Evaluation Report Stakeholder Valuation of the University of Minnesota Extension s Master Gardener Program

Transcription

1 Evaluation Report Stakeholder Valuation of the University of Minnesota Extension s Master Gardener Program January, 2007 Tom Bartholomay, Extension Evaluation Specialist College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences University of Minnesota 277 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue St. Paul, MN / Fax Barth020@umn.edu

2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Evaluation Findings Representative stakeholder groups identified 42 Minnesota Master Gardener attributes that benefit the public 6 Summary of the attributes each stakeholder group valued 7 Minnesota Master Gardener attributes commonly valued by all primary stakeholder groups 9 Stakeholder group differences in how they valued eight attributes 10 The eight commonly valued attributes and their robustness 11 The three most robust attributes 12 The two slightly less robust attributes 13 The three remaining attributes 14 Differences in perceived ability and unique position to deliver the eight attributes valued by all stakeholders 17 Differences in perceived level of current delivery and priority of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholders 18 Other findings related to the eight commonly valued attributes 23 Attribute Valuation by Individual Stakeholder Groups: Top Public: Top 10 Attributes 21 County Decision-makers: Top 10 Attributes 21 Master Gardeners: Top 10 Attributes 22 Extension Staff: To 10 Attributes 22 Illustrative Descriptions of the Eight Robust and Sustainable Attributes 24 Environment-related Attributes 24 Environment Attribute #23 26 Environment Attribute #25 26 Community Capacity-related Attributes 28 Community Capacity Attribute #35 28 Community Capacity Attribute #39 30 Health-related Attributes 32 Health Attribute #29 32 Access-related Attributes 34 Access Attribute #6 34 2

3 Research-related Attributes 36 Research Attribute #45 36 Research Attribute #46 38 Appendix A: Comparison of Median Ratings of all Original Attributes by Each Stakeholder Group 40 Tables Table 1: Minnesota Master Gardener Program attributes valued by all stakeholders public (county citizens), county decision-makers, Master Gardeners, and Extension staff 9 Table 2: Ordered by least to greatest mean variance across groups 11 Table 3: Three most robust attributes 12 Table 4: The two slightly less robust attributes 14 Table 5: The three remaining attributes 15 Table 6: Attributes rated among the top 10 by one or more stakeholder groups 22 Table 7: Environment-related Attribute #23 stakeholder ratings of variables 25 Table 8: Environment-related Attribute #25 stakeholder ratings of variables 26 Table 9: Community Capacity-related Attribute #35 stakeholder ratings of variables 28 Table 10: Community Capacity-related Attribute #39 stakeholder ratings of variables 30 Table 11: Health-related Attribute #39 stakeholder ratings of variables 32 Table 12: Access-related Attribute #6 stakeholder ratings of variables 34 Table 13: Research-related Attribute #23 stakeholder ratings of variables 36 Table 14: Research-related Attribute #23 stakeholder ratings of variables 38 Table 15: Comparison of Original Attributes Mean Ratings by Each Stakeholder Group 40 Figures Figure 1: Perceptions on ability of Master Gardeners to deliver attribute 17 Figure 2: Perceptions on Master Gardener program s unique position to deliver attributes 17 Figure 3: Perceptions on level of current delivery of attributes 18 Figure 4: Perceptions on attribute priority for Master Gardener program 19 Figure 5: Public (county citizens): Top Ten Attributes 20 Figure 6: County decision-makers: Top 10 Attributes 20 Figure 7: Master Gardeners: Top 10 Attributes 21 Figure 8: Extension staff: Top 10 Attribute 21 3

4 Introduction The Minnesota Master Gardener program currently relies on four stakeholder groups to successfully carry out its activities. The program relies on public funding that requires that it effectively serves and benefits the public. The program relies on the University of Minnesota Extension Service for which it disseminates research-based information to the Minnesota public. The program relies on the support of county decision-makers who fund the program s local structure and activities. And, finally, the program relies on its many volunteers who carry out the program. While the Master Gardener program relies on each of these stakeholder groups for its success, each stakeholder group has a different set of interests in the Master Gardener program. As a result, an important factor in the Master Gardener program s success has been its ability to meet the diverse interests of each of its primary stakeholder groups. Achieving this has been a complex and delicate effort. Current public budget constraints and restructuring of public service systems have challenged the relationship that the Minnesota Master Gardener program has with its stakeholder groups. Stakeholder interests have shifted and changed. As a result, there has been a growing desire to clarify what each of these stakeholder groups value in the Master Gardener program, to better understand and more effectively respond to their various interests. This evaluation was conducted to identify a) what each stakeholder group valued most about the Master Gardener program, b) similarities and differences between what stakeholders value in the program, c) program attributes that are valued highly by all stakeholder groups, d) attributes the Master Gardener program is perceived to be able and uniquely positioned to deliver, e) the perceived current level of delivery of these attributes, and f) the perceived priority levels of these attributes. Process: A modified Delphi Technique research approach was used for this evaluation. Experts representing each of the Master Gardener stakeholder groups were selected and invited to participate in the evaluation (N=51). Participants from each group were selected based on meeting all of the following criteria: a) member of one of the primary stakeholder groups, b) high level of knowledge of Master Gardener related activities, c) and high level of involvement in supporting the Master Gardener program. Participants were asked to submit ideas representing Minnesota Master Gardener public benefits. A total of 134 attributes were submitted (N=37). These public benefit attributes were consolidated, after which 42 distinct attributes remained. These consolidated attributes were then rated by participants (N=31) on the degree to which they were value by each stakeholder group. Participants also rated attributes on the Master Gardener program s ability to generate the attribute. 4

