volume 55 article #9

Individualized Help for Major Farm Transition Decisions: The New York FarmNet Case

John Brake

The author is W.I. Myers Professor of Agricultural Finance at Cornell University.

Abstract

New York FarmNet was one of a number of farmer help lines begun in the mid-1980s to provide individualized help to farmers facing major transitions. Three program evaluations found that the program:

Key words: financial stress, farmer help line, farm safety net, extension program, extension clientele, farm management, farm decision making.

Article <top>

During the 1980s, a number of states initiated toll-free help lines from which farm families could get individualized help in dealing, typically, with major financial problems. Some of the first programs were in the midwest and corn belt states including, among others, Iowa’s Rural Concern, Illinois’ Rural Route, Kansas’ Farmers Assistance and Counseling Training Service (FACTS), Wisconsin’s Farmer Assistance Program, and Missouri’s 1340 Program. Most were heavily oriented toward the financial problems, or the farm financial crisis, of the early to mid-1980s. Because the programs responded to the crises of the time, they typically were viewed as "crisis hotlines," rather than as a more appropriate, but general, resource for individualized help during major transitions. New York State began a similar program in early 1986, and the program (with modifications) has continued through 1995. Given that a toll-free 800 number access to help for farm families is a relatively new approach, and that financial pressures on extension outreach are forcing changes in delivery systems, it seems useful to discuss some of the lessons and issues in the context of a specific case.¹ Although the conclusions offered are case-specific, it is believed that a number of the findings may be generalized, and their implications may be extended well beyond this specific case.

¹Yin has defined a case study as "an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used" (p. 23).

The objectives of this article are to:

A Description of the New York FarmNet Program <top>

The New York FarmNet program was initiated in 1986 as a response to the financial problems of New York farmers. After a Cornell Cooperative Extension task force report argued the need in late 1985 for a New York response to the situation, a funding proposal was sent to the New York legislature. The proposal called for establishing a toll-free phone line for farmers within any geographical area of New York State. The phone line was described as an "information-referral" number and was located at Cornell University in Ithaca. Based on the task force report and contacts from college administration, legislative leaders authorized the program to commence. Starting in mid-January 1986, office personnel were hired; a list of potential part-time consultants was developed, from which program staff members were contacted and hired; training programs were held; a toll-free 800 number telephone line was installed; and call answering procedures were put in place. The program went on-line March 10, 1986.

Once the decision was made to establish the toll-free phone line for New York farm families, responsibility for the program was placed in the hands of a six-person steering committee with representation from Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Media Services, and the Agricultural Economics Department. The steering committee hired a program coordinator who, in turn, hired office staff including part-time telephone operators. The staff also included an outreach coordinator for liaison with county extension offices and other sources of farm family support, and to assist with program evaluations. A part-time staff person was hired to set up and maintain a computer database. The database was designed to serve two primary functions. The first was to maintain addresses and telephone numbers of help sources on a county basis; the other was to record call data for preparation of call summaries. The steering committee, supplemented by the program coordinator and outreach coordinator, selected the name for the program, arranged for an 800 number, and set the overall policies and direction of the program.

An important consideration during the program's initial phase was to remain focused on purpose rather than being diverted by the details of start-up. An early one-page statement of program description listed the following purposes: "(1) to refer farm families to appropriate local sources of help, (2) to assist farm families in identifying options and in developing decision-making skills, and

(3) to provide a safety net of help for families who don’t know where to turn or who have tried all the alternatives they could think of without success." The FarmNet program, it noted, "had the interest in farm families and the flexibility to follow up on unusual or difficult questions to find a source of help for that family’s problems."

Description of Program Operation <top>

The program started with a telephone operator available to answer calls during weekday working hours. For calls placed at other times, the program contracted with an answering service whose operators would take calls and messages, and the FarmNet staff would return the calls the next business day. In emergencies, the answering service would provide appropriate referrals to other help lines, or sources of information, or would contact the FarmNet program coordinator or another designated person.

