooperative Extension System helps people improve their lives

through an educational process which uses scientific knowledge focused
on issues and needs (Rasmussen, 1989, pg. 223).

 

 

From its earliest role extending agricultural, homemaking and youth development
education to a primarily rural America, Extension’s mission was far beyond
demonstrating and diffusing simple technical skills. Rather, it sought to improve the
quality of people’s lives by contributing to their development through education
(Encyclopedia of Agricultural Science, 1994). To this end, language in the Smith-Lever
Act directly refers to serving “the people of the United States” (Rasmussen, 1989).

Today’s Extension Service not only provides traditional programs and services to
farmers, gardeners and homemakers, but also features community development programs
for cities and towns, nutrition programs for low-income families and 4-H activities
focused on such topics as careers, communication and character.

And while Extension has a long-held reputation for providing socially valuable,
research-based information to improve rural communities (Terry, 1995), its agents have
also expanded their roles to include such skills as facilitating dialogue and identifying
issues pertinent to communities of all sizes. Agents conduct work on these issues at and
through the community level and relay them to university-based researchers for further
study.

In Michigan, the Cooperative Extension Service has grown and changed, taking
the name Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and modifying its programming
scope. Today’s MSUE offers county based information in three primary areas: 1)
agriculture and natural resources; 2) children, youth and families; and 3) community and
economic development.

Agriculture and Natural Resources specialists and agents work across the state to
extend research knowledge generated by MSU scientists to meet the needs of Michigan’s

diverse agricultural industry. Planning efforts with industry and commodity
-3-

representatives resulted in identification of four areas of emphasis for focus by Extension
educators in agriculture and natural resources: Integrated pest management, animal
management, waste management and the marketing of Michigan agricultural products
(Michigan State University Extension World Wide Web page, 1999).

Educators in the Children, Youth and Family Program focus on the connections
people have with the environment, individuals and their communities. Specialists and
agents in this area help people work to improve their lives by focusing on three general
topic areas. These areas are family strengths and home economics, food, nutrition and
health, and youth development through 4-H Youth Programs.

Educators working in the Community and Economic Development Program assist
individuals, local officials, businesses and others to enhance Michigan communities.
They provide training programs and educational opportunities for municipalities,
agencies, industries and other businesses of all sizes.

Just as society itself faces changes and challenges, MSU Extension must
continually work to ensure that it is striving to help all citizens meet their needs within its
programming areas. Michigan State University, the nation’s first Land-Grant institution,
has been active in expanding its programs and staff expertise to meet citizens’ ever-
changing needs.

In 1992 the organization undertook a statewide issue identification process to
determine what residents saw as the most pressing needs and challenges facing their
communities. The outcome of this effort led to new educational efforts via area of
expertise teams that include campus-based researchers, county based educators and client
group members. These teams are charged with providing topic-specific information that

continues to reflect audience needs (Suvedi, Lapinski, Carnpo, 1999).
.4-

Just as it has done since its inception early in the last century, MSUE works to
extend the resources of Michigan State University research to help meet the needs of the
state’s citizens. While it was initially grounded in agriculture and rural home economics,
today’s MSUE seeks to identify and help citizens meet needs related to its programming
areas-whether these citizens are rural or urban, young or old, regardless of race,
education or income. But what do citizens know about the resources and programs MSU

Extension offers them?

1.3 Purpose and Objectives

No known previous studies have examined what adult Michigan residents know
about MSU Extension or: how many of them have taken part in any of the organization’s
various educational opportunities. This paper will look at citizens’ awareness of the
organization and compare awareness levels based on where respondents live in the state
(region) and the type of community they inhabit.

Literature including national other states’ studies of awareness of Extension will
be examined. Data generated from this study will be compared to other studies to
determine how Michigan residents’ awareness levels compare to other states’ findings.

In terms of respondents’ demographic information, this paper will use statistical
means (averages) to describe respondents awareness and uses with relation to racial
backgrounds, ages, and education levels. It will look for possibly statistically significant

relationships between awareness, or lack of awareness, and these categories.

Extension has a long tradition of serving rural and agricultural audiences, yet
recent program foci have included urban and suburban audiences. This paper will
examine, by looking at statistical averages, whether there are higher awareness and use
levels among traditional audiences (primarily rural and Caucasian) or whether there are
similar results among residents regardless of residential community, or racial background.

The results presented in this paper will give the MSU Extension educator, whether
he/she is located in a county ofiice or in MSU’s Agriculture Hall, a base of information
about what the state’s residents know about the system and its programs.

This information has one use for building an effective statewide marketing
initiative to alert residents to the resources available to them. It will also have use by
Extension administrators and educators who want to better understanding their existing
bases of support, where knowledge of program availability might be lacking, and how
they might best use their strengths and skills to gain awareness among new audiences to
better help meet residents’ needs.

It will also open the door to suggestions for future research that might include a
longitudinal study that will gauge residents’ awareness of MSUE through time and
studies that not only look at awareness of Extension, but perceived public value of the

organization and its program.

1.4 Study Plan

The MSUE Market Assessment Survey is a telephone survey conducted with
residents across the state, from a variety of age (adults 18 years old and older),
educational, race, income and geographic (urban to rural) groups. The survey questions

were designed to assess respondents’ knowledge of MSU Extension, its programs and
-6-

products. This paper will analyze the data collected and report results. MSUE
administrators and educators will use this data as baseline information about residents’
knowledge as it develops a marketing plan for statewide implementation.

Following this introductory chapter, the paper will include a review of relevant
literature to identify the findings from other studies on awareness of CBS and its
programs, and what can be done to better respond to people’s needs, especially those that
are less aware of MSUE and its programs. Chapter 3 reviews the methodology used in the
data analysis and Chapter 4 presents the findings. The final chapter provides a summary,

conclusions, and recommendations.

1.5 Need for the Study

There are a number of reasons why exploring what Michigan residents know
about MSUE is important. One reason is the lack of research on what the state’s citizens
know about MSUE and its programs. Although national and state studies have been
conducted on people’s familiarity with CBS and its programs, Michigan has yet to study
this question. Yet, the information on what Michigan residents know about MSUE can be
used to serve various purposes.

One use of the study and its finding is to confirm or disconfirm some of the
research findings on what residents in other states and at the national level know about
the CBS and its programs. The use of the research findings in this way helps expand the
knowledge base on this topic and represents an important contribution to the literature on

the awareness of CBS and its programs.

This study’s findings about awareness of MSUE can also be used to help

- determine how well the organization is fulfilling its mission to serve the people of the
United States, especially minorities and those living in urban settings. Extension has had
many critics who have argued that it does not or should not be working with urban
audiences and that it has outlived its usefulness among a declining nual agrarian
population (Terry, 1995 and Peters, 2000). But, as the product of a Congressional act (the
aforementioned Smith-Lever Act), the Cooperative Extension Service is mandated by law
to serve “the people of the United States.” This phrase is not qualified by being limited to
the agricultural or rural populations, and thus the Extension Service should not be limited
to meeting the needs of select groups or populations. Regardless of its detractors, the
organization is mandated to serve “the people of the United States” and should strive to
do so.

In addition to helping Extension assess how well it is fulfilling its mission,
information on what residents know about MSUE and its programs will also help
Extension identify and develop better ways to ensure it is serving peoples’ needs and
communicating what it has to offer to citizens. If certain segments of society are not
aware of Extension and its programs, confirming this fact should awaken the organization
to the need to take measures to ensure it is Serving peoples’ needs and to better
communicate what it has to offer to citizens. If, on the other hand, there is high
awareness of MSU Extension and its programs, this gives the organization information
about where it might garner support and offers ammunition that it can use to justify its
acquisition and use of resources. The study, it suffices to say, lays the groundwork for
further studies that might lead to resource reallocation and or changes in programmatic

direction.

The findings of this study will be especially useful to Extension in its current
project to develop a marketing plan for its programmatic areas. MSU Extension began
the process of building an organization-wide marketing plan in 1997. Extension-user
(stakeholder) input was gathered in 1998 during two planning sessions, and the input
from those two events was gathered and synthesized into a set of marketing objectives.

One of these objectives calls for building 80 percent public awareness of MSU
Extension’s mission, goals and programs. The findings in this study relate directly to
achieving that objective. In order to ascertain whether public awareness about MSUE and
its mission, goals and programs has reached 80 percent after a marketing strategy has
been implemented, it is critical to assess the public awareness level beforehand. This
analysis of the survey results will provide a baseline of information regarding public
awareness of MSUE’s 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths Program, Agriculture and

Natural Resources Programs. as well as the umbrella organization (MSUE).

1.6 Study Limitations

Because the MSUE Market Assessment Survey’s primary purpose was to gauge
citizen awareness of MSUE, this is a strong argument for using those data for this study.
Another strength of using the MSUE Market Assessment Survey is the large number of
respondents that participated (1,156 respondents).

While using the MSUE Market Assessment Survey database to conduct this study
has its benefits, it also has its several limitations related to the fact that it was a telephone
survey. In this case, adults without telephones in their residences were excluded, as were
those with unlisted phone numbers. Telephone surveys do not allow researchers the

opportunity to see and conduct face-to—face interviews with respondents. Telephone
-9-

surveys can also be subject to differences in interviewer styles, even with trained
interviewers.

In addition, responses were weighted to bring them in line with 1990 US. Census
Bureau data for the state of Michigan. While they were the most recent data available at
the time the survey was conducted and analyzed, they are ten years old and may not as
accurately reflect Michigan’s 2000 population.

Finally, this analysis was intended to examine MSU Extension in terms of
Michigan residents’ awareness and participation in the organization and its programs so it
takes an approach that focuses prograrnmatically. It was intended to provide the
organization with useful information about current programs and not meant to provide an
in-depth look at participation by racial groups, geographic groups (e.g. urban participation
in MSUE programs) or other demographic categories. While such analyses merit deeper

investigation than is presented in this paper, they are nonetheless absent here.

-10..

Chapter 2 — Literature Review

2.1 Purpose of Literature Review

This literature review will explore existing knowledge about awareness of
Cooperative Extension at the national and state levels. It will explore previous studies of
awareness among selected user groups, as well as the general public. It will also examine
the literature focused on calls for wider inclusion and participation in Extension’s
planning and programming activities.

Information fi'om national and state studies helps us understand how different
demographic characteristics influence peoples’ level of awareness of CBS and its
programs. Do the factors that influence residents’ awareness levels in other states and
across the nation also influence the level of awareness among Michigan residents? The
research findings from this study will provide a partial answer to this question. It will
permit us to gauge the differences and similarities that exist in awareness of CBS and its

programs between Michigan and elsewhere in the country. -

2.2 Review of Literature

A review of literature found several studies examining public perceptions of
Extension. Two were longitudinal studies conducted by Warner and Christensen. Others
were state and province surveys conducted in Louisiana, Kansas, Minnesota and Ontario.
Other literature included surveys gauging the perceptions of specific (traditional)
audiences to Cooperative Extension programs. Several pieces also support the need for a

wider inclusion in planning and executing Extension programs.

-11-

Warner and Christenson conducted widely referenced national surveys in 1982
and 1995 looking at public perceptions of Extension. Their telephone surveys included
questions designed to gauge adults’ awareness of Extension and their use of the system’s
services.

In 1982, these authors found 40 percent awareness of the Extension Service. This
number rose to 45 percent by 1995. They also found highest awareness of 4-H (77 percent
in 1982, 69 percent in 1995), even higher than for the Extension organization. They noted
higher awareness of the Cooperative Extension Service in the southern US and the
Midwest. The authors also found that Extension awareness differed by gender, race,
place, and minority status of the respondent. Greatest Extension awareness was
registered among older (40 years old and older) and rural residents. Program awareness
and usage was lowest among young, urban and minority individuals.