5 Results that were focused on specific stakeholder group valuation of an attribute included only the ratings from participants associated with the relevant group. Results pertaining to the public included the ratings of all participants. After the first round of ratings, a second round of attribute ratings commenced. The second round of attribute ratings included only those attributes commonly valued by all four stakeholder groups. Participants (N=33) rated this small group of attributes on the Master Gardener program s unique position to deliver them, the program s current delivery of them, and the priority of each of these attribute to the Master Gardener program, relative to each other. Furthermore, to clarify how participants interpreted these attributes, participants provided illustrations of each. The statistical reliability of each of the rating scales was high. Definition of Attribute Attribute from herein refers to an action that characterizes the Minnesota Master Gardener program that evaluation participants submitted as benefiting the public. 5

6 Evaluation Findings Representative stakeholder groups identified 42 Minnesota Master Gardener attributes that benefit the public Evaluation participants submitted 134 Minnesota Master Gardener attributes that benefit the public. After consolidation, 42 remained (see appendix A). These attributes represented eight categories of public benefits: 1. Access-related attributes: Increase Minnesotans and public service organizations access to activities, horticulture information, and opportunities that would not otherwise be available to them; 2. Economic-related attributes: Increase Minnesotans and public service organizations knowledge of cost-savings information regarding horticulturerelated solutions; 3. Environment-related attributes: Increase environmentally sound horticultural practices that reduce pollution and water runoff problems and target the removal of hazardous plants, insects, and diseases. 4. Health-related attributes: Increase safe use of pesticides by Minnesotans and public service organizations, and increasing Minnesotans ability to grow healthy food. 5. Horticulture Capacity-related attributes: Increase Minnesotans horticulture knowledge and providing Minnesotans and public service organizations with a system that responds to local and specific horticulture-related solutions. 6. Community Capacity-related attributes: Increase the effectiveness of publicservice organizations around horticulture-related solutions and children/youth development programs. 7. Community Cohesion-related attributes: Increasing Minnesotans sense of civic pride in their communities as special places of beauty. 8. Research-related attributes: Increase the availability of University of Minnesota research-based horticulture information to Minnesotans while giving them more access to the University of Minnesota Extension Service. 6

7 Summary of the attributes each stakeholder group valued Stakeholder groups valued the 42 Master Gardener attributes differently. Below is a general description of what each stakeholder group valued. The Public (county citizens): At the top of the public s list were attributes related to increasing the public s access to unbiased research-based information and cost-effective horticulture decision-making, increasing practices that improve the health and beauty of the environment, increasing the safe use of pesticides, and strengthening public service organization around their effectiveness regarding horticulture solutions. Other attributes valued by the public were focused on activities that increase citizens sense of civic pride in their communities, access to nutritious vegetables, and access to activities in which people of all ability (including marginalized community populations) can participate. Other attributes valued by the public included access to an organization that can mobilize to address specific horticulture related problems in the community, attributes related to youth development and horticulture education, and increased access to the University of Minnesota Extension Service. County decision-makers: County decision-makers were identified as the most selective of the stakeholders groups. At the top of their list were environment-related attributes. These included reducing yard waste, water runoff, pollution, and demands on waste management and landfill systems, and reducing hazardous plants, insects, and diseases. It also included increasing the quality of green spaces available to the public, and increasing citizens ability to safely use pesticides and conserve and maintain their natural environment. County decision-makers also valued Master Gardener attributes that increased greater cost-effectiveness of horticulture decisions and practices related to public service organizations and the program s partnerships with schools and children/youth-focused programs to facilitate youth development and horticulture education. Other attributes that County decision-makers valued were related to increasing citizens access to unbiased research-based information and the University of Minnesota Extension Service, increasing activities in which people of all ability (including marginalized community populations) can participate, and increasing facilitation of the integration of immigrant populations into the community. County decision-makers also valued increasing citizens awareness of city ordinances related to horticultural practices. Master Gardeners: The Master Gardeners valued nearly all of the Master Gardener public benefit attributes. At the top were attributes related to public access to unbiased researchbased information, the program s ability to increase its participant ranks who serve the horticultural needs of communities, and the program s research data collection that increases local horticultural options. They also valued increasing the public s costeffective horticulture related decision-making, and the property-value benefits of improved natural environments. Furthermore, they valued attributes related to the environment, such as increasing citizen s ability to conserve and maintain their natural resources, increasing the quality and/or amount of green spaces, and reducing hazardous plants, insects, and diseases. In addition, they valued the attribute related to increasing activities in which people of all ability (including marginalized community populations) can participate, and the family development opportunities from these activities. 7

