Risk Management Programming: Is
it Effective at Creating Change?
Kynda Curtis
Assistant Professor & State Specialist
University of Nevada, Reno
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Risk management education spending
Literature on education impact
Nevada experience
Knowledge gain
Factors on near-term RM usage
Factors on longer-term RM usage
Conclusions
Risk Management Education Spending
2002-2006
Program Name
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Program Total
RMA Outreach Partnership Agreements
$3,114,887
$4,957,073
$4,992,897
$6,970,780
$7,095,942
$27,131,579
RMA Commodity Partnership Agreements
RMA Targeted States Cooperative
Agreements
RMA Research & Development
Partnership Agreements
RMA Small Sessions Partnership
Agreements
RMA Rural Initiative for New American
Farmers
CSREES Centers for Risk Management
Education
Annual Total
$3,740,782
$4,576,235
$5,301,696
$5,237,660
$5,002,136
$23,858,509
$1,803,767
$4,539,076
$4,467,205
$4,400,971
$4,499,554
$19,710,573
$9,161,740 $10,529,094 $5,105,747
$8,238,242
$3,640,658
$36,675,481
---
---
---
$316,141
$312,176
$628,317
---
---
---
---
$299,954
$299,954
$660,832
$740,070
$2,440,358 $2,331,875 $2,260,143
$18,482,008 $25,341,548 $22,307,903 $27,495,669 $23,110,563
Is it working?
$8,433,278
$116,737,691
Impact Literature
• Producer attitudes toward risk & risk management topics
of concern
• Hall, Knight, Coble, Baquet, & Patrick (2003)
– 1313 beef producers
– Age, prior use, previous attendance, risk aversion
– Draught & cattle pricing most important
• Understocking pasture & hay storage
• Eberspacher & Jose (2005)
– Focus groups, NC RMEC
– Labor issues, value-added, estate planning, farm
transfer…
Impact Literature
• Covitt, Gomez-Schmidt & Zint (2005)
– 11 risk related activities in school
– Measure with pre-post testing
– Improved understanding of risk, question in-depth
knowledge gain?
• Bastian, Nagler, Hewlett, & Weigel (2006)
– 40 producers in 4 risk management sessions
– Pre & post-testing, pre & post evaluations, 2 month followup evaluations
– 75% had completed 8 of 20 evaluation options to reduce
risk…
Nevada Experience
• Risk management programming 2004/2005 to
2006/2007
• 39 workshops
• Topics
– General risk management
• Financials, water issues, futures/options, business planning,
value-added & niche marketing…
–
–
–
–
Estate & farm transition planning
Human resource management
Niche livestock marketing
Livestock production
• Animal ID, cattle handling, etc.
Program Evaluation Methods
• Pre-workshop test (content knowledge)
• Post-workshop test
• Post-workshop evaluation
– Attitudes, usefulness, recommendation,
speaker/content evaluations
• Six-month follow-up evaluation
– Attitudes, usefulness, recommendation,
use/implementation of knowledge/skills
Pre & Post Testing
• General Risk Management Workshop Pre and PostTest Scores, 2005 (2 day)
Location
Min
Elko
Winnem.
