B-IIZZI An Interim Evaluation su u RARY j I u'~ \- The Effectiveness of Nonprofessionals In Cooperative Extension Education For Low-Income Farmers LIBRARY SEP a I972 NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] An Interim Evaluation Effectiveness of Nonprotessionuls in Cooperative Extension Education For Low-Income Farmers ; OWARD W. LADEWIG VANCE W. EDMONDSON J Assistant Sociologist Associate Professor {Agricultural Extension Service Department of Agricultural Economics 8. Rural Sociology Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas Al-M University [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] it tents 1. INTRODUCTION, s j rces of Funds, 5 ogram Background, 5 6' II. DEVELOPMENT OF TEXAS _‘ SIFIED FARM PLANNING PROGRAM exas IFPP Objectives, 7 lection of Program Aides, 7 lection of Counties, 7 program Aide Characteristics, 8 lection of Cooperators, 9 iarticipant Characteristics, 9 te Coordinator, 10 , mmencement of the Texas IFPP, 1O l ary, 1O 111. RESEARCH METHODS, 11 llection of Data, 11 ivaluation Objectives, 11 ogram Aide Activities, 11 ctivities of Texas IFPP, 12 -; - 1v. ANALYSIS Program Aide Activities, 13 unty Extension Staff Activities, 17 ' v. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS, 21 Program Aide Activities, 21 ' -' ecommendations, 23 Acknowledgments THIS REPORT represents a preliminary evaluation of a pilot program conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service which utilized agricultural Program Aides in Cooperative Extension education for low- income farm families. This report does not attempt to evaluate any other program or agency related to the Extension pilot program. The evaluation team wishes to express appreciation to the Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture for providing funds to support the evaluation and to the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station for provid- ing the administrative and technical support necessary to conduct the research project. The evaluation team is indebted to the administrative and program staffs of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service for their honesty and willingness to cooperate in the evaluation despite the disruption and increased work- loads created by the evaluation. In addition, the authors are cognizant that without the fullicooperation of farm operators participating in the pilot program, Program Aides and county Extension personnel, collection of the data for the evaluation would have been impossible. Recognition also is extended to the numerous Extension specialists who helped provide background information about the day-to-day functioning of the Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] I an interim evaluation of a pilot pro- utilized local farmers as Program p, Cooperative Extension education for ll- operators. The program is currently _nd year of operation and will continue f} t one more year. Specific objectives of f" were (1) to determine the effective- Program Aides in Extension education ping further the capacity of small-farm to take advantage of income oppor- “vailable to them, and (2) to identify i; performed by county Extension staffs ftt of Program Aides which could influ- _i socioeconomic development of small- _ rators in the pilot program. term “nonprofessional” which has been V“ many educational programs to describe pemployed as Program Aides is some- ileading because the term applies more levels of educational attainment than knowledge displayed by the individual That is, t-he Program Aide may not formal education required to be em- a professional in educational work, but _ ses the field experience and knowledge ;tent that he can serve as a valuable L}. information in an educational pro- Since the terms “nonprofessional” and Aide” do not appear interchangeable, will refer to those programs employed ogram assistant category as "Program SOURCE OF FUNDS p ugh Program Aides have proved to be iful in the fields of public health and f ', evidence of successful use of Program f5. agricultural Extension education is lack- ause there has been no relevant research iause of a growing interest in the use of i ral Program Aides, Extension Service, provided a research grant of Special funds to the Texas Agricultural Exten- ice to help support an evaluation of the iness of Program Aides in Cooperative "w education for low-income farmers. The §Agricultural Extension Service requested artment of Agricultural Economics and iiSociology at wTexas A&M University to i_ the evaluation.