When a call was received, the operator first obtained basic information including farm location, phone number (if the caller would provide it), type of farm operation, the situation, and decision needs. Next, the operator began the problem-identification phase by asking questions to determine the issues needing to be addressed. The operator and caller discussed possible courses of action and agreed on the next step, which typically included one or more of several responses. For example, the caller could be referred to local sources of help such as the Job Training Partnership (JTP), New York State employment offices, social services offices, public mental health agencies, personal counselors, substance abuse response lines, suicide prevention, local clergy, food pantries, or others. The operator could follow with a mailing of relevant printed resources (or video for loan) from an extensive FarmNet resource library. In some cases, the operator would obtain information from a Cornell faculty member with specialized, relevant expertise. The operator would then call the family back and provide them with the information.

A third response followed when it was apparent the family faced a major transition and needed personalized help. On such calls, the operator would contact the local Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) staff member with farm management responsibility. The local CCE contact was asked to call the farm family within 24 hours, assess the situation, and either agree to work with the family or to have FarmNet assign a consultant to assist the family. If the family preferred not to utilize the local CCE staff person, or in counties where there was no CCE staff member with farm management responsibility, a FarmNet financial consultant was assigned to work with the family. The consultant was to contact the family within 24 hours and schedule a farm visit.

From the inception of the program, it was recognized that part-time consultants would be needed to supplement efforts of CCE field staff. A consultant "pool" was developed from recently retired farm management CCE field staff, recently retired farm lenders, and others with the requisite training in farm management and/or financial analysis. Slightly over a dozen part-time financial consultants made up the original pool, and this number has since remained near that level.

Whenever a CCE farm management agent or a FarmNet consultant was assigned to work with a family on a farm business/financial problem, the intent of the consultation was to help the family through a decision-making process. The process involved the following steps:

(1) analyze the business situation to identify the problem, (2) consider relevant options available to address the problem, and (3) work with the family to help them analyze options and decide on a course of action. It should be emphasized that the family was to decide on a course of action. However, the families sometimes needed guidance in implementing the action they chose. Consultants were encouraged to check back with families two or three months after the original farm visits to see whether the plan had been implemented. This additional support enabled some families to follow through with their decision.

Inservice programs for FarmNet personnel were critical from the beginning of the program. Part-time operators were hired and trained for answering the phones. Their on-the-job-support consisted of sessions with personnel from other "help lines" (such as suicide prevention), and with faculty having expertise in communication—and particularly listening skills. Development programs and workshops for consultants were provided prior to program start-up and have continued to be provided almost every year since. For all such programs, both the consultants to FarmNet and Cornell Cooperative Extension field staff have been invited to every session. In 1986 and 1987, these workshops included a large representation from the CCE field staff. Topics focused on listening skills, assessing the farm business situation, tax aspects of bankruptcy and farm sale, leaving farming, and legal issues. Recent inservice workshops have included fewer CCE field staff, although field staff have comprised 30_40% of attendees. Topics for recent workshops have been jointly developed by the FarmNet program coordinator and consultants, allowing substantially more input from consultants than earlier, on topics they wished to have addressed.

Within a year or two following program start-up, it became evident that a significant number of callers had personal stress problems with which the financial consultant was not equipped to deal. At that point, a process was used to develop a pool of "personal" consultants, similar to that used earlier for farm financial consultants (FFCs). That is, extension field staff, faculty, and others were asked for names of people who had recently retired from positions in areas such as public mental health, or who had the requisite training in communication, listening, or counseling skills such that they could work with farm families in assessing the extent of personal stress and the possible need for professional counseling.

Whether a personal consultant, a financial consultant, or both were assigned to a case depended initially upon the phone operator’s assessment. Sometimes it became clear after the financial consultant began meeting with the family that a personal consultant was needed, and the financial consultant initiated a request. Depending on the situation, the personal consultant may have accompanied the financial consultant for family visits, and in other instances, the personal consultant dealt directly and individually with family members.

After completing the work on an assignment, consultants turned in a brief report to the FarmNet office, summarizing the nature of the problem, the analysis, alternatives discussed, and what course of action the farm family had decided to take.

