Progress 07/01/11 to 10/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Surveys were sent to, and therefore contacts made through emails with: Extension Directors and Administrators, as obtained from the NIFA-USDA online listing Extension FACS Program Leaders, as maintained on a listserv by NIFA-USDA Extension Specialists in Foods and Nutrition, as maintained on a listserv by NIFA-USDA Membership of NEAFCS through their listserv The ultimate target audience of these results are employees of the Cooperative Extension System nationally. Changes/Problems: The volume and diversity in data received from the online surveys, along with unexpected survey respondent types necessitated changes in planned presentation of results. The three surveys were collapsed to two, as one category of respondents (state program leaders) did not respond despite repeated reminders (requests) through their organizational listserv. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Detailed descriptions of findings are being prepared into journal articles for peer review. A seminar will be presented in September 2014 at the NEAFCS annual meeting for Extension educators. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
For several years, the public media has shed light on a resurgence of public interest in home food preservation. Cooperative Extension (CES) specialists and educators have been citing a tremendous increase of interest in the same as well as starting small processed foods businesses. The CES can continue to build on its legacy in home food preservation and provide a national leadership role to meet clientele demand for assistance in home and small-scale food processing and preservation. At the same time as public interest is expanding rapidly, the Cooperative Extension System (CES) is experiencing significant budget cutbacks in many states and reduction of staff to meet clientele needs. Surveys sent to various types of CES administrators and educators, as well as a review of landgrant university Extension websites, both reveal that the delivery of these programs varies widely in staffing to conduct the programs, types of programs offered, and online presence of resources from state to state. However, the results also indicate numerous very active programs and efforts to meet clientele demand. The results indicate that most partners in the CES still value the mission to conduct food preservation programming, that resources to do so are very tight in most states, and that there is room for additional capacity building in home and small-scale food processing and preservation. Goal 1. Conduct a nationwide Internet-based survey of CES personnel to assess types of programming currently conducted in home food preservation, staffing that supports these programs, needs for additional resources, and states' interest in continuation of coordinated national leadership for some functions in food preservation programming. Three surveys were administered via email to the Cooperative Extension System at landgrant universities in May through June 2013. Original instruments had been developed and pilot tested for three target audiences: Extension Directors and Administrators, State Program Leaders in FCS, and State and County Extension educators. Only one response was received for State Program Leaders, so that response was merged with the Directors and Administrators questionnaire, since most questions were duplicated and approximately 26% of the 34 responses to that survey were Program Leaders already. Another 20% had other jobs (state specialist, county agent, department head, etc.) and 53% of responses were from the intended role of Director or Administrator. There is a variety of employee types reported as to how staffing for home food preservation programs is handled, with 41% of respondents indicating the presence of state specialists and 50% indicating they do not have agents addressing this in every county. 10% indicated county or area agents specializing in this content. Over 80% expect that demand for programs in home food preservation and for food entrepreneurs will increase in the next 2-3 years. 50% indicated they were not familiar with the National Center for Home Food Preservation website. Only 2 respondents indicated willing to provide financial support for the NCHFP. 15 disagreed and 17 indicated “not sure.” 626 responses were received to the state and county educator survey although not all questions were answered by each respondent. The vast majority (90%) hold various county educator positions; only 5% identified as state specialists. About 60% of respondents work with volunteers in home food preservation programming, but about 17% actually offer Master Food Preserver programming. Only 70% indicate they have a state subject matter specialist in food preservation. A large majority of programming consists of home food preservation content while about 20-35% is oriented to small food entrepreneurs. About 70% of county educators are at least familiar with the National Center for Home Food Preservation resources and website; 10% indicated no awareness. About 85% of educators expect demand in home food preservation or assistance to small entrepreneurs to increase in the next 2-3 years, while about 13-15% expect it to at least stay the same. Many open-ended comments speak to the value of a National Center for Home Food Preservation. Goal 2. Conduct a nationwide scan of publicly available (Internet) CES information in home food preservation and resources for food entrepreneurs. Two staff members unfamiliar with the landgrant and Cooperative Extension system independently randomly sampled approximately 25 university websites for resources in the areas of home food preservation and starting a small food business. This sampling and review was conducted to determine categories on which to rank all landgrant websites on these topics. Websites for 109 landgrant institutions were then systematically reviewed against two checklists. One contained categories of programs offered (workshops for food business entrepreneurs, workshops for home food preservers, hands-on workshops or demonstrations advertised, online studies available, etc.). The other checklist looked at types of educational materials available, such as free or for-sale print publications, lesson plans, slides, newsletters, social media links, and audio recordings. The review was conducted October-December 2012 and then repeated in April-May 2013 since these websites tend to be fluid in location (URL) and are frequently changing in content. Summary lists are current as of May 2013. Users could tell through websites that half the states offer some type of Extension educational presentations advertised on the site and over half (33 institutions) offer demonstration and/or or hands-on workshops in home food preservation. (These numbers represent what was found on a state Extension website and during the review period only.) There was also web-based information on these sites about state master volunteer programs in this content area (food preserver, food safety or food educator) for 13 institutions. At least 40 sites offer free publications in home food preservation off the Internet, although the number and titles are quite variable. For food entrepreneurs, web-based information offering process approval was evident for 9 institutional sites; 25 offer food product testing and analysis services. Another 20 institutions offer assistance with nutrition labels. 