Urban 4-H Programs
Urban Task Force, Programs Committee
NAE4-HA
For over 50 years, urban 4-H has been an
emerging focus of the Cooperative Extension
Service. Much of the initial work was a result of
the 1965 Civil Rights legislation and the “War
on Poverty”. In the mid to late1960’s, urban 4-H
worked through EFNEP programs and
instructional television programs such as
Mulligan Stew. These programs delivered
specific information to targeted audiences of
disadvantaged youth and minorities1. National
workshops were held for professionals to
address the needs of minority youth, and the
Extension Committee on Organization and
Policy encouraged the participation of
minorities in national 4-H activities.
What is Urban Programming
The “urban” designation used by the Census
Bureau for urbanized area and urban clusters
includes “all territory, population and housing
units in urban areas, which include urbanized
areas and urban clusters. An urban area
generally consists of a large central place and
adjacent densely settled census blocks that
together have a total population of at least 2,500
for urban clusters, or at least 50,000 for
urbanized areas. Urban classification cuts across
other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or
non-metropolitan areas.”2
Other sources define the "urban" category as
those areas classified as being urbanized (having
a population density of at least 1,000 persons
per square mile and a total population of at least
50,000).3
While Extension Urban Programs may not have
a precise definition, it is possible to use the
previously mentioned definitions as a guide.
Historical Perspective of Urban 4-H
Urban Extension 4-H Programs were studied in
the 1970’s, with eight urban 4-H programs
extensively documented in a national survey
completed by Joseph Brownell.4 In the thirtycity study, Brownell sought comprehensive 4-H
programming models for replication in other
urban settings. Noting a lack of administrative
programming commitment and financial
support, he found that most urban 4-H agents
(called Directors) had carved out strong
programs unique to the individual urban setting.
During the years of the 1970’s and 80’s, 4-H
membership continued to grow, reaching
maximum numbers due to the success of the
Mulligan Stew program and the additional of
delivery systems in school age child care,
collaborative programming, and a focus on
literacy. 4-H, in particular, struggled with
serving minority youth, an observation stated
very strongly as part of the Evaluation of
Economic and Social Consequences of
Cooperative Extension Programs5 published by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
With the charge that 4-H had not
extended its programs adequately to the
disadvantaged and minorities, a renewed effort
was made to overcome what appeared to be a
pattern of discrimination. The Cooperative
Extension System turned its attention to Youth
At Risk programming in 1988. The National
Association of Extension 4-H Agents created a
Programs subcommittee for Urban Programs in
the mid 1980s that created learning experiences
for urban 4-H staff through national seminars,
newsletters, and idea exchanges instituted at
regional urban Extension conferences in the
1990s.
1
In the early 1990s, Extension internally debated
the rationale for urban programs, possibly
stemming from a perception of resources being
reallocated from agricultural programs6. Others
charged that urban programs were nothing more
than just a way to provide social services to the
poor and minorities; a service that was not in the
mission of Extension. Several states moved to
the hiring of “urban” staff, with special training
in media, technology, and collaborations.
Studies about the challenges, staffing patterns,
and unique educational delivery methods of
urban staff and programs resulted in a call for
greater understanding of Extension effectiveness
in urban settings7,8.
Renewed Interest by 4-H Agents in 2005
The 2005 National Association of Extension 4H Agents meeting found a new interest in the
needs of urban staff to communicate about
common programs and concerns. With over
sixty professionals present, state and county
faculty again renewed their interest in sharing
effective, quality programs, and in
accountability for those programs. In 2006, a
NAE4-HA Urban Programs Committee survey
was completed that encouraged urban 4-H staff
to share their ideas in a Directory of Successful
Urban 4-H Programs. This Directory will
continue to grow annually through the addition
of new programs, reviewed by peers, allowing
professionals across the nation to read and learn
about the best programs.
There is not a specific model for urban 4-H
programs, since most delivery models fall along
a continuum, just as those used in other
locations. Across the nation, research continues
to show that the impact of 4-H delivery is very
dependent upon the ability of Extension faculty
to maximize structured learning environments,
with caring support of volunteers, and the
mastery of subjects. Many studies have shown
that urban 4-H programs are effective in
teaching problem solving, life-skills, and
providing positive
experiences for youth (as
an alternative to gangs),
without sacrificing
essential elements9,10. Some research based
differences between rural and urban are found in
methods of recruitment, volunteer incentives,
use of media, targeted audiences, and site-based
programs11,12.
What We Know About Urban 4-H Programs
The following observations about urban 4-H
programming come from experience and
reflection of several 4-H faculty as they work in
urban programs. All deserve discussion, debate,
and evaluation.
