PRODUCER EDUCATION IN THE LEGAL ARENA: THE PROPOSED GIPSA RULE CHANGES Shannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M. Jefferson D. Miller, Ph.D. University of Arkansas

The Proposed GIPSA Rule Changes  Proposed rule from GIPSA  Includes significant changes for livestock and poultry  Why address this topic?  Great deal of perceived risk for producers  Large number of inquiries  Covered in ag press  Politically contentious

Program Objectives  Provide a better understanding of what GIPSA is and what it does  Provide a better understanding of the notice and comment rulemaking process and how producers can participate  Provide a better understanding of the proposed GIPSA rule  Provide unbiased information

Planning the Workshops  Proposed rule published on June 22, 2010  Comment period extended to November 22, 2010  August, Decision to address this topic  Goal to have all workshops wrapped up by Nov. 1  Planned 3 workshops and 1 webinar originally  Fayetteville, AR  Russellville, AR  Nashville, AR  Chosen because of geography of state and concentration of producers

Key Considerations  Having support of key members of community  Key producers  Not having opposition from integrators  Location & Dates  Easy access  Neutral sites  Avoid community events if possible, all in the evening  Utilized local extension agents

Publicizing Workshops  Local word of mouth  Connecting with producers  Local meetings  Integrators  Included in newsletter to growers  Newspapers  Some growers sent the information to local papers  s & Listservs  Collected information for producer groups around the country to help publicize the webinar

Workshop Content  Who we are  And who we aren’t  What is GIPSA  What are regulations  What is the notice and comment process  Substance of rules  Question & Answer

Workshop Delivery  Keep workshops to 2 hours  Multiple presenters to break up the session  Wait until the end to take questions  Provided paper and pens for writing questions down during the workshop  Moderated question & answer session  Several producers had individual questions afterwards  We stayed as long as producers still had questions

Additional Workshops  Success of first two workshops resulted in invitations to present in other locations  Ruston, LA Louisiana Farm Bureau & Dept of Agriculture & Forestry  Poteau, OK Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service & OSU  Booneville, AR USDA Dale Bumpers Small Farm Research Station  Inviting organization was responsible for:  Securing location  Publicizing event

Additional Workshops  Publicity  Louisiana Direct mailing from Commissioner of Agriculture Support from state Farm Bureau  Oklahoma Organized by Extension Promoted locally and regionally by Extension  Booneville, AR Smallest turnout Hosted because they had received inquiries locally Word of mouth & friends

Evaluation Methods  Survey developed using principles from Dillman  16 Questions  1-7 about the content of the workshop and materials  8-9 how participants learned about the workshop  about their role in ag & production area  age, gender & county  Mostly scale or multiple choice questions  Some open ended questions

Evaluations  Implemented during 3 rd workshop  Imperfect information  Data from 4 workshops + webinar  Distributed at the end of the workshops, after Q&A session  Webinar: Online survey, link provided after Q&A  Analysis Frequencies Percentages

Evaluation Results

Just the numbers  381 in attendance at 5 workshops  225 responses from all 5 workshops  Response rate of 59%

Evaluation Question #1  I have a better understanding of what GIPSA is and what it does.

Evaluation Question #2  I have a better understanding of the notice and comment rulemaking process.

Evaluation Question #3  I have a better understanding of how I can participate in the notice and comment rulemaking process.

Evaluation Question #4  I have a better understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

Evaluation Question #5  I am more likely to submit a comment expressing my option on the proposed GIPSA rules.

Evaluation Question #6  I feel that the material was presented without bias for or against the rules.

Evaluation Question #7  I feel that the materials provided helped further my understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

Sources of Pre-Workshop Publicity SourceFrequencyPercentage University Cooperative Extension Service/Agent % Family & Friends4028.6% Agriculture Special Interest Groups (Farm Bureau, Women in Ag, NASDA) % Dept of Ag & Forestry2215.7% Commodity Groups (Cattle Assn, NPPC, Poultry Federation, Cattlemen’s) 64.3% National Ag Law Center42.9% Integrator32.1% GIPSA10.7%

Media Used to Learn About the GIPSA Workshops Type of MediaFrequencyPercentage Newspaper4026.7% % Direct Mail2919.3% Public Meeting128.0% Organizational Web Sites128.0% Newsletter117.3% Radio News42.7% Word of Mouth/Telephone32.0% Facebook32.0% Twitter10.7% Other32.0%

Conclusions

 Objectives were met  Remaining unbiased was our #1 goal 80%+ felt we presented unbiased information  Most felt they learned about: GIPSA Notice & Comment Rulemaking Substance of the proposed rule

Conclusions  Producers will participate in workshops that provide information on complex topics  State wide workshops are successful with 75 participants  These were regional workshops averaging 76.2 participants  We were sought out in several cases to present in other locations  Demand for information was nationwide

Lessons Learned  Plan to evaluate from the beginning  Follow up surveys for further research  Did you actually submit a comment?  Why or why not?  Survey questions are more likely answered if options are presented

Lessons Learned  Important to indentify key community leaders and get them on board  Credibility  Word of mouth  When maintaining a position in the middle, be prepared for fire from both sides.  Credibility of the Center hinged upon remaining neutral and unbiased

Questions?

Shannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M. Jefferson D. Miller, Ph.D. Thank You!