United States

Agriculture

Department of Cooperative

Agricultural Education Survey:

Cooperative

Service Cooperatives’

ACS

Research

Report 119 Version

Summary of Findings
Abstract

Cooperative Education Survey:

Cooperatives’ Version

Summary of Findings

John R. Dunn

Agricultural Cooperative Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Research Report 119

July 1993
Preface

This special report presents a summary of the findings from

the recent survey of cooperative organizations regarding

cooperative education. The survey was conducted by the joint

effort of the Agricultural Cooperative Service and the

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives as one component of

a multi-faceted examination of the needs and priorities for

contemporary cooperative education. Materials contained in

this special report should not be viewed as the final results of

the broader task force study, rather as inputs to the process.
Contents

Preface i

Attitudes and Goals for Cooperative Education 2

Cooperative Education Budgets 5

Audiences and Topics 8

Materials and Resources 11

Delivery Systems 17

General Opinion Statements 18

Conclusions 22
Cooperative Education Survey:

Cooperatives’ Version

Summary of Findings

This survey was conducted in early 1992 to obtain the opinions of people working with operating cooperative businesses

who had knowledge and experience in cooperative education.

Of the 3.50 surveyed, 209 provided usable responses. The original list of recipients was drawn from the suggestions by the

education staff of Agricultural Cooperative Service (ACS), the

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), the

National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), and leaders from most of the State cooperative councils throughout the

United States.

The recipient group was not intended to represent a random sample of cooperative organizations or educators within

cooperatives. Rather, it was drawn to solicit opinion from a

broad range of persons known to be familiar with and

involved in cooperative education in cooperatives.

Respondents represented 36 States and all regions of the

country (table 1). The majority, about 62 percent, were from

the Midwest and Plains regions, where the bulk of agricultural

cooperatives are located.

Table l-Distribution of survey respondents, by State.

South 42 East 26 Midwest 61 Plains 45 west 14

AL 2

AR 2

FL 2

GA6

KY6

LA 3

MS3

NC7

SC 3

VA 6

DC 2 IA 13 co 5 CA 5

MA 2 IL 12 KS12 ID 5

MD 2 IN 7 NB 3 W A 3

NH 1 MI 4 ND12 UT 1

NJ 1 MN 12 OK 5

NY 9 MO 7 SD 5

PA 9 OH 16 TX 3

WI 10

1
More than half of the respondents represented agricultural marketing, farm supply, or services cooperatives (table 2).

Twenty-five respondents were from rural service cooperatives,

including telephone, electric, and water cooperatives. Thirtyone represented financial institutions, primarily Farm Credit

System representatives, although some credit unions are also

included. Consumer, housing, health care, and insurance

cooperatives each had a small number of respondents. For

purposes of analysis in this report, consumer and housing

cooperatives are combined into a single group. Those from the

health care, insurance, and “other” groups are included only

in the totals for all respondents (table 2).

ATTITUDES AND GOALS

FOR COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

Survey recipients were asked to indicate how important they

felt cooperative education was to the success of their cooperatives (table 3). All indicated at least moderate importance,

with 75 percent believing cooperative education to be critical.

This proportion was relatively consistent across the different

types of organizations. Thus, at least in terms of expression of

basic attitude regarding cooperative education, the view was

strongly supportive.

Those polled were asked to identify three goals from

among a list for cooperative education programs they felt

Table P-Distribution of respondents, by organization type

Type of organization Number of respondents

Marketing or supply cooperative 133

Rural services (telephone, electric, etc.) 25

Financial 31

Consumer 6

Housing 5

Health care 1

Insurance 2

Other 6

2
were most important. Results are shown in table 4. Each proposed goal was also placed into one of three composite priority categories (high, moderate, low), based on the frequency of

its selection. The goal of improving member relations was by

far the most frequently selected.

