This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PERCEPTIONS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND EXTENSION AGENTS ON MARKETING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION presented by Hal Curtis Hudson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. , Agricultural and Extension degreein Education ' /‘;}{ \\ 7 L v LN T Major‘nofessor fl Date 5/10/02 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY ’ Michigan State University 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 4mm - » anti JL‘tlilfi {i895 MM 3 P 7% "UV .1 ‘ILUUU 6/01 c:/ClRC/DaIeDue.p65-p.15 PERCEPTIONS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND EXTENSION AGENTS ON MARKETING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION By Hal Curtis Hudson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems 2002 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND EXTENSION AGENTS ON MARKETING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION By Hal Curtis Hudson Marketing is important for for-profit as well as nonprofit organizations. Michigan State University Extension as an educational nonprofit organization has learned the importance of marketing and has embraced the concept as a major initiative. Research has taken place on customer awareness levels of Extension at the national level as well as in some states. This study takes an inward look, by analyzing the perceptions of County Extension Directors and Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing Michigan State University Extension, to determine their level of familiarity with MSU Extension marketing reports, and to determine whether they are familiar with, prepared to use, and have used items included in the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet and on the marketing web site. This study took the form of a census survey, meaning all County Extension Directors and Extension Agents on staff with MSU Extension as of February 1, 2001 were included in the study population. A total of 336 questionnaires were received out of 368 possible for a response rate of 91 .3 percent. As an outcome of this study, the following key recommendations are brought forward for the organization’s consideration as follows: . MSU Extension should consider implementing a train-the-trainer program for the County Extension Director position on marketing the product of MSU Extension. . MSU Extension should consider its pricing objectives before informed decisions may be made on choosing pricing strategies. . MSU Extension should consider preparing cun'iculum materials and providing instruction to MSU Extension Agents on segmenting and targeting audiences for educational program and information delivery. . MSU Extension should consider developing a public relations plan in an effort to sharpen the focus of MSU Extension Agents when it comes to promoting the organization, thereby addressing the issue of image and refining the promotion effort. . MSU Extension should consider developing curriculum and providing instruction on working with advisory groups to MSU Extension Agents. . Individual items included in the appendices of this research study should be reviewed when planning marketing instruction for MSU Extension Agent positions. . Marketing expectations should be included in MSU Extension Agent position descriptions and made an integral part of employee appraisal. . Courses should be offered at both the undergraduate and graduate levels on marketing agricultural and extension education organizations and programs to better prepare prospective as well as current MSU Extension Agents in the principles of marketing management. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Alice Marie Hudson whose support, encouragement, and assistance made this work possible, to my daughter, Dalice Janice Hudson, to my son, Hal Curtis Hudson, Jr., to my daughter, Lecretia Leanne Hudson, to my family and friends who supported and encouraged me along the way, and to Almighty God for giving me the perseverance, grace, and endurance to make it to the end. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank my major professor and chair of my committee, Dr. Fred Whims, for his leadership, assistance, guidance, and friendship throughout my doctoral program. Dr. Whims taught me what it means to be an administrator and a leader. His support will always be remembered and appreciated. I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee. Dr. Dave Krueger for his research expertise. Dr. Kirk Heinze for his expertise in communications and marketing. Dr. Cornelia Droge, for her expertise in marketing and research. My thanks go to the MSU Extension administrative team of: Maggie Bethel, Cheri Booth, Gale Arent, Mike Kovacic, Dave Guikema, Sara Stuby, Mel Matchett, Hank Allen, and Doug Brahee. Without their support, this research project would not have been possible. My thanks go to the County Extension Directors, Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agents, Extension Educators, Extension 4-H Youth Agents, Extension Community and Economic Development Agents, District Extension Agents, and Extension Children, Youth and Family Agents. Without their participation in this study, a 91.3% response rate would not have been possible. My thanks go to my family Alice Marie Hudson, Dalice Janice Hudson, Hal Curtis Hudson, Jr., and Lecretia Leanne Hudson who have sacrificed for me to complete this dissertation. My thanks go to my parents, George and Geneva Hudson for their support and encouragement of nearly 40 years. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xxi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Extension History ........................................................................................ 1 Extension in Michigan ................................................................................. 3 Reputation (Image) Deficit .......................................................................... 4 Marketing Is Key ......................................................................................... 5 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 5 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 6 Research Objectives ..................................................................................... 6 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................. 8 Assumptions ................................................................................................ 9 Importance of the Study ............................................................................... 9 Definition of Terms ................................................................................... 10 Summary .................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ................................................ 15 Image ......................................................................................................... 1 5 Public Awareness of Extension ................................................................. 16 National Studies ............................................................................. 16 Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Study ........................... 18 Michigan State University Extension Study .................................. 19 Comparison Of Research On Public Awareness of Extension .................. 20 MSU Extension Marketing Action Plan .................................................... 20 County Extension Marketing Team ........................................................... 21 Marketing Defined ..................................................................................... 22 Nonprofit Organization Marketing ............................................................ 24 Product ....................................................................................................... 26 Product (Program) Mix .................................................................. 26 Product (Program) Line ................................................................. 27 Product (Program) Items ................................................................ 27 Strategic Planning .......................................................................... 28 Strategic Window of Opportunity ................................................. 28 Portfolio Analysis .......................................................................... 29 vi Price ........................................................................................................... 30 Pricing Objectives .......................................................................... 31 Surplus Maximization .................................................................... 31 Cost Recovery ................................................................................ 32 Market Size (Usage) Maximization) ............................................. 32 Social Equity .................................................................................. 32 Market Disincentivization ............................................................. 33 Pricing Strategies ........................................................................... 33 Cost-Oriented Pricing .................................................................... 33 Demand-Oriented Pricing .............................................................. 34 Competition-Oriented Pricing ....................................................... 35 Price Discrimination ...................................................................... 35 Changing the Price ......................................................................... 36 Promotional Pricing ....................................................................... 36 Place (Distribution) .................................................................................... 36 Segmentation ................................................................................. 37 Segment Marketing ........................................................................ 39 Local Marketing ............................................................................. 40 Selective Specialization ................................................................. 40 Promotion .................................................................................................. 41 Public Relations ............................................................................. 42 Environment .............................................................................................. 43 Competition ................................................................................... 44 Advisory Groups ............................................................................ 46 Summary .................................................................................................... 46 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 48 Population .................................................................................................. 48 Database Development .............................................................................. 49 Instrument Development ........................................................................... 50 Design ............................................................................................ 50 Content ........................................................................................... 51 Validity .......................................................................................... 53 Reliability ...................................................................................... 56 Research Design ........................................................................................ 57 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................... 61 Introductory Letter ......................................................................... 62 E-mail Support ............................................................................... 62 Initial Questionnaire Packet ........................................................... 63 First Follow Up Letter ................................................................... 63 Second Follow Up Questionnaire Packet ...................................... 64 Final Follow Up Questionnaire Packet .......................................... 64 Processing Procedures ................................................................... 65 Data Analysis Procedures .......................................................................... 67 vii Summary .................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 70 Demographics ............................................................................................ 70 Product Willing .......................................................................................... 76 Product Prepared ........................................................................................ 79 Product Often ............................................................................................. 82 Price Willing .............................................................................................. 84 Price Prepared ............................................................................................ 86 Price Often ................................................................................................. 89 Placing And Targeting Willing .................................................................. 90 Placing And Targeting Prepared ................................................................ 93 Placing And Targeting Often ..................................................................... 94 Promotion Willing ..................................................................................... 96 Promotion Prepared ................................................................................... 97 Promotion Often ...................................................................................... 100 Environment Willing ............................................................................... 102 Environment Prepared ............................................................................. 105 Environment Often .................................................................................. 107 MSU Extension Marketing Reports ......................................................... 110 Marketing Action Plan Draft ................................................................... 110 Report To The MSU Extension Marketing Task Force Draft ................. 113 County Marketing Packet and Marketing Web Site ................................ 115 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity ................................ 116 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Preparedness ............................. 117 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use ........................................... 119 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Familiarity .............................................. 121 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Preparedness .......................................... 122 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Use ......................................................... 124 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 127 Product Conclusions ................................................................................ 127 Willing ......................................................................................... 127 Prepared ....................................................................................... 128 Often (Performed) ........................................................................ 128 Overall ......................................................................................... 129 Product Recommendations ...................................................................... 129 Product Implications ................................................................................ 130 Pricing Conclusions ................................................................................. 130 Willing ......................................................................................... 131 Prepared ....................................................................................... 13 1 Often (Performed) ........................................................................ 131 Overall ......................................................................................... 1 3 1 Pricing Recommendations ....................................................................... 132 viii Pricing Implications ................................................................................. 133 Placing and Targeting Conclusions ......................................................... 133 Willing ......................................................................................... 133 Prepared ....................................................................................... 134 Often (Performed) ........................................................................ 134 Overall ......................................................................................... 134 Placing and Targeting Recommendations ............................................... 134 Placing and Targeting Implications ......................................................... 135 Promotion Conclusions ............................................................................ 136 Willing ......................................................................................... 136 Prepared ....................................................................................... 136 Often (Performed) ........................................................................ 137 Overall ......................................................................................... 137 Promotion Recommendations .................................................................. 137 Promotion Implications ........................................................................... 139 Environment Conclusions ........................................................................ 139 Willing ......................................................................................... 139 Prepared ....................................................................................... 139 Often (Performed) ........................................................................ 139 Overall ......................................................................................... 140 Environment Recommendations .............................................................. 140 Environment Implications ....................................................................... 141 MSU Extension Marketing Reports Conclusions .................................... 141 Marketing Action Plan Draft ....................................................... 142 Marketing Task Force Draft ........................................................ 142 Overall ......................................................................................... 142 MSU Extension Marketing Reports Recommendations .......................... 143 MSU Extension Marketing Reports Implications .................................... 143 MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Conclusions .................................................................. 143 Overall ......................................................................................... 144 MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Recommendations ........................................................ 144 MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Implications .................................................................. 144 Summary .................................................................................................. 145 Opportunities For Further Research ............................................ 145 Marketing Expectations ............................................................... 146 Nonprofit Organization Marketing .............................................. 146 Overall Observations ................................................................... 146 Key Recommendations ................................................................ 147 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 149 A University Committee On Research Involving Human Subjects Letter Of Approval .......................................................... 149 B Survey Instrument ........................................................................ 150 ix C Panel Of Experts For Validity Cover Letter ................................ 162 D Pilot Test Group For Reliability Cover Letter ............................. 163 E Introductory Letter To Study Population ..................................... 164 F E-mail Messages Conveying Support .......................................... 165 G Initial Questionnaire Cover Letter ............................................... 168 H First Follow Up Letter ................................................................. 169 I Second Follow Up Letter ............................................................. 170 J Third And Final Follow Up Letter ............................................... 171 K Means By Position For Individual Questionnaire Items .............. 172 L Percentages By Position For Individual Questionnaire Items ..... 239 M Responses To Major Area Of Study Completed For Other ......... 259 N Additional Comments Provided By Respondents ....................... 260 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 266 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of Research on Public Awareness of Extension .................... 20 Coefficient Alpha Reliability Results ........................................................ 57 Questionnaires By Date Received ............................................................. 67 Duncan Range Test For The Product Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position .......................................................................... 78 Duncan Range Test For The Product Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position .......................................................................... 81 Duncan Range Test For The Product Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 84 Duncan Range Test For The Price Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 86 Duncan Range Test For The Price Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 88 Duncan Range Test For The Placing And Targeting Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ................................................................. 92 Duncan Range Test For The Placing And Targeting Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ................................................................. 96 Duncan Range Test For The Promotion Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 100 Duncan Range Test For The Promotion Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 102 Duncan Range Test For The Environment Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 104 Duncan Range Test For The Environment Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 107 Duncan Range Test For The Environment Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 1 10 xi 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Duncan Range Test For The Marketing Action Plan Draft Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................... 112 Duncan Range Test For The Marketing Task Force Draft Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ............................................................... 115 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 1 17 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Prepared To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 119 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................................................... 120 MSUE Pocket Folder Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position... 122 MSUE Pocket Folder Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................................................... 123 MSUE Pocket Folder Use By MSU Extension Agent Position .............. 125 Describing the MSU Extension mission by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 172 Describing the agriculture and natural resources (ANR) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................. 173 Describing the Extension community and economic development (ECED) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position ................ 174 Describing the children, youth and families (CYF) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................... 175 Describing the 4-H youth program mission by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 176 Describing the family and consumer sciences (FCS) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................. 177 Describing the family nutrition program (FNP) mission by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 178 Describing the land grant university mission by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 179 xii 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Describing the Area of Expertise (AOE) concept to customers by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 180 Evaluating programs by MSU Extension Agent position ........................ 181 Describing program impact by MSU Extension Agent position ............. 182 Describing the impact of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 183 Preparing budgets before offering programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 184 Determining prices to charge for programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 185 Analyzing prices charged by other organizations for programs similar to those in your program area by MSU Extension Agent position .......... 186 Figuring breakeven price to charge for programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 187 Assessing target customers ability to pay for programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 188 Identifying sponsors to help defray program costs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 189 If program fees are a deterrent, determining how to make the fee structure more attractive to customers by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 190 Asking customers if the fee was correct for the program/information received by MSU Extension Agent position ........................................... 191 Using nominal fees to obtain customer commitment to participate in programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................... 192 Structuring programs to create a surplus (revenues exceed expenditures) by MSU Extension Agent position ................................... 193 Assessing customer demand for programs by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 194 Considering educational level of target customers by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 195 xiii 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Considering diversity of target customers when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................... 196 Considering location of target customers by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 197 Considering accessibility of facilities for customers by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 198 Considering convenience of location for customers by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 199 Asking customers if the location for offering programs was convenient by MSU Extension Agent position ....................................... 200 Considering transportation barriers of customers when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................... 201 Conducting program needs assessment with customer/ stakeholder groups by MSU Extension Agent position .............................................. 202 Considering customers availability to participate when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................... 203 Targeting customer groups for delivering programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 204 Designing programs so they are unique when compared to those offered by other agencies/organizations by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 205 Speaking to groups by MSU Extension Agent position .......................... 206 Using word processing software in preparing written materials by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 207 Preparing presentations for groups using presentation software by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 208 Giving presentations to groups using presentation software by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 209 xiv 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Using electronic mail to promote programs by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 210 Considering design of program materials by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 21 1 Referring customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information by MSU Extension Agent position ...................................... 212 Designing web pages promoting MSU Extension programs/ information by MSU Extension Agent position ...................................... 213 Using compact discs to retrieve information to fulfill customer requests by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................ 214 Writing newsletters promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 215 Writing news releases promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 216 Delivering radio programs promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 217 Appearing on television promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 218 Fostering favorable relations with news media by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 219 Promoting the fact that MSU Extension is in every county in Michigan by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................... 220 Using the satellite downlink to conduct programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 221 Promoting all MSU Extension programs as a unified package by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 222 Describing MSU Extension’s role in public policy education by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 223 Utilizing strategic planning by MSU Extension Agent position ............. 224 Involving advisory groups in identifying customer/community needs by MSU Extension Agent position ................................................ 225 XV 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Involving advisory groups in planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 226 Involving advisory groups in implementing programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 227 Involving advisory groups in evaluating programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 228 Involving advisory groups in identifying resources by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 229 Involving advisory groups in securing resources by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 230 Involving advisory groups in managing resources by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 231 Involving advisory groups as advocates of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 232 Describing the organizational structure of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position ............................................................... 233 Describing the funding sources of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 234 Responding to changes in the market for programs by MSU Extension Agent position ......................................................................... 235 Analyzing programs offered by other organizations similar to those offered in your program area by MSU Extension Agent position ........... 236 Analyzing risks in offering programs by MSU Extension Agent position .................................................................................................... 237 Responding to County Commission requests by MSU Extension Agent position .......................................................................................... 238 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Introduction — Letting People Know Who We Are! ........... 239 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Fab Five for County MSUE Offices ................................... 240 xvi 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSU Extension County Marketing Survey Instructions .............................................................................................. 241 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSU Extension County Marketing Survey ........... 242 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Action Planning Checklist ..................................... 243 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Marketing Action Plan .......................................... 244 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Bringing Knowledge to Life Brochure .................. 245 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Marketing Extension through Educational Programs .................................................................................................. 246 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Your Role in Marketing MSU Extension: A Guide for Extension Council Members ............................................... 247 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Building Strong Relationships With Public Officials. .................................................................................................. 248 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Positioning Statement & Marketing Objectives....249 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: What is marketing? ................................................ 250 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Presentation Aides ................................................. 251 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Graphics Standards Guidelines ............................. 252 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Marketing Tagline with Music .................. 253 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Fab Five Marketing Items for County Offices ...... 254 xvii 107 108 109 110 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Phone Book Examples ........................................... 255 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Extension Council Presentation ............................. 256 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Marketing Insert Card ............................... 257 Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Pocket Folder ............................................. 258 xviii 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LIST OF FIGURES MSU Extension Agents By Gender ........................................................... 7O MSU Extension Agents By Years Of Work Experience With MSU Extension ................................................................................................... 71 MSU Extension Agents By Program Assignment ..................................... 72 MSU Extension Agents By Position .......................................................... 73 MSU Extension Agents By Geographic Area Of Coverage ...................... 73 MSU Extension Agents By Highest Level Of Education Attained ........... 74 MSU Extension Agents By Major Area Of Study Completed With Highest Degree .......................................................................................... 75 Product Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .......... 77 Product Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ........ 80 Product Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ............. 83 Price Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .............. 85 Price Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ............ 87 Price Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ................. 90 Placing And Targeting Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 91 Placing And Targeting Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 93 Placing And Targeting Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................................... 95 Promotion Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ..... 97 Promotion Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ...98 Promotion Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ...... 101 xix 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Environment Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .................................................................................................... 103 Environment Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .................................................................................................... 106 Environment Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .................................................................................................... 108 Marketing Action Plan Draft Means By MSU Extension Agent Position .................................................................................................... 111 Marketing Task Force Draft Report Means By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................................................... 113 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position ........................................................................ 116 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ............................................................... 118 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................................................... 120 MSUE Pocket Folder Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position .................................................................................................... 121 MSUE Pocket Folder Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position ......................................................................................... 123 MSUE Pocket Folder Use By MSU Extension Agent Position .............. 124 AGR ALL ANOVA ANR BA BS CED CES CYF DEA EC/ED ED EE FCS 4-H IPPSR LCES MA MS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Agriculture All Positions Analysis of Variance Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent or if in reference to program assignment - Agriculture and Natural Resources Bachelor of Arts Degree Bachelor of Science Degree County Extension Director Cooperative Extension Service Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent District Extension Agent Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent or if in reference to program assignment - Extension Community and Economic Development Education Extension Educator, Family and Consumer Sciences Family and Consumer Sciences Extension 4-H Youth Agent, or if in reference to program assignment — 4-H Youth Development Institute for Public Policy and Social Research Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Master of Arts Degree Master of Science Degree xxi MSU MSUE NR PHD S.D. sig. SS Michigan State University Michigan State University Extension Number Natural Resources or Biology Doctorate Degree Standard Deviation Level of Significance Social Science Mean xxii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This research study focuses on perceptions of County Extension Directors and Extension Agents on marketing Michigan State University Extension (MSUE). A number of market research studies have analyzed customer perceptions of Extension. In conducting the literature review, it was determined a huge void exists relative to research focusing on County Extension Directors and Extension Agents and their skills in marketing Extension. Therefore, the need for such a study became apparent, especially with MSUE’s emphasis on marketing. To appropriately introduce the study, it is important consideration be given to the following topics: Extension history, Extension in Michigan, reputation (image) deficit, marketing is key, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research objectives, limitations of the study, assumptions, importance of the study, and definition of terms. Hereafter, the term MSU Extension Agents will be used to describe County Extension Directors and Extension Agents as a collective group. Extension History The Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and the Act as amended in 1953 and 1955, provided the groundwork for the Cooperative Extension Service (Kelsey & Hearne, 1963). As stated in Kelsey & Hearne (1963), the amended Smith-Lever Act provides that: In order to aid in 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, there may be continued or inaugurated in connection with the college or colleges in each State, Territory, or possession, now receiving, or which may hereafter receive, the benefits of the Morrill land grant college act of 1862 and of the Morrill college endowment act of 1890, agricultural extension work which shall be carried on in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. . .. Cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home econorrrics and subjects relating thereto to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting information on said subjects through demonstrations, publications, and otherwise, and for the necessary printing and distribution of information in connection with the foregoing; and this work shall be carried on in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this Act. (p. 31) As a land grant college, Michigan State University (MSU) is charged with the responsibility for Extension work in Michigan. “Extension programs in Michigan are conducted cooperatively by the US. Department of Agriculture, Michigan State University and county governments, and financed by federal, state and county funds” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 1). This unique cooperative funding arrangement provides for legal authorization at all three levels of government. L. R. Harvey, Professor & Extension Specialist at MSU (personal communication, September 30, 1994), provided a memorandum to County Extension Directors describing the legal basis of MSU Extension as follows: Federal Authorization The Smith-Lever Act signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson May 8, 1914, Public Law 372, 1914. Established the federal, state and county partnerships for cooperative financing. State Authorization The Michigan Legislature passed P.A. 65, 1915 to accept the benefits of the Federal Smith-Lever Act effective April 21, 1915. Seven additions and amendments have been made to the legislation. County Authorization The Michigan Legislature enacted RA. 3, 1912 which authorized the county board of supervisors to appropriate funds and levy taxes to further teaching and demonstration in Extension work. PA. 197, 1956 empowered townships to cooperate with MSU and enter into agreements to approximate money or levy taxes to support intensive township programs through CES. As can be seen from the federal, state, and comrty authorizations, MSU Extension has a firm legislative foundation dating back to 1912. Extension in Michigan “The closest link between MSU Extension and the people of Michigan is the county Extension office. In each of Michigan’s 83 counties, a county Extension director is in charge of the office and its programs” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 2). In the counties, one or more MSU Extension Agents conduct programs in the areas of: agriculture and natural resources; children, youth and families; and community and economic development (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a)). MSU Extension Agent positions carry the titles of: County Extension Director (CED), Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent (AN R), Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent (ECED), Extension 4-H Youth Agent (4-H), Extension Educator for Family and Consumer Sciences (EE), Extension Children, Youth, and Family Agent (CYF), and District Extension Agent (DEA). “Michigan State University Extension helps people improve their lives through an educational process that applies knowledge to critical issues, needs and opportunities” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.b), p. 2). This is the mission statement of MSUE. For MSUE to cany out its mission, marketing is required. “A successful marketing effort ensures that everything about the organization — its programs, employees, volunteers, facilities, and actions — communicates a uniform and consistently positive message” (Foerster, Kovacic, & Moore, 2000, p. 1). Reputation (Image) Deficit John Paluszek, CEO of Ketchum Public Relations of New York City, describes Extension as having a reputation (image) deficit (King, 1993). “According to Paluszek, reputation is sound performance well communicated to, and appreciated by, influential audiences” (King, 1993, p. 1). “Extension is perceived to be better at carrying out effective programs than at communicating that fact to our “customers” and decision makers. We’ve emphasized the development and implementation of effective, quality educational programs rather than telling our story” (Warner, 1993a, p. 1). Marketing Is Key To help Extension tell its story in a consistent and positive manner, now is an appropriate time to focus on marketing MSUE. “Applying marketing principles, which have been used by competitive, profit-motivated corporations to a nonprofit organization is a growing trend” (Topor, 1983, p. 4). Nonprofit organizations, such as MSUE, may stand to benefit by applying the principles of marketing. A definition of nonprofit organization marketing according to Kotler (1982) follows: Marketing is the analysis, planning, implementation, and control of carefully formulated programs designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of values with target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It relies heavily on designing the organization’s offering in terms of the target markets’ needs and desires, and on using effective pricing, communication, and distribution to inform, motivate, and service the markets. (p. 6) Marketing “is both an introspective (self-analysis) and an external (client-related) process. Marketing helps bridge the gap between educational provider (Cooperative Extension) and its client” (Topor, 1983, p. 4). Up to now, research has focused on customer (client) perceptions of Extension. This research study takes an important step toward addressing Extension’s reputation (image) deficit by taking an introspective look at perceptions of MSU Extension Agents on marketing MSUE. Statement of the Problem MSUE specializes in delivering non-formal, research-based, objective, educational programs and information to the citizens of Michigan. Previous market research studies have focused on public perceptions of Extension. Based on a thorough literature review, it has been determined research studies do not exist focusing on perceptions of Extension Agents on marketing Extension. There is a need to study perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSUE, to determine their level of familiarity with MSUE marketing reports, and to determine whether they are familiar with, prepared to use, and have used items included in the MSUE county marketing packet and on the MSUE marketing web site. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to analyze perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSUE, to determine their level of familiarity with MSUE marketing reports, and to determine whether they are familiar with, prepared to use, and have used items included in the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet (2000) and on the MSUE marketing web site (Marketing, 2000). Research Objectives Research objectives for this study are: 1. To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding skills considered important relative to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSUE educational programs and information to customers. 2. To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding skills considered important relative to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in pricing MSUE educational programs and information to customers. . To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding skills considered important relative to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in placing and targeting MSUE educational programs and information to customers. . To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding skills considered important relative to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in managing the promotion of MSUE educational programs and information to customers. . To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding skills considered important relative to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in managing the internal and external environment in which MSUE operates to deliver educational programs and information to customers. . To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding their familiarity with the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Draft October I 999 (Heinze et al., 1999) and the Drafi Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Report to the MSU Extension Marketing Task Force October 10, 2000 (Suvedi & Probyn, 2000). . To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding their familiarity with, preparedness to use, and use of items 10. 11. included in the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet (2000) To identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents by position held in organization regarding their familiarity with, preparedness to use, and use of items on the MSUE marketing web site (Marketing, 2000). To describe the demographics of MSU Extension Agents utilizing the following profiles: gender, years of work experience with MSUE, major program assignment, position held in organization, geographic area of coverage of responsibilities, highest level of education attained, and major area of study completed with highest degree. To analyze whether the perceptions of MSU Extension Agents identified in objectives 1 through 8 differ by position held in the organization. To analyze information obtained about MSU Extension Agents in order to facilitate the design and conduct of organizational planning and in-service training for MSU Extension Agents to better market the organization to customers. Limitations of the Study 1. 