8 Other attributes Master Gardeners value range from program partnerships with schools and children/youth focused programs to facilitate youth development and horticulture education, increasing the capacity of communities to address their horticultural issues, and increasing citizens sense of civic pride in their community. Extension Service staff: At the top of what the Extension Staff valued were attributes related to increasing the public s access to unbiased and research-based information and the University Extension Service. Also at the top were attributes related to increasing the public s safe use of pesticides, reducing environmentally hazardous plans, insects, and diseases, increasing the number of Master Gardener participants who serve the horticultural needs of communities, and increasing the leadership and public service capacity of citizens. Other attributes Extension Service staff valued were increasing the public s costeffective horticulture related decision-making, and the integration of immigrant populations into the community. Extension staff valued environment related attributes focused on reducing yard waste, water runoff, pollution, and demands on waste management and landfill systems; reducing hazardous plants, insects, and diseases; increasing the safe use of pesticides; and increasing the public s ability to conserve and maintain their natural environment. They also valued increasing activities around which people of all ability (including marginalized community populations) can participate, as well as the family development opportunities from these activities. They valued the attributes related to increasing citizens sense of civic pride in their community, the program s research data collection that increases local horticultural options, and the program s partnerships with schools and children/youth focused programs to facilitate youth development. 8

9 Minnesota Master Gardener attributes commonly valued by all primary stakeholder groups Eight Master Gardener program attributes that benefit the public were commonly valued much by all four stakeholder groups the public, County decision-makers, Master Gardeners, and Extension staff (see Table 1). These eight attributes were rated by stakeholder groups on the Master Gardener program s ability and unique position to deliver them, and their relative priority for the Master Gardener program. The eight commonly valued attributes focused on 1) improving the environment through better practices horticultural practices and the reduction of hazardous plants, diseases, and insects, 2) increasing community capacity through partnering with other organizations around horticulture solutions and child/youth development, 3) increasing the safe use of pesticides, 4) increasing vulnerable populations with access to meaningful and multigenerational activities, and 5) increasing Minnesotans access to research-based horticulture practices and the University of Minnesota Extension service. Table 1: Minnesota Master Gardener Program attributes valued by all stakeholders public (county citizens), county decision-makers, Master Gardeners, and Extension staff Master Gardener programs improve the natural environment through public education that leads to reduced yard waste, water runoff, pollution, and demands on waste management and landfill systems (Environment-related attribute #23). Master Gardener programs reduce the spread of hazardous plants, diseases, and insects through public education and consorted collaborative strategies (Environmentrelated attribute #25). Master Gardener programs increase the effectiveness of community public service organizations (such as Habitat for Humanity and farmers markets) by partnering with these organizations to broaden and strength their capacity around horticulture solutions (Community Capacity-related attribute #35). Master Gardener programs increase the safety and health of Minnesotans through public education about appropriate use of pesticides (Health-related attribute #29). Master Gardener programs increase the social, emotional, and cognitive abilities of children and youth by engaging them in horticulture through their Junior Master Gardener program, collaboration with schools, and other youth programs (Community Capacity-related attribute #39). Master Gardener programs provide Minnesota s vulnerable populations (such as children, elderly, and people with disabilities) with increased access to meaningful, multi-skill, community-focused activities (Access-related attribute #6). Master Gardener programs increase Minnesotans access to University of Minnesota Extension Services through its broad and continuous public presence and its referrals of public to other Extension services (Research-related attribute #46). Master Gardener programs increase Minnesotans access to tax supported University of Minnesota research-based information (Research-related attribute #45). 9