‘ j. PROGRAM BACKGROUND iculture in the United States has devel- as rapidly as any comparable activity in >~ are U” CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION history and perhaps is more highly mechanized than in any nation today. This rapid develop- ment has been achieved largely through the dif- fusion process whereby new farm technology de- veloped by agricultural research scientists is com- municated to farm operators. Cooperative Extension has fulfilled an impor- tant role in helping farm operators adopt new technology and to increase production and effi- ciency. However, a review of research findings indicates that persons with low incomes, small farms and low educational attainment utilize much less the services offered by government agricultural agencies such as Cooperative Exten- sion than do persons with higher incomes, larger farms and higher educational attainment. One result of small-farm operators’ lack of utiliza- tion of agency services is that many of these farm families are not keeping abreast of new technology, and thus are earning less from their farming operations. A comparison of farm operators in Texas for 1964 and 1969, presented in Table 1, page 7, indicates that while the average value from the sale of farm products in 1969 was $15,418, an in- crease of 42 percent per farm from 1964, the number of farms grossing less than $10,000 in- creased by 2.3 percent. A People and a Spirit (1968) said that in serving the poor, Extension faces the problem of providing sufficient incentive for participa- tion by individuals and groups who in the past were not highly motivated toward, or who were denied, the educational process———formal or in- formal. This report stated that lack of motiva- tion often resulted from a lack of knowledge about the opportunities to participate in Exten- sion programs. Further, Extension has a chal- lenge and an opportunity in providing more adequate information to nonparticipants about its programs and their benefits~a goal requiring 5 more intensive personal contact by Extension agents. Because of the uniqueness of the Extension organization and the service it renders, a tre- mendous demand already has been placed on Extension agents by persons who recognize a need for t-hese services. To provide additional services to an expanded audience on an individ- ual basis not only will require additional man- power but also may call for a new type of Ex- tension agent. To resolve this dilemma and to =6 obligation of providing educational assis small-farm operators, the Texas Agricul tension Service organized a pilot pro " 1969 entitled the Intenxified Farm P Program. This program, referred to as a IFPP,” utilized local farmjers as Program; in Cooperative Extension education for farm operators on an intensive basis develop the capacity of small-farm fa '4 take advantage of socioeconomic oppo i available to them. SUMMER of 1968, an Extension study of 12 members representing a cross- agricultural subject-matter specialists hinted by the Director of the Texas al Extension Service to design an Ex- ffprogram that would accelerate edu- 1 assistance to small-farm operators in itommittee recommended that local farm- ployed as Program Aides in working i operators in" the lower income level. l; ittee’s view was that farmers who live community and are themselves in the ome level should have more effective ation with small-farm operators than rofessional agricultural agents, and thus, more successful in bringing about rec- f! ed changes. TEXAS IFPP OBJECTIVES itspecific objectives of the Texas IFPP §To demonstrate the effectiveness of the f» Aide in working with small-farm oper- "p. an intensive basis to effect change in ‘ion agriculture and management practices. To provide county staffs an opportunity l test program procedures, teaching meth- T- techniques which could be drawn upon gthen an educational program designed i, operators of small-farm units. SELECTION OF COUNTIES “ study committee recommended that only v_ in which county Extension agents showed ite interest in this type of program be Y- to participate because it would require fme and effort on the part of the agents ither types of educational activities. The ‘lfgcornmittee suggested that the following ns would enhance the probability of a eiful program: j, A complete county staff. i A county staff that approves of Exten- I; concern for the plight of operators of farms. I A county staff that has a favorable atti- ‘toward Extension’s objectives of helping l» of small farms. A county staff that is able to define and j on the target audience. TU??? CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT OF TEXAS INTENSIFIED FARM PLANNING PROGRAM 5. That members of the county staff agree to the extent resources are to be committed to this effort. 