Extension specialists at Penn State and University of Vermont continued their successful expansion of extension clientele to partner with FSA to train new loan officers from 12 states on agricultural production practices, related equipment and marketing challenges. The 3-4 day workshops were designed around a series of visits to farms and ag businesses. A follow-up workshop focused specifically on entrepreneurial innovators. Participant evaluations indicated that visits to ag businesses were the most highly rated activity, followed closely by farm visits. Overall satisfaction was very high, and nearly all participants indicated the training would make them better loan officers

Hanson, Gregory D

Parsons, Robert L

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 42 Number 2 Article 16 4-1-2004 Expanding Extension's Reach: Partnering With FSA to Meet Educational Goals Robert L. Parsons University of Vermont, bib.parsons@uvm.edu Gregory D. Hanson Penn Sate University, gdh3@osu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Parsons, R. L., & Hanson, G. D. (2004). Expanding Extension's Reach: Partnering With FSA to Meet Educational Goals. The Journal of Extension, 42(2), Article 16. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol42/iss2/16 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesApril	2004	//	Volume	42	//	Number	2	//	Research	in	Brief	//	2RIB50Expanding	Extension's	Reach:	Partnering	With	FSA	to	MeetEducational	GoalsAbstractExtension	specialists	at	Penn	State	and	University	of	Vermont	continued	their	successfulexpansion	of	extension	clientele	to	partner	with	FSA	to	train	new	loan	officers	from	12	states	onagricultural	production	practices,	related	equipment	and	marketing	challenges.	The	3-4	dayworkshops	were	designed	around	a	series	of	visits	to	farms	and	ag	businesses.	A	follow-upworkshop	focused	specifically	on	entrepreneurial	innovators.	Participant	evaluations	indicatedthat	visits	to	ag	businesses	were	the	most	highly	rated	activity,	followed	closely	by	farm	visits.Overall	satisfaction	was	very	high,	and	nearly	all	participants	indicated	the	training	would	makethem	better	loan	officers.	IntroductionExtension	educators	have	again	stepped	up	to	partner	with	the	USDA	Farm	Service	Agency	(FSA)to	provide	agricultural	training	expertise.	In	the	past	three	years,	Extension	Farm	ManagementSpecialists	from	Penn	State	and	the	University	of	Vermont	have	developed	and	conducted	a	seriesof	workshops	designed	to	train	ag	lenders	on	farm	production	basics	and	expose	them	toinnovative	producers	who	have	made	their	operations	a	success.The	workshops	have	turned	out	to	be	highly	successful	and	highly	rated	by	the	participants.	Theyalso	served	a	useful	role	in	building	a	mutually	beneficial	working	relationship	betweengovernment	agricultural	agencies	in	need	of	production	training	and	the	agricultural	andeducational	expertise	of	Cooperative	Extension.BackgroundSince	1995,	Penn	State	Cooperative	Extension	has	been	a	national	leader	in	providing	financial	andproduction	training,	enabling	nearly	2,000	Pennsylvania	and	Northeast	farmers	to	meet	federaltraining	guidelines	to	qualify	for	FSA	financing	(Hanson,	Parsons,	Musser,	&	Power,	1998;	Hanson,Parsons,	Chess,	&	Balliet,	2002;	Parsons,	Hanson,	Musser,	Freund,	&	Power,	2000).This	training	expertise	and	success	led	to	Penn	State	being	chosen	to	lead	a	national	financialtraining	program	for	more	than	1,400	FSA	personnel	(Hanson,	Parsons,	&	Musser,	2002).	This	closerelationship	led	FSA	to	request	Penn	State	Cooperative	Extension	to	provide	the	same	level	of	agproduction	training	to	recently	hired	Farm	Loan	Officer	Trainees	(FLOTs)	who	were	strong	infinancial	skills	but	lacked	expertise	in	production	practices	and	tools.	