2. This study is subject to the following limitations: Data obtained are limited to active MSU Extension Agents as of February 1, 2001. Items included in the product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment sections of the questionnaire are limited to willingness to perform, preparedness to perform, and frequency of performing skills considered important in marketing MSUE educational programs and information to customers. . Items included in the marketing reports section are limited to the level of familiarity of MSU Extension Agents with the reports. Items included in the county marketing packet and web site sections are limited to familiarity with, preparedness to use, and use of the items by MSU Extension Agents. Due to the author’s role as researcher, the author removed himself from participation in the study. This study is limited to the marketing role of MSU Extension Agents and is not directly concerned with other roles and responsibilities associated with the positions. Assumptions 1. This study is subject to the following assumptions: MSU Extension Agents will be honest and candid in their responses to the questionnaire. 2. MSU Extension Agents come from a wide variety of backgrounds and educational preparation. Therefore, their perceptions regarding marketing MSUE may vary accordingly. Importance of the Study 1. This study is important for the following reasons: There is a need to identify and describe perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSUE; to determine their level of familiarity with MSUE marketing reports; and to determine whether they are familiar with, prepared to use, and have used items included in the MSUE county marketing packet and on the MSUE marketing web site. There is a need to obtain information about MSU Extension Agents and their demographic characteristics that will help in planning and implementing training to better market MSUE. 3. Michigan citizens need to be well informed about MSUE. As a result, the need for MSU Extension Agents to maintain an ongoing state of preparedness in marketing MSUE is essential. 4. Potential for improvement may exist in marketing MSUE. MSUE’s ability to obtain additional resource support from key decision-makers may be enhanced. 5. It is anticipated this study will have implications in Michigan. Extension organizations in other states may wish to replicate this study. Definition of Terms For purposes of this study, the following terms are defined for clarity and consistency: County Extension Director (CED). A CED is charged with overall administrative responsibility for the MSUE program in their respective County (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a). In addition to administrative responsibilities, a CED also has responsibilities in at least one program area. District Extension Agent (DEA). A DEA serves in a multi-county area and typically has a high level of technical specialization to perform program duties. Environment. A term used to describe the intemal/extemal conditions or circumstances in which an organization operates. Five components of environment include: internal, market, public, competitive, and macro-environment (Kotler, 1982). Extension Agricultur; and Natural Resources (ANR) Age_nt. An ANR Agent works “with customers engaged in the production, processing and distribution of agricultural products” and “those who provide farmers with goods and services” and/or has responsibilities to “plan, develop and evaluate educational programs that assist in 10 developing natural resources and encouraging their wise utilization” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 7). Extension Children. Youth and Famin (CYF) Agent. An Extension Children, Youth and Family (CYF) Agent plans, develops, implements, and evaluates programs in youth development, parenting, foods and nutrition, health, housing, human development, and/or resource management. The position in effect is a combination of youth responsibilities and those of an Extension Educator. Extension Community and/or Economic Development (EC/ED) Age_nt. Extension Community and/or Economic Development (EC/ED) Agents “plan, develop and conduct educational programs and provide technical assistance to business, government, and economic and community organizations” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 8). Extension Educator (EE). Extension Educator (EE) position responsibilities are to “plan, organize, implement and evaluate programs based on individual, family and community needs. Program emphasis is on parenting, foods and nutrition, health, housing, human development and resource management” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 8). Extension 4-H Youth Agent (4-H). “The Extension 4-H youth agent is an educator-manager. Agents are responsible for providing opportunities for young people to develop leadership potential, citizenship responsibility and productive capacity under the volunteer leadership of adults and older youths” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 8). Familiar. A term used to describe respondents acquaintance with a report or item. 11 Frequency. A term used to define how often respondents performed a particular skill within the past year. In-service training. Instruction provided to MSUE personnel. Michigan State University Extension MSUE). MSUE is a non-formal educational organization supported by federal, state, and county tax dollars. MSUE serves as the non-formal educational arm of MSU and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in extending knowledge to Michigan citizens. Educational programs and information are offered in three areas: agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; and children, youth and families (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.b)). MSU Extension Agents. MSU Extension Agents is a term used to collectively describe all Agent positions including: County Extension Director (CED); Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Agent; Extension Community and/or Economic Development (EC/ED) Agent; Extension 4-H Youth Agent (4-H); Extension Educator (EE) for Family and Consumer Sciences; Extension Children, Youth and Family (CYF) Agent; and District Extension Agent (DEA). All Extension Agents have program responsibilities. Perceptions. A term used to describe the insight of MSU Extension Agents on marketing MSUE. Place or Placigg. A term used to describe “the various activities the company undertakes to make the product accessible and available to target customers” (Kotler, 1997, p. 93). In this case, the company is the nonprofit organization. 12 Prepared. A term used to describe respondents’ level of readiness to perform a particular skill or use an item. 1333. A term used to describe “the amount of money that consumers pay for the product” (Kotler, 1997, p. 93). 31311151. “A product is anything that can be offered to a market to satisfy a need.” (Kotler, 1982, p. 291). For Extension, “programs are products” (Topor, 1983, p. 15). Program Area. A term used to describe one of the program areas of MSUE: agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; or children, youth and family. The children, youth and family program area is further apportioned as follows: 4-H youth development, family and consumer sciences, and food and nutrition education programs (includes Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and Food and Nutrition Education Program (FNP). Promotion. A term used to describe, “all the activities the company undertakes to communicate and promote its products to the target market” (Kotler, 1997, p. 93). In this case, the company is the nonprofit organization. fig. A term used to describe respondents’ utilization of an item. Mg A term used to describe respondents’ level of being open or agreeable to perform a particular skill. Summary In Chapter I, the following topics were discussed in order to provide an introduction to the study: Extension history, Extension in Michigan, reputation (image) deficit, marketing is key, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research objectives, limitations of the study, assumptions, importance of the study, and definition 13 of terms. Chapter 11 provides a literature review on market research regarding the public perception of Extension and marketing. Chapter III describes the methodology or procedures used in planning and conducting the study. Chapter IV provides a presentation of the findings, while Chapter V presents conclusions, recommendations, and implications drawn from the findings. 14 CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH In conducting the review of literature and research, the need for two major underlying themes became apparent: a review of market research regarding the public perception of Extension and the core elements of marketing for a nonprofit organization as it relates to Extension. This chapter is organized to address the major themes as follows: image, public awareness of Extension, comparison of research on the public awareness of Extension, MSU Extension marketing action plan, county Extension marketing team, marketing defined, nonprofit organization marketing, product, price, place (distribution), promotion, environment, and summary. Image According to Warner (l993a), “Extension suffers from a reputation deficit” (p. 1). Explained another way, the reputation deficit may be described as “an image problem” (Jenkins, 1993, p. 1). The problem is not that Extension has an unfavorable image, but rather that Extension has “no image at all (or only a very weak and fuzzy one) with certain vitally important groups that will have a significant impact on their future” (Jenkins, 1993, p. 1). According to Kotler (1997), “image is the set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person holds regarding an object. People’s attitudes and actions toward an object are highly conditioned by that object’s image” (p. 607). MSUE should be interested in image as, “a successful marketing effort ensures that everything about the organization — its programs, employees, volunteers, facilities, and actions — communicates a uniform 15 and consistently positive message” (Foerster et al., 2000, p. 1). According to Topor (1983), Extension should be concerned about image for the following reasons: 1. We need to know how our county organization is perceived in relation to competing organizations. 2. We need to know how we are perceived by various market segments and publics. 3. We need to monitor image change over a period of time. (p. 23) According to Topor (1983), images tend to fluctuate “because a person’s beliefs, ideas and impressions result from individual background, needs, and past experiences. Differences in these areas can result in many different images of our organization” (p. 24). According to Warner (1993b), “whether positive or negative, Extension’s image is being molded by what we do, how we act, what we say, and most importantly, by the programs we conduct” (p. 1). To measure customer perceptions of Extension, data gathering methods such as surveys, interviews, and questionnaires may be used (Topor, 1983). Four research studies regarding public awareness of Extension will be presented. Public Awareness of Extension National Studies Warner, Christenson, Dillman, and Salant (1996) conducted a national study in 1995 entitled Public Perception of Extension. The 1995 study replicated a study conducted on the same topic in 1982 by Warner and Christenson (1984) entitled The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Both the 1982 and 1995 national surveys were conducted by telephone and asked the same questions in a random sample of the general public (Warner et al., 1996). 16 In 1982, when respondents were asked, “have you ever heard of the Cooperative Extension Service (sometimes called the Agricultural Extension Service) which is locally provided by County Extension Agents? Forty percent said they had” (Warner & Christenson, 1984, p. 48). Further questions followed concerning the program areas. Nationally, Extension has four program area thrusts. Respondents were asked awareness questions concerning the four program areas: agriculture, 4-H, home economics, and community development. “In all cases, more people recognized the program areas than the organizational name” (Warner & Christenson, 1984, p. 48). Percentages of awareness of the four program areas proved to be rather interesting. “A high of 77 percent had heard of the 4-H youth program, and about half recognized the other three” (Warner & Christenson, 1984, p. 48). High public awareness of the 4-H program was attributed to reaching “a larger number of persons in diverse geographical areas” and having a “short, easy to remember” name that “has not changed over time” (Warner & Christenson, 1984, p. 49). Awareness levels for the remaining program areas were as follows: agriculture at 52 percent, community development at 46 percent, and home economics at 45 percent (Warner & Christenson, 1984). In 1995, a second national study was conducted entitled Public Perception of Extension using the same questions that were asked in 1982 (Warner et al., 1996). “When asked if they had ever heard of the Cooperative Extension Service, 45% said they had” (Warner et al, 1996, p. 2). Respondents were asked questions concerning the program areas with awareness levels as follows: 4-H at 69 percent, home economics at 51 percent, agriculture at 50 percent, and community development at 38 percent (Warner etaL,1996) 17 A number of conclusions were drawn from the national studies. “As was found in 1982, Extension continues to have a fragmented image. Three out of four program areas have greater visibility than does the organization itself” (Warner et al., 1996, p. 5). From a marketing perspective, if Extension is going to overcome its fiagrnented image, it “must do a better job of building the linkages between the program identities and the overall organization” (Warner et al., 1996, p. 5). Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Study Verma and Burns (1995) conducted a study in 1994 entitled Marketing Extension in Louisiana: Image and Opportunity. Warner and Christenson’s (1984), the Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment “was used to guide LCES’ survey design and compare results. The survey was intended to determine public awareness, user satisfaction, and potential usefulness of Extension and Extension programs, and to compare rural and urban audiences on these factors” (V erma & Burns, 1995,p.2) Twelve rural parishes (counties) and four urban parishes were selected for the study (V enna & Burns, 1995). Results of the study follow: 40.6 percent were aware of Extension, 49.6 percent were aware of the 4-H youth program, 27.2 percent were aware of the agriculture program, 19.8 percent were aware of the community development program, 18.8 percent were aware of the home econonrics program, and 12.3 percent were aware of the leadership development program (V errna & Burns, 1995). A major conclusion drawn from the study was that “the general public is somewhat aware of Extension” (V erma & Burns, 1995, p. 4). 18 Verma and Burns (1995) found that “public awareness of both LCES and its programs was about one-half that found in the 1984 national study by Warner and Christenson.” (pp. 4-5). Verma and Burns (1995) further describe, “this awareness deficit implies that LCES needs to develop a marketing strategy to increase its visibility among the general public and, particularly, those groups targeted by Extension’s mission statement, its work, or its specific programs” (p. 5). Michigan State University Extension Study In Michigan, a telephone survey, written by Dr. Murari Suvedi and the staff of the MSU Center for Evaluative Studies and conducted in 2000 by the MSU Institute for Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) contacted a sample of 1,156 individuals regarding their awareness of MSU Extension and its program areas (Probyn, 2000). Respondents were asked questions about their awareness of MSU Extension and its program areas: agriculture and natural resources, community and economic development, family strengths, and 4-H youth programs (Probyn, 2000). Results of the study follow: 51.1 percent were aware of MSU Extension, 83.1 percent were aware of the 4-H youth program, 39.8 percent were aware of the community and economic development program, 37.9 percent were aware of the agriculture and natural resources program, and 33.9 percent were aware of the family strengths program (Probyn, 2000). One of the objectives included in the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan is to “build 80 percent public awareness of MSU Extension mission, goals and programs” (Kovacic, Stuever, & Heinze, 2000, p. 12). One of the conclusions of the Probyn study was, “while MSU Extension’s 51.1 percent awareness level among Michigan residents is greater than that enjoyed by other state Extension 19 services, it is less than the marketing plan’s targeted 80 percent awareness rate” (Probyn 2000,p.52) Comparison Of Research On Public Awareness of Extension For discussion purposes, the Warner, Christenson, Dillman, and Salant (1996) research and Warner and Christenson (1984) research will be referred to as the national studies. The Verma and Burns (1995) research will be referred to as the Louisiana study and the Probyn (2000) research will be referred to as the Michigan study. Table 1 shows a comparison of research on public awareness of Extension. Table 1. Comparison of Research on Public Awareness of Extension Items Corresponding Statistics National Louisiana MichiggL 1982 1995 1994 2000 Extension Awareness 40% 45% 40.6% 51.1% 4-H Program Awareness 77% 69% 49.6% 83.1% _Ag:iculture Program Awareness 52% 50% 27.2% 37.9% Home Economics Prom Awareness 45% 51% 18.8% 33.9% Community Development Program Awareness 46% 38% 19.8% 39.8% Leadership Development Program Awareness ---- --- 12.3% --- All four studies were conducted by telephone. While there are demographic differences among the data presented in Table 1, one point is evident in that there appears to be much room for improvement relative to marketing Extension. Having considered the public awareness of Extension, outcomes of the MSU Extension Marketing Action Plan will be discussed. MSU Extension Marketing Action Plan AS a part of the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan (Kovacic et al., 2000) a positioning statement and six marketing objectives were prepared. The positioning statement is as follows: “MSU Extension is positioned as a 20 statewide information and education delivery network applying university-level, research-based knowledge to locally identified critical issues” (Foerster et al., 2000, p. l). Forester et al. (2000) further states the marketing objectives established for MSU Extension are as follows: 1. 2. Codify, communicate, and deliver the MSU Extension experience. Achieve 100 percent legislative awareness and 60 percent legislative support. Build 80 percent public awareness of the MSU Extension mission, goals, and programs. Develop evaluation plans to quantify the impact of major MSU Extension programs. Link all MSU Extension programs to application-based research. Implement a market demand system for new MSU Extension program development. (p. 1) In order to actuate the marketing objectives, it is important that the concept of the county Extension marketing team be discussed. County Extension Marketing Team “A widely accepted definition of the term manager is someone who works with and through others to accomplish organizational goals” (Wilson, 1976, p. 25). For MSUE at the county level, the lead manager or administrator is the County Extension Director (CED). In this role, the CED: 1. Maintains relationships with the county board of commissioners, the general public, and various organizations and groups. 21 2. Obtains and administers local financial support for MSU Extension programs and activities in the county. 3. Provides administrative leadership to the professional staff members, program assistants and clerical staff members serving the county. (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a), p. 9) As can be seen from the responsibilities of a CED, the need for marketing is important. According to M. R. Kovacic, Interim Marketing Director for MSU Extension (personal communication, November 7, 2000), the CED should view oneself as the overall marketing director for MSU Extension in their respective county. The CED provides overall supervision for marketing activities taking place within the county respective to marketing MSU Extension as well as each program area. Utilizing a team management approach, the CED should work closely with Extension Agents, Program Associates, and administrative/clerical staff, County Extension Council, and Extension volunteers to develop, implement, and evaluate marketing efforts for MSU Extension and each of the program areas in the county. Collectively speaking, all staff, including the CED, Extension Agents, Program Associates, and administrative/clerical staff should compose the county Extension marketing team. An organizational view of marketing has been presented. It is now important to present the following components of marketing: marketing defined, nonprofit organization marketing, product, price, place (distribution), promotion, and environment. Marketing Defined Marketing is the analysis, planning, implementation, and control of carefully formulated programs designed to bring about voluntary exchanges of 22 values with target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It relies heavily on designing the organization’s offering in terms of the target markets’ needs and desires, and on using effective pricing, communication, and distribution to inform, motivate, and service the markets. (Kotler, 1982, p. 6) Kotler (1982) further outlines seven key concepts concerning the above definition: 1. Marketing is defined as a managerial process involving analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Marketing manifests itself in carefully formulated programs, not just random actions to achieve desired responses. Marketing seeks to bring about voluntary exchanges of values. Marketing means the selection of target markets rather than a quixotic attempt to serve every market and be all things to all men. The purpose of marketing is to help organizations ensure survival and continued health through serving their markets more effectively. Marketing relies on designing the organization’s offering in terms of the target market’s needs and desires rather than in terms of the seller’s personal tastes. Marketing utilizes and blends a set of tools called the marketing mix—product design, pricing, communication, and distribution. (pp. 6-8) “Organizations typically become aware of marketing when their market undergoes a change” (Kotler, 1982, p. 8). Kotler (1982) firrther states, “organizations that enjoy a sellers’ market, one marked by an abundance of customers, tend to ignore or avoid marketing” (p. 8). Historically, MSU Extension has had an abundance of 23 customers, yet it is challenged by scarcity of resources. As will be discussed, MSUE is confronted by characteristics affecting nonprofit organizations when it comes to marketing. Nonprofit Organization Marketing According to Kotler (1982), nonprofit organizations with a large number of customers usually pay little if any attention to marketing. Kotler (1982) further describes that as resources “get scarce or harder to attract, the organization gets concerned” (p. 8). MSU Extension has historically had an abundance of customers, yet it is challenged by resource limitations. Scarcity of resources may be attributed to the fact that MSU Extension is cooperatively firnded by tax dollars from the federal government, state legislature, and county boards of commissioners. “Most nonprofit organizations have found that they can adopt marketing principles without affecting the basic organizational mission. In fact, in many cases, an organization’s basic mission becomes more precise when marketing principles are adapted.” (Topor, 1983, pp. 4-5). According to Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), there are four distinctive characteristics of nonprofit organizations when it comes to marketing: multiple publics, multiple objectives, services rather than physical goods, and public scrutiny. As a nonprofit educational tax-supported organization, MSUE is affected by all four of these characteristics. According to Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), “nonprofit organizations normally have at least two major publics to work with from a marketing point of view: their clients and their funders” (p. 9). MSUE’S multiple publics are its 24 customers and funding sources. The customers are provided with educational inforrnation and programming. The funding sources are tax dollars provided through the federal government, state legislature, and county boards of commissioners. According to Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), serving the customer base presents a problem of “resource allocation,” while attracting funding sources poses a problem of “resource attraction” (p. 9). For MSU Extension, a great deal of pressure may exist if the demand for services (education) is high and the supply of resources (funds) to provide education is low. Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), state that “nonprofit organizations tend to pursue several important objectives simultaneously rather than only one, such as profits. As a result, it is more difficult to formulate strategies that will satisfy all the objectives” (p. 9). MSUE pursues multiple objectives as it has three distinct program areas (agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; and children, youth and families) with each having its own objectives. MSU Extension Agents working in each program area actively carry out the mission of the program area as well as the overall mission of MSUE. Each MSU Extension Agent prepares key initiatives to accomplish objectives in their respective program area as well as for the overall organization. According to Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), “most nonprofit organizations are engaged in the production of services rather than goods. Services have the characteristics of being intangible, inseparable, variable, and perishable” (p. 9). In MSUE’s case, the services provided are in the form of education and information. 25 Measuring results of education tend to be harder to quantify than measuring the shipment of physical goods. Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982) state, “nonprofit organizations are usually subject to close public scrutiny because they provide needed public services, are subsidized, are tax-exempt, and in many cases are mandated into existence” (p. 9). MSU Extension is under close public scrutiny as it provides a public service (education and information) and is tax-exempt as a nonprofit organization. Since its inception in 1914, Extension has always been subject to political pressure as a public organization. Having discussed the characteristics of nonprofit organization marketing and how they relate to MSUE, it is only fitting to proceed to the product of Extension. Product I Product (Program) Mix According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “a product is anything that can be offered in tangible form to a market to satisfy a need” (p. 371). Topor (1983) describes Extension programs as products. Further, Kotler and Andreasen (1996) state, “a product mix is the set of all product lines and items that a particular organization makes available to consumers” (p. 371). According to Topor (1983), the product mix is the set of all programs offered by a county Extension office at any one time. Simply stated, MSUE’s product mix is in providing information and offering educational programs and information in three areas: agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; and children, youth and families (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.b)). In other words, the product (program) mix refers to all programs and items 26 offered by MSUE in each of the three program areas. Breaking the product (program) mix down further, product lines will be considered next. Product (Program) Line According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “a product line is a group of products within a product mix that are closely related, either because they function in a similar manner, are made available to the same consumers, or are marketed through the same types of outlets” (p. 371). According to Topor (1983), “a group of closely related products, functioning in a similar manner, offered to the same target audience by a county Cooperative Extension office make up a product line” (pp. 15, 18). For MSUE’S purposes, the product line may also be known as the program line. In other words, the product (program) line refers to all the programs and items offered in a single program area. The outlets where products (programs) are offered are through the county Extension offices. The product (program) lines for MSUE refers to all the programs and items offered within each distinct program area whether it be agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; or children, youth and families. Product (Program) Items According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “a product item is a distinct unit within a product line that is distinguishable by size, appearance, price, or some other attribute” (p. 371). For MSUE’s purposes, product items may also be known as program items. Product (program) items are simply all methods or items utilized in disseminating MSU Extension educational information. There is a wide array of program items utilized by MSUE. The following presents a partial list of program items: classes, phone-in requests, walk-in requests, bulletins, videos, satellite broadcasts, workshops, conferences, 27 meetings, area of expertise technical information, process facilitation, network facilitation, soil recommendations, specialist support, laboratory analysis, farm visits, home visits, and computer software support. Due to the wide array of programs and items offered, it is important to take inventory of the program mix, lines, and items offered on at least an annual, if not ongoing basis. Strategic planning is important to position programs at the county level. Strategic Planning “Strategic planning is the managerial process of developing and maintaining a strategic fit between the organization’s goals and resources and its changing marketing opportunities” (Kotler, 1982, p. 83). Market evolution and strategic fit are two principles organizations need to consider. Strategic Window of Opportunity According to Kotler (1982): Management has to pay attention to market evolution and strategic fit. All markets undergo evolutionary development marked by changing customer needs, technologies, competitors, channels, and laws. According to Abell (as cited in Kotler, 1982), the organization should be looking out of a strategic window watching these changes and assessing the requirements for continued success in each market. Kotler (1982) further states, there is only a limited period when the fit between the requirements of a particular market and the organization’s competencies is at an optimum. At these times the strategic window is open, and the organization should be investing in this market. In some subsequent period the organization will find that the evolutionary path of this market is such that it 28 can no longer be effective and efficient in serving this market. It should then consider disinvesting and shifting its resources to areas of growing opportunity. (p. 83) It is important MSU Extension maintain observation on the strategic window to watch for market changes and assess the requirements for continued success in each market (program area). According to Boehlje and King (1998), “Extension has done little customer and market analysis. Much Extension information is organized and packaged to reflect the disciplines or fields of faculty and specialists, rather than designed to solve the problems of customers or audiences” (p. 25). Portfolio Analysis According to Buford, Bedeian, and Lindner (1995), “portfolio analysis has long been used by businesses to categorize activities in terms of their rate of market growth and their market share. As with investments, sound business activities should be supported and poor business activities should be discarded” (p. 55). As cited in Buford et a1. (1995), a strategy grid may be used for positioning programs as adapted from Bruce D. Henderson, “The Product Portfolio,” the Boston Consulting Group, Inc., 1970. Schuchardt and Cunningham (as cited in Buford et al., 1995) “have applied portfolio analysis in Extension” (p.55). Portfolio analysis may be used to categorize programs into four quadrants, namely: A — “stars,” B — “ fat cats,” C — “question marks,” and D — “dogs” (Schuchardt and Cunningham (as cited in Buford et aL,1995) Specifically, Schuchardt and Cunningham (as cited in Buford et al., 1995), describe each of the quadrants for positioning programs as follows: 29 The “stars” have high demand and high impact and fit in Quadrant A. The “stars” deserve arduous grooming for the future. Sufficient resources should be allocated to these programs so they can grow as quickly as possible. The “fat cats” fall in Quadrant B. These programs are making an impact, but the field shows little indication of growth in public demand. Some selective cost- cutting is in order. Quadrant C contains the “question marks.” These programs are not making much of an impact, perhaps because of other competition, even though the topics are strong and growing. The recommendation for action is “get it together or get out.” Is it really worth the cost to improve the impact, or should Extension graciously relinquish the turf to better equipped competitors? Finally, Quadrant D shelters the “dogs.” These are programs that are not making headway in a static or declining field. It is seldom easy to do because of traditional dedication to a specialty, but these programs should be handled with ruthless cost-cutting or shutdown. (pp. 55-57) It is important Extension Agents take inventory, preferably on an annual basis, to determine priority areas for programming and appropriately align resources. Having discussed product in relation to strategic planning and prioritizing programs, price will be considered next. Price In reviewing the literature on price relative to marketing, there are two major topics requiring discussion: setting the pricing objectives and choosing a pricing 30 strategy. It is important nonprofit organizations consider their pricing objectives before they can make informed decisions on choosing pricing strategies. Pricing Objectives It is important nonprofit organizations make informed decisions relative to the pricing of its products or programs. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), there are five different types of pricing objectives from which nonprofit organizations may select to operate: surplus maximization, cost recovery, market size maximization, social equity, and market disincentivization. Surplus Maximization Surplus maximization involves the nonprofit organization setting the price “with the objective of maximizing its receipts over its costs” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 447). “Surplus-maximizing pricing requires the organization to estimate two functions, the response (demand) fimction and the cost function” (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, p. 447). An example of surplus maximization within MSUE would be conducting a firndraising event with the 4-H youth program. For instance, a 4-H shooting sports club may decide to host a spaghetti dinner to obtain funds to purchase targets, arrows, and bows for the 4-H members to learn archery skills and adult leaders to teach the skills. In this instance, the goal of the 4-H club is to maxinrize receipts. Therefore, the organization must estimate how many people (demand) would attend and the necessary expenditures (costs) to host such an event. In this case, surplus maximization is the goal of the group. 31 Cost Recovery “Many nonprofit organizations seek a price that would help them recover a “reasonable” part of their costs” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 449). According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), full cost recovery is sought by some organizations and operating cost recovery is the objective of others. An example of cost recovery within MSUE would be the processing of soil samples/generation of soil test results. In this case, the goal is to recover the operating costs of shipment, processing, and postage. Market Size (Usage) Maximization Some nonprofit organizations want to maximize the usage of their services, thereby operating on the theory that a zero price will attract the most customers (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996). “In most situations, a low price normally stimulates higher usage and may produce more revenue in the long run” (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, p. 449). An example of usage maximization within MSUE would be a decision not to charge farmers and commercial pesticide applicators to attend a review session for re-certification credits. The theory used here is that participants are required by federal law to obtain continuing education if they wish to re-certify without writing an examination and that the salaries/fiinge benefits of the Extension Agents conducting the review session are already covered by county, state, and/or federal tax dollars. Social Equity “Organizations may wish to price their services in a way that contributes to social equity” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 449). “Our concepts of social equity hold that, wherever possible, public (and by extension, nonprofit) services should not operate to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 449). It is 32 likely, MSU Extension does not intentionally practice social equity as it is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution, meaning its programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age or religion. Market Disincentivization Market disincentivization is where “pricing might be undertaken for the objective of discouraging as many people as possible from purchasing a particular product or service” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 450). The mission of MSU Extension “helps people improve their lives through an educational process that applies knowledge to critical issues, needs, and opportunities” (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.b), p. 1). Due to the organizational mission, it is likely MSU Extension does not intentionally practice market disincentivization in the pricing of its programs. Pricing Strategies Having considered the various pricing objectives, focus will now shift to pricing strategies. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “pricing strategies tend to be cost oriented, demand oriented, or competition oriented” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 450) C ost-Oriented Pricing “Cost-oriented pricing refers to setting prices largely on the basis of costs, either marginal costs or total costs including overhead. Two examples are markup pricing and cost-plus pricing” (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, p. 450). Adding “predetermined but different markups to various goods” is known as markup pricing (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, p. 450). “Pricing of jobs that are nonroutine and hard to “cost” in advance” is known as cost-plus pricing (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, pp. 450-451). It is likely, markup 33 pricing and cost-plus pricing are practices not commonly used by MSUE at the county level. Cost-minus pricing is a practice of charging customers less than the actual costs, where donations or other funding sources may be used to help offset the actual cost (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). A likely example of cost-minus pricing in MSUE would be determining the actual cost to host a 4—H youth event, charging a price less than the actual cost, and obtaining sponsors or donations in advance to cover the balance of the event. Kotler and Andreasen (1996) state that: The most popular form of cost-oriented pricing uses break-even analysis. The purpose of break-even analysis is to determine, for any proposed price, how many units of an item would have to be sold to cover fully the costs; this is known as the break-even volume. (p. 451) A likely example of using break-even analysis in MSUE would be offering the Master Gardener program. The Extension Agent would figure the fixed cost of hosting the Master Gardener program. Then, the price minus variable cost would be figured. The difference would be divided into the fixed cost to determine how many participants are needed to obtain break-even volume (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). It is likely break- even analysis is a commonly used strategy within MSUE at the county level to determine price to charge in offering programs. Next, demand-oriented pricing will be considered. Demand-Oriented Pricing According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “demand-oriented pricing looks at the condition of demand rather than the level of costs to set the price. Demand-oriented sellers estimate how much value buyers see in the market offer, and they price 34 accordingly” (p.452). It is likely demand-oriented pricing is not commonly used at the county level within MSUE. C ompetition-Oriented Pricing When an organization sets its prices based upon what the competition is doing, whether it is higher, lower, or the same price, it is employing a competition oriented pricing strategy (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). Under competition oriented pricing, there are two types of pricing strategies known as going rate and product differentiation (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). Going rate pricing occurs when an organization tries to set its prices in relation to the prices competing organizations set for their products (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). A product differentiation pricing strategy occurs when an organization sets its price based on the differences their product offers in comparison to its competitors (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). It is likely competition oriented pricing strategies are not commonly used at the county level within MSUE. Three remaining items relative to price deserve mention: price discrimination, changing the price, and promotional pricing. Price Discrimination According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “price discrimination goes on in nonprofit organizations all the time” (p. 454). A likely example of price discrimination in MSUE could be charging a lower registration fee for a workshop for early registrants and charging a higher registration fee after a set date for late registrants. In addition, a lower fee may be charged for registering a second or third person to attend a workshop with the first person. 35 Changing the Price According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), the question of changing the price is a difficult one to answer and they recommend doing research to reduce the uncertainty about pricing. Promotional Pricing Promotional pricing involves offering a special price or introductory offer to increase consumer activity (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). A likely example within MSUE of promotional pricing may be offering an introductory or lower price for farmers to enroll in the Telfarrn program. Telfarrn is a farm business analysis program to help farmers manage the economics of their business. It is likely pricing is an area where MSUE has limited experience in setting objectives and selecting pricing strategies. Perhaps Boehlje and King (1998) best summarize Extension’s history with pricing: The issue of charging for information services continues to be controversial in Extension programming. Traditionally, Extension programs are free, or there is a nominal charge. This is based on the traditional premise that public, tax-generated funds have been used to support the information development and dissemination system, so that charging for services would be a form of “double billing.” This premise may be eroding as we see user-fee structures emerge in other publicly funded operations such as National Parks. (p. 30) Place (Distribution) Placing or distribution refers to how an organization makes its products and services available and accessible to its target customers (Kotler, 1997). In MSUE’s case, 36 the primary location of distribution begins at the county Extension office serving each of Michigan’s 83 counties. The methods of distributing educational programs and information overlap with the sections on product items and the five major modes of communication. Regardless of the methods of distribution selected, it is important that Extension Agents carefully evaluate the delivery of educational programs and information so it is distributed or made available to the intended target audiences using the most effective and economical means possible. Most likely, the most effective and economical means is through segmentation. Segmentation Kotler defines market segmentation as “the act of dividing a market into distinct and meaningful groups of consumers who might merit separate products and/or marketing mixes” (Kotler, 1982, pp. 216-217). By virtue of its structure, MSUE segments its target audiences by its program areas: agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; and children, youth and family. MSUE agriculture and natural resources (ANR) customer groups include the following: commercial farmers; agribusiness firms; small and part-time farmers; consumers with home, yard, and gardening needs; and the tourist industry (Michigan State University, (n.d.a), p. 3). Of the ANR customer groups listed, the commercial farmers; agribusiness firms; and small and part-time farmers represent target audiences by occupation. Dividing a customer group by occupation is a form of demographic segmentation (Kotler, 1997). Consumers interested in home, yard, and gardening topics and the tourist industry represents a form of psychographic segmentation. When 37 customers are divided into groups on the basis of lifestyle and/or personality, this is known as psychographic segmentation (Kotler, 1997). MSUE community and economic development customer groups include government, business, and economic and community organizations (Michigan State University, (n.d.a)). Government, business, economic and community organizations represent a form of segmentation for organizational markets. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996) bases for segmenting organizational markets includes: organization size, interest profile, buying criteria, buying process, and degree of local autonomy. MSUE children, youth and family customer groups are divided into the areas of 4- H youth development, family and consumer sciences, and food and nutrition education programs. Customers in the 4-H youth development area include the following: youth 5- 19 years of age, teen volunteer leaders, and adult volunteer leaders (Michigan State University, (n.d.a)). The above customers represent target audiences by age and life cycle. Age and life cycle are forms of demographic segmentation (Kotler, 1997). Family and consumer science customers include: parents with young children, adult children of aging parents, and families in transition (Michigan State University Extension, (n.d.a)). Customers in the family and nutrition education program are primarily limited resource families. Again, in both instances, demographics are the primary forms of segmentation used here. Limited resource families, of course, are segmented based on income while parents with young children, adult children of aging parents, and families in transition are segmented based on age and life cycle stages. Income is a form of demographic segmentation (Kotler, 1997). There are many benefits to audience segmentation. Topor (1983) states that: 38 In extension, audience segmentation has many benefits: 0 identify “clients” deliver programs more effectively 0 cut costs by targeting programs and communications 0 survey and identify needs 0 evaluate programs 0 determine “messages” and appeals 0 develop strategies 0 develop and implement an appropriate marketing mix designed to satisfy the chosen market target (p. 20) MSUE maintains an office offering all program areas to each county in Michigan. Maintaining an office for customers to access information, programs, materials, and services is geographic segmentation. “Geographic segmentation calls for dividing the market into different geographical units such as nations, states, regions, counties, cities, or neighborhoods” (Kotler, 1997, p. 256). Market segmentation and its benefits for marketing Extension have been considered. Next, the concept of segment marketing will be considered and its relation to Extension. Segment Marketing In the preceding paragraphs, the technique of market segmentation was discussed by MSUE program area. The customer groups identified by program area represent market segments. “A market segment consists of a large identifiable group within a market” (Kotler, 1997, p. 250). In segment marketing, an organization recognizes that each of its customers has specific needs, yet it is not feasible to try to market to each 39 individual customer (Kotler, 1997). According to Boehlje and King (1998), “Extension professionals do have personal contact with their customers or their audiences. However, they do relatively little audience segmentation and tailoring of their information to specific individual customers” (p. 25). The practice of segmenting by program area likely provides perhaps one of the most effective and efficient means of reaching customers. Local marketing may further help target an organization’s programming efforts. Local Marketing “Target marketing is increasingly taking on the character of regional and local marketing, with marketing programs being tailored to the needs and wants of local customer groups” (Kotler, 1997, p. 251). With MSUE, the County Extension Council, as well as other advisory groups, assist MSUE in identifying needs, obtaining resources for programming, and in evaluating programming efforts. Advisory groups serve in a similar capacity to focus groups, where needs are identified and suggestions for improvements are made (Kotler, 1997). Once needs are identified by advisory groups, selective specialization may take place. Selective Specialization When an organization, given its objectives and resources, selects a number of segments attractive and appropriate to pursue a market, selective specialization has taken place (Kotler, 1997). MSUE has recently moved into selective specialization through the concept of area of expertise. MSU Extension Agents are encouraged to select a technical subject matter area to develop and advance as their area of expertise. Selective 40 specialization allows MSUE to better serve customer needs, as information becomes more technical over time. Promotion “Promotion is defined as the development of persuasive communications” (Kotler, 1982, p. 374). According to Kotler (1997), the promotion mix consists of five major modes of communication: advertising, sales promotion, public relations and publicity, personal selling, and direct marketing. Bennett (as cited in Kotler (1997) defines each of the terms as follows: 0 Advertising: Any paid form of nonpersonal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods, or services by an identified sponsor. 