AgrAbility: Enhancing Quality of Life for Farmers with Disabilities

1. 2016 AgrAbility National Training Meeting, Fort Collins, COApril 13, 20163:30-4:10 pm By Robert J. Fetsch, Extension Specialist & Professor Emeritus Co- Project Director, Colorado AgrAbility Project, Human Development & Family Studies Colorado State University & NAP Evaluation Committee AANTWMcGillQOL4.1316 (Rev. 4.0116)

2. To “McGill QOL and ILW Levels: Preliminary Experimental-Control Group Differences.”

3. AgrAbility Experimental-Control Group Differences in QOL and ILW LevelsBy Robert J. Fetsch (CSU), Chip Petrea (UIL),Robert Aherin (UIL), Sheila Simmons (KU), Vicki Janisch, Hannah Gerbitz, & Abigail Jensen (UW), Candy Leathers & Danielle Jackman (CSU/Goodwill Denver), Sharry Nielsen (UN), Rick Peterson (TAMU), Diana Sargent (OSU),Linda Fetzer (PSU), Toby Woodson (UAR),Leilani Carlson (UME), Inetta Fluharty (WVU), Kirk Ballin (ESVA), &Michele Proctor & Madeline McCauley (ECU).

4. What’s our mission?

5. Our AgrAbility Mission “The AgrAbility Mission is to enhance and protect quality of life and preserve livelihoods. It’s about supporting and promoting growth and independence. Ultimately it’s about hope.” Source: National AgrAbility Project. (2011). It’s about hope [DVD]. Author: Purdue University. “The vision of AgrAbility is to enhance quality of life for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural workers with disabilities.” Retrieved 3/30/16 from agrability.org .

6. How do we enhance our clients’ QOL?

7. How Do We Enhance Our Clients’ QOL? By connecting with them and their family stakeholders. By assisting them to reach their individual and family goals. By hearing and acknowledging what they really want.

8. Independent Living & Working Survey (ILW) I am able to… Complete chores on my farm/ranch. Operate machinery. Manage my farm/ranch. Access workspaces on my farm/ranch. Live in my home on the farm/ranch Change or modify my machinery in order to accommodate my needs.

9. We are fortunate to be recipients of USDA NIFA AgrAbility funding.We are grateful for the opportunities to connect well with farm and ranch families with functional limitations.

10. “Good News” AgrAbility is among the 45 federally funded programs that supported employment for people with disabilities in fiscal year 2010. AgrAbility is among the 10/45 programs with a review or study to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Source: U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2012). Employment for people with disabilities; Little is known about the effectiveness of fragmented and overlapping programs (GAO Publication No. 12-677). Washington, DC. (p. i).

11. “Good News” “…The Department of Agriculture’s AgrAbility program conducted a review of its activities between 1991 and 2011 and found that 11,000 clients had been served, and that 88 percent of those clients continued to be engaged in farm or ranch activities.” Source: U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2012). Employment for people with disabilities; Little is known about the effectiveness of fragmented and overlapping programs (GAO Publication No. 12-677). Washington, DC. (p. 27).

12. “Bad News” “However, this study did not determine whether other factors may have contributed to participants’ positive outcomes.” “No impact study.” Source: U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2012). Employment for people with disabilities; Little is known about the effectiveness of fragmented and overlapping programs (GAO Publication No. 12-677). Washington, DC. (pp. 27, 80).

13. How do we know these results are not due to something other than our AgrAbility information, education and service?

14. Aida Balsano & Brad Rein asked us to help respond. So far 16 SRAP’s are working to collect data from AgrAbility clients with an on-site visit (AR, CO, GA, KS, ME, MO, NC, NE, OH, OK, PA, TX, UT, VA, WI, & WV).

16. What Our NAP Evaluation Committee Decided to Do Was… To compare two groups’ Pretest-Posttest QOL & ILW levels 200 Experimental Group participants who complete matched pretest- and posttest-surveys. 100 Control Group participants who complete matched pretest- and posttest-surveys.

17. Control Group (N = 100) Cannot be receiving any type of AgrAbility program services or onsite visits regardless of whether they are in USDA funded or Affiliate States.

18. Chip Petrea worked diligently with the No-Treatment Control Group. Chip provided us with 100 matched pretests and posttests. None of the Control Group participants ever received AgrAbility services currently or in the past. Thank you, Chip!

19. How Did Chip Petrea Recruit the Control Group? Made 1:1 requests of people he knew in states without currently funded AgrAbility projects and asked them for referrals. Requested referrals from national organizations serving agriculture, aging, and people with disabilities. Requested referrals from state Farm Bureaus.