In addition to looking at perception and awareness, Warner and Christenson also
looked at support for future Extension funding. Their 1995 study found support for
additional funding in family and youth and natural resources programs. In 1982 they
asked a similar, but not identical question, so results can’t be directly compared, but the
later survey found similar, if not higher support for Extension and its program areas. No
more than 27 percent of respondents wanted to spend less on any area.

The authors of the national surveys use data from both studies to point to

continued value and support for Cooperative Extension.1 Warner and Christenson also

 

'“Some critics in the 1982 concluded that Extension had outlived its usefulness and would not be
around in the 905. So it is reassuring that Extension still exists and continues to serve the needs of
clientele.” Warner and Christenson et al.

-12-

pointed to potential shortcomings with Extension.2 Warner et al. expressed particular
concerns about the need for Extension to address the specialized needs of groups with
different needs and expectations:
...over the years we have operated as if Extension is the same
thing to all people. And we have expected Extension’s lifelong
supporters to rally around the organization no matter what
programs were being emphasized. With programs now being
designed to address specialized needs and targeted toward
specific audiences, future support will need to be developed
through coalitions of individuals with very different needs and
expectations.

A related set of studies on Extension has focus on return to investment in
Extension rather than on the level of awareness. This body of work shows positive return
on the public’s investment in Extension, though estimates of this return have varied
(Evenson, 1979; Huffman, 1976; Yee, 1992). One study (Huffman and Evenson , 1993)
noted a rate of return on Extension investments of about 20 percent‘(lower than for
research) though other studies, have shown returns on investment has high as 110 percent
(Huffman and Mranowski, 1981 and Evenson, 1979).

Other studies on the awareness of CES and its programs have been done at the
state level. A 1995 Louisiana study by Verma and Burns looked at public awareness,
Extension user satisfaction and potential usefulness in Louisiana. The statewide telephone
survey of Louisiana adults found more than 40 percent awareness of the Louisiana

Cooperative Extension Service (LCES), which was similar to Warner and Christenson’s

findings. Again, awareness of the 4-H youth program was higher (49.6 percent) than

 

2“However the findings are also unsettling, since changes made in program directions and target
audiences are not found to be reflected in the 1995 responses. Even though programs have targeted
underserved audiences, urban residents, the young and persons with low levels of income and education
remain the least likely to be aware of Extension or use its services.”

-13-

awareness of the Extension program itself. Rural residents were more aware of Extension
and its programs than urban residents.

Of those respondents aware of LCES, about 15 percent had contacted an
Extension agent or office, with an average of 2.7 contacts having taken place in the
previous year. More than 90 percent of Louisiana users indicated they were either
satisfied or very satisfied with LCES and its programs. Verma and Burns’ conclusions
included a call for a unified marketing approach “to methodically sort out the most
appropriate marketing strategies and to schedule developments in a master Extension
marketing plan to manage growth and to maximize service quality.

Both the Warner and Christenson and Verma and Burns studies’ found higher
satisfaction with Extension from users than nonusers. This was also noted in a 1986 mail
survey conducted by the Ontario Ministry of ‘ Agriculture. Though limited because it was
conducted within one historically strong user group (farmers), the data showed higher
satisfaction among Extension users than nonusers, with highest marks in satisfaction
linked with the 4-H youth program.

The Kansas State University Research and Extension Program commissioned
telephone surveys in 1996 and 2000 to examine Kansans’ awareness, use and support for
its activities. In 1996, there was 34 percent awareness among respondents about a
university-based program offering research-based educational programs. This awareness
rose to 45 percent in 2000. When the program was referenced by name, awareness
increased 27 percent in 1996, but only three percent in 2000. Of those who were aware of
their county’s Extension office, 71 percent said they had called or emailed the county

office for information.

-14-

Many Kansas survey results were very similar in 1996 and 2000. There was no
change in the percentage of respondents (25 percent) who know there is a K-State
Research and Extension office in their county. The number of Kansas respondents who
had attended a meeting, workshop or field day rose slightly fiom the 1996 figure of 11
percent to 15 percent in 2000.

The number of respondents who believe information they receive from Kansas
State Research and Extension is “very credible” was at 56 percent in 1996. This number
rose to 63 percent in 2000. There was even higher positive response to the question
regarding the importance of K-State’s Research and Extension programming. The 1996
importance rating of 96 percent was very similar to the 2000 response of 94 percent.
Current funding level approval was at 85 percent in 1996 and 89 percent in 2000.

Given Extension’s long association with agriculture, it is surprising that in the
2000 survey, amOng Kansas respondents involved in farming, ranching, or agribusiness,
38 percent were not aware cf the program. Ambng 4-H volunteers or leaders, 40 percent
were not aware of the program as described. '

The Minnesota Extension Service (MES) conducted a 1994 focus group study that
looked at the organization’s image and identity, expressed met and unmet needs,
outstanding experiences with MES and disosatisfactions with MES.

Researchers found that MES has problems with visibility and images, especially
among nontraditional audiences.3 Beyond the historical farming and 4—H orientation,
organization’s mission and focus were “not clearly articulat ” and even MES staff had

difficulty describing MES and what it does.

 

3“Some people associate MES with farming and 4—H, believing it has nothing to offer them. Others see the
part of Extension they access, but don’t know what else MES does.”

-15-

Respondents lauded the organization for meeting needs “related to traditional
programming” and often cited 4-H when describing outstanding extension experiences
However, they also cited needs that MES could help related to meeting life skills,
building individual capacity and community capacity.

While these studies offer the possibility that Extension is doing a good job serving
its existing audiences, there is a body of work calling for the system to broaden its focus
and work to meet the needs of larger audiences. Harriman (1989) states the need for
grassroots organizing and anticipating issues to better meet needs at the community level:
“As the number of farm families continues to decline, are we reorienting enough of our
programming fast enough to broaden our support base and meet the needs of a changing
population?”

Another call for wider accessibility and stakeholder inclusion in CBS came from a
National Research Council-convened committee on the firture of the colleges of
agriculture in the Land Grant university system. One product of this committee’s efforts
was a book that looked at Land-Grant system’s public service components, including
Cooperative Extension, and made recommendations for strengthening future efforts
among land-grant colleges of agriculture (National Research Council, 1996).

The issue of wider accessibility and stakeholder inclusion is a long-standing
concern to the Cooperative Extension system. A 1977 US. Congress-mandated
investigation of Extension pointed to the organization’s shortcomings in this area.
Although the study identified Extension’s strength in its grassroots, face-to-face approach
to meeting citizens’ needs and personal, the organization was also cited for not including

low-income groups, minorities, and marginalized portions of traditional audiences, such

-16-

as organic farrners (United States Department of Agriculture, 1980).

2.3 Summary of Principal Findings from Literature Review

This review of the literature about what people know about Extension shows that
it is diverse in methodology, scope, and purpose. However, despite these differences, the
literature shows similar findings across a number of issues. Among the key findings over
which there seems to be general empirical agreement are the following:
1. National and state studies show about 40 to 45 percent awareness for the CES although
some state record lower awareness measures.
2. Awareness of the 4-H Program was greater than for CES in National and state surveys.
3. Greater awareness among the older and rural residents than among young, urban, and
minority individuals.
4. Awareness of CES varies by region of the country
5. Level of satisfaction high among users vs. nonusers of extension.
6. There is a need to met the needs of larger audiences to have broad-based support

outside Extension’s traditional circles.

2.4 Conclusion

There is a growing body of literature on information about what people know
about CBS and its programs. Despite differences in methodologies, scope, and purposes.
the research generally reaches similar conclusions on matters of awareness. But it is not
known if other research findings are also valid in Michigan. One expected benefit from

conducting this study is to confirm or disconfirm for Michigan some of the research

-17-

findings in other states and for the nation on how much knowledge residents possess

about CBS and its programs.

-13-

Chapter 3 — Methodology
3.1 Questions from the Literature

The review of literature included state surveys of citizen awareness of Extension
and a national survey about Extension awareness. There was also a host of papers and
publications calling for wider inclusion of nontraditional Extension audiences in program
planning and criticisms of Extension for not meeting all citizens’ needs.

This review informed this paper in that it brought to light a number of questions
that have been asked elsewhere and deserve attention in Michigan related to awareness of
Extension and Extension programs. The national study and at least two of the state
surveys noted awareness of Extension at less than 50 percent. Do Michigan residents
have a greater awareness about MSUE? Also, the 4-H program received more recognition
among survey respondents, both nationally and at the state level, than the Extension
organization of which it is part. Will Michigan-follow this trend? At least one state survey
and the national survey found lower awareness of Extension among young, minority and
urban audiences. Can we expect this in Michigan?

What level of use have survey respondents made of the MSU Extension
opportunities that are available to them? Have they attended workshops, read bulletins or
newsletters? How do those who have done these things rate the service they’ve received?

This paper will add to the knowledge base about what is known about citizen
awareness of MSU Extension and Cooperative Extension in general. It will examine
whether Michigan residents have similar awareness as other Americans and provide

MSUE with a base of information for use in marketing plans and for future studies.

-19-

3.2 Database Development

A telephone survey to determine knowledge of MSU Extension and its main
program areas was commissioned by the MSU Extension Marketing Committee and
written by Dr. Murari Suvedi and the staff of the MSU Center for Evaluative Studies. It
was evaluated, tested and conducted by the lnstituted for Public Policy and Social
Research (IPPSR) in the spring and summer of 2000.

Dr. Suvedi developed the questionnaire after carefully reviewing MSU
Extension’s marketing study needs as identified by the Marketing Task Force. He adapted
questions from the Children, Youth and Family State of the State survey conducted in
1997 and provided the questionnaire to the MSU Extension Marketing Committee for its
review. A group of Extension professionals and faculty members from the Deparhnent of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communications Systems served as the
review panel. Their feedback, along with comments from IPPSR staff, was incorporated

into the survey. Content validity and format was ascertained.

There was no reliability testing of the telephone survey instrument for three
reasons. The first was because the questions were not on a scale or true false, and
secondly, trained professional telephone surveyors administered the questionnaire under
close supervision by IPPSR staff. Additionally, most of the questions were adapted from
the 1996 Michigan State University Extension Children, Youth and Family State of the
State Survey. The survey should yield reliable data The full questionnaire is presented in

the Appendix.

-20-

3.3 Data Collection

Data were collected and entered into a data set in a Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) software system file. This paper’s author was provided the data
file late in the summer of 2000 and began looking at data frequencies and cross
tabulations. She also ran linear regressions for the continuous variables of age and

education level.

3.4 Population Characteristics

The survey employed a total sample size of 1,156 individuals. The referent
population was Michigan’s non-institutionalized, English-speaking adult population (age
18 and older). Because the survey was conducted by telephone, only persons living in

households that had telephones were interviewed.

3.5 Stratification

For its administrative purposes MSUE organizes the state’s 83 counties into six
major regions. To assure that each of Michigan’s major regions were represented, the
sample was stratified into six regions, each consisting of a set of contiguous counties. The

county grouping corresponds to that used by MSU Extension.

-21-

The six regions are defined as follows (counties listed within regions):

1. 11pm Peninsula (Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic,
Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Ontonagon, Mackinac, Marquette,
Menominee, Schoolcraft).

2. Northern Lower Peninsula (Alcona. Alpena, Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix,
Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Iosco, Kalkaska, Leelanau,
Missaukee, Montrnorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon,
Wexford).

3. West Central (Allegan, Barry, lonia, Kent, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta,
Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Ottawa).

4. Em Central (Arenac, Bay, Clare, Clinton, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella,
Midland, Saginaw, Sanilac, Shiawassee, Tuscola).

5. 59mm (Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Eaton, Hillsdale, lngham, Jackson,
Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, Van Buren).

6. Southeast (Genesee, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland,
St. Clair, Washtenaw, Wayne).

To allow reclassification of the place of residence (county) into the alternative regional

groupings, each respondent's county of residence was also coded on the data set.

