December 2006 // Volume 44 // Number 6 // Feature Articles // 6FEA4
 |  |
 |
Attitudes of Extension Professionals Toward Involvement of Special Needs Youth in 4-H Programs
Abstract
With the passage of the of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the question now becomes "Are today's Extension agents prepared to identify and provide for the needs of special needs youth in their programs?" The study reported here surveyed agents to examine the attitudes of Extension professionals toward involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs. Although Extension professionals were generally supportive of special needs youth in 4-H programs, there is clearly a need to provide educational opportunities to improve their competency and ability to adapt current 4-H programs and projects for special needs youth and to showcase successful implementation.
With the signing into law of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990 (United States Congress, (1990),the question "Should we accommodate children with disabilities?" became "How are we going to accommodate children with disabilities in 4-H programs?" This act clearly states that discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, and programs funded by state and local government is prohibited. Are today's Extension professionals prepared to identify and provide for the needs of disabled youth in their program?
The number of children 3 to 21 years old served by federally supported programs for the disabled increased from a total 3,694,000 in 1976-1977 to 6,292,930 in 2001-2002 in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). In other words, approximately 8% of all youth in the United States have special needs and are being served by federal programs. In West Virginia, 50,443 children (approximately 11% of all youth) were being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, State operated programs at the end of the 2001-2002 school year.
According to the National 4-H Youth Annual Youth Development Enrollment Report (National 4-H Headquarters, 2003, p. E2), 6,772,817 youth in the United States were enrolled in 4-H as of January 1, 2002. In West Virginia 4-H youth participants totaled 58,468 during the same period (National 4-H Headquarters, 2003, p. N1). Given the number of special needs students in public schools, one can assume that some of these students are also involved in the 4-H program.
ADA has very special implications for 4-H programs. Because the Extension service is a federally funded program, it cannot deny access to any individual and is legally obligated to provide for the needs of all youth. Does this mean that every activity must be made accessible to every individual with a disability? The answer is no, but there must be a reasonable effort demonstrated to accommodate an individual with disabilities who wants to participate.
A study by Tormoehlen and Field in 1994 concluded that with creativity, flexibility and the willingness to experiment, any project could be modified for youth with disabilities. They also concluded that non-formal educational opportunities may be perceived as not being readily available to youth with disabilities due to the lack of knowledge by 4-H professionals and volunteers about disabilities and their implications for youth involvement.
Ingram (1999) examined the attitudes of Extension professionals toward diversity. The study focused on attitudes toward diversity education in 4-H youth development programs to determine the attitudes of Extension personnel toward recruitment of youth from different backgrounds in 4-H youth development programs. The author concluded Extension professionals agreed with the importance of learning to relate effectively with physically and mentally challenged people.
If the assumption is correct that a portion of 4-H youth have special needs, there is a need to explore the attitudes of Extension agent's toward the involvement of special needs individuals in 4-H programs. While 4-H programs and activities are to be available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age, veteran status, political beliefs, sexual orientation, national origin, and marital or family status, it is important to understand Extension agents attitudes toward the involvement the special needs youth in the 4-H program because the role of the Extension agent is to plan, implement, and evaluate 4-H programs.
Purpose and Objective
The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the attitudes of Extension agents in West Virginia toward the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs. More specifically, this article addresses the following research questions:
What were the attitudes of Extension agents and program assistants toward special needs youth?
What types of special needs youth were Extension agents most willing to include in their 4-H programs?
What types of 4-H programs were provided for special needs youth?
Methodology
Population
The study was limited to the attitudes of Extension agents and program assistants in West Virginia, employed during the winter of 2003-2004, who were responsible for 4-H programs at the county level. To select the Extension professionals, the official West Virginia University Extension Service 2003-2004 Directory was used. A total of 124 Extension professionals (97 agents and 27 program assistants) were included in the accessible population.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The instrument used for the study was a two-part questionnaire adapted from questionnaires used in previous research by Jordan (1968) and Larrivee and Cook (1979). Part I consisted of 20 Likert scale attitude items relating to special needs populations' involvement in the 4-H program. Part II of the instrument requested demographic information and experience in working with the special needs population. Survey design and implementation was done according to Dillman (2000), using the Tailored Design method. A panel of experts consisting of faculty members at the state land-grant university examined the questionnaire to establish content and face validity. The instrument was determined to have extensive reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of .79 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).
Response Rate
Of the 124 Extension professionals, 82 responded to the survey. Four surveys were unusable, for a response rate of 62.9%. It was ascertained that the majority of the state's counties were represented by the responses received. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the Institutional Review Board would not allow telephone follow-up of non-respondents.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Levels of significance were set a priori at < .05 for all statistical tests. Data analysis procedures included frequencies, percentages, and means to describe the population.
