Acknowledgments I. Study Overview II. Study Design         A. The 4-H Club Study Team         B. Background and Assumptions         C. The Power of "Developmental Assets"         D. Study Design         E. Study Description III. Findings         A. Overview         B. Focus Groups                    1. Themes Emerging in the Focus Groups         C. 4-H Club Profile Survey         D. Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program     Leaders and Program Assistants         E. New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey                 1. Secondary Data Analysis Results                 2. Qualitative Findings from the "Members Only" Survey  IV. Issues Emerging During the Study (1997-1998)         A. Introduction         B. Issues and Recommendations V. References                      Appendices A. County-specific Highlights from the 4-H Club Profile Survey B. Statewide Descriptive Statistics/Frequencies: 4-H Club  Members Only Survey C. County-specific Findings: Descriptive Statistics/Frequencies from the 4-H Club Members Only Survey D. County-specific Findings: Qualitative Responses from the 4-H Club Members Only Survey E. 4-H Club Members Only Survey Instrument

vi 1 5 5 5 6 10 11 14 14 14 15 21 32 33 47 53 53 53 58       59 60   71   72   73

The original idea for the 4-H Club Study was born at a retreat held at the Cold River Ranch near Saranac Lake in January 1995. David Hillmann, Albany County, spearheaded a discussion group that later initiated efforts to conduct some kind of 4-H research, taking the idea forward to the New York State Association of Cornell Cooperative Extension 4-H Educators (NYSACCE4-HE) to garner support and direction. H. Thomas Davis, Orange County joined forces with Dave to create an ad hoc Club Study Committee of NYSACCE4-HE members similarly interested in examining the difference 4-H Club involvement makes in the life of a young person. Through this committee's tireless efforts, the study took shape and secured both NYSACCE4-HE and campus support. Without the committee's unwavering commitment and active participation, the study simply would not have been possible. We are deeply indebted to Dave Hillmann and Tom Davis, as well as the other members of the committee: Kathleen Sherwood, Delaware County; Sydney McEvoy, Chenango County; Suzanne Schwarting, Lewis County; Linda Wegner, Montgomery County; and Shawn Thayer, Sullivan County.

Once initiated, the first step in getting the study underway was to conduct a series of focus groups throughout the state. These focus groups in each of the six regional districts of the state became a key component of the study, as they informed all subsequent data collection efforts. As such, each of the local focus group study cooperators played a vital role in the study. We gratefully acknowledge their participation, as well as the many others who participated, anonymously, in the focus group discussions. The local focus group cooperators were: Linda Davis, Niagara County; Barbara Baker, Erie County; Kathy Sherwood, Delaware County; Kermit Bossard, Chemung County; Tom Davis, Orange County; Mona Orange, Putnam County; Dave Hillmann, Albany County; Paula Schafer, Saratoga County; Tim Davis, St. Lawrence County; Dawn Miller, Lewis County; Donna White, Jefferson County; Chip Malone, Genesee County; Donna Lechliter, Genesee County; Paula Lanning, Orleans County; Priscilla VanGorder, Oswego County; Carol Heimburg, Onondaga County; Kevin Colton, Seneca County; and Jim Ochterski, Monroe County.

The study was made possible through the generous support of New York State Association of Cornell Cooperative Extension 4-H Educators (NYSACCE4-HE), the 4-H Foundation, Cornell Cooperative Extension and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Statewide Program Committee, as well as New York's USDA State Strengthening Project, Reducing Risks and Increasing Capacity (RRIC), Stephen E. Goggin, Project Director.

We gratefully acknowledge the major contribution to this study made by the Search Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota. We are deeply indebted to Dale Blyth, formerly Director of Research and Evaluation at the Search Institute (now Director at the Center for 4-H Youth Development, University of Minnesota) for granting us permission to use items from the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors (1989) and for making the Search Institute's national survey data available to the 4-H Club Study Team for analysis.

Also, we want to acknowledge the collaboration of several nationally known leaders in the youth development field. In particular, we are indebted to Joyce Walker, Associate Professor in the Center for 4-H Youth Development, University of Minnesota; Stephen Hamilton, Professor, Human Development and Family Studies, Cornell University; Carol L. Anderson, Associate Director, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Cornell University; and Susanne Fisher, Assistant Director Youth Development, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Cornell University. Their insightful comments and astute suggestions were particularly germane during the critical stages of conceptualizing the research and framing the study design.