6. That members of the county staff agree on responsibilities for planning, initiating, exe- cuting and evaluating work. Based on the criteria identified by the study committee, ten counties were selected to partici- pate in this pilot program. They were as fol- lows: Lamar, Red River, Cherokee, Freestone, Falls, Milam, Lee, Washington, Guadalupe, and . Starr; figure 1. The 1969 Census of Agriculture for Texas was used to provide socioeconomic data for the ten selected counties. Comparison of these coun- ties and the state, presented in Table 2, showed that the average-size farm for the ten county area was smaller than the state average. The mean income from the sale of farm products for the state as a whole was more than two times higher than the mean farm income for participating counties. Finally, the percentage of farmers reporting off-farm work and the aver- age age of farmers in participating counties were slightly higher t-han the state average. SELECTION OF PROGRAM AIDES The study committee recommended that up- on notification of being selected as a pilot coun- ty in the Texas IFPP, each county staff should recommend a minimum of three applicants for agricultural Program Aide positions to be con- sidered by the district agricultural agent} ‘The Texas Agricultural Extension Service i: divided into 13 diytrirt; and the agricultural supervisor of ear/a dirtrict i: entitled dlxtrzct agricultural agent. 7 nvmcvo / quorum GLAY 5 ' u '4' "w" . 5 - on: Jansen _ nuuuu l‘! a l | ' ILVI “I”. " ' s m. ""'°°" vows use: ma: mm catuw |mnn Jonas ' 5 an uonou I J can -il_. lllw- _' imam - vooo 00m. s "W"? _ ..._ "-9 aim: umun wuuu " n” "'"° nur- . vnu - J1 “@145; "fr Ill ZMIDY ‘ In“ “gum A. w“ JONNSOM ' (Lu! .1“ Gm! ~- umu . /»' ucnousou w" _I enacts i K nAVAIIO .r' [ \ nu. . Hat-m.‘ “w” connect‘; . “sou; _/\_ b Anoensou may“ few: -uov)’\/- W‘. ton coon r s ' . -\ IcLCNnAN ' 57°"; s mu. - WWW“ ' uon omsroa n W" coueno . _ m‘ m 4 \ r t '- vf _ anus - new" l’. Wm...‘ , . Utu. so“ - so" - g i" “nu” mun -\_ n - _ rout \11u:l ________q us“ _ m: . .IALKII _ a g vncunnson u k m _ ~ ' - Q - ‘x-Auuno ~ l mMBLl , \/~ IRLESON 5 \ - “mo”, I cues»: 3'4"“. "ms “H smm . Movncoucm- submi- ' i_... - T 5 ' ugznn _ nun . u" “sump ' Ausrm Q. ‘ xn-tuo" mums _ -|r:nou_|.)' _ . _ u": _ , l rulms ‘fin.’ , '“‘ _ emocnf ' wumi><> h '\ - m’ ___ , - COLORADO _ m" ‘ ~‘ W. I _/ ‘ IND ‘_- / aznn conlulS umu / ' " / man uncut lncnwu . -m”"°~ - paz-‘zon / ~ _ _/ vutson " / ‘\ . u . .__-. ,-> - . . \ » . - _ JDCISONY "\_ nut; mo ATASGOSAVIARNIS . vflwchnn ‘ . vuctomn A GOLIAD . x g ‘ ‘MQAI mun u are: '" LM\ 9“ 1.6mm nucrcu o“ _ - . ___. l y’ SAD __; UNAL if 0 OOKS - REMEDY l‘ WILL LCY a NIDALGO L CAMERON J"! UELLS Fig. 1. Cozuztier participating in the Texas intensified Farm Planning Pragram. Criteria recommended for selection of Pro- gram Aides include: 1. Sincere desire to improve his own situa- tion. 2. Appropriate background, including liter- acy and practical farming experiences with enter- prises common to area. 3. Sincerce desire to work with other farm- ers to aid them in improving their economic position. 4. Ability and willingness to accept and understand necessary training to be able to in- spire, motivate and teach others. 8 5. Evidence of leadership abilities. 6. Resident of the county. PROGRAM AIDE CHARACTERISTICS; Eleven agricultural Program Aides we lected in March 1969, to serve in ten c0 on a pilot basis in the Texas IFPP. Nine g ties employed full-time aides (40-hour _ week) and one county employed two Aides on half-time basis (20-hour work ' Characteristics of the aides at the t'l selection are given in Table 3, page 7. The age of the group was 41.5 and the range wast/l 24 to 59. All had some agricultural expe and one was a college graduate. 5 w '1. A comparison of Texas farms by economic classification for 1969 and 1964. ic ckissificotion "A farmers Av. value per farm % change . of product sold) 1969 1964 1969 1964 in av. value , 0,000 or more) 6.3 5.7 t 0,000 to $39,999) 7.5 7.2 10,000 t0 $19,999) 10.2 9.8 w ,000 to $9,999) 13.5 11.4 ,500 to $4,999) 19.0 12.8 _ 0 t0 $2,499) 7.6 11.9 = rt-time)‘ 25.6 15.1 " rt-retirement)" 10.2 26.1 TOTALS 213,550 205,110 $15,418 $10,848 +42 _' e. Fold or over (p.A13). -\ SELECTION OF COOPERATORS i‘, , the selection of farm operators, the study “tree suggested t-hat farms selected be rep- ltive of small farms of the area and that < get audience be composed primarily of who were not active participants of on- l“; Extension education programs. The Exten- 5“ dy committee also recommended that the IFPP be blended into the ongoing Exten- irogram rather than creating an isolated l . The specific criteria for selection of “operators were: g Cooperators would be operators of small f who generally are not active participants i ension’s ongoing educational programs. Cooperators should be farmers who re- major portion of their income from the operation. First priority given to those operators gross less than $5,000 per year from their p, g operation. Selected socioeconomic characteristics of all farm in ten counties participating in Texas IFPP and in 10 counties in inomic characteristics Texas IFPP Texas s 15,048 213,550 Jize per farm (acres) 284.3 667.6 i income from sale l, farm products ($) ' 6,988 15,418 1 farmers reporting otf-farm work 50.9 47.0 foge of farmers 54.0 52.7 U.S. Department of Commerce 1969 Agricultural Census, ‘nd Counties. Washington; U.S. Government