Eureka
Fallon
Yerington
Pre-test
Max
Average Min
Post-test
Difference Improvement
(%)
Max
Average
1
8.5
5.71
5.5
18
14.6
8.89
255.5
4.5
7.5
4.5
12.5
11
15
8.44
9.33
8.4
9
16
16
19.5
17.5
18
15.61
16.67
17
7.17
7.33
8.6
184.87
178.57
202.38
5.67
11.5
15.5
13.33
7.67
235.29
4.5
6.5
Pre & Post Testing
• Estate & Farm Transition Planning Seminar Pre and
Post-Test Scores, 2006 (1 day)
Location
Elko
Fallon
Pre-Test
Min
2.5
0.5
Max
10
14
Average
4.66
6.8
Post-Test
Min
8
4.5
Max
19
17
Difference Improvement
(%)
Average
12.3
7.66
264.29
11.3
4.45
165.44
• Estate & Farm Transition Planning Seminar Pre and
Post-Test Scores, 2007 (2 day)
Location
Carson
Elko
Pre-Test
Min
1
1
Max
13.5
10.5
Average
6.8
5.61
Post-Test
Min
7
1
Max
17.5
19
Difference Improvement
(%)
Average
14.2
7.61
208.13
12.7
7.06
225.74
Pre & Post Testing
• Human Resource Management Seminar Pre and
Post-Test Scores, 2006 (1 day)
Location
Elko
Fallon
Min
5
10
Pre-Test
Max Average
30
13.4
37
26.2
Min
10
47
Post-Test
Difference Improvement
(%)
Max Average
69
53
39.6
395.52
99
83.2
57
317.83
Post-Seminar Evaluations
Question
Descripton/Scale
How much of the material presented in this
1 to 7 where 1 means Not Helpful
seminar do you think you can incorporate into and 7 stands for Very Helpful.
your operation/job?
Distribution %
1: 1.33 5: 34.67
2: 0.67 6: 25.33
3: 6.67 7: 23.33
4: 8.00
How helpful do you think RM seminar has 1 to 7 where 1 means Not Helpful
been?
and 7 stands for Very Helpful.
1:
2:
3:
4:
0
1.33
0.67
6.67
5: 20.67
6: 32.00
7: 38.67
How critical do you consider RM to be in
today's agricultural operations?
1 to 7 where 1 means Not Helpful
and 7 stands for Very Helpful.
1: 0
2: 0.67
3: 1.33
4: 4.00
5: 13.33
6: 24.00
7: 56.67
Would you attend this conference in the
future?
1-yes
0-no
0: 6.67
1: 93.33
Are you a producer?
1-Producer
0-Not producer
1-Educator
0-Not educator
0:
1:
0:
1:
Are you a student?
1-Student
0-Not student
0: 98.00
1: 2.00
Do you work for a government agency?
1-Agency
0-Not agency
0: 92.00
1: 8.00
Are you in another profession?
1-Other
0-Not other
0: 91.33
1: 8.67
Instructor rating
Average for all instructors. 1
means Needs Improvement and 5
means Excellent
Average for all content. 1 means
Needs Improvement and 5 means
Excellent
Mean:
4.334
St.Dev.:
0.5877
Mean:
4.321
St.Dev.:
0.6895
Are you an educator?
Content rating
48.66%
80.67%
93.33%
26.67
73.33
93.33
6.67
What influences the amount of material to
be used in job/operation?
Ordered Probit Model
Variable
Producer
Educator
Student
Government
Other
How helpful
How critical
Future attendence
Instructor rating
Content rating
Coefficient
0.8108
0.8888
1.434*
0.2099
0.4226
0.5368***
0.1522
-0.3310
0.1536
0.3827**
Standard
Error
0.5714
0.6781
0.8595
0.6068
0.6322
0.1054
0.1050
0.3874
0.2214
0.1901
Z stat
1.42
1.31
1.67
0.35
0.67
5.09
1.45
-0.85
0.69
2.01
*** significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%
Probit Model*
Variable
Producer
Educator
Student
Government
Other
How helpful
How critical
Future attendence
Instructor rating
Content rating
Constant
Coefficient
0.3230
0.1108
1.0953
-1.0412
0.0858
0.4465***
0.1351
-0.4597
0.6864**
0.2239
-7.3193
Standard
Error
0.7747
0.9035
1.0634
0.8588
0.8637
0.1468
0.1386
0.5281
0.3318
0.2936
1.5636
Z stat
0.42
0.12
1.03
-1.21
0.1
3.04
0.97
-0.87
2.07
0.76
-4.68
*** significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%
150 observations
Marginal Effects on Probit Model
• A 1 unit increase in How Helpful leads to a
17.7% increase in potential usage
• A 1 unit increase in Instructor Rating leads to a
27% increase in potential usage
Variable
Producer
Educator
Student
Government
Other
How helpful
How critical
Future attendence
Instructor rating
Content rating
Coefficient
0.1282
0.0440
0.4349
-0.4134
0.0341
0.1773
0.0537
-0.1825
0.2725
0.0889
Standard
Error
0.3076
0.3587
0.4221
0.3407
0.3429
0.0581
0.0550
0.2097
0.1316
0.1166
Z stat
0.42
0.12
1.03
-1.21
0.10
3.05
0.97
-0.87
2.07
0.76
*** significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%
6 Month Follow-Up Evaluations
Question
How much of the material presented in this
seminar have you incorporated into your
operation/job?