It is useful to distinguish between the types of goals in

this list. Certain ones are quite pragmatic, relating directly to

how education can affect the business success of the organization. Most notable were those “to increase business volume”

and “to increase membership.”

Others could be considered more altruistic, done in support of the cooperative concept. These include “to understand

Table &Importance of cooperative education to the success of the

organization.

Type of organization Not Important Important, not EXirWMy

at all uftfcal inpoftanf

Marketing/supplies

services

Financial

Consumer/housing

All respondents

Number

0

0

0

0

0

38 95

6 19

7 24

3 8

54 154

Table 4-Rating of alternative goals for cooperative education, all

respondents.

Number Prforitv ’

Improve member relations 121

Understand co-op principles 77

Increase business volume 76

Enhance co-op’s public image 74

Improve member decisionmaking 71

Provide information 70

Nurture leadership skills 53

Improve dimate for cooperatives 52

Increase membership 31

1 Prbtity levels defined by frequency groupings of rssponsss.

high

mod

mod

mod

mod

mod

low

low

low

3
basic cooperative principles” and “to improve member decisionmaking.” The more altruistic goals, while contributing to

the economic success of the cooperative, do so in a less direct

fashion. We would expect to see organizations’ approaches to

cooperative education vary considerably according to whether

their goals are pragmatic or altruistic. What remains unclear is

which approach is more effective in building strong cooperatives.

Marked difference could be seen in the goals for cooperative education expressed by respondents from different types

of organization (table 5). Improving member relations was a

high priority for all groups except consumer and housing

cooperatives. The goals of consumer and housing cooperatives tended to the more altruistic side, reflective of their

social philosophy.

Education goals of service cooperatives tended to be

related to their public role as sole providers of services. The

goals of marketing and supply cooperatives tracked quite

closely to financial organizations, reflecting perhaps the

increasing convergence of philosophies of lenders and their

customers.

Table !+hdicated priority of goals for cooperative education by type

of respondent.

Education program goal Mkw

sup.

Service Fin. cons/

hous.

Improve member relations

Understand basic co-op principles

Increase business volume

Enhance co-op’s public image

Improve member decisionmaking

Provide information

Nurture leadership skills

Improve climate for cooperatives

Increase membership

Indicated prbity

high high

mod mod

mod low

mod high

mod low

mod high

low low

low mod

low low

high

mod

mod

mod

mod

low

mod

mod

low

high

low

low

high

low

mod

low

low

4
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION BUDGETS

Ninety percent of survey respondents indicated that their

cooperative spends money for cooperative education.

However, of the 185 who spent money on education, only 55

had a specific budget line item for it. Thus, for the vast majority of respondents, spending on education was not clearly

defined. It typically fell within the budget of an organization’s

member relations or public relations department. This held

true for both the traditional marketing and supply cooperatives and other groups. As a result, data collected regarding

Table GAverage spending and distribution of spending on cooperative education for all respondents and marketing/supply

cooperatives.1

All respondents Mktg/sup CcMps

Average spending $57,923 $65,777

Number of co-ops in each

spending amount:

Less than $10,000

$1 o,oOO-29,999

$30,000-99,999

$100,000 plus

69 46

31 21

22 12

19 12

1 Includes only those organizations indicating positive spending amounts.

Table 7-Average spending and distribution of spending on cooperative education for all respondents and marketing/supply cooperatives

having specific budget line items for education.’

All reqxx&nts Mklgkup co-ws

Average spending

Number of w-ops in each

spending amount:

Less than $10,000

$1 o,oOO-29,999

$30,000-99,999

$100,000 plus

$90,763 $122,000

16 10

12 6

14 7

6 5

i Includes only assodatbns with positive spending amounts.

5
cooperative education budget amounts must be used with

caution (tables 6 and 7 on previous page).

Of the 141 respondents reporting spending levels, the

average organization spent $57,923 on cooperative education.