3.6 Sampling

Respondents' households were selected using list-assisted, random-digit dial
sampling procedures. The initial sample of randomly generated telephone numbers was
purchased from Survey Sampling, Inc. (Survey Sampling generates a list of all working
area code/phone number prefix combinations.) In this study, the list of numbers included
only active Michigan phones. From within this list of possible phone numbers, Survey
Sampling eliminated those number groups with four-digit suffixes that are unused or used
only by institutions. Telephone numbers were selected at random in proportion to the

number of households in each county from the remaining numbers.

-22-

3. 7 Sample Weights

In order to accurately reflect Michigan’s population, data entered in SPSS were
weighted to bring respondents’ characteristics into line with 1990 US. Census data. For
example, according to US. Census data, in 1990 Michigan’s Asian/Pacific Islander
population accounted for one percent of the state’s total population. In this study,
responses were weighted to equal one percent of respondents as Asians/Pacific Islanders.

The sample design was a stratified sample based on MSUE regions. Regions
sampled were somewhat disproportionate to actual population sizes within each region.
Stratification was intended to assure a sufficient minimum number of respondents from
each stratum to permit detailed analysis.

To make generalizations about individuals' views and behaviors, it was necessary
to ensure that each respondent in a survey sample had an equal chance for selection, or is
represented in the data as having had equal chances for selection. Because households
with multiple phone lines had more chances of being selected into the sample than those
with only one phone line, it was important to adjust for this source of unequal chances
when analyzing data. The questionnaire included a query about how many separate phone
numbers each respondent’s household had. Each case was then weighted by the
reciprocal of the number of phone numbers and adjusted so that the total number of cases
matched the actual number of completed interviews.

IPPSR made an average of 15 attempts per phone number and used a refusal
conversion. Thus, if a household refused to answer the survey during the first call, a
second attempt to request participation was made within five days. When no one

answered the phone on the first call, additional attempts were made to contact a

-23-

respondent at various days of the week and times of day.

An adult in a two-adult household would have half the chance of being selected to
be interviewed as would the only adult in a single adult household. This required
adjusting to correct for unequal probabilities of selection. The interview included a
question as to the number of adults (18 years of age or older) living in the household.
Each case was then weighted by the inverse of its probability of selection within the
household, or by the number of adults in the household. This was then also adjusted so
that the total number of weighted cases matched the actual number of completed
interviews.

Some groups can be more difficult to reach or more likely to refuse random-digit
dialing surveys than others and this can distort accuracy. It is common to weight cases in
the sample to adjust for non-response. This is accomplished by weighting each case so
that cases of each type appear in the sample proportionately to their representation in the
general population.

For the MSUE Market Assessment Survey, cases were weighted so that the
proportions of white males, Afiican American males, other racial group males, white
females, African American females, and other racial group females in the sample for each
region matched the proportions these groups represent in the adult population of each
region, based on 1990 Census data

Further, within each region the cases were additionally weighted so that the
proportion of cases falling into each of the following age groups matched the proportions
in the 1990 Census for each region: 18 - 24 years old, 25 - 29, 30 - 39, 40 - 49, 50 - 59,

60 - 64, and 65 or older.

-24-

Finally, since the sample was drawn disproportionately across six MSUE regions
(with Detroit in the Southeast region), statewide estimates of citizens’ opinions require
post-stratification weights to adjust for over-sampling some regions and under-sarnpling
others. Each case was weighted so that the proportion of cases from each region in the
total sample matched the proportion of adults from the correspondingrcgion in the state's
population based on 1990 Census data. Michigan has a 98 percent phone coverage rate,

so all age, racial and economic groups should be well represented among the sample.

3.8 Data Analysis

The sampling error can be estimated for each region and for the state as a whole
at the 95 percent confidence level. Survey data were entered and analyzed using SPSS
software. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, cross-tabulation, means
and standard deviations were used to analyze the data Frequency counts were made from
responses to open-ended questions. Whenever questionnaires contained incomplete items
because of individual item non-response, they were treated as missing values and were

not counted toward the sample statistics.

Data analysis will include characteristics of respondents, including location of
primary residence, type of community, education, racial background, age and income.
The analysis will look for correlations between these variables and awareness of MSU
Extension through statistical means. It will examine responses and look at possible

relationships between awareness and participation in MSUE activities and educational

programs.

-25-

Chapter 4 —— Outcomes
4.1 Introduction

This chapter will begin with an overview of survey respondents’ characteristics.
These include, age, education, racial background, region of the state and community type.
The chapter will continue with an overview of local issues facing Michigan communities
and identified sources of educational assistance for those issues. In particular, this section
focuses on how MSU ranks in relation to other agencies, programs, institutions or service
providers. A third chapter section looks at responses to a set of questions assessing
awareness of MSU Extension and its specific programs. Awareness measures are offered
for Community and Economic Development, 4-H Youth Program, Family Strengths and
Agriculture and Nature Rescurces: AWareneSs of each of these programs, as well as
MSUE itself, are analyzed aCcording to region, community type, respondents’ ages, race
and ethnicity and education. Additional analysis is conducted on the nature of
participation by region in Extension programs and the level of satisfaction of the

participants.

Outcomes from the IPPSR telephone survey were analyzed using the SPSS
software package. This chapter will look at the outcomes of specific questions in relation
to three broad categories. The first will look at responses as they relate to a series of
questions (X2, X2c, M1, Mla, X4, X4C, M2, and M2a) that asked respondents to state the
most important problems facing their communities and where they would go for
assistance in addressing these problems. While the first question pair do not related to any

subject matter or tOpic area, the three following pairs ask respondents to name local

-26-

problems specifically related to natural resources or the environment, children and youth
and farmers. In addition to exploring the most-often stated problems and sources for help
in solving them, this section will also look specifically at how ofien Michigan State

University was named as a source of help for local problems.

The chapter will also explore how respondents answered questions related to their
awareness of Michigan State University Extension and its main programs and whether
this awareness is higher or lower among respondents from different regions of the state or
for representatives of different demographic groups. MSUE has a long history of service
to agriculture and rural audiences, but has expanded programming to serve urban
audiences. Have representatives of these audiences even heard of MSU Extension or its
programs? Can we draw cOrrelations between awareness levels and various demographic

groups? These questions will be explored.

Beyond basic awareness, do Michigan residents participate in the educational
opportunities that MSU Extension offers them in the forms of workshops, meetings, 4-H
club activities, bulletins, newsletters and videotapes? Data will be explored to look at
whether participation changes or increases by region or demographic group. For those
who have had contact with an Extension agent or office, how would they rate this

contact? Does this rating change with age, education or racial group?

In summary, this chapter will look at whether Michigan residents are aware of the
existence of MSU Extension and its programs, and whether there is a relationship
between awareness levels and respondents’ racial background, age, education or

residential community.

-27-

4.2 Characteristics of Respondents

Respondents were asked a number questions to allow researchers to categorize
them. They were asked (question X1) to define their community of residence, whether it
was rural, a small city or town, suburb, urban or other. More than 20 percent (21.5)
classified themselves as living in rural communities with another 36.7 percent listing
residence in a small city, town or village. Suburban residents accounted for 28.9 percent
of responses and urban dwellers made up 12.3 percent. Nearly one percent of respondents
(.6) called their community of residence “other”.

Questions CD5 and CD6 asked respondents to note their racial background.
Responses from Afiican Americans made up 10.7 percent, Asians or Pacific Islanders
made up less than one percent (.6) and Native Americans accounted less than two
percent( 1 .5) of respondents. Another 2.8 percent were of Hispanic background and 84.6
percent were Caucasian.

When looking at respondents’ education levels (question CD3), just over five
percent (5.4) reported an eleventh grade education or less. Nearly one-third (31.7 percent)
had a high school diploma or GED and 32.2 percent had some college, junior college or
technical school training beyond high school. Those with a four-year college degree
made up 16.6 percent or respondents and those with graduate training or a graduate
degree comprised 14.2 percent.

Respondents were asked to name the year they were born (question CD2) to allow
grouping according to age. There were 14.4 respondents in the 18-24 year-old group, 11
percent between ages 25 and 29 and 11.9 percent from 30 to 39. The 40 to 49 year olds

made up 17.4 percent of respondents and 50 to 59 year olds were at 11.9 percent. Those

-23-

age 60 to 64 made up 6.2 percent of respondents and senior citizens aged 65 or older
constituted 16.2 percent.

Respondents were grouped geographically according to the regions MSU
Extension established for administrative purposes. By region, the Upper Peninsula
accounted for 3.5 percent of respondents. There were 4.3 percent from the Northern
Lower Peninsula, 13.4 percent from the West Central part of the state and 8.7 percent
from the East Central region. The Southwestern region accounted for 14.2 percent of

respondents and the Southeast region comprised 56 percent.

4.3 Local Issues and Sources of Assistance
Respondents were asked a series of questions abOrIt the problems and challenges

facing their communities. The first question (X2) was an open-ended query that asked

---~_ ........

fIESEQQII¢SPOHS¢§ to this question are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Five most important problems facing respondents’ communities (n=925).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem ' Percent
Quality of schools/improve education 9.4
Crime 7.7
Overexpansion/too much grth 6.9
Traffic 6.4
Roads/road repair/street upkeep 5.4

 

 

-29-

, Ofitherflissues that were mentioned in response to this question included drugs and
drug dealers (4.9 percent), taxes (4.7 percent), population growth (4.6 percent) and youth
activities (4.6 percent).

The next question (X2C) stated, “If you were going to find a program that focused
on (answer from previous question), for yourself or someone in your community, where
would you most likely go?” Table 2 lists the five most frequent responses to thisquestion.
Other responses to this question included local groups/cooperative (5.5 percent), the
federal government (3 percent), and neighborhood groups (2.7 percent). Michigan State

University was cited by 1 percent of respondents.

Table 2. Five most often stated sources of help to stated community problem (n=662L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Help Percent
Local govemment/city/county 38.1
commission/road commission - .

Local school/local school board 12.9
College or university other than MSU 8.1
State govemment/state 5.7
agency/MESC/DNR, DEQ, etc.

Local police or sheriff 5.6

 

Respondents who did not state an environmental or natural resources-related
response to question X2 were asked question M1, “Are you aware of a natural resources
or environmental issue facing your community?” The five most frequent responses to this
question are listed in Table 3. Other responses included recycling (4.5 percent),
overpopulation (4.5 percent), the environment, and disappearing farmland (both 3.7

percent).

-30-

 

Table 3. Five most commonly stated, naturalresource or environmental problems facing

respondents’ cOmmunities (n=636).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem Percent
Water pollution, quality/clean water/clean 29.8
lakes, rivers

Destruction of 10.6
land/development/building, growth,

expansion

Pollution 7.7
Preserving woods, forests, trees, wetlands 6.8

Air pollution/air quality 5.9

 

Respondents who stated an environmental problem were then asked question

- Mla, “If you were going to find a program that focused on (answer fi'om previous

question), for yourself or someone in your commrinity, where would you most likely go?”

The five most stated responses to this question are listed in Table 4. Other fiequently

mentioned sources of help included Michigan State University (6 percent), a local or state

human service organization (4.9 percent), and libraries (4.8 percent).

Table 4. Ejyemp_stcpmmody mentioned sources of help for stated natural resource or

environmental problerri(h=il 25).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Percent
Local government 26.4
State government/state agency 14.6
Miscellaneous 1 3 .4
College or university other than MSU 1 1.8
Local school/school board 7.3

 

-31-

 

 

Those respondents who did not provide an answer to question X2 that related to
children or youths were asked question X4: “Thinking about young people, in your
opinion, what is the most important problem facing children and youth in your
community today?” The five most common responses to this question are listed In Table
5. Other stated answers to this question included family/family time (7.3 percent),
miscellaneous (5.1 percent), peer pressure (4.9 percent) and values/morality/religion (4.8

percent).

Table 5. Five most commonly stated problems facing children and youths (n=1025).