Other	states	provide	trainingto	producers,	but	few	address	training	to	FSA	personnel	(Ibendahl,	Isaacs,	&	Trimble,	2002;	Trede&	Whitaker,	1998).Robert	L.	ParsonsExtension	Assistant	ProfessorUniversity	of	VermontBurlington,	Vermontbob.parsons@uvm.eduGregory	D.	HansonProfessorPenn	State	UniversityUniversity	Park,	Pennsylvaniagdh3@psu.eduFSA's	situation	is	not	unique.	Agriculture	in	the	21st	century	is	a	highly	capitalized	industry,	usingrapidly	changing	production	practices	and	in	need	of	ag-friendly	lenders	to	meet	financial	needs.However,	agricultural	finance	firms	face	many	difficulties	in	finding	individuals	who	areknowledgeable	about	the	specialized	production	practices	unique	to	farming,	able	to	relocate,	anddesire	to	work	in	a	large	government	agency.The	situation	is	made	more	difficult	because	FSA	is	charged	with	providing	financial	resources	toAmerica's	most	at	risk	farmers--those	with	limited	resources	and	typically	the	most	highlyfinancially	leveraged.	Because	at-risk	farm	finances	permit	little	room	for	production	mistakes,there	is	a	tremendous	need	for	"ag	smart"	lenders	who	are	both	knowledgeable	of	ever-changingfarm	production	processes	and	sensitive	to	the	unique	needs	of	family	oriented	businesses.Initial	WorkshopTo	meet	FSA's	training	needs,	a	workshop	was	developed	for	Fall	2000,	led	by	farm	managementspecialists	from	Penn	State	Cooperative	Extension	and	University	of	Vermont	Extension.	The	initialworkshop	included	visits	to	a	dairy	farm,	a	crop	farm,	a	livestock	operation,	and	a	farm	equipmentdealership.	Each	session	included	a	review	of	production	fundamentals,	use	of	videotapeinterviews	of	similar	producers,	and	an	examination	of	the	finances	of	the	specific	ag	operationvisited.The	participants	were	asked	to	identify	the	major	production	practices	and	the	importantequipment	on	their	farm.	During	each	2-3	hour	visit,	the	FLOTs	toured	the	farm	with	the	owner,discussing	major	production	practices	with	special	emphasis	on	the	buildings,	livestock,	andequipment.	Special	effort	was	made	to	visit	farms	that	were	well	managed	but	with	typicalequipment	inventories	and	financial	resources	to	achieve	above	average	production	levels.The	farm	visits	gave	FLOTs	a	rare	opportunity	to	see	the	equipment	close	up,	e.g.,	examine	theknives	on	a	mower	conditioner,	observe	how	the	milking	system	worked,	and	walk	the	fieldslooking	at	crops	including	pasture	management	and	discuss	with	the	owner	how	farm	resourcesare	linked	in	production.	After	each	farm	visit,	the	group	discussed	the	farm	operation,	theequipment,	the	production	process,	and	identification	of	the	"secret	of	production,"	that	is,	whatmade	the	farm	production	process	successful	on	this	farm.The	visit	to	the	equipment	dealership	was	of	particular	benefit	to	the	participants,	enabling	themto	compare	modern	equipment	to	past	models,	examine	the	key	aspects	of	each	piece	ofequipment,	question	the	value	determination	of	used	equipment.	The	visit	also	exposed	thepressures	input	suppliers	face	in	today's	business	environment.The	initial	production	workshop	was	attended	by	10	FLOTs	from	Pennsylvania,	Delaware,	andMaryland.	The	evaluations	from	both	participants	and	state	leaders	were	positive.	All	of	theparticipants	indicated	they	gained	considerable	knowledge	of	production	practices	and	inparticular	became	more	knowledgeable	regarding	the	uses	of	individual	equipment	pieces.	Therespective	state	Farm	Loan	Chiefs	indicated	satisfaction	with	the	knowledge	gained	and	theimproved	confidence	of	FLOTs	with	production	loan	applications.Follow-up	WorkshopsAfter	examining	the	participant	evaluations	to	uncover	strengths	and	weaknesses	of	the	training,the	workshop	design	was	altered	from	2	days/week	over	3	weeks	to	a	3	1/2-day	intensive	courseheld	in	1	week.	