When the program started in 1986, consultants were paid $15 per hour for their services, plus mileage, meals, and overnight lodging, if necessary. Two or three years later, the hourly rate of pay was increased to $16.50, and it has remained at that level since. Decreased program funding levels in recent years have limited further increases in rates of pay. However, the strong commitment of consultants to the farm community has allowed the program to hire an adequate number of consultants at the present rate of pay. No consultants have left the program due to the hourly pay rate.

Legal issues became an important component when alternatives such as bankruptcy, foreclosure, selling out, or leaving farming were being considered. At the start of the program, consultant workshops included attorneys who discussed legal issues and options. Within months, it became evident that farm families themselves needed access to attorneys to answer critical legal questions. In response, the program began to refer callers to a short list of attorneys who were identified as having appropriate expertise. Shortly thereafter, the program contracted with an attorney on retainer. The initial consultation with the attorney was at no charge to the caller and, in general, was limited to one-half hour. The consultation purpose was to answer critical legal questions and to clarify issues. Any use of the attorney beyond the initial consultation (e.g., for personal representation, such as filing bankruptcy) was to be at the expense of the client rather than FarmNet.

The selection of an attorney for the "on-retainer" position, or an attorney for specific caller referrals, was not a quick or easy process. It was discovered that selection of an attorney through the local "Yellow Pages" directory did not ensure that the caller would get a highly qualified attorney for a particular specialty—even though attorneys listed themselves by specialty. The first means used by FarmNet to select attorneys for referral was to contact farm management field staff throughout the state and request their recommendation of attorneys whom they had seen work successfully with farm clients. Even in those instances, it was important to differentiate between attorneys who specialized in farm taxes or general farm practice and attorneys with experience in farm bankruptcies. It should be noted that in the mid-80s, there were few attorneys with farm bankruptcy experience. Perhaps the most useful approach the program found for selecting an attorney on retainer came from calling trustees of Chapter 12 Bankruptcy courts and asking for their input on attorneys serving farm clients in those courts. From the compiled lists based on those calls, several highly qualified attorneys were identified. The subsequent FarmNet experience with those attorneys has been very favorable.

The media component has been critical, and it has been most helpful to have a media representative on the steering committee. When the farm crisis was in the news, substantial use was made of public service announcements (PSAs). These included PSAs for television, farm magazines, and local, rural, or farm-oriented newspapers. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, with much less interest and emphasis on farm financial problems, it became more difficult to get PSAs into the printed media. A limited advertising budget was used to purchase small monthly or bimonthly ads in two major farm newspapers.

One of the early lessons from the FarmNet program was the importance of publicity. For families to use the help line, they had to be aware of its existence. A few news stories about a farm help line were not sufficient. Rather, it was necessary to keep reminding people of the program’s existence and purpose.

Other approaches were used as well for getting the FarmNet program before the farm audience. With the help of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, two brochure mailings of over 21,000 each were sent to the department's list of all farmers in the state with more than $10,000 annual gross farm sales. Additional copies of the same small brochure were made available to CCE county offices, with requests to place copies where the farm audience might see them (e.g., country elevators, farm machinery dealerships, farm lender offices, etc.). The brochure briefly described the program, gave the toll-free telephone number, assured confidentiality for callers, and provided a complete listing of all CCE county offices, phone numbers, and names of farm management agents. Finally, a FarmNet exhibit was developed and, with a supply of brochures, was set up at the New York State Fair, Empire State Farm Days, and the New York Farm Bureau annual meetings.

Other Program Elements <top>

Over its years of operation, FarmNet has grew in additional directions. The original FarmNet appropriation from New York State contained a stipulation to include an "entrepreneurial" component. That specification led to the development of a Farming Alternatives project to help farm operators find additional ways of improving their "bottom line" results, including analysis of supplementary production and marketing alternatives. The Farming Alternatives project was later integrated into the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences sustainable agriculture program.

From its onset, FarmNet has attempted to build relationships with other farm support groups and agencies. In 1992_93, at the suggestion of office staff, program administrators decided to publish a periodic four-page newsletter entitled "New York FarmNetWorking." The newsletter has been sent two to three times per year to CCE offices, county human service agencies, agribusinesses, rural churches, farm lenders, and any others who ask to be on the mailing list. By 1994, 1,000 newsletter copies were printed and mailed to 650 locations. Newsletter articles are designed to improve the readers' understanding of the farm audience as well as to inform them of the FarmNet program. For example, articles have described characteristics of the farm population and farming. Seven issues of the "New York FarmNetWorking" newsletter had been distributed by mid-1995.

