1. 2014 Farm Bill Education Program Summary Presented By: Dr. B. Lubben Dr. T. Lemmons Al Vyhnalek Jim Jansen

2. The Extension Team Dr. Brad Lubben Dr. Tim Lemmons Dr. Monte Vandeveer Allan Vyhnalek Jim Jansen Robert Tigner Jessica Groskopf

3. The Educational Challenge Develop/plan to reach the clientele of Nebraska with… A meeting in nearly every county in the state – consideration for critical mass A presentation of curricular material in cooperation with the FSA personnel To include evaluation and analysis of program data and medium-term impacts Using the limited educator resources available Understanding that the rules were still being written Within a time-constrained period All while providing one-on-one education/advisement.

4. Extension-FSA Collaboration Goal of the program was a cooperative meeting and presentation of materials FSA – rules/regulations for sign-up, program descriptions, and producer compliance Extension – insight into program evaluation, analysis, models for adaptation, and implications (short/medium/long) for how these decision impacted the risk management goals of the operation(s) SCO insurance exposure

5. Extension-FSA Collaboration Local coordination with Nebraska Extension educators Local coordination with FSA office personnel Initial meeting in nearly every county Follow-up meetings as requested Computer workshop events/locations with assistance from Farm Bill Education Team members One-on-one assistance as requested by the clients and through referral

6. End of Meeting Evaluation Participants of the initial meetings were provided an opportunity to complete an end-of-meeting evaluation for short-term impact Demographics of attendees Knowledge gained – learning impact Predictive financial benefit Future program results

7. Six-Month Follow-up Survey Initial participants were asked to provide their names and mailing addresses for distribution of a follow-up survey Of those attending, 4,062 valid addresses were selected for the survey sample Participants received an initial pre-survey postcard in the mail as notification of selection Participants received a survey packet to include Informed consent Survey instrument Self-addressed stamped envelope for return

8. Six-Month Follow-up Survey Participants given 30 days to respond to the survey or request an additional copy Statistics showed that given the population size, we needed 342 valid responses to infer results After 30 days, 1,257 responses were collected (return rate of 31%)

9. Six-Month Follow-up Survey - Participants

10. Six-Month Follow-up Survey –Participants by Age

11. Six-Month Follow-up Survey

12. Six-Month Follow-up Survey – Participant Activity

13. Six-Month Follow-up Survey

16. Six-Month Follow-up Survey – Correlation in Response

17. Six-Month Follow-up Survey

18. Six-Month Follow-up Survey – Estimated Value per Acre Method 1 – all responses count, with missing data (null value) equivalent to a score of $0 or no value at all, with removal of outlier data; very conservative Method 2 – only responses containing a non-null value would be considered, with removal of outlier data; very liberal

19. Educator Support Program Support for local educators and FSA personnel Face-2-face “train-the-trainer” events Webinars Publication – In-house Online tools (Texas A&M Model, etc.) Consultation and referral Publication Out-of-house Articles, news releases, print media Presentation media (PPT., lectures, etc.)

20. Educator Support Program

21. Educator Support

22. Additional Information Collected Web Articles Traditional – 4,810 views on 11 pieces Web Articles Nontraditional – 1,179 on 13 pieces Video recording – 12 pieces, est. 3,000 views New releases/articles – 11 pieces, est. 30,000 exposed to material Blogs/Tweets – 2 presented, unknown how many times it was traded on the web Excel-based information aid – 1 piece distributed to educators

23. Educational Summary – In Follow-up (NCRMEC) Primary contacts – 13,328 Secondary contacts – 2,764 Tertiary (detectable) – 6,103 Tertiary (non-detectable) – 30,000+ Value of Program to Participants - ~$86M to ~$225M

24. Nebraska Payments with Payment of Neighbors Sources: USDA-FSA http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc-plc/excel/arc_plc_election_data.xlsx http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc-plc/excel/ARC_CO_2015_data.xlsx http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc-plc/pdf/ARCPLCPaymentsasMay202016.pdf

25. The Future of the Program What happens next – scenarios to consider Extension of the current program as debate lingers New Farm Bill is introduced with limited major changes Producers will likely be looking at more program decisions with continued analysis for operational effect If the current prices do not rebound before 2019, the decisional analysis of 2014 applied in 2019 could result in substantially different outcomes (shift to PLC) We must consider how to address these issues as Farm Bill education comes back around

26. Thanks for Your Participation Questions?