10 Stakeholder group differences in how they valued eight attributes Although all eight attributes met the median criterion of being valued much by each stakeholder group, there were differences in how they were rated by stakeholder groups (see table 2). In general, Master Gardeners and Extension staff rated nearly all eight attributes as highly valued by their associated groups. The eight attributes were rated slightly lower and more selectively by the public (county citizens) group. County decision-makers were, by far, more selective than the other stakeholder groups, rating several of the eight commonly valued attributes as having notably less value for them than evident among the other groups. General descriptions of stakeholder group relative valuation of the commonly valued attributes are below: Public (county citizens) were perceived as valuing a wide variety of attribute areas environment, community capacity, health, and research. Attributes related to the environment, health, and citizen s access to research were rated slightly higher than the other attributes among this set. An attribute focused on providing vulnerable populations with access to meaningful and multigenerational activities was rated slightly lower than others in this set. Master Gardeners were perceived as highly valuing all eight attributes, giving particularly high rating to the attribute focused on increasing citizen s access to research. Extension staff were perceived as highly valuing nearly all eight attributes, much like the Master Gardeners. They rated the research related attributes highest for their group, giving particularly high rating to the attribute that focused on providing citizens access to research, followed by the attribute focused on giving citizens greater access to Extension Services. Inconsistent with their overall high valuation of the eight commonly valued attributes, Extension staff rated lower the attribute that focused on children/youth development. County decision-makers were perceived as highly valuing the two attributes related to the environment, followed by the related health attribute that focused on increasing the safe use of pesticides. They rated community capacity related attributes just below these 1) increasing capacity of organizations around horticulture solutions, and 2) increasing capacity of child/youth development programs. In contrast to Extension staff and Master Gardeners high valuation of research-related attributes, County decision-makers valued these attributes least of the eight. 10

11 The eight commonly valued attributes and their robustness Although all eight commonly valued attributes met the robust criterion of being valued much by all stakeholder groups, some were more robust than others. For comparison purposes, attribute robustness was determined using a variety of variables (see table 2). These variables included 1. The level of an attribute s value rating from the group composite mean (combined means of all groups). 2. The amount of variance of an attribute s value ratings across group means (range). 3. The Master Gardener program s perceived level of ability to deliver the attribute. 4. The perceived level of the Master Gardener program s unique position to deliver the attribute. Table 2: Ordered by least to greatest mean variance across groups County Citizens Master Decisionmakers (mean) Gardeners (n=30) (n=11) (n=7) Extension (n=12) Composite mean of all 4 groups Variance across group means Attributes with lesser variance mean mean mean mean mean range Environment attribute 23 Environment attribute 25 Community Capacity attribute 35 Community Capacity attribute 39 Health attribute 29 Access attribute 6 Research attribute 46 Research attribute (SD=0.89) 3.9 (SD=0.91) 3.8 (SD=0.94) 3.7 (SD=1.26) 3.9 (SD=1.08) 3.4 (SD=0.85) 3.6 (SD=0.93) 3.9 (SD=1.03) 4.1 (SD=1.57) 4.0 (SD=1.15) 3.9 (SD=0.90) 3.7 (SD=0.76) 3.7 (SD=1.11) 3.4 (SD=1.51) 3.3 (SD=1.38) 3.3 (SD=1.70) 4.2 (SD=0.75) 4.3 (SD=0.90) 4.2 (SD=0.75) 4.3 (SD=0.47) 4.0 (SD=0.89) 4.3 (SD=0.87) (N=12) 4.1 (SD=0.83) 4.7 (SD=0.65) 4.1 (SD=0.90) 4.3 (SD=0.75) 4.1 (SD=0.94) (N=11) 3.6 (SD=1.44) 4.5 (SD=0.80) 4.2 (SD=0.94) 4.6 (SD=0.67) 4.9 (SD=0.30) (N=11)

12 The three most robust attributes There were three Master Gardener attributes that were clearly robust (see table 3). Not only were they rated consistently high across all stakeholder groups, the Master Gardener program was perceived as uniquely positioned and able to deliver them. These three attributes were related to environmental improvement and the development of community capacity through partnerships with other organizations. Among these three attributes, the most robust attribute was Environment-related attribute #23, followed by Environmentrelated attribute #25, followed by Community Capacity-related attribute #35. Perceived priority: In terms of priority for the Minnesota Master Gardener program, these three attributes were ranked second, fourth, and seventh out of the eight primary attributes. Environment-related attribute #23 was ranked second priority, Environment-related attribute #25 was ranked fourth priority, and Community Capacity-related attribute #35 was ranked seventh priority. Perceived level of current delivery: All three attributes were perceived as currently being delivered much. Table 3: Three most robust attributes Environment-related attribute #23 Master Gardener programs improve the natural environment through public education that leads to reduced yard waste, water runoff, pollution, and demands on waste management and landfill systems. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as the most highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=4.1 with a range of 0.2). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much and it was ranked by participants as the second highest priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). Environment-related attribute #25 Master Gardener programs reduce the spread of hazardous plants, diseases, and insects through public education and consorted collaborative strategies. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=4.1 with a range of 0.4). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much, however it was ranked by participants as fourth in priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). There was a statistically significant difference (p.<0.05) between stakeholder group ratings of this attribute s current level of delivery (using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test). The County stakeholder group rated delivery low (mean=3.00) while Master Gardeners rated it high (mean=4.50). 12

