May 16, 2003 Contract: 45-3142-2-05229

> Order: 45-3142-2-05070

Task Order 13

**Summary and Analysis of One-on-One Interviews**

United States Department of Agriculture:

**eGovernment Marketing and Grower Relations Assessment**

*Submitted to:*

**USDA**

**Attn: Bill Cosgrove**

**Washington, DC 20024**

*Submitted by:*

**Martin W. Rodgers**

*Accenture LLP\
11951 Freedom Drive\
Reston, VA 20190\
(703) 947-1698*

# Introduction

## Findings of Farmer One-on-one Interviews

This is the final report of the findings of the first phase of the USDA
eGovernment Marketing and Grower Relations Program Assessment. This
phase, the USDA eGovernment Web site and Application Research In-Depth
One-on-One Interviews, was conducted by Cambridge Research, Inc. and
Creative Communications Network, Inc. for Accenture LLP on March 17-18,
2003, in Springfield, Illinois, and March 20, 2003, in Lubbock, Texas.
At least one presentation of these qualitative findings will be made at
a USDA eGovernment developers' workshop at a time and place to be
designated by the USDA CIO and Service Center COTR. This written report
will serve as the core of that presentation.

## Scope of Test and Test Objectives

The USDA desires to understand a variety of issues about the use of its
current Web site by farmers. This agency also seeks to learn how farmers
will receive proposed changes and enhancements to the USDA.gov Web site.
Included in this endeavor is a desire to learn why only a small minority
of those who visit the Farm Bill Calculator Web site electronically
complete and submit forms.

Some of the specific questions to be answered by this research include:

-   What impressions do farmers have of the current USDA.gov home page,
    and how useful is it to them?

-   How do farmers view FSA eForms as a manner to complete required
    forms and apply to participate in various programs?

-   What qualms, if any, do farmers have toward completing and
    electronically submitting the type of information required on
    eForms, specifically LDP information?

-   Which home page do farmers prefer, the proposed my.USDA home page or
    the current USDA.gov home page, and why?

-   What impressions do farmers have of eFOTG, TechReg, Thunder Book,
    and ProTracts?

-   What are the general attitudes toward, and obstacles present, that
    impact the use of the Internet by farmers?

## Test Method

To answer these questions a qualitative research study was undertaken.
The research consisted of in-depth one-on-one interviews with Internet
users representing farmers in the Springfield, Illinois and Lubbock,
Texas areas. Interviews were completed with 12 farmers in Springfield
and 10 in Lubbock. These locations were selected because they represent
important, but different, agricultural market segments. Corn and
soybeans are the primary crops raised by the Springfield attendees, and
cotton is the principal crop raised by the Lubbock participants, some of
whom also plant limited amounts of grain sorghum, wheat and corn. Each
one-on-one interview lasted approximately 45-55 minutes.

During the interviews each respondent discussed their use of the
Internet, their impressions of the current USDA.gov Web site, eForms,
e-LDP, and various elements of the proposed my.USDA Web site. A high
speed Internet connection was provided to the survey participants so
that they could access and navigate the USDA.gov Web site and links that
are now available or are being developed.

The names of those interviewed were provided by FSA personnel from the
respective local offices. In addition, many of the participants
attending the Springfield interviews were farmers who participate in a
local college accounting class. The Springfield farmers also included
instructors of this on-going class. Three of the Springfield
participants took part in the 2002 beta test of the e-LDP program.

The interviews were conducted at hotels in Springfield and Lubbock. The
discussions were observed on a video feed in a room adjacent to the
interviewing room by team members and local USDA staff.

Our team\'s role in qualitative research with growers was designed to be
as objective as possible. The interviewer did not attempt to \"sell\"
the growers on using these sites/applications, nor to explain or teach
them. The interviewer presented the sites/applications to the growers
and helped them navigate as needed to draw out their questions,
concerns, and reactions. The objective was to elicit and assess
consistencies and differences from growers selected by USDA staff as
representative of Internet users in Springfield and Lubbock areas.
Patterns of usage and problem areas would be discerned from their
comments. As such, the specific experiences and comments of any one
grower are less important than the overall patterns of usage, problem
areas, and grower eGovernment needs/suggestions that are discerned from
the participants as a sampled group.

The style of this research is exploratory in nature, and has been shown
to provide the type of information sought by this study. Qualitative
research of this nature is designed to uncover attitudes and opinions,
and cannot be projected to the universe at large.

# Key Findings and Recommendations

## Executive Summary

The following are a summary of key findings:

-   When compared to the general farm population, the majority of those
    interviewed rate above average in terms of computer and Internet
    skills. Most, but not all, of those surveyed have mastered
    keyboarding skills, routinely access the Internet, and use several
    software packages. In this regard, this sample of farmers
    psycho-graphically represents information technology innovators and
    leaders. As a group, they are therefore much more comfortable using
    farm applications. This finding is important to keep in mind to
    avoid overstating how farmers now use and will use the USDA
    eGovernment Web sites and applications in the future.

-   A majority of those interviewed access to the Internet using dial-up
    modems, rather than high-speed Internet services. While many of
    those in the Springfield area have high speed Internet access,
    virtually all in the Lubbock area rely on dial-up modems. While some
    of the growers are seriously considering a high-speed service, many
    feel that this is an unnecessary expense or luxury. Usage of
    high-speed Internet service will significantly impact the extent to
    which many farmers will use USDA eGovernment.

-   The interviews demonstrated that local FSA offices have established
    a reputation for providing a high level of client service.
    Frequently, the personnel in these offices help farmers complete
    their forms and ensure the accuracy of the information submitted.
    This gives farmers peace of mind that the information they have
    submitted is indeed complete and accurate. Asking farmers to
    complete and submit eForms may significantly reduce or eliminate
    this face-to-face contact with local FSA employees. This is the
    principal reason that many will be reluctant to use e-FILE or e-LDP.

