The EMG volunteer program is one of the most widely recognized programs of extension (Meyer, 2007). It was designed specifically to address the demands of CH, defined as the cultivation, use, and enjoyment of plants, gardens, landscapes, and related horticultural items to the benefit of individuals, communities, and the environment (NICH, 2018). In the United States, it is extension that conducts the training and management of these volunteers, the recommendations provided, and educational programs delivered by EMG volunteers are rooted in university research.
The EMG program proved to be such a vital extension of services for Washington State University that it was rapidly implemented in all 50 states (Allen et al., 2012). Presently, 49 EMG programs are recognized in the United States (Extension Master Gardener National Committee, 2016c). More than 90,000 EMG volunteers reported service hours in 2016, reaching a reported 5.8 million clientele (Extension Master Gardener National Committee, 2017).
Extension Master Gardener programs were originally targeted for development in metro areas to help extension to meet the growing demands for CH information in an increasingly urbanized environment (Boyer et al., 2002). Since their inception, EMG volunteer programs have spread out into suburban and rural areas. Dorn et al. (2018) reported that 80.5% of EMG supported urban EMG programs, whereas 17.2% supported suburban programs and 2.1% supported rural EMG programs.
Early reports of EMG projects indicate that programmatic emphasis was on providing a response to an individual’s inquiry at EMG clinics at major shopping centers, libraries, public gardening events, and county fairs (Warner, 1978). Responding to individual inquiry is a nonformal means of educating the public and, by default, became the primary ERT for EMG volunteers—in other words, how EMG volunteers responded to public request for CH information. Over time, additional ERTs were developed, including both nonformal (organized learning with or without a formal curriculum, taught by a qualified teacher or leader, that results in enrichment and increase in skills and capacities) and informal (nonorganized learning without a formal curriculum, no credits earned, taught by someone with experience) methods of educating (Eaton, 2018). Multiple horticultural issues were targeted, and volunteer service activities abounded (Fig. 1). Multiple volunteer service activities can be conducted simultaneously, supporting one or more ERTs that address one or more issues, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. These ERTs support Boyle’s (1981) three types of educational programming, including institutional (developing basic abilities and skills), informational (dissemination of information), and developmental (problem-specific strategies). Programming may ultimately be supported by numerous volunteer service activities to achieve the desired goals and objectives (Seevers et al., 2007).
In a 1994 Virginia study (Relf and McDaniel, 1994), EMG volunteers were asked to prioritize program outreach and to choose from a list of six ERTs. Providing horticultural information to others topped the list of EMG volunteer priorities, followed by changed (improved) behavior; teaching youth about nature, the environment, and gardening; teaching through demonstration sites; protecting the heritage of historic and public gardens; and enhancing the quality of life for special populations. The same study noticed an evolution in EMG volunteer roles in the first 25 years of the program’s history; early EMG volunteers were primarily “volunteers with gardening answers.” This note of change was echoed by Meyer (2007), who observed that EMGs now fill “a much larger role than what was envisioned when the program started in 1972.”
McAleer (2005) took a snapshot of EMG service projects preferred by state coordinators in the late 1990s. This was an open response question, and replies were grouped into 10 project types that include some ERTs and volunteer service activities. Projects addressing the youth audience topped the list, followed by “one-on-one advice to general public.” These two preferences rose to the top of a list that included established EMG activities involving demonstration gardens, environmental education, community gardens, classes, workshops, speaking engagements, and other topics. These results provided insight into historic EMG program priorities.
As early as 1992, observations indicated that EMG programs were unique with “different emphases and objectives” from county to county and state to state (Stouse and Marr, 1992). Meyer (2007) noted that “MG and extension programs are most effective when the projects meet community needs.” This is consistent with effective program planning that uses needs assessment and priorities to guide the design and implementation of outreach efforts (Seevers et al., 2007). Although local needs guide EMG program outreach at the county and state levels, the overall EMG program impact is not presently guided by vision at the national level.
Before 2015, there were no national standards for EMG volunteer programs, and at this time, there is no official work plan or prioritization of educational programming (Kirsch and VanDerZanden, 2002; Langellotto et al., 2015). Individual program leaders essentially make their own choices. There are differences of opinion about the appropriateness of hands-on gardening activities as an ERT. What counts for volunteer service varies from county to county within a state and from state to state (Meyer, 2007; Vines et al., 2016). This causes concern for the EMG program image as lack of consistency in the volunteer experience region to region affects the impression of the communities and individuals using the services of EMG volunteers (Allen et al., 2012).