Marketing and supply cooperatives tended to spend a little

more. Most respondents had quite modest spending levels of

less than $30,000. A few notable organizations, with education

expenses of $1 million or more, drove up average spending

figures.

A more meaningful measure may be seen in table 7,

which reports data on only those organizations having a specific line item for cooperative education in their budgets.

Most interesting about this data is that the average expenditure was considerably higher for this group than indicated for

the full group-$90,763 for all types and $122,000 for marketing and supply cooperatives. This suggests that formal recognition within the context of the budget is associated with a

higher degree of dedication and commitment to education.

Nearly 25 percent indicated their organizations spent

much more on cooperative education than 10 years ago. More

than 68 percent said spending increased at least moderately.

Only 8 percent said these expenditures decreased. Looking

ahead for the next 5 years, most respondents felt education

spending would remain static.

Seventy-five percent thought their organizations would

spend about the same amount, but 24 percent felt spending

would significantly increase. Returning to an earlier theme,

for those cooperatives having a specific budget line item for

education, 79 percent at least moderately increased education

spending, while 35 percent expected big increases in the next 5

years.

Cooperative members, directors, and employees were the

three most important target audiences for education spending

(table 8). Education for members and directors each accounted

for roughly one-fourth of that budget. This allocation is

expected to remain about the same for the next 3 to 5 years.

6
However, there was some indication that we could expect a

slight shift in emphasis toward more general membership,

employee, and young adult programs.

In addition to allocating education expenses by target

audience, organizations also choose how to deliver education

to the audiences. They can put on their own internal programs, join other organizations in sponsoring specific programs, support programs through membership in various

groups that perform educational functions, or encourage individual participation in cooperative education by providing

scholarships (table 9).

Respondents were relatively satisfied with this general

allocation among delivery approaches. Regarding future

intentions, data indicated education would see moderate

shifts of emphasis to internal programs or those jointly offered

Table &Percent of cooperative education budget spent on various

target groups.

Audience or group Percent of

education budget

Directors 24.2

General membership 26.6

Employees 16.8

Youth 9.5

Young adults 12.7

General public 6.5

Other 1.7

Table g-Allocation of cooperatives’ education spending, by delivery

system.

Delhwy system Percent of spending

Internal programs of organization 47.0

Joint programs with other organizations 25.4

Donations, dues, or payments to educ. orgs. 21.4

Scholarships 5.0

Other 1.2

7
with other cooperatives. Strongest indications came from marketing and farm supply cooperatives.

Only 22 respondents said their organizations had full

time education directors. Of these, 12 also had additional staff

assigned to education. Typically, education program duties

were assigned on a part-time basis to member relations or

communications staff. Seventy-four organizations used this

approach. Forty-nine respondents said education responsibilities were assigned to various staff on an “as needed” basis.

Forty-five indicated that responsibility rested with the general

manager. Nine organizations had no personnel assigned to

education.

For most, education was not formally assigned to specific

staff. While the survey does not indicate how accountability

and responsibility for education are assigned within organizations, education for many might easily fall through the cracks.

AUDIENCES AND TOPICS

Members, directors, and employees were the three top- priority audiences for cooperative education (table 10). Therefore,

the major target audiences are already within the cooperative

fold.

Table l&Priority rating of various target audiences by all respondents for cooperative education.

Number Priority ’

Cooperative managers 36

Cooperative directors 104

Cooperative members 142

Cooperative employees 103

Youth, students 59

Young adults 72

General public 46

Educators 21

Potential members or patrons 40

’ Priority levels defined by frequency groupings of responses.

low

high

high

high

moderate

moderate

low

low

low
As was the case with the goals for cooperative education,

the priority target audiences of marketing and supply cooperatives were quite similar to financial institutions, with one

exception (table 11). Respondents from the financial organizations saw a greater need to educate cooperative managers

than did respondents from other groups. Because of their public service role, service cooperatives placed more emphasis on

customer education.