-   In addition, many elevators prepare LDP forms for grain farmers, and
    cotton gins provide a similar service for cotton growers. Farmers
    who have their forms completed by these types of third parties are
    also reluctant to use e-FILE.

-   Surprisingly, while concerns about data security and privacy exist,
    they do not appear to be a significant impediment to e-FILE use. As
    long as Social Security numbers are not attached to specific forms,
    farmers do not feel their privacy is at risk.

-   The information content of the current USDA.gov home page holds
    little appeal for many farmers. The concentration on the Secretary
    of Agriculture's activities, while important, does not provide
    information to which farmers immediately relate. They prefer the
    appearance and navigation ease associated with the proposed my.USDA
    portal. Customizing my.USDA to reflect individual preferences,
    though, must not be a complicated process.

These findings are covered in greater detail in the subsequent
subsections.

## Current Internet Use

The most common use of the Internet by those surveyed includes obtaining
weather information, updating commodity market data, price discovery for
crop protection products, and searching for parts locations and pricing
information for agricultural equipment. For some, the Internet has
replaced subscriptions to DTN's traditional service that provides
weather and market information.

While many interviewed use the Internet on a daily basis for the
activities mentioned above, the less enthusiastic users may only access
it weekly and others even less often. The research did not determine
what percentage of farmers fall into each usage category. Anecdotal
evidence obtained in this research indicates, however, that there is an
element of older farmers who are reluctant to consider using the
Internet.

## Access

High speed Internet access is just beginning to make inroads among
farmers. Services like StarBand, DTN SpeedNet, Prairie i.Net, and DSL
connections are beginning to gain popularity. Most interviewed, however,
still use dial-up services when accessing the Internet. The Springfield
participants represent somewhat of an anomaly to this finding. One of
the college instructors included in the sample estimates that only 20
percent of the Springfield area farmers have a high speed Internet
service. Whether the higher portion represented by those surveyed in the
Springfield sample is an indication of Internet usage levels or the
availability of high speed services near this capitol city, was not
determined from this research.

Among those who rely on dial-up services, the feeling they often have is
that high-speed Internet access is too expensive and unnecessary. The
reliance on dial-up services, many of which provide 28.8 kbps or slower
connections, will significantly impact how farmers use future USDA.gov
Web offerings. The time that it will take to download forms or graphics
may discourage dial-up users from accessing and using USDA sites or
applications. This suggests that part of a USDA initiative may be to
educate dial-up users on the benefits of upgrading their Internet
connections to high-speed services or create further incentives for
internet use.

## Security and Privacy

Many interviewed cited concerns about security and protection of
privacy. These are heightened when social security, credit card data, or
financial data are requested. Many appear reluctant to provide this type
of personal information over the Internet by any site, not just USDA's.
Consequently, it limits how they look upon the Internet as a business
tool.

## Interaction with USDA Offices

While there are numerous exceptions, those interviewed say that they
typically visit their FSA office between 4 and 8 times per year. Visits
are made to certify acres, sign up for farm programs, and to obtain
assistance with different aspects of farm loans. The latter is an
especially common activity among those attending the Lubbock session.
Other than the times when there are long lines of farmers that create a
significant wait, farmers genuinely seem to enjoy these FSA office
visits.

The staff members are viewed as knowledgeable, courteous, and helpful.
It is the norm that farmers have come to trust the staff to make sure
that any required paperwork is accurately completed. In spite of the
distance that many have to travel for this service, the research
suggests that farmers often look on these visits as much as a social
experience as they do a business necessity.

Still, most of those interviewed say that they would like the option to
complete their FSA forms online and eliminate the need to go to the FSA
office. They say that e-Filing could be a benefit to both farmers and
landlords, especially during busy seasons. The research suggests that
farmers will need to overcome their inertia to continue filing as they
now do before they will e-File. Once they become comfortable with
e-Filing, many will prefer this manner of submitting forms instead of
going to the FSA office.

An additional finding of the research is that rarely do USDA
representatives make on-farm visits. This perception may in part be due
to the fact that farmers are unaware when a USDA employee makes an
on-farm visit. Consequently, most farmers surveyed have not come to
expect any interaction with USDA employees other than at the local USDA
office.

## USDA Web sites and Applications

### Current USDA.gov Web site Overview

While all of those interviewed had visited the USDA.gov Web site prior
to the initiation of this research, none said they go there often. The
USDA site received high marks for look and feel, but most of those
surveyed criticized the content as not meeting their needs.

Most respondents indicated that they visit this site less than once per
month. Most frequently farmers go to USDA.gov for information about farm
programs, such as disaster relief and the Farm Bill. They do this only
during the time that specific programs are introduced and explained, or
they visit as sign-up deadlines approach. As one farmer stated,
"\[USDA.gov\] is simple to look at. It doesn't blow your mind, but I'm
only concerned about USDA if it directly affects me." For specific
programs and statistics, many indicated that they would go to the
managing agency's site. As one said, "\[The site\] is pretty general.
It's not specific to my area. This is more newspaper stuff or for farm
magazines."

While the overall appearance of the current USDA.gov Web site is
generally looked upon as self-explanatory and easy to follow, the
content of the home page appears to hold little appeal for most farmers.
Two items were most frequently mentioned: 1) the site does not clearly
lead farmers to the a specific customer service and 2) the site presents
too much detail in its news stories. Those interviewed typically said
that they are most interested in reading information that directly
affects them. In this regard, information about the activities of the
bureaucracy is not seen as particularly relevant. As one farmer noted,
"It's easy to navigate through, but why is there so much about Secretary
Veneman? I really just want to know what's new for farm programs." This
type of information appears to be more suited to other USDA stakeholders
than for the farmers surveyed.