As a developing, evolving program seeking to meet the needs of farm families, FarmNet has been open to additional ways to utilize the phone line. When drought struck a number of areas of the state in 1991, FarmNet initiated a "forage-finder" service to help farmers who ran out of feed locate sources near them. People with forage for sale listed type, amount, and quality of forage they had available. Callers needing forage were given the names of three or four contacts nearest to them. Also, building on FarmNet experience and involvement with numerous volunteer farm support groups, FarmNet published a manual in 1993 on forming a farm support group.

In the spring of 1994, FarmNet began sharing the toll-free phone line with a "FarmLink" program. FarmLink’s purpose was to help bring together families wanting to find a successor for their farm operation with families looking for an opportunity to explore farm ownership. Callers were able to get information about or access the new CCE program through FarmNet. The FarmNet office designed, sent out, received back, and tabulated the questionnaires. The resulting FarmLink database was maintained by the FarmNet office staff. However, due to lack of funding, the FarmLink effort was discontinued in April 1995.

Program Experience and Results <top>

Number of Calls and Reasons for Calls

New York FarmNet went on-line March 10, 1986. Information on each telephone call is recorded by the operator at the time of call, and the data are entered into a computer database. Numbers of calls, reasons for the call, and type of response are tabulated on a monthly basis and, in general, quarterly reports are filed with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, the program contract administrator for New York State. Table 1 presents a summary, by nature of call, of the 8,418 calls received through March 1995, with an additional breakdown of calls received during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.

As could be expected, the description of categories of calls has changed over time. Categories were set up initially based on the calls received in the first weeks of the program and based on anticipated reporting uses. Later, new categories were added or previous categories were changed—based on experience, additions of new components to the program, or changes in program priorities. Throughout the program, financial stress has consistently been a major reason for calls. Financial problems accounted for over half of the calls received early in the program, but they have since become a smaller component of call numbers. Three other categories each have made up about one-sixth of the calls: (1) requests for information on agricultural questions, (2) calls from "concerned second parties" (which also fall into other categories), and (3) legal questions. Consistently throughout the program, 5_10% of the calls have fallen into the major categories of (1) employment, retraining, and education; (2) mental health and/or personal stress; and (3) marital or interpersonal problems. About 1% of calls turn out to be very serious or of crisis proportions.

 

Note: Because some calls were assigned to more than one of the categories listed in column 1, figures in columns 2 and 3 do not sum to corresponding figures presented as "total calls."

A summary of FarmNet responses to calls is presented in Table 2. Through March 1995, 2,554 of the financial and stress calls were referred to CCE agents or to FarmNet consultants for one-to-one follow-up. CCE agents handled slightly over half of these referrals, and FarmNet consultants slightly under half. Since the FarmNet brochures listed phone numbers and names of FarmNet contacts for each CCE county office, a number of callers contacted the county office directly, so CCE agent calls are likely underreported.

From program start-up through March 1995, some 573 callers have been referred to the FarmNet attorney on retainer, and another 434 have been referred to other attorneys or legal services. Over 300 callers have been referred to Cornell University staff. Some 2,161 referrals have been made to other sources, including local CCE offices (typically for information on production agriculture questions), farm lenders, employment offices, government agencies, food pantries, clergy, and other support services. Additional assistance to 3,354 callers was provided by sending out information or resources, calling back with information, providing other client follow-up, or by direct operator counseling.

Program Evaluations <top>

Over the course of the FarmNet program, three evaluations with varied purpose and depth have been completed. The first, and most extensive, evaluation began in late September 1986, about six months after program start-up. Results were published in November 1987 (Shephard). This early evaluation had two major purposes: (1) accountability to stakeholders, and (2) program improvement. To obtain the relevant input, six groups were surveyed. These included: (1) callers who were provided information or referrals by the operator, (2) callers referred to a CCE agent for financial counseling, (3) callers referred to a FarmNet financial consultant for financial counseling, (4) the general farm population of New York State, (5) CCE agents actively involved in the FarmNet effort, and (6) the FarmNet financial consultants.

