An Assessment Of The ‘Opportunities For Farm Families Programme’
Dr Pat Bogue
Department of Agribusiness, Extension and Rural
Development, UCD & Teagasc, Athenry
Abstract
The ‘Opportunities for Farm Families Programme’ introduced by Teagasc in 2001 represented a change in both the content and provision of advise to farm families in Ireland. The objectives of the programme were to support farm families in improving their income and/or quality of life. The programme aimed to broaden the traditional farm operator/advisor contact to engage with other family members and to address both technical and family/household issues. This was in recognition of the fact that decision making on family farms is influenced by more than the farm operator even though there is less overall involvement of families in the day-to-day operation of farms. The aim of the research presented in this paper was to assess the programme by way of determining the views of the programme participants (farm families) and deliverers (advisers). The programme was viewed as successful by advisers and farm families in examining the reality of the current situation on farms and exploring possible future options. Farm families valued both the information provided and the process (discussion sessions) involved in the programme. Families who participated derived a greater benefit than individuals, endorsing the family approach adopted by Teagasc. The facilitation skills of the advisers were critical to ensuring an interactive process and a discussion on the wider family and household issues. The programme has been modified to accommodate the changing agricultural policy regime but it is imperative that the focus of the programme for the future is balanced between the technical and socio-economic concerns of farm families.
Introduction
Teagasc introduced the ‘Opportunities for Farm Families Programme’ in 2001. It was envisaged that this programme would represent a change in both the content and provision of advisory services to farm families in Ireland. The mission statement of the programme was: ‘to proactively encourage, stimulate and support farm families in building the capacity of the farm household to achieve and sustain viability’.
The fundamental objective of the programme was to help farm families generate additional household income and to improve their quality of life. A further objective of the programme was to change the method of delivery of advice to farm families by providing training to support advisers. This training helped advisers facilitate group meetings and explore on-farm and off-farm options in a systematic way.
The programme represented a considerable change in approach by Teagasc (facilitated discussion sessions with a family focus) to the delivery of advice to farm families which required both staff and farm families to adapt. This paper presents a summary of an assessment of the perceptions of participants (farm families) and deliverers (advisers) to the programme.
It is important to note that the programme was modified and re-launched as the ‘Planning Post Fischler Programme’ in January 2004. The development of the new programme was influenced by the changing agricultural policy environment (CAP Reform) and was informed by this research.
Programme outline
The original programme was free to families with less than 100 income units[1] (180,000 litres of milk quota; 100 beef cattle; 600 sheep; 100 hectares cereals or equivalent). Stage 1 involved viability appraisal leading to the identification of a ‘Way Forward Guide’. In this stage the family identifies their main household viability concerns and explores possible options (on-farm and off-farm). This stage was delivered by way of three facilitated group discussion meetings[2].
Stage 2 involves options analysis leading to the development of a ‘Way Forward Action Plan’. Specific measures to generate additional income and/or improve quality of life are identified by the family in conjunction with an adviser. It also identifies the specific advice and training needs of the family and makes appropriate referrals to other agencies.
In Stage 3 the farm family implements the actions specified in the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’. Advisory support is provided to the family during this period. Referrals to other agencies are also pursued during this Stage.
Research aim
The aim of the research study outlined in this paper was to assess the ‘Opportunities for Farm Families Programme’. The assessment was based on determining the views and attitudes of advisers and participants to the programme. The specific purpose of the research was to inform the development and enhancement of the programme. Specific objectives were set for both advisers and participants (farm families).
The specific objectives of the research with advisers were to:
- Determine the views of advisers on the achievement of the objectives of the programme;
- Determine the views and attitudes of the advisers towards the programme in general; and
- Determine the views of advisers on the programme content and delivery.
The specific objectives of the research with participants were to:
- Determine a personal profile of programme participants;
- Determine their reasons for participating in the programme (and expectations);
- Determine the views of participants on the achievement of the objectives of the programme;
- Determine the views of participants on the programme content and delivery;
- Determine the views of participants on the Way Forward Action Plan (Stage 2); and
- Determine the views of participants on the benefit of the programme.
