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!