Assessing Outcomes of AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians Program

1. Assessing Outcomes of AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians Program Connie D. Baggett Rama B. Radhakrishna Linda M. Fetzer Agricultural and Extension Education

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Outcome Tracking Form A ID # Age Gender County Work Status Farm Oper- ation Nature of Disability Cause Referral Source Contact Info Outcome Tracking Form B ID # # of Tasks Able to do Task Unable to do Task Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Outcome Tracking Form B (continued) ID # # of Tasks Recommended Changes Changes Implemented Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3

8. Findings – Demographics • Gender • Age • Type of Client • Origin of Primary Disability • Type of Farm Operation

9. Gender of Clients 16% 84%

10. Age of Clients

11. Client Type

12. Type of Farm Operation

13. 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%

14. AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians

15. Farm Safety Day Camps

16. AgrAbility Activities Farm Safety Day Camps Disability Awareness Activities

17. Ag Progress Days AgrAbility Safety and Health Tent

18. PA and Keystone Farm Show

19. Findings – Objective 2 Develop a tracking system to document outcomes of the program Outcome Tracking Form A ID # Age Gender County Work Status Farm Oper- ation Nature of Disability Cause Referral Source Contact Info Outcome Tracking Form B ID # # of Tasks Able to do Task Unable to do Task Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Outcome Tracking Form B (continued) ID # # of Tasks Recommended Changes Changes Implemented Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3

20. Findings – Objective 3 Tracking Outcome Sequence Initial on-site assessment Identification of problem areas Recommendations by AgrAbility Staff Follow-up and assessment

21. Findings – Objective 3 • 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.

22. 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%).

23. 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%).

24. 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%).

25. Mod’s to Tractors • ROPS

26. Agri-Speed Hitches allow farmer to hitch wagons and remain in the operator’s seat.

27. Swivel Seat

28. New Age Workhorse Traditional Side Entrance “JCB” Featherlite Controls

29. Feeding

30. Feed Storage

31. Bridging Horizons (FFA)

32. Dairy Options Automatic Take Offs Track milking System

34. The Difference

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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

38. AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians Program Saving Farms and Helping Farmers to Stay and Continue Farming Thank you! Agricultural and Extension Education