0 Sales promotion: A variety of short-term incentives to encourage trial or purchase of a product or service. 0 Public relations and publicity: A variety of programs designed to promote and/or protect a company’s image or its individual products. a Personal selling: Face-to-face interaction with one or more prospective purchasers for the purpose of making presentations, answering questions, and procuring orders. 0 Direct marketing: Use of mail, telephone, fax, e-mail, and other nonpersonal contact tools to communicate directly with or solicit a direct response from specific customers and prospects. (p. 604) MSUE utilizes all five modes of communicating in its promotional mix to the public. The method of communication varies depending upon the message being sent to the customer. An example of each mode of communication follows. 41 MSUE uses advertising by placing its logo on items such as business cards, letterhead, cups, and hats. Demonstrations are given as a form of sales promotion to agricultural producers on the use of computer technology at meetings. News articles are written as a form of public relations to promote MSUE programs and activities. Personal selling is accomplished by meeting the public at fairs and trade shows. Newsletters, other mailings, and the world wide web are used as a form of direct marketing to promote MSUE programs and activities. According to King and Boehlje (2000), “Extension has spent decades as a sole- source provider in the information and outreach market” (p. 1). This is no longer the case due to accessibility of technology (King & Boehlje, 2000). King and Boehlje (2000) issue a challenge, “rather than reinvent from the inside, we propose creating fiom scratch a new virtual Extension Service: e-CES” (p. 3). King and Boehlje (2000) propose “a new e-CES in classic, new-market-entrant, start-up mode. Initial goals will be to match and surpass Extension’s current supply-oriented distribution system with a demand- oriented anytime, anyplace, any-source access system” (p. 3). It is important to note, MSUE has implemented a web site with design and access continuing to evolve over time. Public Relations Promotion and public relations tend to go hand-in-hand. According to Public Relations News, October 27, 1947 (as cited in Kotler & Andreasen, 1996), public relations is described as “the management function that evaluates the attitudes of important publics, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or an 42 organization with the public interest, and executes a program of action to earn understanding and acceptance by these publics” (p. 542). According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), the following components are considered important in implementing a public relations strategy: 0 Identify the Organization’s Relevant Publics 0 Measure Images and Attitudes of the Relevant Publics 0 Establish Image and Attitude Goals for Key Publics 0 Develop Cost Effective Public Relations Strategies 0 Prepare for Public Relations Crises 0 Choosing Specific Public Relations Tools 0 Implementing Actions and Evaluating Effects (pp. 543-555) If an organization takes a reactive stance to public relations, the environment tends to set the agenda, the organization’s image is defined by response to special situations, and a long-term strategy is not in place to handle crises (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). If an organization takes an active stance to public relations, the reactive pitfalls may be avoided and more control may be asserted over how the organization is viewed by others (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). Environment According to Kotler (1982), “the environment in which an organization operates is complex and constantly changing” (p. 85). In this section, two major items will be considered: competition and advisory groups. 43 Competition “In carrying out its task of producing and delivering services to a target market, the nonprofit organization will typically face competition. Many nonprofit organizations deny the existence of competition, feeling that this is more characteristic of business firms” (Kotler, 1982, p. 54). Each MSUE program area will be discussed as it relates to competitors. In the agriculture and natural resources program area, competitors are faced in the area of for profit agribusiness. Agribusiness is both a customer group as well as a competitor for MSUE. It is important to mention MSUE has a competitive advantage relative to agribusiness. This is because MSUE is not in the business of selling tangible products for profit, but provides objective educational information for customers to take into consideration in order to make informed decisions. According to Boehlje and King (1998), “Extension and the Land-Grant System do bring two overriding strengths to the customer—objectivity and overall accuracy” (p. 26). Boehlje and King (1998) further state, “these attributes alone may not counter the relative value of convenience and ease of access of the private-sector information providers” (p. 26). Relative to Extension’s ability to compete, Boehlje and King (1998) state: Public information sources such as the Cooperative Extension Service may have dominated in the past, but information from private sources, such as agribusinesses and commercial crop and market advisers, now offers strong competition. To be sure, competition has been a part of the overall information marketplace for some time. Now, however, we are seeing competition from private information providers increasing at a time when Extension is least capable 44 of meeting the competition because resources are being reduced or at best held flat. (p. 22) In the community and economic development program area, competitors provide planning and development services on a for profit basis. Again, MSUE has a competitive advantage in that it provides objective educational information for customers to take into consideration to make informed decisions. In the children, youth and family program area both the 4-H youth program and family and consumer sciences program faces competition. The 4-H youth program competes with other organizations for volunteer time and with other youth serving organizations in providing programs for youth to develop into productive citizens. In the family and consumer sciences program, competitors exist in providing nutrition education, parenting skills, as well as other areas. Private information providers are perhaps the stiffest competition Extension has for its services. According to Boehlje and King (1998), “as data are combined with knowledge to create information from which revenue and value can be gained, private information providers are placing Extension at a competitive disadvantage” (p. 21). Boehlje and King (1998) pose the question: Can Extension and the Land-Grant System survive and succeed in head-to-head competition with private information providers, or will the system be most successful as a wholesale source of information and education in partnership with private-sector information providers? (p. 21) It is important Extension maintain a watchful eye on the strategic window of opportunity with regard to its programs and information as it provides a means for 45 positioning. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), “positioning is the act of designing the organization’s image and value offer so that the organization’s customers understand and appreciate what the organization stands for in relation to its competitors” (p. 191). Advisory Groups The County Extension Council, Extension advisory groups, and Extension volunteers play an important role in marketing and advocating the programs, education, and information available through MSUE to help people improve their lives, consistent with the organization’s mission. According to Warner (1993b), “the true owners of the program are clients, leaders, volunteers, program participants, and government officials” (p. 2). “We must aggressively nurture a leadership structure that continually works actively on behalf of Extension support” (Warner, 1993b, p. 2). Summary DeYoung (1988) states: The reaction of Extension field staff to increased marketing efforts is mixed. Some staff arriving at marketing training workshops are hopeful that increased “media visibility” will increase their leverage with funding sources. Other staff express fear that subsequent marketing efforts may be “too successful.” They foresee vast new audiences overloading limited Extension programming time and resources. (p. l) Preparedness to market Extension is another question. Jenkins (1993), states the following: 46 How many of our land grant communicators are well-read in the principles and practices of marketing for nonprofit organizations? How many know how to critically analyze audiences, or “publics,” with which their organization interacts and to select those that hold the keys to their future? These skills will be crucial to building the awareness and favorability comprising a positive image. Through our professional societies and our communication units, we must provide opportunities and incentives for land grant communicators to improve their marketing communication knowledge and skills. (p. 3) A number of key components of marketing have been considered: image, public awareness of Extension, comparison of research on the public awareness of Extension, MSU Extension marketing action plan, county Extension marketing team, marketing defined, nonprofit organization marketing, product, price, place (distribution), promotion, environment, and summary. Thus far, research has focused on public awareness of Extension. A study is needed of the perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSUE, to determine their level of familiarity with MSUE marketing reports, and to determine whether they are familiar with, prepared to use, and have used items included in the MSUE county marketing packet and on the MSUE marketing web site. Methodology, findings, and conclusions follow for this research study in the remaining chapters. 47 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In order to accurately describe perceptions of County Extension Directors and Extension Agents on marketing Michigan State University Extension, it was essential to follow proper research protocol throughout the study. A copy of the instrument, methodology section of the proposal, cover letter, and research study application was submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. A copy of the letter granting approval of the research project is included in Appendix A. The committee approved the instrument and cover letter as subnritted. Relative to methodology, the following topics require discussion: population, database development, instrument development, research design, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, and summary. Population The study population was composed of 368 MSU Extension Agents. For purposes of this study the term MSU Extension Agents applies to the positions of: County Extension Director (CED); Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources (AN R) Agent; Extension Community and/or Economic Development (EC/ED) Agent; Extension 4-H (4-H) Youth Agent; Extension Educator (EE) for Family and Consumer Sciences; Extension Children, Youth and Family (CYF) Agent; and District Extension Agent (DEA). The population was based in the field and geographically dispersed throughout the 83 counties in Michigan. The entire population or universe was selected for the study. Reasons for selecting the universe were as follows: size of the population was not prohibitive, a 48 major marketing initiative was underway with MSU Extension, and inclusiveness of the study was considered paramount. Database Development This study took the form of a census survey. In order to perform the census, February 1, 2001 was the date selected for verifying the list of MSU Extension Agents included in the study population. MSU Extension Agents on board as of February 1, 2001 were included in the study provided they did not remove themselves due to retirement, resignation, extended leave spanning the duration of the data gathering phase, or because of mortality prior to mailing of the initial survey packet on April 2, 2001. Subject to their knowledge, Regional Extension Directors and/or their designee notified the researcher of MSU Extension Agents retiring or resigning prior to April 2, 2001 for removal from the study population. The study population was verified using the web- based MSU Extension staff directory (“Directory,” 2001), the Regional Extension Directors and/or their support staff designees, and The Communicator (“Extension People,” 2001). The Communicator is a newsletter for employees and retirees of MSU Extension by AN R (Agriculture and Natural Resources) Communications. The web-based MSU Extension staff directory (“Directory,” 2001) provided the initial opportunity for gathering information in developing the database for the study. Microsoft Access 2000 software was used in developing and managing the database. The database included the following fields: code, date received, box to check if the respondent desired study summary results, first name 1, first name 2, last name, position, office name, street, city-state-zip, phone, region, and county. The first name 1 field was used in the salutation of correspondence sent to the study population. The first name 2 49 field was used in capital letters as part of the address on correspondence, mailing labels, and verification lists with the Regional Extension Directors and/or their support staff designees. The database fields of region, county, first name 2, last name, position, office name, street, city-state-zip, and phone were used to generate a list of MSU Extension Agents by region for each Regional Extension Director and/or their support staff designees to verify for accuracy. MSU Extension is divided into six regions for administrative purposes. The Communicator was used as a cross check to further verify new appointments, changes in assignment and resignations. Instrument Development Specific research protocol was followed in developing the instrument. Relative to instrument development, the following topics are discussed: design, content, validity, and reliability. Design As for design, the instrument followed recommendations described by Dillrnan (1978) in Mail And Telephone Surveys The Total Design Method. The survey instrument is included in Appendix B. The instrument was designed using Microsoft Publisher 2000 software. Title selected for the cover page was--Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents. The title for the front cover was selected based on input provided by one of the reviewers serving on the panel of experts while gathering input on the face and content validity of the instrument. The survey title was short and easy for respondents to understand. Organization logo and sponsoring department information was also included on the front 50 cover. White space was provided on the back cover of the questionnaire for respondents to make comments. Also on the back cover, the researcher expressed appreciation to respondents for taking time to complete the questionnaire and provided address information for return of the instrument. Content As for content, the instrument included a brief description of the survey, directions for completion, an example, and the major sections of product (programs and information), pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment (internal and external), marketing reports, county marketing packet, marketing web site, and demographic items. Items (skills) included in the questionnaire were developed by the researcher from literanrre reviewed, marketing coursework completed, experience in serving as a County Extension Director and Extension 4-H Youth Agent with MSU Extension, and subsequent input provided by the panel of experts relative to the face and content validity of the instrument. Items (skills) considered important for MSU Extension Agents on marketing MSU Extension were identified and categorized into the areas of product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment (internal and external). MSU Extension Agents were asked to respond to each item (skill) based on their perceived level of willingness to perform the skill, preparedness to perform the skill, and how often they performed the skill during the past year. A 7-point rating scale was used for the above sections based on the following descriptions: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = infrequently, 4 = occasionally, 5 = frequently, 6 = often, and 7 = very often. According to C. L. Droge, Professor in Marketing and Supply Chain Management at MSU (personal 51 communication, December 14, 2000), 7-point scales are the standard for rating scales in marketing surveys. The marketing reports section was included to obtain the level of familiarity of MSU Extension Agents with regard to recent marketing reports distributed concerning the organization. Reports included in this section are as follows: Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Draft October 1 999 (Heinze et al., 1999) and Draft Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Report to the MSU Extension Marketing Task F orce October 10, 2000 (Suvedi & Probyn, 2000). Once again, a 7-point rating scale was used for the above sections with the descriptions adjusted to reflect level of familiarity as follows: 1 = not familiar, 2 = slightly familiar, 3 = somewhat familiar, 4 = moderately familiar, 5 = familiar, 6 = very familiar, and 7 = extremely familiar. In the next section, items included in the county marketing packet (Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet, 2000) and on the marketing web site (Marketing, 2000) were included to determine if respondents were familiar, prepared to use, and have used the items. Nominal descriptions of N = No and Y = Yes were used. The final section included demographic items. Respondents were asked to respond to items concerning gender, years of work experience with MSU Extension, program assignment, position, geographic area of coverage of responsibilities, highest level of education attained, and major area of study completed with highest degree. As mentioned previously, 7-point scales are considered the standard for rating scales in marketing surveys. The demographic section consisted of both close-ended questions with ordered response choices and close-ended questions with unordered 52 response choices. On the major area of study completed with highest degree question, respondents were asked to enter the major area if it was not listed. The years of work experience question with MSU Extension had ranges from which respondents selected the corresponding answer. Validity The instrument was evaluated for both face and content validity, utilizing two panels of experts. Validity is “the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure” (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 1996, p. 262). First, a panel of three experts specializing in research, evaluation, and extension education was assembled within the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems at Michigan State University to review the instrument. The first panel made the following recommendations that were incorporated into the final questionnaire: 1. Group the items by area, i.e. product (programs and information), pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment (internal and external), marketing reports, county marketing packet, marketing web site, and demographic items. 2. Heavily scrutinize each item included in the questionnaire. All items must relate directly to one of the research objectives. 3. Write items similar to objectives so they are specific, measurable, and attainable. 4. All items must be reflective of the theoretical framework included in the introduction and literature review of the proposal, forming a seamless transition from the body of literature to the questionnaire. 53 5. Design the questionnaire so it is a learning experience about marketing while respondents complete it. It was stated most respondents have a limited background in marketing. 6. Provide instructions at the beginning of each new section for better flow. 7. Bold key words in the columns and in the instructions. 8. List the end points of the scale at the beginning of each rating column. 9. List the rating scale at the beginning and at the top of each page of the questionnaire. Upon completing the internal department review of the questionnaire for face and content validity, a second panel of twenty-two resource professionals specializing in marketing; communications; research; Extension education; educational design; agriculture and natural resources; community and economic development; children, youth and families; 4-H youth development; and family and consumer sciences were identified to provide further input with regard to face and content validity. The second panel of experts for validity was composed of campus staff and retired MSU Extension Agents. The second panel of experts was mailed a copy of the questionnaire along with a self-addressed stamped envelope for return. A copy of the panel of experts for validity cover letter is included in Appendix C. Nineteen out of twenty-two of the resource professionals responded either by mail, e-mail, phone, or in-person to achieve a response rate of 86.4 percent. Revisions based on recommendations provided by the second panel of experts were incorporated into the final questionnaire as follows: 1. Changed the title of the survey to read as follows: Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents. 54 10. 1]. Changed the order of the columns from prepared, willing, and how often, to willing, prepared, and how often. The reasoning was that the logical order to follow was willingness first, followed by preparedness, and ending with how often. . Adjusted the 7-point scale descriptions to better accommodate grammar concerns. The major item involved changing from 7 = Always to 7 = Very Often. The rest of the words on the scale were adjusted accordingly. Eliminated four questions in the environment section that assessed teamwork, as the connection to marketing was further removed. Added one item in the environment section on responding to County Commission requests. Increased the font size in the demographics section and placed the headings and instructions in bold. In the demographics section, added the question concerning position geographic area of coverage. Changed the type of data requested in the marketing reports section from a nominal yes/no format to a 7-point scale to assess level of familiarity providing for more accurate measurement. Divided the MSU Extension marketing materials section into two separate sections: MSU Extension county marketing packet and MSU Extension marketing web site. Set apart page 2 as a standalone instructions page, with the items for completion beginning at the top of page 3. Remaining changes involved making the wording of individual items more precise. 55 Reliability Upon obtaining the data from the second panel of experts, it was determined the questionnaire was valid. It was time to proceed with testing the instrument for reliability. Twenty current MSU Extension staff members who had previously served as MSU Extension Agents were identified and asked to serve in a pilot test group to complete and return the questionnaire. A copy of the pilot test group for reliability cover letter requesting the resource professionals’ assistance is included in Appendix D. Pilot test group procedures were followed the same as for the actual population targeted for the survey as the confidentiality statement was applied, a $1.00 incentive as a small token of appreciation was included with the questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope was included for returning the questionnaire. Reliability is the extent an instrument yields consistent results (Ary et al., 1996). Reliability of the instrument was established using coefficient alpha, one of the internal consistency measures of reliability. This procedure measures “the inter-item consistency, or homogeneity, of the items” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 283). “The more heterogeneous the domain, the lower the inter-item consistency and, conversely, the more homogenous the domain, the higher the inter-item consistency” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 283). Coefficient alpha was the most suitable for this study because it is most useful for attitude scales or essay tests (Ary et al., 1996). Coefficient alpha was used to establish reliability for the scaled sections of the instrument including: product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment, and marketing reports. Table 2 depicts the coefficient alpha reliability results. Alpha scores ranged from .8047 to .9632, with four of the sections 56 attaining an alpha greater than .90. Upon completion of the reliability test, minor revisions were made to the instrument before printing. Table 2. Coefficient Alpha Reliability Results Statistics Key N = Number, Alpha = Alpha Reliability Score Sections N of Cases N of Items Alpha Product 10 36 .9279 Pricig l l 30 .9434 Placing and Targeting 12 36 .8476 Promotion 12 5 l .9306 Environment 1 1 48 .9632 Marketig Reports 10 2 .8047 In the case of both validity tests and the reliability test, current MSU Extension Agents were not asked to serve on the panel of experts for validity or participate in the pilot test group for reliability to eliminate the possibility of contamination. Participants for both the validity and reliability testing were asked not to share the instrument with current MSU Extension Agents. Research design will be the next topic of consideration. Research Design The method of survey research was selected as it provided the most effective and efficient means of gathering data with available resources for the study. Questions pertaining to the marketing component are the dependent variables and the demographic data questions are the independent variables. With any research design, it is always important to take into consideration both internal and external threats to validity. Internal threats and means of control will be considered first. Campbell and Stanley (as cited in Ary et al., 1996, p. 312) “identified eight extraneous variables that frequently represent threats to the internal validity of a research design.” These threats to internal validity include: history, maturation, pre- testing, measuring instruments, statistical regression, differential selection of subjects, 57 experimental mortality, and selection-maturation interaction. Each of the threats will be given consideration for control with this study. History refers to “specific events or conditions, other than the experimental treatment, may occur between the first and second measurements of the subjects to produce changes in the dependent variable” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 312). This study does not involve a pre-test/post-test design. Only one measurement in the form of a survey was taken, therefore history did not pose a threat. Maturation refers to “processes that operate within the subjects simply as a function of the passage of time may produce effects that could mistakenly be attributed to the experimental variable” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 312). Again, only one measurement was taken in the form of a survey, therefore maturation was not a threat. Pre-testing is described as, “exposure to a pretest may affect the subjects’ performance on a second test, regardless of the experimental treatment” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 312). As mentioned previously in the discussion concerning reliability, a pilot test of the instrument was conducted with a group of 22 current MSU Extension staff that had previously served as MSU Extension Agents, but was not in the study population. A control was in place in that the pilot group was representative of, but did not include respondents in the study population. “Changes in the measuring instruments, in the scorers, or in the observers used may produce changes in the obtained measures” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 312). Controls for the measuring instrument threat included using the same instrument for all participants in the study, all data entry was handled by the researcher, and observation of respondents was not a factor as the method used was a mail survey questionnaire. 58 Statistical regression threat refers to “the internal validity problem that arises when results in a study are due to a tendency for groups, selected on the basis of extreme scores, to move (regress) toward the average on subsequent measures, regardless of the experimental treatment” (Ary et al., 1996, pp. 573-574). As for being a threat, only one measurement was taken and the entire population was included in the survey, not a sample. Therefore statistical regression was not a factor. Differential selection involves “creating experimental and control groups in such a way that they differ before treatment” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 567). Again, since no control group was involved, consequently there was no threat. Experimental mortality is defined as “attrition of subjects during a study.” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 567). For this study, attrition is not considered a threat as the study takes one measurement and variations in the independent variables have already taken place. Selection-maturation interaction occurs “when subjects are selected in such a way that the experimental and control groups mature at different rates” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 574). Once again, a control group was not involved with this study. Therefore, selection-maturation interaction was not a threat. As described in the preceding paragraphs, eight internal threats to validity were considered. However, some authors contend that there are three others, namely: implementation or experimenter bias effect, Hawthorne effect, and the John Henry effect (Ary et al., 1996). “Sometimes the actual implementation of the experiment threatens internal validity, such as when the experimental group is inadvertently given an unplanned advantage over the control group” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 315). A researcher may hold “a 59 personal bias in favor of one method over another. These preferences and expectancies on the part of the experimenter may be unconsciously transmitted to subjects in such a way that their behavior is affected” (Ary et al., 1996, pp. 315-316). Using a survey questionnaire as the instrument provided very little or no contact with the researcher, reducing the chance for experimenter bias to occur. Due to the author’s role as researcher, the author removed himself from participation in the study. “Subjects attitudes can be a threat to internal validity” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 316). Two situations are called the Hawthorne effect and the John Henry effect. The Hawthorne effect refers to the “tendency for subjects to change their behavior just because they are participating in an experiment” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 316). The Hawthorne effect most commonly occurs when a comparison is being made between an experimental group and a control group, where the experimental group changes their behavior just because they are participating in a study (Ary et al., 1996). The John Henry effect is the reverse of the Hawthorne effect in that when a control group knows it is being studied, it purposely changes its behavior and performs above its normal level (Ary et al., 1996). With this study, there was no control group as the research design was survey research. Since there was no control over the independent variables, nothing can be done if the subjects did not complete their questionnaires having an honest attitude. One of the assumptions made in the introductory chapter was that the participants were honest and candid in their responses to the questionnaire. Smith and Glass (as cited in Ary et al., 1996, p. 324) “identified three types of external validity: population external validity, ecological external validity, and external validity of operations.” Each type of validity will be presented with a discussion relative 6O to the study undertaken. Population validity refers to “the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized from the sample to a population of interest” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 572). With this study, the entire population was included and sampling does not apply. Since the entire population or universe was included in the study, there was no need to generalize the results from a sample to the population. Ecological validity refers to “the extent to which the findings from an experiment are independent of a particular research setting and can be generalized to other settings” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 567). The results only apply to MSU Extension Agents and are not generalized to other states. However, this study could easily be adapted and replicated in other states. It is assumed each state is unique in its Extension marketing efforts. If this study were adapted and replicated in other states, the results could be compared to add further credibility to the findings beyond Michigan. The concept of external validity of operations poses the question, “would the same relationships be seen if a different researcher were investigating the same question with different operations” (Ary et al., 1996, p. 324)? As was mentioned above, the findings of this study may only be applied to MSU Extension Agents and are not generalized to other states. However, this study could easily be adapted and replicated in other states, which in turn, the results could be compared to those obtained in Michigan. Data Collection Procedures In conducting the survey, it was important proper research protocol was followed. Data collection procedures included the following components: introductory letter, e- mail support, initial questionnaire packet, first follow-up letter, second follow-up questionnaire packet, final follow-up questionnaire packet, and processing procedures. 61 “Researchers may find it useful to mail an introductory letter to potential respondents in advance of the questionnaire itself” (Ary etal., 1996, p. 456). In addition to the introductory letter, two e-mail support messages were sent. Otherwise, data collection procedures described for implementing mail surveys followed recommendations outlined by Dillman (1978) in Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Procedures followed are described below. Introductory Letter On Monday, March 26, 2001, one week prior to mailing the initial questionnaire packet, an introductory letter on sponsoring department letterhead was mailed to the study population. The introductory letter to the study population is included in Appendix E. Sponsoring department envelopes were used to send the introductory letter, signed by the researcher. Farm flags were used as postage. Purpose of the letter was to inform the study population of the purpose of the study, request their cooperation, and prompt them to look for the questionnaire in the mail the following week. E-mail Support Three e-mail messages were sent expressing support and requesting cooperation of the respondents with the study. The first e-mail message was from the Acting Director of Extension and was timed to arrive to the study population shortly after the introductory letter was received and just before the initial questionnaire packet was mailed. The second and third e-mail messages were sent to arrive at approximately the same time the initial questionnaire packet was received by the respondents. The third e-mail message was sent the same day as one segment of the study population was inadvertently left off the second (original) message. The second and third e-mail messages were from the 62 Interim Marketing Director of MSU Extension expressing support for the study and encouraging cooperation of potential respondents. The e-mail messages conveying support are included in Appendix F. Initial Questionnaire Packet On Monday, April 2, 2001, exactly one week after sending the introductory letter, the initial questionnaire packet was sent to the study population with a cover letter, self- addressed stamped return envelope, and a $1.00 incentive as a small token of appreciation. Farm flags were used as postage on the self-addressed stamped return envelopes. Code numbers were used on the questionnaires as well as the self-addressed stamped return envelopes to facilitate follow-up procedures for a high return rate. Respondents were given the opportunity to check on the outside of the self-addressed stamped return envelopes if they wished to receive summary results of the study. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, requested respondent cooperation, assured confidentiality, requested immediate return, and expressed appreciation for participation in the study. A cover letter was prepared using sponsoring department letterhead and signed by the researcher. The cover letter was signed by the researcher due to being well known to the study population due to his role in serving as County Extension Director in Clare County with the MSU Extension organization. The initial questionnaire cover letter is included in Appendix G. First Follow Up Letter On Monday, April 9, 2001, exactly one week after mailing of the initial questionnaire packet, a follow up letter reminder on sponsoring department letterhead, signed by the researcher, was sent to respondents who had not responded, stating a 63 questionnaire was sent earlier and that their response was important to the study. Respondents were urged to complete the questionnaire and return it immediately. Farm flags were used as postage in sending the first follow up letter. Thanks was expressed to respondents that may have already mailed the questionnaire. The first follow up letter is included in Appendix H. Second Follow Up Questionnaire Packet On Monday, April 23, 2001, exactly three weeks after the initial questionnaire packet mailing, a second follow up questionnaire packet was sent to those not responding along with a cover letter and a self-addressed stamped return envelope. Code numbers were used on the questionnaires as well as the self-addressed stamped return envelopes to facilitate follow-up procedures for a high return rate. Respondents were given the opportunity to check on the outside of the self-addressed stamped return envelopes if they wished to receive summary results of the study. Again, farm flags were used for postage on the self-addressed stamped return envelopes. The cover letter was on sponsoring department letterhead, signed by the researcher, explaining to non-respondents that their questionnaires had not been received and reiterated the importance of the study. In addition, respondents were told not to respond a second time if they had already mailed the questionnaire. The second follow up cover letter is included in Appendix I. Final Follow Up Questionnaire Packet On Monday, May 21 , 2001, exactly seven weeks after the initial questionnaire packet mailing, a final follow up questionnaire packet was sent to those who had not responded along with a cover letter and a self-addressed stamped return envelope. Code numbers were used on the questionnaires as well as the self-addressed stamped return 64 envelopes to facilitate follow-up procedures for a high return rate. Respondents were given the opportunity to check on the outside of the self-addressed stamped return envelopes if they wished to receive summary results of the study. Again, farm flags were used for postage on the self-addressed stamped return envelopes. The cover letter was on sponsoring department letterhead, signed by the researcher, explaining to non- respondents that their questionnaires had not been received and reiterated one last time the importance of the study. The third and final follow up cover letter is included in Appendix J. Processing Procedures On all questionnaire packet mailings, 6” X 9” booklet envelopes were used because the questionnaire could be inserted into the envelope without being folded. Each booklet envelope was stamped in red with the word “important.” The booklet envelopes were mailed using first class postage for two ounces. At the time of this study, the rate was 55 cents for two ounces for each questionnaire packet. The packet included the questionnaire, cover letter, and the self-addressed stamped return envelope. Inside the initial questionnaire packet only, a $1.00 token incentive was included. The $1.00 token incentive was from the researchers personal funds. The questionnaire and self-addressed stamped return envelope were designed for return using first class postage for up to one ounce. At the time of mailing, the rate was 34 cents for up to one ounce. The questionnaire took the form of a booklet 5 1/2” X 8 1/2”. The booklet consisted of three 8 1/2” X 11” sheets folded in half and stapled in the middle with two green staples. The cover was designed in green and white with the MSU Extension logo on the front. On 65 the back cover in the lower right corner, clipart of a mailbox was inserted next to the return address. A post office box, convenient for the researcher, was obtained in Clare, Michigan for handling official survey business. The post office box was obtained to keep survey mail separated from personal mail, to expedite receiving return questionnaires, and to maintain security of respondent data. An identification number (code) was used to check respondent names off the mailing list once questionnaires were received. If respondents wished to receive summary results, this information was recorded as well. After recording questionnaires as received, return envelopes were then shredded. Survey questionnaires were kept in a locking file drawer for security purposes. Table 3 shows the date questionnaires were received, the number received for each day, and the response rate by day. Questionnaires were date stamped the day they were received. As can be seen from Table 3, the first questionnaires were received on April 4, 2001 and the last one was received on July 7, 2001. A total of 336 questionnaires were received out of 368 possible for a response rate of 91.3 percent. It is interesting to note, once questionnaires began returning on April 4, 2001, 48.1 percent or nearly one-half of the questionnaires were returned within the first week. At the two-week mark of April 18, 2001, 70.4 percent of the questionnaires had been returned. At the three-week mark of April 25, 2001, 78.5 percent of the questionnaires had been returned. At the four-week mark, of April 30, 2001, 83.2 percent of the questionnaires had been returned. 66 Table 3. Questionnaires By Date Received Date Received Number Received Cumulative Running Total Cumulative Response Rate 4-4-01 13 13 3.5% 4-5-01 27 40 10.9% 4-6-01 31 71 19.3% 4-7-01 41 1 12 30.4% 4-9-01 32 144 39.1% 4-10-01 11 155 42.1% 4-11-01 22 177 48.1% 4-12-01 23 200 54.3% 4-13-01 23 223 60.6% 4-14-01 15 238 64.7% 4-16-01 10 248 67.4% 4-17-01 1 249 67.7% 4-18-01 10 259 70.4% 4-19-01 12 271 73.6% 4-20-01 6 277 75.3% 4-21-01 3 280 76.1% 4-23-01 5 285 77.4% 4-24-01 1 286 77.7% 4-25-01 3 289 78.5% 4-26-01 4 293 79.6% 4-27-01 4 297 80.7% 4-28-0 1 7 304 82.6% 4-3 0-01 2 306 83.2% 5-2-01 2 308 83.7% 5-3-01 2 310 84.2% 5-4-01 6 316 85.9% 5-7-01 2 318 86.4% 5-8-01 1 319 86.7% 5-9-01 3 322 87.5% 5-12-01 1 323 87.8% 5-15-01 1 324 88.0% 5-16—01 1 325 88.3% 5-1 8-01 1 326 88.6% 5-23-01 1 327 88.9% 5-25-01 2 329 89.4% 5-26-01 1 330 89.7% 5-29-01 3 333 90.5% 6-6-01 1 334 90.8% 6-7-01 1 335 91 .0% 7-7-01 1 336 91.3% Data Analysis Procedures The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10.0 was used in analyzing the data. All questionnaires received were entered into SPSS. Code numbers were assigned to questionnaires prior to the initial questionnaire packet mailing and 67 subsequent mailings. After data was entered for each questionnaire, the data was immediately verified for accuracy before moving to the next questionnaire. If more than one response was given on an item, the first response the researcher came to was entered. Data analysis began on July 8, 2001 and consequently the remaining 32 questionnaires not received were declared as non-respondents. Early and late respondents were compared to determine differences between the two groups. Evaluation of early to late respondents’ responses on key variables showed no differences. Therefore, the findings were generalized to the entire population (Miller & Smith, 1983). The t-test for independent samples was used for scaled data and Pearson Chi-square for nominal data. For the sections of product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and enviromnent (internal and external), group means were used to describe the willing, prepared, and often columns for each section. Statistics selected to describe the willing, prepared, and often columns for each section were: group means, standard deviation, and frequency. The inferential statistic analysis of variance (ANOVA) was selected to describe differences between the positions. In using AN OVA, the Duncan range test was selected to identify homogenous subsets of means. According to SPSS version 10.0, the Duncan range test is designed to “rank group means and compute a range value” and “sets a protection level for the error rate for the collection of tests, rather than an error rate for individual tests.” In describing individual items frequency, mean, and standard deviation were used. For the marketing reports section, the frequency, mean, standard deviation, and AN OVA with the Duncan range test were used. For the marketing packet and web site 68 sections, frequencies and percents were used to describe the data. Differences between positions were described using Pearson Chi-square. Summary This chapter has outlined the methods and procedures used to implement the study. The study population consisted of 368 MSU Extension Agents and 336 surveys were returned for a return rate of 91 .3 percent. Statistics used to analyze data included: t-tests, Pearson Chi-square, frequencies, percentages, means, group means, standard deviations, and ANOVA with the Duncan range test. Research methods for examining perceptions of MSU Extension Agents on marketing MSU Extension have been described. This chapter provided an overview of the methods including: population, database development, instrument development, research design, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, and summary. Chapter IV presents the findings of the research, while chapter V presents the conclusions. 69 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Survey data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10.0. Findings are presented as follows: demographics, product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment, marketing reports, county marketing packet, and marketing web site. Demographics Demographic data was collected from respondents relative to: gender, years of work experience with MSU Extension, program assignment representing largest percentage of time, position, geographic area of coverage, highest level of education attained, and major area of study completed with highest degree. Figure 1 depicts MSU Extension Agents by gender. As shown, males comprised 47.0 percent and females 53.0 percent of the respondents. An N of 332 was obtained. Respondents By Gender 60 50 40 30 20 Percent Male Female Gender N = 332 Figure 1. MSU Extension Agents By Gender 70 Respondents were asked how many years of work experience they have with MSU Extension. Figure 2 depicts MSU Extension Agents by years of work experience with MSU Extension. As shown, 0 — 5 years was 35.9 percent, 6 — 10 years was 16.0 percent, 11 — 15 years was 11.5 percent, 16 — 20 years was 12.4 percent, 21 — 25 years was 10.9 percent, and 26 years of experience and over was 13.3 percent. An N of 331 was obtained. Respondents By Years Of Work Experience With MSU Extension 40 30 20 10 R o 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21—25 26+ Years Of Work Experience With MSU Extension N = 331 Figure 2. MSU Extension Agents By Years Of Work Experience With MSU Extension Respondents were asked which program assignment represented the largest percentage of their time. Figure 3 depicts MSU Extension Agents by program assignment with agriculture and natural resources (ANR) at 42.1 percent, 4-H youth development (4-H) at 20.9 percent, family and consumer sciences (F CS) at 20.6 percent, and Extension Community and Economic Development (EC/ED) at 16.4 percent. An N of 330 was obtained. 