Two	major	changes	included:	1)	reducing	the	financial	analysis,	which	reduced	thetime	requirements	(yet	still	sharing	farm	specific	financial	information	where	possible)	and	2)placing	greater	emphasis	on	the	marketing	challenges	facing	the	individual	farms	and	businesses.The	success	of	the	program	led	to	the	decision	to	take	the	workshop	to	other	states.From	October	2001	to	September	2002,	three	workshops	jointly	sponsored	by	Penn	StateCooperative	Extension	and	University	of	Vermont	Extension	were	held	in	the	Northeast	for	46FLOTs	from	12	states.	The	first	two	workshops	followed	the	same	approach	of	the	initial	workshopwhile	the	third	workshop	was	more	advanced,	focusing	more	specifically	on	entrepreneurialoperations.Workshop	Participant	ProfileOne	basic	objective	was	to	expose	FLOTs	to	a	variety	of	production	systems	that	were	relevant,yet	also	expose	them	to	other	products	that	they	may	come	in	contact	with	and	be	required	toanalyze	regarding	loan	approval,	in	the	future.	The	diversity	of	Northeast	agriculture	is	shown	bythe	number	of	commodities	familiar	to	the	FLOTs	(Table	1).	Dairy	was	by	far	the	most	commoncommodity,	with	nearly	70%	working	"often"	with	clients	who	dairy	farmed.	The	next	mostprevalent	commodity	was	corn,	followed	by	fruit	and	beef.	However,	Table	1	shows	the	diverserange	of	common	and	unique	commodities	that	the	FLOTs	encountered	on	a	regular	basis	throughtheir	clients.Table	1.	Commodities	Produced	by	Clients	of	Workshop	Participants	Number	of	Participants	Working	withThis	CommodityAg	Commodity Sometimes Often TotalBeef 32 1 33Corn 17 20 37Dairy 13 32 45Farm	retail	store 23 6 29Fisheries 4 1 5Fruit 24 11 35Greenhouse/vegetables 16 8 24Nursery 23 5 28Potatoes 12 3 15Sheep/goats 20 4 24Others* 13 6 191*	Others	includes	Asian	vegetables,	bee	keeping,	blueberry,	cranberry,Christmas	trees,	exotic	species,	small	grains,	hogs,	lobsters,	maple	sugar,poultry,	sugar	beets,	and	turf	grass.The	workshops	drew	recent	hires	and	veterans,	but	overall	the	participants	averaged	5.1	years	ofFSA	credit	experience	and	11.1	years	with	the	USDA	(Table	2).	There	was	a	difference	between	theworkshops.	The	second	workshop	hosted	a	number	of	new	hires,	thus	averaging	only	3.6	years	ofcredit	experience,	while	the	third	workshop	included	several	veterans,	the	group	averaging	7.8years	credit	experience	and	more	then	16	years	with	the	USDA.	The	implication	was	that	even	theveterans	found	the	workshop	to	be	quite	rewarding.	In	addition,	the	experienced	FLOTs	addedvaluable	comments	to	the	discussions	about	the	farm	visits.Table	2.Profile	of	Workshop	Participants	Workshop	1 Workshop	2 Workshop	3 CombinedYears	of	FSAcreditexperience5.03.6 7.8 5.14Years	of	USDAexperience12.5 7.3 16.4 11.15Workshop	ContentThe	participants	were	asked	to	evaluate	the	workshop	content	and	farm	and	agribusiness	tours.The	visits	to	the	farm	input	suppliers	garnered	the	highest	level	of	satisfaction	(Table	3).	Whilemost	FLOTs	do	get	out	on	farms,	few	have	frequent	opportunities	to	visit	with	agribusiness	firmssuch	as	equipment	dealers/suppliers.One	aspect	not	shown	in	the	evaluations	was	the	generous	cooperation	of	the	equipment	dealers.One	dealer	made	a	point	of	indicating	that	as	a	group,	equipment	dealers	seldom	get	a	chance	totalk	about	equipment	characteristics	with	lenders,	and	in	particular,	to	discuss	the	differencesbetween,	e.g.,	newer	and	older	tractor	models.	In	addition,	many	of	the	participants	werefascinated	by	the	technology	advances	of	new	equipment	and	the	opportunity	to	hear	theviewpoint	of	equipment	dealers	on	financing,	sales,	valuing	used	equipment,	and	the	changes	thathave	transpired	in	the	input	sector	in	the	past	20	years.The	next	most	satisfying	aspect	of	the	workshops	was	the	direct	farm	visits.	Each	workshopincluded	at	least	three	farm	tours	focused	on	different	production	systems.	