 

 

 

Problem Percent
Youths and drugs 18
Youth activities/things for kids to do 16.4

 

Quality of schools/improving education 14

 

Divorce/broken homes/single parents 10

 

Gangs/gang violence/teenage trouble 8.2

 

 

 

 

Respondents who stated a problem facing local children and youth were then
asked question X4C, “If you were going to find a program that focused on (answer from
previous question, for yourself or someone in your community, where would you most
likely go?” The five most-often stated answers are listed in Table 6. Other answers to this
question included local police/sheriff (5.2 percent), libraries (4.2 percent), and
family/fiiends/co-workers (3.9 percent). As noted in Table 9, 1.9 percent of responses

named Michigan State University.

-32-

Table 6. Sources of help to problem facing children and youths (n=845).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Percent
Local school/school board ' 33.5
Local group/cooperative 10.1 ,
Local govemment/city/county 9

Local church/temple/synagogue 7.7
College or university other than MSU 6.9

 

 

 

The final pair of questions in this series asked respondents to think about farmers
and the issues facing them. Those who did not answer an agriculture-related issue in
response to question X2 were asked question M2, “Now, thinking about those who make
their living from farming, what is, in your opinion, the most important problem facing
farmers and agricultural producers in Michigan?” The five most-stated answers to this
question are listed in Table 7. Other teSponsesyincluded pesticides/chemical
contaminationof landlwater (7.4 percent), cost of materials (7.2 percent), and commercial

development/buying farm land/sprawl (5 percent).

Table 7. Five most-stated problems facing famers'(n=866).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem Percent
Drought/rain/water/weather 20.9
Financial/don’t make enough money 13.2
Crop prices/fair pricing 12.8
Competition with big business 10.4
Farms sold/disappearing/land development 8.8

 

 

 

 

-3 3-

 

Respondents who stated a problem facing farmers were then asked question M2a,

“If you were going to find an educational program that focused on (answer fi'om previous

question) to Whom or what place would you go first?” The five most ofien stated

responses to this question are listed in Table 8. Other responses included libraries (6.2

percent) the Internet (5.8 percent), and local groups/cooperatives (5.2 percent).

Table 8. Five most fiequently mentioned sources of help for farm problem (n=632).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Percent
State govemment/state agency 21.4
Michigan State University 15.6
Local government 14.7
College or university other than‘MSU 9.1 ‘
Federal government 7.8

 

It should be noted that this was the only question in this series in which Michigan

State University garnered enough responses to be included in the top five most frequently

mentioned sources of help. Table 9 notes the percentage of responses that mentioned

MSU in questions X2C, MIA, X4C, and WA. As was noted, MSU was mentioned (6

percent of responses) as a source of help for natural resource or environmental problems.

The university was also stated much less fiequently as a source of help for children/youth

problems (1.9 percent) and as a source of help for general community problems (1

percent).

-34-

 

Table 9. Percent of responses that mentioned MSU as a source of help for problems in
questions X2C, MIA, X4C, and M2A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Subject/number Responses (%) , N

‘ naming MSU
Community problem (general)/X2C 1 662
Natural resources/environmental/MIA 6 125
Children-youth/X4C 1 .9 845
Farm-farmers/MZA l 5.6 632

 

 

4. 4.0 A wareness of Michigan State University Extension and its Programs

The surVCy included a series of questions designed to determine awareness of
MSU Extension (question M7) and its main programs. Two of the organization’s main
programs are Agriculture and Natural Resources (question M6) and Community and
Economic Development (question M3). The. Children, Youth and Family Program was
addressed in two questions (M4 and M5), designed to gauge awareness of the Family
Strengths (M5) area and 4-H Youth Program (M4). Responses by region and for the

entire state are listed in Table 10.

4. 4.1 Awareness of MS U Extension

Table 10 highlights awareness levels for MSU Extension and its main programs
by region. This table shows awareness of Family Strengths was lower than for any other
program or program area. Its very lowest awareness rating was 29.6 percent in the
Southeast region. Altemately, 4-H had the highest awareness, even higher than for MSU

Extension, with more than 90 percent awareness in three regions. MSU Extension had an

-3 5-

overall awareness just over 50 percent (51.1), which ranged fiom a high of 76 percent in

the Northern Lower Peninsula to a low of 44.2 percent in the Southeast region. The

Southeast had the lowest awareness for all programs, with the exception of the

Community and Economic Program (37.6 percent awareness in the Southeast), which had

lower awareness in the Southwest region (36.4 percent).

Table 10. Awareness 0

f MSU Extension and its main programming areas by Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

region. .

MSUE MSU Community 4-H Youth Family Agriculture &

Region Extension & Economic (1156) Strengths Natural
(1143) Development (1140) Resources

(1148) ‘ (1145)
Percent awareness (n)

U.P. 71.8 (28) 64.1 (25) 95 (38) 42.5 (17) 42.5 (17)

Northern 76 (38) 46 (23) 94.1 (48) 42 (21) 63.3 (31)

Lower '

W. Central 54.9 (84) 43.5 (67) 89 (138) 39.5 (60) 43.8 (63

East Central 60.6(60) 41 (41) 94 (94) 42.4 (42) 49.5 (49)

Southwest 56.6 (90) 36.4 (59) 91.5 (150) 35.4 (57) 45.1 (74)

Southeast 44.2 (284L 37.6 (242) 76.4 (494) 29.6 (189) 30.6 (196)

Statewide 51.1 (584) 39.8 (453 83.1 (962) 33.9 (386) 37.9 (434)

 

 

-36-

 

Table 11. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, Agriculture and Natural Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program by age category.
Age MSU Community & 4-H Youth Family Agriculture
category Extension Economic Programs Strengths , & Natural
(1133) Development (1142) (1128) Resources
(1133) (1131)
Percent reportin awareness II)
18-24 18.8 (31) 18.8 (31) 64.2 (106) 30.9 (51) 18.2 (30)
25-29 33.1 (41) 24.8 (31) 75.4 (95) 33.3 (42) 7.1 (9)
30-39 39.2 (102) 22.6 (59) 83.6 (219) 23.7 (60) 26.4 (67)
40-49 61.4 (121) 41.6 (82) 91 (181) 32 (63) 41.9 (83)
50-59 72.9 (97) 61.1 (80) 92.6 (125) 38.1 (51) 52.6 (71)
60-64 70.4 (50) 74.3 (52) 95.7 (67) 60 (42) 63.8 (44)
65 & up 73.8 (135) 63 (116) 85.9 (159) 40.4 (74) 67.9 (125)
Overall 50.9 (577) 39.8 (451) 83.4 (952) 34 (383) 37.9 (429)

 

 

Table 11 shows that awareness of MSU Extension (question M7) was greater

among people more than 65 years old. For ages 50 to 59 it was 72.9 percent, for those 60

to 64 it was 70.4 percent and for those 65 and older, it was 73.8 percent. Among younger

respondents, 18.8 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds expressed awareness of MSUE, as did

33.1 percent of those ages 25 to 29. The highest differences in awareness were between

respondents above and below the ages of 30 to 39. There was a statistical significance

associated with increase in age and awareness of MSUE (R-squared value of .902). This

means that the greater the age of the respondent, the greater the probability that he or she

would be aware of MSU Extension.

Between racial groups (questions CD5 and CD6), as noted in Tables 12 and 13,

the highest awareness of MSUE was among whites (53.6 percent). Native Americans had

the second highest awareness rate (38.9 percent), followed by Afiican Americans (37.9

-37-

 

percent), Hispanics (29 percent) and Asians and Pacific Islanders (28.6 percent).

Table 12. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural Resources

Program by respondents’ racial backgrounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race MSU Community 4-H Youth Family Agriculture

category Extension & Economic Programs Strengths & Natural
(n=1 147) Development (n=1 156) (n=1 143) Resources

(n=1 149) (n=1 144)
Percent reporting awareness (n

African 37.9 (47) 42.3 (52) 51.6 (64) 33.1 (41) 26.6 (33)

American/

Black

Asian/Pacific 28.6 (2) 42.9 (3) 42.9 (3) 37.5 (3) 28.6 (2)

Islander

Native 38.9 (7) 38.9 (7) 94.4 (17) 58.8 (10) 41.2 (7)

American - . .

White/ 53.6 (520) 39.7 (386) 87.4 (856) 33.8 (326) 40 (387)

Caucasian

Overall 51 (585) 39.8 (457) 83.2 (963) 33.9 (387) 38 (435)

awareness

 

 

Table 13. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, Agriculture and Natural Resources
Program by respondents of Hispanic background.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hispanic MSU Community & 4-H Youth Family Agriculture &
awareness Extension Economic Programs Strengths Natural
(n=3 1) Development (n=32) (n=32) Resources
(n=31) (n=32)
Percent reportingawareness
Aware 29 (9) T419 Q3) 78.1 (25) 37.5 (12) 31.3 (10)
Not aware 71 (22) I 58.1 (18) 21.9 (7) 62.5 (20) 68.8 (22)

 

-33-

 

 

- When looking at responses by the respondents’ community type (question X1),
Table 14 points out that there was greatest awareness of MSUE in rural communities
(63.2 percent), less in small cities, villages and toWns (49.2 percent), just slightly less in

suburbs (48.5 percent) and urban communities (41.1 percent).

Table 14. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural Resources

Program by community type.

 

 

 

Community MSU Community & 4-H Youth Family Agriculture
type Extension Economic Programs Strengths & Natural
(N =1 14]) Development (n=1 154) ( n=1 140) Resources
(n=1 147) A (n=1 144)
Percent reportigg awareness
Rural 63.2 (156) 39.9 (99) 92.7 (230) 41 .l (99) 51.5 (124)
community

 

Small city/ 49.2 (204) 41.9 ( 177) 84.7 (359) 37.6 (157) 35.5 (150)
town/village

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suburb 48.5 (169 36.8 (121) 79.6 265) 28.3 (94) 37.3 (124)
Urban 41.1 (58) 41.3 (59) 72 (103) 22.5 (32) 23.9 (34)
communit)I

Other 50(3) 20(1) 83.3 (5) 71.4 (5) 28.6 (2)
Overall 51 (582) 39.8 (457) 83.4 (962) 33.9 (387) 37.9 (434)
awareness

 

 

-39-

Table 15. Awareness of MSU Extension, Community and Economic Development
Program, 4-H Youth Programs, Family Strengths, and Agriculture and Natural Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program by education level.
Education MSU Community & 4-H Youth Family Agriculture
level Extension Economic Programs Strengths & Natural
(N=1143) ‘ Development (n=1153) (n=1139) Resources
(n=1 146) (n=1 144)
Percent rqromnggwareness
11th grade or 41 (25) 39.3 (24) 77.4 (48) 38.7 (24) 48.4 (30)
less
High school 47.2 (170) 36.6 (133) 82.7 (302) 34.2 (123) 38.1 (138)
Fgrad/GED
Technical 44 (162) 39.5 (146) 79.3 (295) 26.5 (98) 32 (119)
school/junior
college/1-3
college
College grad 58.9 (112) 38.6 (73) 88 (168) 41.3(76) 45.4 (84)
‘ Post uate 70.7 (116) 49.7 (81) 90.8 (148) 39.9 (65) 39.9 L65)
Overall 51.2 (585) 39.9 (457) 83.3 (961) 33.9 (386) 38.1 (436)
awareness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By education (question CD3), there was more awareness of MSUE among those

with four-year college degrees or higher than among those with other educational levels

(Table 15). Those with technical training, junior college or some college (one to three

years) had a 44 percent awareness, and high school graduates had a 47.2 percent

awareness level. There seemed to be a relationship between awareness of MSUE and

education levels (question CD3). Examining the statistics results in a R-squared value of

.836, which indicates a strong correlation between these two variables.