47 institutions offered trainings for small business, including the Better Process Control School. 19 offer pilot plant or test kitchen services. Overall 26 websites offered a section targeted to food entrepreneurs. Referrals to regulatory resources are made to FDA by 28 sites and to USDA by 26 sites.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/13 to 10/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: This reporting period only consisted of analyzing and summarizing data. The ultimate target audience of these results are employees of the Cooperative Extension System nationally. Changes/Problems: The volume and diversity in data received from the online surveys, along with unexpected survey respondent types necessitating changes in presentation of results, some analyses are still being run. Also, there is much more data than can be reported in this system so I had specified that larger reports will be submitted to the National Program Leader at NIFA-USDA prior to further distribution and publishing. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Summaries of all data will be submitted to NIFA-USDA for review. Journal articles will be prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed scholarly publications.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
For several years, the public media has shed light on a resurgence of public interest in home food preservation. Cooperative Extension (CES) specialists and educators have been citing a tremendous increase of interest in the same as well as starting small processed foods businesses. The CES can continue to build on its legacy in home food preservation and provide a national leadership role to meet clientele demand for assistance in home and small-scale food processing and preservation. At the same time as public interest is expanding rapidly, the Cooperative Extension System (CES) is experiencing significant budget cutbacks in many states and reduction of staff to meet clientele needs. Surveys sent to various types of CES administrators and educators, as well as a review of landgrant university Extension websites, both reveal that the delivery of these programs varies widely in staffing to conduct the programs, types of programs offered, and online presence of resources from state to state. However, the results also indicate numerous very active programs and efforts to meet clientele demand. The results indicate that most partners in the CES still value the mission to conduct food preservation programming, that resources to do so are very tight in most states, and that there is room for additional capacity building in home and small-scale food processing and preservation. Goal 1. Conduct a nationwide Internet-based survey of CES personnel to assess types of programming currently conducted in home food preservation, staffing that supports these programs, needs for additional resources, and states' interest in continuation of coordinated national leadership for some functions in food preservation programming. Three surveys were administered via email to the Cooperative Extension System at landgrant universities in May through June 2013. Original instruments had been developed and pilot tested for three target audiences: Extension Directors and Administrators, State Program Leaders in FCS, and State and County Extension educators. Only one response was received for State Program Leaders, so that response was merged with the Directors and Administrators questionnaire, since most questions were duplicated and approximately 26% of the 34 responses to that survey were Program Leaders already. Another 20% had other jobs (state specialist, county agent, department head, etc.) and 53% of responses were from the intended role of Director or Administrator. There is a variety of employee types reported as to how staffing for home food preservation programs is handled, with 41% of respondents indicating the presence of state specialists and 50% indicating they do not have agents addressing this in every county. 10% indicated county or area agents specializing in this content. Over 80% expect that demand for programs in home food preservation and for food entrepreneurs will increase in the next 2-3 years. 50% indicated they were not familiar with the National Center for Home Food Preservation website. Only 2 respondents indicated willing to provide financial support for the NCHFP. 15 disagreed and 17 indicated “not sure.” 626 responses were received to the state and county educator survey although not all questions were answered by each respondent. The vast majority (90%) hold various county educator positions; only 5% identified as state specialists. About 60% of respondents work with volunteers in home food preservation programming, but about 17% actually offer Master Food Preserver programming. Only 70% indicate they have a state subject matter specialist in food preservation. A large majority of programming consists of home food preservation content while about 20-35% is oriented to small food entrepreneurs. About 70% of county educators are at least familiar with the National Center for Home Food Preservation resources and website; 10% indicated no awareness. About 85% of educators expect demand in home food preservation or assistance to small entrepreneurs to increase in the next 2-3 years, while about 13-15% expect it to at least stay the same. Many open-ended comments speak to the value of a National Center for Home Food Preservation. Goal 2. Conduct a nationwide scan of publicly available (Internet) CES information in home food preservation and resources for food entrepreneurs. Two staff members unfamiliar with the landgrant and Cooperative Extension system independently randomly