Research methodology
Data was collected from a sample of 61 co-ordinators and advisers who were involved in the delivery of the programme at local level. A sample of farm families who were participants in the programme were interviewed in three counties: Mayo; Meath and Offaly (which were selected as being representative of the country overall). It was intended to collect 50% of the sample who had completed Stage 2, and the remainder who had only completed Stage 1. However, the reality in collecting the data was that there were much fewer farmers who had both stages completed and this is reflected in the sample which includes 175 farm families who had completed Stage 1, 56 of whom had completed Stage 2. The sample was selected from the Teagasc Client Management System. The main criteria in the selection of the sample was those families who had most recently completed Stage 1 or received their ‘Way Forward Action Plan’. Both sets of data were analysed using the Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Results
The research findings are provided separately for the advisers’ and participants’ surveys.
Advisers survey
The findings represent the views of advisers who were actively involved in the delivery of the programme.
Views of advisers on the achievement of the programme objectives
The majority (88.5%) of advisers believed that the ‘Opportunities Programme’ can help farm families take a realistic look at their current situation, the main reason being that the process focuses their thinking on their own situation (21%). The process also encourages families to discuss wider household and family issues (non-technical). Three-quarters (74%) of advisers believed that the programme could help farm families generate additional income (a further 11% thought that it possibly might), mainly through improved efficiency (31%). Almost one-quarter (24%) of advisers identified outside the farm-gate opportunities for increasing income, while 16% identified the REPS. The main reasons cited by advisers for why farm families could not increase their income was because they already had other income earning activities and that opportunities were limited.
Similarly 73% of advisers believed that the ‘Opportunities Programme’ could help farm families to improve their quality of life, mainly through better work organisation (54%). Other areas included: streamlining of enterprises; better financial control; and reduced workload. The constraints on improving quality of life were the fact that quality of life was not a major issue for some families and that quality of life is dependent on income.
Views and attitudes of advisers to the overall opportunities programme
Four out of five (81%) advisers believed that the ‘Opportunities Programme’ had something to offer their clients, while only 13% believed that it had nothing to offer their clients. This highlights that the programme was not ‘more of the same’ but involved an overall change in approach to the provision of advice. The most important aspect was an opportunity for clients to appraise their own situation and options (47%). The opportunity to appraise their situation was the main selling point for the programme identified by advisers, others included: access to advice on income/quality of life; and planning for the future.
The time constraints on advisers in dealing with farm families was cited by one-fifth of advisers as the main weakness of the programme. Some 16% of advisers identified a lack of options for farm families as a weakness and 14% considered recruitment into the programme as a weakness.
Views of advisers on the opportunities programme content and delivery
Practically all (95%) advisers believed that the Stage 1 sessions provided for good interaction and discussion among participants. Some 39% of advisers stated that the level of interaction depended on the facilitator and a similar proportion stated that it depended on the composition of the group. One-fifth (22%) of advisers stated that the facilitator needs skills to be able to control the discussion and the level of interaction.
Seven out of ten (72%) advisers believe that the Stage 1 sessions generated enthusiasm among participants, while 16% of advisers stated that they did not. One-fifth (21%) of advisers believed that the level of enthusiasm of participants depends on the input of the facilitator, while 18% believed that the level of enthusiasm decreased if Stage 2 did not follow promptly after Stage 1. Almost two-thirds (64%) of advisers believed that Stage 1 of the ‘Opportunities Programme’ instils a belief among participants that they can improve their income/quality of life, while only 13% considered that it definitely did not. One-fifth (19%) of advisers stated that the level of belief of participants in what they could do to improve their income/quality of life depended on the attitude of participants coming into the programme, while 12% stated that it depended on the facilitator.
Stage 1 was considered to be a necessary component of the programme by 77% of advisers. This was mainly because it allowed for an exchange of views and opinions and it prepared participants for change. However, one in five (19%) advisers felt that a one-to-one advisory session would be better than the group sessions.
Nine out of ten (90%) of advisers stated that they delivered the programme mostly in line with the guidelines set out and a further 8% delivered it as set out in the guidelines. The main difficulties, improvements and the best approach to the Stage1 sessions are presented in Table 1.
Over nine out of ten (92%) advisers considered it important that more than one family member participated in the programme. The vast majority (84%) of advisers believed that the local co-ordinator and one adviser should deliver the Stage 1 sessions. The ideal number of participants for Stage 1 was identified by advisers as an average of 15 people. If there were too many participants, some people would not get involved in the discussion and if there were too few, there would not be a good exchange of views.