71 Respondents By Program Assignment 50 40 30 20 Percent ANR 4-H FCS EC/ED Program Assignment N = 330 Figure 3. MSU Extension Agents By Program Assignment Respondents were asked the position they hold. Figure 4 shows MSU Extension Agents by position. The percentage breakdown of respondents were as follows: Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agents (ANR) comprised 24.3 percent, County Extension Directors (CED) comprised 20.7 percent, Extension 4-H Youth Agents (4-H) comprised 17.6 percent, Extension Educators — Family and Consumer Sciences (EE) comprised 13.4 percent, District Extension Agents (DEA) comprised 12.4 percent, Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agents (EC/ED) comprised 5.8 percent, and Extension Children, Youth and Family Agents (CYF) comprised 5.8 percent. An N of 329 was obtained. Respondents were asked the geographic area of coverage for their position. Figure 5 depicts MSU Extension Agents by geographic area of coverage with 68.0 percent having 72 single—county responsibilities while 32.0 percent have multi-county responsibilities. An N of 331 was obtained. Respondents By Position 30 20 Percent Position N = 329 Figure 4. MSU Extension Agents By Position Respondents By Geographic Area Of Coverage 80 60 40 20 Percent Single-County Multi-Cormty Geographic Area N = 331 Figure 5. MSU Extension Agents By Geographic Area Of Coverage Respondents were asked their highest level of education attained. Figure 6 depicts MSU Extension Agents by highest level of education attained as follows: bachelors degree 73 (BS/BA) at 23.5 percent, some graduate training (beyond BS/BA) at 20.5 percent, masters degree (MS/MA) at 42.8 percent, graduate training beyond masters degree (beyond MS/MA) at 4.8 percent, and doctorate degree at 8.4 percent. An N of 332 was obtained. Respondents By Highest Level Of Education Attained 50 4O 3O 20 10 E 8 E o BS/BA Beyond MS/MA Beyond Doctorate BS/BA MS/MA Level Of Education N = 332 Figure 6. MSU Extension Agents By Highest Level Of Education Attained Respondents were asked the major area of study completed with their highest degree. Figure 7 depicts MSU Extension Agents by major area of study completed with their highest degree as follows: agriculture (AGR) at 27.8 percent, education (ED) at 23.9 percent, family and consumer sciences (F CS) at 16.9 percent, social science (SS) at 11.5 percent, natural resources or biology (NR) at 10.9 percent and other major areas of study at 9.0 percent The other category comprised respondents primarily in the business area of study. An N of 331 was obtained. 74 Respondents By Major Area Of Study Completed With Highest Degree 3O 20 10 E E a. 0 AGR ED F CS SS NR OTHER Major Area Of Study N = 331 Figure 7. MSU Extension Agents By Major Area Of Study Completed With Highest Degree The sections of product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment are divided into the areas of willing, prepared, and often (frequency performed). MSU Extension Agents were asked to respond based on the scale of 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = infrequently, 4 = occasionally, 5 = frequently, 6 = often, and 7 = very often. For inspectional purposes, responses are described based on scores falling within the following ranges: 1.00 — 1.49 = never, 1.50 — 2.49 = seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = very often. Descriptive statistics of number, group means, and standard deviation were used to describe the product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment sections. The inferential statistic, analysis of variance (AN OVA) was selected to describe differences between the positions. In using ANOVA, the Duncan range test was selected to identify homogenous subsets of means. According to SPSS version 10.0, the Duncan range test is designed to “rank group means and compute a range value” and “sets a protection level for the error rate for the collection of tests, rather than an error rate for individual tests.” 75 Product Willing In Figure 8, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the product willing area. The product willing area consisted of twelve items. The CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, and CYF positions are described as often willing with means of 6.23, 5.50, 6.34, 5.84, 5.90, and 5.71 respectively. The DEA position is described as fiequently willing with a mean of 5.13. Overall for the product willing area, an N of 322 was obtained, with a mean of 5.78, and standard deviation of .97 describing MSU Extension Agents as often willing when taking into account skills considered important in marketing MSU Extension educational programs and information. An AN OVA of the product willing area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 4 below depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the product willing area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 4 shows four subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of DEA and ANR with means of 5.13 and 5.50 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of ANR, CYF, 4-H, and EE with means of 5.50, 5.71, 5.84, and 5.90 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of 4-H, EE, and CED with means of 5.84, 5.90, and 6.23 respectively. Subset 4 consists of the positions of RE, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.90, 6.23, and 6.34 respectively. 76 Product Willing Group Means By Respondents Position Group Means b) .3; CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 322, Mean = 5.78, SD. = .97 Positions Level 01‘ Willingness Means Range Description CED Often Willing 6.23 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Willing 5.50 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Often Willing 6.34 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently 4-H Often Willing 5.84 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Often Willing 5.90 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Willing 5.71 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Willing 5.13 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 8. Product Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 4 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The ANR position with a mean of 5.50 is not significantly different from the positions of DEA, CYF, 4-H, and EE with means of 5.13, 5.71, 5.84, and 5.90 respectively. The 4-H position with a mean of 5.84 is not significantly different fi'om the positions of ANR, CYF, EE, and CED with means of 5.50, 5.71, 5.90, and 6.23 respectively. The EE position with a mean of 5.90 is not significantly different from the positions of ANR, CYF, 4-H, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.50, 5.71, 5.84, 6.23, and 6.34 respectively. The CED position with a mean of 6.23 is 77 not significantly different from the positions of 4-H, EE, and EC/ED with means of 5.84, 5.90, and 6.34 respectively. Table 4. Duncan Range Test For The Product Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions EE = Extension Educator ALL = All Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 3 4 DEA 40 5.13 120 5.13 ANR 79 5.50 .99 5.50 5.50 CYF 19 5.71 .76 5.71 4-H 58 5.84 .82 5.84 5.84 BE 40 5.90 .83 5.90 5.90 5.90 CED 67 6.23 .80 623 6.23 EC/ED 19 6.34 .79 6.34 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 322 5.78 .97 -- -- -- -- Table 4 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The DEA position with a mean of 5.13 is significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, EE, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.71, 5.84, 5.90, 6.23, and 6.34 respectively. The ANR position with a mean of 5.50 is significantly different from the positions of CED and EC/ED with means of 6.23 and 6.34 respectively. The CYF position with a mean of 5.71 is significantly different from the positions of DEA, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.13, 6.23, and 6.34 respectively. The 4-H position with a mean of 5.84 is significantly different from the positions of DEA and EC/ED with means of 5.13 and 6.34 respectively. The BB position with a mean of 5.90 is significantly different from the position of DEA with a mean of 5.13. The CED position with a mean of 6.23 is significantly different from the positions 78 of DEA, ANR, and CYF with means of 5.13, 5.50, and 5.71 respectively. The EC/ED position with a mean of 6.34 is significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, CYF, and 4-H with means of 5.13, 5.50, 5.71, and 5.84 respectively. Product Prepared In Figure 9, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the product prepared area. The product prepared area consisted of twelve items. The CED position was described as often prepared with a mean of 5.56. The positions of EC/ED, 4-H, EE, and CYF are described as fiequently prepared with means of 5.17, 4.89, 5.18, and 4.82 respectively. The positions of ANR and DEA both are described as occasionally prepared with means of 4.34 and 4.31 respectively. Overall for the product prepared area, an N of 318 was obtained, with a mean of 4.87, and a standard deviation of 1.10 describing MSU Extension Agents as frequently prepared when taking into account skills considered important in marketing MSU Extension educational programs and information. An AN OVA of the product prepared area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 5 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the product prepared area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 5 shows three subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of DEA and ANR with means of 4.31 and 4.34 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of CYF, 4-H, EC/ED, and EE with means of 4.82, 4.89, 5.17, and 5.18 79 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of EC/ED, EE, and CED with means of 5. 1 7, 5.18, and 5.56 respectively. Product Prepared Group Means By Respondents Position Group Means b) A CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 318, Mean = 4.87, SD. = 1.10 Positions Level Of Preparedness Means Range Description CED Often Prepared 5.56 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Occasionally Prepared 4.34 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Frequently Prepared 5.17 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4-H Frequently Prepared 4.89 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Prepared 5.18 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Frequently Prepared 4.82 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Occasionally Prepared 4.31 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 9. Product Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 5 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of EC/ED and EE with means of 5. l 7 and 5.18 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, and CED with means of 4.82, 4.89, and 5.56 respectively. Subset l is unique in that the positions of DEA and ANR with means of 4.31 and 4.34 respectively do not overlap with any other subsets. 80 Table 5 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The positions of DEA and ANR with means of 4.31 and 4.34 respectively are significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, EC/ED, EE, and CED with means of 4.82, 4.89, 5.17, 5.18, and 5.56 respectively. The positions of CYF and 4-H with means of 4.82 and 4.89 respectively are significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, and CED with means of 4.31, 4.34, and 5.56 respectively. The positions of EC/ED and EE with means of 5.17 and 5.18 respectively are significantly different from the positions of DEA and ANR with means of 4.31 and 4.34 respectively. The CED position with a mean of 5.56 is significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, CYF, and 4-H with means of 4.3 1 , 4.34, 4.82, and 4.89 respectively. Table 5. Duncan Range Test For The Product Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation Level of' Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 3 DEA 40 4.31 1.04 4.31 ANR 79 4.34 .99 4.34 CYF 19 4.82 1.06 4.82 4—H 56 4.89 1.03 4.89 EC/ED 19 5.17 .80 5.17 5.17 EB 38 5.18 1.02 5.18 5.18 CED 67 5.56 .99 5.56 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 318 4.87 1.10 - -- -- 81 Product Often In Figure 10, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the product often area. The product often area consisted of twelve items. The CED and EE positions performed product skills frequently having means of 4.61 and 4.67 respectively. The positions of EC/ED, 4-H, and CYF performed the skills occasionally with means of 4.49, 4.04, and 4.22 respectively. The positions of ANR and DEA performed the skills infrequently with means of 3.31 and 3.44 respectively. An N of 315 was obtained, with a mean of 4.02, and a standard deviation of 1.23. An AN OVA of the product often area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 6 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the product often area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 6 shows three subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different fi'om each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of ANR and DEA with means of 3.31 and 3.44 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of 4-H, CYF, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.04, 4.22, 4.49, and 4.61 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of CYF, EC/ED, CED, and BE with means of 4.22, 4.49, 4.61, and 4.67 respectively. Table 6 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of CYF, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.22, 4.49, and 4.61 respectively are not significantly different fiom the positions of 4—H and EE with means of 4.04 and 4.67 respectively. Subset 1 is unique in that the positions of ANR and DEA with means of 3.31 and 3.44 respectively do not overlap with any other subsets. 82 Product Often Group Means By Respondents Position 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 m 4.0 5 3.8 g 3.6 g g: 3 31 3 44 O 3.0 ' ' CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 315, Mean = 4.02, SD. = 1.23 Position How Often Done (Performed) Means Range Description CED Frequently Performed 4.61 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR lnfrequently Performed 3.31 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Occasionally Performed 4.49 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfi'equently 4—H Occasionally Performed 4.04 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Performed 4.67 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Occasionally Performed 4.22 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA lnfrequently Performed 3.44 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 10. Product Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 6 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The positions of ANR and DEA with means of 3.31 and 3.44 respectively are significantly different from the positions of 4-H, CYF, EC/ED, CED, and EE with means of 4.04, 4.22, 4.49, 4.61, and 4.67 respectively. The position of 4-H with a mean of 4.04 is significantly different from the positions of ANR, DEA, and EE with means of 3.31, 3.44, and 4.67 respectively. The positions of CYF, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.22, 4.49, and 4.61 respectively are significantly different from the positions of ANR and DEA with means of 83 3.31 and 3.44 respectively. The position of EB with a mean of 4.67 is significantly different from the positions of ANR, DEA, and 4-H with means of 3.31, 3.44, and 4.04 respectively. Table 6. Duncan Range Test For The Product Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and F amily Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number,X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation - Level of Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 3 ANR 76 3.31 1.10 3.31 DEA 40 3.44 1.09 3.44 4-H 56 4.04 1.14 4.04 CYF 19 4.22 1.18 4.22 4.22 EC/ED 19 4.49 1.10 4.49 4.49 CED 67 4.61 1.08 4.61 4.61 BE 38 4.67 1.15 4.67 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 315 4.02 1.23 -- -- -- Price Willing In Figure 1 1, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the price willing area The price willing area consisted of ten items. The CED, ANR, EC/ED, and 4-H positions are described as often willing with means of 5.82, 5.60, 6.05, and 5.53 respectively. The EE, CYF, and DEA. positions are described as frequently willing with means of 5.33, 5.45, and 5.33 respectively. An N of 314 was obtained, with a means of 5.58, and a standard deviation of 1.06. 84 Price Willing Group Means By Respondents Position 6.2 6.0 5'8 — 5.6 5-4 I 5 60 I 5.2 I ‘ I l 5.0 I I I I I 43 I I I I I 45 I I I I I 4.4 I I I I I g 42 I I I I I o 4.0 I I I I I E. 3.8 I I I I I g 3.6 i I I I I I O 3_4 I I I I I CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 314, Mean = 5.58, SD. = 1.06 Positions Level of Willingness Means Range Description CED Often Willing 5.82 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Willing 5.60 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Ofien Willing 6.05 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4-H Often Willing 5.53 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Willing 5.33 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Frequently Willing 5.45 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Willing 5.33 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 1 1. Price Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the price willing area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .063 sig.]. Table 7 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the price willing area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 7 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of EE, DEA, CYF, 4-H, ANR, and CED with means of 5.33, 5.33, 5.45, 5.53, 5.60, and 5.82 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of 4-H, ANR, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.53, 5.60, 5.82, and 6.05 respectively. 85 Table 7 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of 4-H, AN R, and CED with means of 5.53, 5.60, and 5.82 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of EE, DEA, CYF, and EC/ED with means of 5.33, 5.33, 5.45, and 6.05 respectively. Table 7 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The EE, DEA, and CYF positions with means of 5.33, 5.33, and 5.45 respectively are significantly different from the EC/ED position with a mean of 6.05. The reverse is true in that the EC/ED position with a mean of 6.05 is significantly different from the BE, DEA, and CYF positions with means of 5.33, 5.33, and 5.45 respectively. Table 7. Duncan Range Test For The Price Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natiu'al Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVAJp = .063 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 EB 41 5.33 1.40 5.33 DEA 40 5.33 1.17 5.33 CYF 18 5.45 .90 5.45 4-H 55 5.53 .98 5.53 5.53 ANR 76 5.60 .98 5.60 5.60 CED 65 5.82 .97 5.82 5.82 EC/ED 19 6.05 .79 6.05 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 314 5.58 1.06 -- -- Price Prepared In Figure 12, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the price prepared area. The price prepared area consisted 86 of ten items. The positions of CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4—H, EE, and DEA are described as frequently prepared with means of 5.38, 4.97, 5.25, 4.81, 4.53, and 5.00 respectively. The CYF position is described as occasionally prepared with a mean of 4.48. An N of 307 was obtained, with a mean of 4.97, and a standard deviation of 1.27. Price Prepared Group Means By Respondents Position E 2 D. :3 E O CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 307, Mean = 4.97, SD. = 1.27 Position Level of Preparedness Means Range Description CED Frequently Prepared 5.38 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Frequently Prepared 4.97 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Frequently Prepared 5.25 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4+1 Frequently Prepared 4.81 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Prepared 4.53 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Occasionally Prepared 4.48 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Prepared 5.00 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 12. Price Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the price prepared area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .016 sig.]. Table 8 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the price prepared area by MSU Extension Agent position. 87 Table 8 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of CYF, EE, 4—H, ANR, and DEA with means of 4.48, 4.53, 4.81, 4.97, and 5.00 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of 4-H, ANR, DEA, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.81, 4.97, 5.00, 5.25, and 5.38 respectively. Table 8. Duncan Range Test For The Price Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .016 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 1 2 CYF 18 4.48 1.80 4.48 EB 37 4.53 1.53 4.53 4-H 54 4.81 125 4.81 4.81 ANR 76 4.97 1.10 4.97 4.97 DEA 40 5.00 1 .3 1 5.00 5.00 EC/ED 19 5.25 1 .05 5.25 CED . 63 5.38 1.06 5.38 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 307 4.97 1.27 -- - Table 8 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of 4-H, ANR, and DEA with means of 4.81, 4.97, and 5.00 respectively are not significantly different fi’om the positions of CYF, EE, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.48, 4.53, 5.25, and 5.38 respectively. Table 8 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The positions of CYF and EE with means of 4.48 and 4.53 respectively are significantly different from the positions of EC/ED and CED with means of 5.25 and 5.38 respectively. 88 The reverse is true in that the EC/ED and CED positions with means of 5.25 and 5.38 respectively are significantly different from the positions of CYF and EE with means of 4.48 and 4.53 respectively. Price Often In Figure 13, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the price often area. The price often area consisted of ten items. All positions of CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA performed pricing skills on an occasional basis having means of 4.04, 3.78, 3.83, 3.76, 3.65, 3.58, and 4.01 respectively. An N of 300 was obtained, with a mean of 3.84, and a standard deviation of 1.47. An AN OVA of the price often area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that all means are not significantly different fi'om each other [p = .793 sig.]. Therefore, further analysis was not necessary [p > .10 sig.]. 89 Price Often Group Means By Respondents Position 2 g- 4.04 4.01 8 3.78 3.83 3.76 3,58 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 300, Mean = 3.84, SD. = 1.47 Positions How Often Done (Performed) Means Range Description CED Occasionally Performed 4.04 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Occasionally Performed 3.78 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Occasionally Performed 3.83 2.50 - 3.49 = Infiequently 4-H Occasionally Performed 3.76 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Occasionally Performed 3.65 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Occasionally Performed 3.58 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Occasionally Performed 4.01 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 13. Price Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Placing And Targeting Willing In Figure 14, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the placing and targeting willing area The placing and targeting willing area consisted of twelve items. The BB position is described as very often willing with a mean of 6.63. The CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, CYF, and DEA positions are described as often willing with means of 6.27, 6.11, 6.46, 6.18, 6.20, and 6.05 respectively. Overall for the placing and targeting willing area, and N of 3 1 6 was obtained, with a mean of 6.24, and a standard deviation of .77 describing MSU Extension Agents as often willing 90 when taking into account skills considered important in marketing MSU Extension educational programs and information. Placing And Targeting Willing Group Means By Respondents Position 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 m 5.6 g 5.4 g 5.2 g. 5.0 E 4.8 O 4.6 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 316, Mean = 6.24, SD. = .77 Positions Level Of Willingness Means Range Description CED Often Willing 6.27 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Willing 6.1 1 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Often Willing 6.46 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4-H Often Willing 6.18 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Very Often Willing 6.63 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Willing 6.20 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Often Willing 6.05 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 14. Placing And Targeting Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the placing and targeting willing area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .009 sig.]. Table 9 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the placing and targeting area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 9 shows three subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of DEA, ANR, 4-H, CYF, and CED with means of 6.05, 6.11, 6.18, 6.20, and 6.27 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of ANR, 4-H, CYF, CED, and EC/ED with 91 means of 6.1 1, 6.18, 6.20, 6.27, and 6.46 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of CED, EC/ED, and EE with means of 6.27, 6.46, and 6.63 respectively. Table 9 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of ANR, 4-H, CYF, and CED with means of 6.1 1, 6.18, 6.20, and 6.27 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of DEA and EC/ED with means of 6.05 and 6.46 respectively. The positions of CED and EC/ED with means of 6.27 and 6.46 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of ANR, 4-H, CYF, and EE with means of 6.1 1, 6.18, 6.20, and 6.63 respectively. The CED position with a mean of 6.27 overlaps across all three subsets, making the position unique in that it is not significantly different from any of the other positions. Table 9. Duncan Range Test For The Placing And Targeting Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, SD. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p= .009 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 3 DEA 40 6.05 .82 6.05 ANR 77 6.11 .84 6.11 6.11 4-H 57 6.18 .85 6.18 6.18 CYF 1 8 6.20 .77 6.20 6.20 CED 67 6.27 .70 6.27 6.27 6.27 EC/ED 1 8 6.46 .54 6.46 6.46 EB 39 6.63 .51 6.63 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 316 6.24 .77 -- -- —- Table 9 exhibits means that are significantly different fi'om each other. The position of DEA with a mean of 6.05 is significantly different from the positions of EC/ED and EB 92 with means of 6.46 and 6.63 respectively. The position of EC/ED with a mean of 6.46 is significantly different from the DEA position with a mean of 6.05. The BB position with a mean of 6.63 is significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, 4-H, and CYF with means of 6.05, 6.11, 6.18, and 6.20 respectively. Placing And Targeting Prepared In Figure 15, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the placing and targeting prepared area. The placing and targeting prepared area consisted of twelve items. All positions being CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA are described as often prepared with means of 5.76, 5.53, 5.85, 5.61, 5.93, 5.79, and 5.81 respectively. An N of310 was obtained, with a mean of 5.71, and a standard deviation of .92. Placing And Targeting Prepared Group Means By Respondents Position 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 m 5.4 :5 5.2 a :2 g 4.6 CED ANR EC/ED 4-1-1 EE CYF DEA Positions N = 310, Mean = 5.71, SD. = .92 Positions Level Of Preparedness Means Range Description CED Often Prepared 5.76 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Prepared 5.53 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Often Prepared 5.85 2.50 - 3.49 = Infi'equently 4—H Often Prepared 5.61 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Often Prepared 5.93 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Prepared 5.79 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Often Prepared 5.81 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 15. Placing And Targeting Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position 93 An AN OVA of the placing and targeting prepared group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that all means are not significantly different from each other [p = .311 sig.]. Therefore, further analysis was not necessary [p > .10 sig.]. Placing And Targeting Often In Figure 16, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the placing and targeting often area. The placing and targeting often area consisted of twelve items. The BB and CYF positions performed placing and targeting skills often with means of 5.54 and 5.63 respectively. The CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, and DEA positions performed placing and targeting skills fiequently with means of 5.16, 4.86, 5.43, 5.09, and 5.17 respectively. An N of 307 was obtained, with a mean of 5.16, and a standard deviation of 1.18. An AN OVA of the placing and targeting area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .052 sig.]. Table 10 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the placing and targeting area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 10 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of ANR, 4-H, CED, DEA, and EC/ED with means of 4.86, 5.09, 5.16, 5.17, and 5.43 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of 4-H, CED, DEA, EC/ED, EE, and CYF with means of 5.09, 5.16, 5.17, 5.43, 5.54, and 5.63 respectively. Table 10 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of 4-H, CED, DEA, and EC/ED with means of 5.09, 5.16, 5.17, and 5.43 respectively are not significantly 94 different from the positions of ANR, EE, and CYF with means of 4.86, 5.54, and 5.63 respectively. Placing And Targeting Often Group Means By Respondents Position 2 g. 5.16 . 5.17 O 4.86 CED ANR EC/ED 4-1-1 EE CYF DEA Positions N = 307, Mean = 5.16, SD. = 1.18 Positions How Often Done (Performed) Means Range Description CED Frequently Performed 5.16 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Frequently Performed 4.86 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Frequently Performed 5.43 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4-H Frequently Performed 5.09 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Often Performed 5.54 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Performed 5.63 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Performed 5.17 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 16. Placing And Targeting Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 10 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The ANR position with a mean of 4.86 is significantly different fi'om the positions of EB and CYF with means of 5.54 and 5.63 respectively. The reverse is true in that the EB and CYF positions with means of 5.54 and 5.63 respectively are significantly different fi-om the ANR position with a mean of 4.86. 95 Table 10. Duncan Range Test For The Placing And Targeting Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-1-1 Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .052—sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 ANR 75 4.86 1.27 4.86 4-H 55 5.09 1.32 5.09 5.09 CED 66 5.16 1.03 5.16 5.16 DEA 40 5.17 .95 5.17 5.17 EC/ED 18 5.43 1.04 5.43 5.43 EB 36 5.54 1.30 5.54 CYF 17 5.63 .91 5.63 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 307 5.16 1.18 -- - Promotion Willing In Figure 17, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the promotion willing area. The promotion willing area consisted of seventeen items. All positions, CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA responded as often willing with means of 6.16, 6.06, 6.33, 6.11, 6.11, 5.90, and 5.96 respectively. An N of 317 was obtained, with a mean of 6.09, and a standard deviation of .78. 96 Promotion Willing Group Means By Respondents Position Group Means A O CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 317, Mean = 6.09, S.D. = .78 Positions Level of Willingness Means Range Description CED Often Willing 6.16 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Willing 6.06 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Often Willing 6.33 2.50 - 3.49 = Infi'equently 4-H Often Willing 6.1 1 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Often Willing 6.1 1 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Willing 5.90 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Often Willing 5.96 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 17. Promotion Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An ANOVA of promotion willing group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that all means are not significantly different from each other [p = .587 sig.]. Therefore, further analysis was not necessary [p > .10 sig.]. Promotion Prepared In Figure 18, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the promotion prepared area The promotion prepared area consisted of seventeen items. The CED and AN R positions are described as often prepared with means of 5.58 and 5.52 respectively, while the remaining positions of EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA are described as frequently prepared with means of 5.41, 5.3 8, 97 5.07, 4.97, and 5.38 respectively. An N of 3 12 was obtained, with a mean of 5.40, and a standard deviation of .88. Promotion Prepared Group Means By Respondents Position 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 m 4.6 g 4.4 2 4.2 i :2 ‘3 3.6 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 312, Mean = 5.40, S.D. = .88 Positions Level of Preparedness Means Range Description CED Often Prepared 5.58 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Prepared 5.52 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Frequently Prepared 5.41 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently 4-H Frequently Prepared 5.38 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Prepared 5.07 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Frequently Prepared 4.97 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Prepared 5.38 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 18. Promotion Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the promotion prepared area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .026 sig.]. Table 1 1 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the promotion prepared area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 11 shows three subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of CYF, EE, DEA, 4-H, and EC/ED with means of 4.97, 5.07, 5.38, 5.38, and 5.41 98 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of EB, DEA, 4-H, EC/ED, and ANR with means of 5.07, 5.38, 5.38, 5.41, and 5.52 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of DEA, 4-H, EC/ED, ANR, and CED with means of 5.38, 5.38, 5.41, 5.52, and 5.58 respectively. Table 11 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of EE, DEA, 4-H, and EC/ED with means of 5.07, 5.38, 5.3 8, and 5.41 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of CYF and ANR with means of 4.97 and 5.52 respectively. The positions of DEA, 4-H, EC/ED, and ANR with means of 5.38, 5.38, 5.41, and 5.52 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of EB and CED with means of 5.07 and 5.58 respectively. The positions of DEA, 4-H, and EC/ED are unique as they overlap across all three subsets and are not significantly different from any of the other positions being CYF, EE, ANR, and CED with means of 4.97, 5.07, 5.52, and 5.58 respectively. Table 11 exhibits means that are significantly different fiom each other. The CYF position with a mean of 4.97 is significantly different from the positions of ANR and CED with means of 5.52 and 5.58 respectively. The BB position with a mean of 5.07 is significantly different from the CED position with a mean of 5.58. The ANR position with a mean of 5.52 is significantly different fi'om the CYF position with a mean of 4.97. The CED position with a mean of 5.58 is significantly different from the positions of CYF and EE with means of 4.97 and 5.07 respectively. 99 Table l 1. Duncan Range Test For The Promotion Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .026 sigl Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 3 CYF 18 4.97 .84 4.97 BE 40 5.07 .94 5.07 5.07 DEA 39 5.38 1.03 5.38 5.38 5.38 4-H 55 5.38 .84 5.38 5.38 5.38 EC/ED 19 5.41 .76 5.41 5.41 5.41 ANR 75 5.52 .87 5.52 5.52 CED 66 5.58 .76 5.58 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 312 5.40 .88 -- -- -- Promotion Often In Figure 19, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the promotion often area The promotion often area consisted of seventeen items. The CED position responded as performing promotion skills frequently with a mean of 4.52. The remaining positions of ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA responded as performing promotion skills occasionally with means of 4.34, 4.41 , 4.43, 3.93, 4.16, and 4.14 respectively. An N of 307 was obtained, with a mean of 4.3 1 , and a standard deviation of .93. An AN OVA of the promotion often group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .046 sig.]. Table 12 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the promotion often area by MSU Extension Agent position. 100 Promotion Often Group Means By Respondents Position 2 O. ,6: 4.14 CD CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EB CYF DEA Positions N = 307, Mean = 4.31, S.D. = .93 Positions How Often Done (Performed) Means Range Description CED Frequently Performed 4.52 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Occasionally Performed 4.34 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Occasionally Performed 4.41 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently 4-H Occasionally Performed 4.43 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally BE Occasionally Performed 3.93 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Occasionally Performed 4.16 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Occasionally Performed 4.14 6.50 - 7 .00 = Very Often Figure 19. Promotion Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 12 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of EE, DEA, CYF, ANR, EC/ED, and 4-H with means of 3.93, 4.14, 4.16, 4.34, 4.41, and 4.43 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of DEA, CYF, ANR, EC/ED, 4—H, and CED with means of 4.14, 4.16, 4.34, 4.41, 4.43, and 4.52 respectively. Table 12 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of DEA, CYF, ANR, EC/ED, and 4-H with means of 4. 14, 4.16, 4.34, 4.41, and 4.43 respectively are 101 unique as they overlap across both subsets and are not significantly different from the BE and CED positions with means of 3.93 and 4.52 respectively. Table 12 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The BB position with a mean of 3.93 is significantly different from the CED position with a mean of 4.52. The reverse is true in that the CED position with a mean of 4.52 is significantly different from the BE position with a mean of 3.93. Table 12. Duncan Range Test For The Promotion Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviation/Position CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .046 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 BE 40 3.93 1.05 3.93 DEA 40 4.14 .85 4.14 4.14 CYF 17 4.16 .78 4.16 4.16 ANR 73 4.34 .94 4.34 4.34 EC/ED 19 4.41 1.04 4.41 4.41 4-H 54 4.43 .90 4.43 4.43 CED 64 4.52 .85 4.52 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 307 4.31 .93 -- - Environment Willing In Figure 20, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the environment willing area The environment willing area consisted of sixteen items. All positions, CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA responded as often willing with means of 6.08, 5.77, 6.41, 5.94, 6.02, 5.99, and 5.69 102 respectively. An N of 300 was obtained, with a mean of 5.94, and a standard deviation of .93. Environment Willing Group Means By Respondents Position 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 _ I 5.6 I I I I 5.99 54 I 5.77 I I I I 5.69 52 I I I I I 50 I I I I I 4.3 I I I I I 4.6 I I I I I 4.4 I I I I I 42 I I I I I 4_o I I I I I g 3.3 I I I I I g 3,6 I I I I I a 3.4 I I I I I E 3.2 I I I I I 0 3,0 I I I I I CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 300, Mean = 5.94, S.D. = .93 Positions Level of Willingness Means Range Description CED Often Willing 6.08 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Often Willing 5.77 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Often Willing 6.41 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfrequently 4-H Often Willing 5.94 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Often Willing 6.02 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Often Willing 5.99 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Often Willing 5.69 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 20. Environment Willing Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An ANOVA of the environment willing area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .077 sig.]. Table 13 below depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the environment willing area by MSU Extension Agent position. 103 Table 13. Duncan Range Test For The Environment Willing Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = Cormty Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-1-1 Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .077 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 l 2 DEA 36 5 .69 1 .1 1 5.69 ANR 71 5.77 .96 5.77 4-H 56 5.94 1 .01 5.94 5.94 CYF 15 5.99 .74 5.99 5.99 EB 40 6.02 .81 6.02 6.02 CED 64 6.08 .84 6.08 6.08 EC/ED 18 6.41 .60 6.41 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 300 5.94 .93 -- -- Table 13 shows two subsets were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different fiom each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of DEA, ANR, 4-H, CYF, EE, and CED with means of 5.69, 5.77, 5.94, 5.99, 6.02, and 6.08 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of 4-H, CYF, EE, CED, and EC/ED with means of 5.94, 5.99, 6.02, 6.08, and 6.41 respectively. Table 13 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of 4-H, CYF, EE, and CED with means of 5.94, 5.99, 6.02, and 6.08 respectively are unique as they overlap across both subsets and are not significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, and EC/ED with means of 5.69, 5.77, and 6.41 respectively. Table 13 exhibits means that are significantly different fiom each other. The positions of DEA and ANR with means of 5.69 and 5.77 respectively are significantly different from the EC/ED position with a mean of 6.41. The reverse is true in that the 104 EC/ED position with a mean of 6.41 is significantly different from the DEA and ANR positions with means of 5.69 and 5.77 respectively. Environment Prepared In Figure 21, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the environment prepared area The environment prepared area consisted of sixteen items. All positions (CED, ANR, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA) are described as fiequently prepared with means of 5.48, 4.84, 5.34, 5.18, 4.72, 4.98, and 5.09 respectively. An N of 301 was obtained, mean of 5.09, and a standard deviation of 1.14. An AN OVA of the environment prepared area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p = .011 sig.]. Table 14 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the environment prepared area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 14 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of EB, ANR, CYF, DEA, 4-H, and EC/ED with means of 4.72, 4.84, 4.98, 5.09, 5.18, and 5.34 respectively. Subset 2 consists of the positions of CYF, DEA, 4-H, EC/ED, and CED with means of 4.98, 5.09, 5.18, 5.34, and 5.48 respectively. Table 14 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of CYF, DEA, 4-H, and EC/ED with means of 4.98, 5.09, 5.18, and 5.34 are unique as they overlap across both subsets and are not significantly different fi'om the positions of EB, ANR, and CED with means of 4.72, 4.84, and 5.48 respectively. 105 Table 14 exhibits means that are significantly different fi'om each other. The positions of EB and ANR with means of 4.72 and 4.84 are significantly different from the CED position with a mean of 5.48. The reverse is true in that the CED position with a mean of 5.48 is significantly different from the BE and ANR positions with means of 4.72 and 4.84 respectively. Environment Prepared Group Means By Respondents Position i o. 8 c5 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 301, Mean = 5.09, S.D. = 1.14 Positions Level of Preparedness Means Range Description CED Frequently Prepared 5.48 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR Frequently Prepared 4.84 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Frequently Prepared 5.34 2.50 - 3.49 = Infiequently 4-H Frequently Prepared 5.18 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Frequently Prepared 4.72 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Frequently Prepared 4.98 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Frequently Prepared 5.09 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 21. Environment Prepared Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position 106 Table 14. Duncan Range Test For The Environment Prepared Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-1-1 Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p = .011 sigl Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 1 2 BE 39 4.72 124 4.72 ANR 73 4.84 1.16 4.84 CYF 15 4.98 .88 4.98 4.98 DEA 36 5.09 1 .24 5.09 5.09 4-H 56 5.18 1.14 5.18 5.18 EC/ED 18 5.34 1 .07 5.34 5.34 CED 64 5.48 .96 5.48 ALUMeans/Standard Deviation 301 5.09 1.14 -- - Environment Often In Figure 22, group means were obtained to provide an overall description of MSU Extension Agents by position for the environment often area The environment often area consisted of sixteen items. The ANR position is described as performing environment skills infrequently with a mean of 3.38. The remaining positions of CED, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA are described as performing environment skills occasionally with means of 4.36, 4.49, 4.19, 3.55, 4.14, and 3.62 respectively. An N of 298 was obtained, with a mean of 3.89, and a standard deviation of 1.38. 107 Environment Often Group Means By Respondents Position 6.6 6.4 62 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 § 4.0 3.8 i 3.6 g 3.4 O 3.2 3.38 3.0 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 298, Mean = 3.89, S.D. = 1.38 Positions How Often Done (Performed) Means Range Description CED Occasionally Performed 4.36 1.00 - 1.49 = Never ANR lnfrequently Performed 3.38 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom EC/ED Occasionally Performed 4.49 2.50 - 3.49 = Infiequently 4-H Occasionally Performed 4.19 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally EE Occasionally Performed 3.55 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently CYF Occasionally Performed 4.14 5.50 - 6.49 = Often DEA Occasionally Performed 3.62 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Figure 22. Environment Often Group Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the environment often area group means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 15 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the environment often area by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 15 shows three subsets of means were identified. The means within each respective subset are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of ANR, EE, and DEA with means of 3.38, 3.55, and 3.62 respectively. Subset 2 108 consists of the positions of EB, DEA, CYF, and 4-H with means of 3.55, 3.62, 4.14, and 4.19 respectively. Subset 3 consists of the positions of CYF, 4-H, CED, and EC/ED with means of 4.14, 4.19, 4.36, and 4.49 respectively. Table 15 depicts where overlap exists between subsets. The positions of EB and DEA with means of 3.55 and 3.62 respectively are not significantly different from the positions of ANR, CYF, and 4-H with means of 3.3 8, 4.14, and 4.19 respectively. The positions CYF and 4-H with means of 4.14 and 4.19 respectively are not significantly different fi'om the positions of EE, DEA, CED, and EC/ED with means of 3.55, 3.62, 4.36, and 4.49 respectively. Table 15 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The AN R position with a mean of 3.38 is significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, CED, and EC/ED with means of 4.14, 4.19, 4.36, and 4.49 respectively. The positions of EB and DEA with means of 3.55 and 3.62 respectively are significantly different fiom the positions of CED and EC/ED with means of 4.36 and 4.49 respectively. The positions of CYF and 4- H with means of4.14 and 4.19 respectively are significantly different from the ANR position with a mean of 3.3 8. The positions of CED and EC/ED with means of 4.36 and 4.49 respectively are significantly different from the positions of ANR, EE, and DEA with means of 3.38, 3.55, and 3.62 respectively. 