1. Analysis of BARRIERS OF PARTICIPATION IN COST-SHARE PROGRAMS
Sait Sarr
Undergraduate Student
Kentucky State University
KENTUCKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
November 15th 2014
Analysis of BARRIERS OF PARTICIPATION IN COST-SHARE PROGRAMS

2. Introduction
Cost-share programs are designed to provide incentives to agricultural producers to implement soil and water conservation practices
These programs assist landowners by partially paying for the expenses of installing conservation practices such as site preparation and seeding, tree planting, recreational improvements, design of resource management plans and erosion control measures
Urban land use increased more than 50% in the South since the 1960s (Reynolds, 2010, ERS, 2012).
The developed acreage per person has nearly doubled in the past 30 years ( ) (Farmland Trust 2003)
Housing lots larger than 10 acres have accounted for 55% of land developed since 1994.
Increased pressure on farmland for non-agricultural uses, especially in urban-rural fringes where the market is expanding rapidly.
Farmland values have recently
increased dramatically in the
Midwest, attracting investors from
outside of agriculture and causing
many inside agriculture to question whether a speculative bubble has formed

3. Introduction (Contd.) Cost-share programs available in Kentucky are:
NRCS Conservation Reserve Program(CRP)
NRCS Environmental Quality Incentive Program(EQIP)
FSA Farm & Operating Loan Program
Livestock/Feed Assistance,, Federal Crop Insurance
KSU Small Farm Center Funds, NRCS High Tunnel Program, AgrAbility Program, Veterans Activity, Wounded Warrior, KDA Kentucky Proud, State Organic Program, County Agriculture Incentive Program, UK/KSU Beginning Farmers Program, etc.

4. Literature Review
Cost-Share programs have been studied from different perspectives(Mehmood & Zhang, 2002).Typical examples of these studies are:
the examination of the causes for continuation of such programs
reasons for farmers’ participation and non-participation in cost-share programs
their role in conserving soil, reducing erosion, and protecting wetlands.

5. Literature Review (Contd.)
Attitude, and knowledge of cost-share programs may be more influential in a landowner’s decision to participate than monetary incentives (Norris and Batie 1987)
Financial factors (income and debt) , perception of erosion, educational level, off-farm employment and ownership were important factors in Alabama (Onianwa et al. 2004)
Total land owned, government sources of information, and membership in agriculture/forestry related organization significantly influenced participation among forest landowners in Indiana (Nagubadi et al. 1996)
The influence of demographics, personal and attitudinal factors among CRP contractors in Missouri (Monson et al 1994)

6. Problem Statement
Previous research evidence indicates a low participation in government-sponsored cost share programs among small and limited resource farmers (Colemore et. al 2013; Onianwa et al 2004; Molnar et al. 2000).
The reasons reported are related to small size of farmlands, lower average crop yields, insufficient collateral (cost-share), poor credit rating, and lack of information (Colmore et al. 2013).
The federal, state, and land-grant universities have offered many cost-share programs in Kentucky and it is important to explore factors affecting participation in these programs and their economic benefits to sustain farmlands in Kentucky.

7. Objectives The objectives of this study are:
To explore small farmers’ participation in federal, state, and other entities-sponsored cost-share programs
To know their needs for further assistance to improve
their farm income.

8. METHODOLOGY Data Collection
Data generated through an in-person surveys among 100 farmers.
Various Farmer’s market, KSU’s Third Thursday events, Agribusiness workshops, grocery stores, and personal visits utilized
Survey was designed to collect information related to demographics, reasons for not participating, benefits of cost-share programs, acres enrolled and duration of participation.
Survey information were entered first in the Excel spreadsheet and then transferred to SPSS for further analysis
Responses were compiled and analyzed to explore % participation,
benefits of programs, and reasons for non-participation, and correlation analysis between participation, demographics, and reasons for non-participation
from various counties during summer 2014.

9. DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS
UNDER 25
25-45
45 and Over
AGE 13 25 68
MALE
FEMALE
GENDER 56 44
Blacks
WHITE
OTHERS
RACE 43 45 12
< HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
COLLEGE
EDUCATION 5 18 77

10. PARTICIPATION PERCENTAGE
Programs
% Participation
ENVIRON. QUALITY INCENTIVE 18
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM 15
FARM LOAN PROGRAM 14
RURAL DEVELOPMENT 13
LIFESTOCK FEED ASSISTANCE 11
CROP INSURANCE
STATE ORGANIC PROGRAMS 10
OPERATING LOAN PROGRAM 8
KSU/UK BEGINNING FARMERS 5

11. REASONS FOR NON-PARTICIPATION
PERCENTAGE
LACK OF CAPITAL 61
LACK OF SUFFICIENT INFO. OR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PROGRAM 54
NO ENOUGH LAND 53
COST-SHARE REQUIREMENT 50
COSTS OF INPUTS & SUPPLIES 47
LACK OF LABOR 44
LACK OF MANAGEMENT PLAN 42

12. BENEFITS OF Cost-share PROGRAMs
PERCENTAGE
FINANCIAL RETURN 92
MARKET EXPANSION
EXTRA INCOME 91
IMPROVES PRODUCTION 90
INCREASE LAND VALUE 88

13. Results and Discussion
Results showed that the four dominant reasons for farmers’ non-participation in cost-share programs are:
a) Lack of Capital and subsidies
b) Lack of sufficient knowledge and information about
the cost-share programs.
c) Lack of enough land
d) Unable to afford the cost share
Each person added per square mile of area increased the farmland value by $1.84 per acre.
Similarly a one-percent removal of farmland from agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses per year would increase farmland value by $125 per acre.

14. Results and Discussion
Results have also shown that most of non-participants are retired part-time farmers. Most of them do not belong to any Cooperative society, Produce Auction or get involved with Cooperative development activities
To enhance better communication, most farmers believed that direct contact with a county extension agent, s, telephone calls and printed materials/newsletters are the best communication tools needed to enhance better communication.

15. Conclusion & Further Research
Farmers have limited knowledge about cost-share programs in Kentucky.
Majority of participants are whites with larger acres of land with higher educational level.
Lack of capital to share cost-share requirement is a primary factor for non-participation
These results are being shared with NRCS, FSA, and USDA/Rural Development
The results are being used for prioritizing training, workshops and one-on-one technical assistance for effective and results-oriented extension and outreach programs for rural counties of Kentucky.
Multivariate statistical analysis will be conducted to explore significant relationships between participation and demographic variables

16. References Cited
Colmore, C., R. Fraser, Gyawali, B., Scott, C. (2013). Participation of Minorities in Cost-share Programs-The Experience of Small Underserved Landowners’ Group in Alabama. Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (4),
Mehmood, S. R., Zhang. D. (2002). Cause for continuation of state cost-share programs for nonindustrial private forest landowners. Forest Science 48(3):
Molnar, J. J., A. Bitto, G. Brant, and T. Hoban. (2000). “Core conservation practices: Paths and barriers perceived by small and limited resource farmers.” Staff paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Monson, M. (1994). “An analysis of potential conservation effort of CRP participants in the State of Missouri: A latent variable approach.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(1),
Nagubadi, V., K. McNamara, W. Hoover, and W. Mills, Jr. (1996, December). “Program participation behavior of non-industrial forest landowners: A probit analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(2),
Onianwa O, Wheelock G., Gyawali, B. Jianbang, G. Dubois, M, Schelhas, J. (2004). An Analysis of Factors Affecting Participation Behavior of Limited Resource Farmers in Agricultural Cost-share Programs in Alabama. Journal of Agribusiness 22(1),

17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Advisor - Dr. Buddhi R. Gyawali, Assistant Professor, College of Agriculture, KSU Dr. Teferi Tsegaye, Dean, College of Agriculture, KSU Mr. Rosny Jean, Graduate Student Ms. Cynthia Rice, Undergraduate Student Ms. Jonica Clay, Undergraduate Student This study is supported by USDA-Rural Development Small and Socially disadvantaged Producers’ Grant- 001 (PI: Dr. B. Gyawali)

18. Thank you!
Questions???