Evaluation of Forestry Programming: Leading to Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

Depending on whose statistics you prefer, forest-based industry ranks as either the second or third largest industry in North Carolina. In some North Carolina counties, forest products and services are the single largest economic development force. Seventy-five percent of this resource base is held in private hands, non-industrial forest landowners.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES) county field faculty serve as the front-line educator and information resource for these North Carolina citizens. On a day-by-day basis, they must respond to citizens' questions and concerns about forestlands. The role of NCCES Extension Forestry is to provide educational opportunities and information to county field faculty in order for them to assist citizens in making wise, informed decisions about their forestlands.

In order for Extension Forestry to accomplish its role, improve its ability to meet client needs, and serve field faculty better, North Carolina State University Extension Forestry conducted a forestry programming evaluation of the 101 field faculty with forestry responsibilities. The objective of this evaluation was to obtain information to improve forestry programming at the county level.

Assessment Tool Development

The evaluation consisted of two parts, a structured survey and a follow-up meeting. The survey was designed to elicit information on:

• Current level of forestry programming being conducted at the county level,
• Factors that historically have been perceived a part of successful county forestry programming,
• County field faculty education level, work load, and assets, and
• Resources that would strengthen programming.

Field faculty were asked to assess at what level they currently conduct forestry programming in their county. The level of forestry programming being achieved is based on the activities being conducted.

• Level 1: Answer clientele questions and provide information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 2: Conduct on-site visits and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 3: Conduct periodic meetings, on-site visits, and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 4: Develop landowner association, conduct periodic meetings, on-site visits, and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.

Levels 1 and 2 represent more of a reactive level of activity, where field faculty are reactive to request from their clientele. Levels 3 and 4 represent a proactive approach to county programming, where field faculty anticipate educational needs of their clientele and provide them with suitable programming.

To develop a better understanding of factors that affect programming and assist Extension Forestry in its efforts to develop successful forestry programming at the county level, Extension Forestry posed the following survey questions to the field faculty.

• Is forestry programming included in your annual plan of work?
• Do you feel that you receive credit in your annual evaluation for doing forestry programming?
• Do you feel that you have time to do forestry programming in addition to other responsibilities?
• Do you have a forestry advisory committee?
• How many areas of responsibility do you have as a county agent and what are they?
• For each degree you have earned, in which career field did you receive your education?
• Which of the following do you consider to be assets to successful programming in your county? (Circle all that apply)
  • support from Extension specialist
  • support from area forestry agent
  • support from statewide programming committee
  • access to programming tools
• What can Extension Forestry do to strengthen forestry programming in your county? (check all that apply)
  • assist in developing forestry landowner association
  • provide forestry information for county newsletters
  • assist in grant writing
  • provide programming tools through various media, e.g., WWW, email
  • provide in-service training

The follow-up meeting was held within a month of the requested return of the survey. The follow-up meeting gave county field faculty the opportunity to elaborate on their responses and Extension specialists the opportunity to identify assets and resource that strengthen county forestry programming. The meeting also provided an opportunity for Extension specialists to build further on their rapport with county field faculty. A small group discussion format was used, with group representation including both county field faculty and Extension specialists. Discussion began by going over survey responses and included further solicitation of ideas for improving programming at the county level.

Results and Discussion

Survey Results

Extension Forestry requested all 101 field faculty with forestry responsibilities to participate in an evaluation of forestry programming at the county level. Forty-six field faculty responded to the evaluation for a response rate of 45.5%.

The survey requested the field faculty to indicate their current level of forestry programming activity at the county level. Survey results indicated that:

• 30% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 1;
• 22% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 2;
• 46% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 3; and
• 2% were conducting forestry programming at Level 4.

The overall average indicates that respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 2. At this level, county programming is in a reactive phase of responding to clientele needs of assistance and not in a proactive phase of providing educational opportunities.

Historically, four underlying factors have been known to drive county programming success. The factors are: (a) forestry programming included in the annual plan of work, (b) credit in field faculty annual evaluation for doing forestry programming, (c) field faculty feeling they have adequate time to do forestry programming in addition to other assigned responsibilities, and (d) field faculty have forestry advisory committees to guide their programming needs. Survey results indicate:

• 63% of respondents have forestry as a part of their plan of work;
• 50% of respondents feel they receive credit in their annual evaluation for doing forestry programming;
• 34.8% of respondents feel they have adequate time to do forestry programming in addition to other assigned responsibilities; and
• 28.3% of respondents have forestry advisory committees.

Follow-Up Meeting Results

In the follow-up meeting, field faculty were asked to elaborate on these responses, with time and training receiving the most attention by the respondents. Many of the respondents feel that even though they list forestry in their plan of work and receive credit for doing forestry programming on their annual evaluation, they do not have the time to devote to doing a greater level of forestry programming because of their current level of responsibilities. Survey results indicate:

Respondents average four assigned areas of responsibilities each.

• Maximum number of assigned responsibilities are nine
• Minimum number of assigned responsibilities is one
• Median value for assigned responsibilities was four

Another underlying factor affecting the level of programming activity in the counties is the lack of education and training in forestry. None of the respondents to the evaluation reported having a degree in forestry. The closest related field was horticulture, in which 26% of the respondents reported having a bachelor's degree 22% reported having a master's degree.

Survey results indicate that multiple assigned areas of programming responsibilities and lack of formal education or training in such programming areas make it difficult for field faculty to focus time and effort on conducting more than reactive programming. One would expect that areas of programming in which field faculty lack a formal education and or training are the areas on which field faculty focus less attention. Many of the respondents during the follow-up meeting indicated that the lack of forestry education and/or training in forestry and the many demands on their time are the major hindrance to increasing forestry programming at the county level.

In the survey and follow-up meeting field, faculty were asked to indicate the value of existing resources and identify future resource needs. Respondents indicated the two most valued assets are the day-to-day support from Extension specialists and access to programming tools. Field faculty turn to Extension specialists to answer questions they cannot answer or when they need information for a program. Programming tools include, but are not limited to, bulletins, slide presentations, databases, Web pages, training aids, and demonstration areas. Respondents prefer to receive programming information electronically, usually through email, which is the most preferred method, over other, more traditional methods.

Extension Forestry Response to Results

To overcome the shortcomings in field faculty education, Extension Forestry has stepped up its efforts in developing regional training and distance educational opportunities. The regional training opportunities were implemented in the fall 2000, with distance educational opportunities, such as videoconferencing, web based training, and correspondence courses, being implemented as they are developed. Other efforts include materials for media releases, newsletters, updates for the "Forestry and Forest Products Data Books," and forestry programs.

In response to the survey and follow-up meeting, Extension specialists have offered a long list of programs, short courses, and field days where specialists will work directly with field faculty at the county level. Extension Forestry has also implemented a mentoring program for new field faculty.

Conclusion and Implications

Results of this evaluation suggest field faculty are faced with the day-to-day pressure of lack of time because of multiple areas of responsibility and lack of formal education covering all areas of responsibility. This demand on the field faculty's time and knowledge base underscores the need for a strong internal support system. This strong internal support system will require Extension specialists to play an active part to assist field faculty in overcoming the barriers to proactive programming.

Steps to develop a strong internal support system will include increasing communication between field faculty and Extension specialists, development of resources that improve the efficiency and make it easier for field faculty to conduct programming, and development of educational training opportunities. With a strong internal support system, field faculty will have a greater opportunity to improve their level of programming in the counties.