Printing Of- _.County data, Texas, pp. 1-1920. U.S. Department of Commerce 1964 and 1969 Agricultural Census, State and Counties. ,Washington= U.S. Government Print- P _ farmers were asked to nominate farm operators Table 16. Farm incomes of 224 participants in Texas IFPP for 1968. Gross farm income No. % farm in I968 farmers operators 0-299 15 6.7 300-999 _ 83 37.0 1000-1999 68 30.4 2000-2999 21 9.4 3000-4999 21 9.4 5000-7999 7 3.1 8000-9999 6 2.7 10,000+ 3 1.3 r-I Q who qualified for this program. Each Extension county staff then compiled a list of farm oper- ators to be called by the Program Aide and/or the professional agent. The program was ex- plained to the farmers and their cooperation was solicited. The response was good with less than five percent declining to cooperate. In addition, about half who declined to cooperate later re- quested that they be included in the program. As stated previously in this report, priority in the selection of t-he target audience was given to farm operators who grossed less than 5,000 per year from the farming operation. The eco- nomic data contained in Table 16 revealed that nearly 95 percent of the target audience grossed less than $5,000 in 1968 (the bench-mark year). While the selection process was based upon the criteria recommended by the Extension study committee, it should be recognized that an edu- cational program in production agriculture some- times develops rather slowly. The returns realized ' from the educational investment are affected by external forces beyond thelcontrol of the educa- tional program, such as age, health and produc- tion potential of the target audience. Thus re- turns may not be as high as one would expect them to be.1 Needs of Target Audience County Extension staffs were charged with identifying strengths and limitations of the par- ticipating farm operators. These included their aspirations, expectations, farming ability, avail- able resources and production and marketing problems. Program procedure called for each county staff to review available information on participating farmers so that appropriate goals could be formulated. Other resource personnel were to be called upon to give advice and make recommendations. The value of the Program Aides became quite apparent during t-his activity because the in- formal visits with farm operators by Program Aides helped most county staffs identify prob- lems that farm operators would have hesitated to discuss with professional staffs. It is axio- matic that unless problems are accurately deter- mined, solutions may be long in coming. The following example may better illustrate this point. ‘For further dircursion, see Recommendation 1, p. 21. 18 The Program Aide in Falls County ~._ that efficient tomato production was def not only on utilization of recommended i; tion procedures but also upon" a dependab tomato market. Therefore, the aide's pri n‘, forts in the beginning of the Texas IFPi-g to induce vegetable buyerstb establish a - ble shed in Falls County. Potential buye “ reluctant to establish sheds in t-he area of a previous history of lack of quality, ab; and continuity of production". Howev buyer finally agreed to establish a t shed in Falls County. The Program turned his efforts to that of tomato pr“ and convinced cooperating farmers that p lowing prescribed recommendations the produce a quality tomato that could be " cally. Table 17 reflects tomato produ 1968 and 1970 for Falls County farmers A paring in the Texas IFPP. With the exception of insect contra participants followed recommendations practices in 1968. While none utilized‘: mended practices for insect control in ‘Q of the eight producers followed insectic ommendations in 1970. The average fa creased tomato production acreage fromg acres for t-he 2-year period and yields‘ percent. I‘ Total income from sale of all crops ticipants in Falls County increased by 64 from 1968 to 1970. As stated earlier County established a dependable market? by which producers could sell their pi This market outlet had a major impact on‘? production in Falls County in 1970. Table ‘I7. Tomato production practices, yields, o: i total crop income for Falls County participants in y for ‘I968 and ‘I970. 