Some 95% of advisers considered the programme worksheets to be important to the overall programme. Advisers estimated that 60% of participants completed or attempted to complete the worksheets. Two-thirds (67%) of advisers believed that the purpose of the worksheets was to help farm families (and advisers) to establish their current situation and 40% believed that their purpose was to get farm families thinking about their own situations. The main comments made by advisers on the programme worksheets are outlined in Table 2.
Recruitment was the main concern about Stage 1 identified by advisers (25%). However, one in five (21%) advisers had no concerns about the delivery or content. Other concerns included: limited options available for families; advisers are not trained as facilitators; too many sessions; and content needs to be strengthened (mainly in terms of technical aspects). The main change suggested by advisers to Stage 1 was to reduce the number of sessions and increase the income units’ limit for participation. Other comments included the fact that the gap between Stages 1 and 2 was too long, the programme was placing an increased workload on advisers, more time was needed with farm families and the targets for the programme were too high.
Participants survey
A total of 175 participants were surveyed in three counties (Mayo, Meath and Offaly).
Personal profile of participants
Two-thirds of the participants surveyed were the farm owners, while 30% were joint owners with their spouses. Half (49%) were aged between 35 and 50 years, 22% under 35 years and only 2.3% over 65 years. The majority (71%) of respondents were married and two-thirds (67%) had children. One-quarter had identified a successor, over half (53%) of those successors were farming either part-time or full-time. Some 96% of respondents were clients of Teagasc.
Some 58% of respondents were employed full-time on the farm, while over half (54%) of their spouses were either in off-farm employment or involved in an alternative enterprise. Part-time employment was significantly more popular than full-time employment (26% versus 14% for respondents and 41% versus 8% for spouses). Overall, 63% of households had another source of earned income (non-farm).
Current income/expenditure problems was the main issue/concern for two-thirds of farm families. One in ten were concerned about their future prospects, 7% wanted to improve quality of life and the same proportion were concerned about succession.
Reasons for participation in the programme
The main reasons why farm families participated in the Opportunities Programme were because they were asked (53%) and loyalty to their adviser (43%). Only 14% of respondents stated that concern for the future was their reason for attending the programme.
Couples who attended the programme together were more likely to have done so out of loyalty to their adviser than individuals (60% versus 36%). Those who were fully dependent on their farm income were also more likely to attend out of loyalty than those with an off-farm source of income (58% versus 34%).
Over half (55%) of participants had attended the Stage 1 sessions at night which reflects the preference among farm families for night-time courses (70%). The majority (71%) of respondents attended the Stage 1 sessions on their own, 23% attended with their spouse. Both partners attended the programme together for 33% of married couples. The main reason cited for why other family members did not attend the programme was a lack of time (70%) and for 13% it was because the spouse was working.
Two-fifths (39%) of farm families had no expectations about the programme prior to their participation, while one-fifth (21%) expected to improve their income. One in ten (11%) did not know what the programme was about prior to their participation.
Views of participants on the achievement of the programme objectives
Some 71% of farm families believed that the programme helped them to take a realistic look at their current situation, while a further 26% believed it could possibly do so. Couples who attended the programme together were more likely to have considered that the programme helped them to take a realistic look at their own situation than those who attended the sessions on their own (88% versus 68%). The main way that the programme helped was by clarifying the financial situation (32%), other ways included: looking at options; and examining family living expenses.
Some 86% of farm families considered the programme useful or possibly useful in terms of new ideas for generating more income. Half of the respondents believed that the programme was useful in terms of giving them ideas to improve their quality of life. Similar to improving income, couples who participated together were more likely to consider the programme beneficial in providing ideas for improving quality of life than individuals (68% versus 44%). The main ways cited for improving quality of life were spending more time with family (20%) and reducing the time spent working on-farm (18%).
Views of participants on the programme content and delivery
Overall the views of respondents on the programme content were positive: 83% of respondents considered the information presented in the sessions to be either mostly or all relevant to them; 42% considered the facilitators good; and 41% considered the content interesting. The main comment with regard to the relevance of the information presented in the sessions related to the difficulty of meeting the needs of a diverse group – some material would not be relevant to all (56%). Some 99% of respondents considered that the information presented was clear and understandable, while 68% stated that the sessions were well explained. Some 98% of participants felt that they had adequate opportunity to participate/contribute to the discussion in the programme.