109 Table 15. Duncan Range Test For The Environment Often Area By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 1 2 3 ANR 73 3.38 1.38 3.38 EB 38 3.55 1.55 3.55 3.55 DEA 35 3.62 1.27 3.62 3.62 CYF 15 4.14 1.33 4.14 4.14 4-H 55 4.19 1.42 4.19 4.19 CED 64 4.36 1.1 1 4.36 EC/ED 1 8 4.49 1 .07 4.49 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 298 3.89 1.38 - -- -- MSU Extension Marketing Reports The next two sections present findings regarding the MSU Extension Marketing Reports. MSU Extension Agents were asked to respond based on their level of familiarity with each of the reports on a scale of 1 = not familiar, 2 = slightly familiar, 3 = somewhat familiar, 4 = moderately familiar, 5 = familiar, 6 = very familiar, and 7 = extremely familiar. Responses are reported based on scores falling in the following ranges: 1.00 — 1.49 = not familiar, 1.50 — 2.49 = slightly familiar, 2.50 — 3.49 = somewhat familiar, 3.50 — 4.49 = moderately familiar, 4.50 - 5.49 = familiar, 5.50 — 6.49 = very familiar, and 6.50 — 7.00 = extremely familiar. Marketing Action Plan Draft In Figure 23, means were obtained to describe MSU Extension Agents by position for the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Drafi October 1999 110 (Heinze et al., 1999). The CED position responded as familiar with a mean of 4.57. All remaining positions of AN R, EC/ED, 4-H, EE, CYF, and DEA responded as somewhat familiar with means of 2.89, 2.89, 3.02, 2.83, 3.32, and 2.90 respectively. An N of 322 was obtained, with a mean of 3.27, and a standard deviation of 1.61. Marketing Action Plan Draft Means By Respondents Position CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 322, Mean = 3.27, S.D. = 1.61 Positions Level of Familiarity Means Range Description CED Familiar 4.57 1.00 - 1.49 = Not Familiar ANR Somewhat Familiar 2.89 1.50 - 2.49 = Slightly Familiar EC/ED Somewhat Familiar 2.89 2.50 - 3.49 = Somewhat Familiar 4-H Somewhat Familiar 3.02 3.50 - 4.49 = Moderately Familiar EE Somewhat Familiar 2.83 4.50 - 5.49 = Familiar CYF Somewhat Familiar 3.32 5.50 - 6.49 = Very Familiar DEA Somewhat Familiar 2.90 6.50 - 7.00 = Extremely Familiar Figure 23. Marketing Action Plan Draft Means By MSU Extension Agent Position An AN OVA of the marketing action plan draft means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 16 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the marketing action plan draft means by MSU Extension Agent position. 111 Table 16 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within subset 1 are not significantly different from each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of EE, ANR, EC/ED, DEA, 4-H, and CYF with means of 2.83, 2.89, 2.89, 2.90, 3.02, and 3.32 respectively. Subset 2 is unique containing only the CED position with a mean of 4.5 7. Table 16 depicts no overlap exists between subsets 1 and 2. With no overlap, both subsets are unique. Table 16 exhibits means that are significantly different from each other. The CED position with a mean of 4.57 is unique as it is significantly different fiom all remaining positions of EB, ANR, EC/ED, DEA, 4-H, and CYF with means of 2.83, 2.89, 2.89, 2.90, 3.02, and 3.32 respectively. Table 16. Duncan Range Test For The Marketing Action Plan Draft Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-I-I Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 1 2 EB 41 2.83 1.50 2.83 ANR 80 2.89 1.42 2.89 EC/ED 19 2.89 1.73 2.89 DEA 40 2.90 1 .50 2.90 4-H 58 3.02 1.62 3.02 CYF 19 3.32 1.42 3.32 CED 65 4.57 1.36 4.57 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 322 3.27 1.61 —- -- 112 Report To The MSU Extension Marketing Task Force Draft In Figure 24, means were obtained to describe MSU Extension Agents by position for the Drafi Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Report to the MS U Extension Marketing Task Force October 10, 2000 (Suvedi & Probyn, 2000). The CED position responded as moderately familiar with a mean of 3.97. The positions of ANR, CYF, and DEA responded as somewhat familiar with means of 2.56, 2.58, and 2.70 respectively. The positions of EC/ED, 4-H, and EE responded as slightly familiar with means of 2.16, 2.33, and 2.39 respectively. An N of 322 was obtained, mean of 2.78, and a standard deviation of 1.64. Marketing Task Force Draft Report Means By Respondents Position 2.16 2.33 CED ANR EC/ED 4-1-1 EE CYF DEA Positions N = 322, Mean = 2.78, S.D. = 1.64 Positions Level of Familiarity Means Range Description CED Moderately Familiar 3.97 1.00 - 1.49 = Not Familiar ANR Somewhat Familiar 2.56 1.50 - 2.49 = Slightly Familiar EC/ED Slightly Familiar 2.16 2.50 - 3.49 = Somewhat Familiar 4-H Slightly Familiar 2.33 3.50 - 4.49 = Moderately Familiar EE Slightly Familiar 2.39 4.50 - 5.49 = Familiar CYF Somewhat Familiar 2.58 5.50 - 6.49 = Very Familiar DEA Somewhat Familiar 2.70 6.50 - 7.00 = Extremely Familiar Figure 24. Marketing Task Force Draft Report Means By MSU Extension Agent Position 113 An AN OVA of the marketing task force draft report means by MSU Extension Agent position showed that not all means were equal to each other [p < .001 sig.]. Table 17 depicts the Duncan range test for homogenous subsets of means for the marketing task force draft report means by MSU Extension Agent position. Table 17 shows two subsets of means were identified. The means within subset 1 are not significantly different fi'om each other. Subset 1 consists of the positions of EC/ED, 4-H, EE, ANR, CYF, and DEA with means of 2.16, 2.33, 2.39, 2.56, 2.58, and 2.70 respectively. Subset 2 contains only the CED position with a mean of 3.97. Table 17 shows that no overlap exists between subsets 1 and 2. With no overlap, both subsets are unique. Table 17 exhibits means that are significantly different fi'om each other. The CED position with a mean of 3.97 is unique as it is significantly different from all remaining positions of EC/ED, 4-H, EE, ANR, CYF, and DEA with means of 2.16, 2.33, 2.39, 2.56, 2.58, and 2.70 respectively. 114 Table 17. Duncan Range Test For The Marketing Task Force Draft Report Means By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, X = Means, S.D. = Standard Deviation Level of Significance ANOVA [p < .001 sig.] Positions N X S.D. Subset for alpha = .05 1 2 EC/ED 19 2.16 1.26 2.16 4-H 58 2.33 1.60 2.33 BE 41 2.39 1.41 2.39 ANR 80 2.56 1.54 2.56 CYF 19 2.58 1.26 2.58 DEA 40 2.70 1.42 2.70 CED 65 3 .97 1.71 3.97 ALL/Means/Standard Deviation 322 2.78 1.64 -- -- County Marketing Packet and Marketing Web Site A series of items were included in the study instrumental to helping respondents with their efforts in marketing MSU Extension. Each County MSU Extension office has access to a series of items included in a county marketing packet (Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet, 2000) and may access or order items included on the marketing web site (Marketing, 2000). One item each from the packet and web site have been selected to feature findings with regard to respondents being familiar with the item, prepared to use the item, and whether respondents have used the item. From the packet, the brochure, Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) was selected. From the web site, the Michigan State University Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) was selected. 115 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity Figure 25 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position familiar with the brochure, Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) as follows: CED at 93.9 percent, ANR at 70.5 percent, EC/ED at 78.9 percent, 4-H at 89.7 percent, EE at 79.1 percent, CYF at 68.4 percent, and DEA at 63.2 percent. An N of 255 was obtained representing respondents familiar with the brochure. The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding familiarity with the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) [p = .001 sig.]. Table 18 provides a further breakdown of familiarity with the brochure by MSU Extension Agent position. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity By Respondents Position 90- 80 70 60- Percent Familiar CED ANR EC/ED 4-l-l EE CYF DEA Positions N = 255 Figure 25. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position 116 Table 18. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Square [p = .001 si .] Positions N "/o N % N Yes Yes No No Total CED 62 93.9 4 6.1 66 ANR 55 70.5 23 29.5 78 EC/ED 15 78.9 4 21.1 19 4-H 52 89.7 6 10.3 58 EE 34 79. 1 9 20.9 43 CYF 13 68.4 6 3 l .6 19 DEA 24 63.2 14 36.8 38 ALL 255 79.4 66 20.6 321 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Preparedness Figure 26 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position prepared to use the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) as follows: CED at 90.8 percent, ANR at 62.3 percent, EC/ED at 73.7 percent, 4-H at 77.6 percent, EE at 76.7 percent, CYF at 72.2 percent, and DEA at 38.9 percent. An N of 226 was obtained representing respondents prepared to use the brochure. 117 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Prepared To Use By Respondents Position Percent Prepared To Use CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 226 Figure 26. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding preparedness to use the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) [p < .001 sig.]. Table 19 provides a timber breakdown of preparedness to use the brochure by MSU Extension Agent position. 118 Table 19. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Prepared To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Square [p < .001 Sig] Positions N % N "/o N Yes Yes No No Total CED 59 90.8 6 92 65 ANR 48 62.3 29 37.7 77 EC/ED 14 73.7 5 26.3 19 4-H 45 77 .6 13 22.4 58 EB 33 76.7 10 23.3 43 CYF 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 DEA 14 38.9 22 61.1 36 ALL 226 71.5 90 28.5 316 Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use Figure 27 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position that have used the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) as follows: CED at 84.4 percent, ANR at 34.6 percent, EC/ED at 47.4 percent, 4-H at 51.7 percent, EE at 62.8 percent, CYF at 72.2 percent, and DEA at 34.2 percent. An N of 173 was obtained representing respondents having used the brochure. The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding use of the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) [p < .001 sig.]. Table 20 provides a further breakdown of use of the brochure by MSU Extension Agent position. 119 90 80 70 60 Percent Use 9) O Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use By Respondents Position CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 173 Figure 27. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 20. Bringing Knowledge To Life Brochure Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-I-l = Extension 4—H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Sguare [p < .001 $3} Positions N % N % N Yes Yu N J No Total £1) 54 84.4 0 5.6 64 ANR 27 341 5 65.4 7 3 EC/ED 9 47.4 ( 52.0 1 ) 4-H 30 5 .' 2.8 48.. 5 l EE :7 62 .8 6 37.: 41. CYF 3 2 .2 5 27.! 1 I DEA 3 34 2 25 65.! Z l ALL 173 54 4 145 45.( 318 120 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Familiarity Figure 28 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position familiar with the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) as follows: CED at 76.9 percent, ANR at 43.0 percent, EC/ED at 55.6 percent, 4—H at 37.9 percent, EE at 61.0 percent, CYF at 57.9 percent, and DEA at 35.9 percent. An N of 166 was obtained representing respondents familiar with the folder. MSUE Pocket Folder Familiarity By Respondents Position Percent Familiar CED ANR EC/ED 4-H EE CYF DEA Positions N = 166 Figure 28. MSUE Pocket Folder Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding familiarity with the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) [p < .001 sig.]. Table 21 provides a further breakdown of familiarity with the pocket folder by MSU Extension Agent position. 121 Table 21. MSUE Pocket Folder Familiarity By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Sguareip < .001 Sigl Positions N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total CED 50 76.9 15 23.1 65 ANR 34 43.0 45 57.0 79 EC/ED 10 55.6 8 44.4 18 4-1-1 22 37.9 36 62.1 58 EB 25 61.0 16 39.0 41 CYF 1 1 57.9 8 42.1 19 DEA 14 35.9 25 64.1 39 ALL 166 52.0 153 48.0 319 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Preparedness Figure 29 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position prepared to use the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) as follows: CED at 68.8 percent, ANR at 33.8 percent, EC/ED at 55.6 percent, 4-H at 37.5 percent, EE at 47.4 percent, CYF at 55.6 percent, and DEA at 43.2 percent. An N of 144 was obtained representing respondents prepared to use the folder. The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding preparedness to use the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) [p = .002 sig.]. Table 22 provides a further breakdown of preparedness to use by delineating the N prepared to use and percent prepared to use the pocket folder by MSU Extension Agent position. 122 MSUE Pocket Folder Prepared To Use By Respondents Position 80 Percent Prepared To Use Positions N = 144 Figure 29. MSUE Pocket Folder Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Table 22. MSUE Pocket Folder Preparedness To Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Sguare |p = .002 S_ig.] Positions N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total CED 44 68.8 20 31.3 64 ANR 25 32 .8 49 66.2 '74 EC/ED (l 55 .6 8 44.4 i __4;H I! 37.5 35 62.5 .‘5 EE 8 47.4 20 52.6 3 CYF 0 55.6 8 44.4 DEA 6 43.2 21 56.5 3 ALL 144 47.2 161 52.5 305 123 MSU Extension Pocket Folder Use Figure 30 depicts the percentage of MSU Extension Agents by position having used the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) as follows: CED at 46.9 percent, ANR at 17.1 percent, EC/ED at 36.8 percent, 4-H at 25.5 percent, EE at 34.1 percent, CYF at 38.9 percent, and DEA at 21.6 percent. An N of 93 was obtained representing respondents use of the folder. MSUE Pocket Folder Use By Respondents Position 80 70 50 40 30 20 Percent Use 10 CED ANR EC/ED 4-H BE CYF DEA Positions N = 93 Figure 30. MSUE Pocket Folder Use By MSU Extension Agent Position The Pearson Chi—Square statistic was used to determine significant differences exist between MSU Extension Agent positions regarding use of the MSU Extension pocket folder (n.d.) [p = .006 sig.]. Table 23 provides a further breakdown of use of the pocket folder by MSU Extension Agent position. 124 Table 23. MSUE Pocket Folder Use By MSU Extension Agent Position Abbreviations/Positions CED = County Extension Director ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent EC/ED = Extension Conununity and/or Economic Development Agent 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent EE = Extension Educator CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent DEA = District Extension Agent ALL = All Positions Statistics Key N = Number, % = Percent Level of Significance Pearson Chi-Square [p= .006 Sig] Positions N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total CED 30 46.9 34 53.1 64 ANR 13 17.1 63 82.9 76 EC/ED 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 4-H 14 25.5 41 74.5 55 EB 14 34.1 27 65.9 41 CYF 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 DEA 8 21.6 29 78.4 37 ALL 93 30.0 217 70.0 310 Findings have been presented with regard to demographics, product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment, marketing reports, county marketing packet materials, and marketing web site. Group means and the AN OVA Duncan range test were used to describe the findings for the sections of product, pricing, placing, promotion, environment, and marketing reports. Means by position for individual questionnaire items for the sections of product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment, and marketing reports are provided in Appendix K, Tables 24 - 90. Percentages by position for individual questionnaire items included in the county marketing packet and marketing web site sections are provided in Appendix L, Tables 91 - 110. Appendix M provides a list of responses given for item six, “other,” which is question seven (major area of study completed with highest degree) under the demographic items section of the questionnaire. 125 Appendix N provides a listing of additional comments provided by respondents. Conclusions, recommendations, and implications will be provided based on the findings. 126 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The preceding chapters provided the introduction, literature review, methodology, and findings relative to perceptions of MSU Extension Agents on marketing MSU Extension. In this chapter, conclusions, recommendations, and implications are presented from the findings as follows: product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, environment, marketing reports, county marketing packet, marketing web site, and summary. A key factor in this research study involved determining where the differences existed between positions. Product Conclusions Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing during the past year skills considered important in marketing the product (programs and information) of MSU Extension to customers. Willing The DEA position responded as frequently willing to perform product skills while all remaining positions responded as often willing. The DEA position is significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, EE, CED, and EC/ED. It is likely DEA position differences are attributed to the position having a wider geographic area of coverage, larger percentage of time specializing in an area of expertise, and serves customers with other positions being the initial point of contact. 127 Prepared The CED position responded as often prepared to perform product skills. The CED position is significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, CYF, and 4-H. CED position differences are likely attributed to the position having administrative responsibility. By design, it is likely the CED position demands an increased level of preparedness to perform skills in marketing the product of MSU Extension. The DEA and ANR positions responded as occasionally prepared to perform product skills. Both the DEA and ANR positions are significantly different and unique fi'om the remaining positions. DEA position differences are the same as those stated in the willing section. It is likely ANR position differences are attributed to being the more traditional and well-established position within the organization. Additionally, the position is composed of diverse disciplines within the areas of agriculture and natural resources. Often (Performed) The BB position responded as frequently performing product skills during the past year. The BB position is significantly different from the positions of ANR, DEA, and 4-H. EE position differences are likely tied to respondents describing the family and consumer sciences program in relation to the MSU Extension product offering. The CED position responded as frequently performing product skills as well. The CED position is significantly different from the ANR and DEA positions. CED position differences are likely attributed to the position having administrative responsibility. Inherently, the CED position requires advocating all MSU Extension programs. Both the ANR and DEA positions responded as infiequently performing product skills during the past year. The ANR and DEA positions are significantly different and 128 unique from the other positions. ANR position differences are the same as those stated in the prepared section. DEA position differences are the same as those stated in the willing section. Overall The group means for the product area exhibit a gradual downward trend in moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with frequency performed. The standard deviation exhibits a gradual widening trend in moving fi'om willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with fiequency performed. As the standard deviation scores increase, variability or spread in the distribution of scores increases. Product Recommendations The CED position is often willing, as well as often prepared to perform product skills. In the author’s opinion, it is evident emphasis needs to be placed on bringing the remaining positions along to increase the level of preparedness and fi'equency in marketing the product of MSU Extension. According to M. R. Kovacic, Interim Marketing Director for MSU Extension (personal communication, November 7, 2000), the CED should view oneself as the overall marketing director for MSU Extension in their respective county. In the author’s opinion, a train-the-trainer program for the CED position needs to be implemented on marketing the product of MSU Extension. The CED position is crucial as it is the common link connecting the MSU Extension marketing director with the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions. The ultimate goal of the train-the-trainer program for the CED position would be to increase the level of preparedness and follow through of the remaining positions in marketing the product of MSU Extension. 129 Product Implications If the train-the-trainer program for the CED position is implemented, increased uniformity and consistency should be the expected end result in communicating and marketing the product of MSU Extension. According to Foerster et al., (2000), building “80 percent public awareness of the MSU Extension mission, goals, and programs” is a desired outcome. If the CED position train-the-trainer program does not get implemented, one would expect the corollary to occur being lack of a uniform and consistent message in communicating and marketing the product of MSU Extension. One would expect lack of a uniform and consistent message to lead to an unclear image of the organization. Image is defined as “the set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person holds regarding an object. People’s attitudes and actions toward an object are highly conditioned by that object’s image” (Kotler, 1997, p. 607). MSU Extension Agents would likely remain often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally perform skills considered important in marketing the product (programs and information) of MSU Extension to customers. Pricing Conclusions Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing during the past year skills considered important in pricing MSU Extension educational programs and information to CUStOlTlCI‘S. 130 Willing The positions of EE, DEA, and CYF responded as frequently willing to perform pricing skills while all remaining positions responded as often willing. The positions of EE, DEA, and CYF are significantly different from the EC/ED position. It is likely the BE and CYF positions may serve audiences where it is more difficult to charge for programs and information. The DEA position difference is likely attributed to being utilized as a resource in conjunction with other positions. Prepared The CYF position responded as occasionally prepared to perform pricing skills while all remaining positions responded as frequently prepared. The CYF and EE positions are significantly different from the EC/ED and CED positions. The same reason applies as was stated in the willing section for the CYF and EE positions. Ofien (Performed) All positions responded as occasionally performing pricing skills during the past year. None of the positions had significant differences. Overall The group means for the pricing area exhibit a sharp downward trend in moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with fiequency performed. The trend becomes more pronounced as MSU Extension Agents move from prepared to perform to frequency performed. The standard deviation exhibits a widening trend in moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with frequency performed. As the standard deviation scores increase, variability or spread in the distribution of scores increases. 131 Pricing Recommendations MSU Extension Agents are often willing to perform skills considered important in pricing MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. However, respondents were only frequently prepared to do so and occasionally performed pricing skills during the past year. Initially, one would conclude education is needed on how to price MSU Extension programs and information to customers. However, the issue of pricing is much more complex than just providing training. According to Weinberg and Lovelock (as cited in Kotler, 1982), non-profit organizations have four distinctive characteristics being multiple publics, multiple objectives, services rather than physical goods, and public scrutiny. MSU Extension is subject to all four characteristics. Therefore, it is important careful consideration be given relative to setting pricing objectives and strategies. ' It is important MSU Extension as an organization consider its pricing objectives before informed decisions may be made on choosing pricing strategies. Kotler and Andreasen (1996) recommend doing research to reduce the uncertainty about pricing. In the author’s opinion, MSU Extension needs to analyze its pricing objectives for each product (program) line being agriculture and natural resources, community and economic development, and children, youth and families. Due to the fact MSU Extension programs are segmented by product line (program area), pricing objectives and strategies will likely require segmenting as well. Once pricing objectives are established, pricing strategies may be considered then implemented. A review of individual items in the pricing section of the appendix should be considered when planning in-service education training for MSU Extension Agents. 132 Pricing Implications If MSU Extension as an organization determines its pricing objectives, then its pricing strategies, such action should place the organization in a position to communicate a more uniform and consistent message both internally and externally in pricing its educational programs and information to customers. If pricing objectives, then strategies are not addressed, the corollary would be expected to occur being confirsion both internally and externally to the organization with regard to pricing. MSU Extension Agents would likely remain often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally perform skills considered important in pricing MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. Placing and Targeting Conclusions Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perform, often prepared to perform, and frequently performing during the past year skills considered important in placing and targeting MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. Willing The EE position responded as very often willing to perform placing and targeting skills while all remaining positions responded as often willing. The BB position is significantly different from the positions of DEA, ANR, 4-H, and CYF. The BB position likely serves customer groups that are more readily segmented and targeted compared to the DEA, ANR, 4-H, and CYF positions. Examples may include family nutrition, housing, and parenting customers. In addition, the educational programs and information (products) may tend to be more structured compared to the DEA, ANR, 4-H, and CYF positions. 133 Prepared All positions responded as often prepared to perform placing and targeting skills. None of the positions posted significant differences. Often (Performed) The EE and CYF positions responded as often performing placing and targeting skills during the past year. Both the BE and CYF positions are significantly different fi'om the ANR position. It is likely both the EB and CYF positions tend to serve customer groups that are more readily segmented and targeted compared to the ANR position. In addition, the educational programs and information (products) may tend to be more structured compared to the ANR position. Overall The group means for the placing and targeting area exhibit a gradual downward trend moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with fiequency performed. The standard deviation exhibits a gradual widening trend in moving fiom willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with frequency performed. As the standard deviation scores increase, variability or spread in the distribution of scores increases. Placing and Targeting Recommendations For MSU Extension, placing and targeting tends to be program area specific. It is likely more education is needed for MSU Extension Agents with regard to segmentation and targeting of audiences. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1996), customer-centered nonprofit organization managers should have “a predilection for segmentation” (p. 52). Segmentation 134 and targeting go hand-in-hand for customer-centered organizations. “In it the organization distinguishes between the different segments making up the market, chooses several of these segments to focus on, and develops market offers and marketing mixes tailored to meet the needs of each segment” (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996, p. 153). For MSU Extension, segmenting and targeting audiences tends to make sense as the concepts are inherently designed to seek the most effective and efficient means possible in utilizing available resources in reaching customers. In this fashion, resources tend to be maximized in delivering educational programs and information to address critical community issues identified by advisory groups working closely with MSU Extension. It would seem segmenting and targeting should be core skills expected of every MSU Extension Agent. The organization should consider preparing curriculum materials and providing instruction to MSU Extension Agents on segmenting and targeting audiences for educational program and information delivery. A review of individual items in the placing and targeting section included in the appendix should be considered when planning in-service education programs for MSU Extension Agents. Placing and Targeting Implications Segrnenting and targeting are important skills for employees of any customer- centered organization. If MSU Extension implements the placing and targeting recommendations, increased effectiveness and efficiency of MSU Extension Agents in segmenting and targeting audiences when delivering educational programming and information should be realized. If MSU Extension elects not to implement the placing and targeting recommendations, the organization should expect MSU Extension Agents to continue 135 placing and targeting MSU Extension programs and information to customers on a fiequent basis when in reality they could be segmenting and targeting on an often, or better yet, a very often basis. Promotion Conclusions Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perfomr, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing during the past year skills considered important in managing the promotion of MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. Willing All positions responded as often willing to perform promotion skills. None of the positions had significant differences. Prepared Both the CED and ANR positions responded as often prepared to perform promotion skills while all remaining positions responded as frequently prepared. The CED position is significantly different from the EB and CYF positions. The ANR position is significantly different from the CYF position. It is likely the CED position differences are attributed to the position having administrative responsibility. By design, it is likely the position demands an increased level of preparedness to perform promotional skills in marketing MSU Extension. It is likely ANR position differences are attributed to serving highly segmented customer groups with diverse interests, thereby requiring an increased level of preparedness in promoting programs and information. 136 Ofien (Performed) The CED position responded as frequently performing promotion skills during the past year. All remaining positions responded as occasionally performing promotion skills. The CED position is significantly different from the EB position. CED position differences are likely tied to the position having administrative responsibility. By design, it is likely the position demands an increased level of performing promotion skills in marketing MSU Extension. Overall The group means for the promotion area exhibit a sharp downward trend in moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and concluding with fiequency performed. The trend becomes more pronounced as respondents proceeded fi'om prepared to perform to frequency performed. Promotion Recommendations All of the positions are at about the same level within each respective means being willing to perform, prepared to perform, and fi'equency of performing skills considered important in the promotion section. According to Warner (1993a), “Extension suffers from a reputation deficit” (p. 1). Stated yet another way, the reputation deficit may be described as Extension having an image problem (Jenkins, 1993). It is not a matter of Extension having a poor image (Jenkins, 1993). “The problem is they have no image at all (or only a very weak and fuzzy one) with certain vitally important groups that will have a significant impact on their future” (Jenkins, 1993, p. l). 137 MSU Extension should be interested in image as, “a successful marketing effort ensures that everything about the organization — its programs, employees, volunteers, facilities, and actions — communicates a uniform and consistently positive message” (Foerster et al., 2000). With regard to promotion, there appears to be a lack of follow through. MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing during the past year skills considered important in promoting MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. Due to the lack of follow through, it appears there is confirsion among MSU Extension Agents when it comes to promoting MSU Extension programs and information and more specifically the image to portray. In effect it appears there is a pent-up demand on the part of MSU Extension Agents as they are often willing and fi'equently prepared to promote MSU Extension programs and information to customers, but lack a clear focus as to what message or messages to portray. In the author’s opinion, it appears evident MSU Extension needs to develop a public relations plan in an effort to sharpen the focus of MSU Extension Agents when it comes to promoting the organization, thereby addressing the issue of image and refining the overall promotional effort. A public relations strategic plan is one such tool that may be used to accomplish this need (Kotler & Andreasen, 1996). Most of the information required to develop a public relations strategic plan is presented in the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan (Kovacic et al., 2000). A review of the individual items in the promotion section included in the appendix should be considered when planning marketing in-service education programs for MSU Extension Agents. 138 Promotion Implications If MSU Extension implements the promotion recommendations, the organization should expect to convey a clearer, refined, and controlled image to the public. At the same time, guidance would be provided to MSU Extension Agents on how to promote the organization as well as the messages conveyed to the public. If MSU Extension elects not to implement the promotion recommendations, one should expect a continuation of the current situation of MSU Extension Agents being often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally promoting MSU Extension educational programs and information. Environment Conclusions Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing during the past year skills considered important in managing the environment MSU Extension operates in delivering educational programs and information to customers. Willing All positions responded as often willing to perform environment skills. Prepared All positions responded as frequently prepared to perform environment skills. Often (Performed) The ANR position responded as infi'equently perfomring environment skills, while all remaining positions responded as occasionally performing. The ANR position is significantly different from the positions of CYF, 4-H, CED, and EC/ED. ANR position 139 differences are attributed to the position being more traditional and well established within the organization. Overall The group means for the environment area exhibit a downward trend moving from willing to perform, prepared to perform, and a sharp downward trend in moving to frequency performed. The standard deviation exhibits a gradual widening trend. As the standard deviation scores increase, variability or spread in the distribution of scores increases. Environment Recommendations Managing the environment in which MSU Extension operates is both an internal and external issue for MSU Extension Agents. In the author’s opinion, it appears more education is needed for MSU Extension Agents with regard to skills considered important in managing the environment MSU Extension operates to deliver educational programs and information to customers. MSU Extension relies heavily upon County Extension Councils as well as program specific advisory groups for needs assessment, input, and guidance with the operation of nearly all program functions of the county Extension program. Due to the importance of County Extension Councils and advisory groups to the overall environment which MSU Extension operates, it is important that MSU Extension Agents receive training to assist them in working with County Extension Councils and advisory groups. In the author’s opinion, MSU Extension needs to develop curriculum and provide instruction on working with advisory groups to MSU Extension Agents. Curriculum should include: utilizing strategic planning, identifying customer/community 140 needs, planning programs, implementing programs, evaluating programs, identifying resources, securing resources, managing resources, and in developing advocacy for MSU Extension. A review of the individual items in the environment section included in the appendix should be considered when planning marketing in-service education programs for MSU Extension Agents. Environment Implications County Extension Councils and advisory groups are important to the operation of the county Extension program and provide an important link in managing the environment MSU Extension operates in delivering educational programs and information to customers. If MSU Extension implements the environment recommendations, the organization stands to potentially reap the benefits of increased support for MSU Extension programs by being more in touch with its customers and communities. If MSU Extension elects not to implement the environment recommendations, the organization should expect a continuation of the current situation of MSU Extension Agents being often willing to perform, frequently prepared to perform, and occasionally performing skills considered important in managing the environment MSU Extension operates in delivering educational programs and information to customers when in reality they could be performing environment skills on an often, or better yet, a very often basis. MSU Extension Marketing Reports Conclusions Respondents were asked to describe their level of familiarity with the contents of the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Drafi October 1999 (Heinze et al., 1999) and the Draft Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Report to the MSU Extension Marketing Task 141 Force October 10, 2000 (Suvedi & Probyn, 2000). Conclusions, recommendations, and implications regarding the level of familiarity of MSU Extension Agents with regard to the reports follow. Marketing Action Plan Drafi Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as somewhat familiar with the Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Drafi October I 999 (Heinze et al., 1999). The CED position responded as familiar with the action plan draft while all remaining positions responded as somewhat familiar. The CED position was significantly different and unique {tom all remaining positions. CED position differences are likely due to the administrative responsibilities of the position, and consequently having more exposure to the report compared to other positions. Marketing Task Force Draft Collectively, MSU Extension Agents are described as somewhat familiar with the Draft Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Report to the MSU Extension Marketing Task Force October 10, 2000 (Suvedi & Probyn, 2000). The CED position responded as moderately familiar. The CED position was significantly different and unique from all remaining positions. CED position differences are likely due to the administrative responsibilities of the position, and consequently having more exposure to the report compared to other positions. Overall The CED position posted higher means with regard to level of familiarity for both reports. This comes as no surprise as the CED position has administrative responsibility at 142 the county level for MSU Extension and has likely had more exposure to the reports compared to the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions. MSU Extension Marketing Reports Recommendations As outlined previously in the product recommendations, implementing a train-the- trainer program for the CED position appears appropriate in assisting the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions in marketing the product of MSU Extension as well as increasing the level of familiarity with items pertinent to marketing the organization including the marketing reports. MSU Extension Marketing Reports Implications If MSU Extension implements the train-the—trainer program for the CED position, remaining MSU Extension Agents level of familiarity with items pertinent to marketing the organization should increase. If MSU Extension elects not to implement the train-the-trainer program for the CED position, the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions level of familiarity with items pertinent to marketing the organization should remain about the same. MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Conclusions A total of twenty items, ten items each, from the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet (2000) and marketing web site (Marketing, 2000) were included in the questionnaire to determine if respondents were familiar with, prepared to use, and had used the items. One item from each was selected to feature in the findings and conclusions being the brochure Bringing Knowledge to Life (n.d.b) from the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet (2000) and the Michigan State University Extension pocket folder (n.d.c) from the marketing web site (Marketing, 2000). The CED 143 position was most familiar, prepared to use, and had used both the brochure and pocket folder compared to all other positions. Overall In both cases of the brochure and pocket folder, the CED position stands apart from the remaining positions in having a higher percentage of respondents being familiar, prepared, and having used both items compared to the remaining positions. In inspecting the remaining marketing packet and items accessible on the web site included in the appendix, the CED position clearly stands out as having a higher percentage of respondents farrriliar, prepared, and having used items included in both the county marketing packet and on the web site. MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Recommendations As outlined previously in the product recommendations, implementing a train-the- trainer program for the CED position appears appropriate in assisting the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions in marketing the product of MSU Extension. This recommendation applies as well to increasing the level of familiarity with items pertinent to marketing the organization including items in the Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet (2000) and on the marketing web site (Marketing, 2000). MSU Extension County Marketing Packet And Web Site Implications If MSU Extension implements the train-the-trainer program for the CED position, remaining MSU Extension Agent positions should increase familiarity, preparedness to use, and use of the items included in the county marketing packet and on the web site would be the expected end result. 144 If MSU Extension elects not to implement the train-the-trainer program for the CED position, remaining MSU Extension Agent positions familiarity, preparedness to use, and use of items included in the county marketing packet and on the web site would be expected to remain relatively the same. Summary This research study has provided an in-depth analysis of the perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness to perform, preparedness to perform, and frequency in performing skills in marketing MSU Extension. Familiarity with MSU Extension marketing reports, and familiarity, preparedness, and use of items included in the county marketing packet and on the MSU Extension marketing web site have been presented. Opportunities for frnther research, marketing expectations, nonprofit organization marketing, overall observations, and key recommendations will be presented. Opportunities For Further Research During this study, opportunities for further research became evident as follows: 1. A qualitative study of MSU Extension Agents with regard to their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSU Extension. This would likely provide further explanation behind the quantitative numbers of this study. 2. A study of the perceptions of MSU Extension Program Associates and support staff regarding their willingness, preparedness, and fiequency in marketing MSU Extension. 3. A study of the perceptions of MSU Extension Specialists and Administrators regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency in marketing MSU Extension. 145 4. A replication of this study in four to five years to compare progress made in regard to skills considered important for MSU Extension Agents to market educational programs and information to customers. 5. Conceptually, this study could be replicated by other state Extension organizations. Marketing Expectations Expectations should be established and communicated by the organization for all MSU Extension Agent positions with regard to marketing MSU Extension and the respective program areas. Marketing expectations should be included in position descriptions and made an integral part of employee appraisal. Nonprofit Organization Marketing Jenkins (1993) poses the question, “how many of our land grant communicators are well-read in the principles and practices of marketing for nonprofit organizations” (p. 3)? Courses should be offered at both the undergraduate and graduate levels on marketing agricultural and extension education organizations and programs to better prepare prospective as well as current MSU Extension Agents in the principles of marketing management. Overall Observations Two overall observations fi‘om the findings deserve mentioning as follows: response consistency of the 4-H position and MSU Extension Agent positions in general. In every instance of being willing to perform, prepared to perform, and performing skills in the product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment sections, the 4-H position mean fell in the same range as the overall mean for all MSU Extension Agent positions. This pattern of response consistency is likely due to respondents holding 146 the 4-H position being recruited from a wide variety of disciplines compared to the remaining MSU Extension Agent positions. A general observation was made in moving from the product, pricing, placing and targeting, promotion, and environment sections was that all of the MSU Extension Agent positions tend to move up and down together across the sections in a somewhat consistent pattern. This pattern of response is likely attributed to MSU Extension using model position descriptions for developing and revising job descriptions within the organization. Therefore, it is likely similar skill sets are sought in identifying and selecting candidates when filling MSU Extension Agent positions. Key Recommendations Conclusions, recommendations, and implications have been stated for MSU Extension to consider as the organization moves forward with its marketing efforts. Key recommendations are as follows: 1. MSU Extension should consider implementing a train-the—trainer program for the CED position on marketing the product of MSU Extension. 2. MSU Extension should consider its pricing objectives before informed decisions may be made on choosing pricing strategies. 3. MSU Extension should consider preparing curriculum materials and providing instruction to MSU Extension Agents on segmenting and targeting audiences for educational program and information delivery. 4. MSU Extension should consider developing a public relations plan in an effort to sharpen the focus of MSU Extension Agents when it comes to promoting the organization, thereby addressing the issue of image and refining the promotional effort. 147 . MSU Extension should consider developing curriculum and providing instruction on working with advisory groups to MSU Extension Agents. . Review individual items included in the appendices of this research study when planning marketing instruction for MSU Extension Agent positions. . Marketing expectations should be included in MSU Extension Agent position descriptions and made an integral part of employee appraisal. . Courses should be offered at both the undergraduate and graduate levels on marketing agricultural and extension education organizations and programs to better prepare prospective as well as current MSU Extension Agents in the principles of marketing management. 148 ornce or RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES nlvmlty Committee on Research lnvoivlng Human Subjects Michigan State University '46 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1046 517/355—2180 PM 517I353-2976 i: mmsueduluserlucrlns E-Mail: ucrihsOmsuedu The Midiigan sue University IDEA ls William! Diversity WW h Adina. "$0 I: an Median, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY APPENDIXA December 22, 2000 UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH T 0: Frederick WHI M S INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS 408 Agriculture Hall LETTER OF APPROVAL RE: IRB# 00-810 CATEGORth-C APPROVAL DATE: December 21, 2000 TITLE: PERCEPTIONS OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND EXTENSION AGENTS REGARDING THEIR PREPAREDNESS IN MARKETING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project. RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web: http://wwwmsu.edu/user/ucrihs Sincerely, Ashir Kumar. MD Interim Chair, UCRIHS AK: rj CC: Hal Hudson 503 Schoolcrest Ave. Clare, MI 48617-1153 149 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT MARKETING OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 2001 and Beyond A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1039 150 Code # MARKETING OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 2001 and Beyond A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents This survey assesses Extension Agents perceptions of marketing MSU Extension. We are interested in how these marketing-related skills relate to your role as a County Extension Director, Extension Agent, or District Extension Agent. 