We wish to thank Pam Auble, Administrative Assistant, Cornell Cooperative Extension Administration for helping manage the on-campus data entry, county mailings and presentation preparations. Pam's attention to detail and "can-do" attitude helped streamline coordination of the project.

We are indebted to the hundreds of 4-H Educators, Program Assistants and Club Leaders who administered the New York State 4-H Clubs:

"Members Only" Survey. Without their active involvement and generous sharing of time, a statewide study as ambitious as this simply would not have been feasible.

Lastly, yet most importantly, we acknowledge the many 4-H Club Members who took part in the study. The fact that they took the survey seriously and honestly shared their thoughts and experiences is evident in the richness of their stories and the quality of the data. It is through their eyes and in their own words that we have learned about the important contributions 4-H Clubs are making to positive youth development in New York State.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Final Report
Understanding the Difference 4-H Clubs Make in the Lives of New York Youth:  How 4-H Contributes to Positive Youth Devleopment

I. Study Overview

This two-year study focused on understanding the difference 4-H Club participation makes in a young person's life and the ways in which 4-H Clubs influence and contribute to positive youth development in New York State. The results show that the process of youth development is positively influenced in multiple ways by 4-H Club membership. In other words, 4-H Club membership translates into asset development and positive outcomes for youth.

In this study, youth development was understood as a process of growing up and developing one's capacities in positive ways (Walker & Dunham, 1994). For those youth who participate in them, 4-H Clubs become a part of the contextual environment for positive youth development.

According to the National Collaboration for Youth, Position Statement for Accountability and Evaluation (1996), existing empirical research on the impact of positive youth development should be used whenever possible to avoid sacrificing limited youth development resources to the high costs often associated with research. Therefore, to augment the role of statistical inference, to reduce the role of subjective judgment on the part of researchers, and to provide an appropriate strategy deemed credible and useful to the cooperators in this study, a secondary data analysis was conducted using the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors survey data. The Search Institute's work on developmental assets is well known. Search's research has clearly demonstrated that the more assets young people have, the less likely they are to engage in problem behaviors, and the more likely they are to engage in positive, prosocial behaviors (Benson, 1996). In this study, the researchers reasoned that if the study showed that club participation increased the likelihood of asset development, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the likelihood of risk behaviors were being decreased through club participation.

To ensure a comprehensive study, improve data quality and produce findings addressing the interests and concerns of the New York State Association of Cornell Cooperative Extension 4-H Educators (NYSACCE4-HE), a number of different data collection strategies were applied to the study question. The following provides an overview of the data collection efforts.

The first step was to conduct a series of focus groups at both rural and urban Cooperative Extension offices (two focus groups in each of the six geographical regions of the state for a total of 12 focus groups). Youth development and 4-H Educators, program assistants, club leaders, club volunteers, club members, and parents of club members participated in the focus groups (n=120). Information gleaned from the focus groups was used to inform development of the New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey and to develop a set of recommendations for program improvement. The 4-H Club Profile Survey was administered to each of the counties (n=58) with a 100% response rate. The Profile Survey was used to collect demographic information about club membership and programming foci, as well as staffing. The Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program Leaders and Program Assistants was also administered via Internet. The results statewide (n=130) were also used to inform construction of the "Members Only" Survey instrument as well as to collect suggestions for program improvement from those people most closely involved in the day-to-day implementation and delivery of the club program. The centerpiece of the study was the New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey. County 4-H Educators, program assistants, club leaders and club volunteers administered the survey during the spring and summer of 1998. Fifty out of 58 counties, including New York City, participated in the study. Completed surveys (n=3198) were returned to Cornell to be optically scanned and then analyzed by the 4-H Club Study Team.