For example, many farmers indicated that they did not want to read
detailed information about what initiatives the Secretary is undertaking
and promoting on a daily basis. Instead, the research suggests that
farmers would visit the site more often if it contained information to
which they can relate and use. As one farmer stated, "The initial page
is pretty well done, but I get so much stuff to read that additional
reading needs to be brief and summarized. This does not look that way,"
another stated. This is not to say that stories of national or
international interest are inappropriate, but they should not be seen as
the sole focus of the USDA home page.

As will be seen later in this summary, the proposed my.USDA initially
looks like it provides more relevant information than the current
portal. While it may be important for some audiences to have detailed
information about the Secretary's travels and initiatives, this is not
seen as a priority among those interviewed who seemed to prefer my.USDA
since it directly and immediately relates to their localized and
specific information needs.

### FSA and eForms

The participants were instructed to visit the FSA home page and offer
their opinions about its appearance and usability. Following this
exercise they were asked to locate an FSA form online. They were then
led through a task during which they filled in the form and submitted it
to a service center of their choice.

Many describe the FSA home page as complete and easy to navigate. The
interviews indicate, however, that too much information may be presented
at one time on this page. Farmers say that they visit FSA primarily to
obtain information about programs that are appropriate. In particular,
they expect to quickly be reminded of sign-up dates and deadlines for
programs in which they might participate. While this information is
presented, it is often buried in a list on the home page and can be
difficult to find. Perhaps an easily identifiable link to "Important
Program Dates" that allows searching for a particular commodity would
address this shortcoming.

In addition, the small typeface used to identify the links to FSA
information for "Citizens, Businesses and Other Partners" was difficult
to read for many of the testers. This is especially true when one
considers the range of monitor sizes and screen displays represented by
computer users. In this light, the links shown on the left side of the
FSA home page are easier to read than are those on the right hand side.

An observation the team gleaned from this, and previous Web site design
research, is that when looking for navigation keys farmers rarely look
at the upper right hand corner of their monitor. In this situation most
looked for a "find form" link in the list on the right or left hand side
of the FSA home page. Farmers appear initially reluctant to look for the
eFORMS link in the upper right hand corner, or just did not see it, for
several reasons. One explanation is that the link disappears as one
scrolls down through the lengthy listing of topics. Also, the dark blue
color may be difficult to see. Finally, some appear reluctant to look in
the upper right hand corner as this is a location that they feel is
reserved for advertising or settings rather than navigation links.

Most are disappointed after they click on one of the "Online Forms"
links. When they access forms in this manner, they fully expect that the
next page displayed will be a listing of forms. They do not expect or
want to see more options about how to access eFORMS. They are further
confused by the "Common Services, Citizens, and Businesses" columns.
This breakout requires site users to make yet another decision about how
to access forms, and is seen as redundant and confusing.

The majority of those surveyed do not associate numbers with the forms
for which they are searching. In part this is attributed to the service
that is provided by the local FSA office staff. The office personnel
make sure that their clients receive the correct forms, and probably do
not refer to them by number. Since farmers associate forms by name, and
not number, it is important to use descriptors for eForms that are easy
to understand and are consistent. More is said about this topic at the
end of this report.

A primary objective of this research is to obtain attitudinal
information that farmers have toward completing FSA forms online. It
does not appear that issues surrounding confidentiality and security
will significantly hinder farmer interest in e-Filing. As long as Social
Security numbers do not have to be provided or transmitted, most say
that the required information does not seem particularly sensitive or
confidential.

Several questions were raised, however, that need to be addressed to the
satisfaction of farmers before widespread use will be made of e-FILE.
These include providing a help telephone number and access to historical
data about their farms and crops.

As noted earlier in this summary, FSA office personnel are looked on to
ensure the accuracy of the data in forms that are submitted. On the
surface e-Filing implies to farmers that they, and not someone else,
will be expected to accurately complete the forms that are submitted.
This removes the security blanket currently afforded by FSA personnel.
While some say that they could still call their local office for
assistance, the FSA personnel may not be available at the time a call is
made for help. On form CCC-633, for example, a significant number of
those interviewed did not know how to answer one of the questions
between 12 and 17 (the legalistic Producer Terms and Conditions). This
suggests that a state, regional or national help line will need to be
available on a 24/7 basis. Even this type of help line will not receive
immediate acceptance because the personal connection that farmers have
established with their local office personnel will be lost.

While a phone in customer support function would help some of the
farmers, many are using dial-up connections. The option to be both
online and on the telephone does not exist for many of USDA's farmer
constituents. For this reason, pages must provide a significant amount
of online support. Generally, users should be able to receive
explanations for confusing areas of a form on or around the page,
possibly through mouse-over effects or informational links. Efforts
should also insure that these are Section 508 compliant.

Another issue that raises concerns about e-Filing pertains to forms that
are submitted and require access to historical data. Farmers say that
some of the forms that they file require the inclusion of information
from prior years. Since this information is often held at the FSA
office, and not on the farm, farmers ask whether this information will
be available online, preferably automatically prepopulating into the
form as needed, based on their log-in.

It appears essential to the success of e-FILE (and e-LDP) to allow
farmers to select the service center to which they submit their forms.
Even when provided a confirmation number and an e-mail confirmation of
receipt, some say that they will still call their local FSA office to
make sure a form has been received and is accurate. In part this relates
to a concern that if a form contains errors or is incomplete, it will
become "lost in the land of missing or incomplete forms." Perhaps a
follow-up telephone call is something that farmers will only make until
they become confident with the process. After they become comfortable
with e-Filing, they may be willing to trust that the confirmation number
and e-mail acknowledgment is proof enough that their form has been
received. They may, however, still want an assurance from someone that
the information was correctly submitted.

While many will intuitively be able to e-File without the assistance of
FSA personnel, the research suggests that face-to-face training will
provide a level of confidence in the process and encouragement to
e-File. Since, like the population at large, farmers have a wide range
of computer skills, any training should take this variability into
account and be structured to recognize differences in computer skill
levels.