After determining priority audiences, respondents were

asked where responsibility for educating various audiences

should lie- with the individual cooperatives or outside

groups such as school systems, trade associations, or

Government agencies. Respondents felt individual cooperatives should accept that responsibility for certain audiences.

These included cooperative members, employees, and potential members or patrons. For certain other audiences, those

polled had a strong preference for outside groups handling

education. These included educators, youth, and the general

public.

Education of managers, directors, and young adults was

considered a shared responsibility between individual cooperatives and outside organizations. This view was quite consistent across the types of organizations represented.

Table 1 l-Priority rating of various target audiences for cooperative

education.

Education program goal Mktg/ SeWi’ Fin. Cons/

SUP. hOUS.

Cooperative managers

Cooperative directors

Cooperative members

Cooperative employees

Youth, students

Young adults

General public

Educators

Potential members or patrons

low low

high low

high high

high mod

mod mod

mod low

low mod

low low

mod low

mod

high

high

high

mod

mod

low

low

low

low

high

high

mod

low

low

low

low

low

9
Priority target audiences were also examined by asking

respondents to provide a ranking within each of four broad

categories of target audiences. For the within-cooperatives category, members, employees, and directors were the three

highest priority groups, consistent with the findings in the

earlier question. There was little divergence in these findings

among the types of organizations. Only service cooperatives,

which placed high priority on reaching potential members or

patrons, varied from the overall norm.

Among several subgroups provided in the “general public” category, consumers, elected officials, and the media were

considered the three highest priority target groups. Again,

there was great uniformity among organizations.

Within the educator category, Cooperative Extension

agents and secondary school teachers were indicated as the

highest priority audiences. Selecting agents for priority was

particularly significant in light of the diminished capacity of

the Cooperative Extension Service in providing cooperativespecific assistance during the past two decades. Each organization type had its own priority ranking, reflecting individual

education goals (table 12).

High school students were consistently identified as the

top-priority student audience for cooperative education (table

13). Post-high school students, either at universities, junior

colleges, or community colleges, were the next highest priority. Apparently, the consensus of most respondents was that

Table 12-Priority ranking for various educator groups.

Educator group All M&v service Fin. cons/

S”P kg

Priority rank

Extension agents 1 1 2 3 1

Secondary teachers 3 4 1 2 3

Elementaty teachers 6 6 3 6 2

State Co-op Council Staff 2 2 6 1 4

Post-secondary instructors 5 5 4 5 6

University professors 4 3 6 4 4

10
‘4

1, the best time to reach students is as they are about to become

adult decisionmakers.

Respondents ranked items in an extensive list of cooperative education topics to receive priority attention. The top

seven, in priority order, were:

l Cooperative principles and practices.

l Director roles and liabilities.

l Cooperative management and operations.

l Cooperative philosophy.

l Board-management relations.

0 Cooperative finance.

l Rights and duties of cooperative members.

Several other topics were also considered important for

cooperative education. Many suggestions focused on the business operations, environment, and decisionmaking aspects of

the cooperative. There was strong indication of the need to

upgrade business skills and acumen of cooperative education

recipients.

MATERIALS AND RESOURCES

Only 11 respondents indicated they relied exclusively on their

own cooperatives for education materials and resources. Thus,

the role of outside providers is obviously quite important.

Three quarters of the respondents obtained materials from

outside sources, while two-thirds looked to programs put on

i by outside groups. More than 60 percent brought outside

Table l&-Priority ranking for various student audience groups.

student group All Mklg/ SMViC0 Fin. cons/

SW hs!I

Prfofity Rank

High school students 1 1 1 1 1

Jr. College, Community col. 2 2 3 3 2

University students 3 3 5 2 4

Adult education 4 4 4 5 3

11
experts in to play roles in their cooperatives’ education programs. Ninety respondents got advice from outside experts in

planning their organizations’ programs. Ninety also indicated

using basic program designs from outside sources.