In 2016, a national mission to distinguish and focus on the efforts of EMG programs from other volunteer groups across the country was adopted by the EMG National Committee (EMGNC), a group providing voluntary national leadership to facilitate cooperation, communication, and collaboration among EMG programs nationwide (Extension Master Gardener National Committee, 2016b; Langellotto et al., 2015). This milestone effort established that the mission of EMG programs is to “educate people, engaging them in learning to use unbiased, research-based horticulture and gardening practices through a network of trained volunteers directed and supported by LGU faculty and staff” (Langellotto et al., 2015). This mission, indeed, aligns with the land grant mission of extension. In fact, according to the dean of the University of Minnesota’s College of Agriculture, one of the key missions of the EMG program is to extend the research and resources of the university farther than the university would otherwise be able to (Allen et al., 2012). The mission of the EMG program could be strengthened by articulating a national strategic plan for outreach, but it is unknown how well such a plan would be received or if it could be effectively implemented.
In the spirit of enhancing cooperation, communication, and collaboration, the EMGNC established six extension programmatic regions in the United States. The regions include Northeast (West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island); North Central (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana); Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii); Southwest (California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico); South Central (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee); and Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia). A representative from each region is a member of the national committee (Extension Master Gardener National Committee, 2016a). Dorn et al. (2018) found significant differences in volunteer demographics on a regional basis, including volunteer age, years of active service, and service reported in 2015. Similarities and differences in regional EMG ERTs, if any, are unknown.
Dorn et al. (2018) noted demographic differences among EMG volunteers in different generations. EMG coordinators and volunteers represent four generations, including traditionalist (born between 1925 and 1942), baby boomer (born between 1943 and 1960), Gen X (born between 1961 and 1981), and Gen Y (born between 1982 and 2000). These cohorts (or generations) have common exposure to social and intellectual conditions, or events, that form the generation’s consciousness (Parry and Urwin, 2011; Rotolo and Wilson, 2004; Strauss and Howe, 1991; Zemke et al., 2000). It is unknown if there are generational differences in importance of ERTs.
The objective of this article was to determine whether state and local program management and volunteers are on the same page with regard to the importance of EMG program ERTs. The effects of region, generation of the respondent, and host county population density on the importance of ERTs were also explored. We will discuss how these results compare with historical program accounts and the implications of these results for addressing federal programming priorities for horticulture.
Allen, A., Goracke-Postle, C., Jones-White, D., Overtoom, M. & Schultz, A. 2012 Master gardener program PEL project 2011–2012: University of Minnesota’s master gardener program reorganization plan. Univ. Minnesota. 13 July 2017. <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/163360/MasterGardenerProgramReorganizationRpt.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y>
Bewick, T. Welcoming remarks from USDA national program leader. Follow the Oregon Trail to Great Gardening, International Master Gardener Conference, 11 July 2017, Oregon Convention Center, Portland, OR
Boyer, R., Waliczek, T.M. & Zajicek, J. 2002 The master gardener program: Do the benefits of the program go beyond improving the horticultural knowledge of participants? HortTechnology 12 432 436
Boyle, P. 1981 Planning better programs. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Bradley, L.K., Behe, B.K., Bumgarner, N.R., Glen, C.D., Donaldson, J.L., Bauske, E.M., Dorn, S. & Langellotto, G. 2017 Assessing the economic contributions and benefits of consumer horticulture HortTechnology 27 591 598
Chlipalski, M., Quick, D., Auld, G. & Baker, S. 2018 Needs assessment regarding online training for paraprofessionals in the expanded food and nutrition education program. J. Ext. 56(6):6RIB4. 19 Oct. 2018. <https://joe.org/joe/2018october/rb4.php?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018october>
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. & Christian, L.M. 2014 Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