### e-LDP Exercise

The participants were all asked to complete a CCC-633 e-LDP application
for yellow corn. The exercise consisted of answering questions 12 to 17,
and selecting a service center to receive the application. The process
also included entering a farm number, bin number, bin dimension data to
calculate the LDP quantity, and location information. Those interviewed
did the necessary data entry themselves, but were instructed what to
record by the interviewer.

The farmers that completed this exercise were typically impressed with
the simplicity of the assignment. They felt that it would be easier and
more efficient to electronically file than to take LDP forms to their
FSA office. Several issues were raised, though, that need to be
considered to assure the success of filing e-LDP forms.

It is important to consider that many farmers currently fax their LDP
forms to their FSA office. Most do not feel that submitting an e-LDP is
an improvement over faxing their LDP forms. Especially among those who
have limited computer skills, or those who compete with other family
members for computer time, faxing may still be the preferred manner to
submit LDP forms.

Another obstacle appears to be that not all producers file an LDP
themselves, and therefore, they will not complete an e-LDP. Elevators
often provide this as a service to grain farmers, and it is the norm for
gins to fax the required applications for cotton growers. Currently
farmers must have an FSA-237 (Facsimile Authorization and Verification)
on file to allow elevators and gins to provide this service. The
question raised is whether a similar form will be required to e-File,
and if so how will elevators and gins be made aware that a particular
farmer has such a form on file.

In addition, gins now may fax LDP forms to a central location, like
Kansas City, rather than a local service center. This will necessitate
that farmers inform gins which service center should receive individual
LDP applications. This may be confusing if a farmer uses multiple
service centers because he farms in different counties.

A minor concern expressed relates to the numbering of bins. Not all
farmers number their grain bins. These farmers ask if only entering a
bin location will be acceptable. If not, they will need to be given some
guidance on how to number their bins.

An assurance that some growers seek relates to USDA servers. They want
to be confident that during the fall rush of e-LDP submissions the USDA
server will be able to handle a high volume of activity. Specifically,
they want to make sure that during peak evening hours the connection and
processing speed will be adequate. This may be more of a problem for
dial-up modem users than it is for those with high-speed Internet
access. In this regard the processing speed could be a reflection of the
individual farmer's dial-up service and not the USDA server. The ability
to differentiate whether a slow processing speed is attributed to a
farmer's dial-up service or USDA's servers may not be possible. Either
will lead to the same level of frustration with e-Filing.

Many ask questions about how settlement sheets will be attached to e-LDP
filings. There does not appear to be a consistent way that gins or
elevators present these sheets. If a farmer does not have a scanner he
will need to make a trip to the FSA office to provide the supporting
evidence. The opinion most have is that this will negate the benefits
associated with online filing.

Several issues were raised concerning the quantity calculator. Until the
interviewer pointed out the location of the calculated amount, the users
did not see the calculation. This suggests that the calculated amount
appear in a different typeface color to quickly indicate to users that
the task has been completed.

Another concern about the calculator relates to the moisture content of
the grain. Several raised the point that as the grain dries, shrinkage
will occur. For example, what started out as a 58 pound bushel may
shrink in size and weight to a 55 pound bushel. The question raised is
how the quantity calculator takes this type of variation into account.
The bin dimensions alone will not reflect this discrepancy. Related to
this is a question about whether the farmer will be allowed to specify
the quantity, rather than having software calculate it.

A point of confusion is created by the "amount remaining" calculation
after the e-LDP is submitted. The completed research clearly indicates
that a definition of this term and amount must be provided to site
users. If an online definition is not provided, many will call their
local office or hot-line to inquire about its meaning. Chances are that
some will not remember from year to year what they were told, and will
call again, which defeats some of the benefits associated with e-Filing.

Another question raised pertains to whether multiple farms can be
entered in the "Farm number" box. The tested version of e-LDP did not
allow for this. Those who desire to enter more than one farm number say
that they commingle grain from several farms in the same bin. The
ownership of the grain is identical. For example two brothers with
different farms, but who divide their profits equally, may want to list
more than one farm number. One farmer said that currently his FSA office
allows this to be done.

Finally, a question was raised about whether those who use multiple
computers will be able to use e-LDP and access their data from more than
one computer. While this does not appear to be a significant issue, it
needs to be addressed.

### my.USDA Impressions

The initial impressions of those interviewed about the NRCS proposed
my.USDA portal are very favorable. The typical comments made about this
portal indicate that farmers feel it will be easier to locate the
specific information for which they are searching than it is on the
current USDA.gov Web site. This suggests that the my.USDA portal
contains information that is more applicable to one's farming operation
than the current USDA.gov home page. While farmers do not necessarily
want this to be their opening page when they turn on their computers,
they feel that it is a major improvement over the current USDA.gov home
page.

One recommendation is that the site should provide customized
information on the home page for each farmer. For example, knowing what
crops a particular farmer raises, or might raise, would allow a display
of appropriate program dates for those crops to appear. This would
eliminate the annoyance of a farmer being shown information about crops
that are not raised in his area.

While the majority of those interviewed like the idea of being able to
create their own my.USDA home page, not all surveyed feel that this is a
benefit. It appears that those who are less computer literate, or those
who only view USDA.gov as a site that they would visit occasionally,
have less interest in customizing a my.USDA home page.

The growers were asked to explore several components of my.USDA as
remaining time allowed. These included eFOTG, Thunder Book, ProTracts,
and TechReg. The impressions of each of these were quite positive. As a
rule, though, farmers said they would be much more interested in and
likely to visit FSA sites than NRCS sites. This directly correlates with
whether they have conservation and other contracts.

### Rural Development

No significant input was obtained during this research about the Rural
Development Web site. Among those interviewed this is simply not an
agency with which they have contact.