A combination of telephone interviews and mail surveys was used. New York FarmNet operators conducted the telephone interviews of the three categories of FarmNet callers. The mail survey of "potential FarmNet users" was sent to 500 randomly selected Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) program participants. Mail surveys were sent to all CCE agents serving as FarmNet contacts (usually the agent with farm management responsibility in each county), and to all FarmNet financial consultants.

Much useful information for both stakeholders and program improvement came out of the surveys. By that time, nearly 800 people had called the FarmNet toll-free phone line. Over half of the calls were prompted by farm financial concerns. Interestingly, 15% of the callers said they had never previously contacted Cooperative Extension. And, while most callers had used CCE before, 83% had not sought any assistance from CCE for "the situation" that prompted their call to FarmNet. Importantly, some 56% said FarmNet was the only resource they could think of for assistance. Further, about one-third of the callers surveyed had not previously sought out any source of help for their current situation. In short, 15% of the callers were a new audience for CCE, and most callers would not have considered CCE as a source of help for their current situation.

Survey respondents were very positive about the help they received from the FarmNet phone operators. Seven in eight said referrals given them were appropriate. Two-thirds said the phone conversation helped them see there might be possibilities for dealing with their situation, and over half said they felt at least somewhat relieved of stress after talking with the phone operator.

Within the first six months of the program, over 300 callers were referred to a CCE agent or FarmNet financial consultant (FFC) for an individual farm and/or family consultation. The importance of an early program evaluation was accentuated when it was discovered that some breakdown in program mechanics had occurred. Almost 5% of respondents said they had not received a follow-up call from the CCE agent or from the FFC. Apparently, some messages left with support staff or on an answering machine were lost. In a few of these instances, however, FarmNet case records showed a return call had been made. It is not clear whether the survey respondent misunderstood the survey question, did not remember the consultation meeting after such a stressful period, or if there was some other reason for the discrepancy.

In general, callers were positive about the financial consulting interaction. They felt the consultant was concerned, had considered their individual circumstances, and had provided help in a timely fashion. Over half of the callers receiving financial consulting said the consultation helped them feel they had a course of action available to them. At the time of the survey, most had already acted on an option, although a few were still gathering information. Two-thirds of the families receiving financial consultations indicated they felt at least somewhat relieved of stress after the counseling session. The one negative reaction, reported by several respondents, was the lack of agent or consultant referral to other local sources or people for potential assistance.

Those families receiving financial consultations from FFCs had a more positive perception of FarmNet than those who received financial consultations from CCE agents. Over 91% of FFC service recipients said they would recommend FarmNet to others, while only 62% of CCE agent consultant service recipients said they would recommend FarmNet. The difference was apparently due to the substantially higher incidence of "lost messages" and lack of follow-up by CCE agents.

The survey of the "potential FarmNet users" population underlined the importance (and difficulty) of publicizing such a program. By the time of the survey, seven to nine months into the program, only 52% of respondents had heard of FarmNet. People apparently do not remember seeing information about a program they don’t need; rather, the program information must be available at the time of need. And, when asked to indicate the most important services a toll-free phone number could provide, respondents most frequently cited information, referral to available sources of help, financial consulting, and emotional support—virtually encapsulating the services FarmNet sought to provide. Survey results led to preparation of a FarmNet brochure, two mailings of the brochure to 21,000 farmers on the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets list of farmers with an annual gross income over $10,000, and expanded efforts to publicize the FarmNet program.

The surveys of the FarmNet CCE agent contacts and the FarmNet financial consultants obtained similar responses. Both groups noted a need for additional training and educational materials. Topics which they believed needed additional attention included counseling and communication skills, financial management, dealing with family emotional stress, legal issues such as bankruptcy and tax consequences of farm business liquidation, and lender policies. Several respondents suggested the need for fact sheets on legal issues, public assistance programs, economic updates, and financial "self-assessments" for farm families. Both groups also noted that monthly updates on FarmNet would be beneficial. The latter suggestion was immediately implemented by the FarmNet program coordinator.