Forty-seven respondents said their organizations developed educational materials for other groups. Service and

financial organizations were more heavily involved in development of materials than other groups. However, much of the

materials developed by service cooperatives were oriented

toward the more technical aspects of their internal operations,

such as power plant safety, rather than discussing the cooperative organization.

Cooperatives turn to a wide variety of sources to obtain

educational materials, such as trade associations, State cooperative councils, and other cooperatives. Federal agencies, universities, and Cooperative Extension were also significant

providers of materials. While a smaller total number of

respondents indicated using outside sources for program

planning and advisory assistance, the same sources or

providers tended to dominate as with materials.

Cooperative respondents were asked to indicate which

types of programs they wanted from other organizations.

Director training was mentioned most frequently as being

provided by State cooperative councils. Regional cooperatives,

universities, and the NCFC were also frequently mentioned as

providers of director training programs.

State councils were the leading providers of youth education programs, with NCFC and regional cooperatives as distant seconds. Staff or employee training was received from

State councils, regionals, and trade associations, but by far

fewer respondents. Other audience groups were mentioned by

respondents, but no dominant patterns emerged. Other

providers mentioned included USDA’s Agricultural

Cooperative Service (ACS), financial institutions, farm organizations, consultants, and Cooperative Extension.

12
Among outside sources, trade and professional associations, including State cooperative councils, other cooperatives,

and Federal agencies were the primary sources for educational program materials (table 14).

In addition to materials, cooperatives looked to outside

sources for assistance in planning and conducting educational

programs (table 15). Trade or professional associations and

state cooperative councils were the two most frequently used

for this purpose.

WRllTEN MATERIALS USED MOST

Respondents were asked to indicate what types of materials or

educational tools they used most frequently. Most used traditional written materials and videos (table 16). Reflecting the

widespread cultural change brought about by video technoloTable 1Aources of Cooperative Education Materials (in ranked

order).

1. Trade or Professional Associations

2. State Cooperative Councils

3. Other Cooperatives

4. Federal Agencies

5. Universities

6. Cooperative Extension

7. Financial Institutions

Table 15-Sources of program planning and advisory assistance for

cooperative education (in ranked order).

1. Trade or Professional Associations

2. State Cooperative Councils

3. Other Cooperatives

4. Universities

5. Federal Agencies

6. Cooperative Extension

7. Consultants

6. Financial Institutions

13
gy, its use has clearly become an integral component of cooperative education programs.

Traditional displays and promotional material remain a

vital component of many programs. Prepackaged teaching

courses and self-training courses are of growing importance as

an educational delivery strategy. Surprisingly, given the

widespread use of personal computers and computer networks, relatively few organizations have incorporated these

technologies into their education programs. The groups recognize how computers could be used in cooperative education, but they lack software and applications packages

designed for this specific use.

Respondents identified which educational materials and

tools should have priority in future development (table 17).

While use of traditional written and audio visual materials

will continue, changing technologies and methods for the

1990s and beyond dominate priorities. This is widely recognized. Seventy-five percent felt video production should be

emphasized. More than five times the number of respondents

who used computer-based tools felt priority should be given

to computer technologies in developing future educational

tools.

Table l&Materials and tools most frequently used in cooperative

education programs.

Type of rnatetial

Written materials 160

Videos 144

Displays, promotional materials 72

Teaching packages 47

Prepackaged training courses 41

Self-instruction packages 23

Computer software 14

Training network systems 11

Television programming 1

Frequency of response

14
Respondents rated available tools and materials used in

cooperative education for four different audiences-youth,

directors, members, and employees. The set of available materials were rated on the following eight criteria:

1. Adaptability to many audiences,

2. Cost of materials,

3. Availability of materials,

4. Coverage of topic areas,

5. Format/presentation of information,

6. Ease of use,

7. Effectiveness in conveying information, and

8. Applicability to “real world” situations.

Table 18 shows the resulting assessment of the strengths

and weaknesses of each set of materials. Assessments were

overall impressions of the entire inventory of available tools

and materials, rather than a comment on the qualities of a specific offering. These assessments provided insight into the

qualities needed in developing new materials and tools.