Descripton/Scale
1 to 7 where 1 means None
and 7 stands for A Great
Deal.
How critical do you consider RM to be in
today's agricultural operations?
1 to 7 where 1 means Not
1: 1.03
Critical and 7 stands for Very 2: 0
Critical.
3: 1.03
4: 5.15
Which seminar did you attend?
1:
2:
3:
4:
What happened to your financial situation
after the seminar?
1. Cattlemen’s Update
2. HR Management
3. Estate Planning
4. NV Grown
5. Applied Repro Strategies
6. Risk Management
7. Niche Beef Marketing
1- increase
0- no change
Would you attend this conference in the
future?
1-yes
0-no
0: 10.31
1: 89.69
Are you a producer?
1-Producer
0-Not producer
0: 25.77
1: 74.23
Are you an educator?
1-Educator
0-Not educator
1-Agency
0-Not agency
1-Other
0-Not other
Percentage of RM
techniques completed.
0: 93.81
1: 6.19
0: 96.91
1: 3.09
0: 84.54
1: 15.46
Mean:
St. Dev.:
62.051
38.6
Do you work for a government agency?
Are you in another profession?
Have you completed the following risk
management techniques?
Distribution %
1: 5.15 5: 27.84
2: 9.28 6: 14.43
3: 16.49 7: 4.12
4: 22.68
5: 22.68
6: 38.14
7: 31.96
18.55%
50.52%
70.10%
27.84 5: 24.74
2.06 6: 23.71
7.22 7: 7.22
7.22
0: 81.44
1: 18.56
89.69%
Financial Changes
• 20% noted financial improvement by applying
RM techniques learned in workshops
– 10% on average increases in profits
– Too soon to tell
• Non-financial
– Increased understanding of risk management
factors & alternatives, marketing trends,
communication needs….
What influenced the amount of material
used in job/operation?
• Ordered Logit Model (97 observations)
Variable
Producer
Educator
Government
Other
How critical
Future attendence
Financial situation
RM techniques
Seminar
Coefficient
3.5871**
3.8027**
1.3704
4.4500***
0.4680**
2.7472***
0.1223
0.0107*
-0.1034
Standard
Error
1.6304
1.7803
1.8350
1.6886
0.1845
0.7093
0.5094
0.0057
0.0964
Z stat
2.20
2.14
0.75
2.64
2.54
3.87
0.24
1.88
-1.07
*** significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%
Probabilities of Use
Usage Levels
Normal Participant Probability
Increase use of RM techniques
to 100%
Decrese use of RM techniques
to 30%
Increase importance of RM to 7
Decrease importance of RM to 2
5
6
7
33.97%
16.59%
4.36%
2.23%
36.20%
-3.45%
30.52%
2.34%
36.31%
-22.10%
11.87%
5.51%
22.10%
-3.91%
12.68%
6.36%
22.95%
-13.37%
3.22%
2.07%
6.43%
-1.23%
3.13%
2.43%
6.79%
-3.66%
0.70%
Change in probability
New probability
Change in probability
New probability
Change in probability
New probability
Change in probability
New probability
Normal Participant: Producer, use of RM techniques
equals 62%, would attend future RM programs, rating of
importance of RM in agriculture today is a 6 (of 7)
Conclusions
• Pre & post testing show short-term knowledge
gain
– Program length has little effect
• Near term usage impact
– Usefulness, instructor, content…
• Longer-term usage impact
– Attitudes toward risk management
– Wish for further education
– Program type/length not important
• Improved financial & non-financial situation…