Dear Readers,

One of the many concerns that Extension people have had in the past few years is the funding for Extension work. I recommend the commentaries to you if you are among those concerned. First is a report from the Personnel and Organizational Development Committee of ECOP, followed by a cautionary word from the friendly folks in Ohio.

Youth work looms large in this issue, also. How a community organized for safe families is outlined in an article from Florida, while Georgia contributes a piece about preventing skin cancer among farm youth. Florida also tells us about building an asset-based 4-H program, while Oregon talks about increasing 4-H participation among at-risk youth.

Other topics come from agriculture, forestry, and community development, among others.

For your information, manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Extension thus far in 1999 are on a record pace, which means that authors must wait several months for word about their work. The editorial committee is being expanded, but it still takes time to work through all the articles being submitted. Your patience is appreciated.

The Journal of Extension continues to try to bring you information that can help you work smarter or to view your work in a different way. Read on.

Len Calvert, editor

Alternative revenue is defined by the Personnel and Organizational Development Committee (PODC) of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) as funds that are not directly appropriated to the Cooperative Extension System (CES) or research units by federal, state, or local governments. In 1987, the Futures Task Force raised several questions about alternative funding and offered suggestions regarding funding methods, such as grants, subcontracting with external agencies, and user fees. As is often the case with resource development, the suggestions made by the Futures Task Force also resulted in the identification of numerous problems:

Grant funding poses the problem of relinquishing control of program content to the funding source.

Subcontracting raises questions about authority. Which agency will have authority? Who will maintain controlling interest?

User fees prompt concern that those with the greatest need will not have the financial resources to access the information necessary to address those needs. User fees will place a financial barrier between Cooperative Extension and the target audience.

In 1994 and 1995, a report prepared for ECOP and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) titled "Framing the Future: Strategic Framework for a System of Partnerships" listed broadening resource acquisition' as a major issue for CES. Specifically, the report called for the system to "...continue to build partnerships with state and local agencies and private (including non-profit) organizations that result in the allocation of funds to Extension for educational components of collaborative programs, and to develop strategies for contracting and collecting appropriate user fees as additional revenue sources."

In 1997, several components were added to the growing debate on alternative funding for CES. Senator Richard Luger, on behalf of the land-grant system, posed the questions, "Who are the primary users and beneficiaries of the Extension Service? Should consideration be given for user fees to be charged for these services?"

A Program Resource Ad Hoc Committee, established by ECOP, identified several reasons why Cooperative Extension may need to seek additional funding:

Federal funding through USDA has not kept up with inflation over the past several years.

The CES mission extends beyond the USDA/CSREES core vision into areas of community-based needs, which may exist outside the parameters of agriculture and land-grant issues.

CES is a point of access for many other agencies that want to tap into the pulse of a community.

Today's communities and society face issues that require collaborative effort and attention. CES may enhance its potential impact and effect on a community through these collaborations.

Thus, a strong need for a dialogue on alternative funding is necessary. As our society approaches the next century, CES must consider its potential to achieve and maintain a diversified portfolio of additional funding.

Since 1996, PODC explored the implications of increased alternative revenue in CES. This article suggests a set of guiding principles for an expanding portfolio of alternative funding sources. Decisions on alternative funding also must be made in accordance with appropriate local, state, and federal guidelines. The guiding principles in this article are not intended to supersede any already existing state policies and procedures.

In addressing the various issues associated with alternative revenues, it is important that the Extension System operate from a solid philosophical base. The following guiding principles represent fundamental values that form the basis for obtaining and managing alternative revenue:

Late in 1996, PODC conducted a survey of faculty and staff in selected states. Entitled "A Pulse Survey On Alternative Revenue Issues," the effort was designed to measure the reaction of the system to an apparent increase in alternative revenue sources, to determine issues raised by such increases, and to identify strategies used to deal with those issues. A similar survey was conducted in April 1997 with participants from two workshops at the CSREES administrative officers meeting.

The surveys identified three major categories of issues associated with alternative funding:

1. Program and Mission
   Survey respondents clearly indicated that the diversification of funding sources could influence the program, mission, and focus of Cooperative Extension.
2. Human Resources
   Because alternative revenue generation or management has not traditionally been included within Extension job descriptions, increases in alternative funding pose challenges for current employees.
3. Accountability
   Outside investors place additional and different accountability demands upon the system.

