Upload
edgar-payne
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessing Outcomes of AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians Program
Connie D. BaggettRama B. Radhakrishna
Linda M. Fetzer
Agricultural and Extension Education
Background
- A four-year program funded through USDA.
- Provides direct services to farmers with disabilities or injury:
- Disabled farmer evaluation- Work site assessments- Equipment adaptation/modification- Education about agricultural safety- Preventing secondary injuries- Coordinating community resources and services
- Links Cooperative Extension with private and non-profit disability service organizations, community groups, and volunteers.
Background
- Agriculture is ranked one of the most dangerous occupations.
- Agricultural industry’s death rate was 20.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers and 110,000 disabling injuries (National Safety Council, 2003).
- Cost of work injuries rose from $131.2 billion in 2000 to 156.2 billion in 2005.
- In PA, there are 925,000 individuals ages 21-64 with a disability; 137 farm related deaths were reported. - Top three injuries are: tractors, agricultural machinery and falls.
Objectives
- Increase public awareness of AgrAbility services to injured/disabled farm families, extension educators,
farm machinery dealers, and healthcare workers.
- Develop a tracking system to document outcomes of the program.
- Determine the impact of AgrAbility services on the number of tasks that clients can do independently and safely.
Methodology
- A tracking system was developed to document outcomes of the project.
- Detailed on-site assessment of each client was documented using two outcome tracking forms (see Forms A and B).
- Each client rated their current ability to do the tasks, whether or not they are still required to do the tasks, or if the tasks are difficult.
- AgrAbility team assessed the cause and/or source of disability to make recommendations.
Methodology
- Initial self-assessments revealed three major problem areas:
- Tractor accessibility/operation- Feeding- Farm mobility
- A total of 46 farmers provided information for this evaluation.
- Frequencies, means, and percentages were used to analyze the data.
Outcome Tracking Form A
ID # Age Gender County Work Status
Nature ofDisability
Cause ReferralSource
FarmOper-ation
ContactInfo
Outcome Tracking Form B
Able to do Task Unable to do Task
Yr. 1 Yr. 2Yr. 1 Yr. 3Yr. 3Yr. 2
ID # # of Tasks
Outcome Tracking Form B (continued)
Recommended Changes Changes Implemented
Yr. 1 Yr. 2Yr. 1 Yr. 3Yr. 3Yr. 2
ID # # of Tasks
Findings – Demographics
- Gender
- Age
- Type of Client
- Origin of Primary Disability
- Type of Farm Operation
Gender of Clients
Male
Female
16%
84%
Age of Clients
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
under 20
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Client Type
96%
1% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner/Op Dep. Adult Employee
Type of Farm Operation
75%
14%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Dairy Livestock Hay
Findings – Objective 1
Increase Public Awareness of AgrAbility Services
Target
Cooperative Extension - 8%
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation – 18%
Outreach Activities – 20%
CE - 25%
OVR – 20%
Outreach – 5%
AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians
Farm Safety Day Camps
AgrAbility Activities
Farm Safety Day CampsDisability Awareness Activities
Ag Progress DaysAgrAbility Safety and Health Tent
PA and Keystone Farm Show
Findings – Objective 2
Develop a tracking system to document outcomes of the program
Outcome Tracking Form A
ID # Age Gender County Work Status
Nature ofDisability
Cause ReferralSource
FarmOper-ation
ContactInfo
Outcome Tracking Form B
Able to do Task Unable to do Task
Yr. 1 Yr. 2Yr. 1 Yr. 3Yr. 3Yr. 2
ID # # of Tasks
Outcome Tracking Form B (continued)
Recommended Changes Changes Implemented
Yr. 1 Yr. 2Yr. 1 Yr. 3Yr. 3Yr. 2
ID # # of Tasks
Findings – Objective 3
Tracking Outcome Sequence
Initialon-site
assessment
Identificationof
problem areas
Recommendationsby
AgrAbility Staff
Follow-upand
assessment
Self-assessments completed by 46 clients. Three major problem areas identified:
- Tractor accessibility/operation – 67 tasks
- Feeding – 30 tasks- Farm mobility – 36 tasks
Assessment by AgrAbility staff/site visits and recommendations.
Follow-up assessments completed.
Findings – Objective 3
Findings – Objective 3
Tractor Accessibility/Operations Tasks
27 of the 46 farmers (59%) had difficulty performing 67 tractor accessibility tasks.
AgrAbility staff recommended:
Extra steps Additional hand holds Tractor lifts Discontinuing use of a particular tractor
By end of year 3, the same farmers reported no difficulty in performing 40 of the 67 tasks (60%).
Findings – Objective 3
Feeding Related Tasks
21 of the 46 farmers (46%) had difficulty performing 30 feeding related tasks.
AgrAbility staff recommended:
Using feed bins Electric feed cart rather than a wheelbarrow New silo unloaders Light weight troughs
By end of year 3, the same farmers reported no difficulty in performing 24 of the 30 tasks (80%).
Findings – Objective 3
Farm Mobility Tasks
33 of the 46 farmers (72%) had difficulty performing 36 farm mobility tasks.
AgrAbility staff recommended:
Utility vehicles such as Polaris Rangers, John Deere Gator Gate opening systems
By end of year 3, the same farmers reported no difficulty in performing 27 of the 36 farm mobility tasks (75%).
Mod’s to Tractors
ROPS
Agri-Speed Hitches allowfarmer to hitch wagonsand remain in the operator’s seat.
Swivel Seat
New Age Workhorse
Side Entrance “JCB”
Featherlite Controls
Traditional
Feeding
Feed Storage
Bridging Horizons (FFA)
Dairy Options
Track milking System
Automatic Take Offs
The Difference
Conclusions
Overall, several targets specified in the proposal were met.
Although several efforts were made to increase public
awareness of AgrAbility services, need exists to further strengthen the outreach efforts.
Services provided by AgrAbility for PA program has helped clients to perform farm-related tasks.
The outcome tracking form has helped AgrAbility staff to document outcomes of the program. However, the staff experienced several barriers and limitations to track outcomes.
Recommendations
Several changes are underway to strengthen outreach and evaluation efforts. Examples include:
Enhanced collaborative efforts with other organizations to
increase the visibility of the program and to share resources.
A three-prong evaluation plan has been developed to document outcomes of the program which include: standardized questions, observations, follow-up site visits.
These measures/recommendations will be implemented in the new cycle (2006-10) which was recently funded.
FY 2006 – 2010 Evaluation Plan
Aligning with National AgrAbility Project
Pre and post test plan
Pilot project for NAP in 2006-2007
Develop a common measure to assess impact of
AgrAbility projects across the nation
Align PA Agrability project with National Goals
AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians Program
Agricultural and Extension Education
Saving Farms and
Helping Farmers to Stay and Continue Farming
Thank you!