## Terminology Observations

A final observation gleaned from this research pertains to the
terminology used throughout the USDA.gov Web site. To facilitate use of
the Web site, there should be both consistency and clarity when naming
various pages, links, and forms or when providing instructions. In
addition, sites should aim to use language understandable by common
users and avoid terms and acronyms that only government employees would
understand. These items will all be avoided if the sites are thoroughly
tested on citizens for feedback before they go online. As cotton grower
Cody Maines stated, "I'm glad they're asking people. Instead of just
creating a product without asking customers what they want...They\'re
doing the right thing by asking people.\"

One example of inconsistent language is that "browse forms" and "find
forms" links currently take users to the same destination. While
"browse" may be a widely used Internet term, those questioned seem more
comfortable with "find." Other examples pertain to "eFORMS" and "Online
forms," or "Citizens" (who really are farmers) and "Businesses" (who
also may be farmers).

The use of specific links will increase if the descriptors clearly
indicate what information is associated with the link. For example,
Thunder Book may imply to site visitors that weather information is
contained in that link. ProTracts or TechReg do not tell first-time
visitors what these links contain. While eFOTG is an acronym, it
represents government speak and is not quickly understood by farmers.

For page areas that require introduction of new terminology, one way to
address these concerns may be to have mouse-over effects or
informational links with descriptors that appear as one moves a cursor
across various links. Whenever possible, however, the name itself should
give an indication of what farmers may expect to find if they click on a
particular link.

# Summary and Recommendations

Grower validation and suggestions for course corrections early in the
process will help assure eGovernment sites and applications are
practical and viable. After review of the contemporaneous notes and
video and audio tapes of the sessions, the following are the key
conclusions and recommendations of this report.

## Farmers are under increasingly intense time pressures. 

Many have multiple farms, sometimes in two or three counties. Their
legal, financial and farming responsibilities have multiplied along with
the hundreds of acres they have added over the years. This works both
for and against USDA eGovernment. Many growers complain about having to
drive even as little as 20 miles (though most drive two or three times
that far) to the FSA office, where they wait to interact with USDA, then
are told they must return with more information or for another round of
forms and filings. Often the trip is only necessary to provide a
signature. Growers say that if they can use the Internet to eliminate
some of these trips and the hours spent away from the farm, they would
gladly do so. On the other hand, the lack of time also means that they
do not spend as much time on the Internet as they would like, and when
they do go online, they need to move quickly, get their business
finished, and get back to farming. They may not perceive the time spent
on the Internet as time spent managing their farm. To many, the Internet
seems more of a chore. . Therefore, USDA sites and applications have to
be easy to download, understand, navigate, and complete**.**

## Many Farmers will not pay Current Rates for Increased Internet speed. 

Growers may be managing million-dollar farming operations, but many are
unwilling to spend an additional \$30 to \$50 per month to upgrade their
Internet connection from dial-up to DSL, wireless or satellite. Few
growers suggested broadband is not available in their area, but most
growers indicated that broadband is available, but \"too expensive.\"
This indicates that the low usage rates stems from a perception that
most farmers see little value for the additional cost. Two growers said
they planned to switch to a high speed service soon. Those who do have
broadband seemed to be using the Internet (including USDA sites) more
often. Even if broadband penetration of rural areas continues to
increase, getting the cost closer to dial-up will be important.

Several factors probably play into this attitude of reluctance to spend
more. (1) Few of the farmers reported using the Internet primarily for
business, and most did not use the Internet for their own personal use.
Many of the farmers view the Internet as something for family uses, such
as shopping, music, games, email, and education. (2) Many farmers value
the computer for bookkeeping and some other office chores, but they do
not perceive the same value in access to the Internet (3) As one of
grower pointed out: \"There\'s a big difference between farmers actually
using a computer and just going on the Web for email.\" Another said:
\"You need to differentiate between those who have it (Internet) and
those who use it.\" Since our sample growers were often information
seekers and leaders, the broadband hurdle for more average and
below-average computer/Internet using farmers could be substantial. A
Springfield farmer estimated only 20% of growers using the Internet have
broadband, and this is near a state capital with higher education and
many businesses in the vicinity. This being said, USDA will need for at
least the next few years to design every site and application with
slower 28.8 kbps modems in mind, not broadband. Slow-loading graphics
and pages with dozens of links and items to load may seem attractive and
useful, but ultimately will be self-defeating. Growers lack the patience
and time for long loading times.

## Complex, legalistic forms confuse and intimidate farmers and cause frustrating delays. 

Growers are very complimentary of the local Service Center and admit
they are dependent on their support to complete many transactions with
USDA. For many, the confusing, legalistic language is not intelligible
without the assistance of local Service Center representatives. For many
farmers, it will be necessary to either simplify form instructions, or
reproduce the explanatory role of the service center in each eGovernment
application or site. Often the Service Center employees will prepopulate
the forms before the grower comes into the office. Employees also guide
the farmer through a maze of forms and questions. Farmers fear that if
they fill out their own forms and submit a form with a mistake,
processing time for the form can be delayed by weeks without
notification. This furthers the dependence of growers on the Service
Center. USDA can assist application developers by simplifying the
language of forms. Developers can do several things to increase farmer
use of online forms including:

-   Developers should build immediate error handling functionality, with
    a clear explanation of what needs to be completed or changed to
    submit the form. Examples of correct entries will also assist users.

-   Forms should prepopulate name, address, and historic farm and
    cropping data where needed.

-   On some forms, such as the LDP forms, farmers would also prefer to
    elaborate on their own responses to the questions being asked by
    USDA.

-   When a form has been properly submitted, the user should be given
    immediate confirmation that the transaction has been completed. This
    confirmation should assure the farmer that the form itself was
    properly filled out.

-   Some type of user testing should occur during the application
    development phase so improvements can be incorporated before the
    form or application goes online.

## The farm is the focus. 

Most growers only go to USDA Service Centers or sites to transact
business with USDA. When farmers connect to a USDA site, they want to
access all the pertinent historic and current data and program status on
their farms. This often includes obtaining farm data, contract status,
sign-up deadlines, forms and information immediately and easily. News
features generally do not interest growers unless they directly affect
them, especially during busy seasons. Developers must aggregate and
present this data in a more organized fashion. This will require
rethinking and refocusing what has been the traditional entry point,
USDA.gov to function more like a portal.