Some 84% of participants stated that they completed or attempted to complete the programme worksheets. While 98% of couples attempted the worksheets, only 80% of individuals did likewise. Some 80% found the worksheets to be worthwhile/useful. Some 27% of participants commented that the worksheets were time consuming, 12% found them to be difficult and 12% believed them to be an eye-opener.
Some 92% of participants considered the Stage 1 discussion sessions to be either important or very important to the overall programme. Couples who attended were significantly more likely to consider the discussion sessions to be very important (23%) than individuals (8%). Three-quarters of participants considered the number of sessions in Stage 1 to be about right with only one participant stating that 3 sessions was too much. One-third (35%) of couples who attended indicated that there were not enough sessions compared to 11% of individuals. For those participants who considered there were not enough sessions, the average preferred number was 5 sessions.
Views of participants on the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’
Only one family member was involved in the development of the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ for over half (54%) of respondents, while 38% were jointly involved with their spouse. Almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents identified the one-to-one consultations with their adviser as the most beneficial aspect of the Programme.
Some 96% of participants with income concerns considered that their ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ addressed those concerns. Some 93% of those respondents stated that their quality of life concerns were addressed in their ‘Way Forward Action Plan’. However, only 44% of those farm families with other (non-income/quality of life) concerns stated that their ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ addressed those other concerns (inheritance/succession for example).
Two-thirds of the participants had their ‘Way Forward Action Plans’ completed within two months of Stage 1. While half of the participants considered the gap between Stages 1 and 2 to be about right, 46% considered it to be too long. Some 95% of participants were happy with the level of contact with their adviser during the development of their plan. Some 93% considered that the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ was clear and understandable and 94% of participants stated that the actions in their plan were realistic/achievable. Some 45% of participants stated that they would implement or start to implement the actions in their plan in the next 12 months, while a further 50% said they would possibly do so. The majority (84%) of participants considered their ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ to be important to their future.
Views of participants on the benefit of the programme
Three-quarters (76%) of respondents considered the programme to be either some or a significant benefit to them. Those participants with an off-farm source of income were significantly more likely to indicate that the programme was of some or a significant benefit to them (86%) than those who were fully dependent on the farm income (59%). The most important benefit of the programme identified by participants was that it provided ideas to improve income (14%) and helped to improve financial management (13%). Some 84% of participants would recommend the programme to a neighbour/friend, the main reason being that it focused on the reality of their situation.
Programme Update
Teagasc reviewed the ‘Opportunities for Farm Families Programme’ in late 2003 and a number of key changes were made. It was re-launched in January 2004 as the ‘Planning Post Fischler Programme’. The main focus within the new programme was on adjusting to changes post-CAP reform and identifying farm household income post decoupling. The key changes included:
- Reduction in the number of mandatory Stage 1 sessions to 2;
- Inclusion of the CAP reform measures in the discussion sessions;
- Programme available to all farm families and free to those with less than 150 income units;
- Programme worksheets have been simplified;
- Reduction in the number of mandatory worksheets;
- All advisers to be involved in the delivery of the programme; and
- Programme of in-service training for all staff.
Conclusions
Based on the views of advisers and participants, it can be concluded that the ‘Opportunities Programme’ was successful in getting farm families to assess their current situation and to identify measures to improve income and quality of life. However, the success is based on expectation (plans have only been drawn up and are currently being implemented) and therefore it is not yet possible to identify the actual impact of the programme.
The success of the programme relates to the fact that it gets farm families to focus on the basics of their farm and family situation, the solutions drawn up are not dramatic (in most cases) and are a refocusing or redirecting of resources or activities (for many families). The success of the programme is as much based on the process as the content – farm families appreciate the fact that they have an opportunity to appraise their own situation in addition to receiving technical information. However, the management of the programme requires striking a balance between the process and the provision of technical information. Many advisers feel that there is a need to provide more technical information because they believe that this is what farmers require and are not entirely comfortable with exploring some of the non-technical ‘softer’ issues such as quality of life, time management, succession and family/household issues. Participants were very satisfied with the discussion sessions, their ability to contribute/participate and the material presented even though some advisers were concerned about the suitability of discussion sessions and the fact that they considered some aspects ‘soft’.