1 Directions Read each statement carefully. 0 Your responses should be reflective of your experiences marketing MSU Extension educational programs and information to customers. 0 Circle the number you believe best describes your level of being willing, prepared, and how often you have done the skill within the past year. 0 Willing is defined as your level of being open (agreeable) to perform the skill. 0 Prepared is defined as your level of being ready to perform the skill. o How often is defined as the frequency you have done the skill within the past year. 1 Example Scale: 1=Never 2=Seldom 3=Infrequentl 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have marketing MSU Extension willing? prepared? you done? educational programs and (past year only) information to customers: 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Ofien l. Describing the expanded food and nutrition education program (EFNEP) mission. 12345©7 12345©7 123@567 In this example, the Agent indicated he/she was often willing, often prepared, and occasionally described the EFNEP program mission within the past year. 151 l Begin Here PRODUCT (PROGRAMS AND INFORMATION) 152 Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=lnfrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Ve10fien Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have marketing MSU Extension willing? prepared? you done? educational programs and (past year only) information to customers: 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often I. Describing the MSU Extensionmission. 123456712345671234567 2. Describing the agriculture andnaturalresources(ANR)123456712345671234567 program mission. 3. Describing the Extension communityandeconomic 123456712345671234567 development (ECED) program mission. 4. Describing the children, youthandfamilies(CYF) 123456712345671234567 prggram mission. 5. Describing the 4-H youth programmission. 123456712345671234567 6. Describing the family and ' consumersciences(FCS) 123456712345671234567 program mission. 7. Describing the family nutritionprogram(FNP) 123456712345671234567 mission. 8. Describing the land grant universitymission. 123456712345671234567 9. Describing the Area of Expertise(AOE)conceptto 123456712345671234567 customers. 10.Evaluatingprograms. 123456712345671234567 11.Describingprogramimpact. 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 12. Describing the impact of MSUExtension. 123456712345671234567 3 1 PRICING 153 Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=Infrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have pricing MSU Extension willing? prepared? you done? educational programs and (past year only) information to customers: 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 1. Preparing budgets before offeringprograms. 123456712345671234567 2. Determining prices to charge forprograms. 123456712345671234567 3. Analyzing prices charged by otherorganizationsfor 123456712345671234567 programs similar to those in your pm area. 4. Figuring breakeven price to chargeforprograms. 123456712345671234567 5. Assessing target customers abilitytopayforprograms. 1234567 1234567 1234567 6. Identifying sponsors to help defrayprogramcosts. 123456712345671234567 7. If program fees are a deterrent, determining how tomakethefeestructure 123456712345671234567 more attractive to customers. 8. Asking customers if the fee wascorrectforthe 123456712345671234567 program/information received. 9. Using nominal fees to obtain customercommitrnentto 123456712345671234567 participate in programs. 10. Structuring programs to createasurplus(revenues 123456712345671234567 exceed expenditures). 4 IPLACING AND TARGETING 154 Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=Infrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have placing and targeting MSU willing? prepared? you done? Extension educational programs (past year only) and information to customers: 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 7=VeryOften 7=VeryOften 7=VeryOften 1. Assessing customer demand forprograms. 123456712345671234567 2. Considering educational leveloftargetcustomers. 123456712345671234567 3. Considering diversity of targetcustomerswhen 123456712345671234567 planning programs. 4. Considering location of targetcustomers. 123456712345671234567 5. Considering accessibility of facilitiesforcustomers. 1234567 1234567 1234567 6. Considering convenience of locationforcustomers. 123456712345671234567 7. Asking customers if the locationforoffering 123456712345671234567 programs was convenient. 8. Considering transportation barriersofcustomerswhen 123456712345671234567 planning programs. 9. Conducting program needs assessmentwith 123456712345671234567 customer/stakeholder groups. 10. Considering customers availabilitytoparticipate 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 when plannimams. l 1. Targeting customer groups fordeliveringprograms. 123456712345671234567 12. Designing programs so they areuniquewhencomparedto123456712345671234567 those offered by other ggencies/organizations. 5 IPROMOTION Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=lnfrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often 155 Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have managing the promotion of willing? prepared? you done? MSU Extension educational (past year only) programs and information to 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never customers: 7 = M Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 1. Speakingtogroups. 123456712345671234567 2. Using word processing softwareinpreparingwritten123456712345671234567 materials. 3. Preparing presentations for groupsusingpresentation 123456712345671234567 software. 4. Giving presentations to groupsusingpresentation 123456712345671234567 software. 5. Using electronic mail to promoteprograms. 123456712345671234567 6. Considering design of prograrnmaterials. 123456712345671234567 7. Referring customers to the MSUExtensionwebsiteto 123456712345671234567 obtain information. 8. Designing web pages promotingMSUExtension 12345671234567 1234567 Jrograms/information. 9. Using compact discs to reu'ieveinformationtofulfill l2 3 4 5 6 712 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 customer requests. 10. Writing newsletters promotingMSUExtension 123456712345671234567 ro s. 11. Writing news releases promotingMSUExtension 123456712345671234567 programs. 6 Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=lnfrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often Skills considered important in Are you Are you How often have managing the promotion of willing? prepared? you done? MSU Extension educational (past year only) programs and information to l = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never customers: 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 12. Delivering radio programs promotingMSUExtension 1234567 1234567 1234567 programs. 13. Appearing on television promotingMSUExtension 1234567 1234567 1234567 programs. 14. Fostering favorable relations withthenewsmedia. 123456712345671234567 15. Promoting the fact that MSU Extensionisineverycounty 1234567 1234567 1234567 in Michigan. 16. Using the satellite downlink toconductprograms. 123456712345671234567 17. Promoting all MSU Extensionprogramsasa 123456712345671234567 unified package. lENVIRONMENT (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=Infrequently 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often 156 Skills considered important for Are you Are you How often have Extension Agents to manage the willing? prepared? you done? environment MSU Extension (past year only) operates in to deliver educational 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never programs and information to 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often customers: 1. Describing MSU Extension’s roleinpublicpolicy 123456712345671234567 education. 2. Utilizing strategic planning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Involving advisory groups in identifying 123456712345671234567 customer/community needs. 7 Scale: l=Never 2=Seldom 3=Infrequentl 4=Occasionally 5=Frequently 6=Often 7=Very Often Skills considered important for Are you Are you How often have Extension Agents to manage the willing? prepared? you done? environment MSU Extension (past year only) operates in to deliver educational 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never programs and information to 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often 7 = Very Often customers: 4. Involving advisory groups in planningprograms. 123456712345671234567 5. lnvolvingadvisorygroupsin 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7 implementing gograms. 6. Involving advisory groups in evaluatingprograms. 123456712345671234567 7. Involving advisory groups in identifyingresources. 123456712345671234567 8. Involving advisory groups in securingresources. 123456712345671234567 9. Involving advisory groups in managingresources. 123456712345671234567 10. Involving advisory groups as advocatesofMSU 123456712345671234567 Extension. 1 l. Describing the organizational structureofMSUExtension.123456712345671234567 12. Describing the funding sourcesofMSUExtension. 123456712345671234567 l3. Responding to changes in the marketforprograms. 123456712345671234567 l4. Analyzing programs offered byotherorganizations 123456712345671234567 similar to those offered in your program area. 15. Analyzing risks in offering programs. 123456712345671234567 16. Responding to County Commissionrequests. 123456712345671234567 8 157 1 MSU EXTENSION MARKETING REPORTS Circle the number you believe describes your level of familiarity with the contents of the following MSU Extension marketing reports. Scale: l=Not Familiar 2=Slightly Familiar 3=Somewhat Familiar 4=Moderately Familiar 5=Familiar 6=Very Familiar 7=Extremely Familiar MSU Extension Marketing Reports: How familiar are you? 1 = Not Familiar 7 = Extremely Familiar 1. “Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plan Draft October 1999” 2. “Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Station Report to the MSU Extension Marketing Task Force Draft October 10, 2000” 1 MSU EXTENSION COUNTY MARKETING PACKET Circle one response in each column. The first column asks are you familiar with the item, the second column asks are you prepared to use the item, and the third column asks have you used the item. Scale: N=NO, Y=YES Items included in the MSU Extension County Are you Are you Have Marketing Packet: familiar? prepared you to use? used? N = NO N = NO N = NO Y = YES Y = YES Y = YES 1. Intro. - Letting People Know Who We Are! N Y N Y N Y 2. Fab Five for County MSUE Offices N Y N Y N Y 3. MSU Ext. Co. Marketing Survey Instructions N Y N Y N Y 4. MSU Extension County Marketing Survey N Y N Y N Y 5. Action Planning Checklist N Y N Y N Y 6. Marketing Action Plan N Y N Y N Y 7. Bringing Knowledge to Life Brochure N Y N Y N Y 8. Marketing Ext. through Educational Programs N Y N Y N Y 9. Your Role in Marketing MSU Extension: A N Y N Y N Y Guide for Extension Council Members 10. Building Strong Relationships With Public N Y N Y N Y Officials 158 I MSU EXTENSION MARKETING WEB SITE Circle one response in each column. The first column asks are you familiar with the item, the second column asks are you prepared to use the item, and the third column asks have you used the item. Scale: N=NO, Y=YES Items on the MSU Extension Marketing Web Are you Are you Have Site: familiar? prepared you to use? used? N = NO N = NO N = NO Y = YES Y = YES Y = YES 1. Positioning Statement & Marketing Objectives N Y N Y N Y 2. What is Marketirg? (Description) N Y N Y N Y 3. Presentation Aides N Y N Y N Y 4. Graphics Standards Guidelines N Y N Y N Y 5. MSUE Marketinflgline with Music N Y N Y N Y 6. Fab Five Marketing Items for County Offices N Y N Y N Y 7. Phone Book Examples N Y N Y N Y 8. Extension Council Presentation N Y N Y N Y 9. MSUE Marketing Insert Card N Y N Y N Y 10. MSUE Pocket Folder N Y N Y N Y l DEMOGRAPHIC ITEMS Circle only one response under each question. 1. Please indicate your gender. 1 MALE 2 FEMALE 2. How many years of work experience do you have with MSU Extension? 0-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 11-15 YEARS 16-20 YEARS 21-25 YEARS 26—30 YEARS 31—35 YEARS OVER 35 YEARS ”NO‘M-RWNt—n 10 159 Which program assignment represents the largest percentage of your time? (circle only one response) bleak)" AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (ANR) EXT. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ECED) FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES (FCS) 4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT (4+1) Which best describes the position you hold? (circle only one response) \lO‘M-fiWNI—t COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR EXT. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AGENT EXT. COMMUNITY AND/OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENT EXTENSION 4-H YOUTH AGENT EXTENSION EDUCATOR, FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES EXTENSION CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILY AGENT DISTRICT EXTENSION AGENT According to your position (job) description, which best describes the geographic area of coverage of your responsibilities? (circle only one response) 1 2 SINGLE-COUNTY MULTI-COUNTY What is the highest level of education you have attained? (circle only one response) [Jr-5W5)“ BACI-IELORS DEGREE SOME GRADUATE TRAINING MASTERS DEGREE GRADUATE TRAINING BEYOND MASTERS DEGREE DOCTORATE DEGREE Which best describes the major area of study completed with your highest degree? 1 2 AGRICULTURE—Includes Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Agronomy, Animal Science, Dairy Science, Horticulture, or Poultry Science. EDUCATION—Includes Adult and Continuing Education, Agricultural Education, Environmental Education, Extension Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Education, or General Education. FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES—Includes Family Resource Management, F ood/Nutrition/Health, Food Safety, Human Development, and Housing. NATURAL RESOURCES OR BIOLOGY—Includes Biochemistry, Ecology, Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife, Forestry, or Plant Pathology. SOCIAL SCIENCE—Includes Community Development, Economic Development, Psychology, Resource Development, Rural Sociology, Sociology, or Youth Studies. OTHER—Please specify: 11 160 Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance in providing this information is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to share any additional comments you feel would be appropriate for this study. Please return your completed survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to: Hal Hudson MSU Extension Marketing Survey PO. Box 375 Clare, MI 48617-0375 161 APPENDIX C PANEL OF EXPERTS FOR VALIDITY COVER LETTER January3l,2001 «First_Name» «Last_Name» «Position» «Street_Address» «City_State_Zip» Dear «Salutation»: On behalf of MSU Extension and in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Ph.D. with the Department of ANR Education & Communication Systems, I am preparing to conduct a survey. Purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze perceptions of Extension Agents regarding their preparedness, willingness, and consistency in marketing MSU Extension. The term Extension Agents includes County Extension Directors, Extension Agents regardless of program assignment, and District Extension Agents. The survey also assesses familiarity, preparedness, and use of MSU Extension marketing materials included in the county marketing packet and on the marketing web site. I need your help. I have identified you as a resource professional to serve on my panel of experts to review the enclosed instrument for face and content validity. Simply stated, validity asks, does the instrument measure what it is supposed to measure? I am interested in obtaining input from you on the following items: 0 Does the instrument assess preparedness, willingness, and consistency of Extension Agents in marketing MSU Extension? Are there items that should be phrased differently to make the instrument easier to complete? Are there questions that should be eliminated and perhaps others added? Are the instructions clear, concise, and easy to understand? For your convenience, I have included my research objectives on the reverse side of this letter. Each item on the questionnaire should be able to be traced back to one of the objectives. It is not necessary for you to complete the instrument, unless you find it helpful in providing your analysis. I have included your name on the back page of the instrument should I need further details. Please feel free to write your comments directly on the instrument. There is also room on the back page for comments. If necessary, you may wish to include an additional sheet. I have included a self addressed stamped envelope for return of the questionnaire and up to one additional sheet. I ask that you please provide your analysis of the instrument and return it to me by Friday, Febru_ary 9, 2_00_1. If you have any questions or wish to get in touch with me, I may be reached at (517) 386-9337 or by e-mail at hudsonfléflmsuemsuedu. Thank you for your consideration of my request. I greatly appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agricultural and Extension Education 162 APPENDIX D PILOT TEST GROUP FOR RELIABILITY COVER LETTER February 21, 2001 «First_Name_2» «Last_Name» «Office_Name» «Street_Address» «C ity_State_Zip» Dear «First_Name_1»: On behalf of MSU Extension and in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Ph.D., with the Department of ANR Education & Communications Systems, I am preparing to conduct a survey. Purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze perceptions of Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency (how often) they market MSU Extension. The term Extension Agents includes County Extension Directors, Extension Agents regardless of program assignment, and District Extension Agents. The survey also assesses familiarity, preparedness, and use of MSU Extension marketing materials included in the county marketing packet and on the marketing web site. I need your help. You are one of a select group of resource professionals I am asking to serve as part of my pilot test group. In order to qualify for this group, you had to previously serve as an Extension Agent and currently serve in another capacity with MSU Extension. What I am asking you to do is imagine you are back in your role as an Extension Agent. Now that you are there, I ask for your help by completing and returning the enclosed questionnaire. By completing and returning this survey, this indicates your consent to be part of the pilot test of this research project. Your participation is voluntary and at any time during completion of the questionnaire, you may decline to respond to any given item. If you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will result in no harm or adverse effect on you. Your responses are confidential and will be tested for content validity and reliability. The return envelope and questionnaire have an identification number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the questionnaire is returned. The envelope will then be discarded. Your name will never be placed onto the completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the maximum extent permissible by law. If you are interested in receiving a summary of the research results, please check the box on the back of the envelope. If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am currently on study leave conducting the research phase of this project and may be reached at (517) 386-9337 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. If you have any questions about the rights of human subjects in research, direct your inquiry to Dr. David Wright, Chair, Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, (517) 355-2180. I appreciate your interest and involvement in this study. Please accept the enclosed $1.00 incentive as a small token of my appreciation for your time. 1 ask that you please complete and return the questionnaire in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope by Friday, March 2, 2001. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agricultural and Extension Education 163 APPENDIX E INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDY POPULATION March 26, 2001 «F irst_Name_2» «Last_Name» «Offrce_Name» «Street» «City__State__Zip» Dear «F irst_Name_1 »: Your expertise is needed in an important research study! Within the next week, you will receive a packet of information requesting your participation in a study entitled “Marketing of Michigan State University Extension: 2001 and Beyond.” This study takes the form of a census, meaning all, County Extension Directors, Extension Agents, and District Extension Agents are being surveyed. This survey is being conducted to assess MSU Extension Agents perceptions of marketing MSU Extension. This research study is one that comes at an important time for MSU Extension and is designed to coincide with the ongoing organizational efforts in marketing. Please look for the questionnaire to arrive in your mailbox. I ask that you please take a few minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire and return it to me. Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education 164 APPENDIX F E-MAIL MESSAGES CONVEYING SUPPORT Return—Path: X-Sender: bonofigb/msue.msu.edu@pop3.norton.antivirus Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:15:23 -OSOO To: CEDsGmsue.msue.msu.edu, EANRAgents@msue.msue.msu.edu, 4Hoffcampus@msue.msue.msu.edu, AOE_ECON_DEV@msue.msue.msu.edu, AOE_COMM_DEV@msue.msue.msu.edu, countiesGmsue.msue.msu.edu From: Maggie Bethel Subject: Marketing MSU Extension: 2001 and Beyond Research Study X—AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) To: County Extension Directors, Extension Agents (all programs), and District Extension Agents From: Maggie Bethel Acting Director of Extension Date: March 28, 2001 Re: Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond Research Project Hal Hudson, Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education in the Department of ANR Education & Communication Systems at Michigan State University is conducting an important research study entitled "Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents. As mentioned, this study takes the form of a census, meaning all, County Extension Directors, Extension Agents (regardless of program responsibilities), and District Extension Agents are being surveyed. In order to be included in the study population, you would have had to been on staff as of February 1, 2001. As Acting Director of Extension and on behalf of the Associate Directors and Regional Directors, I want to let you know of our full support for the study. All data gathered from this study will be used to further plan and guide our organizational marketing efforts. The survey assesses Extension Agents perceptions of marketing MSU Extension. This week, you will be receiving an introductory letter about the research project and next week you will receive your questionnaire in the mail. Please take 15—20 minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. It is imperative we have a good response rate to the survey. Please make completing the survey a priority. If you have any questions concerning the project, you may contact Hal Hudson, County Extension Director at MSU Extension-Clare County at (517) 539-7805 or by e—mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. Thank you in advance for your support of this most important research project. 165 >From majordom Wed Apr 4 16:08:02 2001 Retum-Path: X-Authentication-Waming: msue.msue.msu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-eanragents using -f X-Sender: kovacicm@msue.msu.edu Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:32:46 -0700 To: CEDs@msue.msue.msu.edu, EANRAgents@msue.msue.msu.edu, EHEAgents@msue.msue.msu.edu, 4Honcampus@msue.msue.msu.edu, AOE_ECON_DEV@msue.msue.msu.edu, AOE_COMM_DEV@msue.msue.msu.edu, counties@msue.msue.msu.edu From: "Michael R. Kovacic" Subject: Support for Marketing Study Sender: owner-eanragents X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (ht_tp:flamavis.org[) Greetings! This week (April 2 - 6, 2001) you should receive a survey packet in the mail entitled "Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agen ." This study takes the form of a census, meaning all, County Extension Directors, Extension Agents, Extension Educators and District Extension Agents on staff as of February 1, 2001 are being surveyed. Hal Hudson, Graduate Student in Agricultural and Extension Education in the Department of ANR Education & Communication Systems at Michigan State University is conducting the research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for his Ph.D. Hal has worked with me extensively to help ensure his efforts coincide with our organizational efi'orts in marketing MSU Extension. The survey is designed to take an in—depth look at the skills of Extension Agents in marketing MSU Extension. Data gathered from this study will be used to further plan and guide our organizational efforts in marketing MSU Extension. I just want to further emphasize the importance of this survey to our overall marketing efforts. Please take l5-20 minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. It is imperative we have a good response rate to the survey. Please make completing the survey a priority. If you have any questions concerning the project, you may contact Hal Hudson, County Extension Director at MSU Extension-Clare County at (517) 539-7805 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. Thank you for your support of this most important research project. Mike Kovacic, Regional Director MSU Extension East Central Region 2013 W. Wackerly Street Midland, MI 48640-2592 (517)839-8540 Bringing Knowledge to Life! 166 Retum-Path: X-Sender: kovacicm@msue.msu.edu Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:48:59 -0700 To: 4Hoffcampus@msue.msue.msu.edu From: "Michael R. Kovacic" Subject: Support for Marketing Study Cc: hudson@msue.msu.edu X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) Greetings, This week (April 2 - 6, 2001) you should receive a survey packet in the mail entitled "Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agen ." This study takes the form of a census, meaning all, County Extension Directors, Extension Agents, Extension Educators and District Extension Agents on staff as of February 1, 2001 are being surveyed. Hal Hudson, Graduate Student in Agricultural and Extension Education in the Department of ANR Education & Communication Systems at Michigan State University is conducting the research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for his Ph.D. Hal has worked with me extensively to help ensure his efforts coincide with our organizational efi‘orts in marketing MSU Extension. The survey is designed to take an in-depth look at the skills of Extension Agents in marketing MSU Extension. Data gathered from this study will be used to further plan and guide our organizational efforts in marketing MSU Extension. I just want to further emphasize the importance of this survey to our overall marketing efforts. Please take 15-20 minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. It is imperative we have a good response rate to the survey. Please make completing the survey a priority. If you have any questions concerning the project, you may contact Hal Hudson, County Extension Director at MSU Extension-Clare County at (517) 539-7805 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. Thank you for your support of this most important research project. Mike Kovacic, Regional Director MSU Extension East Central Region 2013 W. Wackerly Street Midland, MI 48640-2592 (517) 839-8540 Bringing Knowledge to Life! 167 APPENDIX G INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER April 2, 2001 «First_Name_2» «Last_Name» «Ofl'lce__Name» «Street» «City_State_Zip» Dear «First_Name_l »: On behalf of Michigan State University Extension and in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Ph.D. with the Department of ANR Education & Communications Systems, I am conducting a survey. Purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency (how often) they market MSU Extension. This study takes the form of a census, meaning all County Extension Directors, Extension Agents, and District Extension Agents on staff as of February 1, 2001 are being surveyed. The survey also assesses familiarity, preparedness, and use of marketing materials included in the county marketing packet and on the marketing web site. This study is one that comes at an important time for our organization and is one I hope will play an important role in assessing and analyzing our organization’s preparedness as we market MSU Extension. As a County Extension Director, Extension Agent, or District Extension Agent, you have important insight into your preparation and the organization’s in marketing MSU Extension. For MSU Extension to effectively chart future marketing directions, your participation in this study is essential. It is important for you to complete and return the questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope by Friday, April 13, 2001. It should take you only 15 — 20 minutes to respond. Completing and returning this survey indicates your consent to be part of this research project. Your participation is voluntary and at any time during completion of the questionnaire, you may decline to respond to any given item. If you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will result in no harm or adverse effect on you. Be assured that your responses will remain completely confidential. The return envelope and questionnaire have an identification number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the questionnaire is returned. The envelope will then be discarded. Your name will never be placed onto the completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the maximum extent permissible by law. If you are interested in receiving a summary of the research results, please check the box on the back of the envelope. If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at MSU Extension—Clare County at (517) 539-7805 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. If you have any questions about the rights of human subjects in research, direct your inquiry to Dr. David Wright, Chair, Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, (517) 355-2180. I appreciate your interest and involvement in this study. Please accept the enclosed $1.00 incentive as a small token of my appreciation for your time. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education 168 APPENDIX H FIRST FOLLOW UP LETTER April 9, 2001 «F irst_Name_2 » «Last_Name» «Office_Name» «Street» «City_State_Zip» Dear «F irst_Name_1 »: Last week, a questionnaire seeking your input about Marketing of Michigan State University Extension 2001 and Beyond: A Census Survey of MSU Extension Agents was mailed to you. As a County Extension Director, Extension Agent, Extension Educator, or District Extension Agent, your opinions are important. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please find the time to complete the questionnaire today. This study has the potential to be very usefiil to future planning efforts related to marketing MSU Extension. Your input will help frame direction and enhance on-going marketing efforts of our organization. If you did not receive a questionnaire or if it was misplaced, please call me at (517) 539- 7805 or e-mail me at hudson@msue.msu.edu. Another packet will be mailed to you immediately. Again, thank you for your assistance with this most important research study. Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education 169 APPENDIX I SECOND FOLLOW UP LETTER April 23, 2001 «First_Name_2» «Last_Name» «Office_Name» «Street» «City_State_Zip» Dear «First_Name_l »: About three weeks ago I wrote to you seeking your opinion on Marketing of Michigan State University Extension. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire. I chose to pursue this study due to my interest in helping our organization assess and analyze perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency (how often) they market MSU Extension. Familiarity, preparedness, and use of marketing materials included in the county marketing packet and on the marketing web site are also assessed. This study is a census, meaning all County Extension Directors, Extension Agents, Extension Educators, and District Extension Agents on staff as of February 1, 2001 are being surveyed. I am writing you again because of the significance each questionnaire has to the usefulness of this study. In order to accurately describe the perceptions of MSU Extension Agents with regard to marketing, your response is important. Results from this study will be used to help chart future marketing directions for our organization. In the event your questionnaire has been misplaced, I have enclosed a replacement. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks and do not respond a second time. Completing and returning this survey indicates your consent to be part of this research project. Your participation is voluntary and at any time during completion of the questionnaire, you may decline to respond to any given item. If you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will result in no harm or adverse effect on you. Be assured that your responses will remain completely confidential. The return envelope and questionnaire have an identification number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the questionnaire is returned. The envelope will then be discarded. Your name will never be placed onto the completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the maximum extent permissible by law. If you are interested in receiving a summary of the research results, please check the box on the back of the return envelope. If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at MSU Extension—Clare County at (517) 539-7 805 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. If you have any questions about the rights of human subjects in research, direct your inquiry to Dr. David Wright, Chair, Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, (517) 355-2180. I greatly appreciate your cooperation, interest, and involvement in this study. Thanks! Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education 170 APPENDIX J THIRD AND FINAL FOLLOW UP LETTER May 21, 2001 «First_Name_2» «Last_Name» «Office_Name» «Street» «C ity_State_Zip» Dear «F irst_Name_l »: The time is rapidly approaching to bring the data-gathering phase of the Marketing of Michigan State University Extension research study to a close. About seven weeks ago, I initially wrote to you seeking your input. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire. The large number of questionnaires returned is very encouraging. With this study being a census, each questionnaire has significance, usefulness, and importance. Results from this study will be used to help chart future marketing directions for our organization. In the event your questionnaire has been misplaced, I have enclosed a replacement. I ask that you please complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope immediately, but no later than Friday, June 8, 2001. I chose to pursue this study due to my interest in helping our organization assess and analyze perceptions of MSU Extension Agents regarding their willingness, preparedness, and frequency (how often) they market MSU Extension. Familiarity, preparedness, and use of marketing materials included in the county marketing packet and on the marketing web site are also assessed. Completing and returning this survey indicates your consent to be part of this research project. Your participation is voluntary and at any time during completion of the questionnaire, you may decline to respond to any given item. If you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will result in no harm or adverse effect on you. Be assured that your responses will remain completely confidential. The return envelope and questionnaire have an identification number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the questionnaire is returned. The envelope will then be discarded. Your name will never be placed onto the completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the maximum extent permissible by law. If you are interested in receiving a summary of the research results, please check the box on the back of the return envelope. If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at MSU Extension—Clare County at (989) 539-7805 or by e-mail at hudson@msue.msu.edu. If you have any questions about the rights of human subjects in research, direct your inquiry to Dr. David Wright, Chair, Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, (517) 355-2180. I greatly appreciate your cooperation, interest, and involvement in this study. Thanks! Sincerely, Hal Hudson Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education 171 APPENDIX K MEANS BY POSITION FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Table 24. Describing the MSU Extension mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 —— 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 —- 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 1. Describing the MSU Extension CED Very Often Willing 68 6.53 .82 ““55“”- Often Prepared 68 6.46 .90 Often Performed 68 5.66 1.18 ANR Often Willing 80 625 .91 Often Prepared 80 5.68 1.24 Occasionally Performed 80 4.06 1.56 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.63 .68 Often Prepared 19 5.89 .99 Frequently Performed 19 5.05 1.22 4-H Often Willing 58 6.3 1 .80 Often Prepared 58 5.60 1.32 Frequently Performed 58 4.60 1.59 EE Often Willing 42 626 1.01 Often Prepared 42 5.95 1.01 Frequently Performed 44 4.82 1.51 CYF Often Willing 19 6.32 .89 Often Prepared 19 5.68 1.29 Frequently Performed 19 4.63 1 .2 l DEA Often Willing 41 6.07 .96 Often Prepared 41 5.51 1.33 Occasionally Performed 41 4.22 1.70 ALL Often Willing 327 6.32 .89 Often Prepared 327 5 .85 1 .20 Frequently Performed 329 4.70 1 .57 172 Table 25. Describing the agriculture and natural resources (ANR) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 -— 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infi'equently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 2. Describing the agriculture and CED Often Willing 68 6.19 1.14 gggmmms (“1‘”me Frequently Prepared 68 5.28 1.69 Occasionally Performed 68 4.06 1 .82 ANR Often Willing 80 6.21 1 .00 Frequently Prepared 80 5.20 1.81 Occasionally Performed 80 3 .7 8 l .94 EC/ED Often , Willing 19 5.58 1.95 Occasionally Prepared 19 3.79 1 .65 Infrequently Performed 19 2.95 l .84 4-H Frequently Willing 58 5 .22 1 .45 Occasionally Prepared 58 3.81 1.66 Infrequently Performed 58 2.74 1 .60 EE Frequently Willing 42 4.79 1.69 Infrequently Prepared 43 3 .40 l .43 Infrequently Performed 42 2.60 1 .45 CYF Occasionally Willing 19 4.21 1 .69 Infrequently Prepared 19 2.89 1 .73 Seldom Performed 19 2.32 1.45 DEA Often Willing 41 5.95 1 22 Frequently Prepared 41 5.05 1.61 Occasionally Performed 41 4.15 1.85 ALL Often Willing 327 5.66 1 .48 Frequently Prepared 328 4.50 1 .86 Infrequently Performed 327 3 .41 1 .86 173 Table 26. Describing the Extension community and economic development (ECED) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey flestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X SD 3. Describing the Extension CED Often Willing 68 5.96 1.20 gmfgnflgggmfim Frequently Prepared 68 4.85 1.72 mission. Occasionally Performed 68 4.07 1.86 ANR Frequently Willing 80 4.95 1.63 Infrequently Prepared 80 3.03 1.47 Seldom Performed 79 1 .95 1 2 1 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.79 .54 Often Prepared 19 621 1.08 Often Performed 19 5.84 1.68 4-H Frequently Willing 58 4.78 l .65 Infrequently Prepared 58 3.12 1.55 Seldom Performed 58 229 1.56 EE Frequently Willing 42 4.93 1.57 Infrequently Prepared 43 3 .26 1 .56 Infrequently Performed 43 2.63 1.62 CYF Occasionally Willing 19 4.47 1.87 Infiequently Prepared I9 3. 1 1 1.97 Infrequently Performed 19 2.58 1 .7 7 DEA Occasionally Willing 41 4.41 2.10 Infrequently Prepared 41 3.29 1.85 Seldom Performed 41 227 1.53 ALL Frequently Willing 327 5. 14 1.70 Occasionally Prepared 328 3.67 1.85 Infrequently Performed 327 2.84 1 .89 174 Table 27. Descrlbing the children, youth and families (CYF) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey (Eestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 4. Describing the children, youth CED Often Willing 68 6.16 1.06 an." families (CYF) ngmm Often Prepared 68 5.50 1.58 mlssm' Frequently Performed 68 4.51 1.81 ANR Frequently Willing 80 4.66 1 .76 Infrequently Prepared 80 3.21 1.60 Seldom Performed 80 2.34 1 .52 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.84 1.61 Frequently Prepared 19 4.74 1.52 Occasionally Performed 19 3.89 2.00 4-H Often Willing 58 6.47 .94 Often Prepared 58 5.72 1.45 Frequently Performed 58 5.12 1.86 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.72 .50 Often Prepared 43 6.40 .90 Often Performed 44 6.14 127 CYF Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .45 Often Prepared 19 621 1.44 Often Performed 19 5.58 1.80 DEA Occasionally Willing 41 3.95 2.17 Infi’equently Prepared 41 3.10 1.88 Seldom Performed 41 2.39 1.63 ALL Often Willing 328 5.66 1.70 Frequently Prepared 328 4.80 1 .99 Occasionally Performed 329 4.07 2.19 175 Table 28. Describing the 4-H youth program mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Aggnt, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 5. Describing the 4-H youth CED Often Willing 68 6.46 .78 9'09“” “1‘55““- Often Prepared 68 6.07 1.14 Frequently Performed 68 5.3 1 1.45 ANR Frequently Willing 80 5.21 1.45 Occasionally Prepared 80 4.03 1.77 Infrequently Performed 80 3.00 1.67 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.37 1.16 Frequently Prepared 19 5.00 1.15 Occasionally Performed 19 4.21 1.65 4-H Very Often Willing 58 6.79 .45 Often Prepared 58 6.47 .96 Often Performed 58 6.16 1.34 EE Often Willing 43 5.56 1.53 Frequently Prepared 42 4.79 1.75 Occasionally Performed 43 428 l .94 CYF Often Willing 19 5.68 1.42 Frequently Prepared 19 4.84 2.03 Occasionally Performed 19 4.16 2.39 DEA Occasionally Willing 41 424 1.93 Occasionally Prepared 41 3.61 1.81 Infrequently Performed 41 2.78 1.62 ALL Often Willing 328 5.77 1.51 Frequently Prepared 327 5.03 1.84 Occasionally Performed 328 4.3 l 2.05 176 Table 29. Describing the family and consumer sciences (FCS) program mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corremrds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infi‘equently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 6. Describing the family and CED Often Willing 68 5.93 1.33 consumer 59“?““5 (FCS) Frequently Prepared 68 5.06 1.66 program mrssron. Occasionally Performed 68 4.09 1 .85 ANR Occasionally Willing 79 429 1 .93 Seldom Prepared 80 2.45 1.43 Seldom Performed 78 1.77 1.17 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.95 1.72 Occasionally Prepared 19 3.84 2.12 Infiequently Performed 19 3.37 2.39 4-H Frequently Willing 58 5.02 1 .62 Occasionally Prepared 58 3.76 1 .76 Infiequently Performed 58 2.74 1.70 EE Very Often Willing 42 6.57 .91 Often Prepared 43 6.19 124 Often Performed 44 5.91 1.67 CYF Often Willing 19 5.89 .94 Frequently Prepared 19 5.00 1.86 Frequently Performed 19 4.58 2.17 DEA Occasionally Willing 40 3.55 2.12 Infrequently Prepared 40 2.55 1.66 Seldom Performed 40 2.03 1.44 ALL Frequently Willing 325 5.16 1.88 Occasionally Prepared 327 3.96 2.09 Infrequently Performed 326 3.27 2.17 177 Table 30. Describing the family nutrition program (FNP) mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4—H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agnt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 7. Descrlbing the family nutrition CED Often Willing 68 6.22 1.10 ngmm (FNP) miss“- Often Prepared 68 5.65 1.42 Frequently Performed 68 4.76 1.75 ANR Occasionally Willing 79 4.30 1.90 Infrequently Prepared 79 2.82 1.53 Seldom Performed 78 1.99 1.28 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.00 1.67 Frequently Prepared 19 4.58 1.74 Occasionally Performed 19 3.89 2.18 4-H Often Willing 58 5.57 1.33 Occasionally Prepared 57 4.44 1 .66 Infrequently Performed 58 3.48 1.81 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.74 .79 Very Often Prepared 43 6.63 .69 Often Performed 44 6.36 1.01 CYF Often Willing 19 5.95 1 .3 1 Frequently Prepared 19 5.21 2.07 Frequently Performed 19 4.84 2.19 DEA Occasionally Willing 41 3.68 223 Infrequently Prepared 41 2.68 1 .90 Seldom Performed 41 2.12 1.66 ALL Frequently Willing 327 5.36 1 .86 Occasionally Prepared 326 4.42 2.09 Occasionally Performed 327 3.71 2.21 178 Table 31. Describing the land grant university mission by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension gent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 8. Describing the land grant CED Very Often Willing 68 6.56 .70 university mission. Often Prepared 68 6.16 1.10 Frequently Performed 68 4.81 1.60 ANR Often Willing 79 6.24 .88 Frequently Prepared 80 5.45 1.38 Occasionally Performed 80 3.96 1.84 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .56 Often Prepared 19 6.11 .81 Often Performed 19 5.58 1.50 4-H Often Willing 58 6.16 1.18 Frequently Prepared 57 5.37 1.59 Occasionally Performed 58 4.36 2.03 EE Often Willing 43 5.65 1.65 Frequently Prepared 42 4.86 1.97 Occasionally Performed 43 4.14 2.36 CYF Often Willing 19 5.63 126 Frequently Prepared 19 4.79 2.02 Occasionally Performed 19 3.89 1.82 DEA Often Willing 41 5.93 1.33 Frequently Prepared 41 5.27 1.55 Occasionally Performed 41 3.88 1.76 ALL Often Willing 327 6.17 1.15 Frequently Prepared 326 5.48 1.55 Occasionally Performed 328 4.3 1 1 .92 179 Table 32. Describing the Area of Expertise (AOE) concept to customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Commrmity and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 9. Describing the Area of Expertise CED Often Willing 68 6.13 1.12 (AOE) concept to customers. Often Prepared 68 5.88 1 26 Occasionally Performed 68 429 1.59 ANR Often Willing 79 6.19 1.16 Often Prepared 80 5.75 1.32 Occasionally Performed 79 4.39 1.79 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.84 .37 Often Prepared 19 6.11 .81 Frequently Performed 19 4.84 1 .68 4-H Often Willing 58 5.57 1 .42 Frequently Prepared 57 4.86 1.64 Infiequently Performed 57 3.44 1.80 EE Often Willing 42 5.60 1 .48 Frequently Prepared 42 4.93 1 .64 Occasionally Performed 43 3.63 1.70 CYF Often Willing 19 5.53 1.07 Frequently Prepared 19 4.74 1.19 Infiequently Performed 19 3 .32 1 .45 DEA Often Willing 41 6.00 .1 .45 Often Prepared 41 5.90 1.39 Frequently Performed 41 4.73 1.73 ALL Often Willing 326 5.97 1.29 Often Prepared 326 5.50 1.46 Occasionally Performed 326 4.11 1.77 180 Table 33. Evaluating programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Stat'uties N X S.D 10. Evaluating programs. CED Often Willing 68 6.10 1.07 Frequently Prepared 68 5.22 1.42 Frequently Performed 68 4.54 1.43 ANR Often Willing 80 5.95 1.08 Frequently Prepared 80 5.04 1.45 Frequently Performed 80 4.53 1.73 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.42 .69 Frequently Prepared 19 5.00 1.00 Frequently Performed 19 4.68 1.57 4-H Often Willing 58 5.95 1.08 Frequently Prepared 58 5.07 1.45 Frequently Performed 58 4.62 1.75 EE Often Willing 43 6.16 121 Frequently Prepared 43 5.35 1.43 Frequently Performed 44 5.18 1.74 CYF Often Willing 19 5.79 123 Frequently Prepared 19 4.95 1.35 Frequently Performed 19 4.68 1.60 DEA Often Willing 41 5.90 1.04 Frequently Prepared 41 529 125 Frequemly Performed 41 4.76 1.70 ALL Often Willing 328 6.02 1.08 Frequently Prepared 328 5.15 1.38 Frequently Performed 329 4.68 1.65 181 Table 34. Describing program impact by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Aggrt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = lnfiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 11. Describing program impact. CED Often Willing 67 6.12 1.15 Frequently Prepared 67 5.04 1.45 Occasionally Performed 67 4.48 1 .39 ANR Often Willing 80 5.76 1.17 Frequently Prepared 80 4.63 1.43 Occasionally Performed 80 4.03 1 .63 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .61 Frequently Prepared 19 5.32 .95 Frequently Performed 19 4.89 1.41 4-H Often Willing 58 6.00 1.09 Frequently Prepared 58 5.10 1.40 Occasionally Performed 57 4.35 1.76 EE Often Willing 43 6.09 1.04 Frequently Prepared 42 5.3 1 1.33 Frequently Performed 43 5.02 1 .65 CYF Often Willing 19 6.16 .83 Frequently Prepared 19 5 .47 1 .26 Frequently Performed 19 5.37 1 .57 DEA Often Willing 41 5.73 1.12 Frequently Prepared 41 4.76 1.32 Occasionally Performed 41 427 1.52 ALL Often Willing 327 5.99 1.10 Frequently Prepared 326 4.99 1 .38 Occasionally Performed 326 4.47 1 .61 182 Table 35. Describing the impact of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in product section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4—H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extensingent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statisties: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 12. Describing the impact of MSU CED Often Willing 68 629 .99 mensw- Frequently Prepared 68 5.28 1.44 Frequently Performed 68 4.57 1.49 ANR Often Willing 80 5.99 1.12 Frequently Prepared 80 4.69 1 .5 I Occasionally Performed 79 3.85 1.67 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.32 120 Frequently Prepared 19 5.47 1.31 Frequently Performed 19 4.68 1 .70 4-H Often Willing 58 621 .95 Frequently Prepared 58 4.98 1 .41 Occasionally Performed 58 4.43 1 .67 EE Often Willing 42 5.88 1.35 Frequently Prepared 42 4.93 l .54 Frequently Performed 43 4.58 1.67 CYF Often Willing 19 6.1 1 .74 Frequently Prepared 19 4.89 1 .41 Frequently Performed 19 4.68 1.67 DEA Often Willing 41 5.80 1.44 Frequently Prepared 41 4.59 1.55 Occasionme Performed 41 3.80 1.78 ALL Often Willing 327 6.08 1.13 Frequently Prepared 327 4.94 1 .48 Occasionally Performed 327 429 1 .67 183 Table 36. Preparing budgets before offering programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Conesponds to respective skill as listed in pricingsection of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extensiorggent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 1. Preparing budgets before offering CED Often Willing 68 622 .90 ngmms- Often Prepared 68 6.04 1.00 Frequently Performed 68 5 25 1 .49 ANR Often Willing 79 5.73 1.17 Frequently Prepared 80 526 1.38 Occasionally Performed 80 4.3 1 1.92 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.47 .61 Frequently Prepared 19 5 .47 1 .07 Frequently Performed 18 4.61 1.54 4-H Often Willing 58 5.81 1.19 Frequently Prepared 58 5.34 1.49 Frequently Performed 57 4.51 1.72 EE Often Willing 42 5.60 1.45 Frequently Prepared 41 5. 