## Constituent Portals are Preferred. 

Since the farmers surveyed clearly preferred the NRCS prototype to the
current USDA.gov and other approaches, this would appear to be a concept
that should work for other USDA stakeholders as well. The
tepid-to-hostile reaction to the current USDA.gov site contrasts sharply
with the enthusiastic, eager, and encouraging reaction to the my.USDA
page. There was an immediate comfort level with my.USDA. It had a
familiar feeling because a similar design is used by so many commercial
and educational Web sites they use
([www.agweb.com](http://www.agweb.com/),
[www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu](http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/)). They commented
positively on the major category \"file tabs\" across the top of the
page, with easy access to their farm maps, and the topic areas (eFOTG,
TechReg, etc.), one-click navigation, local weather, and calendar. Most
of all they liked the idea of being able to customize the page with the
forms, links and information most important to them.

## Simplify, Personalize, Educate. 

Growers are frustrated when they have to guess what something means or
does. While my.USDA is the grower preferred portal concept, there are
some issues to address. Technical people tend to use technical names,
but in general growers prefer plain English clarity. When growers were
asked what they thought they would find in the "Thunder Book" area the
answers ranged from \"Accounting\" to \"Weather\" to \"I don\'t have a
clue.\" Most growers also expressed desire to personalize their USDA
portal. They immediately grasped how they could centralize all their
USDA business there, delete some functionality they don\'t need, and add
additional components they tend to use or want. Developers can make the
my.USDA portal serve growers better by telling them simply and
personally what it contains: My References and Short Cuts (or, My Tech
Briefcase), My Field Guides, My Contracts, My Tech People, My Farm Maps
& GIS, etc. Developers need to build in flexibility and customization
capability in ways that are easy to understand and follow. Elements
should be added or subtracted simply and quickly. USDA will need to
provide workshops, online \"seminars\" and help phone lines so growers
do not feel that adopting and customizing my.USDA is too difficult to
make practical.

## Three Clicks to Service. 

When attempting to use an online application, growers do not like
unnecessary decisions, changes of direction, and guesswork tossed into
their pathways. Many would sign on only to get a form, complete it, and
sign off. Finding high-demand items like this should be very simple and
not require extended searching or surfing through the site(s).

For example, when growers are looking for forms on the FSA home page,
most users looked down the right hand column to \"Online Forms,\"
ignoring the light blue eFORMS link at the top. Both the eFORMS and
Online Forms buttons go to the same place, so it is unclear why they
should have different names When the users clicks on the Online Forms
link another page full of links and options called \"Service Center
Agencies Online Services\" is displayed instead of the more intuitive
and standard list of forms. Again changing names, the name under both
categories is now eFORMS even though the user just clicked \"Online
Forms\" on the FSA home page. This confused a few of the growers. From
there the user is finally taken to the eFORMS page, but still does not
have a list of forms. From this page the user can to click on \"Browse
Forms.\" Finally the user is taken to a search engine, and they have to
determine the best way to use its multiple options for finding a form.

This problem would be easily remedied if the original Online Forms
button took the user directly to the forms search engine. Other options
could be listed on that page, but most users will have their needs met
with the form locating functionality.

## Conversion is likely to be slow. 

As was evident from the tests thus far, farmers are not able to sit down
and complete all the tasks they are asked to do with the given
applications. Even if they can fill out a few forms, some existing
requirements are so complicated that a farmer will require some outside
assistance . Some of the farmers participating in the one-on-one
interviews felt that only the most technology skilled farmers would be
able to use the applications as they exist. This implies that unless
usability issues are addressed seriously, eGovernment will be limited
only to those who have the highest level of computer skills. This does
not have to be the case; many farmers are proficient Internet users but
not experts. Application designers must develop applications simple
enough for these users, keeping in mind that many users may have slow
connections or limited keyboarding skills.

## Suppliers and the local FSA Service Center staff provide value-added services. 

The eGovernment mix not only must include Technical Service Providers,
but also less direct suppliers who act as intermediaries between growers
and USDA. For example, in the Springfield area the grain elevators that
verify yield going into LDP and file the forms on behalf of their grower
customers. In Lubbock and presumably other cotton states, the gins
provide this service. These companies will continue providing this
value-added customer service for their grower clients. The role of the
FSA Service Center staff in assisting growers with forms and sign-ups
has strong value to growers as well. Growers are dependent on all these
service providers and will look to them for leadership, education, and
guidance before embracing eGovernment. To increase use of USDA
eGovernment sites, these offices and service providers must be included
in the process. USDA staff and Web developers should meet to gain mutual
understanding of the roles service companies such as elevators and gins
play in functions such as LDP processing. This will allow developers to
create sites and applications that will be accepted by the Service
Centers and Suppliers, and ultimately lead to greater use by the
growers.

## Growers are not aware of current applications and sites. 

Most of the growers were unaware of e-FILE and many were not that
familiar with eFORMS. In addition, most were not frequent visitors to
USDA.gov Some of the grower comments prompt fundamental questions which
should shape future eGovernment efforts: What are the purposes and who
are the audiences for the USDA.gov site? Clearly, growers do not
consider the site useful.

## Appendix B: Test Participants {#appendix-b-test-participants .unnumbered}

Below is the questionnaire that was developed and used with each of the
22 growers interviewed. Depending on time constraints and speed with
which the participant was able to work through the sites/applications
some growers did not complete the final section, discussion of a Rural
Development site.