Analysis of the "Members Only" Survey data supported the study hypothesis that club membership makes a difference in terms of promoting the development of positive assets. Controlling for the possible influences of age, gender, family structure and father's education, statistical comparisons of all the Search Institute survey respondents who did and did not participate in clubs, and all "Members Only" Survey respondents were analyzed. The results indicated statistically significant differences in the expected direction. In addition, 4-H Club youth in New York scored higher than both the Search Institute's youth with club participation and without club participation on all the developmental assets tested. These assets included educational aspiration, achievement motivation, the desire to help others, school grades, self-esteem, decision making, the importance of having a value system, level of interaction and communication with adults, and the ability to make friends. Additionally, the length of time a youth remains in 4-H was examined. Statistically significant differences were shown for youth who remain in 4-H for one year or more for the following assets and/or skills: leadership, conflict resolution, communication, self-confidence, ability to make healthy choices, knowledge of nutrition and food safety, and record keeping.

In addition, responses to the open-ended question at the end of the "Members Only" Survey (i.e., "What do you feel you have gained from being a 4-H Club member?") provided a wealth of rich data upon which to draw conclusions about the difference 4-H Club membership makes in a young person's life. Analysis indicated that a strong majority of club members felt they had gained skills that would support them throughout their lives. The majority of club youth reported multiple gains in terms of public speaking, problem solving, goal setting, leadership skills, planning skills, self-confidence, citizenship, communication skills, academic gains, expanded horizons, organizational skills, respect for (and from) others, patience, tolerance, and "real-world" experience from hands-on projects. The majority of youth reported that they had developed skills in leadership, public speaking, self-esteem, communication, and planning. Additionally, many youth reported that 4-H Club membership had improved their school performance, their ability to make lasting friendships, and their desire to make a difference in their communities. The following quotes from two club members are representative of how many of the survey respondents spoke about the multiple gains they felt could be attributed to their 4-H Club membership:

At the time the study was undertaken, a number of challenges faced the future of 4-H Clubs in New York. According to the focus group participants, club participation "suffered" from a number of different tensions. For example, there was a sense that while community service projects account for a large portion of club activities, many of these projects go largely unacknowledged by the general public. In addition, study participants cited other challenges: declining resources both at the county and state level; the demands placed on working families to juggle careers, family responsibilities and active participation in clubs; recruitment and retention of good club leaders and volunteers; increasing pressures on youth to participate in sports, other extracurricular activities and jobs; as well as a stigma problem sometimes associated with 4-H Clubs in areas where people unfamiliar with 4-H Clubs erroneously associate them with "cooking and cows."

Conversely, the study found that the club program was thriving in many counties throughout the state. According to 4-H Educators, program leaders, club leaders and youth, 4-H was playing a key role in fostering positive youth development. Overall, competition and the "Danish System" were generally perceived by adults and youth alike to be positive components of the 4-H Club program. The majority of study participants attributed the success of 4-H Clubs in their communities primarily to their county 4-H Agents/Educators and a strong cadre of dedicated 4-H Club Leaders. The stories of club members clearly pointed to the pivotal role 4-H Clubs are playing in terms of life skill development.

The first section of this report describes the study design. The next section details the study findings from the focus groups, 4-H Club Profile Survey, Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program Leaders and Program Assistants and the New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey. Issues gleaned from the study are presented in final section of the report. The appendices contain the statewide descriptive statistics and frequencies from the "Members Only" Survey, as well as highlights from the 4-H Club Profile Survey. County-specific descriptive statistics and frequencies, as well as the text of all qualitative responses to the "Members Only" Survey, are provided in their respective appendices (only those counties participating in the study receive these appendices). A copy of the "Members Only" Survey instrument is also included.
 
 

II. Study Design
 
 

The 4-H Club Study Team

The 4-H Club Study Team was comprised of June P. Mead, Program Evaluator, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Eunice Rodriguez, Assistant Professor, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, College of Human Ecology; Thomas Hirschl, Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; and Stephen Goggin, Youth At Risk Program Leader, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology. The Study Team conducted, directed and monitored all phases of the study in order to ensure its scientific rigor.
 
 

Background and Assumptions

In this study, youth development was understood as a process of growing up and developing one's capacities in positive ways (Walker & Dunham, 1994). This development typically takes place in the context of family, peer group, school and community. The emphasis in the 4-H Club experience is on positive youth development. For those youth who participate in them, 4-H Clubs become part of the total contextual environment for positive youth development, as depicted in Figure 1.
 
 

Because the Study Team did not consider 4-H Club participation to be a treatment per se, traditional or experimental research designs were deemed inappropriate for this study. Rather, the Study Team reasoned that 4-H Club participation needed to be understood in context. Therefore, the study focused on the following research question: What difference does 4-H participation make in the life of a young person? In other words, to what extent and in what ways do 4-H Clubs influence and contribute to the "context" for positive youth development?
 
 

The Power of "Developmental Assets"

According to the National Collaboration for Youth, Position Statement for Accountability and Evaluation (1996), existing empirical research on the impact of positive youth development should be used whenever possible to avoid sacrificing limited youth development resources to the high costs often associated with evaluative research. Therefore, to augment the role of statistical inference, to reduce the role of subjective judgment by the researchers and to provide an appropriate strategy that would best serve the needs of the study cooperators, a major component of the study involved a secondary data analysis using a modified criterion population design (Mohr, 1995). While control and comparison groups have much to contribute to evaluation research (Hamilton, 1980), the high costs associated with them precluded their use in this study. Instead data were drawn from the Search Institute's national study of developmental assets to create the criterion population. In this way, the developmental assets of New York 4-H Club members could be compared to youth from the Search study.

The 4-H Club Study was complimented with a secondary data analysis of the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors survey data. The Search Institute's survey is a 152-item self-report instrument that measures a range of perspectives, values, and behaviors among youth in grades 5 through 12. The instrument was developed, piloted and refined over a ten-year period by the Search Institute. The Search Institute's 30-Asset Model grew out of Benson's (1993) work with the Attitudes and Behaviors Survey data. The 30-Asset Model was later expanded into the current 40-Assets Model. The 30-Asset Model is the model that was used in the 4-H Club Study. This model served as the basis for the secondary data analysis. The 40-Asset Model has been widely distributed and was recently adopted by the New York State Department of Health and the Partners for Children "ACT for Youth."

The 30- and 40-Asset Models are quite similar. Both are divided into two sets of internal and external assets. The 30-Asset Model consists of 16 "external assets" and the other of 14 "internal assets." Table 1 displays the Search Institute's 30-Asset Model used in the 4-H Club Study.

External assets consist of support, boundaries and structured time use. "Support" assets refer to the extent to which youth feel supported by family, parents, and other adults. "Boundaries" assets refer to the availability of a parent or parents who monitor and discipline, and friends who model responsible behavior. "Structured time use" assets refer to the amount of time youth spend in organized activities in both their schools and communities (Blyth & Leffert, 1995).

Internal assets consist of educational commitment, positive values, and social competencies. "Educational commitment" assets refer to school performance, educational aspiration and achievement motivation. "Positive values" assets refer to the importance youth place on helping other people, caring about world hunger, caring about other people's feelings, and valuing sexual restraint. "Social competencies" assets refer to the extent to which youth perceive themselves as having social skills such as assertiveness, decision-making, friendship-making, and planning, as well as self-esteem and having a positive view of the future (Blyth & Leffert, 1995).

Asset Type	Asset Name and Definition
EXTERNAL ASSETS
Support	Family support: Family life provides high levels of love and support.  Parent(s) as social resources: Youth views parent(s) as accessible resources for advice and support.  Parent communication: Youth has frequent, in-depth conversation with parent(s).  Other adult resources: Youth has access to non-parent adults for advice and support.  Other adult communication: Youth has frequent, in-depth conversations with non-parent adults.  Parent involvement in schooling: Parent(s) are involved in helping youth succeed in school.  Positive school climate: School provides a caring, encouraging environment.

Table 1 (continued)
 

Asset Type	Asset Name and Definition
EXTERNAL ASSETS
Boundaries	Parental standards: Parent(s) have standards for appropriate conduct.  Parental discipline: Parent(s) discipline youth when a rule is violated.  Parental monitoring: Parent(s) monitor "where I am going and with whom I will be."  Time at home: Youth goes out for "fun and creation" three or fewer nights per week.  Positive peer influence: Youth's best friends model responsible behavior.
Structured Time Use	Involved in music: Youth spends three hours or more per week in music training or practice.  Involved in school extra-curricular activities: Youth spends one hour or more per week in school sports, clubs, or organizations.  Involved in community organizations or activities: Youth spends one hour or more per week in organizations or clubs outside of school.  Involved in church or synagogue: Youth spends one hour or more per week attending programs or services.
INTERNAL ASSETS
Educational Commitment	Achievement motivation: Youth is motivated to do well in school.  Educational aspiration: Youth aspires to pursue post-high school education (e.g., trade school, college).  School performance: Youth reports that her or his school performance is above average.  Homework: Youth reports six hours or more of homework per week.
Positive Values	Values helping people: Youth places high personal value on helping other people.  Is concerned about world hunger: Youth reports interest in reducing world hunger.  Cares about people's feelings: Youth cares about other people's feelings.  Values sexual restraint: Youth values postponing sexual intercourse.
Social Competencies	Assertiveness skills: Youth can stand up for what he or she believes.  Decision-making skills: Youth is good at making decisions.  Friendship-making skills: Youth is good at making friends.  Planning skills: Youth is good at planning ahead.  Self-esteem: Youth has high self-esteem.  Positive view of personal future: Youth is optimistic about her or his personal future.

Adapted from Benson, P. L. (1996).
 
 

Benson's (1996) research on developmental assets demonstrated that the more assets young people have, the less likely they are to engage in problem behaviors, and the more likely they are to engage in positive, prosocial behaviors. Through Benson's (1996) study of 5,235 students in grades 7, 8, 10 and 11, he found that a relationship between assets and risk behaviors and that this pattern held for both boys and girls across racial and ethic categories. This pattern showed that as assets increase, the corresponding number of risk behaviors decreases (see Table 2).

Benson's (1996) research clearly demonstrated that the more assets a young person has, the less likely she/he is to become involved in such risky behaviors as premature sex, alcohol/drug use and violence, and the more likely she/he is to do well in school and mature into a healthy, contributing adult (see Figure 2). For example, with 0 to 10 assets, a young person is nearly four times more likely to use illicit drugs and five times more likely to engage in violence. Conversely, with 31-40 assets, a young person is much more likely to have good health and do well in school.

Adapted from Benson (1996).

Study Design

The 4-H Club Study design consisted of seven major components:

1. Focus Groups: Used to examine 4-H programming and to inform construction of other data collection instruments

2. Profile of 4-H Clubs Survey: Used to capture the diversity of programming conducted under the "club" umbrella and provide descriptive data to inform the study

3. Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents, Program Leaders and Program Assistants: Used to inform construction of the survey instrument and elicit information about how clubs contribute to positive youth development from the perspective of Extension staff

4. "Members Only" Survey: Used to assess the developmental assets of 4-H Club youth and develop an understanding of the role of clubs in promoting positive outcomes for youth

5. Secondary Data Analysis of the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors (1989). Used to compare the assets of 4-H Club members in New York with youth from the national survey who participated and did not participate in similar clubs or youth-serving programs in order to produce knowledge about the role of 4-H Club participation in asset development. (Figure 3 provides a pictorial representation of this part of the study design.)

Initially, the 4-H Club Study Team worked in concert with the study cooperators to determine the study question. A collaborative decision was made to focus on the difference clubs make. Agreement was reached on the scope of the study, research design, and methods to be employed.

First, a series of focus groups was conducted in the six geographic regions of the state at both rural and urban Cooperative Extension offices (two focus groups per region for a total of 12 focus group sessions). The ad hoc committee of the NYSACCE4-HE assisted the Study Team in identifying the focus group sites and local focus group cooperators (4-H Agents/Educators and Program Assistants). The local focus group cooperators invited between 8 and twelve people with club experience to participate in the focus group discussion. The focus group participants were composed of the 4-H Agents/Educators, club leaders, program assistants, volunteers, 4-H Club members and their parents. The Study Coordinator facilitated the discussion. All the focus groups were tape recorded for later transcription and analysis. These data were then used to examine youth development programming in 4-H and to inform the construction of other data collection instruments.

Next, the 4-H Club Profile Survey was designed to collect demographic data, programming foci and emphases, as well as staffing information. The survey was administered statewide to all 58 counties including New York City with a response rate of 100%. The results of the 4-H Clubs Profile helped provide a descriptive sense of what clubs look like statewide and serve as a program planning resource for both campus and county staff. For example, the Profile data can be used to support grant applications, to pursue new funding streams, as well as to plan and fine tune current program activities.

The Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program Leaders and Program Assistants was administered statewide via Internet. Input to the development of this survey was solicited from the ad hoc Club Study Committee from the NYSACCE4-HE and the 4-H Foundation. To ensure that Extension staff who did not have access to the Internet could still respond to the survey, administration to the counties also made use of campus "pouch" mail and fax media. The Electronic Survey data were analyzed and used to inform the construction of the survey for 4-H Club youth, as well as to garner suggestions for program improvement from the perspective of Extension staff.

The centerpiece of the study was the New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey. The survey instrument included items drawn from the developmental assets scales in the Search Institute's survey, items from the Teen Assessment Project (TAP) Survey (Small, 1993a, 1993b), items identified through the focus groups and the Electronic Survey, as well as those generated by the Study Team, the ad hoc Club Study Committee from the NYSACCE4-HE, and the 4-H Foundation.

The "Members Only" Survey instrument was pilot tested in an urban after-school 4-H Club to test item wording and grade-level comprehension. The club members (n=25) who completed the pilot instrument ranged in age from 11 to 13 years old. It took the youth approximately 25 minutes to complete the survey. Following completion of the survey, a focus group discussion with the youth was conducted. Their comments were used to shorten the instrument, refine statement wording, and improve readability and clarity.

Participation in the "Members Only" Survey was open to all counties. Each of the counties who expressed interest in administering the study was asked to estimate the number of youth in their county who were eligible to complete the survey. In order to compare the results of the "Members Only" Survey with the Search Institute's national survey findings, only those 4-H Club members who were at least 10 years old and in grades 5 through 12 were eligible to complete the survey. Approximately 14,000 surveys were mailed to the participating counties based on their estimates of number of eligible respondents. Detailed instructions for administering the survey were also mailed to the counties. County 4-H Agents/Educators, club leaders and volunteers administered the survey from February through May, 1998. The completed survey forms were returned to campus to be optically scanned and later analyzed by the Club Study Team.

Data were drawn from the Search Institute's national survey data for the secondary data analysis. At the center of the analysis was a comparison of the developmental assets of 4-H Club members with youth from the Search Institute's survey who were and were not involved in some type of club or organized program. The key variable of interest from the Search Institute's data was the number of hours youth participated in clubs or organizations outside of school.

A synthesis of the "Members Only" Survey, secondary data analysis of Search Institute's survey, focus group data, Electronic Survey, and the Profile Survey was used to generate findings and recommendations for future 4-H Club programming in New York. A methodological audit trail detailing all phases of the study was maintained by the Study Coordinator. This systematic record of "lessons learned" about conducting 4-H Club research has been made available to interested parties throughout the Cooperative Extension System.

III. Findings

Overview

Findings are discussed in the order in which the study was conducted for each of the major data collection strategies employed, namely the focus groups, the 4-H Club Profile Survey, Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program Leaders and Program Assistants, and the New York State 4-H Clubs: "Members Only" Survey.
 
 

Focus Groups

Focus groups were conducted in six geographic regions of the state at both rural and urban Cooperative Extension offices (two focus groups per region for a total of 12 focus group sessions). Approximately 120 people participated in the focus group discussions. The 4-H Educators assisted the Study Team in identifying the focus group sites and local focus group facilitators (4-H agents or program leaders). The focus group participants were composed of 4-H Club members, program leaders, program assistants, community volunteers, and parents of 4-H members. The Study Coordinator facilitated the focus groups. All the focus groups were tape recorded for later transcription and analysis. These data were used to examine youth development programming in 4-H, to glean suggestions for program improvement, and to inform the construction of the "Members Only" Survey.

The 4-H Clubs Profile Survey was undertaken during the first year of the study in order to capture the diversity of 4-H Club programming being conducted throughout New York State under the 4-H Club umbrella. Aside from two or three similar questions, the Profile gathered information not currently collected through Federal Form ES-237. All counties and the City of New York responded to the survey (n=58) for a response rate of 100%. The following both highlights and summarizes the survey findings. Percentages not totaling 100% can be attributed to rounding and/or missing data.

As shown in Table 3, nearly one-half (47%) or 27 counties in New York have approximately 26-50 active clubs. As shown in Table 4, 53% or 31 counties have a total club enrollment between 251 and 550 members.
 
 

The 4-H Club Profile Survey asked county staff to indicate the percentage of their club enrollment that was represented in each grade level, K through 12. The number of counties, with the percentage of total counties reporting shown in parentheses, are presented in Table 5. For example, 18 counties or 35% of the counties reported that approximately 10-14% of their club enrollment consisted of youth in Grades 1 and 2. It is important to note that clubs in New York are reaching all ages. From the Profile Survey, it appears that there has been a common misconception that only younger (i.e., Cloverbud) youth were actively involved in clubs. However, the Profile data show that approximately 62% of the counties have between 25-49% of their club members in grades 5 through 10. (See Table 5.)

	Number of Counties Reporting this Percentage Range of Club Enrollment by Grade  (% of Total Counties Reporting)
Percentage range	K & below	Grades 1 & 2	Grades 3 & 4	Grades 5 & 6	Grades 7 & 8	Grades 9 & 10	Grades 11 & above
0-4%	23 (45%)	3 (6%)			2 (4%)	5 (10%)	12 (24%)
5-9%	16 (31%)	8 (16%)		1 (2%)	5 (10%)	10 (19%)	18 (36%)
10-14%	8 (16%)	18 (35%)	2 (4%)	1 (2%)	10 (19%)	19 (37%)	17 (34%)
15-19%	2 (4%)	14 (27%)	14 (27%)	9 (17%)	14 (27%)	9 (17%)	1 (2%)
20-24%	1 (2%)	4 (8%)	20 (38%)	15 (28%)	13 (25%)	8 (15%)	2 (4%)
25-29%	1 (2%)		10 (19%)	17 (32%)	7 (13%)
30-34%		3 (6%)	3 (6%)	7 (13%)		1 (2%)
35-39%			2 (4%)	1 (2%)	1 (2%)
40-44%				1 (2%)
45-49%			1 (2%)	1 (2%)
60%		1 (2%)

 

Respondents to the Profile Survey were asked also to indicate the percent of their club enrollment that was represented by various racial/ethnic categories. The number of counties, with the percentage of total counties reporting shown in parentheses, are displayed in Table 6. For example, 31 counties or 69% of all counties reported having approximately 0-4% Black/African American youth in their 4-H Clubs. A total of 44 counties or approximately 77% of the counties reported having between 90-100% White youth in their clubs. It is important to note that while most club members were identified as being White, this racial distribution does not differ dramatically from the counties themselves. [See Appendix A for County-specific Highlights from the 4-H Club Profile Survey.]
 
 
 
 

Profile Survey respondents were asked to rank their top three areas of 4-H Club programming emphasis. Table 7 displays the eight areas of program focus from ES-237 and the number of counties ranking each area first, second and third with the percent of the total number of counties reporting in each area of programming emphasis. In rank order, 28 counties or 53.8% of the reporting counties indicated that "Plants and Animals" was their primary area of programming emphasis; 12 counties or 23.5% also ranked "Plants and Animals" as their second program emphasis, and ten counties or 19.6% ranked "Healthy Lifestyle Education" as their second area of program emphasis; and ten counties or 20.4% ranked "Healthy Lifestyle Education" as their third area of program emphasis. This information should be useful to both campus and county staff in planning and resource development.
 
 

4-H Club Programming Emphasis	No. of counties ranking this area No. 1 (% of counties reporting)	No. of counties ranking this area No. 2 (% of counties reporting)	No. of counties ranking this area No. 3 (% of counties reporting)
Citizenship and Civic Education	1 (1.9%)	3 (5.9%)	4 (8.2%)
Consumer and Family Science	3 (5.8%)	5 (9.8%)	8 (16.3%)
Healthy Lifestyle Education	3 (5.8%)	10 (19.6%)	10 (20.4%)
Plants and  Animals	28 (53.8%)	12 (23.5%)	3 (6.1%)
Communication and Expressive Arts	4 (7.7%)	9 (17.6%)	5 (10.2%)
Environmental Ed. & Earth Sciences	2 (3.8%)	7 (13.7%)	8 (16.3%)
Personal Development & Leadership	6 (11.5%)	2 (3.9%)	7 (14.3%)
Science and Technology	5 (9.6%)	3 (5.9%)	4 (8.2%)

 

The Profile Survey also asked counties to estimate the percentage of their clubs that had significant numbers of at-risk youth enrolled as members. A "significant" number of at-risk youth was defined as approximately one-third of a club's total membership. For purposes of this survey, "at-risk" was defined as children and youth who were not well cared for, youth who were victims of maltreatment, youth who performed poorly in school or displayed persistent acting-out behaviors, and youth who had families who lived in socially isolated, unfriendly or dangerous neighborhoods. Approximately 48% or 27 counties reported that between 0-10% of their clubs were comprised of significant numbers of at-risk youth (Table 8). Nearly 36% or 20 counties reported that 10 to 30% of their clubs served significant numbers of at-risk youth.
 
 

Percentage of clubs with significant numbers of at-risk children/youth as members	No. of Counties Reporting	Percentage of Counties Reporting
0-10%	27	48.2%
10-20%	11	19.6%
21-30%	9	16.1%
31-40%	3	5.4%
41-50%	1	1.8%
51-60%	2	3.6%
71-80%	1	1.8%
91-100%	2	3.6%

 

The Profile Survey also asked counties about their club programming for children and youth with disabilities. Fifty-four or approximately 93% of the counties reported having programming for children and youth with disabilities. Most of this type of club programming was for children and youth with learning disabilities, with emotional and physical disabilities ranking second and third, respectively. Approximately 28%, or 16 counties reported having 4-H Clubs specifically targeting children and youth with disabilities. The Profile Survey data indicated that were approximately 62 4-H Clubs specifically targeting children and youth with disabilities.

Lastly, the Profile Survey asked counties to estimate club staffing in terms of the number of full time professionals, number of program assistants and volunteers. The Table 9 shows the approximately number of Extension staff and volunteers actively involved in youth develop and 4-H programming statewide. The county-specific staffing estimates from the Profile Survey can be found in Appendix A.

Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents/Educators, Program Leaders and Program Assistants

Input to the Electronic Survey of 4-H Agents, Program Leaders and Program Assistants instrument came from the ad hoc Club Study Committee of NYSACCE4-HE, focus group interview data and the 4-H Club Study Team. The instrument asked respondents to rank order the most to least important components of the club experience, as well as factors that influence a young person's development in 4-H. Three open-ended questions solicited responses about the long term gains youth derive from being club members, social issues or concerns addressed by 4-H Clubs, and suggestions for program improvement. The survey was administered statewide via Internet and "pouch" mail.

A total of 130 responses were received, with broad overall representation from the counties. Table 10 summaries the number of responses received from each of the counties. The results were used to inform construction of the "Members Only" Survey instrument and to glean recommendations for program improvement.

County	No. of responses to the Electronic Survey	County	No. of responses to the Electronic Survey
Albany	3	Oneida	--
Allegany	--	Onondaga	4
Broome	2	Ontario	3
Cattaraugus	1	Orange	--
Cayuga	1	Orleans	1
Chautaugua	3	Oswego	7
Chemung	2	Otsego	2
Chenango	1	Putnam	1
Clinton	1	Rensselaer	2
Columbia	3	Rockland	--
Cortland	2	St. Lawrence	4
Delaware	1	Saratoga	2
Dutchess	--	Schenectady	3
Erie	3	Schoharie	1
Essex	1	Schuyler	--
Franklin	--	Seneca	2
Fulton	1	Steuben	--
County	No. of responses to the Electronic Survey	County	No. of responses to the Electronic Survey
Genesee	3	Suffolk	2
Greene	2	Sullivan	1
Hamilton	--	Tioga	2
Herkimer	--	Tompkins	10
Jefferson	4	Ulster	2
Lewis	1	Warren	1
Livingston	1	Washington