A	dairy	farm	was	onthe	agenda	at	each	workshop.	Although	the	crop	farms	differed	for	each	workshop,	the	generalemphasis	was	on	the	range	of	equipment	and	field	production	practices	including	tillage,fertilization,	and	weed	control.	The	other	farm	operations	toured	were	particularly	diverse,including	a	roadside	vegetable	market,	a	grape/apple	operation,	and	a	fruit	operation	with	anemphasis	on	value-added	cider.The	workshop	exercises	were	slightly	less	popular	with	each	group.	However,	the	classroomexercises	were	felt	to	be	valuable	in	providing	guides	for	questions	at	the	farms	and	for	generatingpoints	of	discussion	when	the	workshop	participants	evaluated	the	farms.	The	evaluations	wereimportant	because	each	workshop	was	slightly	modified,	with	some	evolutionary	changes	to	theworkshop	manual	and	exercises.	Changing	the	format	to	a	full	3	days	proved	popular	withparticipants	who	earlier	had	to	use	some	weekend	time	for	travel.	In	addition,	interest	waned	after3	days,	so	shortening	the	workshop	did	not	reduce	effectiveness.Table	3.Satisfaction	with	Workshop	Activities	(1=dissatisfied	to	5=satisfied)	Workshop	1 Workshop	2 Workshop	3 CombinedFarm	visits 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.49Commercialag	businessvisits4.6 4.4 4.6 4.58Evaluation	offarmequipment3.9 3.8 3.8 3.87Classroomevaluationexercises4.4 3.8 4.1 4.04Viewing	videotapes4.4 3.7 4.2 4.04Length	ofworkshop3.9 4.0 4.3 4.04Impact	of	WorkshopThe	objective	of	the	workshop	was	to	improve	the	production	knowledge	of	FLOTs	to	enable	themto	become	more	effective	in	working	with	their	clients.	The	participants	clearly	endorsed	theworkshop's	effectiveness	and	also	recommended	the	workshop	to	others	(Table	4).	One	keycategory	of	importance	to	FSA	Farm	Loan	Chiefs	was	that	most	participants	found	that	workshopparticipation	made	them	a	better	loan	officer	(rated	4.16	on	a	5-point	scale).Table	4.	Evaluation	of	the	Impact	of	Workshop	Participation	(1=disagree	to	5=agree)	 Workshop	1 Workshop	2 Workshop	3 CombinedMade	me	abetter	loanofficer4.4 3.9 4.3 4.16Would	attendsimilarworkshops4.6 4.2 4.7 4.44Recommendworkshop	toothers4.6 4.0 4.8 4.40OverallSatisfaction4.6 4.0 4.8 4.33Quality	of	InstructorsA	critical	challenge	for	Extension	farm	management	faculty	is	to	continually	improve	theireducational	programs	in	the	context	of	a	dynamic	agricultural	environment.	In	this	role,Cooperative	Extension	has	the	potential	to	fulfill	its	role	as	educator	to	groups	other	than	the	farmcommunity.	Since	the	mid-1990's,	Cooperative	Extension	has	provided	training	across	the	countryfor	farmers	to	gain	or	renew	eligibility	for	FSA	lending.	In	addition,	Cooperative	Extension	hasprovided	leadership	on	financial	training	for	FSA	personnel.	We	believe	that	extending	CooperativeExtension	training	agenda	from	the	financial	area	to	include	production	and	marketing	has	beensuccessful	and	can	be	successfully	extended	to	the	farm	service	and	input	sectors.The	evaluations	from	the	workshop	participants	rated	the	instructors	highly	in	subject	matterknowledge	and	encouraging	participation	(Table	5).	In	addition,	the	instructors'	workshopeffectiveness	was	excellent,	at	4.56	out	of	a	possible	five	points.	Most	remarkable	was	the	rating	ofthe	instructors	at	the	third	workshop,	where	13	participants	gave	the	instructors	a	perfect	5.0	onthree	of	the	four	categories.	The	instructors'	ratings	for	the	second	workshop	were	lower	than	forthe	others.	These	lower	scores	can	likely	be	attributed	in	part	to	hotel	construction,	which	causedroom	changes	each	day	and	rooms	not	located	in	the	same	hotel	where	the	participants	werestaying.Table	5.Evaluation	of	Instructors	and	Overall	Workshop	(1=poor	to	5=excellent)	Workshop	1 Workshop	2 Workshop	3 CombinedSubject	MatterKnowledge4.9 4.5 5.0. 