13 Table 3: Three most robust attributes (continued) Community Capacity-related attribute #35 Master Gardener programs increase the effectiveness of community public service organizations (such as Habitat for Humanity and farmers markets) by partnering with these organizations to broaden and strength their capacity around horticulture solutions. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=4.0 with a range of 0.4). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much. However, in sharp contrast to these ratings, participants ranked this attribute seventh in priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). The two slightly less robust attributes There were two attributes that were not quite as robust as the first set, describe above (see table 4). The Master Gardener program was perceived as uniquely positioned and able to deliver both of these attributes. One of these attributes, focused on increasing the safe use of pesticides (Health-related attribute #29), was rated just as high as those in the previous set, but was rated slightly less consistently across the stakeholder groups. The other attribute, focused on child/youth development activities (Community Capacity-related attribute #39), was rated a bit lower and was rated with slightly less consistency than those in the previous set. Perceived priority: In terms of priority for the Minnesota Master Gardener program, these two attributes were ranked third and eighth out of the eight primary attributes. Health-related attribute #29 was ranked eighth and Community Capacity-related attribute #39 was ranked third. Perceived level of current delivery: The current delivery of these two attributes was perceived as much for Community Capacity-related attribute #39, and only some for Health-related attribute #29. 13

14 Table 4: The two slightly less robust attributes Health-related attribute #29 Master Gardener programs increase the safety and health of Minnesotans through public education about appropriate use of pesticides Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=4.0 with a range of 0.8). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. However, this attribute was only perceived to be delivered at the level of some and ranked by participants as last in priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). The regional group of Other (primary state-wide focus) ranked this attribute as having higher priority (mean=4.00) than the other groups. For example, the Suburban-focused group ranked it much lower (mean=6.50). This significant difference existed within the discrete Extension group as well. When the regional group of Other was removed, there were no significant differences between rural, suburban, and urban. Community Capacity-related attribute #39 Master Gardener programs increase the social, emotional, and cognitive abilities of children and youth by engaging them in horticulture through their Junior Master Gardener program, collaboration with schools, and other youth programs Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=3.8 with a range of 0.7). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much and it was ranked by participants as the third highest priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). The three remaining attributes There were three attributes that received high composite group value ratings, but were rated lower than the previous two sets by one or more stakeholder groups (see table 5). In general, these three attributes were rated as having high value for Master Gardeners and Extension staff, but less value for County-citizens and particularly less for County decision-makers. The attribute in this set that received the smallest rating variance across stakeholder groups focused on increasing Minnesota vulnerable populations access to meaningful and multigenerational activities (Access-related attribute #6). County citizens and County decision-makers were perceived to value it at a lower level than the previous two sets of attributes, above. The Master Gardener program was perceived as being quite able to deliver this attribute, but only somewhat uniquely positioned to deliver it. The two research-related attributes in this set of eight represent the attributes that had the greatest rating variance across all stakeholder groups (Research-related attribute #46 and Research-related attribute #45). These attributes were highly valued by Extension staff and Master Gardeners, but lowly valued by County decision-makers compared with the other valued attributes. County citizens were rated as valuing these research-related attributes more than County decision-makers, but substantially less than 14

15 Extension staff and Master Gardeners. The Master Gardener program was perceived as being quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver these two research-related attributes. Perceived priority: In terms of priority for the Minnesota Master Gardener program, these three attributes were ranked first, fifth, and sixth out of the eight commonly valued attributes. Research-related attribute #45 was ranked first, Researchrelated attribute #46 was ranked fifth, and Access-related attribute #6 was ranked sixth. Perceived level of current delivery: The current delivery of these three attributes was perceived as much for both research attributes. Current delivery of Accessrelated attribute #6 was perceived as some. Table 5: The three remaining attributes Access-related attribute #6 Master Gardener programs provide Minnesota s vulnerable populations (such as children, elderly, and people with disabilities) with increased access to meaningful, multi-skill, community-focused activities. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=3.8 with a range of 0.9). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able but only somewhat uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. However, this attribute was only perceived to be currently delivered at the level of some and ranked by participants as sixth in priority for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). This attribute was rated as highly valued by the Master Gardeners (mean=4.3) and Extension staff (mean=4.2). However, this attribute was far less valued by County decision-makers (mean=3.4) and County citizens (mean=3.4). There was a statistically significant difference (p.<0.05) between stakeholder group priority ranking of this attribute for the Master Gardener program (using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test). The County stakeholder group ranked it as a higher priority (mean=3.20) while the Extension staff group rated it as a lower priority (mean=5.94). Research-related attribute #46 Master Gardener programs increase Minnesotans access to University of Minnesota Extension Services through its broad and continuous public presence and its referrals of public to other Extension services. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=3.9 with a range of 1.3). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able and uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much. Participants ranked this attribute as the fifth in priority (mean=5.0) for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). This attribute was rated as very highly valued by Extension staff (mean=4.6) and Master Gardeners (mean=4.1). However, it was rated as substantially less valued by County decision-makers (mean=3.3) and County citizens (mean=3.6). 15

