Recognizing Adult Volunteer 4-H Leaders

Extension agents devote considerable effort and expense to coordinating county recognition activities. State or organizational volunteer recognition programs traditionally have consisted of publicly presenting extrinsic rewards to volunteers, based upon tenure. Impact, programmatic innovation, quality of service, or youth contributions to the 4-H program are usually unrewarded.

Kwarteng, Smith & Miller (1988) define recognition as formal or informal attention given to the volunteer to provide a sense of appreciation, security, and belonging. Determining which categories of recognition are most significant and the specific types of recognition which are most meaningful, however, is an open debate. Extrinsic recognition is recommended by several researchers (Murk & Stephan, 1990; Steele, 1994; Zeutschel & Hansel, 1989). Kwarteng, Smith & Miller believe that informal verbal recognition, praise, and encouragement by others involved in the program are the most important developmental factors. Informal methods of recognizing volunteers and their contributions are frequently overlooked in place of more formal methods, yet are often more effective (Holtham, 1989; Vineyard, 1981).

Most volunteer administration models, including ISOTURE (Boyce, 1969; Dolan, 1971), L-O-O-P (Penrod, 1991), the 4-H Leadership Development Model (Kwarteng, Smith & Miller, 1988) and GEMS (Culp, Castillo, Deppe & Wells, 1997) includes recognition as a component. The purpose of this study of tenured 4-H volunteers was to answer the following questions:

• What are the components of most county 4-H recognition programs?
• What do volunteers rate as the most meaningful recognition categories?
• What specific types of recognition are most important to volunteers?
• Where do volunteers most appreciate being recognized?
• What kinds of recognition are most meaningful and the sources of recognition most appreciated by volunteers who attend formal, state-wide recognition banquets.

The population for this study was defined as all people attending the state 4-H Volunteer Recognition Banquet in 1996. Attending were 279 volunteers, whose tenure ranged from 5 to 55 years. The profile of this group was as follows: 82.2% female, 97.9% white; 84.4% married; 41.5% rural, non-farm residence, 36.6% on-farm residence; mean age of 50.1 years; 2.4 children, with 1.4 children currently living at home; 13.8 years of education; employed 24.1 hours per week outside of the home; 43.4% reported that their employers encouraged them to volunteer. Income levels were reported as follows: 29.1% - less than $20,000, 26.6% - $20 to $30,000, 15.1% - $30 to $40,000 and 15.6% - 40 to 50,5000. They had served an average of 18.7 years as a 4- H volunteer, and provided 12.6 hours of service per month as a 4- H volunteer.

Data were collected during the luncheon via a four-page, 35 item questionnaire using Likert-type scales (5=very important, 1=very unimportant), rank-ordering, and frequency counts. Response rate was 72.04% (n=201). No attempt at follow-up was made. Validity was established by an expert panel. Reliability was established by testing the instrument with 211 Ohio 4-H volunteers. Mean Cronbach alphas ranged from .66 to .93 (mean = .82). Descriptive statistics were utilized.

Extrinsic rewards and formal public events were identified as the most frequent components of county recognition programs. These included receiving plaques, certificates or pins, banquets, receiving complimentary fair passes, newspaper coverage, and receiving thank-you notes (see Table 1).

4-H volunteers ranked informal, intrinsic rewards as more meaningful than receiving more formal, extrinsic forms of recognition. These included receiving personal thank-you notes, a "pat on the back," followed by attending recognition banquets (see Table 2.)

When ranking their most meaningful sources of recognition, volunteers preferred recognition from their 4-H members and recognition at the local level to larger, more public sources. Those ranked as the most meaningful recognition sources included 4-H members, 4-H club programs, and county or community programs. State or district-wide activities and news media coverage were the lowest ranked, least desirable recognition sources (see Table 3.)

When Likert rating their most important specific types of recognition, 4-H members' thank-you notes were followed by parents' thank-you notes, county recognition banquets, club achievement programs, Extension agents' thank-you notes and state recognition banquets (see Table 4).

Grassroots locations were preferred when volunteers ranked the places where they most appreciated receiving formal recognition. These included county-wide events, followed by 4-H club activities, with state recognition events being least desirable. Formal recognition was deemed unnecessary by one-fifth of the group (see Table 5.)

County-based recognition models usually consist of presenting plaques, certificates and pins at banquets.

Receiving a thank-you note was the most meaningful form of recognition. Thank-you notes from members, parents, Extension agents, and club, county and state recognition banquets were rated as the most important specific types of recognition. Volunteer recognition presented at county banquets and club meetings or activities were preferred over state recognition events.

Twenty percent (20%) of the volunteers did not want formal recognition. Intrinsic recognition forms were ranked as more desirable than extrinsic forms. 4-H members were identified as the most meaningful recognition source.

The most meaningful recognition which Extension agents can provide is to foster opportunities for 4-H members to do it. Extension agents should encourage 4-H members to express appreciation to volunteers individually, at a local club meeting, by writing thank-you notes or giving a spontaneous "pat on the back." The most meaningful formal volunteer recognition programs occur at the county and club levels. Extension agents should design county recognition efforts which emphasize informal, intrinsic and personal forms of recognition, (while continuing more formalized recognition activities.)

Boyce, M.V. (1971). A systematic approach to leadership development. Washington, DC: USDA, Extension Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 065 763).

Culp, K, III, Castillo, J.X., Deppe, C.A, & Wells, B.J. (1997). The GEMS Model of Volunteer Administration and Development. Unpublished materials. The Ohio State University: Columbus.

Dolan, R.J. (1969). The leadership development process in complex organizations. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

Holtham, M.M. (1989). Extension's blueprint for volunteer excellence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension Service, Cornell University.

Kwarteng, J.A., Smith, K.L. & Miller, L.E. (1988). Ohio 4-H agents' and volunteer leaders' perceptions of the volunteer leadership development program. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. 29, 2, 55-62. Summer, 1988.

Murk, P.J. & Stephan, J.F. (1990). Volunteers enhance the quality of life in a community...or (How to get them, train them and keep them). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. Salt Lake City, UT: October 28 - November 3. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 639).

Penrod, K.M. (1991). Leadership involving volunteers: The L -O-O-P Model. The Journal of Extension, 29, (4).

Steele, D. L. (1994). National Volunteer Week Promotional Packet. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, September of 4-H/Youth.

Vineyard, S. (1984). Recruiting and retaining volunteers...no gimmicks, no gags! Journal of Volunteer Administration, 2, (3), 23-28.

Zeutschel, U. & Hansel, B. (1989). The AFS volunteer resources study: Summary findings from Germany study. New York: AFS International/Intercultural Programs, Inc. Center for the Study of Intercultural Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 322 053)