sampled approximately 25 university websites for resources in the areas of home food preservation and starting a small food business. This sampling and review was conducted to determine categories on which to rank all landgrant websites on these topics. Websites for 109 landgrant institutions were then systematically reviewed against two checklists. One contained categories of programs offered (workshops for food business entrepreneurs, workshops for home food preservers, hands-on workshops or demonstrations advertised, online studies available, etc.). The other checklist looked at types of educational materials available, such as free or for-sale print publications, lesson plans, slides, newsletters, social media links, and audio recordings. The review was conducted October-December 2012 and then repeated in April-May 2013 since these websites tend to be fluid in location (URL) and are frequently changing in content. Summary lists are current as of May 2013. Users could tell through websites that half the states offer some type of Extension educational presentations advertised on the site and over half (33 institutions) offer demonstration and/or or hands-on workshops in home food preservation. (These numbers represent what was found on a state Extension website and during the review period only.) There was also web-based information on these sites about state master volunteer programs in this content area (food preserver, food safety or food educator) for 13 institutions. At least 40 sites offer free publications in home food preservation off the Internet, although the number and titles are quite variable. For food entrepreneurs, web-based information offering process approval was evident for 9 institutional sites; 25 offer food product testing and analysis services. Another 20 institutions offer assistance with nutrition labels. 47 institutions offered trainings for small business, including the Better Process Control School. 19 offer pilot plant or test kitchen services. Overall 26 websites offered a section targeted to food entrepreneurs. Referrals to regulatory resources are made to FDA by 28 sites and to USDA by 26 sites.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/12 to 06/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Surveys were sent to, and therefore contacts made through emails with, Extension Directors and Administrators, as obtained from the NIFA-USDA online listing Extension FACS Program Leaders, as maintained on a listserv by NIFA-USDA Extension Specialists in Foods and Nutrition, as maintained on a listserv by NIFA-USDA Membership of NEAFCS through their listserv Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Findings will be analyzed and summarized and provided to USDA-NIFA program leader. Upon approval, the findings and recommendations will be prepared for submission to IFT or IAFP for presentation at their 2014 annual meeting in fall 2013. As appropriate to the annual meeting guidelines and timeline, then they will be submitted to a peer reviewed scholarly publication. A project summary will also be distributed electronically back to the contacts surveyed in the CES, consisting of state administrators, state faculty and county faculty. In addition, the summary will be made available on the National Center for Home Food Preservation website.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. Online survey instruments for three groups of Cooperative Extension employees were developed, reviewed and pilot-tested, and then released in May 2013. Participation was requested from three groupings of employees: Directors and Administrators, FACS Program Leaders, and State Specialists/County Educators (as one group). Each grouping received its own version of the survey. FACS Program Leaders were requested to send a request and separate link to County or area educators; State specialists were requested to share the survey link with others in their universities working in this program area but not on the listserv used. The closing date of the survey is set for June 14. Data will then be analyzed and summarized. 2. The environmental scan of landgrant Extension websites supporting outreach to small food business entrepreneurs was completed. The data (website contents) are being summarized and described in preparation for the final report. The work involved first determining what criteria to include in describing these websites and Extension services in each state and then reanalyzing (reviewing) each site and collecting data against those final criteria. The purpose has been to describe what educational services and products are available, not to evaluate website usability or presentation characteristics. 3. The environmental scan of landgrant Extension websites supporting outreach in home food preservation is being updated and finalized in June 2013. Data will be summarized and described for the final report. The work involved first determining what criteria to include in describing these websites and Extension services in each state and then reanalyzing (reviewing) each site and collecting data against those final criteria. The purpose has been to describe what educational services and products are available, not to evaluate website usability or presentation characteristics.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/11 to 06/30/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: 1. Three national survey instruments to be administered to various administrators and faculty in the Cooperative Extension System have been finalized and approved by the IRB. The instruments have been loaded into an online program for administration and data collection (Qualtrics) and are being tested. Invitations/requests for responses should be disseminated in August 2012. 2. The environmental scan of Extension resources in food processing and preservation available on the Internet has been started. Data are still being collected and a summary system for organization of findings is being developed. PARTICIPANTS: This project has involved work with a graduate assistant in foods and nutrition. Additional collaborators have included the consultant named in the proposal, Carol Schlitt of Savory Solutions, two Extension administrators for informal feedback on survey instruments, and one part-time Extension program assistant for reaction to survey questions as they were being developed. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
At this time, data collection for all objectives is still in process. The original survey instruments have been developed.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|