4.73Organization&	Preparation4.8 4.1 5.0 4.53EncourageParticipation4.6 4.7 5.0 4.76OverallWorkshopEffectiveness4.6 4.3 4.8 4.56Future	DirectionThe	workshops	have	proved	successful	with	participants	and	FSA	Program	Leaders.	The	success	isperhaps	best	illustrated	by	a	comment	made	in	a	letter	from	a	state	Farm	Loan	Program	Leaderthat	stated,	"This	workshop	may	go	down	in	FSA	history	as	the	only	workshop	that	no	onecomplained	about	attending.	And	coming	from	this	tough	group,	that	is	quite	a	compliment."The	plans	are	to	hold	additional	workshops	throughout	the	coming	year.	One	key	for	trainingsuccess	will	be	to	include	workshop	topics	that	are	relevant	to	that	region.	We	believe	thatproduction	training	offers	an	excellent	opportunity	to	built	alliances	between	Extension	and	FSAthat	aid	both	in	improving	the	agricultural	economy.One	alternative	under	consideration	is	to	expand	the	workshop	to	include	lenders	from	commercialbanks	and	Farm	Credit	Associations.	As	the	farm	population	continues	to	decline,	there	is	littledoubt	that	ag	lenders	will	increasingly	have	greater	difficulty	recruiting	loan	officers	with	highlevels	of	farm	savvy	and	production	knowledge.	Thus,	it	becomes	more	vital	for	lenders	toparticipate	in	ongoing	training	programs	focused	on	the	basics	of	agricultural	production	practices.Moreover,	it	is	likely	that	participation	in	production	training	will	become	more	and	more	useful	forexperienced	lenders	as	well	in	order	for	them	to	keep	up	with	technology	advances	in	agriculture.For	Cooperative	Extension,	the	challenge	is	to	remain	relevant	in	a	changing	world.	With	a	smallerfarm	community,	Cooperative	Extension	may	have	a	smaller	direct	clientele,	but	Extension	agentsand	specialists	still	can	reach	out	to	members	of	the	ag	community,	and	possibly	other	disciplines,by	offering	workshops	to	improve	production	expertise	and	knowledge	bases.	In	this	role,Cooperative	Extension	can	meet	the	Outreach	Education	demands	within	the	agriculture	lendingenvironment.	These	training	experiences	have	convinced	us	that	linking	Cooperative	Extensionwith	FSA	both	serves	the	lending	community	and	fulfills	commitments	to	farm	producers	throughthe	graduation	of	more	ag-savvy	lenders.ReferencesHanson,	G.	D.,	Parsons,	R.	L.,	Chess,	W.,	&	Balliet,	K.	(2002).	Farm	production	analysis	training	forsmall	farmers.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	40(4).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/a8.shtmlHanson,	G.	D.,	Parsons,	R.	L.,	&	Musser,	W.	(2002).	A	transition	finance	training	program	forFSA/USDA.	Agricultural	Finance	Review.	62(2):179-189.Hanson,	G.	D.,	Parsons,	R.	L.,	Musser,	W.	&.Power,	L.	(1998).	Impact	analysis	of	farm	financeworkshops.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	36(3).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb2.htmlIbendahl,	G.,	Isaacs,	S.,	&	Trimble,	R.	(2002).	Financial	information	base	of	participants	in	FSAborrower	training.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	40(5).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/rb4.shtmlParsons,	R.	L.,	Hanson,	G.	D.,	Musser,	W.,	Freund,	R.,	&	Power,	L.	(2000).	A	northeast	borrowertraining	program:	evolution	and	impacts.	Agricultural	and	Resource	Economics	Review.	29(2):240-250.Trede,	L.,	&	Whitaker,	S.	(1998).	Beginning	farmer	education	in	Iowa:	implications	to	extension.Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	36(5).	Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.htmlCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Expanding Extension\u27s Reach: Partnering With FSA to Meet Educational Goals

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4790&context=joe

Expanding Extension\u27s Reach: Partnering With FSA to Meet Educational Goals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints