Investing in Our Future:

Work Life Issues of Extension Employees

Introduction

Extension systems throughout the country are experiencing profound changes. Financial problems, issues of accountability, restructuring, staff reductions, and redirection are some of the things we hear about and face every day. At the same time, our family roles are becoming increasingly complex. What's going on? Where are we personally and organizationally with these changes? What can be done?

The Joint Council of Extension Professionals (JCEP) funded a national research study to identify issues concerning Extension personnel and their families in the area of balancing work, family, and personal time. A team from Ohio submitted a proposal and received the grant to complete the national study.

Our study involved a national forum via electronic technology to identify key issues of personnel and family members, a mail survey to a stratified random sample of Extension employees and family members drawn from the four national regions, reports of findings to JCEP and to all Extension organizations, as well as several proposed presentations of the findings to national meetings.

Methodology

Research Design - This research is a descriptive-correlational study. The dependent variables are identification of primary work and family issues and perceived effectiveness of Extension workers in managing multiple roles on the job, at home, and with family and friends. The independent variables are gender, age, tenure, primary position, marital status, parental status, and elder caregiving status.

Population and Sample - The target population was currently employed Extension professionals in the United States. This population included administrators, program professionals, and support staff who were housed in county, district, regional, or state facilities.

Personnel data records secured from the Cooperative Extension System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, indicated that approximately 28,970 individuals were employed in Extension on January 1, 1997. The Cooperative Extension System is organized nationally by four geographical regions: Northeast, North Central, Southern, and Western. The regions include fifty-seven Land Grant Universities and seventeen 1890 Land Grant Extension Institutions.

The population was stratified by Extension region based on the number of personnel employed in each region. Within each region, Extension professionals were clustered by institution. A total of 15 institutions was selected at random.

The number of Extension professionals to be included in the sample was calculated to yield a total sample of approximately 777, with the restrictions that 1) the sample be distributed among the four regions in proportions approximately equal to the distribution of the population among the four regions and 2) the sample be distributed among the classifications of personnel in proportions approximately equal to the distribution of the population among the three groups.

Extension directors were contacted and requested to randomly select and forward names and addresses of a pre-determined number of employees, stratified by position description.

Instrumentation - Two questionnaires were constructed to collect data from the Extension professionals and an individual with whom they had a close relationship. This secondary respondent could be a spouse, family member, friend, or co-worker. The questionnaires were similar in content, but not identical.

A preliminary draft of both instruments was submitted to a panel of experts. The panel was asked to review content, structure, and design.

Following modification, both instruments were field tested to establish validity in January 1997, by 17 Ohio State University Extension professionals and their selected partners. The employees participating in the field test were requested to review their respective instrument and comment on clarity, readability, ease of understanding, and format. Thirty-four surveys were returned.

To establish reliability, a pilot test was conducted with 33 Ohio State University Extension field employees. Instruments which were revised following the field test were mailed to the pilot test participants in March 1997. Employees were asked to give the family member/friend survey to a selected individual.

To conduct the test-retest reliability analysis, a second set of instruments was mailed to the pilot test participants in April 1997. Thirty-one Extension employees completed both surveys (93.9%), and 27 family members/friends completed both surveys (81.8%).

Data Collection - Data were collected from Cooperative Extension System professionals using the two survey instruments. On May 28,1997, both survey instruments were mailed to a sample of 791 persons. The packet included a cover letter and instructions. The instruments were coded to facilitate tracking and follow-up with non-respondents. Confidentiality of responses was emphasized. Participants were requested to respond by June 16, 1997. By this date, the response rate was 37 percent.

On June 10,1997, a postcard was sent as a reminder to non-respondents. Non-respondents were described in 3 ways: individuals from whom no response was received from either employee or family member/friend; individuals from whom the employee returned the survey, but not the family member/friend; and individuals from whom the employee had not returned the survey, but the family member/friend had.

On June 24, 1997, a second set of materials was mailed to all 3 groups of non-respondents. By July 24, 1997, the total number of respondents was 428, a response rate of 54%.

On July 29, 1997, a cover letter with a family member/friend survey was mailed to individuals from whom the employee survey was returned, but not the family member/friend survey. A phone call was made to individuals who had returned the family member/friend survey, but not the employee survey. By August 7, 1997, the total number of respondents (consisting of matched pairs of employee and family member/friend surveys) was 448, a response rate of 56.6%. By August 31, 469 matched pairs of employee and family member/friend surveys were returned, a response rate of almost 60%.

To compare respondents with non-respondents, a telephone interview was used to obtain data. A random sample of 31 non-respondents was drawn and compared to a random sample of respondents and no significant difference was found.

Demographics of Respondents

Females slightly outnumbered males in the study. Respondents were 59% female and 41% male. Ethnic composition of employees was diverse although primarily Caucasian (92%). The remaining respondents were African American (6%), American Indian (1%), Hispanic (1%), and Asian (less than 1 %).

Forty-six percent of employees held graduate degrees. Fifteen percent of employees held bachelor's degrees. Thirty-seven percent of employees were high school graduates or held associate degrees.

The majority of respondents were married (81%) with 9% single and never married and 10% separated, divorced, or widowed.

Ages of employees ranged from 23 - 69 years. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were 39 - 52 years of age. The age range of family members/friends was 14 - 82 years. Forty-seven percent were 39 - 52 years of age.

Almost 40% of employees had two children. Approximately 12% of respondents had one child. Nearly 15% of employees had no children.

Eighty-nine percent of employees worked full-time. In addition, 15% worked part- or full-time outside of Extension.

The total number of years respondents were employed by Extension ranged from 0.5 - 43 years. Forty percent of employees indicated they were employed 0.5 - 10 years.

Seventy-one percent of respondents were employed as program professionals; 21% were support staff and 6% were administrators.

Asked to indicate what subject matter area(s) the employees held major responsibilities, 213 indicated Agriculture/Natural Resources, 143 indicated Family and Consumer Sciences, 178 indicated 4-H Youth Development, 75 indicated Community Development, and 84 indicated Other.

The family member/friend role was assumed by various individuals. The majority (74%) were the spouse of the Extension employee. Eighty percent of the family members/friends resided at the same address as the employee.

Major Findings

Extension employees perceived work/life issues as a moderate to major concern. They indicated that they believed it is appropriate to discuss work/life concerns with co-workers and supervisors. Though 79% of Extension employees indicated a positive perception of their ability to achieve a reasonable work/life balance, 21% perceived the ability to achieve balance as slight or not at all.

Employees perceived supervisors to be supportive concerning their needs to balance work/life. To a moderate extent, co-workers share in the concern for work/life balance, wanting to discuss these issues and support one another. Identified employee work/life challenges were workload, time, control/balance, and personal attitude/expectations. When asked to indicate who has the greatest influence on the number of hours the employee works for Extension, the top three items given were self, clientele, and immediate supervisor.

Organizational support for assisting employees in balancing work/life was perceived as slight to moderate. When asked what actions Extension could take to better support employees and their families, employees indicated flexible working arrangements, reduction of workload, and administrative support.

Though 40% of employees are greatly aware of benefits and programs offered by Extension concerning work/life balance, 32% have little awareness. The top six benefits provided by organizations are seminars, counseling/employee assistance, paid childbirth/adoption leave for women, pre-tax spending accounts, sabbaticals, and unpaid family leave. The benefits most often used by Extension employees are flextime, pre-tax spending accounts, and seminars on work/family.

The family members/friends provided a second unique perspective on the issue of work/life balance for Extension employees. They reported concerns related to time, work spillover to home life, family needs, physical needs, and financial needs. They provided emotional support for the Extension employee, leadership for family and home responsibilities, and also assisted with the employee's Extension responsibilities. They worked with the employee in scheduling and planning personal/family activities, sharing responsibilities, and doing things together. They perceived that Extension work impacted family/friend relationships to a great extent and that job stress factors were somewhat evident in the employee. Conflicts with others, inadequate training, and poor quality of supervisor were slight concerns.

Family members/friends perceived that the organization, including the employee's supervisor, supported and helped employees achieve balance to a moderate extent. Few difficulties with child care or elder care arrangements were reported due to travel or overnight requirements of the employee's job.

Points to Ponder

Even though 60% of the participants indicated they personally had the greatest influence on the number of hours worked, Extension needs to ask what are the driving factors.

Approximately 20% of Extension employees appear to really be struggling with balancing work and family. Are these the ones who are more prone to leave Extension?

How does the Extension culture need to change to create a more work/life friendly environment?

Is Extension inclusive in its balancing work and family strategies/policies?

What needs to happen in order to achieve a clearer focus for Extension programming?

How does Extension gain understanding and support from clientele/funders in balancing work and family for its employees?

How can Extension use technology in assisting employees in balancing work and family?

What are Extension administrators doing to "walk the talk" for balancing work and family?

Future Directions

Data from the study continues to be analyzed. This report provides a brief overview of the research findings. A preliminary summary of the study was presented on October 14, 1997, at the Galaxy Conference of Extension professionals in Cincinnati, Ohio. Evaluation comments suggested sharing the research with administrators and developing relevant, practical strategies for enabling Extension employees to more effectively achieve balance.

On May 7, 1998, a national satellite conference will be conducted by Ohio State University Extension to report on this research effort and to address ongoing issues related to work/life balance. Teams of employees from all state Extension systems are encouraged to view and participate in this interactive learning opportunity. Details of the satellite will be mailed to all state Extension directors in Winter, 1998.

Additional opportunities to report on this study are planned through regional administrators' meetings, professional association meetings, and journal publications.

The study has positively impacted each member of the project team. It has been a valuable educational experience which will provide insight for the entire Extension organization as it meets personnel and life challenges in the Twenty First Century. This objective is critical to the future well-being and effectiveness of the Extension system.