16 Table 5: The three remaining attributes (continued) Research-related attribute #45 Master Gardener programs increase Minnesotans access to tax supported University of Minnesota research-based information. Summary of data: This attribute was rated by participants as highly valued across stakeholder groups (group composite mean=4.2 with a range of 1.6). The Master Gardener program was perceived to be quite able but only uniquely positioned to deliver this attribute. The current delivery of this attribute was rated as much. Participants ranked this attribute as by far the highest priority (mean=2.65) for the Master Gardener program (out of the eight attributes). This attribute was rated as very highly valued by Extension staff (mean=4.9) and Master Gardeners (mean=4.7), and of high value to County citizens (mean=3.9). However, this attribute was perceived as far less valued by County decision-makers (mean=3.3). 16

17 Differences in perceived ability and unique position to deliver the eight attributes valued by all stakeholders The Master Gardener Program s ability and unique position to deliver the eight attributes identified as valued by all stakeholder groups were rated by participants. There were no statistically significant differences between stakeholder group ratings related to these variables. Perceived ability of Master Gardener program to deliver attributes The Master Gardener program was perceived as quite able (median rating) to deliver all eight attributes, by all stakeholder groups. Although the two Research-related attributes were identified as the least robust (in terms of value), these were attributes that the Master Gardener program was perceived as most able to deliver (see figure 1). The next five attributes are similar in ability rating (mean range of 0.27), and the Accessrelated attribute was perceived as the least able to be delivered. Figure 1: Perceptions on ability of Master Gardeners to deliver attribute (N=30) All Participants: Perceptions on Ability of Master Gardeners to Deliver Attribute Group Means Research Attrib.# Research Attrib.#46 Comm.Cap. Attrib.#35 Health Attrib.#29 Environ. Attrib. #23 Environ. Attrib.#25 Master Gardener Attributes Comm. Cap. Attrib.#39 Access Attrib.#6 Perceived unique position of Master Gardener program to deliver attributes The Master Gardener program was perceived to be most uniquely positioned to deliver the Research-related attributes (see figure 2). However, the Community Capacity-related attribute #39, regarding education programs for youth and children, was second in unique positioning. Although the rest of the attributes were relatively similar, least uniquely positioned to deliver were the Health-related and Access-related attributes. Figure 2: Perceptions on Master Gardener program s unique position to deliver attributes (N=32) All Participants: Perceptions on Uniqueness of Master Gardeners to deliver attributes Group Means Research Attrib.# Comm. Cap. Attrib.#39 Research Attrib.#46 Environ. Attrib.#23 Environ. Attrib.#25 Comm. Cap. Attrib.#35 Master Gardener Attributes Health Attrib.# Access Attrib.#6 17

18 Attributes: Differences in perceived level of current delivery and priority of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholders The Master Gardener Program s current delivery of the eight attributes identified as valued by all stakeholder groups were rated by participants. Participants also ranked each of these attributes, relative to each other, based on priority to the Master Gardener program. Perceived level of current delivery of attributes Participants perceived the Master Gardener program as delivering six of the eight attributes at the level of much (median rating). The two attributes that were perceived to be delivered at the level of some were Access-related attribute #6 (median=3.5) and Health-related attribute #29 (median=3). Participants perceived the Research-related attributes as currently delivered the most, and the Access-related and Community Capacity attribute (focused on children/youth programs) as delivered the least (see figure 3). The current delivery of Environmental Attribute #25 was rated statistically differently by stakeholder groups (p<0.05) using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. The Master Gardener participant group rated the delivery of this attribute relatively high (mean=4.50) while the County participant group rated it relatively low (mean=3.00). Figure 3: Perceptions on level of current delivery of attributes (N=32) Group Means All Participants: Perceptions on Current Levels of Delivery Research Attrib.# Research Attrib.#46 Environ. Attrib.#23 Comm. Cap. Attrib.#35 Environ. Attrib.# Comm. Cap. Attrib.#39 Master Gardener Attributes Health Attrib.#29 Access Attrib.#6 18