1.  Introduction

    a.  \[The participants will be told that the purpose of the sessions
        will be to review several USDA Web applications, and to obtain
        their input to help improve current USDA offerings. They will be
        told that the interview is informal, and that there are not any
        right or wrong answers.\]

    b.  Let's talk for a few minutes about how you use your computer and
        the Internet.

        i.  Thinking of your agricultural needs, who in your operation
            or family makes the most use of the Internet?

        ii. How long have you been using the Internet, and what sites do
            you \[others\] visit most often for agricultural
            applications or information?

        iii. When did you purchase your most recent computer, what
             software do you use?

        iv. How do you access the Internet, do you use a dial-up modem,
            or something else?

2.  USDA Visits

    a.  How often do you visit your local USDA office?

    b.  What types of things do you go there to do?

    c.  How often does a USDA person visit your farm?

    d.  Who comes out and what is typically the nature of their visit?

    e.  Thinking of the Internet, is there anything now that you wish
        you could do over the Internet that you either go to your USDA
        office for, or for which they come to your farm?

        i.  If yes, what are they and why would you prefer to do this
            over the Internet?

        ii. If no, why don't you think that the Internet could be used
            in this manner?

3.  USDA.gov Discussion

    a.  Before I contacted you, when was the last time that you logged
        onto a USDA site?

        i.  What site was it?

        ii. How often do you typically log onto this site?

        iii. Why do you visit that site?

        iv. Is there anything that you particularly like about this
            site?

        v.  Is there anything that you recall is troublesome with this
            site?

    b.  What other USDA sites have you visited?

        i.  How often do you visit each site?

        ii. What do you do hope to accomplish when you visit each site?

    c.  I asked you to visit USDA.gov. Did you have an opportunity to do
        that?

    d.  What sites did you visit?

        i.  Is there anything that you particularly liked about each
            site mentioned?

        ii. Is there anything that you recall as troublesome with (each
            site mentioned?)

        iii. What were your overall impressions of the sites that you
             visited?

4.  Online Evaluation

    a.  I'd like you to take me to the USDA.gov home page. The computer
        we have provided has that under Favorites, so please go to their
        home page.

        i.  Looking at this site, what if anything do you see that you
            particularly like and what is troublesome?

        ii. Do you have any suggestions for enhancements that would make
            this site easier for you to use?

    b.  Now, let's go to the Farm Services Agency (FSA) home page. How
        would you go there from USDA.gov?

        i.  Again, what do you see here that you like and what do you
            find troublesome?

        ii. If you wanted to find a form you need, where would you go
            from here to find it? Lets' look at eFORMS. Have you
            accessed this part of the site before today?

            1.  How many times have you gone to eFORMS, what forms did
                you access, and what did you do when you found the
                forms?

                a.  What forms would you look for?

                b.  Did you fill the form out online, download it, or
                    just read it?

                c.  Is this something that you would consider completing
                    online? Why is that?

                d.  Let's talk some more about this idea to e-FILE. (See
                    how they find e-FILE and guide them through log-in
                    process.)

                    i.  What needs to be done to overcome your concerns
                        about filing these types of forms online?

                    ii. What would be the benefits to you if you could
                        do this?

                    iii. Are there other hesitations that you have, and
                         what can be done to overcome them?

            2.  I'd like to ask you to find an LDP form (ccc633) in
                e-FILE. (If time permits, one other form of
                participant\'s choosing).

                a.  How would you find this form? (Observe how they find
                    it, guide as necessary to conserve time.)

                b.  For each form ask: If this is a form that you want
                    to fill out, what would you do, fill the form out
                    online, download it, or just read it?

                    i.  Is this something that you would consider
                        completing online?

                    ii. Why is that?

                c.  Let's look at e-LDP.

                    i.  (Guide them through log-in).

                    ii. Among past users - How does this compare with
                        what you saw before? What's improved and what is
                        confusing?

                    iii. Are the questions/instructions clear or is
                         there anything confusing?

                    iv. How about trying to fill this form out online
                        for me? (Help with questions only as needed.)

                    v.  What are you seeing that you like or dislike
                        about this experience?

            3.  Now, I would like to ask you to visit two other USDA
                sites. The first is the Natural Resources Conservation
                Service (NRCS) site.

                a.  Have you ever visited this site?

                    i.  If yes, when was the last time?

                    ii. What were you looking for?

                    iii. What do you like/dislike about this page?

                b.  Now, using Favorites again, let\'s go to a new site,
                    my.USDA.

                c.  (Explain this is a prototype, let them explore it).

                    i.  What are you initial impressions of this site?

                    ii. What do you especially like about this site?

                    iii. What do you dislike?

                    iv. How often and for what purpose could you see
                        yourself accessing this site?

                d.  Next let's look at TechReg.

                    i.  What are you initial impressions of this site?

                    ii. What do you especially like about this site?

                    iii. What do you dislike?

                    iv. How often and for what purpose could you see
                        yourself accessing this site?

                e.  Next let's look at Thunder Book.

                    i.  What are you initial impressions of this site?

                    ii. What do you especially like about this site?

                    iii. What do you dislike?

                    iv. How often and for what purpose could you see
                        yourself accessing this site?

                f.  Now let's look at ProTracts.

                    i.  What are you initial impressions of this site?

                    ii. What do you especially like about this site?

                    iii. What do you dislike?

                    iv. How often and for what purpose could you see
                        yourself accessing this site?

                g.  Next let's look at eFOTG.

                    i.  What are you initial impressions of this site?

                    ii. What do you especially like about this site?

                    iii. What do you dislike?

                    iv. How often and for what purpose could you see
                        yourself accessing this site?

                h.  If time permits - The last site that we will look at
                    is the Rural Development (RD) site.

                    i.  What type of interaction, if any, do you have
                        with the USDA's RD offerings?

                    ii. Let's look at the home page. What are your
                        initial impressions of this site?

                    iii. What do you especially like?

                    iv. What do you dislike?

                    v.  \[If appropriate\] Now, let's look at one of the
                        loan programs.