Through these surveys, PODC identified several strategies that help minimize any negative effects alternative revenue may have on CES. The following strategies were suggested:

1. Program and Mission

   Identify and focus efforts on priority programs to avoid an influence on the mission by the acceptance of alternative funding.

   Identify priority programs in order to shift perspective and energy from non-priority programming.

   Involve local boards/committees in the identification of program priorities and discussions on alternative revenue.

   Keep the system apprised of priorities.

   Have team leaders and supervisors periodically assess productivity and focus to ensure a balance of time and energy.

2. Human Resources

   Clearly state responsibilities to acquire and manage alternative revenue in new faculty position descriptions.

   Revise existing position descriptions to include these responsibilities.

   Make new and existing faculty aware of the system priorities regarding alternative revenue.

   Have new hires participate in an orientation to learn about the acquisition and use of alternative revenue.

   Develop strategies to establish faculty and system benefits when appropriate alternative revenue sources are acquired.

   Provide opportunities for faculty to align themselves with system focus.

   Have supervisors discuss alternative revenue acquisition during annual performance evaluations.

   Incorporate expectations for the acquisition and management of alternative revenue into annual plans of work.

   Have program directors and supervisors encourage the acquisition and management of alternative revenue in support of a shift in organizational culture and attitudes.

   Use leadership modeling, performance rewards (including appropriate risks taken), and program sharing through internal and external media to further encourage a shift in organizational culture and attitudes.

   Provide staff with training and mentoring programs in grantsmanship, proposal development and writing, and institutional policies, procedures, and ethics.

   Include support for professional development activities for project staff when grants and contracts are developed (at a level consistent with organizational expectations, policies, and guidelines for comparable faculty and staff).

   Focus on a clear identification of the roles and responsibilities of all internal and external collaborators.

3. Accountability

   Ensure that all fiscal and human resource staff are aware of the organization's goals for the acquisition and management of alternative revenue.

   Have staff members participate in training sessions, serve as trainers when appropriate, participate in problem-solving sessions, and provide consultation about the development of policies and procedures.

   Develop collaborative relationships with all institutional development offices.

   Update all policy and procedure manuals to include language on alternative revenue acquisition.

   Become familiar with federal, state, and institutional conflict of interest and ethics policies, and build relationships with the appropriate offices to interpret situations and circumstances.

   Develop internal review mechanisms for pre-proposal and proposal development.

   Provide computerized worksheets for the analysis of the total costs of programs and services.

   Identify recoverable costs, costs subject to limitations, and a process/formula for basing fees on the analysis.

   Provide support and training for faculty so they have the ability to determine market-rate prices relative to Extension cost recovery.

   Develop and conduct award briefings that include Extension and institutional policies for new principal investigators.

   Provide staffing assignments to separate the receipt of funds from the expenditure of funds and the acceptance of goods and services in alignment with state or institutional policies.

   Regularly review procedures to eliminate unnecessary policies and procedures without impacting appropriate controls and oversight.

   Involve all affected faculty and staff at the outset to assure appropriate and timely funds management.

   Provide a grantsmanship "tool kit" that includes policies, procedures, and basic information, as well as the name of an Extension contact person for grants and contracts information.

   Review proposals for grants, contracts, user fees, and other alternative revenue in order to determine the extent of the need for faculty support.

   Have all staff, including support staff, who work on the proposal stage of a grant or contract individually sign off on the finished product.

   Consider all resources, including total real-dollar costs, indirect costs, time, support staff, etc., necessary to accomplish grant requirements and associated tasks when determining the appropriateness of alternative funding. If grant funding is insufficient, faculty and staff should re-evaluate the appropriateness of accepting/pursuing the grant.

There is no doubt that as changes occur in public sector support for higher education, including Cooperative Extension, an increased commitment to alternative revenue will be required. Extension must embark upon a new era in resource development--a system-wide endeavor that enlists the efforts of all faculty and staff. This effort will have a formidable impact on Cooperative Extension, as the system builds an expanded alternative revenue base.

Extension programs reach countless citizens on an annual basis. People young and old benefit from timely and practical applications of the latest research results. Alternative revenue will help expand Extension programs to successfully address the critical and often complex issues confronting citizens.

The guiding principles outlined in this article are intended to provide a basis from which Extension faculty may approach the growing need for alternative funding and some of the potential problems associated with such funds.