196s 1970 No. No. Tomato production practice N = 8 No. following recommendations Land preparation 6 Planting date 7 Fertilizer application 4 Weed control 5 Insect control 0 Av. acreage in tomato production per farm 4.2 Av. yield per acre in boxes ‘I27 Total gross income from sale of all crops N=l4 $23,424 Av. gross crop income per farm $ 1,673 ~ ulation of Goals is evaluation determined that meaningful, "- and short-range goals often were insuffi- y defined. While each of the county Exten- ‘staffs had goals in mind for the participants ften had farm plans recorded, evidence in- ; w that effective communication was lack- some counties for some participants. This articularly true for Program Aides who did ow participants personally before the pro- started and t-hus had limited personal in- into personal characteristics of participants. ability was also a factor. That is, infor- of a specific nature offered at a proper __' in the decision-making process by Program usually resulted in relatively quick appli- of recommendations. On the other hand, l information at the particular points in ision-making process usually resulted in a and-see approach by participants. J - county which provided specific plans of at crucial points in the decision-making " s was Freestone County. The overall goal reestone County was to increase farm in- of participants by improving pastures and , alf operations. Since capital was a limiting i‘ affecting pasture improvement, the Free- l, County Program Aide attempted to utilize, ‘lly as possible, the funds provided by the in the form of agricultural conservation ts. This amounted to about 8O percent fir cost incurred by participants for improve- of pastures. i‘ able 18 shows that significant changes oc- in each of the selected production prac- In 1968, for example, less than five per- y. ‘l8. Livestock inventory, acreage in improved pasture, ‘ practices and livestock income for 27 participants in County, 1968 ancl ‘I970. 1968 1970 % No. No. change , inventory ‘of cows 389 425 + 9 _.-crop percentage 76 86 + 12 iioalves sold 273 334 + 22 bulls 22 28 + 27 bf improved pasture 10 277 +2670 t le production practices lowing recommendations “W breeding bull ” 3 15 + 400 or vaccination practices 1 25 +2300 _ al parasite control 1 24 +2200 i‘ l parasite control 1 25 +2300 Elivestock income $29,407 $43,567 + 48 $ 1,089 $ 1,614 + 48 ‘ per participant Table ‘l9. Utilization of USDA agencies by 29 participants in Texas IFPP in Starr County, 1968 and ‘I970. No. participants who utilized selected agencies Agency 1968 1970 Soil Conservation Service O 4 Farmers Home Administration 0 26 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 0 22 cent of the participants utilized recommended veterinary practices for internal and external par- asite control. This increased to 88.8 percent in 1970. In addition, the number of cooperators who utilized recommended bulls for breeding purposes increased 400 percent. Finally, the aver- age cooperator in Freestone County increased his income from the sale of livestock by 48 percent. The Program Aide in Freestone County established a farm plan for each participant which guided him in providing specific informa- tion to participants at crucial points in the deci- sion-making process. In addition, the Program Aide demonstrated to participants how adoption of particular recommendations would enable par- ticipants to obtain production goals. Allocation of Resources The fourth responsibility of support person- nel was to determine external resources which could be used to help Program Aides and par- ticipants reach goals formulated at previous stages of the program. External resources in- cluded private lending agencies, FHA, ASCS, SCS and agricultural Extension specialists. Response of business leaders and state and local overnmental a encies to Texas IFPP was . g g . quite favorable. Most agreed to cooperate 1n any way possible and were called upon to help provide planning and action. In Starr County, for example, the county ASCS Committee voted to put aside a portion of its agricultural conservation payment funds for low-income farmers who had not previously taken advantage of the funds for pasture devel- opment. The Program Aide went to each par- ticipant and explained that the funds were avail- able from the government which would pay up to 80 percent of the cost of removing brush and planting recommended varieties of improved grasses. 19 Table 20. Livestock inventory, acreage in improved pasture, production practices and livestock income for 26 participants in Starr County, 1968 and 1970. 1968 1970 ‘X, No. No. change Livestock inventory No. cows on hand 375 455 + 21 Calf-crop percentage 80 92 + 15 No. calves sold 255 368 + 44 No. bulls on hand 22 21 —— 5 Acres of improved pastures 119 1,040 +774 Production practices No. following recommendations Good breeding bull 4 9 +125 Regular vaccination practices 3 4 + 33 External parasite control 2 3 + 50 Internal parasite control 2 2 Gross livestock income $26,380 $41,027 + 55 Av. per participant $ 1,014 $ 1,578 —l— 55 Table 19 shows that where none of the par- ticipants in Starr County utilized the services of- fered by the selected USDA agencies in 1968, significant numbers availed themselves of these services in 1970. Three-fourths of the partici- pants made use of conservation payments pro- vided through ASCS to improve pastures by 20 clearing brush and planting improved gra addition, nearly 90 percent received y, loans or home improvement loans from 1970. One result of inter-agency cooper noted in Table 20. First, conservation f enabled participants to