Program Sites
Urban 4-H programs often target audiences
where they live in high-need, low-resource
locations, e.g., after-school classrooms,
community youth centers, housing
developments, schools, and churches. These
locations provide a safe haven for already
existing groups of youth to learn and play
together. Additional youth in the same
community are encouraged to join in the
activities. Safety and risk management,
important concerns in urban environments, may
be more easily contained. Close proximity to
targeted neighborhoods also eliminates the
problems of transportation. Sometimes the use
of in-tact or pre-existing groups, allows the staff
to focus on the educational delivery rather than
group start-up and maintenance. Long term,
sustained programs such as clubs are often very
effective at local sites and the sites, in turn,
become a safe haven for youth.
Collaborations / Partnerships
In urban environments, working through and
with existing citywide and neighborhood groups
provides an excellent opportunity to partner.
Using the best practices of positive youth
development, urban 4-H staff often collaborate
with others interested in making a difference,
creating new innovative curricular experiences
or packaging existing curriculum to be taught by
youth professionals, teachers, or volunteers.
Based on the expressed need of the community,
these programs may be based in academics, lifeskill development, or mastery of career building
subjects. Some very large funded programs
2
allow for greater flexibility and the creation of
innovative issue based programs. Site
coordinators for after-school programs in
Lincoln, Nebraska highly value 4-H curriculum
materials. They benefit from extension staff
training their teachers to use the curriculum. The
research-based curriculum saves development
time, provides hands-on learning and facilitates
effective use of limited after-school resources. 13
In another example of quality collaborations, the
University of Tennessee Extension in
Nashville/Davidson County, seeing a need for
career related educational programming,
partnered with the Metropolitan Nashville
Board of Parks and Recreation. Paid Extension
staff members trained teen leaders (receiving a
small stipend) and adult Parks and Recreation
staff members to implement the 4-H WORKS
career education program to middle school.
Youth from basically all geographic areas of
Nashville had access to this program as it was
implement in the Parks and Recreation
community centers which are strategically
located in highly populated areas of the city.14
Collaborative efforts take additional time to
develop and maintain, often providing greater
clout in fundraising and marketing. Partnership
sponsored programs can take advantage of the
best of several organizations, and provide
excellent opportunities for innovative and
highly visible programs. Although competition
for “credit” or “identity” can be an issue,
relationship building and formal agreements can
hasten a positive environment.
Today’s youth are identified as the millennial
generation. This generation is growing up with
technology. It is integrated into their educational
experiences, daily lives and social networks.
Extension staff must acknowledge these trends
and embrace this changing culture. Technology
savvy 4-H youth should be viewed as valuable
skilled resources and contributors to the 4-H
program. In addition, Extension offices must
expand their modes of outreach by using
technology. This is equally important in both
urban and rural areas.
Using educational technology, such as
“horseless clubs” and “egg cam”
available on http://lancaster.unl.edu, are
examples of how 4-H can use technology to
reach youth at home or in the classroom.15
Staffing of Professionals and Volunteers
Increasing calls for more staff in urban areas are
found in many strategic plans for Extension. In
some studies, the program areas of 4-H and
horticulture are most often seen as areas of
expansion for urban programs. In the most
urban programs, there are a mix of three or more
diverse professionals, program assistants, paid
part time help (often youth or stipend
volunteers), and a complex management plan
for volunteers. It is not uncommon for urban 4H programs to be fortified through grants and
foundations.
Staff are engaged in the normal leadership of a
4-H program, although there often is a very
distinct division of labor. Program Assistants or
part time employees are employed to perform a
specific function, e.g., youth community
forums, project specific classroom training,
school enrichment, or volunteer recruitment and
support. Paid staff often train the staff of other
youth serving organizations to insure the use of
youth development essential elements. There is
a great deal of turnover of agency youth
workers, teachers, park/recreation center staff .
Some urban offices have also specialized in the
adult/youth partnership training of both internal
and external volunteer boards, councils, and
committees.
In some urban offices, although not all, there is
a greater reliance on internal paid staff to work
events and activities. Unless there is a specified
volunteer recruitment coordinator, finding
volunteers to handle the many events and
activities at the county or district level is
difficult. It should be noted that large
populations create a wider potential pool of
resource leaders and greater access to
professionals who are willing to give small
blocks of time (episodic volunteers). Volunteers
can be found in large urban cities, but it requires
greater effort, training modifications (reference
3
sheets, weekends, nights) and more support of
the volunteer relationship.
the media, often one or two well-coached youth
are showcased.
Administrators may underestimate the loyalty of
urban volunteers and youth, but usually when
put to the test, loyalty is very strong.
Integration into General 4-H Programs
Urban 4-H club programs may need to use a
systems approach and be very structured
processes involving mass distribution of training
materials, monthly club activities, master
calendars, and recognition programs. Program
assistants may be assigned to support club
programs at a variety of sites. The projects
studied may be more group and experience
oriented. Club structures may be more
disconnected from a county program and there
is less youth participation with county, district,
and state activities. Recognition programs may
focus more on local participation, progress
toward goals, and cooperative learning, while
standards of excellence and competition may be
de-emphasized.