1 7 1 .3 8 Frequently Performed 42 4.52 1.71 CYF Often Willing 18 6.22 1.06 Frequently Prepared 18 5.39 1.85 Frequently Performed 18 4.89 1.97 DEA Often Willing 41 5.85 124 Often Prepared 41 5.54 1.50 Frequently Performed 41 4.95 1.87 ALL Often Willing 325 5.92 1.16 Frequently Prepared 325 5 .48 1 .3 8 Frequently Performed 324 4.70 1.7 7 184 Table 37. Determining prices to charge for programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 2. Determining prices to charge for CED Often Willing 67 6.10 1.05 ngmm' Often Prepared 66 5.76 1.19 Frequently Performed 66 4.82 1 .7 3 ANR Often Willing 80 5.93 l . 1 1 Frequently Prepared 80 5.45 1 .40 Frequently Performed 80 4.68 1.94 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.32 .82 Frequently Prepared 19 5.05 1.58 Occasionally Performed 19 3.95 2.04 4-H Often Willing 58 5.67 121 Frequently Prepared 58 5.14 1.54 Occasionally Performed 58 4.05 1 .93 EE Often Willing 41 5.56 1.50 Frequently Prepared 41 4.95 1 .63 Occasionally Performed 42 4.05 2.15 CYF Often Willing 18 5.72 1.32 Frequently Prepared I 8 4.67 1 .97 Occasionally Performed 17 4.00 2.06 DEA Often Willing 41 5.73 1.50 Frequently Prepared 4 1 5 .49 1 .61 Frequently Performed 40 4.72 l .93 ALL Often Willing 324 5.86 1 .23 Frequently Prepared 323 5.33 1.51 Occasionally Performed 322 4.44 1 .95 185 Table 38. Analyzing prices charged by other organizations for programs similar to those in your program area by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricingsection of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 -— 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 3. Analyzing prices charged by CED Frequently Willing 68 5.07 1.51 9‘“? ”Wall?“ f‘” ng‘a'm Frequently Prepared 67 4.52 1.50 Slmllar to those in your program area Infrequently Performed 67 2.79 1 .53 ANR Frequently Willing 79 5.06 1.58 Occasionally Prepared 79 4.04 1.62 Infrequently Performed 80 2.56 1.64 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.79 1.32 Frequently Prepared 19 4.84 1.30 Infrequently Performed 19 3.42 2.09 4-H Frequently Willing 57 5.00 1 .79 Occasionally Prepared 57 3.82 1.85 Infiequently Performed 56 2.77 1.78 EE Frequently Willing 41 5.02 1.60 Occasionally Prepared 40 4.03 1.75 Infrequently Performed 41 2.95 2.02 CYF Frequently Willing 18 4.72 1.27 Infrequently Prepared 18 3.33 1.57 Seldom Performed 17 2.06 .97 DEA Frequently Willing 41 4.63 1.98 Occasionally Prepared 41 3.95 2.00 Infrequently Performed 41 2.93 1.66 ALL Frequently Willing 323 5.02 1 .64 Occasionally Prepared 321 4.10 1.71 Infrequently Performed 321 2.77 1.71 186 Table 39. Figuring breakeven price to charge for programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey mrestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agept, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 4. Figuring breakeven price to CED Often Willing 68 6.07 1.12 ““183 f‘” WW- Often Prepared 67 5.82 1.30 Frequently Performed 65 4.74 1.81 ANR Often Willing 80 5.81 128 Frequently Prepared 80 5.41 1.59 Occasionally Performed 79 4.32 2.26 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.00 1.45 Frequently Prepared 19 5.37 1.64 Occasionally Performed 19 3.95 2.46 4-H Often Willing 58 5.79 1 .42 Frequently Prepared 57 5.16 1.90 Occasionally Performed 57 426 2.09 EE Frequently Willing 41 529 1 .69 Occasionally Prepared 41 424 1.91 Occasionally Performed 41 3.71 2.19 CYF Often Willing 18 5.50 1.42 Frequently Prepared 18 4.78 2.21 Occasionally Performed 17 4.00 2.37 DEA Often Willing 41 5.73 1 .53 Frequently Prepared 41 5.41 1.72 Frequently Performed 40 4.58 2.19 ALL Often Willing 325 5.78 1.39 Frequently Prepared 323 527 1 .74 Occasionally Performed 318 4.31 2.15 187 Table 40. Assessing target customers ability to pay for programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 5. Assessing target customers ability CED Often Willing 67 5.93 1.11 ‘0 Pay f0” ngmms- Frequently Prepared 66 5.09 1.49 Occasionally Performed 66 3.85 1.72 ANR Frequently Willing 78 5.46 1.46 Frequently Prepared 78 4.62 1.66 Occasionally Performed 76 3.61 2.23 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.05 1 .08 Frequently Prepared 19 4.84 1.68 Occasionally Performed 19 3.79 2.07 4-H Frequently Willing 58 5.41 1.41 Frequently Prepared 58 4.55 1.55 Occasionally Performed 58 3.62 1.91 EE Frequently Willing 41 5.39 1.77 Occasionally Prepared 41 4.32 2.10 Occasionally Performed 42 3.74 226 CYF Often Willing 18 5.78 122 Frequently Prepared 18 4.78 1.99 Occasionally Performed 17 3.88 2.39 DEA Frequently Willing 40 5.45 1.55 Frequently Prepared 40 4.83 1.85 Occasionally Performed 38 3.87 2.16 ALL Often Willing 321 5.59 1.42 Frequently Prepared 320 4.71 1.72 Occasionally Performed 3 16 3.73 2.05 188 Table 41. Identifying sponsors to help defray program costs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey questionnaire. Abbrevrations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 -— 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 6. Identifying sponsors to help CED Often Willing 67 6.04 1.08 defray 9mm “05‘5- Often Prepared 66 5.76 123 Frequently Performed 66 4.56 1.66 ANR Often Willing 80 5.53 1.55 Frequently Prepared 80 5.09 1.66 Occasionally Performed 80 4.18 2.10 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.32 129 Often Prepared 19 5.89 1 .33 Frequently Performed 19 5.1 l 1 .73 4-H Often Willing 58 6.17 1.01 Often Prepared 58 5.71 1.18 Frequently Performed 57 4.95 1 .78 EE Often Willing 41 5.59 1.72 Frequently Prepared 39 4.72 1 .93 Occasionally Performed 40 420 2.00 CYF Often Willing 1 8 5.72 1 .41 Frequently Prepared 1 8 5.44 1 .50 Frequently Performed 1 8 4.72 1 .99 DEA Frequently Willing 41 5.46 l .3 1 Frequently Prepared 41 5.34 1 .42 Occasionally Performed 39 4.33 1.78 ALL Often Willing 324 5.81 1.37 Frequently Prepared 321 5.39 1.52 Frequently Performed 3 19 4.50 1 .89 189 Table 42. If program fees are a deterrent, determining how to make the fee structure more attractive to customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 —— 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics V N X S.D. 7. If program fees are a deterrent, CED Often Willing 66 5.98 1.07 gm?) 10mg; the fee Frequently Prepared 65 5.02 1.47 customers. Occasionally Performed 64 3.53 1.61 ANR Often Willing 79 5.71 1.32 Frequently Prepared 79 4.68 1.60 Infiequently Performed 79 3.34 2.06 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.89 1.56 Frequently Prepared 19 4.79 1.81 Occasionally Performed 19 3.63 2.14 4-H Often Willing 56 5.71 1.36 Frequently Prepared 56 4.7 1 1 .66 Occasionally Performed 57 3.72 2.04 EE Frequently Willing 41 5.37 1.65 Occasionally Prepared 41 4.32 1.95 Occasionally Performed 41 3.56 2.34 CYF Frequently Willing 18 5.44 1.15 Occasionally Prepared 18 4.17 223 Infiequently Performed 17 3.29 2.02 DEA Frequently Willing 41 5.29 1.54 Frequently Prepared 41 4.76 1 .7 1 Occasionally Performed 38 3.68 1.83 ALL Often Willing 320 5.67 1 .37 Frequently Prepared 3 19 4.70 1 .7 0 Occasionally Performed 3 15 3 .53 1.97 190 Table 43. Asking customers if the fee was correct for the program/information rewived by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricingsection of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Familyigent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 8. Asking customers if the fee was CED Frequently Willing 67 5.46 1.50 in... Frequently m... 67 L44 Infrequently Performed 67 3 .03 1 .71 ANR Frequently Willing 79 5.33 1.71 Frequently Prepared 78 4.86 1.70 Infrequently Performed 78 3 .03 1 .95 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.95 1.54 Often Prepared 19 5.53 1.43 Infrequently Performed 19 326 221 4-H Frequently Willing 57 5.39 1.56 Frequently Prepared 57 4.54 1 .88 Infiequently Performed 57 2.82 1 .78 EE Frequently Willing 41 5.20 1.99 Occasionally Prepared 41 3.93 2.10 Seldom Performed 41 2.44 1.84 CYF Frequently Willing 18 5.17 1.50 Occasionally Prepared 18 3.89 2.27 Infrequently Performed 17 2.53 2.03 DEA Frequently Willing 41 4.80 1.82 Frequently Prepared 41 4.63 1 .76 Infiequently Performed 40 3.08 1 .95 ALL Frequently Willing 322 5.3 1 1.68 Frequently Prepared 321 4.66 1.80 Infrequently Performed 3 19 2.91 1.88 191 Table 44. Using nominal fees to obtain customer commitment to participate in programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricingsection of survey flestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Aggnt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 9. Using nominal fees to obtain CED Often Willing 67 5.97 1.18 CP‘P‘F‘e’Wmmimmm Often Prepared 67 5.72 1.36 partrcrpate m programs. Frequently Performed 67 4.52 1.86 AN R Often Willing 80 5.84 1 27 Frequently Prepared 80 5.45 1.37 Occasionally Performed 79 422 1 .97 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.11 1.59 Frequently Prepared 19 5.37 1.54 Occasionally Performed 19 4.16 2.39 4-H Often Willing 58 5.76 1 29 Frequently Prepared 58 5.16 1.76 Occasionally Performed 58 4.33 2.08 EE Frequently Willing 41 5.44 1.88 Frequently Prepared 41 4.80 2.00 Occasionally Performed 41 3.80 2.39 CYF Often Willing 18 5.50 1.10 Frequently Prepared 18 4.50 2.15 Occasionally Performed 17 3.82 2.24 DEA Frequently Willing 41 5.41 1.60 Frequently Prepared 41 5.24 1.61 Occasionally Performed 40 4.38 2.08 ALL Often Willing 324 5.74 1.41 Frequently Prepared 324 529 1.64 Occasionally Performed 321 424 2.07 192 Table 45. Structuring programs to create a surplus (revenues exceed expenditures) by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in pricing section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 —— 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 10. Structuring programs to create a CED Frequently Willing 67 521 1.78 surplusfmvenues exceed Frequently Prepared 67 5.04 1.73 expendltures). Infrequently Performed 67 3.49 1.77 ANR Frequently Willing 80 521 1.75 Frequently Prepared 80 4.91 1.78 Occasionally Performed 80 3.59 1.99 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.58 1.80 Frequently Prepared 19 5.37 1.67 Infrequently Performed 19 326 2.10 4-H Frequently Willing 58 4.71 1.79 Occasionally Prepared 58 4.45 1 .74 Infrequently Performed 58 3.14 1.97 EE Frequently Willing 41 4.83 2.00 Occasiome Prepared 41 3.98 2.10 Infiequently Performed 41 2.76 1 .92 CYF Frequently Willing 18 4.72 1.49 Occasionally Prepared 18 3.89 2.19 Infiequently Performed 18 3.06 2.07 DEA Frequently Willing 41 4.76 1 .96 Frequently Prepared 41 4.76 1 .96 Infrequently Performed 40 3.18 2.14 ALL Frequently Willing 324 5.01 1.82 Frequently Prepared 324 4.69 1 .88 Infiequently Performed 323 3 .28 1 .96 193 Table 46. Assessing customer demand for programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and targflgsection of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H == Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 1. Assessing customer demand for CED Often Willing 67 6.19 .93 Pmm- Frequently Prepared 67 5.16 126 Frequently Performed 66 4.64 1.61 ANR Often Willing 80 6.08 1.06 Frequently Prepared 80 5.30 1.37 Frequently Performed 80 4.93 1.65 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.61 .61 Frequently Prepared 18 5.33 1.33 Frequently Performed 18 4.61 1.61 4-H Often Willing 58 6.19 .91 Frequently Prepared 58 522 1.28 Frequently Performed 58 4.59 1.63 EE Often Willing 42 6.36 .88 Frequently Prepared 41 529 1.49 Frequently Performed 41 4.80 1 .79 CYF Often Willing 18 5.89 123 Frequently Prepared 18 5.22 1.52 Frequently Performed 18 4.89 1.75 DEA Often Willing 41 5.95 1.07 Frequently Prepared 41 5.44 1.48 Frequently Performed 41 4.76 1.61 ALL Often Willing 324 6.16 .98 Frequently Prepared 323 5.27 1.36 Frequently Performed 322 4.75 1.65 194 Table 47. Considering educational level of target customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and targeting section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Vepry Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 2. Considering educational level of CED Often Willing 67 6.03 1.06 target cusmme's- Frequently Prepared 67 5.12 1.51 Occasionally Performed 67 4.36 1.80 ANR Often Willing 80 5.93 1.10 Frequently Prepared 80 523 1.32 Frequently Performed 79 4.58 1.75 EC/ED Often Willing 18 6.06 1.16 Frequently Prepared 18 528 1.07 Occasionally Performed 18 4.39 1.82 4-H Often Willing 58 6.10 1.17 Often Prepared 58 5.53 1.50 Frequently Performed 58 4.97 1.83 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.63 .69 Often Prepared 43 5.79 1.19 Frequently Performed 44 5.30 1.75 CYF Often Willing 18 622 .81 Often Prepared 18 5.78 1.06 Often Performed 18 5.67 1.19 DEA Often Willing 41 5.90 1.22 Often Prepared 41 5.61 1.14 Frequently Performed 41 5.00 1.52 ALL Often Willing 325 6.09 1.08 Frequently Prepared 325 5.42 1.35 Frequently Performed 325 4.80 1.75 195 Table 48. Considering diversity of target customers when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed inJlacing and targeg'ng section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 —- 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 3. Considering diversity of target CED Often Willing 67 628 .87 3:23;: “he“ P‘a‘mmg Often Prepared 67 5.69 1.27 Frequently Performed 67 5.09 1.63 ANR Often Willing 79 5.99 1.15 Frequently Prepared 79 5.27 1.39 Occasionally Performed 78 4.46 1.82 EC/ED Often Willing 18 6.44 .78 Often Prepared 18 5.56 1.15 Frequently Performed 18 5.17 1.79 4-H Often Willing 58 6.28 1.01 Often Prepared 58 5.79 1.24 Frequently Performed 58 5.29 1 .56 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.70 .67 Often Prepared 43 5.81 1.14 Often Performed 44 5.52 1 .66 CYF Often Willing 18 622 .94 Often Prepared 18 5.78 1.11 Often Performed 18 5.56 1.54 DEA Often Willing 41 5.59 1.47 Frequently Prepared 41 5.05 1.43 Occasionally Performed 40 4.45 1 .62 ALL Often Willing 324 6.18 1.07 Often Prepared 324 5.54 1 .3 1 Frequently Performed 323 4.98 1 .7 l 196 Table 49. Considering location of target customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and targtipg section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculmre and Natrual Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4—H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Alent, DEA = District Extension Agglt, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S D 4. Considering location of target CED Often Willing 67 6.42 .82 “5mm- Often Prepared 67 6.09 1.01 Often Performed 67 5.66 1.47 ANR Often Willing 80 620 .88 Often Prepared 80 5.85 1.15 Frequently Performed 79 5.42 1.68 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.67 .59 Often Prepared 18 6.17 .92 Often Performed 18 5.94 1.30 4-H Often Willing 58 621 1.06 Often Prepared 57 5.91 1.09 Often Performed 57 5.70 134 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.63 .66 Often Prepared 43 6.02 1.08 Often Performed 44 5.73 1.73 CYF Often Willing 18 6.39 .78 Often Prepared 18 6.11 .96 Often Performed 18 6.06 1.06 DEA Often Willing 41 6.44 .74 Often Prepared 41 6.37 .89 Often Performed 41 6.05 1.16 ALL Often Willing 325 6.37 .85 Often Prepared 324 6.03 1.05 Often Performed 324 5.70 1.48 197 Table 50. Considering accessibility of facilities for customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed imilacirg and targflg section of smeguestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4—H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 5. Considering accessibility of CED Very Often Willing 67 6.54 .66 facilities for customers. Often Prepared 67 6.16 1.04 Often Performed 67 5.85 l .3 1 ANR Often Willing 80 628 1.08 Often Prepared 80 5.76 125 Frequently Performed 78 4.99 1.75 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.72 .57 Often Prepared 18 622 .94 Often Performed 18 6.11 1.18 4-H Often Willing 58 6.36 .93 Often Prepared 58 5.86 125 Frequently Performed 58 5.36 1.54 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.72 .63 Often Prepared 42 6.10 121 Often Performed 43 5.88 1 .58 CYF Often Willing 18 6.1 1 1.28 Often Prepared 18 5.67 1.46 Often Performed 18 5.56 1.69 DEA Often Willing 41 6.17 1.00 Often Prepared 41 5.88 1.14 Frequently Performed 41 5.27 1.64 ALL Often Willing 325 6.41 .92 Often Prepared 324 5.94 1.19 Frequently Performed 323 5 .48 1 .59 198 Table 51. Considering convenience of location for customers by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and targeting section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agfl, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = lnfrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Nlunber, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 6. Considering convenience of CED Often Willing 67 6.40 .74 location for customers. Often W 67 6.15 37 Often Performed 67 5.99 1 .05 ANR Often Willing 80 6.3 1 .94 Often Prepared 80 6.00 1.14 Often Performed 80 5.63 1 .56 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.72 .57 Often Prepared 18 6.33 .91 Often Performed 18 6.33 124 4-H Often Willing 57 626 1 .01 Often Prepared 56 5.95 120 Often Performed 57 5.65 1.58 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.74 .49 Often Prepared 43 6.21 1.06 Often Performed 44 5.77 1.55 CYF Often Willing 18 6.33 .69 Often Prepared 18 6.33 .59 Often Performed 18 622 .73 DEA Often Willing 41 629 .84 Often Prepared 41 6.32 .82 Often Performed 41 6.00 1.14 ALL Often Willing 324 6.40 .83 Often Prepared 323 6.13 1.02 Often Performed 325 5.84 1 .37 199 Table 52. Asking customers if the location for offering programs was convenient by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed iglacing and targeting section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agricultrue and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 7. Asking customers if the location CED Often Willing 67 6.15 1.12 f" “Bing ngmms “’35 Often Prepared 67 5.90 1.07 convenlent Frequently Performed 67 4.7 8 1.73 ANR Often Willing 80 6.04 1 24 Often Prepared 80 5.61 1.45 Occasionally Performed 80 4.34 2.00 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.50 .86 Often Prepared 18 6.22 .88 Often Performed 18 5.56 1.65 4-H Often Willing 58 6.09 1.19 Often Prepared 57 5.74 1.40 Frequently Performed 57 4.88 1.84 EE Often Willing 43 6.44 1.03 Often Prepared 43 6.07 1.16 Frequently Performed 44 5.18 1.90 CYF Often Willing 18 6.06 1.59 Often Prepared 18 5.94 1.51 Often Performed 18 5.56 1 .72 DEA Often Willing 41 6.10 1.16 Often Prepared 41 6.05 1.18 Frequently Performed 40 4.83 1.58 ALL Often Willing 325 6.16 1.17 Often Prepared 324 5.86 128 Frequently Performed 324 4.83 1.84 200 Table 53. Considering transportation barriers of customers when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and ggggng section of survey cprestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agnt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 8. Considering transportation CED Often Willing 67 6.30 .90 mfigfifggfs When Often Prepared 67 5.75 1.20 Frequently Performed 67 4.85 1.58 ANR Often Willing 80 5.74 1.42 Frequently Prepared 80 4.83 1 .55 Occasionally Performed 80 3.63 2.01 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.50 .99 Often Prepared 18 5.67 1.37 Frequently Performed 18 5.17 1.65 4-H Often Willing 58 6.02 1.19 Frequently Prepared 58 5.40 1 .57 Frequently Performed 58 4.81 1.89 EE Very Often Willing 42 6.76 .62 Often Prepared 42 5.93 122 Frequently Performed 43 523 1.88 CYF Often Willing 18 6.06 1.16 Often Prepared 18 5.89 1.18 Often Performed 18 5.83 1.29 DEA Often Willing 41 5.76 1.18 Frequently Prepared 41 529 1.55 Occasionally Performed 40 4.45 1.85 ALL Often Willing 324 6.10 1.17 Frequently Prepared 324 5.43 1.46 Frequently Performed 324 4.61 1.91 201 Table 54. Conducting program needs assessment with customer/stakeholder groups by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placingand targfl'g section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and F arnily Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 -— 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 9. Conducting program needs CED Often Willing 67 6.00 1.02 fufifgflxg‘mfl groups. Frequently Prepared 67 5.48 1.33 Occasionally Performed 67 4.37 1.70 ANR Often Willing 80 6.01 1.10 Frequently Prepared 80 5.13 1.55 Occasionally Performed 79 4.19 1.77 EC/ED Often Willing 1 8 6.22 1 .1 l Often Prepared 18 5.72 1.32 Frequently Performed 18 5.06 1.66 4-H Often Willing 58 5.97 1 .30 Frequently Prepared 58 5.03 1.69 Occasionally Performed 58 429 1.74 EE Very Often Willing 42 6.50 .89 Frequently Prepared 42 529 1.60 Frequently Performed 42 4.71 2.06 CYF Often Willing 19 6.16 .90 Often Prepared 18 5.50 120 Frequently Performed 1 8 5.00 1 .61 DEA Often Willing 41 5.93 127 Often Prepared 41 5.56 1.57 Frequently Performed 41 4.61 1.69 ALL Often Willing 325 6.07 1.1 1 Frequently Prepared 324 5.3 1 1 .52 Occasionally Performed 323 4.46 1.77 202 Table 55. Considering customers availability to participate when planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and taratipg section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 10. Considering customers CED Often Willing 67 6.48 .66 gfmgngrgmf‘lm When Often Prepared 67 5.94 1.09 Often Performed 67 5.58 1.37 ANR Often Willing 80 623 .98 Often Prepared 80 5.85 1.14 Frequently Performed 79 5.47 1 .64 EC/ED Often Willing 1 8 6.44 l .04 Often Prepared 18 5.89 1.13 Often Performed 18 5.50 1.65 4-H Often Willing 58 6.3 l .86 Often Prepared 58 5.84 125 Frequently Performed 58 5.38 1.55 EE Very Often Willing 42 6.71 .64 Often Prepared 42 5.95 1.15 Often Performed 42 5.83 1 29 CYF Often Willing 18 6.00 1.19 Often Prepared 18 5.78 1.48 Often Performed 18 5.67 1.33 DEA Often Willing 41 624 .97 Often Prepared 41 6.10 1.14 Often Performed 41 5.68 1.15 ALL Often Willing 324 6.36 .89 Often Prepared 324 5.91 1.16 Often Performed 323 5.56 1 .45 203 Table 56. Targeting customer groups for delivering programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and targeting section of survey questionnaire. Abbrev'mtions/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, AN R = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Amt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 1 1. Targeting customer groups for CED Often Willing 67 627 .85 de‘ivering ngmm- Often Prepared 67 5.99 1.02 Often Performed 67 5.55 1 .33 ANR Often Willing 78 6.14 .99 Often Prepared 78 5 .71 1.11 Frequently Performed 78 5. 19 1 .55 EC/ED Often Willing 1 8 6.33 .97 Often Prepared 18 6.11 1.08 Often Performed 18 5.83 1.65 4-H Often Willing 58 6.09 1.1 1 Often Prepared 58 5.60 1.49 Frequently Performed 58 522 1.76 EE Very Often Willing 40 6.60 .81 Often Prepared 40 6.03 1.27 Often Performed 40 5.80 1.60 CYF Often Willing 18 6.33 .84 Often Prepared 18 5.94 1.00 Often Performed 1 8 5 .94 .94 DEA Often Willing 40 6.13 1.16 Often Prepared 40 6.03 123 Often Performed 40 5.65 1.21 ALL Often Willing 3 19 6.24 .98 Often Prepared 319 5.86 120 Frequently Performed 3 19 5.49 1.50 204 Table 57. Designing programs so they are unique when compared to those offered by other agencies/organizations by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in placing and ggeg’ng section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 12. Designing programs so they are CED Often Willing 67 622 .98 gggz‘ggzrgg‘ggfie: “‘0“ Often Prepared 67 5.73 1.18 organizations. Frequently Performed 67 5.19 1.56 ANR Often Willing 80 6.40 .77 Often Prepared 80 5.85 1.10 Frequently Performed 80 5.33 1.61 EC/ED Often Willing 18 6.33 .97 Often Prepared 18 5.72 1.13 Frequently Performed 18 5.44 1.69 4-H Often Willing 58 6.17 1.06 Often Prepared 57 5.51 1.47 Frequently Performed 57 521 1.81 EE Very Often Willing 42 6.60 .86 Often Prepared 42 6.17 1.01 Often Performed 43 5.74 1 .56 CYF Very Often Willing 18 6.67 .59 Often Prepared 18 628 1.02 Often Performed 18 6.22 1.00 DEA Often Willing 40 6.33 .86 Often Prepared 40 6.13 .97 Often Performed 40 5.53 1.15 ALL Often Willing 323 6.35 .90 Often Prepared 322 5.86 1.18 Frequently Performed 323 5 .41 1 .57 205 Table 58. Speaking to groups by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 1. Speaking to groups. CED Very Often Willing 67 6.52 .75 Often Prepared 67 625 .89 Often Performed 66 5.71 l .40 ANR Very Often Willing 79 6.53 .69 Often Prepared 78 6.21 .89 Often Performed 78 5.63 l .50 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.84 .37 Often Prepared 19 6.47 .77 Often Performed 19 6.16 1.12 4-H Often Willing 57 6.39 .94 Often Prepared 57 5.96 1.12 Often Performed 57 5.54 l .54 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.67 .78 Often Prepared 43 6.49 .86 Often Performed 44 6.00 1.20 CYF Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .77 Often Prepared 19 6.26 .81 Often Performed 19 5.95 1.18 DEA Often Willing 41 6.34 .91 Often Prepared 40 6.08 1.19 Often Performed 41 5 .66 1 .49 ALL Very Often Willing 325 6.52 .79 Often Prepared 323 621 .97 Often Performed 324 5 .73 l .41 206 Table 59. Using word processing software in preparing written materials by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4—H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Aim, DEA = District ExtensionfiAgent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = lnfiequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 2. Using word processing software CED Often Willing 68 6.49 .82 in preparing written materials. Often Prepared 68 6.13 l 27 Often Performed 68 5.93 l .49 ANR Very Often Willing 79 6.65 .68 Often Prepared 79 6.43 .83 Often Performed 79 625 1.1 l EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.95 .23 Very Often Prepared 19 6.58 .69 Very Often Performed 19 6.74 .73 4-H Very Often Willing 58 6.64 .85 Often Prepared 58 6.38 .97 Often Performed 58 6.45 1.19 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.63 .79 Often Prepared 43 5.77 1.48 Often Performed 44 6.00 1.40 CYF Very Often Willing 19 6.53 .96 Often Prepared 19 6.05 1.31 Often Performed 19 5.84 1.61 DEA Very Often Willing 41 6.54 1.05 Often Prepared 41 629 1.44 Often Performed 41 6.20 1.47 ALL Very Often Willing 327 6.61 .81 Often Prepared 327 624 1.17 Often Performed 328 6.18 L32 207 Table 60. Preparing presentations for groups using presentation software by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4.11 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 3. Preparing presentations for CED Often Willing 68 6.16 1.37 5:15;?“ Presen‘a‘im Frequently Prepared 68 5.15 1.89 Frequently Performed 68 4.51 2.30 ANR Very Often Willing 79 6.52 .81 Often Prepared 79 6.19 1.25 Frequently Performed 79 5.44 l .95 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.79 .54 Often Prepared 19 5.84 1.34 Often Performed 19 6.00 1.15 4-H Often Willing 58 6.31 1.05 Frequently Prepared 58 5.17 1.63 Occasionally Performed 57 4.32 2.02 EE Often Willing 43 6.35 1.21 Frequently Prepared 42 4.64 l .90 Occasionally Performed 43 3.91 2.1 l CYF Often Willing 19 5.74 1.37 Frequently Prepared 19 4.58 1.80 Occasionally Performed 19 4.1 1 2.05 DEA Very Often Willing 41 6.61 .70 Often Prepared 41 5.90 1.66 Often Performed 41 5.71 1.98 ALL Often Willing 327 6.37 1.08 Frequently Prepared 326 5.44 l .73 Frequently Performed 326 4.84 2.13 208 Table 61. Giving presentations to groups using presentation software by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey mrestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 4. Giving presentations to groups CED Often Willing 68 6.04 1.40 “Sing Presenta‘im 503““ Frequently Prepared 68 5.26 1.85 Occasionally Performed 68 4.41 2.23 AN R Often Willing 79 6.48 .88 Often Prepared 79 6.08 1.32 Frequently Performed 79 5.20 1.95 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .65 Often Prepared 19 5.89 1.41 Often Performed 19 5.79 1.62 4-H Often Willing 58 629 1.01 Frequently Prepared 58 5.10 1.68 Occasionally Performed 58 4.05 1.95 EE Often Willing 43 6.44 1.18 Frequently Prepared 43 4.67 2.01 Occasionally Performed 44 3.61 2.19 CYF Often Willing 19 5.89 1.20 Occasionally Prepared 19 4.16 1.86 Occasionally Performed 19 3.68 1.95 DEA Very Often Willing 41 6.54 .78 Often Prepared 41 6.05 1.55 Frequently Performed 41 5.37 2.19 ALL Often Willing 327 6.34 1.08 Frequently Prepared 327 5.43 1.76 Frequently Performed 328 4.59 2.16 209 Table 62. Using electronic mail to promote programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Conesponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agra and ALL = All Positions 6.50 -— 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 5. Using electronic mail to promote CED Often Willing 68 6.32 1.04 ngmm- Often Prepared 68 5.75 1.29 Frequently Performed 68 4.50 1 .90 ANR Often Willing 79 6.38 1.05 Often Prepared 79 5.77 1.56 Frequently Performed 79 4.63 2.1 l EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .77 Often Prepared 19 5.68 1.49 Frequently Performed 19 4.84 1 .7 1 4-H Often Willing 58 6.48 .88 Often Prepared 58 6.14 1.21 Often Performed 58 5.52 1.71 EE Often Willing 43 6.12 1.40 Frequently Prepared 44 4.77 2.01 lnfrequently Performed 43 3.30 2.05 CYF Often Willing 19 6.00 1.86 Frequently Prepared 19 5.00 2.05 Occasionally Performed 19 3.89 2.18 DEA Often Willing 41 6.15 1.26 Often Prepared 41 5.80 1.47 Frequently Performed 41 4.51 2.09 ALL Often Willing 327 6.3 l 1.15 Often Prepared 328 5.65 1.58 Frequently Performed 327 4.54 2.06 210 Table 63. Considering design of program materials by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 6. Considering design of program CED Often Willing 67 6.34 .93 ma‘efia‘s- Often Prepared 67 5.67 127 Frequently Performed 67 5.34 1.61 ANR Often Willing 78 6.42 .76 Often Prepared 78 5.81 1.09 Frequently Performed 78 5 .24 1.5 l EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .77 Often Prepared 19 5.74 1.19 Often Performed 19 5.58 1 .6] 4+1 Often Willing 56 6.27 .94 Often Prepared 56 5.86 1.23 Frequently Performed 56 5.46 1.58 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.56 .73 Often Prepared 43 5.67 1.25 Frequently Performed 44 5.14 1.75 CYF Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .61 Often Prepared 19 5.79 1.03 Frequently Performed 19 5.32 1.63 DEA Often Willing 41 6.29 .93 Often Prepared 41 5.90 1.24 Frequently Performed 41 5 .39 l .45 ALL Often Willing 323 6.40 .84 Often Prepared 323 5.78 1.19 Frequently Performed 324 5.33 1.57 211 Table 64. Refen'ing customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 7. Referring customers to the MSU CED Often Willing 68 5.87 1.49 Extension web site to obtain Often Prepared 68 5.54 1.3 8 mformatron. Occasionally Performed 68 4.35 l .66 ANR Often Willing 79 5.90 1.57 Often Prepared 79 5.59 1.64 Occasionally Performed 79 4.01 2.13 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .73 Often Prepared 19 5.68 1.67 Occasionally Performed 19 3.58 2.34 4-H Often Willing 58 6.03 1.18 Often Prepared 58 5.55 1.63 Occasionally Performed 58 3.97 1.96 EE Often Willing 43 5.98 1 .54 Frequently Prepared 44 5.14 1.68 Occasionally Performed 43 3.60 1.94 CYF Often Willing 19 6.16 1.57 Frequently Prepared 19 5.05 2.04 lnfiequently Performed 19 3.16 1.68 DEA Often Willing 41 5.95 1.47 Frequently Prepared 41 5.49 1 .86 Occasionally Performed 41 3.80 2.17 ALL Often Willing 327 6.00 1.44 Frequently Prepared 328 5.48 l .64 Occasionally Performed 327 3.92 l .99 212 Table 65. Designing web pages promoting MSU Extension programs/information by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed mmofion section of survey grestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Vegy Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 8. Designing web pages promoting CED Frequently Willing 68 5.07 2.12 rgmfig'nafim Infrequently Prepared 68 329 1.97 Infiequently Performed 67 2.57 1.92 AN R Frequently Willing 79 5.34 1.95 Occasionally Prepared 79 3.77 225 Infrequently Performed 79 2.84 2.37 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.79 2.04 Occasionally Prepared 19 3.84 2.19 Infiequently Performed 19 2.89 2.58 4-H Frequently Willing 58 5.17 2.05 Occasionally Prepared 58 3.62 2.13 Seldom Performed 58 2.40 1 .72 EE Frequently Willing 44 4.66 2.23 lnfrequently Prepared 43 2.74 2.07 Seldom Performed 42 2.26 1.96 CYF Occasionally Willing 19 4.26 2.28 Seldom Prepared 19 2.21 1.18 Never Performed 19 1.32 .75 DEA Frequently Willing 41 5.29 1 .85 Infiequently Prepared 41 3.37 2.30 Seldom Performed 41 2.37 1.97 ALL Frequently Willing 328 5.12 2.06 Infiequently Prepared 327 3.37 2.13 Seldom Performed 325 2.48 2.03 213 Table 66. Using compact discs to retrieve information to fulfill customer requests by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Inflequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 9. Using compact discs to retrieve CED Often Willing 68 5.76 1.52 2:12:30" to fulfill customer Frequently Prepared 68 4.93 1.76 Infiequently Performed 68 3.10 1.79 ANR Often Willing 79 5.92 1.60 Frequently Prepared 79 4.89 2.09 Infrequently Performed 78 3.21 2.08 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.1 l 1.52 Occasionally Prepared 19 3.84 2.27 Infrequently Performed 19 2.95 2.41 4-H Often Willing 58 5.57 1.59 Occasionally Prepared 58 3.76 2.01 Seldom Performed 58 2.45 1.83 EE Frequently Willing 44 5.45 2.02 Occasionally Prepared 43 3.70 228 Seldom Performed 42 2.33 1.80 CYF Often Willing 18 5.50 1.98 Occasionally Prepared 18 3.78 2.02 Seldom Performed 18 2.28 l .60 DEA Often Willing 41 5.54 1.98 Occasionally Prepared 41 4.44 2.37 lnfiequently Performed 41 2.88 1.90 ALL Often Willing 327 5.70 1.71 Occasionally Prepared 326 4.36 2.13 Infiequently Performed 324 2.83 l .93 214 Table 67. Writing newsletters promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. 10. Writing newsletters promoting CED Often Willing 68 629 1.19 MSU Emmi“ ng'ams- Often Prepared 68 6.01 125 Frequently Performed 68 5.07 1.94 ANR Often Willing 79 6.10 1.44 Often Prepared 79 5.78 1.61 Frequently Performed 79 4.71 2.25 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.47 1.02 Often Prepared 19 5.74 1.45 Occasionally Performed 19 4.26 2.45 4-1-1 Very Often Willing 58 6.72 .52 Very Often Prepared 58 6.59 .77 Often Performed 58 6.38 1.17 EE Often Willing 43 6.42 1.03 Often Prepared 43 5.58 1.64 Frequently Performed 44 4.68 224 CYF Often Willing 19 6.26 1.48 Often Prepared 19 5.84 1.54 Frequently Performed 19 5.37 1.95 DEA Often Willing 41 6.00 1.41 Often Prepared 41 6.07 1.29 Occasionally Performed 41 4.46 2.04 ALL Often Willing 327 6.31 1.20 Often Prepared 327 5.98 1.40 Frequently Performed 328 5.06 2.09 215 Table 68. Writing news releases promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = Cormty Extension Director, AN R = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and F arnily Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. l 1. Writing news releases promoting CED Often Willing 68 6.44 1.01 MSU 5mm“ ngmm Often Prepared 68 6.19 1.03 Frequently Performed 68 5 .47 1 .63 ANR Often Willing 78 624 1.07 Often Prepared 78 5.96 1.32 Frequently Performed 78 5.13 1.88 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .56 Often Prepared 19 5.89 124 Frequently Performed 19 5.00 1 .91 4-H Very Often Willing 58 6.57 .65 Often Prepared 58 6.41 .86 Often Performed 58 5.91 1.41 EE Often Willing 43 6.12 1 .3 1 Often Prepared 43 5.70 1.60 Frequently Performed 44 4.61 2.38 CYF Often Willing 19 6.47 .61 Often Prepared 19 6.05 .97 Frequently Performed l9 5 .37 l .46 DEA Often Willing 41 6.20 .90 Often Prepared 41 5.98 1.06 Occasionally Performed 41 4.49 1.85 ALL Often Willing 326 6.36 .98 Often Prepared 326 6.06 1.19 Frequently Performed 327 5.20 l .85 216 Table 69. Delivering radio programs promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey gestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-1-1 Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Ang, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D. l2. Delivering radio programs CED Often Willing 68 5.74 1.72 figmg MSU Emmim‘ Frequently Prepared 68 5.40 1.69 lnfrequently Performed 68 3.13 2.19 ANR Often Willing 79 5.82 1 .58 Often Prepared 79 5.56 1.59 Occasionally Performed 79 3.62 2.38 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.63 1 .80 Frequently Prepared 19 5.16 l .42 Infrequently Performed 19 2.58 1.84 4-H Often Willing 58 5.74 1.61 Frequently Prepared 58 5.17 1.68 lnfiequently Performed 58 3.38 2.1 1 EE Often Willing 43 5.65 1.60 Frequently Prepared 43 4.74 1.93 lnfiequently Performed 43 2.53 2.10 CYF Frequently Willing 19 5.32 1 .92 Occasionally Prepared 19 4.42 2.06 Infrequently Performed 19 2.84 2.27 DEA Often Willing 40 5.55 1.65 Frequently Prepared 40 5.33 1.98 lnfrequently Performed 40 3.35 2.34 ALL Often Willing 326 5.69 1.65 Frequently Prepared 326 5 .23 l .76 lnfrequently Performed 326 3.19 2.23 217 Table 70. Appearing on television promoting MSU Extension programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-1-1 Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infi'equently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statisties N X S.D 13. Appearing on television CED Often Willing 68 5.54 1.80 gm? MSU Emmm“ Frequently Prepared 68 4.96 1.78 Seldom Performed 68 2.07 1.60 ANR Often Willing 79 5.5 1 1 .58 Frequently Prepared 79 5.00 1.76 Seldom Performed 79 1.97 1.59 EC/ED Frequently Willing 19 5.37 1.67 Occasionally Prepared 19 4.26 1.45 Seldom Performed 19 1.58 .96 4-H Often Willing 58 5.52 1.81 Frequently Prepared 58 4.66 1.92 Seldom Performed 58 2.09 1.60 EE Frequently Willing 43 5.00 2. l6 Occasionally Prepared 43 423 2.08 Seldom Performed 43 1.67 1.36 CYF Occasionally Willing 19 426 1.76 Infrequently Prepared 19 3.11 1.79 Seldom Performed 19 1.53 1.17 DEA Often Willing 40 5.65 1.56 Frequently Prepared 40 520 1.83 Seldom Performed 40 2.38 1.55 ALL Frequently Willing 326 5.39 l .78 Frequently Prepared 326 4.70 1.88 Seldom Performed 326 l .98 1.5 1 218 Table 71. Fostering favorable relations with news media by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and F amilfigent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D l4. Fostering favorable relations with CED Very Often Willing 68 6.50 .86 news media Often Prepared 68 6.13 1.01 Frequently Performed 68 5.49 1.47 ANR Often Willing 79 625 1.11 Often Prepared 79 5.73 1.51 Frequently Performed 79 4.80 2.10 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.84 .50 Often Prepared 19 5.89 129 Frequently Performed 19 4.89 2.26 4-H Often Willing 58 6.40 .86 Often Prepared 58 5.88 1.11 Frequently Performed 58 522 1.49 EE Often Willing 43 6.37 .93 Frequently Prepared 43 5.23 121 Occasionally Performed 44 3.86 2.08 CYF Often Willing 19 6.26 .93 Often Prepared 19 5.53 1.35 Occasionally Performed 19 4.32 1.77 DEA Often Willing 41 6.20 1.17 Often Prepared 40 5.90 1.39 Occasionally Performed 40 4.47 l .91 ALL Often Willing 327 6.37 .97 Often Prepared 326 5.79 1.29 Frequently Performed 327 4.83 1.90 219 ‘5 Table 72. Promoting the fact that MSU Extension is in every county in Michigan by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agglt, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the pagyear? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 15. Promoting the fact that MSU CED Very Often Willing 68 6.57 .76 Extension is in every county in Often Prepared 68 6. 43 .82 Mlchlgan. Often Performed 68 5.88 1.41 ANR Often Willing 79 6.48 1.00 Often Prepared 79 627 1.12 Frequently Performed 79 4.63 l .90 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.47 l .3 1 Very Often Prepared 19 6.63 .60 Often Performed 19 5.58 1.57 4-H Very Often Willing 58 6.64 .69 Very Often Prepared 58 6.57 .65 Often Performed 58 5.83 1.45 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.84 .37 Very Often Prepared 43 6.65 .69 Often Performed 44 5 .70 l .77 CYF Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .84 Often Prepared 19 6.37 .96 Often Performed l8 5 .50 l .65 DEA Very Often Willing 41 6.61 .63 Very Often Prepared 41 6.51 .75 Frequently Performed 41 5 .46 l .72 ALL Very Often Willing 327 6.60 .81 Often Prepared 327 6.46 .85 Frequently Performed 327 5 .46 l .7 1 220 Table 73. Using the satellite downlink to conduct programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 16. Using the satellite downlink to CED Often Willing 68 6.18 1.09 mm“ Pth Often Prepared 68 5.66 1.32 Occasionally Performed 68 3.91 1.77 ANR Frequently Willing 79 523 1.88 Occasionally Prepared 79 420 224 Seldom Performed 79 2. 14 l .66 EC/ED Frequently Willing 19 4.79 1.93 Occasionally Prepared 19 3.58 229 Seldom Performed l9 1 .95 1 .65 4-H Often Willing 58 5.52 1.77 Occasionally Prepared 58 428 2.01 Infiequently Performed 58 2.67 l .69 EE Often Willing 43 5.88 1.79 Occasionally Prepared 43 4.33 2.30 Infrequently Performed 44 2.80 l .95 CYF Frequently Willing 19 5.42 1.64 Frequently Prepared 19 5.26 1 .88 Occasionally Performed 19 3.74 2.00 DEA Frequently Willing 41 4.73 2.01 Occasionally Prepared 40 3.73 l .89 Seldom Performed 40 1 .60 .81 ALL Frequently Willing 327 5.49 1.77 Frequently Prepared 326 4.50 2.08 lnfrequently Performed 327 2.7 l 1.84 221 Table 74. Promoting all MSU Extension programs as a unified package by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in promotion section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Familfigent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infi'equently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 - 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 17. Promoting all MSU Extension CED Often Willing 68 6.40 1.04 mm“ as a ““156“ Wkage- Often Prepared 68 6.06 1.28 Frequently Performed 68 5.44 1.68 ANR Often Willing 78 5.53 1.53 Frequently Prepared 77 4.53 1.80 Infrequently Performed 76 3 .33 l .71 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.1 1 1.41 Frequently Prepared 19 526 1.59 Frequently Performed 19 4.53 2.14 4—H Often Willing 58 6.16 1.02 Frequently Prepared 58 4.98 1.44 Occasionally Performed 58 422 1.80 EE Very Often Willing 43 6.53 .83 Frequently Prepared 43 5.30 l .55 Occasionally Performed 44 4.36 221 CYF Often Willing 19 6.05 1.18 Frequently Prepared 19 4.68 1.42 Occasionally Performed 19 3.79 1.99 DEA Frequently Willing 40 5.35 1.75 Occasionally Prepared 40 3.98 1.95 Infiequently Performed 40 2.83 1.75 ALL Often Willing 325 6.00 1.34 Frequently Prepared 324 5.02 1.71 Occasionally Performed 324 4.1 l 2.02 222 Table 75. Describing MSU Extension’s role in public policy education by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of sm'vey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Commrmity and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Aggt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the pastjear? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D l. Describing MSU Extension’s role CED Often Willing 68 6.03 1.13 in public policy education. Frequently Prepared 68 5.44 1.31 Occasionally Performed 68 4.37 1 .65 ANR Frequently Willing 79 5.15 1.50 Occasionally Prepared 79 4.1 1 1.69 lnfrequently Performed 79 2.77 1.53 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.95 1.08 Frequently Prepared 19 5.05 1.61 Occasionally Performed 19 4.00 1.97 4-H Frequently Willing 58 5.45 1.38 Occasionally Prepared 58 4.05 l .59 Infrequently Performed 58 2.86 1.71 EE Often Willing 43 5.65 1.38 Occasionally Prepared 43 3.65 1.45 Infrequently Performed 44 2.66 1.84 CYF Often Willing 18 5.50 1.04 Occasionally Prepared 18 4.06 1.70 Infiequently Performed 18 3.17 2.20 DEA Frequently Willing 39 5.3 l 1 .78 Frequently Prepared 39 4.51 1.88 Infrequently Performed 39 3.05 2.01 ALL Often Willing 324 5.54 l .41 Occasionally Prepared 324 4.42 1 .69 Infiequently Performed 325 323 1.86 223 e" ‘ P Table 76. Utilizing strategic planning by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 -— 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 2. Utilizing strategic planning. CED Often Willing 68 5.96 1.10 Frequently Prepared 68 5.04 1 .3 l Occasionally Performed 68 4.07 l .74 ANR Frequently Willing 79 5.46 1.38 Frequently Prepared 79 4.53 1.69 Infiequently Performed 79 3.20 1 .7 1 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.68 .58 Often Prepared 19 5.84 1.07 Frequently Performed 19 5.37 l .54 4-H Often Willing 58 5.81 125 Frequently Prepared 58 4.52 l .71 Occasionally Performed 58 3.71 1.78 EE Often Willing 43 5.56 1 .39 Occasionally Prepared 43 4.09 1 .59 Infiequently Performed 43 2.86 1.82 CYF Often Willing 18 5.72 .83 Frequently Prepared l 8 4.61 l .85 Occasionally Performed 18 3.83 2.15 DEA Often Willing 40 5.65 1 .56 Frequently Prepared 40 4.95 1.93 Occasionally Performed 40 3.68 2.04 ALL Often Willing 325 5.75 1.29 Frequently Prepared 325 4.71 1.66 Occasionally Performed 325 3.65 l .88 224 Table 77. Involving advisory groups in identifying customer/community needs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family [gent DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 3. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 68 6.47 .72 ilcllezitsifying customer/community Often Prepared 68 6.09 .96 Frequently Performed 68 5.07 1.61 ANR Often Willing 79 5.99 1.15 Frequently Prepared 79 5.37 1.40 Occasionally Performed 79 4.22 1.92 EC/ ED Very Often Willing 19 6.74 .56 Often Prepared 19 5.84 1.74 Frequently Performed 19 5.26 1.69 4-H Often Willing 58 629 1.01 Often Prepared 58 5.64 1.33 Frequently Performed 57 5.12 1.86 EE Often Willing 43 6.30 1.06 Frequently Prepared 43 5.30 1.44 Occasionally Performed 44 4.1 l 1 .90 CYF Often Willing 18 628 .89 Often Prepared 18 5.83 1.10 Frequently Performed 18 4.83 1.69 DEA Often Willing 40 6.03 123 Often Prepared 40 5.65 1.48 Occasionally Performed 40 4.45 l .80 ALL Often Willing 325 625 1.02 Often Prepared 325 5.65 1.35 Frequently Performed 325 4.66 l .84 225 Table 78. Involving advisory groups in planning programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and within the past year? Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 4. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 65 623 1.03 P'a‘ming 9mm: Often Prepared 65 5.78 1.08 Frequently Performed 65 4.71 l .42 ANR Often Willing 79 5.82 1 .30 Frequently Prepared 79 527 1.47 Occasionally Performed 79 3.86 1.94 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.68 .58 Often Prepared 19 5.95 1.43 Frequently Performed l9 5 26 l .45 4-H Often Willing 57 628 1.01 Often Prepared 57 5.81 120 Frequently Performed 57 5.18 1.80 EE Often Willing 42 5.98 1.14 Frequently Prepared 42 4.98 1 .52 Occasionally Performed 43 3.79 1.99 CYF Often Willing 19 621 .85 Frequently Prepared 19 5.37 1.34 Frequently Performed 19 4.74 1.94 DEA Often Willing 40 5.83 l .30 Often Prepared 40 5.53 1.45 Occasionally Performed 40 4.33 l .67 ALL Often Willing 321 6.08 1.14 Often Prepared 321 5.51 1.37 Occasionally Performed 322 4.45 1 .84 226 Table 79. Involving advisory groups in implementing programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in enviromnent section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = Comfy Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 5. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 65 5.95 127 “Flemming ngm‘s' Often Prepared 65 5.52 129 Occasionally Performed 65 4.14 1.68 ANR Often Willing 78 5.71 1 .42 Frequently Prepared 78 5.09 1.61 Infrequently Performed 78 3.41 1.94 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.47 .96 Often Prepared 19 5.74 1.33 Frequently Performed 19 5.00 1.70 4-H Often Willing 57 623 1.00 Often Prepared 57 5.70 1.24 Frequently Performed 57 4.84 1.89 EE Often Willing 42 5.90 1.19 Frequently Prepared 42 4.76 1.57 Infiequently Performed 43 3.30 2.19 CYF Often Willing 19 5.95 1.18 Frequently Prepared 19 5.00 1.49 Occasionally Performed 19 4.05 2.12 DEA Often Willing 40 5.65 1.56 Frequently Prepared 40 5.20 1.62 Occasionally Performed 40 3.85 1.81 ALL Often Willing 320 5.93 128 Frequently Prepared 320 5.29 1.48 Occasionally Performed 321 3.98 1.97 227 Table 80. Involving advisory groups in evaluating programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-I-I = Extension 4-l-I Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Amt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 6. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 65 5.78 1.41 eva'ua‘ing ngmms° Frequently Prepared 65 5.00 1.69 Occasionally Performed 65 3.55 1.71 ANR Often Willing 79 5.73 1.37 Frequently Prepared 79 4.77 1.67 Infrequently Performed 79 2.89 1 .81 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.32 .89 Frequently Prepared 19 4.95 1.35 Occasionally Performed 19 3.79 1.55 4-H Often Willing 57 5.88 123 Frequently Prepared 57 5.14 1.46 Occasionally Performed 57 4.02 2.05 EE Often Willing 42 5.83 1.32 Occasionally Prepared 42 4.40 1.62 Infrequently Performed 43 2.72 1.76 CYF Often Willing 19 6.16 .90 Frequently Prepared 19 521 1.18 Occasionally Performed 19 3.84 2.01 DEA Often Willing 40 5.58 1.47 Frequently Prepared 40 4.68 1 .76 Infrequently Performed 39 3.08 1.63 ALL Often Willing 321 5.82 1.31 Frequently Prepared 321 4.86 1.61 Infrequently Performed 321 3.33 1.85 228 Table 81. Involving advisory groups in identifying resources by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4.1-l = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Familfigent, DEA = District Extension Aggnt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 7. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 65 6.32 .87 identifying ””mes- Often Prepared 65 5.92 1.18 Frequently Performed 65 4.75 1.62 ANR Often Willing 78 6.01 121 Frequently Prepared 78 5.06 1.76 Occasionally Performed 78 3.53 1.98 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.47 .84 Frequently Prepared 19 5.47 126 Frequently Performed 19 4.79 1.47 4-H Often Willing 56 6.1 1 1.17 Often Prepared 56 5.54 1.41 Occasionally Performed 56 4.48 2.08 EE Often Willing 42 6.02 .98 Frequently Prepared 42 4.88 1 .53 Occasionally Performed 42 3.76 2.17 CYF Often Willing 19 621 .92 Often Prepared 19 5.53 1.07 Occasionally Performed 19 421 2.02 DEA Often Willing 40 5.80 1.32 Frequently Prepared 40 5.18 1.53 Occasionally Performed 40 3.73 1.93 ALL Often Willing 319 6.11 1.10 Frequently Prepared 3 19 5.36 1.50 Occasionally Performed 319 4.12 1.98 229 Table 82. Involving advisory groups in securing resources by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Amt, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 -— 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 8. Involving advisory groups in CED Often Willing 65 6.12 1.24 “Wing ”SOWS- Frequently Prepared 65 5.48 1.39 Occasionally Performed 65 4.05 1.81 ANR Often Willing 78 5.79 1.42 Frequently Prepared 79 4.80 1.85 Infiequently Performed 79 3.1 l 1.87 EC/ED Very Often Willing 18 6.56 .70 Frequently Prepared 18 5.39 1.65 Frequently Performed 18 4.72 1.96 4—H Often Willing 57 6.19 1.06 Often Prepared 57 5.54 1.48 Occasionally Performed 57 4.32 1.97 EE Often Willing 41 5.95 1.26 Frequemly Prepared 41 4.54 1.58 Infiequently Performed 41 3.32 1.97 CYF Often Willing 19 6.11 1.05 Frequently Prepared 19 526 128 Occasionally Performed 19 421 2.04 DEA Often Willing 40 5.65 1.44 Frequently Prepared 40 5.00 l .63 Occasionally Performed 40 3.50 1.91 ALL Often Willing 3 18 6.00 l .26 Frequently Prepared 3 19 5.12 l .62 Occasionally Performed 319 3.75 1.96 230 Table 83. Involving advisory groups in managing resources by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Commrmity and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-I-I Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 - 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 9. Involving advisory groups in CED Frequently Willing 65 5.17 1.76 managing “immes- Occasionally Prepared 65 4.46 1.83 Infrequently Performed 65 2.75 1.71 ANR Frequently Willing 79 5.14 1.72 Occasionally Prepared 79 429 1.77 Infrequently Performed 79 2.51 1.72 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.1 l 1.33 Frequently Prepared 19 4.58 1.77 Occasionally Performed 19 3.74 2.05 4-H Often Willing 57 5.95 1.09 Frequently Prepared 57 5 .35 l .49 Occasionally Performed 57 426 2.13 EE Frequently Willing 41 5 .46 l .69 Occasiowa Prepared 41 4.15 1.82 Infiequently Performed 41 2.71 1.94 CYF Often Willing 17 5 .65 l .69 Occasionally Prepared 17 4.24 1.64 Infrequently Performed 17 329 2.02 DEA Frequently Willing 40 4.93 l .79 Occasionally Prepared 40 4.40 1 .93 Seldom Performed 40 228 1.55 ALL Frequently Willing 3 18 5.39 1.65 Frequently Prepared 318 4.53 1.79 Infiequently Performed 3 18 2.98 1.95 231 Table 84. Involving advisory groups as advocates of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Aggnt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 10. Involving advisory groups as CED Often Willing 65 6.42 .81 advocates of MSU Extension. Often Prepared 65 594 1.14 Frequently Performed 65 5.1 l 1.59 ANR Often Willing 79 6.18 1.06 Frequently Prepared 79 5.39 1.67 Occasionally Performed 79 422 2.04 EC/ED Often Willing 19 626 1.19 Frequently Prepared 19 526 128 Occasionally Performed 19 3.95 1.87 4-H Often Willing 57 6.1 1 l .33 Frequently Prepared 57 5.46 1.35 Frequently Performed 57 4.67 l .80 EE Often Willing 41 6.44 l .07 Frequently Prepared 41 5.34 1.57 Occasionally Performed 42 4.38 2.05 CYF Often Willing 19 6.16 1.01 Frequently Prepared 19 4.95 1.61 Occasionally Performed 19 3.89 2.13 DEA Often Willing 40 5.93 1.14 Frequently Prepared 40 5.35 1.48 Occasionally Performed 40 3.88 2.05 ALL Often Willing 320 622 1.09 Frequently Prepared 320 5 .47 l .47 Occasionally Performed 321 4.42 1.94 232 Table 85. Describing the organizational structure of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family égent, DEA = District Extension Age:nt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 -— 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 ~— 3.49 = Infi’equently, 3.50 —— 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 -— 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D l l. Describing the organizational CED Often Willing 65 6.28 1.02 structure of MSU Extension. Often W 65 5.94 ”7 Frequently Performed 65 4.88 1.80 ANR Often Willing 78 5.82 1.36 Frequently Prepared 78 4.86 1.60 Infrequently Performed 78 3.33 1.70 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.89 1.45 Frequently Prepared 19 5.1 l 1.56 Occasionally Performed 19 3 .95 l .81 4-1-1 Often Willing 57 6.02 120 Frequently Prepared 57 5.47 1.51 Occasionally Performed 57 4.42 1.92 EE Often Willing 41 6.10 1.32 Frequently Prepared 41 4.98 1.94 Occasionally Performed 42 3.95 2.05 CYF Often Willing 19 5.58 1.43 Frequently Prepared 19 4.84 1 .42 Infrequently Performed 19 3.05 1.47 DEA Often Willing 40 5.58 1.39 Frequently Prepared 40 5.20 l .65 Occasionally Performed 40 3.63 1.92 ALL Often Willing 3 19 5.94 l 29 Frequently Prepared 3 19 5.26 l .59 Occasionally Performed 320 3.98 1.91 233 Table 86. Describing the funding sources of MSU Extension by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agricultlne and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Amt, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infiequently, 3.50 - 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 —- 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 12. Describing the funding sources of CED Often Willing 65 6.38 .88 MS” Emmi“ Often Prepared 65 5.98 1.18 Frequently Performed 65 5.1 l l .69 ANR Often Willing 79 5.86 l 27 Frequently Prepared 79 4.75 1.77 Infrequently Performed 79 3.49 1.71 EC/ED Often Willing 19 5.95 1.43 Frequently Prepared 19 4.79 1.72 Occasionally Performed 19 3.95 1 .87 4-H Often Willing 57 5.72 1.40 Frequently Prepared 57 5.02 1.78 Occasionally Performed 57 4.05 1.95 EE Often Willing 41 5.90 1.58 Frequently Prepared 41 4.66 1.88 Occasionally Performed 42 3.93 222 CYF Often Willing 19 5.68 1.42 Occasionally Prepared 19 421 1.96 Infiequently Performed 19 326 1.94 DEA Often Willing 40 5.65 123 Frequently Prepared 40 4.90 1.81 Infiequently Performed 40 3.48 1.91 ALL Often Willing 320 5.92 1.30 Frequently Prepared 320 5.03 1.76 Occasionally Performed 321 3.99 1.95 234 Table 87. Responding to changes in the market for programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EB = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family qunt, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D 13. Responding to changes in the CED Often Willing 64 6.13 1.21 Welfmpmgm‘s- Frequently Prepared 64 5.14 1.47 Occasionally Performed 64 4.38 1.64 ANR Often Willing 78 6.00 .99 Frequently Prepared 78 4.94 1.41 Occasionally Performed 78 3.86 1.76 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.58 .69 Frequently Prepared 19 5.37 1.34 Frequently Performed 19 4.74 1 .56 4-H Often Willing 57 5.65 1 .46 Frequently Prepared 57 4.89 1 .55 Occasionally Performed 57 3 .91 1 .82 EE Often Willing 41 6.24 1 .02 Frequently Prepared 41 4.76 1.62 Occasiome Performed 41 4. 12 I .86 CYF Often Willing 19 6.37 .76 Frequently Prepared 19 4.79 1.40 Occasionally Performed 19 3.84 1.80 DEA Often Willing 40 5 .80 1 .24 Frequently Prepared 40 5.10 1.53 Occasionally Performed 40 4.08 1.94 ALL Often Willing 318 6.03 1.16 Frequently Prepared 3 18 4.98 l .48 Occasionally Performed 3 18 4.08 1.77 235 Table 88. Analyzing programs offered by other organizations similar to those offered in yom‘ program area by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Amt, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. l4. Analyzing programs offered by CED Often Willing 65 5.71 1.33 3:": aggredmnguflggg Frequently Prepared 65 4.74 1.50 area Occasionme Performed 65 3 .71 1 .70 ANR Often Willing 78 5.71 1.20 Occasionally Prepared 79 4.46 1.60 Infrequently Performed 79 3.11 1.83 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.37 .96 Frequently Prepared 19 5.47 1.39 Occasionally Performed 19 4.37 1 .95 4-H Often Willing 57 5.51 1.58 Frequently Prepared 57 4.65 1 .73 Occasionally Performed 57 3.61 l .82 EE Often Willing 41 6.07 1.06 Frequently Prepared 41 4.80 1.62 Occasionally Performed 42 3.79 2.05 CYF Frequently Willing 19 5.32 1.70 Frequently Prepared 19 4.68 1.42 Occasionally Performed 19 3.63 1.95 DEA Frequently Willing 40 5.48 l .43 Frequently Prepared 40 4.97 l .66 Occasionally Performed 40 3.73 1.81 ALL Often Willing 319 5.71 1.35 Frequently Prepared 320 4.73 1.60 Occasionally Performed 321 3.59 1.86 236 Table 89. Analyzing risks in offering programs by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-I-l Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 — 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 — 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 - 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 - 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D. 15. Analyzing risks in offering CED Often Willing 65 5.85 1.11 ng'ms- Frequently Prepared 65 4.89 1.47 Occasionally Performed 65 3.91 1.63 ANR Often Willing 79 5.70 1.17 Frequently Prepared 79 4.62 1 .70 Occasionally Performed 79 3.54 l .95 EC/ED Often Willing 19 6.16 1.12 Frequently Prepared 19 4.79 l .44 Occasionally Performed 19 3.74 1.66 4-H Often Willing 57 5.67 1.42 Frequently Prepared 57 4.79 1.64 Occasionally Performed 57 3 .88 l .67 EE Often Willing 40 5.55 1.45 Occasionally Prepared 39 3.92 1.75 Infrequently Performed 41 3.17 1.97 CYF Often Willing 18 6.00 1.03 Frequently Prepared 18 5.44 129 Occasionally Performed 1 8 4.33 l .71 DEA Frequently Willing 40 5.25 l .56 Occasionally Prepared 40 4.45 1.71 lnfiequently Performed 40 3 .48 l .96 ALL Often Willing 3 18 5.69 l .30 Frequently Prepared 3 17 4.66 l .64 Occasionally Performed 3 19 3.68 1 .82 237 Table 90. Responding to County Commission requests by MSU Extension Agent position. Skill: Corresponds to respective skill as listed in environment section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions 6.50 - 7.00 = Very Often Scale Ranges and Descriptions According To Means (X): 1.00 - 1.49 = Never, 1.50 — 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 — 3.49 = Infrequently, 3.50 — 4.49 = Occasionally, 4.50 — 5.49 = Frequently, 5.50 — 6.49 = Often, and Categories: Are you willing? Are you prepared? How often have you done (performed) the skill within the past year? Statistics: N = Number, X = Mean, and S.D. = Standard Deviation Skill Positions Descriptions Categories Statistics N X S.D l6. Responding to County CED Very Often Willing 65 6.60 .72 Commission requests. Often Prepared 65 6.23 .93 Frequently Performed 65 5.32 1.55 ANR Often Willing 78 627 .89 Often Prepared 78 5.63 1.56 Occasionally Performed 78 3.55 1.97 EC/ED Very Often Willing 19 6.68 .67 Often Prepared 19 5.63 1.67 Frequently Performed 19 4.84 1.98 4-H Often Willing 57 6.1 1 1.14 Often Prepared 57 5.51 1.54 Occasionally Performed 57 4.14 1.92 EE Very Often Willing 40 6.55 .68 Often Prepared 40 5.60 1.43 Occasionally Performed 42 4.10 2.37 CYF Often Willing 18 6.44 .78 Often Prepared 18 5.61 120 Occasionally Performed 18 3.67 2.43 DEA Often Willing 37 5.73 1 .59 Frequently Prepared 37 5.38 1.77 Infrequently Performed 37 3.03 1.74 ALL Often Willing 3 14 6.32 1.01 Often Prepared 314 5.70 1.46 Occasionally Perforated 316 4.12 2.07 238 APPENDIX L PERCENTAGES BY POSITION FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Table 91. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Introduction — Letting People Know Who We Are! Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .OOLSig], Prepared [p< .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics Yes Yes No No Total I. Introduction-Letting People CED Familiar 59 89.4 7 10.6 66 Km” Wh" We Are! Prepared 52 81.3 12 18.8 64 Used 33 50.8 32 49.2 65 ANR Familiar 36 46.2 42 53.8 78 Prepared 31 41 .3 44 58.7 75 Used 8 10.5 68 89.5 76 EC/ED Familiar 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Prepared 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 Used 0 0 19 100.0 19 4-H Familiar 28 48.3 30 51.7 58 Prepared 21 36.2 37 63.8 58 Used 6 10.3 52 89.7 58 EE Familiar 21 48.8 22 51.2 43 Prepared 25 61.0 16 39.0 41 Used 13 31.7 28 68.3 41 CYF Familiar 10 52.6 9 47.4 19 Prepared 9 50.0 9 50.0 18 Used 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 DEA Familiar 17 44.7 21 55.3 38 Prepared 14 37.8 23 62.2 37 Used 3 7.9 35 92.1 38 ALL Familiar 180 56.1 141 43 .9 321 Prepared 164 52.6 148 47.4 312 Used 69 21.9 246 78.1 315 239 Table 92. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Fab Five for County MSUE Offices. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension cormty marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p < .001 Sigjflnd Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 2. Fab Five for County MSUE CED Familiar 55 84.6 10 15.4 65 Offices Wed 45 71.4 18 28.6 63 Used 32 49.2 33 50.8 65 ANR Familiar 29 37.2 49 62.8 78 Prepared 23 30.7 52 69.3 75 Used 8 10.5 68 89.5 76 EC/ED Familiar 8 42.1 1 1 57.9 19 Prepared 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Used 2 10.5 17 89.5 19 4+] Familiar 17 29.3 41 70.7 58 Prepared 15 26.3 42 73.7 57 Used 5 8.6 53 91.4 58 EE Familiar 17 39.5 26 60.5 43 Prgpared 16 40.0 24 60.0 40 Used 7 17.1 34 82.9 41 CYF Familiar 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 DEA Familiar 9 23.7 29 76.3 38 Prepared 7 18.4 31 81.6 38 Used 1 2.6 37 97.4 38 ALL Familiar 141 44.1 179 55.9 320 Prepared 119 38.4 191 61.6 310 Used 59 18.7 256 81.3 315 240 Table 93. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSU Extension County Marketing Survey Instructions. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-1-1 = Extension 4—H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .003 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 3. MSU Extension County CED Familiar 46 69.7 20 30.3 66 Marketing Survey ”Strum“ Prepared 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 Used 18 27.3 48 72.7 66 ANR Familiar 23 29.5 55 70.5 78 Prepared 19 25.3 56 74.7 75 Used 5 6 6 71 93.4 76 EC/ED Familiar 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 Prepared 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Used 0 0 19 100.0 19 4-H Familiar 15 26.3 42 73.7 57 Prepared 1 1 19.6 45 80.4 56 Used 2 3.5 55 96.5 57 EE Familiar 12 27.9 3 l 72. 1 43 Prepared 10 25.0 30 75.0 40 Used 5 12.5 35 87.5 40 CYF Familiar 6 3 1.6 13 68.4 19 PreEred 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 8 21.1 30 78.9 38 Prepared 8 21.6 29 78.4 37 Used 1 2.6 37 97.4 38 ALL Familiar l 14 35.7 205 64.3 319 Prepared 93 29.9 218 70.1 3 l l Used 34 10.8 280 89.2 314 241 Table 94. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSU Extension County Marketing Survey. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey gestionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiarlp < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .003 Sig], and Used [p = .246 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N "/6 N Yes Yes No No Total 4. MSU Extension County CED Familiar 46 69.7 20 30.3 66 Mme‘mS Smey Prepared 32 49.2 33 50.8 65 Used 11 16.9 54 83.1 65 ANR Familiar 22 28.2 56 71.8 78 Prepared 17 22.7 58 77.3 75 Used 6 7.9 70 92.1 76 EC/ED Familiar 6 3 1.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Used 0 0 19 100.0 19 4-H Familiar 15 25.9 43 74. l 58 Prepared 12 21.1 45 78.9 57 Used 5 8.6 53 91.4 58 EE Familiar 8 18.6 35 81.4 43 Prepared 7 17.9 32 82.1 39 Used 4 10.0 36 90.0 40 CYF Familiar 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 8 21.6 29 78.4 37 Prepared 8 21.6 29 78.4 37 Used 2 5.4 35 94.6 37 ALL Familiar 1 1 1 34.7 209 65.3 320 Prepared 87 28.1 223 71.9 310 Used 31 9.9 282 90.1 313 242 Table 95. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Action Planning Checklist. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and F arnily Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .002 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics Yes Yes No No Total 5. Action Planning Checklist CED Familiar 47 71.2 19 28.8 66 Preged 37 56.1 29 43.9 66 Used 20 30.3 46 69.7 66 ANR F arniliar 21 26.9 57 73.1 78 Prepared 22 28.9 54 71.1 76 Used 6 7.9 70 92.1 76 EC/ED Familiar 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 Prepared 7 36.8 12 63 .2 19 Used 1 5.3 18 94.7 19 4-H Familiar 1 1 19.0 47 81 .0 58 Prepared 13 22.8 44 77.2 57 Used 4 6.9 54 93.1 58 EE Familiar 9 20.9 34 79.1 43 Prepared 10 25.0 30 75.0 40 Used 6 15.8 32 84.2 38 CYF Familiar 8 42.1 1 1 57.9 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 DEA Familiar 10 26.3 28 73.7 38 Prepared 10 27.0 27 73.0 37 Used 3 8.1 34 91.9 37 ALL Familiar I 13 35.2 208 64.8 321 Prepared 106 33.9 207 66.1 313 Used 46 14.7 266 85.3 3 12 243 Table 96. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Marketing Action Plan. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .005 Sig], and Used [p = .011 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 6. Marketing Action Plan CED Familiar 49 75.4 16 24.6 65 Prepared 37 56.9 28 43.1 65 Used 18 28.1 46 71.9 64 ANR Familiar 24 30.8 54 69.2 78 Prepared 18 23.7 58 76.3 76 Used 5 6.7 70 93.3 75 EC/ED Familiar 10 52.6 9 47.4 19 Prepared 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Used 2 10.5 17 89.5 19 4-H Familiar 20 35.1 37 64.9 57 Prepared 18 32.1 38 67.9 56 Used 8 13.8 50 86.2 58 EE Familiar 1 I 26.8 30 73.2 41 Prepared 13 32.5 27 67.5 40 Used 3 7.9 35 92.1 38 CYF Familiar 6 3 1 .6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 DEA Familiar 14 36.8 24 63.2 38 Prepared 12 32.4 25 67.6 37 Used 4 10.5 34 89.5 38 ALL Familiar 134 42.3 183 57.7 317 Prepared 111 35.7 200 64.3 311 Used 44 14.2 266 85.8 310 244 Table 97. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Bringing Knowledge to Life Brochure. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p = .001 Sig], Prepared [p < .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 7. Bringing Knowledge to Life CED Familiar 62 93.9 4 6.1 66 3mm" Prepared 59 90.8 6 92 65 Used 54 84.4 10 15.6 64 ANR Familiar 55 70.5 23 29.5 78 Prepared 48 62.3 29 37.7 77 Used 27 34.6 51 65.4 78 EC/ED Familiar 15 78.9 4 21.1 19 Prepared 14 73.7 5 26.3 19 Used 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 4-H Familiar 52 89.7 6 10.3 58 Prepared 45 77.6 13 22.4 58 Used 30 51.7 28 48.3 58 EE Familiar 34 79.1 9 20.9 43 Prepared 33 76.7 10 23.3 43 Used 27 62.8 16 37.2 43 CYF Familiar 13 68.4 6 31.6 19 Prepared 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 Used 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 DEA Familiar 24 63.2 14 36.8 38 Prepared 14 38.9 22 61 .l 36 Used 13 34.2 25 65.8 38 ALL Familiar 255 79.4 66 20.6 321 Prgrared 226 71.5 90 28.5 316 Used 173 54.4 145 45.6 318 245 Table 98. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Marketing Extension through Educational Programs. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension cormty marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p = .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .025 Sig], and Used [p = .018 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics Yes Yes No No Total 8. Marketing Extension through CED Familiar 49 75.4 16 24.6 65 Educational Programs W 43 66.2 22 33.8 65 Used 29 44 6 36 55.4 65 ANR Familiar 3 1 40.3 46 59.7 77 Prepared 29 38.7 46 61.3 75 Used 14 18.7 61 81.3 75 EC/ED Familiar 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Prepared 10 52.6 9 47.4 19 Used 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 4-I-I Familiar 27 48.2 29 51.8 56 Prepared 25 45.5 30 54.5 55 Used 15 26.8 41 73.2 56 EE Familiar 20 46.5 23 53.5 43 Prepared 21 5 1.2 20 48.8 41 Used 16 40.0 24 60.0 40 CYF Familiar 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Prepared 10 55.6 8 44.4 18 Used 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 DEA Familiar 14 36.8 24 63.2 38 Prepared 13 35.1 24 64.9 37 Used 9 23.7 29 76.3 38 ALL Familiar 159 50.2 158 49.8 3 17 Prepared 151 48.7 159 51.3 310 Used 97 31.2 214 68.8 311 246 Table 99. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Your Role in Marketing MSU Extension: A Guide for Extension Council Members. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-I-I = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Familyigent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi—Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p < .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics Yes Yes No No Total 9. Your Role in Marketing MSU CED Familiar 61 92.4 5 7.6 66 Extension: A Guide for Prepared 53 315 12 18,5 65 Extension Council Members Used 43 66 2 22 3 3,8 65 ANR Familiar 32 41.0 46 59.0 78 Prepared 27 36.0 48 64.0 75 Used 18 23.7 58 76.3 76 lEC/ED Familiar 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Prepared 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Used 2 10.5 17 89.5 19 4-H Familiar 25 43.9 32 56.1 57 Prepged 22 38.6 35 61.4 57 Used 13 22.8 44 77.2 57 EE Familiar 15 34.9 28 65.1 43 Prepared 16 39.0 25 61.0 41 Used 9 22.5 31 77.5 40 CYF Familiar 10 55.6 8 44.4 18 Prepared 9 50.0 9 50.0 18 Used 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 DEA Familiar 12 32.4 25 67.6 37 Prepared 8 22.2 28 77.8 36 Used 3 8.1 34 91.9 37 ALL Familiar 160 50.3 158 49.7 318 Prepared 140 45.0 171 55.0 311 Used 96 30.8 216 69.2 312 247 Table 100. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Building Strong Relationships With Public Officials. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared[p < .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 10. Building Strong Relationships CED Familiar 56 86.2 9 13.8 65 “Mb Pub” 0mm“ Prepared 51 78.5 14 21.5 65 Used 32 49.2 33 50.8 65 ANR Familiar 22 28.2 56 71 .8 78 Prepared 21 28.0 54 72.0 75 Used 11 14.5 65 85.5 76 EC/ED Familiar 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 Prepared 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Used 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 4-H Familiar 17 29.3 41 70.7 58 Prepared 16 28.1 41 71.9 57 Used 5 8.6 53 91.4 58 EE Familiar 15 34.9 28 65.1 43 Prepared 16 39.0 25 61.0 41 Used 9 22.5 31 77.5 40 CYF Familiar 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 Prepared 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 12 31.6 26 68.4 38 Prepared 9 24.3 28 75.7 37 Used 2 5.3 36 94.7 38 ALL Familiar 136 42.5 184 57.5 320 Prepared 126 40.4 186 59.6 312 Used 66 21.0 248 79.0 314 248 Table 101. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Positioning Statement & Marketing Objectives. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-11 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .035 Sig], and Used [p = .192 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics' N °/e N % N Yes Yes No No Total 1. Positioning Statement& CED Familiar 48 71.6 19 28.4 67 Makefing ObjeC‘iVCS Prepared 35 54.7 29 45.3 64 Used 18 28.1 46 71.9 64 ANR Familiar 26 32.9 53 67.1 79 Prepared 22 30.1 51 69.9 73 Used 11 14.9 63 85.1 74 EC/ED Familiar 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 2 10.5 17 89.5 19 4-H Familiar 19 32.8 39 67.2 58 Prepared 17 30.9 38 69.1 55 Used 6 10.9 49 89.1 55 EE Familiar 17 41.5 24 58.5 41 Prepared 10 26.3 28 73.7 38 Used 5 12.2 36 87.8 41 CYF Familiar 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 Prepared 5 27.8 13 72.2 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 14 35.9 25 64.1 39 Prepared 14 37.8 23 62.2 37 Used 6 16.2 31 83.8 37 ALL Familiar 138 43.0 183 57.0 321 Prepared 1 10 36.3 193 63.7 303 Used 51 16.6 257 83.4 308 249 Table 102. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: What is marketing? Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-I-I = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .005 Sig], and Used [p = .015 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N "/6 N Yes Yes No No Total 2. What is marketing? CED Familiar 46 68.7 21 31.3 67 Prepared 39 61.9 24 38.1 63 Used 21 32.8 43 67.2 64 AN R Familiar 27 34.2 52 65.8 79 Prepared 24 32.9 49 67. 1 73 Used 12 16.0 63 84 0 75 EC/ED Familiar 6 3 1.6 13 68.4 19 W 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 Used 2 10.5 17 89.5 19 4-H Familiar 21 36.2 37 63.8 58 Prepared 15 27.3 40 72.7 55 Used 7 12.7 48 87.3 55 EE Familiar 19 46.3 22 53.7 41 Prepared 16 42.1 22 57.9 38 Used 7 17.1 34 82.9 41 CYF Familiar 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 DEA Familiar 13 33.3 26 66.7 39 Prepared 12 33.3 24 667 36 Used 2 5.4 35 94.6 37 ALL Familiar 141 43.8 181 56.2 322 Prepared 121 40.2 180 59.8 301 Used 55 17.8 254 82.2 309 250 Table 103. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Presentation Aides. survey questionnaire. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions item? Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .074 Sig], and Used [p = .733 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N "/6 N Yes Yes No No Total 3. Presentation Aides CED Familiar 41 612 26 38.8 67 Prepared 34 53.1 30 46.9 64 Used 15 23.4 49 76.6 64 ANR Familiar 21 26.9 57 73.1 78 Prepared 24 32.9 49 67.1 73 Used 12 16.0 63 84.0 75 EC/ED Familiar 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 Prepared 8 42.1 11 57.9 19 Used 3 15.8 16 84.2 19 4-H Familiar 14 24.1 44 75.9 58 Prepared 16 29.1 39 70.9 55 Used 7 12.7 48 87.3 55 EE Familiar 14 34.1 27 65.9 41 Prepared 12 31.6 26 68.4 38 Used 7 17.1 34 82.9 41 CYF Familiar 8 42.1 1 I 57.9 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 10 25.6 29 74.4 39 Prepared 9 26.5 25 73.5 34 Used 4 11.1 32 88.9 36 ALL Familiar 112 34.9 209 65.1 321 Prepared 110 36.5 191 63.5 301 Used 51 16.6 257 83 .4 308 251 Table 104. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Graphics Standards Guidelines. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension comfy marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4+1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Familyigent, DEA = District Extension Agg, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p = .006 Sig], Prepared [p = .001 Sig], and Used [p = .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 4. Graphics Standards Guidelines CED Familiar 51 76.1 16 23.9 67 Prepared 52 80.0 13 20.0 65 Used 45 69.2 20 30.8 65 ANR Familiar 36 45.6 43 54.4 79 Prepared 33 45.2 40 54.8 73 Used 26 34.2 50 65.8 76 EC/ED Familiar l 1 57.9 8 42.1 19 Prepared 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 Used 8 42.1 11 57.9 19 4-H Familiar 32 55.2 26 44.8 58 Pmared 33 58.9 23 41.1 56 Used 28 50.9 27 49.1 55 EE Familiar 21 5 1 .2 20 48.8 41 Prepared 17 44.7 21 55.3 38 Used 15 36.6 26 63.4 41 CYF Familiar 13 68.4 6 31.6 19 Prepared 14 73.7 5 26.3 19 Used 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 DEA Familiar 1 8 45.0 22 55.0 40 Preged 19 51.4 18 48.6 37 Used 14 36.8 24 63.2 38 ALL Familiar 182 56.3 141 43.7 323 Prepared 180 58.6 127 41.4 307 Used 148 47.3 165 52.7 313 252 Table 105. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Marketing Tagline with Music. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .099 Sig], and Used [p = .162 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N "/o N Yes Yes No No Total 5. MSUE Marketing Tagline with CED Familiar 47 70.1 20 29.9 67 Mus” Prepared 29 45.3 35 54.7 64 Used 6 9.4 58 90.6 64 ANR Familiar 34 43.0 45 57.0 79 Prepared 23 31.9 49 68.1 72 Used 9 12.0 66 88.0 75 EC/ED Familiar 8 42.1 1 1 57 .9 19 Prepared 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 Used 0 0 19 100.0 19 4-H . Familiar 23 39.7 35 60.3 58 Prepared 16 29.1 39 70.9 55 Used 7 12.7 48 87.3 55 EE Familiar 14 34.1 27 65.9 41 Prepared 7 18.4 31 81.6 38 Used 1 2.4 40 97.6 41 CYF Familiar 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 Prepared 5 27.8 13 72.2 18 Used 3 16.7 15 83.3 18 DEA Familiar 1 1 27.5 29 72.5 40 Prepared 9 25.0 27 75.0 36 Used 1 2.6 37 97.4 38 ALL Familiar 144 44.6 179 55.4 323 Preged 93 30.8 209 69.2 302 Used 27 8.7 283 91.3 310 253 Table 106. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agentposition of the item: Fab Five Marketing Items for County Offices. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-11 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p < .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 6. Fab Five Marketing Items for CED Familiar 50 74.6 17 25.4 67 County Offices Prepared 44 67.7 21 32.3 65 Used 28 43.1 37 56.9 65 ANR Familiar 25 3 1.6 54 68.4 79 Prepared 19 26.0 54 74.0 73 Used 11 14.9 63 85.1 74 EC/ED Familiar 6 3 1.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 Used 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 4-H Familiar 13 22.4 45 77.6 58 Prepared 13 23.6 42 76.4 55 Used 6 10.9 49 89.1 55 EE Familiar 15 36.6 26 63.4 41 Preged 12 30.8 27 69.2 39 Used 8 19.5 33 80.5 41 CYF Familiar 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 Prepared 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 Used 3 17.6 14 82.4 17 DEA Familiar 10 25.0 30 75.0 40 Prepared 9 25.0 27 75.0 36 Used 2 5.7 33 94.3 35 ALL Familiar 125 38.7 198 61.3 323 Prepared 1 10 36.2 194 63.8 304 Used 62 20.3 244 79.7 306 254 Table 107. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Phone Book Examples. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-1-1 = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .038 Sig], and Used [p = .031 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N “/6 N °/o N Yes Yes No No Total 7. Phone Book Examples CED Familiar 36 53.7 31 46.3 67 Prepared 28 45.2 34 54.8 62 Used 13 21.0 49 79.0 62 ANR Familiar 12 15.2 67 84.8 79 Prepared 14 19.4 58 80.6 72 Used 4 5.3 71 94.7 75 EC/ED Familiar 3 15.8 16 84.2 19 Prepared 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 Used 1 5.3 18 94.7 19 4-H Familiar 14 24.1 44 75.9 58 Prepared 15 27.3 40 72.7 55 Used 4 7.3 51 92.7 55 EE Familiar 12 29.3 29 70.7 41 Prepared 9 23.7 29 76.3 38 Used 2 4.9 39 95.1 41 CYF Familiar 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Prepared 4 22.2 14 77.8 18 Used 2 11.1 16 88.9 18 DEA Familiar 6 15.0 34 85.0 40 Prepared 8 22.2 28 77.8 36 Used 2 5.6 34 94.4 36 ALL Familiar 88 27.2 235 72.8 323 Prepared 82 27.4 217 72.6 299 Used 28 92 278 90.8 306 255 Table 108. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: Extension Council Presentation. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p < .001 Sig], and Used [p < .001 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statrstics' N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 8. Extension Council Presentation CED Familiar 49 74.2 17 25.8 66 Prepared 43 672 21 32.8 64 Used 28 43.1 37 56.9 65 ANR Familiar 20 25.3 59 74.7 79 Prepared 17 23.3 56 76.7 73 Used 9 12.0 66 88.0 75 EC/ED Familiar 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Prepared 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 Used 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 4-H Familiar 17 29.3 41 70.7 58 Prgpared 17 30.9 38 69.1 55 Used 9 16.4 46 83.6 55 EE Familiar 1 1 26.8 30 73.2 41 Prepared 6 15.8 32 84.2 38 Used 7 17.1 34 82.9 41 CYF Familiar 9 47.4 10 52.6 19 Prepared 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 Used 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 DEA Familiar 7 17.9 32 82.1 39 Prepared 9 25.0 27 75.0 36 Used 0 0 36 100.0 36 ALL Familiar 1 18 36.8 203 63 .2 321 Prepared 107 35.3 196 64.7 303 Used 63 20.4 246 79.6 309 256 Table 109. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Marketing Insert Card. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension county marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Preparedjp = .020 Sig], and Used [p = .109 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N "/6 N Yes Yes No No Total 9. MSUE Marketing Insert Card CED Familiar 43 65.2 23 34.8 66 Prepared 34 52.3 3 1 47.7 65 Used 12 18.5 53 81.5 65 ANR F arniliar 27 34.2 52 65.8 79 Prepared 22 30.1 51 69.9 73 Used 9 12.0 66 88.0 75 EC/ED Familiar 4 22.2 14 77.8 1 8 Prepared 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Used 0 0 18 100.0 18 4-H Familiar 15 25.9 43 74.1 58 Prepared 17 30.9 38 69.1 55 Used 4 7.3 51 92.7 55 EE Familiar 1 1 26.8 30 73 .2 41 Prepared 9 23.7 29 76.3 38 Used 4 9.8 37 90.2 41 CYF Familiar 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 Prepared 5 27.8 13 72.2 18 Used 1 5.6 17 94.4 18 DEA Familiar 7 17.9 32 82.1 39 Prepared 8 22.9 27 77.1 35 Used 1 2.8 35 97.2 36 ALL Familiar l 12 35.0 208 65.0 320 Prepared 100 33.0 203 67.0 303 Used 3 1 10.1 277 89.9 308 257 Table 110. Familiarity, preparedness, and use by MSU Extension Agent position of the item: MSUE Pocket Folder. Item: Corresponds to respective item included in the MSU Extension cormty marketing packet section of survey questionnaire. Abbreviations/Positions: CED = County Extension Director, ANR = Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, EC/ED = Extension Community and/or Economic Development Agent, 4-H = Extension 4-H Youth Agent, EE = Extension Educator, CYF = Extension Children, Youth and Family Agent, DEA = District Extension Agent, and ALL = All Positions Categories: Are you familiar with the item? Are you prepared to use the item? Have you used the item? Statistics: N = Number, % = Percent Pearson Chi-Square Level of Significance Between Positions: Familiar [p < .001 Sig], Prepared [p = .002 Sig], and Used [p = .006 Sig] Item Positions Categories Statistics N % N % N Yes Yes No No Total 10. MSUE Pocket Folder CED Familiar 50 76.9 15 23.1 65 Prepared 44 68.8 20 31.3 64 Used 30 46.9 34 53.1 64 ANR Familiar 34 43.0 45 57.0 79 Prepared 25 33.8 49 66.2 74 Used 13 17.1 63 82.9 76 EC/ED Familiar 10 55.6 8 44.4 I 8 Prepared 10 55.6 8 444 18 Used 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 4-H Familiar 22 37.9 36 62.1 58 Prepared 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 Used 14 25.5 41 74.5 55 EE Familiar 25 61.0 16 39.0 41 Prepared 18 47.4 20 52.6 38 Used 14 34.1 27 65.9 41 CYF Familiar I 1 57.9 8 42.1 19 Prepared 10 55.6 8 44.4 18 Used 7 38.9 11 61.1 18 DEA Familiar 14 35.9 25 64.1 39 Prepared 16 43.2 21 56.8 37 Used 8 21.6 29 78.4 37 ALL Familiar 166 52.0 153 48.0 319 Prepared 144 47.2 161 52.8 305 Used 93 30.0 217 70.0 3 10 258 APPENDIX M RESPONSES TO MAJOR AREA OF STUDY COMPLETED FOR OTHER Law Business Public Administration Business Management Public Administration English Ag and Extension Education Business Administration/Management Park Recreation Leisure Management Art Public Administration Administration Administration (management & supervision), specialization in health services (hospital administration) Journalism major & secondary teacher certification with major in journalism & minor in social science. Bacteriology and genetics. Administration Public Administration Business - Production Management Geography/Journalism History, I also hold a secondary ed. teaching certificate. Administration Business & Communications Business Leadership Business Law Interdisciplinary technology Business Administration Environmental Studies & Communications Administration 259 APPENDIX N ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS I am constantly linking MSUE to 4-H. All of my 4-H agendas, advertisements, flyers, etc. have the MSUE logo. I also try very hard to show 4-H’s relationship to MSUE and to MSU. 4-H web site is good. MSUE is not as easy. (Refening customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information). Extension personnel are always willing but a section on time and having a full plate might have shed light on why firings do not always get done. The reason I have not used most of the new marketing materials is because I cannot get a price list to order them! Have called MSU several times to no avail. In counties, we have to work with budgets. I need to know if a folder (for example) is $1.00 or $5.00 per item before I can use them. I have worked for Extension for months. Many of the questions addressing how often I had to circle as a “1” or “Never” simply because I have not had time to do these programs. But, the programs are ones I will use as a “7” or “Very Often” in the future. Sea Grant is part of Extension, so why was it not under item 4 under “demographic items?” A $1.20 per folder is pricey for its use (MSUE Pocket Folder). I work with agencies to avoid recreating the wheel! Haven’t been there (MSU Extension Marketing Web Site). Private industry has scrapped self-directed work teams. Ohio State fact sheet series (referring customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information). Individuals - (Involving advisory groups as advocates of MSU Extension). Define (Promoting all MSU Extension programs as a unified package). Somewhat confirsing format. Have not used (MSU Extension Marketing Web Site). The dollar was not necessary! 260 Thanks for the incentive! Good luck! No radio station (Delivering radio programs promoting MSU Extension programs). Have in prior years (Appearing on television promoting MSU Extension programs). County staff have done a good job marketing county programs that’s why county paid positions have increased, what happened on campus, at the state level and at the federal level? Have been on staff for months. Marketing materials were not shared with Ext. specialists at least not shared very well. I assume county offices were better connected than specialists. CD’s and subject matter information are too often out-of-date, are superficial and provide an inadequate answer or response to the client, or they don’t correspond to current software (Using compact discs to retrieve information to fulfill customer requests). My choices are influenced by three factors: 1) cost of materials, 2) CED’s will probably use more often. I am not a CED, and 3) I am working for a non-profit and many people associate my work with the non-profit instead of MSUE. I am a Community & Economic Development Agent. 1 am employed by MSUE, however I work for Economic (organization). This arrangement often makes it difficult to market MSUE. I mention my role with MSUE when I can (my title as MSU Ext. Agent is often more valuable in making contacts, etc.). I use material when appropriate, etc., however it does limit my marketing role. I tend to protect the portion of time I have left working with constituents within my area of expertise. There does not need to be additional committees, reportings, team coaches... All the best! What profit? (Structuring programs to create a surplus (revenues exceed expenditures). I was not completely comfortable with the scale that was used for the rated items (1 = never, 7 = very often). I hope it doesn’t cause you trouble in your analysis. No system installed (Using the satellite downlink to conduct programs). The “scale” doesn’t seem appropriate for measuring my degree of “willingness” or “preparedness.” The degree to which I am “willing” or “prepared” isn’t measured by the frequency of my feelings of being open or ready to perform a skill. It’s clear in the directions, but doesn’t carry through to the scales themselves, which creates a flawed instrument, in my opinion. 261 Will you follow up with a survey of the impact of MSUE marketing? There were no questions on the time one can put into marketing or if marketing impacts the citizens of Michigan. Software inaccessible on my computer (Preparing presentations for groups using presentation software). We are still missing a very big marketing piece in the counties that we could use everyday. That is a nicely done 3 fold blank program brochure with tear off registration form that has room for program title on front, room for counties to insert their address, and a blank interior. I’ll bet we had 30 different hodge-podge brochures go out of our office already this year and no 2 looked alike, and only about 5 looked at all professional. Every piece of mail that leaves every office should have that identity, so it is immediately recognized by clientele as “Extension.” This took much longer than 15-20 minutes to complete! No equipment (Giving presentations to groups using presentation software. Code # doesn’t “track” with your statements in your letter that say (imply) it’s on the envelope only. Actually not relevant to grant training as we build it into their grant (Using nominal fees to obtain customer commitment to participate in programs). This question can’t be answered if you don’t know much about it. (MSU Extension County Marketing Survey Instructions). If someone pays other than grant. (Fab Five Marketing Items for County Offices). I’ve been an Extension Agent for a little over one year. The Extension mission is everywhere with the 3 circles of CYF, Ag, and CED, but I was not aware of separate mission statements for the three separate programs. Use of e-mail to customers has been limited by customers’ lack of access, willingness, and knowledge of computers. It is improving some. Thanks for the monetary surprise. As often as requested (responding to County Commission requests). Depends highly on the program (structuring programs to create a surplus (revenues exceed expenditures). 262 Have not seen the web site (Items on the MSU Extension Marketing Web Site). This sure must have been expensive — Director’s time, mails, e-mails, etc. To often we get caught up in the every day routines and do not take the time to focus on promotion of our organization. leading by example is the key!! Good luck!! This is not a 15-minute survey! Try 30-45. This survey made me realize that I have a lot more to learn about MSUE! We are just getting ready to use the marketing material with our Ext. Council. Most of the “no 3 1n the use section will be “yes” in 30 days. We have not moved beyond that audience yet but we will. Thanks Hal — The Buck S Stops Here ® I’ve tried to order cups & napkins for programs and they do not seem available. Thanks for the Dollar - © I appreciate the time spent looking at these issues. District Agent (Items included in the MSU Extension County Marketing Packet). I refer them to the County Extension web page which is much better suited for the public. (Referring customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information.) Indirectly (Analyzing programs offered by other organizations similar to those offered in your program area. Prepared in terms of having knowledge to do it? — No. (Designing web pages promoting MSU Extension programs/information.) (Items on the MSU Extension Marketing Web Site — Are you prepared to use?) Maybe once I learn about it! (Promotion section) — Don’t understand, just promotion or tech info? (Pricing section) 95% of programming I’m involved in is grant funded and there is no need to get additional funding fiom participants. (Writing newsletters promoting MSU Extension programs) — But have used newsletters published by counties to get articles out. (Responding to County Commission requests) — N/A, District position not directly answerable to county commission. 263 (Promotion section) — Most of these questions are marginally applicable to what I do. (Environment section) — These questions make little sense to me. (Items included in the MSU Extension County Marketing Packet) Not Applicable, District Extension Agent I didn’t know if you really wanted me to fill this out, I have only been on the job for about _ months. That skews my — how many times used response. But, I filled it out anyway. Web site is very poor. Update! (Referring customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information). I have the skills to perform marketing tasks, but not the time. If MSUE is serious about promoting Extension, they need to hire staff whose sole responsibility is public relations. These people should be available at least at the regional level for field staff to utilize for program promotion. Music is hokey. (MSUE Marketing Tagline with Music) Web page has kicked me out the last few times I’ve tried to enter. (MSU Extension Marketing Web Site) You did not mention it, but another piece that I have found useful in promoting and explaining MSUE is the Extension Publication #APR 138: Public Policy: Education Principles & Guidelines for MSUE, July 2000. I was pleased to see the information in print when I saw the bulletin. My position is not a traditional one with MSUE. I am hired by MSU as a agent, but am the coordinator for our collaborative body. Therefore, I am not planning & preparing & implementing MSUE programs such as nutrition or 4-H, etc. They are free. (Determining prices to charge for programs) (Bringing Knowledge to Life Brochure) Adv. Council. Personal secretaries do it (Using word processing software in preparing written reports). (Designing programs so they are unique when compared to those offered by other agencies/organizations). Often partner, we contribute our rmique part. (Designing web pages promoting MSU Extension programs/information). Not real capacity to maintain. (Involving advisory groups in implementing programs) if appropriate. 264 (Involving advisory groups in securing resources) as appropriate. (Responding to changes in the market for programs), are you willing?) it depends. (Responding to County Commission requests) if appropriate with mission. I think the fiequency of doing something depends upon environment, capacity, and the job position. Some of these were hard to answer. Sorry it took so long to respond. (Structuring programs to create a surplus (revenues exceed expenditures». I believe this is wrong because you cannot be sure that the same people who contribute will benefit fi'om the firnds. (Referring customers to the MSU Extension web site to obtain information.) Only county, not MSUE. Would like training. (Items included in the MSU Extension County Marketing Packet) CED has: MSU Ext. Co. Marketing Survey Instructions, MSU Extension County Marketing Survey, Action Planning Checklist, Marketing Action Plan, Marketing Ext. through Educational Programs, and Your Role in Marketing MSU Extension: A Guide for Extension Council Members. Sorry if it’s too late! (Appearing on television promoting MSU Extension programs) Previous years have. (Using the satellite down-link to conduct programs.) No satellite. (Using the satellite down-link to conduct programs.) New dish! (Designing web pages promoting MSU Extension progams/information) with design. I do not believe the MSUE web site is designed well for public use. It is more of a staff/intemal resource as it stands now. 265 if ‘ '1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction To Research In Education (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Boehlje, M. D. & King, D. A. (1998). Extension on the Brink - Meeting the Private Sector Challenge in the Information Marketplace. Journal of Applied Communications, 82(3), 21-36. Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R (1995). Management in Extension (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. DeYoung, B. (1988, Fall). What’s Relationship Marketing? Journal of Extension, 26(3), 1-5. Retrieved October 20, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1988fall/a9.htrnl Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Directory. (2001). Retrieved January 23, 2001, from Michigan State University Extension Web site: http://www.msue.msu.edu/home/directory.htm Extension People. (2001, March/April). The Communicator, ANR Communications, Michigan State University, XXXVII Number 2, 5. F oerster, K., Kovacic, M., & Moore, E. (2000). Your Role in Marketing MSU Extension: A Guide for Extension Council Members. [Brochure]. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension. Heinze, K., Arent, G., Bethel, M., Birchmeier, L., Fridgen, J ., Harvey, M., et a1. (1999). Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan Drafi October 1999. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University at East Lansing. Jenkins, D. (1993, Fall). Survival Depends on Reaching Influential Audiences. Journal of Extension, 31(3), 1-3. Retrieved October 26, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1 993 fall/tp3 .htrnl Kelsey, L. D., & Hearne, C. C. (1963). Cooperative Extension Work (3rd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, A Division of Cornell University Press. King, D. (1993, Fall). Facing the Image Deficit. Journal of Extension, 31(3), 1-4. Retrieved October 26, 2000, fi'om http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/tp1.htrnl King, D. A. & Boehlje, M. D. (2000, October). Extension: On the Brink of Extinction or Distinction? Journal of Extension, 38(5), 1-5. Retrieved October 26, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/20000ctober/comm1 .htrnl 266 Kotler, P. (1982). Marketing For Nonprofit Organizations (2“‘1 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kotler, P. & Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Strategic Marketing For Nonprofit Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Kovacic, M., Stuever, B., & Heinze, K. (Eds). (2000). Michigan State University Extension Marketing Action Plan. Retrieved April 20, 2002, from Michigan State University Extension Web site: http://www.msue.msu.edu/iac/msuemarketing Marketing. (2000). Retrieved October 6, 2000, from Michigan State University Extension Web site: http://www.msue.msu.edu/iac/msuemarketing Michigan State University Extension. (n.d.a). A Career with Michigan State University Extension [Brochure]. East Lansing, MI: Author. Michigan State University Extension. (n.d.b). Bringing Knowledge to Life! [Brochure]. East Lansing, MI: Author. Michigan State University Extension. (n.d.c). Pocket Folder [Brochure]. East Lansing, MI: Author. Michigan State University Extension County Marketing Packet. (2000). Miller, L. E. & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling Nonresponse Issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5), 45-50. Probyn, L. K. (2000). Diflusing Among The People: What Do Michigan Residents Know About The Resources Available Through Michigan State University Extension? Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Suvedi, M. & Probyn, L. (2000). Drafi Citizen Awareness of Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station October 10, 2000. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University at East Lansing. Topor, B. (1983). Marketing Cooperative Extension: A Practical Guide for County Board Members, Coordinators, Program Leaders, Agents, and Volunteers (Revised May 1983). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Media Services, Cornell Cooperative Extension. Verma, S. & Burns, A. C. (1995, December). Marketing Extension in Louisiana: Image and Opportunity. Journal of Extension, 33(6), 1-7. Retrieved October 20, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1995december/rb1 .htrnl 267 Warner, P. D. (1993a, Fall). It’s Time to Tell the Extension Story. Journal of Extension, 31(3), 1-3. Retrieved October 20, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1 993fall/tp2.html Warner, P. D. (1993b, Summer). Organizing for Change. Journal of Extension, 31(3), 1-4. Retrieved October 20, 2000, fiom http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/f3.html Warner, P. D. & Christenson, J. A. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Warner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., & Salant, P. (1996). Public Perception of Extension. Journal of Extension, 34(4), 1-7. Retrieved October 20, 2000, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.html Wilson, M. (1976). The Efiective Management of Volunteer Programs. Boulder, CO: Published by Volunteer Management Associates. Printed by Johnson Publishing Company. 268