.40-

 

4.4.2 Awareness of the MS UE Community and Economic Development Program

Economic and community development issues are the focus of the Community
and Economic Area of Expertise Team’s efforts. MSU Extension specialists and county-
based educators working in economic development education educate and assist
businesses, communities and organizations, including public and private leaders, in
planning and implementing successful economic development programs.

Educators in this program area might be active in helping local businesses explore
technologies that make them more competitive. Other opportunities includeproviding
entrepreneurial training to both budding and established business owners.

As was true with MSUE, awareness of the Community and Economic
Development Program (ECED) increased with respondent age (Table 11). Those in the 18
to 24 year-old range had a 18.8 percent awareness, while 50 to 59 year-olds were at 61.1
percent; 60 to 64 year-olds were at 74.3 percent, and those older than 65 were at 63
percent.

There was no statistical relationship ( r value of .49) between awareness of ECED
and education levels (question CD3). Table 15 shows high school graduates had a 36.6
percent awareness, while those with technical school, junior college or some college
experience were at 39.5 percent. Respondents with four-year college degrees and post
graduate education were at 38.6 and 49.7 percent, respectively.

For MSUE regions (question CD11), Table 10 shows the Northern Lower
Peninsula had the greatest awareness, at 76 percent. The Upper Peninsula was very
similar, at 71.8 percent. The East Central region showed a 60.6 percent awareness, which

was just above the Southwest’s 56.6 and the West Central’s 54.9 percent. The Southeast

-41-

Sill

prt

As

1'65

3V

4]

 

 

showed the lowest awareness levels related to community and economic development
programming at 44.2 percent.

Tables 12 and 13 note awareness by racial background (questions CD5 and CD6).
Asians/Pacific Islanders and Afiican Americans had awareness levels at 42.9 and 42.3,
respectively. Hispanics had a 41.9 percent awareness level, whites were at 39.7 and
Native Americans were at 38.9.

There was little difference between rural, small city, suburban and urban residents
(question X1) in their awareness of ECED (Table 14). Rural residents indicated a 39.9
percent awareness, very similar to small city, village or town residents’ 41.9 percent
awareness. Suburban residents had a 36.8 percent awareness. and urban residents were at

41.3 percent.

4. 4.3 Awareness of 4-H Youth Programs

Michigan 4-H Youth Programs has a long tradition of providing opportunities for
young people to learn life skills and have fun. It is often associated with its traditions in
rural America and images of young people with blue ribbons for animal husbandry,
cooking, sewing, making crafts or growing crops. 4-H Youth Development (part of MSU
Extension’s Children, Youth and Family Programs) provides fun, educational
opportunities and resources to positively develop youth and the volunteers and

professionals who work with them.

Michigan 4-H Youth Programs recruits, trains and assists more than 30,000 adult

and teen volunteers annually. 4-H also networks and develops partnerships with youth-

.42-

serving organizations; educational, cultural and human service organizations; and
business, industry, government and other community groups to create youth-centered,

caring environments for kids.

This program area had the highest overall awareness level of all the program
areas, even higher than MSU Extension. There were several trends among the awareness

findings for 4-H.

Awareness was above 80 percent for all MSUE regions (question CD1 1) except
Southeastern Michigan (Table 10), where it was a close 76.4 percent. This is not
surprising, given that the Southeast region, including Detroit, is very urban. Likewise,
Table 14 shows awareness was less for urban respondents than for those from other

community types (question X1).

Table 11 shows that all age groups (question CD3) expressed high awareness of 4-
H (the lowest was 18 to 24 year-olds, at 64.2 percent). Looking at statistics, an R-squared
value of .64 emerges, which signals a correlation between awareness of 4-H and age of
respondent.

By racial background (questions CD5 and CD6), there was great difference in 4-H
awareness (Tables 12 and 13). Native Americans, whites, and (to a lesser extent)

Hispanics had very high awareness-94.4, 87.4 and 78.1 percent, respectively—but

awareness was much lower for African Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders, at 51.6

and 42.9 percent, respectively.

In Table 15, awareness was also high for all education levels (question CD3),

lowest for those having completed 11th grade or less education (77.4 percent) and

43-

peaking with respondents who had some post graduate education (90.8 percent). The
associated statistics show an R-squared value of .799, which indicates strong correlation
between awareness of 4-H and age, with older respondents having greater knowledge

about the program’s existence.

4. 4. 4. Awareness of Family Strengths Program

F orrnerly known as the Home Economics Program, Family Strengths is
committed to helping families succeed by providing educational programs and resources
and in-service education for professionals dealing with family issues, and by preparing

paraprofessionals to work with families.

MSU Extension home economists serve every county and work in partnership
with MSU campus faculty members to provide research-based information on important
topics affecting families. They transmit information through newsletters, workshops,
radio and television programs, newspaper columns, meetings, and group and person-to-
person contacts. They also offer specialized publications, computer-assisted instruction,

telephone hotlines, and educational programs delivered by satellite and interactive cable.

Among MSUE regions (question CD11) noted in Table 10, the lowest awareness
was in the Southeast (29.6 percent). The Upper Peninsula (42.5 percent), Northern Lower
Peninsula (42 percent) and East Central region (42.4) were all very similar. The West
Central (39.5 percent) and Southwest (35.4) regions were in the middle.

Table 11 shows awareness by age (question CD2), was highest among persons

ages 60 to 64 (60 percent), though there was no statistical correlation between age and

awareness of the Family Strengths Program. Senior citizens (65 years or older) had a 40.4
percent awareness, which was just a bit higher than the 38.1 percent expressed by those
between ages 50 and 59. The other age groups showed somewhat lower awareness levels,
with ages 40 to 49 at 32 percent; 30 to 39 year-olds at 23.7 percent; 25 to 29 year-olds at
33.3 percent and 18 to 24 year-olds at 30.9 percent. .

There was no statistical association between awareness of Family Strengths and
education level (question CD3). Table 15 shows similar awareness among four-year
college graduates (41.3 percent), those with post graduate education (39.9), and those
with less than a high school diploma (38.7). Technical school and junior college
graduates (26.5) showed somewhat lower awareness than high school graduates/GED
holders at 34.2 percent.

Among racial backgrounds (questions CBS and CD6), as shown in Tables 12 and
13, awareness was highest among Native Americans (58.8 percent), followed by
Asians/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, both at 37.5 percent. African Americans (33.1
percent) and whites (33.8 percent) also showed very similar awareness levels.

Table 14 shows that by community type (question X1), awareness was highest for
rural residents at 41.1 percent, followed by small city, town or village residents at 37.6

percent; suburban residents at 28.3 percent and urban dwellers at 22.5 percent.

4. 4.5 Awareness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program

Michigan State University’s Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR)
Program provides research-based educational programs to Michigan citizens involved in
or affected by agriculture or natural resources to help them make informed decisions,

45-

prosper, and contribute to Michigan's economy and quality of life. The effort directly or

indirectly affects every Michigan citizen.

Agents work directly with farmers producing commodities ranging from apples to
zucchini, from Newaygo County Christmas tree growers to Sanilac County dairy farmers.
In addition to providing the latest technological information, agents are also active in
such arenas as researching new cropping systems, exploring alternative marketing
methods and disseminating improvements in animal health nutrition.

By regions (CD1 1) Table 10 shows highest awareness in the Northern Lower
Peninsula (63.3 percent), followed by the East Central at 49.5 percent. The Southwest
(45.1 percent), the Upper Peninsula (42.5 percent) and the West Central (43.8 percent) all
showed similar awareness. Awareness was lowest in the Southeast region (30.6 percent).

In addition to the increasing percentages expressed with increasing age categories
(question CD2) shown in Table 11, statistics noted a very strong r value of .916 between
awareness of the AN R Program and age of respondent. This indicates that as the
respondent’s age increases, so does the chance that he/she will be aware of Agriculture
and Natural Resources Program. Awareness was highest for those 65 and older (67.9
percent) and lowest for 25 to 29 year-olds (7.1 percent).

Among racial groups (questions CD5 and CD6), Tables 12 and 13 show
awareness was highest among Native Americans (41.2 percent) and whites (40 percent)
and significantly lower for Hispanics (31.3 percent), Afiican Americans (26.6 percent)
and Asians/Pacific Islanders (28.6 percent).

Table 14 points out that, as might be expected, awareness in various community
types (question X1) ranged from highest in rural communities (51.5 percent) to lowest for

-46-

urban communities (23.9 percent), withsmall city, town or village (35.5 percent) and
suburban (3 7.3 percent) residents in between.

There was no statistical correlation ( r value of .057) between awareness of the
ANR Program and education level (question CD3), which indicates that those with more
education do not have more awareness of this program. Table 15 shows awareness was
highest for those with an eleventh grade education or less (48.4 percent), closely followed
by four-year college graduates (45.4 percent). High school graduates/GED holders
responded with 38.1 percent awareness and those with one to three years of college,

junior college or technical school training were at 32 percent.

4. 5.0 Nature of Participation in MS U Extension Programs by Region

Respondents Who indicated awareness of MSUE were further asked to indicate
the kind, if any, of interaction they may had with the organization during the past year.
Six types of participation were analyzed by region. Table 16 shows respondents’
participation, by MSUE region, in MSUE-sponsored workshops and meetings (question
X18) , bulletin/fact sheet and newsletter reading (question X19), videotape use (question
X21), and attendance at 4-H club meetings and events (questions X22 and X23,
respectively).

Participation in workshops and meetings was low for all regions, with the highest
regional participation in the Southwest (12.7 percent). There was similar participation in
the North (10 percent) and Southeast (9.8 percent). The East Central and the Upper
Peninsula also had very similar participation 1evels--7.1 percent and 7.9 percent,

respectively- and were followed by the West Central region at 4.1 percent.

47-

Table 16. Participation in MSUE and use of MSUE educational materials, by MSUE
Region, during the past year (n=1156).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity U.P. N. Lower W.Cent1al E. Central Southwest Southeast Statewide
Percent Participation (n)

 

 

Workshop/ 7.9 (3) 10(5) 4.1 (6) 7.1 (7) 12.7 (20) 9.8 (57) 9.2 (98)
meeting
(1069)

Eulletin/ 17.9 24(12) 12.5(18) 14.7(14) 15.6(25) 12.4(70)13.9(146)

 

 

act sheet (7)
1051)

lNewsletter 21.1 34.7(17) 15.2 (22). 23.4(22) 25.5 (40) 17.3 (98) 19.7 (207)
(1051) (8)

 

 

 

Video tape 2.6 (1) 2(1) 5.4 (8) 2(2) 1.9 (3) .5 (3) 1.7 (18)
1075)

4-H 10.3 8 (4) 10.1 (15) 11.2 (11) 11.9(19) 7.9 (45) 9.2 (98)

meeting (4)

(1067)

 

4.11 event 28.2 38(19) 243.3 (36) 34.4 (33) 29.8(48) 17(99) 22.9 (246)
1075) (11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bulletin and fact sheet use ranged from 24 percent in the Northern Icwer
Peninsula to 12.4 in the Southeast. Upper Peninsula respondents noted a 17.9 percent use
and Southwest residents were at 15.6 percent. The East Central region’s 14.7 percent was
slightly above the 12.5 percent noted in the West Central.

Newsletter use was recorded somewhat higher, with Northern Lower Peninsula
respondents reporting 34.7 percent use, the Southwest at 25.5 percent, and the East
Central and Upper Peninsula similar at 23.4 and 21.1 percent, respectively. The Southeast
Region showed the least newsletter use-17.3 percent.

The use of MSU educational video tapes was very low for all regions, with the
highest being 5.4 percent in the West Central. The Upper Peninsula (2.6) was very similar

to the Northern Lower and East Central, both at 2 percent. The Southwest was at 1.9

-48-

percent and the Southeast region showed just one-half percent use.

Participation in 4-H club meetings by respondents or their family members ranged

from nearly 12 percent (1 1.9) in the Southwest region to 7.9 percent in the Southeast

region. The East Central region was at 11.2 percent, with both the Upper Peninsula and

the West Central regions very similar, at 10.3 and 10.1 percent, respectively. The

Northern Lower Peninsula showed 8 percent participation.