Both CCE agents and FarmNet financial consultants believed FarmNet was addressing some previously unmet need(s) of farm families at risk. Survey respondents, in describing FarmNet benefits, cited specifics such as "an anonymous place to turn," an "outside source of help," a "stress absorber," a "resource access," and a place to get "an in-depth look at the farm and family situation." Both groups agreed that FarmNet helped increase the public’s awareness of Cornell Cooperative Extension and has created a more positive image of CCE as an "up-to-date, concerned, and helping organization."

Both groups also reported frustration over family expectations being too high (concerning the consultant’s ability to provide assistance), caller misconceptions over "quick-fix" options, a lack of follow-up in moving the family through assistance, and difficulty in getting families to make decisions.

Involvement in FarmNet cases increased stress on both groups. Half of the agents and three-fourths of the FarmNet financial consultants reported an increase in their personal stress levels. CCE agents felt their FarmNet involvement reduced time available for other programs, while the FarmNet financial consultants felt stress due to the nature of the difficult situations characterizing their caseload. Agents reported, however, that their work on FarmNet broadened their perspective and increased their knowledge of other program areas and other agents’ programs.

A second program evaluation covered the fiscal year April 1, 1987_March 31, 1988 (Delaney). During that fiscal year, 630 calls were received, 84 situations were referred to FarmNet FFCs, and 40 referrals were made to CCE agents for one-to-one follow-up. Similar to the first evaluation, telephone surveys were used to contact 108 previous callers.

Respondents again indicated strong support for the FarmNet program. Operator referrals were judged to have been appropriate and accurate. Some callers mentioned the need for assistance from FFCs or CCE agents in connecting farm families with local agencies. Other responses indicated a continuing need to publicize and advertise the program, a need for social (personal) counselors to help alleviate stress, and a need for legal help on a toll-free basis. While program mechanics were working well, in general, a few callers still reported lack of follow-up, primarily from CCE agents.

Recommendations of the Delaney report included: (1) continued advertising of FarmNet services in appropriate media, (2) emphasis on improving caller access to local agencies and professionals, (3) addition of part-time personal consultants for dealing with stress problems, and (4) continued inservice education for FFCs and CCE agents on issues such as farm liquidation, financial analysis, and development of counseling skills.

In 1991, a summary of FarmNet experience to date and a third evaluation were published (Brake and Phelen). The summary for the period through March 31, 1991 included 3,853 calls. The first year, from March 10, 1986 through March 31, 1987, 1,242 calls were received. Over the next four fiscal years, call numbers dropped to between 630 and 670. Other descriptive facts gleaned from annual call summaries showed that callers were predominantly male (50_60%), most were owners (90_95%) rather than farm workers, most were dairy producers (55_70%), and reasons for calls were primarily financial questions (29_44%) or legal questions (18_23%). During these years, about one-third of the callers received follow-up assistance from either a CCE agent or a FarmNet financial consultant.

The 1991 evaluation sought to identify the perceptions of 1986_87 callers to FarmNet and to describe any longer-term effects on the farm families who had received consultations. Fifty callers who had been visited by either a CCE agent or a FarmNet financial consultant between October 1986 and September 1987 were selected at random. Ten of the 50 could not be contacted due to death, moving away, telephone disconnected, or other reasons. Forty surveys were completed.

Analogous to the earlier evaluations, over 90% of respondents reported that the FarmNet operator had been helpful in some way. Evaluations of consultants, however, were less positive. Four respondents did not remember having a farm visit, even though FarmNet records indicated all 40 had received visits. In most cases, however, respondents were able to recall the number of visits and the options they had discussed with the consultants. Respondents also indicated other sources of help they had utilized, and of those, attorneys were mentioned most often. Also, the FarmNet consultants did play an important role in directing the family to other sources of help, including attorneys and lenders.

