County Master Gardener Coordinator Perceptions and Utilization of Training Resources

The Iowa Master Gardner program has more than 2400 active volunteers who participate in local community service and continuing education. They reported more than 105,000 volunteer hours in 2013 valued at greater than $2.2 million (Independent Sector, 2014). Of Iowa’s 99 counties, 90 have active Master Gardener programs with a total of 96 individuals who serve in this capacity. Currently, no organized orientation is available for coordinators, which becomes a challenge given the variety of tasks and skills expected of them. The objective for this study was to investigate coordinators’ use of resources and training materials currently available with the intent of making recommendations for increased effectiveness. An electronic survey was distributed to all 96 county Master Gardener coordinators in Iowa with a response rate of 49%. The survey was available for one month with a follow-up note sent to non-respondents after 2 weeks. The variety of job titles held by Iowa Master Gardener coordinators is telling. While 27% report to be active Master Gardener volunteers, only 13% are horticulture specialists. Coordinators are equally as likely to be an office assistant as they are to be a horticulture specialist; yet they are the primary contact for Master Gardener volunteers. Clearly, the availability of horticultural resources is important to all coordinators, but especially to those not familiar or comfortable with questions or topics which may arise from their volunteers. More than 90% of coordinators were sometimes or often interested in learning more about motivating volunteers. Training in topics pertaining to recruiting volunteers (89%), volunteer recognition (89%), and effective communication (89%) were also considered important. These are integral components to maintaining successful volunteer groups (Stouse & Marr, 1992). The preferred method of receiving instruction varied widely among coordinators. Distance education delivery methods were generally preferred over face-to-face training options. For example, 80% of respondents were probably or definitely interested in utilizing coordinator newsletters for delivery while only 60% were probably or definitely interested in live classes on campus. A required orientation of new county coordinators would also be beneficial. This session could provide background on the program, acquaint them with the available resources and partner agencies, as well as develop relationships with their peers.