The authors compared late respondents to early respondents "to determine the extent to which respondents differ from the nonrespondents" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 408). No significant differences were found between responses of early and late respondents. Because differences were not found between early and late respondents, "and late respondents are believed typical of nonrespondents," therefore, the researchers assumed "the respondents were "an unbiased sample of the recipients" and thus generalized to the total group (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 408).
Results
Respondents were asked 20 questions concerning the involvement of special needs individuals in their county 4-H programs. A five-item Likert scale consisted of the following items: 5-"Strongly Agree," 4-"Agree," 3-"Undecided," 2-"Disagree," and 1-"Strongly Disagree." Responses by Extension professionals to attitude statements about the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs are listed in Table 1.
| SD | D | U | A | SA | |
|
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 57.1 |
|
1.3 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 46.8 | 48.1 |
|
1.3 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 53.8 | 41.0 |
|
0.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 56.4 | 34.6 |
|
0.0 | 2.6 | 5.1 | 61.5 | 30.8 |
|
0.0 | 3.9 | 6.5 | 55.8 | 33.8 |
|
1.3 | 2.6 | 15.4 | 39.7 | 41.0 |
|
1.3 | 2.6 | 14.3 | 62.3 | 19.5 |
|
2.6 | 6.4 | 17.9 | 44.9 | 28.2 |
|
0.0 | 16.9 | 23.4 | 46.8 | 13.0 |
|
6.7 | 46.7 | 24.0 | 20.0 | 2.6 |
|
13.2 | 40.8 | 27.6 | 15.8 | 2.6 |
|
13.0 | 50.6 | 22.1 | 10.4 | 3.9 |
|
25.6 | 35.9 | 21.8 | 14.1 | 2.6 |
|
15.6 | 50.6 | 20.8 | 13.0 | 0.0 |
|
16.9 | 50.6 | 22.1 | 9.1 | 1.3 |
|
22.1 | 53.2 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 1.3 |
|
33.8 | 44.2 | 18.2 | 2.6 | 1.3 |
|
35.1 | 50.6 | 11.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
|
39.0 | 53.2 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.3 |
Overall, Extension personnel in the target population tend to hold positive attitudes toward the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs and activities. Over 90% of all of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that including special needs youth as 4-H members would be a good experience for the other members; that mainstreaming of special needs youth in 4-H offers mixed group interaction, which will foster understanding and self-esteem for all; and that special needs persons can be productive members of society. There was strong agreement among respondents that the presence of special needs youth in 4-H will promote acceptance of the differences on the part of other 4-H members; the challenge of being in a regular 4-H club will promote growth of the special needs child; and other 4-H club members would interact with special needs youth.
Respondents were very vocal in their support for inclusive 4-H programs. An overwhelming majority of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the behavior of special needs youth will set an undesirable example for the rest of the club members and that mentally disordered persons have difficulties in learning and therefore 4-H cannot help them. A majority of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that other members and leaders in the 4-H club will feel uncomfortable with a special needs person as a member of the group, that youth with special needs will be ignored by the other members of the 4-H club, and that special needs youth could best be served through special and separate clubs. They indicated that they feel youth could best be served through inclusive 4-H programming.
Although 95% of the Extension professionals strongly agreed or agreed that they would be willing to accept special needs youth as 4-H members, over two thirds of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they have adequate training to work with special needs youth. An overwhelming majority strongly agreed or agreed that special training should be offered to 4-H leaders before programs for the special needs youth are started. Slightly more than half of the agents and assistants believe it is important for them to know sign language in order to communicate with the hearing impaired. Although they thought training was important, they did not want it to be mandatory.
When asked if the interest of special needs youth was being met through other special programs, and therefore they did not need 4-H, three-fourths (78%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. There was also strong disagreement (63.6%) that youth with special needs would not be able to adequately participate in most 4-H projects or activities. A majority of the respondents were in agreement that parents of special needs youth would be no greater problem than parents of non-handicapped youth.
The respondents were divided on their reaction to the statements that related to concerns about actual involvement. When asked if the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H clubs will take time away from other club members, more than a fourth (27.6%) were undecided, 18.8% agreed or strongly agreed, while 53% disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement. They were also divided in their response when asked if special needs youth have behavior problems that would be disruptive to 4-H programs and activities. Nearly a fourth (22.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, while slightly more than half (53.4%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. A fourth (24%) of the respondents were undecided.
Nearly 30% (29.5%) of the respondents indicated that their county had 4-H programs for special needs individuals, while 61.5 % replied they did not. Respondents who indicated 4-H programs for special needs youth were available were asked to list the types of programs that were available. Special needs programs included special lamb projects, livestock, camping activities, and community clubs. The majority of the respondents indicated that they mainstream special needs youth in their 4-H programming and provide assistance such as aides and interpreters on a case by case basis.