increase the nu acres in improved pasture eightfold fr; to 1970. Second, increases in improved acreages and FHA operating loans enab_ ticipants to expand herd sizes by more ,7 percent. Third, a combination of bett for grazing and better bulls for breedin participants to increase the calf-crop pe by 15 percent. Finally, an expansion in i and an increase in calf-crop percentage increase livestock income by 55 percent The Program Aide and participants ating in Texas IFPP in Starr County are f Americans. Most participants understa English, thus interviews conducted by search team with participants were usf Spanish. i‘ " major purpose of the Texas Intensified Planning Program was to demonstrate the eness of local farmers employed as Pro- Aides in Cooperative Extension education i} ll-farm operators on an intensive basis. 3 proach was based on the assumption that who live in the community and are in I er income level should have more effec- i unication with small-farm operators rofessional Agricultural Extension agents, a s may be more effective in bringing about tended changes. jwas postulated that certain activities per- f» by Program Aides could hasten the socio- f“ development of those participating in as IFPP. Activities of Program Aides a arated from activities involving program , so that effectiveness of Program Aides be determined. PROGRAM AIDE ACTIVITIES -- in Perceptions t» of the primary purposes of personal Program Aides was to create awareness pi different types of assistance available _, ers participating in the Texas IFPP. An iwhich are available and which can con- f to socioeconomic development of the ‘pants would be expected to strengthen ions of participants of the services of- "by the Extension Service. dings of a self-anchoring scale used to "fne perceptions of participants of the Tex- icultural Extension Service indicated that a fourth of the participants interviewed the assistance provided by Extension Serv- the period of five years ago above eight {ten-point scale. In contrast, nearly twice 3 y (47 percent) rated Extension assistance l- two for the same period. After one year j» IFPP (the present period) half of i interviewed rated Extension assistance I eight out of a possible ten while only j a tenth rated Extension assistance below f In reference to future expectations, nearly ‘ ourths of those interviewed expected the I ce provided five years hence to be above “while less than three percent expected fu- istance to be below two on a ten-point d awareness of different types of assist- ' Tl??? CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on results of the self-anchoring scale and field observations by the research team, it was concluded that Program Aides helped to strengthen perceptions of most participants in the Texas IFPP of the services offered by the Texas Agricultural Extension" Service. It was also concluded that where perceptions were not strengthened, participants were not made ade- quately aware of the opportunities of assistance specifically for them. Thus, if Program Aides are to be effective, they must demonstrate how the Extension Service can resolve specific prob- lems for farmers in the lower income levels. Acceptance of Educational Assistance The second Program Aide activity involved increasing the levels of acceptance of educational assistance of Extension Service and of assistance programs offered by selected USDA agencies. Analysis of data presented in Chapter IV re- vealed that while only a limited number of par- ticipants attended Extension meetings in 1968, nearly a fourth of t-he participants attended scheduled meetings planned by Extension Serv- ice in 1970. Others may have attended Exten- sion meetings but attendance records were not available to support additional comparisons for previous years. In reference to participation in" assistance programs offered by ASCS, FHA and SCS, a distinct increase in participation was found for 1970 from 1968. In addition, consid- erable evidence indicated that inter-agency co- operation was being developed and pursued by many counties involved in the program. It was found that Program Aides provided information about assistance programs offered by selected government agricultural agencies to participants which enabled Program Aides t0 serve as coordinators for the selected USDA 21 agencies. It was concluded that close coopera- tion among the different governmental agencies must be obtained if educational programs are to make a significant contribution toward easing the plight of small-farm operators. Changes in Production The third Program Aide activity was con- cerned with changes in production. The major enterprises of participants for 1968 and 1970 for which data were available for analysis were corn, beef cattle and truck crops. Corn was produced primarily for on-farm livestock consumption. Data indicated that yields were increased by 52 percent from 1968 to 1970 and