Legislators' Criteria for Extension Funding

Winter 1991
Volume 29 Number 4

Legislators' Criteria for Extension Funding

David E. Kabes
Former Agricultural Extension Agent
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota

In Spring 1989, I wanted to find out what factors and criteria Minnesota legislators used when formulating a vote on the Extension Service's funding request. An interview and questionnaire were designed to determine how a particular legislator arrived at a funding decision.

A group of legislators, who voted on the Extension funding request, were interviewed by telephone to determine the factors each would use when voting. The factors were combined into a written survey composed of 52 different points mentioned during the interviews. The 52-point survey was sent to the 20 legislators who made up the total legislative group voting on the request for funds. Legislators were asked to mark any of the 52 points they considered when voting.

The findings show that legislators were influenced by their perceptions of Extension's results and impacts. This statement was based on the items chosen by over half the legislators (see Table 1).

Table 1. Criteria for voting.
Criteria	Times chosen
1. Perception of Extension's effectiveness.	14
2. Quality of Extension work in your district or in the state.	12
3. Work Extension is doing in rural areas of the state.	10
4. Relevance of Extension's work in the state.	10
5. Information provided to you by Extension agents in you district about Extension's accomplishments.	10
6. Extension priorities for the coming year.	9
7. Extension's adaptation to the changing demographics in the state.	9

Legislators were asked to select and rank five criteria from the list of 52 that were the most important factors considered when voting. The selection and ranking of the five top criteria by each legislator gave a mixed response. However, four items were in the top five category at least five times (see Table 2).

Table 2. Ranking of the voting criteria.
Item selected	Times chosen in top five category
1. Quality of Extension work in your district or in the state.	9
2. Impact Extension has made on the peopleit serves.	5
3. Trust established between you and Extension.	5
4. Relevance of Extension work in the state.	5

Since the information reported the criteria Minnesota legislators used in 1989 to determine their respective votes, the results may not be generalizable for future sessions. However, if Extension is providing high quality work, doing what it's supposed to do, meeting the needs of its clients, and serving a worthwhile purpose, then it seems logical it will continue to be funded. The important goal for Extension is to accomplish all it proposes efficiently, and then ensure the legislators who allocate the funds are aware of the quantity and quality of the impact being made.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/rb1.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.