Over 60% (66.7%) responded that their county had special needs youth in their clubs. The respondents identified numerous types of special needs youth involved in 4-H clubs, including autistic, downs syndrome, hearing and visually impaired, and physically and mentally handicapped, as well as those with behavioral problems. Ten percent (10.3%) of the respondents indicated they did not have special needs youth in their clubs, while nearly a fourth (23.1%) did not respond.
Less than 4% (3.8%) of the respondents indicated they would be interested in becoming involved in a 4-H program for special needs youth, while 5.1% replied no. The majority (91.0%) of those surveyed did not respond to the statement assessing their interest in becoming involved in a 4-H program for special needs youth.
Over 70% (71.8%) replied they had some experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs, while nearly a fourth (23.1%) indicated they had no experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs. Four (5.1%) respondents did not respond to the question.
A third (33.9%) of the respondents had training in working with special needs youth. Less than 20% (17.9%) had a family member that is a special need individual. Nearly 60% (64.3%) had a friend or knew someone that is a special need individual. None of the respondents indicated that they were a special needs person.
When asked to indicate the areas of special needs youth they feel most comfortable working with, slightly more than half (55.1%) of the respondents indicated they would be comfortable working with the physically handicapped generally because these individuals know their limitations and more easily adapt to activities. Other types of special needs they felt comfortable working with included the learning disabled (43.6%); hearing-impaired youth (41.0%); visually impaired (35.9%): educable mentally retarded youth (25.6%); emotionally handicapped (21.8%); and the trainable mentally retarded (21.8%).
Summary
Although it has been 20 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is evident from the study results that Extension professionals still feel they are not adequately trained to work with special needs youth. Even so, a majority of Extension agents and program assistants have special needs youth in their 4-H programs. Even with special needs youth present in 4-H programs, only a small percentage of Extension agents and program assistants would be interested in becoming involved in a 4-H program designed specifically for the special needs youth. Respondents indicated that they believed all youth could grow and develop from involvement with special needs youth in traditional 4-H venues instead of separate groups.
A majority of the Extension agents and program assistants have experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs. Slightly less than half have heard or read about the special needs of youth, while one-third have training in working with the special needs youth. Nearly half of the agents and program assistants have first hand knowledge of someone with special needs.
A substantial majority of agents and program assistants agree that training should be offered to 4-H leaders about special needs youth prior to starting programs. While slightly more than half of the agents and assistants believe it is important for them to know sign language in order to communicate with the hearing impaired, they do not want training required.
A majority of Extension agents and program assistants would be willing to accept special needs youth as 4-H members. Some types of special needs youth that were identified as being involved in 4-H programs were attention deficit hyper disorder autistic, attention deficit disorder hearing impaired, physically impaired, cerebral palsy visually impaired, behavior disorder, multiple sclerosis, downs syndrome, and educable mentally retarded. This differs from Coleman's (1982) study that found leaders expressed concern about the responsibility of having handicapped youth as club members when indicating their willingness to accept them.
Some counties offered programs for special needs youth. Programs for the special needs youth include special lamb project as part of the livestock program. They are included in all 4-H activities, camp, community clubs, and special interest projects. Other 4-H clubs mainstream and integrate everyone into regular 4-H programs and activities.
Recommendations
While Extension agents and program assistants in West Virginia were clearly supportive of the involvement of special needs populations in 4-H programs, the concerns expressed suggest there was room for continued training and support. The following recommendations are made. The Cooperative Extension system should:
Provide in-service educational opportunities for Extension personnel to improve their competency and knowledge in assisting special needs individuals;
Provide in-service opportunities to assist Extension personnel in adapting current 4-H programs and projects to include special needs youth;
Provide more disability awareness programs to increase individuals' understanding and acceptance of those with disabilities, and
Provide opportunities to showcase 4-H programs that have successfully involved youth with special needs.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th Ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.
Coleman, B.M. (1982). The attitudes of volunteer leaders in Cecil, Harford, and Kent counties in Maryland toward involvement of handicapped in 4-H Programs. Master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys--The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Ingram, P. (1999). Attitudes of Extension professionals toward diversity education in 4-H programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a3.html
Jordan, J. E. (1968). Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.
Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education. 13 Article 8.
National 4-H Headquarters (2003). Annual 4-H Youth Development Enrollment: 2002 Report. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/library/2002-es237.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2002, March). Digest of education statistics from 1976-2001. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=091#061
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Tormoehlen, R., & Field, W. E. (1994). A perfect fit: Involving youth with disabilities in 4-H. Journal of Extension [On-line], 32(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a4.html
United States Congress. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. Washington, DC: 101st Congress.