Strengths were indicated in the cost of materials and ease

of use. Adaptability of materials to a variety of audiences and

their applicability to real world situations were indicated as

weaknesses. These two criticisms of materials may be seen as

conflicting, however, because actual application often requires

Table 17--Priorities for future materials development.

Type of mat&al Frequency of response

Videos 149

Computer-based learning tools 74

Written materials 72

Self-contained teaching packages 66

Traditional visuals (slides, overheads) 58

Displays, promotional materials 36

Interactive communications systems 32

Self-instruction packages 27

Workbooks 26

15
relating materials to the specific and unique types of situations faced by individual audiences. This can limit use of the

materials for many audiences.

AVAILABILITY A PROBLEM?

Perhaps the most troubling findings from these ratings is the

apparent agreement that availability of materials is a problem.

Respondents perceived poor availability of nearly all types of

materials. This appears to be a result of a combination of holes

in the range of materials needed and a lack of success among

providers in promoting the availability of their materials.

In written comments, the need to relate cooperative education messages to practical conditions was continually

stressed. This has implications for the design of materials,

both in format and in content. Case study approaches and

interactive simulation software would be highly consistent

with these themes. Audiences weren’t receptive to general

materials or philosophy-oriented “preaching.” Audiences

must relate to the materials and see how they may be affected

in their daily lives by what they are being taught.

Respondents gave a wide range of written suggestions

regarding how each set of education materials for groups

could be improved. Several themes common to improvements

needed for each audience were presented.

Table 1Hndicated strengths (“S”) and weaknesses (“W”) of cooperative education materials targeted for each of four major audiences.

Youth

Adaptability to many audiences -

Cost of materials S

Availability of materials W

Coverage of topic areas

Presentation of information

Ease of use S

Effectively conveys information -

Practical application W

Directors Members Employees

W W

S S

W W

S W

S

S S W

W

W

16
They related to the need for practical businesslike

approaches, accommodating severe time constraints and/or

short attention spans of various audiences, use of contemporary images and themes, use of video technologies, and creation of a more generic (i.e., not just agriculture) focus.

Availability of materials was frequently stressed as needing

improvement. Many are unaware of just what is available.

Suggested improvement of youth education materials

focused on making materials more contemporary and in tune

with today’s urban or urban-influenced youth culture.

Emphasis was placed on a fast-paced, visual-oriented

approach with practical application and personal involvement

in the learning process.

Director education materials also need a more contemporary approach, according to several respondents. They wanted

more case studies and hands-on exercises dealing with realistic situations that relate to their cooperative’s businesses.

Several others felt the need for far more director training

regarding the proper execution of their roles, both as cooperative decisionmakers and as representatives or members. This

included training in decisionmaking, cooperative basics, current issues, and communication skills.

Written suggestions regarding member education materials paralleled director education suggestions. Practical focus

was stressed, with emphasis on how cooperatives provide

direct benefits to members. The most critical element suggested improving the appearance of materials to make them more

attractive and appealing to audiences.

DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Cooperatives were asked to indicate which delivery systems or methods they used most often in their educational

programs. They were then asked to indicate which delivery

systems, from a provided list, were most effective in reaching

17
each of seven primary audiences: members, directors, employees, managers, board officers, young adults, and youth.

Seminars or workshops, newsletters and other mailings,

and conferences were by far the most common delivery systems used by cooperatives (table 19). The top two most frequently used methods can be combined or tied in with other

materials or events. They need not be stand-alone programs or

approaches. Seminars and workshops, typically conducted for

an hour or a day, may be combined with other events such as

the cooperative’s annual meeting of its board of directors.