What were the longer-term impacts on early callers to FarmNet? Thirty percent of those sampled had since discontinued farming. Importantly, however, of those remaining, one in seven credited the FarmNet consultant with the fact that they were still in farming. Half of those still farming reported the size of their operation was approximately the same as when they had first called FarmNet. Two had increased their size of operation, three had reduced their operation size, and eight stated they were in a "different type of farm operation" than when they had first called the program. In describing their current (late 1990_early 1991) well-being, one-third of the respondents said they were much better off, one-third said they were slightly better off, one-sixth said they were no better or worse off, and one-sixth said they were either slightly or much worse off than in 1986_87.

To measure respondents’ satisfaction with FarmNet, they were asked whether they would recommend FarmNet to others. Three-fourths said they had or would recommend FarmNet. Six said they hadn’t and wouldn’t, and four said they hadn’t and didn’t know whether they would.

Summary of Evaluations <top>

In summary, the FarmNet program met an important need for farm families facing a major transition decision. Callers reported their stress levels were lowered after talking with phone operators. Typically, operators helped them see that there might be options for their situation. A new audience that had not previously accessed Cornell Cooperative Extension resources was brought into contact with an extension program. Moreover, the existing extension audience observed an additional facet of extension program offerings. FarmNet not only brought direct specialized expertise to the serious transition problems of farm families, but, by focusing workshops and inservice programs on the farm analysis and adjustment possibilities, helped to upgrade the proficiency of the entire Cornell Cooperative Extension field staff in working on these problems. There was general agreement among both CCE field staff and FarmNet FFCs that such a program was needed for individual farm families and that FarmNet was effectively meeting the need.

Perspectives, Issues, and Potential <top>

What do nine-plus years of New York FarmNet experience suggest about the need for, and contribution of, such individualized help programs? In times of diminished financial support, are these programs appropriate for an extension effort? What issues arise from such programs? Following are some perspectives drawing upon the FarmNet case.

1. For example, some extension agents viewed the program as being "outside extension," some faculty colleagues saw the program as a narrow, ad hoc, special-purpose program, and funders looked to discontinue the program once "the crisis" was past.

   Moreover, these perceptions led to limiting, and often inappropriate, definitions of the program's audience as being low-resource, marginal, or poor-management operators. In fact, many of the calls were not about financial problems. Further, the 1991 evaluation (although respondents represented a small sample) found that, even among those who had received financial counseling, the large majority was still farming in some manner three to four years later. And finally, while lack of complete data precludes comparisons of FarmNet caller characteristics with New York State averages, it is clear that callers came from a wide range of farm size situations, not just small, poorly managed farms. Over time, FarmNet has attempted to overcome the "crisis" perception and broaden its purposes and audience to build a stronger base. In a similar effort, Iowa's Rural Concern program has become the Iowa Concern program to broaden its audience, while Illinois, in contrast, viewed its Rural Route program to be narrow in purpose, and discontinued the program in 1989 when call numbers dropped off.