These numbers contrast with higher participation at 4-H events and activities (e.g.

fairs, competitions, demonstrations, etc.), which peaked with 38 percent in the Northern

Lower Peninsula, followed closely by 34.4 percent in the East Central Region. The

Southwest (29.8), Upper Peninsula (28.2 percent), and West Central (24.3 percent) were

all very similar. Lowest participation was in the Southeast ( l 7 percent).

Table 17. MSUE notice in media and contact with MSUE educators by region.

 

Activity

U.P.

N.Lower

 

W.
Central

 

 

E. Central

Southwest

 

Southeast

 

Statewide

 

Percent Participation (n)

 

 

cad/heard
bout

SUE
1 064)

61.5 (24) 60 (30)

45.1 (65) 47.9 (46)

49.7 (78)

44.3 (256)

46.9 (499)

 

ontacted
SUE
1072)

15(6)

18.4 (9)

13 (19)

9.3 (9)

18.9 (30)

1 1.4 (66)

13(139)

 

lMSUE
Educator
Visit
(1062)

7.7 (3)

14.9 (7)

4.1 (6)

6.3 (6)

3.8 (6)

2.4 (14)

4 (42)

 

Visit MSU
campus
(1075)

 

2.6 (1)

 

6(3)

 

5.4 (8)

 

 

8.2 (8)

 

10.6 (17)

 

6.6 (38)

 

7 (75)

 

49-

 

Table 17 shows the percentage of respondents who had heard or read about MSU
Extension activities in the media (radio, TV, newspaper) in the past year (question X24).
Responses range from 61.5 percent and 60 percent, respectively, in the Upper Peninsula
and Northern Lower Peninsula to 44.3 in the Southeast region. The other three regions
were similar, with the West Central at 45.1 percent, the East Central at 47.9 percent and
the Southwest at 49.7 percent.

Those who had contacted an MSU Extension office with a question in the past
year (question X25) comprised only 13 percent of respondents statewide. Those in the
Southwest (18.9 percent) and Northern Lower Peninsula (18.4) had the highest percent of
respondents reporting contact. Upper Peninsula respondents reported contact at a 15
percent rate, and the West Central region was at 13 percent. The Southeast’s 11.4 percent
was somewhat higher than the East Central’s 9.3 percent.

Numbers were lower when respondents were asked if an MSUE educator had
visited their homes, businesses or schools (question X27). The highest response to this
question came hour the Northern Lower, at 14.9 percent. The Upper Peninsula’s 7.7
percent was followed by the East Central’s 6.3 percent and the West Central’s 4.1
percent. The Southwest’s 3.8 percent was still above the 2.4 percent reported in the
Southeast.

Across the state, just 7 percent of respondents reported having visited the MSU
campus in the previous 12 months for an MSUE-related event, such as Ag Expo, 4-H
Exploration Days, the Michigan Families Conference or Animal Science Day (question
X26). The highest rate was 10.6 percent in the Southwest region (where the campus is

located), with the East Central (8.2 percent), Southeast (6.6 percent), Northern Lower (6

-50-

percent) and West Central (5.4 percent) all lower. Upper Peninsula respondents, located

farthest away from the East Lansing campus, reported the least visitation, at 2.6 percent.

4. 5.1 MS U Extension Participant Satisfaction by Region

Those respondents who reported some contact with an MSUE office, program or
educator over the past 12 months were asked (question X29), “Taking all types of contact
you or members of your family have had with MSU Extension in the past 12 months into
consideration, how would you rate the quality of educational program offered by MSU

Extension?” Table 18 lists their ratings by region and for the state as a whole.

Table 18. Rating of MSU Extension services by respondents with contact during previous
12 months (n=424).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating by Percentage
Region Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
UP. (14) 14.3 (2) 64.3 (9) 14.3 (2) 7.1 (l) 0
N. Lower (24) 29.2 (7) l 41.7 (10) 20.8 (4) 4.2 (1) 4.2 (1)
W. Central (50) 16 (8) 42 (21) 42 (21) 0 0
E. Central (35) 17.1 (6) 51.4 (18) 20(7) 8.6 (3) 2.9 (1)
Southwest (69) 21.7 (15) 42 (29) 17.4 (12) 18.8 (13) 0
Southeast (232) 21.1 (49) 47.8 (111) 20.3 (47) 3.9 (9) 6.9 (16)
Statewide (424) 20.5 (87) 46.7 (198) 22.2 (94) 6.4 (27) 4.2 (18)

 

Of those who had taken part in MSU Extension programs, used materials or
participated in activities, 20.5 percent rated the service they received as excellent and

nearly half (46.7) rated it as very good. Across the state, the Northern Lower Peninsula

-51-

 

had the highest number of excellent ratings at 29.2 percent and the Upper Peninsula had
the lowest at 14.3. Conversely, of those who rated the service as Very Good, highest
percentage was in the Upper Peninsula with 64.3 and the lowest was in the Northern

Lower at 41.7.

4.6 Conclusions on Awareness and Participation in MS U Extension

According to this survey’s results, while MSU Extension’s 51.1 percent
awareness level among Michigan residents is greater than that enjoyed by other state
Extension services, it is less than the marketing plan’s targeted 80 percent awareness rate.
While residents see MSU as a source of assistance in dealing with agricultural issues, it is
much less often looked to for help in facing natural resource or youth-related issues.

There was greater awareness of MSU Extension. with older residents and those
with higher education levels. Rural residents also had higher awareness than suburban or
urban respondents. These findings confirm other studies’ reports about awareness of
Extension. In this survey there was also higher awareness among whites than for other
racial groups, which did not hold for the organization’s main programs. Awareness of
MSU Extension and each program was lowest in the urban Southeast region, with the
exception of the Community and Economic Development Program, which had slightly
lower awareness in the Southwest region.

The Community and Economic Development Program did not reflect the finding
of lower awareness by whites, as African Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders showed
higher awareness levels. In addition, there was no statistical significance related to age

and awareness of ECED, though awareness does increase with respondents’ age

-52-

categories, drOpping slightly with those over age 65. This may be due to the fact that
ECED programs are intended for those active in business and community development
activities. Senior citizens who are retired and not involved in the business or
governmental affairs of their communities might not be as aware of this program’s
offerings.

The 4-H Youth Program had highest awareness, even higher than for MSUE.
Again, there was a correlation between awareness of 4-H and age (older respondents had
higher awareness) and between 4-H and education level. There was also higher awareness
by rural residents than suburban or urban dwellers. Among racial groups, Native
Americans had highest awareness of the 4-H Youth Program. While those who reported
attending (or having a family member attending) 4-H club meetings at about a 10 percent
level, there was higher attendance at'4-H events like fairs, with more than a third of
respondents in two regions reporting such. The findings related to 4-H also confirm what
other studies have shown—that awareness of 4-H is higher than awareness of Extension,
regardless of the respondent’s age, education, racial background or community type.

The Agriculture and Natural Resources Program had highest awareness among
rural residents and older survey respondents. Native Americans had highest awareness
among racial groups and there was no statistical correlation between awareness of this
program area and educational level. The awareness among rural and older respondents
confirms other studies’ findings. The higher awareness by Native Americans corresponds
to the findings related to higher awareness in rural areas. According to 1990 US. Census
Bureau data, Michigan’s Native American population primarily resides in the primarily

rural Upper Peninsula.

-53-

There was also no correlation between either education level or age and awareness
of the Family Strengths Program. There was higher awareness by rural respondents than
suburban or urbanites. Awareness of this program was very low among all audiences,
regardless of region, age, education, race or type of community.

In looking at participation by respondents in MSUE educational activities and use
of materials, there was low use by all regions, the highest recorded at 12.7 percent in the
Southwest region. MSUE video tape use was reported very low, with the highest
percentage at just over 5 percent (5.4) in the East Central part of the state. Bulletin and
fact sheet use was higher, compared to other materials, with nearly one quarter (24
percent) of Northern Lower Peninsula respondents reporting having read these materials.
The lowest use of bulletins and fact sheets was in Southeast Michigan.

Newsletter reading was reported at similar levels across the state. A full one-third
(34.7 percent) of Northern Lower respondents reported reading MSUE newsletters, as did
17.3 percent of Southeastern residents, the lowest reported regional use level. There was
much higher recollection of seeing or hearing about MSUE through the media.

Though participation in MSU workshops and meetings was just under 10 percent
statewide (9.2 percent), this does confirm other studies’ findings about participation in
Extension events. Satisfaction among program participants was also high, with just about
two thirds rating the quality of MSUE educational programs as “excellent” or “very
good” (67.2 percent). This again confirms what other researchers have pointed out about
the organization—that those who do find their way to Extension programs are very

satisfied with the service they receive.

-54-

Conclusion and Recommendations - Chapter 5

5.1 Summary of Findings

When asked for sources of assistance in meeting local needs, respondents
frequently noted MSU as a source of assistance in dealing with agricultural issues, but
much less often looked to for help in facing natural resource or youth-related issues.

More than one-half of the survey’s respondents were aware of MSU Extension’s
existence. This observation cuts across region, community type and respondents’
demographic categorization as a whole. A higher percentage were aware of the 4-H
Youth Program and fewer were aware of the Community and Economic Development,
Family Strengths and Agriculture and Natural Resources programs.

There was a statistical correlation between awareness and age of respondent. This
held for MSUE and each of its program areas, with the exception of 4-H. With regard to
4-H, awareness was higher at all age levels, and was over 90 percent for respondents in
age groups from 40 to 49 year-olds through the 60 to 64 year-olds. It declined slightly
(85.9 percent) for those over age 65.

Minorities had lower awareness of MSUE compared to whites but did not have
lower awareness of the organization’s programs. African Americans, Hispanics and
Asians/Pacific Islanders all had higher awareness of the Community and Economic
Development Program than whites. Native Americans had greatest awareness of the 4-H
Youth Program and the Agriculture and Natural Resources Program. Native Americans,

Asians/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics also had higher awareness of the Family Strengths
Program

-55-

There was relatively higher awareness of MSUE, and the 4-H and Family
Strengths programs among rural and small town respondents in the state, but this was not
the case for the Community and Economic Development or the Agriculture and Natural
Resource programs. With regard to Community and Economic Development, urban
respondents had slightly higher awareness than suburbarrites (41.3 percent to 36.8
percent). In the Agriculture and Natural Resources area, suburban respondents expressed
slightly higher awareness than those from small towns (37.3 percent versus 35.5 percent).
There was also a correlation between the amount of education respondents had and
awareness of MSUE and 4-H. This correlation did not hold with the other program
areas.

Roughly 10 percent of respondents reported taking part in MSUE educational
activities or using educational materials. Even fewer used MSUE video tapes, though
more, nearly one quarter in some regions, reported reading bulletins and fact sheets. Still
more read MSUE newsletters and recalled seeing or hearing about MSUE through the

media.

5.2 Conclusions and Implications
There was slightly higher overall awareness about MSUE among Michigan
residents than was found by Warner and Christenson at the national level, or by
researchers in other states. This holds with Warner and Christenson’s assessment that
Extension awareness was higher in the Midwest (and south) than other US. regions.
This may be due to Michigan’s historically predominant small town and rural

populations outside Detroit. These residents would have at one time called on the county

-56-

Extension offrce for everything from advice about canning to help with insect pest
identification to crop fertilizer recommendations to information about 4-H activities.
Because the rural population was larger, more of the urban/suburban population would
have had exposure to Extension through rural family or friends.

In addition, non-rural residents would have been more involved in vegetable
gardening, canning and general food preparation in pre-fast food, pre-inforrnation age
America Their options for information would have been limited and Extension would
have been a likely source. These are also topics that many people would associate with
agriculture, and this study’s findings noted that, when it comes to issues related to
agriculture, Michigan residents see Michigan State University as a major source of
assistance.

if This study’s findings are consistent with other studies that have shown higher
awareness for the 4-H Youth Program than for MSU Extension. While the reason for this
finding bears exploration, this is a positive for 4-H. However, it also signals that
somehow, residents are not connecting the program with MSUE. The connection between
the overall organization and its component is not being made, and it is up to both to
bridge the awareness gap through communications and marketing.

There was some concurrence with findings from other studies of higher awareness
of Extension among traditional audiences. There was also higher awareness among older
respondents (see previous paragraph), but this did not hold true across the board for
strictly rural residents or for minorities. Awareness of the Community and Economic

Development Program was higher with some minorities, suburban and urban audiences.

-57-

The relatively higher awareness of Extension Programs among minorities found in
the study is in contrast with finding from previous studies that show that when compared
to whites, minorities have relatively low program awareness. But if considered alongside
the finding that rural respondents have higher awareness of Extension than urban
residents, then minority groups who reside in rural areas might be expected to reflect
higher awareness. According to 1990 US. Census data, while Afiican Americans
primarily reside in or near major metropolitan areas (like Detroit), other minorities in
Michigan do not. Native American population densities, for example, are higher in the
primarily rural Upper Peninsula. The population density for persons of Hispanic
background is fairly evenly spread across the Lower Peninsula. Thus, African Americans
in this study might reflect the lower awareness found across urban areas, while Native
Americans and Hispanics are more reflective of rural respondents in general.

Respondents had similar use of MSUE educational opportunities than was found
by researchers in Kansas by Verma and Burns in Louisiana. Like Louisiana residents,
Michigan respondents rated the service they received fi'om Extension very positively.
This may indicate that once an individual has contact with MSUE, the organization does
a good job of serving his/her needs, but that the organization does not do enough
marketing to put its image in the minds of Michigan citizens when they look for sources
of information.

This is highlighted in the findings related to the sources of help respondents
consider when thinking about community problems. Michigan State University was only
named fiequently in reference to finding help in dealing with agricultural issues. It would

be useful to conduct firrther inquiry into what respondents were referring to when they

-53-

said “Michigan State University”. They may have been thinking about MSUE when
providing that response, but it is also possible they were referring to the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, one of its departments or units (like the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station) or even a specific faculty member.

A better understanding of how Michigan residents see the university would go
well beyond serving Extension’s needs for measuring awareness. It would also help
MSUE understand the degree to which citizens identify it as a part of the university and
would give the university a better idea of how people view its connections to them.

Because MSU was fiequently named as a source of help for farm-related
problems, it is arguable that residents know that it has an agricultural school and a history
of dealing with farmers’ issues. But just because it was not noted as a source of help for
youth or natural resources issues does not necessarily mean that residents do not believe
MSU (or MSUE) is a credible source of assistance.

For instance, awareness of 4-H was higher than was awareness of MSUE. This
points out that there are adults who do not know that 4-H is offered by MSUE. Kansas
researchers discovered that 40 percent of the 4-H volunteers or leaders that were included
in their survey sample were not aware of the organization’s sponsor-Kansas State
Research and Extension.

Further, residents may not be aware of the statewide role that MSU carries
through its Land-Grant affiliation. Dillman et al. found that while people had fiequently
(94 percent) heard the name of the Land-Grant university in their state, only 30 percent
responded affirmatively when asked, “Have you ever heard the term land grant used to

describe a university in the state Where you now live?”

-59-

It is plausible that respondents would be more likely to contact the Michigan DNR
or DEQ in reference to a natural resource-related issue simply because they are more
aware of the roles those agencies play at the state level and believe that MSU only exists
to educate matriculating students. The university, and MSU as its local connection, can
address this issue, initially by such simple marketing efforts as affiliating the name
“Michigan State University” with every piece of letterhead that leaves the office, every
sign, and every telephone salutation. Media contacts should also reference programs.
agents and specialists with the university.

The 51 percent overall awareness of MSUE by Michigan residents is nearly 30
percent below the organization’s marketing objective of 80 percent. The organization
needs to take into consideration whether the 80 percent awareness goal should be
modified at the state level and instead, adjusted by region. Alternatively, the different
awareness levels by region also suggest that different marketing strategies may be
necessary to achieve an 80 percent awareness across the state. The consistently relatively
lower levels of awareness of MSUE and its programs in the Southeast region, in
particular, suggests that this region should receive special attention in MSUE's marketing
plan.

In striving to increase awareness, MSUE may want to reach out to younger and
more urban audiences. One possibility might lie with taking advantage of the very high
awareness of 4-H and strengthening suburban and urban 4-H programs. This can give
youngsters positive experiences with Extension that they can carry on into adulthood and
might make them more predisposed to seeking information and education fi'om MSUE

later in life. While additional resources may not be available to support new endeavors,

-60-

partnerships with schools, Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs. after-school programs and other youth

development organizations might prove valuable.

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study

While this study did bring to light some information about what Michigan
residents know about MSU Extension and its main programs, there is much more room
for studies that dig deeper for further information that goes beyond awareness. For
example, this study did find that users ofien rated the service received from MSUE as
excellent or very good, but why did they go to MSU Extension for that service? What
kind of value do they put on this service and do they value MSUE more than nonusers?
What would make nonusers more likely to take advantage of MSUE educational
opportunities?

The 4-H Youth Programs had the highest awareness levels among all Extension
programs and even higher than the organization itself, regardless of age, ethnicity, type of
community or education level. Why is this awareness so high, in study after study? What
has 4-H done (or what has it experienced) that has made it a very recognizable program?
Are there lessons from 4-H that other Extension programs could use to build awareness in
other programs?

In addition, as Extension’s educational offerings have expanded, so have those of
other organizations. How do Michigan residents compare MSU Extension’s nonforrnal
educational programs to those offered by such organizations as health care providers,
conservation organizations or other youth development groups like the Boy Scouts and

Girl Scouts? How do they differentiate (or do they) between the type and quality of

-61-

Extension programming with other program providers?

This study will be used in MSUE’S marketing activities, and it opens the door to
further marketing research within specific audiences. For example, are there individuals
who use MSUE services and participate in programs without realizing that the activities
are connected to Extension and the university? How can such connections be
strengthened? Many MSUE offices are located in county buildings. Do residents believe
they are making use of county resources? If so, how can MSUE more clearly denote its
ties to MSU through coordinated marketing activities?

This survey’s series of questions that asked residents where they would go to meet
community needs related to children and youth, natural resources or agriculture was open-
ended and there was no distinction between answers that included “Michigan State
University”. Were some respondents referring departments on the main campus and
others to county offices? This also relates to the degree to which residents understand the
connection between MSU, MSU Extension, and county government. Would there be
greater use of MSU Extension if residents understood the organization’s structure?

In addition to looking at perception and awareness, Warner et al. also looked at
support for future Extension funding. Their 1995 study found support for additional
funding in family and youth and natural resources programs. In 1982 they asked a similar.
but not identical question, so results can’t be directly compared, but the later survey found
similar, if not higher support for Extension and its program areas.

This survey did not examine support for Extension funding, but information about
how supportive residents are about future MSU Extension funding goes beyond

marketing. Such data offer information that could be useful to Extension administrators

-62-

who are seeking to maintain or increase funding levels. If research data show that
Michigan residents place a high value on MSUE programs and strongly support
maintaining or increasing funding, Extension leaders could share such data with
legislators and county officials charged with budgeting and build arguments for future
funding levels.

Further, if other studies show residents hold differing levels of support and value
for MSUE’s main programs or use such programs at a higher rate, this may signal
administrators that there is a need for reallocating funding to better reflect residents’
needs.

This paper offers a small look at what Michigan residents know about Michigan
State University Extension and its main programs. It can and should be a starting point
for further studies that more closely examine what citizens value and need from
Extension, first from the standpoint of marketing, but much further and deeper, to

examine questions that address the organization’s long-term health, vitality and stability.

-63-

.Appendh:

MSU Extension Marketing Survey
Telephone Interview Questions

INTERVIEWER, DIAL THE TELEPHONE NUMBER:

 

(If a young child answers, ask to speak with an adult or the best
time to call back when an adult will be there.)

Hello. My name is . I'm calling from the
Office for Survey Research in East Lansing. We are doing a
statewide survey about how familiar Michigan citizens are about
certain educational programs and services. Have I reached you at
your home phone?

 

In order to represent the views of different people in Michigan,
I need to randomly select an adult (that is a person 18 years of
age or older) within your household. We do that by asking to
speak with the adult who has the next birthday.

I will be asking you some questions about the community you live
in, about some of the difficulties facing your community, and
about what can be done to meet the needs of residents. The
results will be used to develop educational programs to meet the
needs of your community.

Your telephone number was drawn in a random sample of the entire
state. The questions I need to ask should take about eight
minutes.

Before we begin, let me tell you that this interview is
completely voluntary. All of the information you provide will
remain confidential. For quality control purposes, this interview
may be monitored by my supervisor. Should we come to any question
you would prefer not to answer, just let me know and we will go
onto the next question.

I will begin now, OK. <1> Yes to proceed, <2> refusal, <3> call
later

>X1< I'd like to start by asking you some general questions about
the community in which you live.

Would you say you live in a rural community, a small city or
town, a suburb, or an urban community?

<1> RURAL COMMUNITY

<2> SMALL CITY OR TOWN, VILLAGE

<3> A SUBURB

<4> URBAN COMMUNITY

(5) OTHER: SPECIFY

(8) DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

-64-

>Xla< How close(in miles) are you to a city?
<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>X2< In your opinion, what is the most important problem facing
your community today?
<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM
>X2c< If you were going to find a program that focused on
(FILL IN ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION), for yourself
or someone in your community, where would you most
likely go?

(0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

NOTE: IF THE RESPONDENT DID NOT IDENTIFY SGIETHING ABOUT NATURAL
RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM, ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTION (M1 5
Mia)

>M1< Are you aware of a natural resources or environmental issue
facing your community?
<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>M1a< If you were going to find a program that focused on
(FILL IN ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION),for yourself
or someone in your community, where would you most
likely go?
<0> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>X4< Thinking about young people, (in your opinion), what is the
most important problem facing children and youth in your
community today?

<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>x4c< If you were going to find a program that focused on
(FILL IN ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION), for yourself
or someone in your community, where would you most
likely go?

<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>M2< Now, thinking about those who make their living from
farming, what is,(in your opinion) the most important
problem facing farmers and agricultural producers in
Michigan?

(0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>M2A< If you were going to find an educational program that
focused on (FILL IN ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS
QUESTION) to whom or what place would you go first?

(0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

 

-65-

Now, I would like to mention some programs or services that are
available in your community. Please tell me whether or not you
have heard of each:

>M3< Before today, had you heard of Community and Economic

>M3a<

Development Program?

(DEF: ONES THAT FOCUS ON THE SOLUTIONS OF COMMUNITY PROBLEMS
SUCH AS THE PROVISION OF SERVICES LIKE WATER AND SEWERS;
LAND USE PLANS; THE EXPANSION OF BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRY;
AND THE FORMATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

(If yes) Do you know what organizations or agencies in
the State coordinate these services?

<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>M4< Before today, had you heard of 4-H Youth Programs?

>M4a<

[DEF: They stress the development of young people through
projects, activities, and leadership development.]

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

If yes, do you know what organization or agency in the
State coordinates the 4-H youth Programs?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

>M5< Before today, had you heard of Family Strengths, Food

>M5a<

Nutrition and Health programs formerly known as Home
Economics program or Homemaker Club?

[DEF: PROGRAMS IN SUCH AREAS AS FOOD AND NUTRITION, FAMILY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, HOUSING AND HEALTH.]

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

Do you know any organizations or agencies in the State
that coordinate Family Strengths and Food, Nutrition
and Health programs?

<O> RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

-66-

)M6<

>M6a<

>M7<

>M8<

>M9<

>M10<

Before today, had you heard of Extension Agricultural and
Natural Resources Programs?

[DEF: ANY ASPECT OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING, FORESTRY, FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION.
IT INCLUDES SUCH THINGS AS LAWN AND GARDEN CARE, AS WELL AS
FARMING.]

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

If yes, do you know any organizations or agencies in
the State that coordinate the Extension Agricultural
and Natural Resources Programs?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

Before I called today, have you ever heard of the Michigan
Cooperative Extension Service, which is now known as
Michigan State University Extension?

<1> YES

<5) NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW

<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

Before today, did you know any organizations or agencies in
the State that coordinate research in the area of farming or
production agriculture?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

[DEF: ANY ASPECT OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING AND MARKETING.]

Before today, did you know any organizations or agencies in
the State that coordinate research in natural resources and
environmental issues?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

[DEF: ANY ASPECT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT INCLUDING
FORESTRY, LAKES AND RIVERS, FISHERIES, WILDLIFE &
CONSERVATION.]

Before today, did you know any organizations or
agencies in the State that coordinate research in food
safety, nutrition and health related issues?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

[DEF: ANY ASPECT OF FOOD HANDLING & STORAGE, HEALTH &

NUTRITION.]

-67-

>M11< Before today, did you know any organizations or
agencies in the State that coordinate research in
community and economic development?

<0) RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM

[DEF: ANY ASPECT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, ETC.]

>M12< Before I called today, had you heard of Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station?
<1> YES
<5> NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW
<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

IF ANSWERS TO Q M2 THROUGH M12 are NO, SKIP TO Q.CD1

>X18< Please tell me if in the past year, you or some other
members of your family attended any of the following
programs.

Attended MSU Extension organized educational workshops or
meetings?

<1) YES

<5> NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW
<9> REFUSED

>Xl9< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)
Acquired an MSU Extension bulletin or fact sheet?

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW
<9> REFUSED

>X20< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family) Received county Extension newsletters or mailers?

<1) YES

<5> NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW
<9> REFUSED

-68-

>X21< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)
Borrowed or purchased a MSU Extension—produced video tape?
<1> YES
<5> NO
<8> DO NOT KNOW
<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X22< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)
Attended a 4-H club or group meeting?

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X23< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)
Attended a 4-H club event?

<1) YES

<5> NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X24< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)

Heard or read about MSU Extension activities in the radio, TV,or
in the newspaper?

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X25< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)
Contacted a local MSU Extension office with a question?

<1) YES

<5) NO

<8) DO NOT KNOW

<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

-69-

>X26< In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)

Visited the MSU campus for an Extension event such as AG

Expo,
4-H Exploration Days,
Animal Science Day?

the Michigan Families Conference, or

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X27< (In the past year, have you or some other member of your
family)

Had an MSU Extension educator or county agent visit your
home or business or school?

[DEF: This could include a 4—H agent, home economist,
'agricultural agent, community and economic development
agent, Parent instructions, Nutrition instructions, Breast

feeding instructors).

<1> YES

<5> NO

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X29< Taking all types of contact you or members of your
family have had with MSU Extension in the past 12
months into consideration, how would you rate the
quality of educational program offered by MSU

Extension?

Would you say they were excellent, very good, good, fair,or

Poor?

<1> EXCELLENT

<2) VERY GOOD

<3) GOOD

<4) FAIR

<5) POOR

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>X30< Do you own or regularly use a computer that has access
to the Internet or World-Wide-Web?
<1> YES

<5> NO
<9) REFUSED/NO ANSWER

-70-

NW, WE ARE ALMOST FINISHED, I JUST HAVE A FEW BACKGROUND
QUESTIONS WHICH WILL HELP US KNOW OUR SAMPLE INDEED REPRESENTS
ADULTS ACROSS THE STATE.

>CD1< RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT HERE, ASK ONLY IF IN DOUBT:
<1) MALE
<5> FEMALE

>CD2< In what year were you born?
__YEAR

>CD3< What is the highest level of education that you have
completed?

<0) DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL

<1—ll) GRADE

<12) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR GED HOLDER

<13-15> SOME COLLEGE (ONE TO THREE YEARS)

<16) COLLEGE GRADUATE (FOUR YEARS)

<l7> SOME POST GRADUATE

<18) GRADUATE DEGREE

<20) TECHNICAL SCHOOL OR JUNIOR COLLEGE GRADUATE

>CD4< Are you engaged in any type of farming or production
agriculture?
<1> YES
<5> NO
<8) DO NOT KNOW
<9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER

>CD4A< If yes, what type of farm do you operate or work in?

[DEF: IF THE RESPONDENT MENTIONS TWO THINGS, ASK 'Which one
would you say brings you the most income or takes up most of
your time?]

<1) LIVESTOCK/DAIRY
<2) POULTRY/TURKEY
<3) ROW CROPS

<4) ORCHARD

<5> VEGETABLES

<6) FORAGES

<7) OTHERS

>CD5< Which of the following describes your racial background?
Would you say African-American or Black, Asian or Pacific
Islander, Native American, or White or Caucasian?

<1> AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR BLACK
<2) ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
<3> NATIVE AMERICAN

<4) WHITE OR CAUCASIAN

<8> DO NOT KNOW

<9) REFUSED TO ANSWER

-7]-

>CD6<

<1)
<5>
<8>
<9>

>CD7<

Are you of Hispanic origin or descent, such as Spanish,
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or another Latin American

background?

<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<6>
<99>

YES

NO

DO NOT KNOW
REFUSED TO ANSWER

Are you currently married, divorced, separated,
widowed, member of an unmarried couple, or have you
never been married?

MARRIED

DIVORCED

SEPARATED

WIDOWED

MEMBER OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE
SINGLE, NEVER BEEN MARRIED
REFUSED-NO ANSWER

>CDB< Including yourself, how many individuals live in your
household?

>CD9<

<———>
<99>

[DEF'

PERSONS
REFUSED-NO ANSWER

We are interested in learning about the different
ways people may earn their living. Last week, were
you working full-time, part-time, going to school, a
home—maker or something else?

IF THE R MENTIONS TWO THINGS, ASK 'Which one would you

say you do the most or takes up most of your time?[n]

<0)
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4)
<5)

<6)
<7)
<8>
<9)

SELF EMPLOYED EITHER FULL OR PART TIME

WORK FULL TIME

WORK PART TIME

WORK AND GO TO SCHOOL

IN THE ARMED FORCES

HAVE A JOB, BUT NOT AT WORK LAST WEEK (ON VACATION OR
LEAVE)

UNEMPLOYED, LAID OFF, LOOK FOR WORK
RETIRED

SCHOOL FULL TIME

HOME-MAKER

<10) DISABLED

-72-

>CD10<

<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<6>
<6>

<99>

>CD11<

To get a picture of people's financial situations,
we'd like to know the general range of incomes of all
households we interview. This is for statistical
analysis purposes and your answers will be kept
strictly confidential. What is the gross annual income
of your household—-that is, before taxes or other
deductions?

Less than $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,000
$100,00 - $249,000

$250,000 - $499,000
$500,000 - or more
REFUSED-NO ANSWER

In which county do you live (County of primary
residence)?

NAME OF COUNTY

-73-

Bibliography

Arent. G., M. Bethel, L. Birchmeier, J. Fridgen, M. Harvey, K. Heinze, M. Kovacic, A.
Leholm, E. Moore, and P. Wegmeyer. 1999. Michigan State University Extension 1999-
2000 Marketing Action Plan (Draft). East Lansing, Mich: Michigan State University
Extension.

Buttell, F.H., Martin Kenney, Jack Kloppenburg, Jr., J. Tadlock Cowan, and Douglas
Smith, “Industry/Land-Grant University Relationships in Transition,” in L. Busch and
W.B. Lacy (Eds.), The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1986), pp. 296-312.

Clark, K. Personal interview. November 27, 2000.

Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University
System. 1996.National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Dillman, D.A., J .A. Christenson, P. Salant, and P.W. Warner. 1995. What the Public
Wants from Higher Education: Workforce Implications form a 1995 National Survey.
Technical Report #95-52. Pullman, Wash: Social and Economic Sciences Research
Center, Washington State University.

Drabenstott, M. 1999. New Futures for Rural America: The Role for Land-Grant
Universities. William Henry Hatch Memorial Lecture. Annual Meeting of the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. San Francisco, Calif-
November 8, 1999.

Encyclopedia of Agricultural Science, Vol. 1, p. 415-430. Charles J. Arntzen, ed.
Academic Press, 1994.

Evaluation of Economic and Social Consequences of Cooperative Extension Programs.
January 1980. United States Department of Agriculture. Science and Education
Administration-Extension. Washington, DC.

Harriman, LC. 1989. Anticipating Issues. Journal Qf Extension, 27(2).

Huffman, W.B., 1976. The productive value of human time in US. agriculture. American
191mm Qngrinulmm Eggnszmics. 58:961-974.

Huffman, W. E, and J. A. Miranowski. 1981. An economic analysis of expenditures on

agricultural experiment station research Ameriran luurnal cf Agar-um Emmiss
63:104-118; February. 744-759.

-74-

Huffman, W.B., and RE. Evenson. 1993. Science for Agriculture: A Long-Term
Perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Jenkins, D. 1993. Survival Depends on Reaching Influential Audiences. lnumal Qf
lamenting, 31(3)-

King, D.A., and MD. Moehlje. 2000. Extension: On the Brink of Extinction or
Distinction? Mal 9f Enteniinn, 38(5).

Leholm, A., L. Hamm, M. Suvedi, I. Gray and F. Poston. 1999. Area of Expertise Teams:
The Michigan Approach to Applied Research and Extension. ,LQnmal Qf EKIQILSIQIL 37

(3).

Listening to MES Customers Focus Group Findings. February 1995. A special project for
the Minnesota Extension Service Administration and Citizens’ Advisory Committee.

“Michigan State University Extension Background and Programs.” Michigan State

University Extension World Wide Web Page. Online.
http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/docs/b_p.htrnl. October 16, 2000.

Perceptions of the Kansas State University Research and Extension Program Among
Kansans. 1996. A Report to: The Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station and The
Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. FIeishman-Hillard Research. Fleishman-Hillard,
Inc. Kansas City, Missouri.

Perceptions of the Kansas State University Research and Extension Program Among
Kansans. June 2000. A Report to: The Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station and The
Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Market Research Institute Inc. Merriam, Kansas.

Peters, Scott. 2000. Mission Drifi or Renewal? Recovering an Historical Grounding for
Assessing Cooperative Extension's Civic Work. Center for Democracy and Citizenship.
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis,
Minn.

Rasmussen, W.1989.Iakingtheunixer§immthensflnlsifimnbtfiysxemc_f
W extensign. Ames: Iowa State University.

Suvedi, M., M.K. Lapinski, S. Campo. 2000. Farmers’ Perspectives of Michigan State
University Extension: Trends and Lossons from 1996 and 1999. Mal 9f Extensign,
38(1).

Verma, S., A.C. Burns. 1995. Marketing Extension in Louisiana: Image and Opportunity.
Jamal cf Extensiszn, 33(6)-

-75-

Terry, Larry D. 1995. Cooperative Extension’s Urban Expansion: The Default of
Leadership or a Responsiveness to Changing Times? Administran'gn £4 Sgciety 27 (l).

Wamer. PD, and J. Christenson. 1984. 111: mm Extension Seam-_A natinnal
assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Warner, P.D., J. Christenson, D. Dillman, P. Salant. 1996. Public Perception of
Extension. .Lnumal of Extemjgn, 34(4).

Yax, Laura K. US. Census Bureau State Population Estimates. Online.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html, November 13, 2000.

Yee, J. 1992. Assessing Rates of Return to Public and Private Agricultural Research.
laymal 9f Agricultural Eeormmies. 44.

~76-