Education through newsletters or mailings may be tied in

with other promotional, informational, or business mailings.

GENERAL OPINION STATEMENTS

Recipients measured their agreement or disagreement with a

series of statements designed to elicit their opinions on a

range of cooperative education issues. Each statement was

rated from 1 to 5, with “1” indicating strong agreement and

“5” strong disagreement. Average agreement ratings for each

statement are provided in table 21.

Major respondent groups were quite uniform in their

level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. The

biggest difference was found in statements regarding where

responsibility for education of different groups should rest.

Consumer and housing cooperatives much more strongly felt

Table 19-Delivery systems and methods used.

Delivery method

Seminars/workshops

Newsletters, mailings

Conferences

Retreats, camps

Correspondence, self-instruction

Private consulting

Teleconferences

16

Frequency of use

174

156

135

37

29

26

6
they had prime responsibility for educating various audiences. Whether this opinion results from differences in underlying philosophies or from functions of the far less developed

Table 2O-Most effective delivery systems or methods for selected

cooperative education audiences.

Cooperative Members:

Newsletters, mailings

Seminars, workshops

Conferences

Cooperative Directors:

Conferences

Seminars, workshops

Retreats, camps

Cooperative Employees:

Seminars, workshops

Conferences

Correspondence, self instruction

Newsletters, mailings

Cooperative Managers:

Conferences

Seminars, workshops

Private consulting

Teleconferences

Board Officers:

Seminars, workshops

Conferences

Retreats, camps

Personal counsel

Young Adults:

Conferences

Seminars, workshops

Retreats, camps

Newsletters, mailings

Youth:

Retreats, camps

Seminars, workshops

Conferences

177

86

83

134

117

61

123

100

66

61

114

109

49

49

105

102

53

44

97

94

86

80

108

87

86

19
cooperative education infrastructure available to consumer

cooperatives compared to other types is problematic.

Respondents agreed that more resources are needed for

cooperative education. They also saw value in acquainting the

Table 21-Average ratings on opinion statements, from 1 to 5.

There is a public value to education about the

cooperative form of business. 1.57

Cooperative scholarships should be available

to undergraduate students.

Internships and cooperative work-study programs

should be encouraged.

More financial resources should be devoted to

education about cooperatives.

More funding for university research on

cooperatives should be available.

Public resources should be used for education

about cooperatives.

Most current cooperative education is out

of step with modem business.

Public education about the cooperative fon of

business should be conducted by institutions

other than cooperatives themselves.

Cooperative employees’ education should be

left to the cooperatives.

There is too much overlap among groups involved

in cooperative education.

Education of members should be left to the

cooperatives themselves.

1.89

1.78

2.09

2.17

2.62

2.72

2.77

2.87

3.26

3.29

Education of directors should be left to the

cooperatives themselves. 3.47

Providing education about cooperatives is less

important than it once was. 4.29

20
general public about the cooperative form of business. But,

they rejected the idea that cooperative education was less

important than it used to be. They believe more resources are

needed for various educational programs at the university

level. Less clear was whether these additional resources

should come from public sources. Marketing and supply

cooperatives tended to be less supportive than other groups

for spending public funds on cooperative education.

While the average respondent did not feel that contemporary cooperative education was out of step with modern

business, present programs don’t have much support. Many

perceived cooperative education as being out of touch or felt

neutral about it. Given anything less than strong endorsement, it is fair to interpret this response as indicating a problem area.

The question then becomes one of identifying ways cooperative education can be brought into closer alignment with

the needs of cooperative businesses today. Respondents

offered several general suggestions, many of which focused

on the need for a better understanding of the complexities and

requirements of operating businesses in the current economic

environment. The perception appears to be that cooperative

education fails to provide an understanding of those business

operations and decisionmaking skills needed to guide a modern organization.