Subject Matter
The 4-H topics taught in urban areas vary with
the expertise of the staff, school needs, and
grant driven topics. Often there are one or more
topics that reflect strong ties to agriculture
within 4-H (embryology, gardening, ag-in-theclassroom, to name a few). Subject matter
training for youth is often packaged through
classroom modules (teacher guides, lesson
plans, etc.) checked out to trained volunteers,
teachers, or taught by a paraprofessional or
professional staff member. Other times,
classrooms or agencies may come to a central
location as part of series of rotations and handson activities , e.g., farm/city days. In most
situations, 4-H curricular materials have been
correlated to the state school standards for
classroom instruction. The use of school
classrooms provides a positive way to engage
large numbers of diverse youth in quality youth
education in partnership with schools.
Marketing and Visibility
The intensity of media
stimulation and its focus
on quick volatile events,
creates a difficult
situation for obtaining
coverage of the positive impact of a 4-H
program. Major stories are likely to focus on
problems or critical issues, and it takes strong
relationships with media personnel to get
coverage. For most Extension professionals, it is
important to control the level and quantity of
information furnished to the media, due to the
volume of response that can occur as a result of
an offer. Media attention, when obtained,
generates more demand than can be handled.
Messages often are credited to wrong sources or
personnel, and sources are mislabeled. When
presenting programs via volunteers or youth to
Because of the availability of more youth, urban
programs can provide teen programming
opportunities on a larger scale. This is
particularly true if teens are employed to reach
more teens. Team or group activities such as
judging teams are attractive to urban youth,
particularly urban homeschool members.
Urban programs often struggle to involve
parents. Youth agencies, after-school centers,
and community centers provide a safe location
for youth to stay in non-school hours. The cost
of living may be higher in some urban areas,
and low-income parents may be working two or
more jobs to make ends meet. Some parents
have less time to devote to volunteer efforts. For
Home School Coops, 4-H programs offer
quality projects and experiences that provide
socialization and opportunities to be involved in
democratic experiences. Their sites in urban
areas are larger and function well for 4-H
programming needs.
Summary
Urban 4-H programs are here to stay and will
only grow stronger with increased knowledge of
effective delivery methods. We can learn from
the experiences of the urban 4-H youth
4
development professional. Their programs are
marked by unique approaches to program sites,
staffing, subject matter study, marketing, and
integration into Extension offerings. We salute
those who are most successful and anticipate
learning more about quality urban 4-H programs
throughout the nation.
Contributions to this paper were made by:
Gary Bergman
Justin Crowe
Nia Imani Grant
Marilyn Norman
1
History of 4-H, USDA 4-H Headquarters, 4-H
Centennial Web site
2
Definition of Urban, US Census,
http://www.census.gov/ 2007
Communities, Journal of Extension, Volume 42 Number
1, 2004
12
Fritz, Susan, D. Karmazin, J. Barbuto, Jr., S. Burrow,
Urban and Rural 4-H Adult Volunteer Leaders' Preferred
Forms of Recognition and Motivation, Journal of
Extension, Volume 41 Number 3, 2003.
13
Found in the NAE4-HA National Directory of
Successful Urban Programs,
http://www.colorado4h.org/urbanprogram/
2007.
14
4-H Works, University of Tennessee Extension ,
Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, 2007.
15
UNL Extension in Lancaster County, 4-H Youth
Development Programs, University of Nebraska website:
http://lancaster.unl.edu, , 2007.
3
State of Georgia Office of Planning and Budget, Census
Data Program,
http://www.gadata.org/information_services/Census_Info/
KEY%20TERMS%20MSA.htm 2007.
4
Brownell, Joseph C., A Study of Urban 4-H Club
Programs in Thirty Cities of the United States. ERIC #:
ED064617, 1971.
5
Evaluation of Economic and Social Consequences of
Cooperative Extension Programs, Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 1980.
6
Panshin, Dan, Overcoming Rural-Urban Polarization,
Journal of Extension, Volume 30 Number 2, Summer,
1992.
7
Fehlis, Chester P., Urban Extension Programs, Journal
of Extension, Volume 30 Number 2 Summer, 1992.
8
Van Horn, Beth E., Changes and Challenges in 4-H
(Part 1), Journal of Extension, Volume 37 Number 1,
February 1999.
9
Van Horn, Beth E., Changes and Challenges in 4-H
(Part 2), Journal of Extension, Volume 37 Number 1,
February 1999.
10
Fleming-McCormick, Treseen; Tushnet, Naida C. Does
an Urban 4-H Program Make Differences in the Lives of
Children? ERIC #: ED405408, 2001
11
Skuza, Jennifer A., 4-H Site-Based Youth Development
Programs: Reaching Underserved Youth in Targeted
5