                        1.  What are your initial impressions of this
                            site?

                        2.  What do you especially like?

                        3.  What do you dislike?

                        4.  How would you use this site?

**[Appendix B: Test Participants]{.underline}**

**Springfield, Illinois**

**March 17-18, 2003**

**Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Hotel**

+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| **Ti | **Name**   | **Tel    | **e-mail**         | **Address**     |
| me** |            | ephone** |                    |                 |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 3/17 |            |          |                    |                 |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 6:30 | Charles    | 217-     | <cct@starband.net> | 19466           |
| PM   | Taylor     | 458-2842 |                    | Chanderville    |
|      |            |          |                    | Rd.             |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Virginia, IL    |
|      |            |          |                    | 62691           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 3/18 |            |          |                    |                 |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 7 AM | Larry      | 217-     | <l                 | 2922 W          |
|      | Clark      | 794-5154 | cclark@locomp.net> | Washington      |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Maroa, IL 61756 |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 8 AM | Steve      | 217-     | <stu               | 10150           |
|      | Turner     | 458-2730 | rner@casscomm.com> | Philadelphia Rd |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Chandlerville,  |
|      |            |          |                    | IL 62627        |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 9 AM | Tim &      | 217-     | <tcmafa            | 1820 Parkes     |
|      | Cynde      | 626-1485 | rm@family-net.net> | Kinner Rd.      |
|      | Kinner     |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | New Berlin, IL  |
|      |            |          |                    | 62670           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 10   | Dave Sasse | 217-     | <dsa               | 1709 2000       |
| AM   |            | 447-3409 | sse@ccaonline.com> | Avenue          |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Beason, IL      |
|      |            |          |                    | 62512           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 11   | Neil Parr  | 217-     | <npf               | 31644 E Cty Rd  |
| AM   |            | 482-5160 | angus@abelink.com> | 930 N\          |
|      |            |          |                    | Mason City, IL  |
|      |            |          |                    |  62664          |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 1 PM | David      | 217-     | <cle               | 16146 S Shiloh  |
|      | Clement    | 452-7266 | ment@casscomm.com> | Road            |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Virginia, IL    |
|      |            |          |                    | 62691           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 2 PM | Harry      | 217-     | [harry@            | RR2 Box 193     |
|      | Schirding  | 899-7340 | sffinc.com](mailto |                 |
|      |            |          | :harry@sffine.com) | Petersburg, IL  |
|      |            |          |                    | 62675           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 5 PM | Randy      | 309-     | <randyfo           | 18142 E Manito  |
|      | Fornoff    | 543-3516 | rnoff@hotmail.com> | Rd              |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Havana, IL      |
|      |            |          |                    | 62644           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 6 PM | Mark       | 309-     | <mfarm@dpc.net>    | 132 Canary Dr   |
|      | Schleder   | 348-2109 |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Green Valley,   |
|      |            |          |                    | IL 61534        |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 6 PM | Randy Brim | 309-     | <r                 | 15690 Nichols   |
|      |            | 244-8487 | brim@dtnspeed.net> | Rd              |
| (a   |            |          |                    |                 |
| lso) |            |          |                    | Green Valley,   |
|      |            |          |                    | IL 61534        |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 7 PM | Terry      | 217-     | <Steinho           | Rt 2 Box 175    |
|      | Steinhour  | 445-2769 | ur@springnet1.com> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Greenview, IL   |
|      |            |          |                    | 62642           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+

**Lubbock, Texas**

**March 20, 2003**

**Ramada Inn and Conference Center**

+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| **Ti | **Name**   | **Tel    | **e-mail**         | **Address**     |
| me** |            | ephone** |                    |                 |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 8 AM | Cody       | 806-     | [cmaine            | 8009 University |
|      | Maines     | 892-2722 | s@citybanktexas.co |                 |
|      |            |          | ](mailto:cmaines@c | Lubbock, TX     |
|      |            |          | itybanktexas.com)m | 79423           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 9 AM | Kent Nix   | 806-     | <kentnix@pics.net> | 705 Court "V"   |
|      |            | 872-2492 |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Lamesa, TX      |
|      |            |          |                    | 79331           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 10   | Craig      | 806-     | <ckitt             | 15218 Cty Rd    |
| AM   | Kitten     | 781-5831 | en@nts-online.net> | 2100            |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Lubbock, TX     |
|      |            |          |                    | 79423           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 11   | Linda      | 806-     | <bu                | Box 25          |
| AM   | Taylor     | 863-2669 | stersgin@SPTC.net> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Ropesville, TX  |
|      |            |          |                    | 79358           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Noon | Wendell    | 806-     | <wbar              | Rt 2 Box 165    |
|      | Barrick    | 757-2126 | rick@dtnspeed.net> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Abernathy, TX   |
|      |            |          |                    | 79311           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 1 PM | Kevin      | 806-     | <kev               | 500 Hwy 385     |
|      | Riley      | 986-4286 | nmel@fivearea.com> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Springlake, TX  |
|      |            |          |                    | 79082           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 3 PM | Casey      | 806-     | <Ca                | Rt 15 Box 616   |
|      | Jones      | 763-0960 | sey.Jones@TTU.EDU> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Lubbock, TX     |
|      |            |          |                    | 79415           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 4 PM | Weldon     | 806-     | <WJMel             | Rt 3 Box 53     |
|      | Melton     | 293-1835 | ton@usaonline.net> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Plainview, TX   |
|      |            |          |                    | 79072           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 6 PM | Steve      | 806-     | <rackler@aol.com>  | 804 14^th^      |
|      | Rackler    | 832-5519 |                    | Street          |
|      |            |          |                    |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Shallow Water,  |
|      |            |          |                    | TX 79363        |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 7 PM | Doug       | 806-     | <                  | 20407 Hwy 87    |
|      | Hlavaty    | 863-2375 | hlavaty@llano.net> |                 |
|      |            |          |                    | Lubbock, TX     |
|      |            |          |                    | 79423           |
+------+------------+----------+--------------------+-----------------+