DON’T SEE MUCH OVERLAP

On the question of whether there is too much overlap between

groups providing cooperative education, a slight, though not

significant disagreement was indicated. Opinions on this issue

were widely distributed, however, indicating the perception

by many that such overlap exists. This perception seems to be

one of the continuing myths of the cooperative education system.

21
Responsibility for educating various groups, whether it

rests solely with the cooperatives or if other organizations and

institutions should be involved, was an issue that had the

greatest variation in opinion. While the assignment of primary

responsibility for cooperative member, employee, and the general public audiences seemed clearly assigned in an early question, sole responsibility seems to be another matter. Education

for each audience needs to be a collaborative effort. Various

groups need to play the primary delivery role and others a

supportive role, depending on the particular audience.

For example, cooperatives strongly prefer to have primary responsibility for employee education, yet many could not

agree that responsibility should be left with the cooperative

alone. This suggests a mix of contribution by outside sources

to provide quality basic education materials. They could be

customized to the needs of the individual cooperative, which,

in turn, provides the resources and takes the lead in conducting the employee training program.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions based on survey findings alone must be tempered with the understanding that the cooperatives’ survey

was merely one component of the overall education task force

effort. However, it is an extremely important component, for it

is the operating cooperatives themselves which represent the

manifestation of the goals for which we undertake cooperative

education in the first place. We must, therefore, be extremely

sensitive to their needs and perceptions.

The perception clearly exists among survey respondents

that cooperative education should be increasingly emphasized. While its importance has not diminished, a drawing-in

has occurred. Educational efforts by cooperative organizations

are focused on those programs or activities directly benefiting

their individual organizations by contributing to operating

objectives.

22
More emphasis is being placed on cooperatives’ own programs or those they sponsor. There is less emphasis on programs aimed at audiences outside the cooperative’s primary

area of interest. Educational programs benefiting the cooperative indirectly, such as improving the public environment for

cooperatives, are receiving less support than those benefiting

the cooperative more directly. Therefore, it is important that

institutions offering education programs do a more effective

and rigorous job of identifying and measuring the concrete

benefits to cooperatives generated by these educational programs.

Critical to improving the commitment of organizations to

this effort is recognizing education’s importance to operating

cooperatives. Education can then gain a firmer foothold within individual cooperatives. This will require an effective sales

job directed at key decisionmakers in each cooperative. It will

involve creating an education advocate able to influence an

organization’s commitment of financial and human resources.

Most typically, this translates into the board chairperson or

the general manager.

It is disturbing that given all the materials and programs

available for cooperative education, and the number of organizations and institutions involved, there is still considerable

ignorance about the breadth of available materials. Given that

the respondents were active participants in the education process and often unaware of programs and materials, it is discomfiting to project the level of ignorance that must exist

among those not as well connected to the cooperative education process.

The best programs and materials are only as valuable as

their actual use. In promoting that use, or even an awareness

of its availability, it would appear that the cooperative education establishment has fallen far short. Mechanisms and

approaches must be put into place to greatly expand an

awareness concerning availability of materials and programs.

23
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Cooperative Service

P.O. f3ox 96576

Washington, D.C. 200906576

Agricultural Cooperative Service (ACS) provides research,

management, and educational assistance to cooperatives to

strengthen the economic position of farmers and other rural

residents. It works directly with cooperative leaders and Federal

and State agencies to improve organization, leadership, and

operation of cooperatives and to give guidance to further

development.

The agency (1 ) helps farmers and other rural residents develop

cooperatives to obtain supplies and services at lower cost and

to get better prices for products they sell; (2) advises rural

residents on developing existing resources through cooperative

action to enhance rural living; (3) helps cooperatives improve

services and operating efficiency; (4) informs members,

directors, employees, and the public on how cooperatives work

and benefit their members and their communities; and (5)

encourages international cooperative programs.

ACS publishes research and educational materials and issues

farmer Cooperatives magazine. All programs and activities are

conducted on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to race,

creed, color, sex, age, marital status, handicap, or national origin.