The programme was viewed as beneficial by the majority of advisers as they stated that the programme had something to offer their clients (in addition to their existing advisory contact) and therefore was not viewed as more of the same but involved an overall change in approach to the provision of advice. However, there appears to be a contradiction between having something to offer and the selling of this, as many advisers found it difficult to sell the programme to farm families and convince them to participate. The difficulty in selling the programme relates to the fact that there was limited farmer-led demand for the programme. Farm families have to be asked to participate in the programme, they are not seeking out the programme themselves but are responding when asked by their adviser. This is not to be interpreted that farm families are not concerned about their future but rather that they had not recognized what the programme had to offer them. It is a challenge for an advisory service to sell a process driven programme following a period which had led to the emergence of a technical and scheme focused service – farmers have an expectation for a definite tangible output from advisory contact e.g. scheme application, grant/subsidy applied/received, technical targets established/achieved.
The programme aimed to broaden the traditional farm operator/adviser contact to engage with more family members. However, it has proven difficult to attract farm families into the programme, nonetheless, Teagasc has successfully increased the participation of other family members, particularly spouses. It is evident that families who attended the programme together derived more benefit from it and were more positive about the programme than individuals. It is also likely that there was more family ownership over the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ where more than one member was involved in its development. This endorses the family focus of the programme and the success in involving families in the program. However, it also highlights the need for further effort to be employed in order to encourage more families to participate. Greater effort needs to be made to convince the other family members that the programme is relevant to them and that they should participate. Women in particular need to be personally invited to participate and the relevance of the programme explained to them. It is not adequate to tell the farm operator to bring their spouse or partner along to the programme. It is important to recognize that even though there is less family involvement on farms, more than the farm operator is involved in the decision-making.
The other family members (mainly spouse) tend to be more concerned about the wider household issues (succession, work organisation, quality of life) and financial issues. The original format of the Opportunities Programme provided more opportunities for discussion on these issues than the new format. It is therefore a concern that in the efforts of Teagasc to encourage greater farmer participation in the programme, that less family participation may result due to the change in emphasis to adjusting post-CAP reform which focuses on the technical aspects of farming which many spouses do not feel competent about.
Initially, while many advisers adapted to the programme, others did not get involved, some approached the programme with a traditional lecture/talk style and others were not satisfied that the programme had enough to offer farm families, who lacked technical information. The changing agricultural environment (Fischler Reforms) and the change in the programme has resulted in all advisers getting involved in the delivery of the programme, however, I would urge caution that the programme does not lose its integrity and become a technical lecture and farm operator dominated programme – that is the challenge for the organization.
The facilitation skills of the advisers are critical to the success of the programme in order to generate discussion and ensure that the programme is interactive. To date both the advisers and participants were satisfied that the programme was interactive and generated discussion on farm and family issues. However, it is evident that one of the major problems encountered with Stage 1 was the difficulty in generating discussion. The facilitation skills of those delivering the programme need to be continuously improved and enhanced (particularly in the area of encouraging quieter and shyer members to participate in the programme).
Advisers concluded that the programme worksheets were useful, important and necessary. However, there was a difficulty in getting them completed. There was concern about the level of detail required, the sensitivity of seeking this information and the level of accuracy. However, given that the purpose of the worksheets is to encourage farm families to establish their current situation, therefore the worksheets are necessary. The benefits of completing the worksheets need to be reinforced with farm families and Teagasc must not be afraid to challenge farm families. If Teagasc does not challenge farm families to focus realistically on their current situation and their future options, then Teagasc will have done them an injustice. In fact farm families, recognized the benefits of the worksheets after their completion but were apprehensive about them prior to completion.
While the ‘Opportunities Programme’ has resulted in a change in the approach to advice, further change is necessary. This is evident in the fact that while the ‘Way Forward Action Plan’ in general addressed income and quality of life concerns (primary aims of programme), it was less successful in dealing with ‘other’ concerns of farm families. This is not to be interpreted as a failure of the advisers but highlights the need for more emphasis to be placed on training advisers to deal with wider family and household issues (areas which the service has moved away from over time in an effort to service the technical and scheme related issues which were demanded by farmers).
It is important that the Planning Post Fischler Programme builds on the success of the Opportunities for Farm Families Programme in supporting farm families in assessing their current situation and securing their future viability.