19 Perceived priority of attributes to the Master Gardener program When ranking attributes in order of priority for the Master Gardener program, by far the highest priority was increasing Minnesotans access to tax supported University of Minnesota research-based information (Research-related attribute #45; mean=2.65) (see figure 4). This attribute was followed by Environmentrelated attribute #23 (mean=3.94) and Community Capacity-related attribute #39 (mean=4.29). By far, the attribute receiving the lowest priority ranking was Health-related attribute #29. Stakeholder groups significantly differed in their priority ranking of Access-related Attribute #6 (p.<0.05). The County participant group ranked this attribute relatively high in priority for the Master Gardener program (mean=3.20) while the Extension staff group ranked it quite low (mean=5.94). Figure 4: Perceptions on attribute priority for Master Gardener program (N=32) All Participants: Perceptions on Priority for Master Gardener Program Low priority High priority 1 0 Group Means Research Attrib.#45 Environ. Attrib.#23 Comm. Cap. Attrib.#39 Environ. Attrib.# Research Attrib.#46 Access Attrib.#6 Comm. Cap. Attrib.#35 Master Gardener Attributes Health Attrib.#

20 Other findings related to the eight commonly valued attributes Some findings not included in previous sections follow: Regarding the eight commonly valued attributes: Two of the three attributes found to be the most robust were not prioritized commensurately. One of theses attributes (Environment-related attribute #25) was prioritized fourth out of eight, and the other (Community Capacity-related attribute #35) was prioritized second to last (seventh). Regarding the eight commonly valued attributes: The attributes that were found to be least robust were not prioritized commensurately. In particular, the valuation of the attribute that focused on increasing Minnesotans access to University of Minnesota research-based information was among the least robust, yet ranked as the highest priority (see table 3, below). This attribute was also rated the highest of the eight in terms of the program s a) ability to deliver it, b) unique position to deliver it, b) and current level of delivery. Regarding the eight commonly valued attributes: Stakeholder groups did not statistically differ in their valuation of the eight final attributes for the public (county citizens) (p.<0.05/using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test). Regarding the eight commonly valued attributes: Regional focuses of participants (rural, suburban, urban, other) did not result in statistical differences in their valuation of the eight final attributes for the public (county citizens) (p.<0.05/using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test). Regarding the attributes valued by stakeholder groups: The public (county citizens), county decision-makers, and Master Gardeners were perceived as valuing Economic-related attributes of the Minnesota Master Gardener program. However, Extension staff did not rate a single Economic-related attribute among its top

21 Attribute Valuation by Individual Stakeholder Groups: Top 10 Although eight attributes were identified as commonly valued much by all stakeholder groups, these eight attributes do not necessarily represent the highest attribute valuations by stakeholder groups. The following section presents the 10 highest rated attributes for each stakeholder group. (See table 6, below, for attribute definitions.) Public (county citizens): Top 10 Attributes Five of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholder groups were among the top 10 valued attributes for the public (see figure 5). Beyond the attributes valued by all stakeholder groups, most notable was the presence of attributes related to the economic benefits of the Master Gardener program to county citizens. Note: The content of Access-related attribute #5 is similar to the content of Research-related attribute #45, regarding public access to research. Figure 5: Public (county citizens): Top Ten Attributes (N=31) Public (county citizens) valuation of attributes: Top 10 Mean Rating Access Econ Econ 14 *Environ 23 *Health 29 *Environ 25 *Research 45 Environ 24 Master Gardener Attributes * = Attributes valued by all stakeholder groups Access 8 *Com Cap 35 County decision-makers: Top 10 Attributes Five of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholder groups were among the top 10 valued attributes for county decisionmakers (see figure 6). Beyond the attributes valued by all stakeholder groups, most notable was the presence of Economic-related attributes and the group s emphasis on environmental attributes. Figure 6: County decision-makers: Top 10 Attributes (N=7) County decision-maker valuation of attributes: Top 10 5 Mean Rating *Environ Environ 24 *Environ 25 Econ 17 *Com Cap 35 Environ 22 *Health 29 *Com Cap 39 Master Gardener Attributes Com Coh 40 Econ 18 * = Attributes valued by all stakeholder groups 21