20. How Did Chip Petrea Recruit the Control Group? Requested referrals from State Extension offices. Requested referrals from state colleges and regional community colleges with agricultural departments. Asked NAP and NAPEC for referrals from non-funded states.

21. History of NAPEC Who is an AgrAbility Client? An AgrAbility client is an individual with a disability engaged in production agriculture as an owner/operator, family member, or employee who has received professional services from AgrAbility project staff during an on-site visit.

22. Measures Used in 12-State Study McGill Quality of Life (QOL) Survey & AgrAbility Independent Living & Working Survey (ILW) NAP Demographic Data

23. History of NAPEC Twelve SRAP’s conducted a 9-year (2/20/2007-1/20/2016) experimental-control, pretest-posttest study to answer three questions: Do our clients improve their ILW & QOL levels? How much do they improve? Do they improve more than a no-treatment control group?

24. History of NAPEC By January 20, 2016 12 States/SRAPs entered their 225 matched pre-post-survey data into Excel files and e-mailed them to CO for entering and analyzing. KS 82 36.4% WI 67 29.8% CO 27 12.0% NE 11 4.9% TX 9 4.0% OK 6 2.7% PA 6 2.7% AR 4 1.8% ME 4 1.8% WV 4 1.8% VA 3 1.3% NC 2 0.9% Total 225 100.0%

25. History of NAPEC By January 20, 2016 The Control Group consisted of 100 participants from 16 states plus NAP. IL 27 27% IA 17 17% TX 13 13% NY 7 7% MS 6 6% AL 5 5% FL 4 4% MO 4 4% AR 3 3% WY 3 3% MT 2 2% OR 2 2% MN 2 2% NAP 2 2% AZ 1 1% CA 1 1% WA 1 1% Total 100 100%

26. What Was the Average Length of Time with AgrAbility? The amount of time spent by experimental group participants with AgrAbility ranged from 1 to 74 months (M = 14.85; SD = 10.18; N = 225). The amount of time spent by control group participants ranged from 12 to 19 months (M = 13.76; SD = 0.98; N = 100).

27. So, how are we doing at enhancing our clients’ QOL levels and ILW levels?

28. AgrAbility Experimental Group QOL Pretest-Posttest Changes

29. Control Group McGill Pretest-Posttest Changes

30. McGill QOL Pretest-Posttest Total Score Changes for Experimental and Control Groups

31. AgrAbility Experimental Group ILW Changes

32. Control Group ILW Changes

33. ILW Pretest-Posttest Total Score Changes for Experimental and Control Groups

34. One of the better ways to compare empirical pretest-posttest changes of an experimental group with a no-treatment control group like ours is to calculate change scores.

35. MQOL Gain Scores for Experimental & Control Groups

36. ILW Gain Scores for Experimental & Control Groups

37. These gain scores suggest that AgrAbility is more effective at increasing QOL and ILW levels than a no-treatment control group.

38. 7.15 81.9% of Experimental Group Improved Their Quality of Life Levels (Range = 0-10) 5.57

39. 21.91 83.0% of Experimental Group Improved Their Independent Living and Working Levels (Range = 0-30) 17.00

40. Percent of Both Groups that Increased, Decreased, and Made No Change in QOL from Pretest to Posttest

41. Percent of Both Groups that Increased, Decreased, and Made No Change in ILW from Pretest to Posttest

42. These matched pretest-posttest results suggest that 12 AgrAbility Projects are more effective than a no-treatment control group at increasing QOL and ILW levels (AR, CO, KS, ME, NC, NE, OK, PA, TX, VA, WI, & WV) and IL with the control group.

43. These preliminary results suggest that 12 SRAPs are making a difference in the lives of their clients that is for the better.I continue to work with two consultants to be sure that the results we report are the most accurate and complete that we can provide.

44. “Good News” We now have data from a no-treatment control group. We now have empirical evidence that suggests that the increases in QOL and ILW are due to AgrAbility in 12 states/SRAPs.

45. We are building a road to Evidence-Based AgrAbility Programming over the next four years—Together!

46. Let’s brainstorm some implications and practical steps that AgrAbility teams can take.

48. Currently unfunded Control SRAPs Please Join Us! Experimental SRAPs

49. How many SRAPs are collecting QOL and ILW data from their new clients?

50. Why Join Us? Document your project’s effectiveness at increasing clients’ ILW and QOL levels. Enhance your chances of receiving funding next time with empirical evidence of your SRAP’s quality and effectiveness. Increase your chances for outside funding by demonstrating your accountability. Contribute to AgrAbility’s Mission.