that increases occurred in the number of participants following recommended practices in land preparation, variety planted, seed planting rates and fertilizer application. Increases in numbers following recommendations may help account for the increase in yield. Because many different vegetables were planted in small quantities in 1968 and 1970, vegetables were grouped into one category— truck crops—for a more meaningful analysis. Examination of data indicated that an increase in the number of participants following recom- mended practices in 1970 occurred in each of the recommended practices. Data on vegetable yields for 1968 were not available, thus yield comparisons for 1968 and 1970 were not made. More than 90 percent of the participants had beef cattle operations in both 1968 and 1970. An examination of data indicated that sizable increases in the proportion of participants fol- lowing recommended practices occurred in 1970 for all four selected practices. In addition, calf- crop producers increased by five percent in 1970 and 1968. Based on the findings presented in this re- port and on field observations, it was con- cluded that Program Aides played a significant role in encouraging participants to adopt recom- mended production practices. Gross Farm Income Changes One of the ultimate purposes of the Texas IFPP was to increase farm incomes of those participating in the program. Under normal production conditions, the adoption of recom- 22 mended practices and procedures should h farmers increase farm income. ' For this evaluation, farm income was divi, into two sources; income from livestock and come from crops. An analysis of the data y sented in Chapter IV indicated an increase ‘ almost 25 percent per pafticipant in livest income and an increase of 0.6 percent for income. Based on data presented and 0n field vations, it was concluded that Program played a significant role in helping particip; increase livestock income by almost 25 per _ However, with the exception of Falls Co Program Aides generally were not able to significant contributions in row-crop produ __g_ As indicated, crop income change was 0.6 f cent. Many explanations account for this change in crop income. They include: i‘ 1. Lack of modern equipment ham i’ many crop producers. 2. Off-farm employment restricted available for farming row-crops. 3. Reduction in acreage devoted to production. ' 4. Lack of reliable vegetable markets. 5. Lack of capital available during gr,‘ ing season for purchase of insecticides. 6. Limited supply of labor available ~i harvesting truck crops. i 7. Ineffective communications between gram Aides and participants. 8. Meaningful goals perhaps insuffici defined to guide recommendations. ' 9. Inclement weather restrictions. Evidence indicated that Program Aides more intensively involved in livestock n“ tion. In addition, more external resources available to livestock producers than were a able for row-crop producers. External resoui included assistance programs of selected go é mental agencies and auction markets for sa i‘ livestock. Few participants were eligible .- , price-support payments for row-crop produ Most vegetable producers were skeptical a‘ adopting production recommendations beca the absence of a dependable local vegt market. Thus, if Program Aides are to be successful in assisting most vegetable produ, i2- i " may have to help establish an outlet for " vegetable producers. of Living The final process to be examined concerned i_ of living standards of participants. The ysis revealed a significant difference in the I fber of participants having hot and cold run- ; water piped into the home in 1970. Based on findings presented in this paper ‘i on field observation, it was concluded that Aides played a major role in helping i icants apply for loans from FHA for new cs and home improvements such as hot and running water piped into homes. In most T‘ ties, Program Aides and FHA representatives ‘ ed closely in trying to upgrade levels of living Ecounty residents through other home improve- it loans. x RECOMMENDATIONS mmendation No. 1 e Texas IFPP has accomplished much ‘in a short time. Increases in farm incomes "participants in four counties were much more A the added cost of the program in those ties. However, it would not be fair to com- participating counties for levels of success fuse the basis for selection of individuals different. In some counties, selected par- ants were unable to follow recommenda- t because of factors such as poor health, no est in farming or location so remote as to ude frequent visits by Program Aides with- exceeding appropriated travel allowances. results were that (1) little production prog- was made with them; (2) Program Aides spent more time with this group than with __ ps with more potential in agricultural pro- ion; and (5) Program Aides became dis- k aged at the lack of progress being made. ~_~_r without saying, however, that