2. The problem of farm families facing loss of their farms, a major focus of help lines in the 80s, was unique and poorly addressed by traditional government agencies. When nonfarm businesses implemented major layoffs or closed down, government agencies typically moved in to help those affected locate new jobs, enter retraining programs, and arrange for unemployment compensation. Farm failures were much less visible—at least in New York State. Typically, there would be only one, two, or three farms per county facing such transitions at any one time. Hence, agencies didn't come to the farmer; rather, the farm family, accustomed to dealing with single-purpose farmer agencies, had to approach unfamiliar agencies for help. This was especially problematic because farm families (and often extension personnel as well) did not know what services were available. Worse yet, if and when farmers sought such help, agency personnel had little understanding of farmers' situations, and farmers tended to give up easily when help was not quickly forthcoming. Clearly, a farmer-oriented help line is much more user friendly.
3. Funding a farmer help line has been difficult. Obtaining adequate initial funding for FarmNet came relatively easily, given the publicity surrounding the "farm crisis." However, as state budgets became tighter and the "crisis" less visible, funding levels were reduced dramatically over time. FarmNet began with state funding of $200,000 for its first two years, but funding had dropped to $84,000 by 1993_94, and to $64,000 by 1994_95, at which time Cornell University's Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences supplemented the appropriation by $35,000. An attempt was made to obtain private funding from New York lenders in 1993_94, but only $5,400 was raised. While it might seem that there are numerous possible funding sources, major limitations arose; either the funding source was interested in a smaller than whole-state region, or the source wished to be a "seed donor," i.e., willing to start a new program, but unwilling to commit to funding an ongoing program.
4. Costs of operating a farmer help line are difficult to predict. Costs are demand driven and relate to number of consultant cases, attorney referrals, long-distance telephone call returns, costs of purchasing printed resources and mailing, as well as overhead. Total expenditures for FarmNet in the two most recently completed fiscal years have been between $100,000 and $110,000. For those two years, consultant case direct costs were about $200 each, attorney referrals about $70 each, and all other (overhead) expenses ranged from $42 (1,527 calls in 1994_95) to $65 (970 calls in 1993_94) per 800 number call. These figures do not include costs of office space or faculty time of approximately .4 FTE. The costs are difficult to evaluate compared to other services because government agencies, local cooperative extension offices, and other service/educational providers do not keep (or release) comparable data.
5. The various farmer help lines are of interest in their relationship to cooperative extension. FarmNet has utilized county-based extension field staff to the extent possible, and the program was set up as a Cornell Cooperative Extension effort with funding through a line-item appropriation from New York State. To date, however, the FarmNet appropriation has not been incorporated into overall CCE funding. Iowa's Rural Concern and Illinois' Rural Route programs were cooperative extension ventures as well, but Kansas' FACTS and Wisconsin's Farmer Assistance programs were both housed in their respective state Department of Agriculture. While all of these programs in other states have received state funding support, Illinois and Kansas also obtained funding from the Federal Extension Service and other contract sources.
6. There is an important issue of service versus education in these help programs. Certainly, some critics argue, such individualized analysis is service. But, a parallel can be drawn with adult education models. The traditional model starts with the educator (extension agent) identifying a problem of importance to the audience, and then developing a framework and resources to address that problem. Early on, in this approach, the educator must motivate the audience concerning the importance of the problem to them, and then must teach principles, analytical techniques, etc., so the audience can learn the material and apply it to their own situations.

In the individualized approach, the audience (caller) comes to the educator already motivated, and with a perceived need or problem (although further identification typically is required). The educator helps the individual through a decision-making process, starting with identification of the problem,² and then developing and analyzing alternatives to discover the best one for that situation. While there may be a fine line separating education and service in the individualized approach, important criteria are the generality of method, the extent to which the client is involved in specification and analysis of alternatives, and the client's depth of involvement in the decision-making process. FarmNet's objective has been to keep the client in control of both the decision process and the action to be taken.

²It may be useful in this context to define a problem as a discrepancy between expectations and outcome, or between objectives and outcome.

Still, some of the program's offerings have been service oriented. These include referral of callers to other help sources, sending printed resources to callers, and obtaining information from experts about a specific problem and then returning calls with the information. Similarly, providing callers access to an attorney for answering legal questions, and providing a forage-finder service were service-oriented add-ons to the program.

Second, in the current environment of decreased extension funding, the potential for use of part-time consultants by cooperative extension merits consideration. For its consultant pool, FarmNet hired recently retired agents and lenders with extensive farm management training and experience. Given situations with vacant county positions and newly hired college graduates, strategies should be developed for making additional use of these highly qualified people. Their potential for working with individual farm families in counties needing such expertise, for supplementing efforts of present staff, or for mentoring/training new extension hirees, is too great to overlook.

References <top>

Cornell Cooperative Extension Service. "At Risk Farm Families." Report of the Task Force on Farm Families Facing Economic Stress. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1985.

Brake, J.R., and B. Phelen. "Meeting the Need: A Summary and Evaluation of NY FarmNet." Agr. Econ. Research Report no. 91-3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, May 1991.

Delaney, C. "A Progress Report on the NY FarmNet Program, April 1, 1987­March 31, 1988." New York FarmNet, Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, December 1988.

Shephard, T.M. "An Evaluation of the NY FarmNet Program." Agr. Econ. Research Report no. 87-30. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1987.

Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.

<top>

 

---

Send questions and comments to Faye Butts fsb1@cornell.edu

This page was last modified on: 02/10/04