22 Master Gardeners: Top 10 Attributes Although Master Gardeners were perceived to value more attributes than other stakeholder groups, only two of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholder groups were among the top 10 valued attributes for Master Gardeners (see figure 7). Beyond the attributes valued by all stakeholder groups, most notable was the presence of attributes related to the economic benefits of the Master Gardener program and the group s emphasis on environmental attributes. Note: The content of Access-related attribute #5, clearly rated highest, is similar to the content of Research-related attribute #45 (Minnesotans access to research-based information) which is valued much by all stakeholders groups. Figure 7: Master Gardeners: Top 10 Attributes (N=12) Master Gardener valuation of attributes: Top 10 Mean Rating Access 5 Hort 33 *Research 45 Research 44 * = Attributes valued by all stakeholder groups Econ 13 Econ 14 Environ 22 Environ 24 Master Gardener Attributes *Environ 25 Com Cap 36 Extension staff: Top 10 Attributes Five of the eight attributes valued by all stakeholder groups were among the top 10 valued attributes for Extension staff (see figure 8). Beyond the attributes valued by all stakeholder groups, most notable was the presence of Horticulture-related attributes and the lack of economic related attributes related to economic benefits of the Master Gardener program. Note: The content of Access-related attribute #5, clearly rated highest, is similar to the content of Research-related attribute #45 (Minnesotans access to research-based information) which is valued much by all stakeholders groups. Figure 8: Extension staff: Top 10 Attribute (N=12) Extension staff valuation of attributes: Top 10 Mean Rating Access 5 *Research 45 *Research 46 *Health 29 Hort 33 * = Attributes valued by all stakeholder groups Hort 32 Access 7 *Environ 25 Master Gardener Attributes *Access 6 Com Cap 34 22

23 Table 6: Attributes rated among the top 10 by one or more stakeholder groups (not including attributes valued by all stakeholder groups) Access 5. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in citizens access to unbiased and research-based information about horticultural knowledge and skills that enable them to employ effective choices and practices in a cost-effective manner. 7. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in moderate and low income population s access to unbiased and research-based information about gardening and horticultural knowledge and skills that they would not otherwise be able to afford. 8. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in citizens access to public gardens that would not otherwise exist, especially in small, rural communities, if not for the educational efforts of Master Gardeners. Economic 13. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in monetary savings by citizens through horticulture information that leads to more cost-effective horticulture decisions (time, money, and performance). 14. Master Gardener programs contribute to increased or sustained property values by contributing horticultural information that results in activities that support a high quality natural environment. 17. Master Gardener programs contribute to the saving of public service money by conducting educational activities that help lead to greater cost-effectiveness of public service landscaping and horticulture decisions and practices. 18. Master Gardener programs contribute to lowering taxes for citizens by compensating, through horticulture education and guidance, under-funded public services that have shortages in this knowledge and skills. Environment *22. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in citizens ability to conserve and maintain their natural environmental resources by fostering a more profound understanding of nature that supports the preservation and improvement of the natural resources for future generations. 24. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in the quality and/or the amount of parks, green spaces, plants, and water resources available to citizens (that attract other wildlife within a community) through its many educational and assistance efforts that lead to more focus and improvement on these areas. Horticulture Capacity 32. Master Gardener programs contribute to exponential increases in the number of citizens that have horticultural knowledge and skills by teaching some citizens, who share this knowledge with other citizens, who then share this knowledge with additional citizens, etc. 33. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in the growth of Master Gardener members which, in turn, leads to a greater capacity for citizens to address the community s needs when horticulture may be part of the solution. Community Capacity 34. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in the leadership and public service capacity of citizens by fostering leadership, teaching, and other positive behavioral skills that serve the community in additional ways. 36. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in the social capital (public service activity) of communities by generating among citizens a sense of goodwill and community service that spreads exponentially from citizen to citizen; originating from Master Gardener activities and its networking with other organizations. Community Cohesion 40. Master Gardener programs contribute to an increase in community cohesion by providing education and guidance about a subject (horticulture) that is of interest to people of different cultures, different languages, different incomes, different ages, and different abilities that lead to commonalities and common projects between diverse citizens. Research 44. Master Gardener programs contribute unique horticultural data to research projects that lead to better horticultural options and improved gardens for Minnesotans. (Master Gardener vegetable and flower garden trials generate information that is used for developing location-specific best-horticulture-practices that are tailored to Minnesota s communities.) * This attribute was valued highly by all stakeholder groups. However, it was determined to be redundant to Environment-related Attribute #23 and, as a result, not included among the set representing commonly valued attributes. 23

24 Illustrative Descriptions of the Eight Robust and Sustainable Attributes How did participants interpret the broadly valued attributes? To clarify how participants interpreted the attribute statements, they were asked to submit stories that illustrated how the delivery of each attribute resulted in benefiting a citizen, community, or the public in general. These illustrations provided clarification of how participants perceived the attributes, within the context of actual circumstances, as they rated or ranked them. When compiling the stories, there were no clear differences between the stakeholder groups regarding the illustrative topics they chose to submit. 24