DiNardo, M.F. 2007 Horticultural therapy: Bringing new growth to people with disabilities. J. Ext. 45(2):2IAW6. 5 July 2018. <https://joe.org/joe/2007april/iw6.php>
Dorn, S., Newberry, M.G. III, Bauske, E. & Pennisi, S.V. 2018 Extension master gardener volunteers of the 21st century: Educated, prosperous, and committed HortTechnology 28 218 229
Dorn, S. & Schrock, D. 2017 Implications for EMG volunteer motivation and retention. Follow the Oregon Trail to Great Gardening, International Master Gardener Conference, 11 July 2017, Oregon Convention Center, Portland, OR
Eaton, S.E. 2018 Formal, non-formal, and informal learning: What are the differences? 3 Oct. 2018. <https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/formal-non-formal-and-informal-learning-what-are-the-differences/>
Edmonds, B.A., Hadekel, C. & Monnette, P. 2017 The seed to supper program and its effect on low-income beginning gardeners in Oregon. J. Ext. 55(3):3IAW6. 5 July 2018. <https://www.joe.org/joe/2017june/iw6.php>
Extension Master Gardener National Committee 2016a eXtension resource pages. 25 Sept. 2016. <http://articles.extension.org/pages/13730/extension-master-gardener-national-committee>
Extension Master Gardener National Committee 2016b National extension master gardener mission and standards. 24 July 2017. <http://articles.extension.org/pages/72035/national-extension-master-gardener-mission-and-standards>
Extension Master Gardener National Committee 2016c State and provincial master gardener programs: Extension and affiliated program listings. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://articles.extension.org/pages/9925/state-and-provincial-master-gardener-programs:-extension-and-affiliated-program-listings>
Extension Master Gardener National Committee 2017 2016 extension master gardener volunteer program national summary. <http://articles.extension.org/pages/27284/extension-master-gardener-public-value-reports>
Khadiagala, L., Dorn, S., Draper, M.A. & Maddox, R.M. 2018 Performance measurement: Two approaches for getting to public value. Great Lakes, Great State: Endless Possibilities, National Extension and Research Administrative Officers Conference (NERAOC), 25 Apr. 2018, Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, Grand Rapids, MI
Langellotto, G.A., Moen, D., Straub, T. & Dorn, S. 2015 The first nationally unifying mission statement and program standards for extension master gardener programs at land-grant universities. J. Ext. [Online] 53(1):1IAW1. 22 July 2017. <http://www.joe.org/joe/2015february/iw1.php>
McAleer, P. 2005 A national survey of master gardener volunteer programs. Coop. State Res. Educ. Ext. Serv., Natl. Inst. Food Agr., Washington, D.C
Meyer, M.H. 2007 The master gardener program 1972–2005, p. 393–420. In: J. Janick (ed.). Hort. Rev. 33. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
National Initiative for Consumer Horticulture (NICH) 2018 Definition of consumer horticulture. 22 June 2018. <www.consumerhort.org>
Rotolo, T. & Wilson, J. 2004 What happened to the “long civic generation”? Explaining cohort differences in volunteerism Soc. Forces 83 3 1091 1121
Savanick, M.A. & Blair, R.B. 2005 Assessing the need for master naturalist programs. J. Ext. 43(3):3FEA7. 5 July 2018. <https://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/a7.php>
Seevers, B., Graham, D. & Conklin, N. 2007 Education through cooperative extension. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Sellmer, J.C., Berghage, R.D., Michael, A.H. & Bilik, T. 2003 Pennsylvania gardener selects plant evaluation program. J. Ext. 41(1):1IAW4. 5 July 2018. <https://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/iw4.php>
Strauss, W. & Howe, N. 1991 Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584–2069. William Morrow, New York, NY
Strong, R. & Harder, A. 2011 The effects of Florida master gardener characteristics and motivations on program participation. J. Ext. 49(5):5FEA10. 5 July 2018. <https://www.joe.org/joe/2011october/a10.php>
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service 2013 2013 rural-urban continuum codes [data file]. 25 Feb. 2017. <https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/>
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture (USDA NIFA) 2017 Horticulture program. 23 June 2017. <https://nifa.usda.gov/program/horticulture-programs>
Vines, K.A., Jeannette, K., Eubanks, E., Lawrence, M. & Rahhakrishna, R. 2016 Extension master gardener social media needs: A national study. J. Ext. 54(2):2FEA5. 23 June 2017. <https://joe.org/joe/2016april/a5.php>
Warner, J.C. 1978 A survey study of the master gardener, a Cooperative Extension Service program. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH, MS Thesis
Zemke, R., Raines, C. & Filipczak, B. 2000 Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in your workplace. AMACOM, New York, NY