Effectiveness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees- Part 1

Darrell A. Dromgoole, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

Scott Cummings, Associate Department Head and Program Leader: Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

As Extension educators, it is imperative that we review research related to Extension methodologies to ensure we are implementing best practices associated with Extension programming. One of the areas of scholarly inquiry that should be carefully evaluated is the utilization of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees.

Extension volunteers have been utilized in Extension for over 50 years, serving on program area committees to develop programs that meet the needs of local clientele. However, Extension educators should review various research and other scholarly work to determine the following:

1. How effective are these committees today?
2. What can we learn to improve our Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees?

In order to determine the effectiveness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees, we do not have to look far to find research that has scrutinized the effectiveness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees in Texas. In 2011, Whit Weems, formerly with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, conducted a doctoral study to determine the effectiveness of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees as it relates to executing the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Program Development Process.

This study evaluated the Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee members located in 36 Texas counties (Weems, 2011). The selection of counties was based upon Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service county categories (Weems, 2011). A quantitative, ex post facto, survey instrument was developed that consisted of Likert type statements that focused on the purpose, responsibilities, qualifications, time obligations, County Extension Agent interaction, subject matter specialist interactions and assisting with educational event implementation and evaluation (Weems, 2011).

The researcher followed the procedure outlined by Ripley (2008) using a random sample of 254 counties with certain restrictions. The restrictions utilized by the researcher ensured that counties were represented with varying size and population (Weems, 2011). Other restrictions utilized by the researcher was that the County Extension Agent must have been in that county for a minimum of one year and must have an active Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committee (Weems, 2011). A total of 50 counties were included in the researcher’s sample (Weem, 2011).

The researcher used the same structure and percentages when selecting the 50 counties that participated in the study. Table 1 provides the numbers of counties from each category that were selected for the study (Weems, 2011):

The researcher entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet ranked by Extension categories. Microsoft Excel randomly assigned each county a value in each category and they were ranked in priority order (Weems, 2011). Closer inspection was completed by the researcher, with assistance from the District Extension Administrator in each of the Extension Districts which had counties in the sample (Weems, 2011). Only those counties which met the following criteria were selected from the randomly generated and prioritized list (Weems, 2011):

1. County was staffed with a County Extension Agent and has had no vacancies within the previous year.
2. County had a functioning Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committee in place.

The researcher did not eliminate any counties from the original sample based on not meeting this criterion (Weems, 2011).  The researcher surveyed a target population of 451 Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committee members (Weems, 2011). The survey was then mailed following procedures described by Dillman (2007).

The convenient sample population (n=451) was notified by mail (Weems, 2011). A cover letter providing a summary of the consent letter, a copy of the survey instrument and a self-addressed stamped envelope was mailed using the United States Postal Service (Weems, 2011). The cover letter also provided details on how to complete the survey and stated that it would take participants about 20 minutes to complete (Weems, 2011). All surveys were identified by an identification code (Weems, 2011). Once the survey was returned, the supporting documentation was shredded to ensure that results could not be matched to individual names and ensure they would not receive any additional correspondence (Weems, 2011). A reminder letter was mailed to those participants that did not initially respond (Weems, 2011).

The survey utilized by the researcher consisted of Likert scale statements that addressed Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee members perceptions related to the purpose of the committee (Weems, 2011). Categories for statements included, but were not limited to items in the areas of purpose, responsibilities, qualifications, time obligations, County Extension Agent interaction, subject matter specialist interaction, and assistance provided by committee members with educational event implementation and evaluation (Weems, 2011). The Likert scale used for this study was defined as 1 = strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4= agree, 5=strongly agree (Weems, 2011).

The data was analyzed using SPSS 16.0 for Windows software (Weems, 2011). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data (Weems,2011). Frequencies, percentages, central tendency measures, and variability were used to describe the data (Weems, 2011). Relationships were compared between the perceived roles and responsibilities of the Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee members from their perspectives (Weems, 2011).  The researcher’s analysis techniques included analysis of variance (Weems, 2011). Confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance were set a priori at the 0.05 level (Weems, 2011).

The sample for this study consisted of the membership of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees in 34 Texas counties (Weems, 2011). Some counties consist of one Program Area Committee while others had as many as four committees per county (Weems, 2011). Of the 34 counties within the sample, there were a possible 451 members with accurate and complete contact information to participate in this study (Weems, 2011). One hundred ninety-seven members returned the surveys through the United States Postal Service yielding a 43.68% response rate (Weems, 2011).

In order to understand the self- perceived opinions of Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committees members, related to their understanding of the purpose of a Program Area Committee participants were asked 6 statements related to the purpose of a Program Area Committee (Weems,2011). Responses to all 6 questions focused on the purpose of an Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committee were very positive (Weems, 2011). Table 2 provides information related to Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area Committee members understanding of the purpose of a Program Area Committee (Weems,2011):

The researcher found that five of the 6 questions revealed a mean response of 4 or above on a 5 point Likert Scale (Weems, 2011). These statements were derived from the job description provided by the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Organizational Development unit (Weems, 2011). This job description is designed to assist in explaining to existing and new committee members the roles that they play on the Program Area Committee (Weems, 2011). All six questions the majority of responses fell into the Agree category with the second highest responses falling into the Strongly Agree category (Weems, 2011). The 6th question, which returned a mean response of 3.88 had a majority in the Agree (51.1%, n=94) followed by Strongly Agree (22.8%, n=42) in response to this question (Weems, 2011). Barnet, Johnson, and Verma (1999) stated that committee members do not fully understand the purpose of committees in which they serve. Overall, this data strongly suggests that the Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee members in Texas do have a very good understanding of the purpose of a Program Area Committee (Weems, 2011).

Based on the findings of these questions the researcher developed recommendations to ensure the future success of Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committees. With Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committees having a very good understanding of the purpose of a Program Area Committee, the researcher recommended that Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service needs to continue to provide support to them (Weems, 2011). In addition, it was recommended that Extension continue to train and educate new County Extension Agents on the importance of Program Area Committees and the vital role they play in not only program planning but interpreting Extension’s success (Weems, 2011). Program Area Committee members have a strong understanding of the purpose of the Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee responsibilities. Participants responded with an average mean of 4.12 on a 5-point likert scale to the six questions identifying the purpose of the Agriculture and Natural Resource Program Area Committee (Weems, 2011).

When the researcher posed open-ended questions related to reasons they served on a Program Area Committee 53.8% of the participants identified personal education (Weems, 2011).

In Future Next Step to Success more insights gleaned from this research will be reported.

Reference

Barnett, J., Johnson, E., & Verma S. (1999). Effectiveness of extension cotton committees. Journal of Extension [Online] 37(6) Article 6FEA5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999december/a5.php

Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. (2^nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Ripley, J.P., (2008). A study to determine the effectiveness of the leadership advisory board in meeting the needs of visioning and advocacy for the Texas Agrilife Extension Service. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Weems, W.H., (2011). A study to determine the effectiveness of Agriculture/Natural Resource Program Area Committees on the Texas AgriLife Extension Service Program Planning. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.