the needs _' l must be served. Because the present pro- is primarily production oriented, it is rec- i} ended that additional categories of assist- r be presented to serve the needs of a large fence: (1) full production assistance, (2) 'ted production ‘assistance and (5) nonpro- i; 'on assistance. This new classification would it Program Aides to meet the needs of the audience and would provide opportuni- for different types of planning and would probably make for more realistic expectations by Program Aides. Recommendation No. 2 The selection of the Program Aide is one of the most important aspects of the intensified farm planning approach. He must be able to communicate with the client system and provide information of a specific nature at the proper time in the decision-making process. Program Aides must be recognized as knowledgeable about their work and able to demonstrate how acceptance of recommendations will lead to ful- fillment of formulated goals. No credibility gap can exist between participants and Program Aides. It is recommended that selected Program Aides be well-known in the county, recognized as knowledgeable about a particular enterprise and be able to demonstrate any methods recom- mended. Recommendation No. 3 Within the next 2 years, a number of par- ticipants in the Texas IFPP will not need inten- sive assistance. Thus, it is recommended that plans be formulated to insure a smooth transi- tion of participants into ongoing Extension Service programs. Recommendation No. 4 Because Program Aides are most effective in the field, office work should be restricted. It is recommended that administrative duties be ac- complished by others whenever possible. Recommendation No. 5 Program Aides are most effective when they demonstrate their recommendations. It is recom- mended that special funds be set aside for pur- chase of portable equipment to be used with demonstrations. Recommendation No. 6 Program Aides normally have intensive con- tact with farm operators in the field. If farm operators are not aware that Program Aides are representative of the Extension Service, par- ticipants may tend to not participate in local ongoing Extension Service programs. It is rec- ommended that Program Aides utilize local 23 Extension offices as much as possible for assist- ance and that farm operators be aware of this. Perhaps magnetic signs could be attached to per- sonal vehicles when used for Extension business. Recommendation No. 7 It is recommended that publicity revealing successful case stories be reviewed thoroughly to insure that negative reactions by participants do not occur. Some may wish to have their stories told and others may not. Recommendation No. 8 It is recommended that Extension Service marketing specialists help evaluate vegetable market potential, determine appropriate market outlets and teach producers more effective meth- ods of marketing vegetables. Recommendation No. 9 It is recommended that the duties of the coordinator be revised to permit him more time in the field for coordination, individual train- ing sessions and assistance in resolving problem areas. Recommendation No. ‘l0 This evaluation makes no attempt to com- pare potential contributions of Program Aides and county Extension staff members. Nor do the findings of this study suggest that intensive visits by county Extension staff members would have different results than those produced by Pro- gram Aides. Any success enjoyed by the Texas 24 IFPP is the result of a team effort by both gram Aides and county Extension staffs. i It is recommended that county Ext. staffs be involved in providing support for‘ gram Aides and that both Program Aides county Extension staff members be pro I‘ adequate job descriptions‘ concerning their f; in this type of program. REFERENCES KILPATRICK, F. P. AND HADLEY CANTRIL ,7 1960 "Self-anchoring scaling: a measure dividuals unique reality worlds." of Individual Psychology (16): 15j ROGERS, E. M. S 1960 Social Change in Rural Society. New _ Appleton-Centuty-Crofts, Inc. USDA——NATIONAL AssocrATioN OF STATE UN g TIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES Study Committee on Cooperative Extension of 1968 A People and A Spirit. Fort Collins, rado: Printing and Publications i Colorado State University. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1959 Agricultural Census, State and - -=~ Washington: U. S. Government P Office, Volume 1, Part 37. 1964 Agricultural Census, State and » Washington: U. S. Government ' i Office, Volume 1, Part 37. WEiss, CAROL H. 1972 Evaluating Action Programs: Rea up“, Social Action and Education. Boston: l“ and Bacon, Inc. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] fix‘. ‘l, Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Texas A&M University and United States -4 ctgfture cooperating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8, 1914, as amended, and June 30, 191 y 2 ——5-7Z