For more information on this topic, refer to the PODC report by this same name distributed to all Extension Directors. The report will soon be available on the NASULGC web site: http://www.nasulgc.org.

As traditional funding sources become stagnant or decline, many Extension organizations are looking for gifts, grants, and fees for services to supplement or replace traditional funding sources. At first glance, accepting grants, gifts, and contracts may look very appealing. Accepting funding without a critical analysis of all the issues involved and the greater mission of the organization can result in increased costs rather than increased income. Those costs can be in the form of real money, lost opportunities due to over committed resources, loss of future funding due to delivering a low quality product, loss of focus or direction of current programs, and loss of other cooperators or funders because of controversial funding partners. There are always real costs associated with accepting outside dollars. The questions, are we aware of all the costs, and do the benefits outweigh those costs, should always be considered.

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Healy, 1997) explored the growing importance of user fees among Extension organizations. Monies from user fees, grants, and contracts have been the fastest growing source of funds in the last ten years, increasing 64.4% from 1990 to 1996. Total Extension funding increased only 17.3% during the same period. Massachusetts' goal for the next decade, as reported in that article, is to have 50% of Extension funding derived from grants and user fees.

The Futures Task Force for the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) (1987) recommended that both federal and state leaders examine alternative funding sources. They also cited the risks associated with each. Dependence on grants could result in the granting agency controlling programming. Subcontracting could result in Extension working for other agencies rather than the clientele it was meant to serve. Users' fees could limit participation of those who most desperately need Extension programs but who are unable to pay. Even after stating those concerns, the Task Force felt that alternative funding should be pursued.

Building effective collaborative partnerships are critical to successfully using grant funds. These partnerships can make or break a project. Too often a quick "yes" answer is given before a critical examination of the issues takes place. For example, organization X has offered $50,000 for programs in a specific area in which Extension has expertise. Do we accept the money? Too often the answer has been yes before asking some critical questions. Once these questions are answered, we may rethink our quick "yes" answer.

Examine the following questions before accepting funding:

How does this program fit within the mission of our organization? Is it a part of our strategic plans or an emerging priority? If our strategic plans are truly our road map for the future, this "opportunity" should be on or very close to our chosen path.

Do we have the personnel, space, expertise, or other matching resources to carry out the work? If not, we may have to staff and fund the overhead of the operation. Have all the costs of the program been identified? There may be strings attached. Costs to administer the program must also be taken into consideration.

Is this a priority program? Would other programs have to be dropped in order to pick up this program? There could be a real cost of dropping other programs.

What are the implications of accepting the gift or grant? For political reasons, there may be some partners who should be avoided. There are also good partners who have expectations of high quality products. We must meet and try to exceed their expectations if we take their money.

What messages would be sent to other funders? We should never put our vision and core values up for sale. If this impression is left with other funders, we may face increasing challenges in the future. Also, we don't want our current partners to think their projects have become unimportant.

Would the program duplicate those offered by other public agencies or put Extension in a position of competing with other public agencies?

Is there a commitment to continue the program when outside funding ends? Programs can sometimes seem to go on forever, even after funding is no longer available. This is a real cost that can rob resources from other parts of the organization, often higher priority programs.

What do we offer the grantor that they cannot do for themselves? What is our product? What is our competitive advantage in the marketplace? Sometimes funders don't wish to undertake high risk projects themselves for fear of failure. On the other hand, they may see a competitive advantage in our organization that we haven't recognized.

Can we agree or reach consensus on the audience, products, methods, time lines and other items with the parties involved? Are the agreements formalized and well understood by everyone? Solid answers to these questions can resolve potential problems before they arise.

Partnering with others can be a great way to multiply the impact of programs. Outside funding can be a way to keep alive very important programs that are integral parts of our strategic plans and to develop new programs for new audiences. Outside funding can also allow us to focus on an area of importance without taking resources away from other programs.

Accepting these gifts and grants might serve as a short term gain/win with long term costs. Stick to the niche developed for your unit or organization. Keep customer focus, the people the program is being delivered to and the funding party(ies) who are paying to have the program delivered. Keep in mind the primary customer and don't forget there are secondary customers to satisfy as well. Remember to hold yourself accountable for the outcomes to both.

There are, of course, both pros and cons associated with outside funding. Although this article may appear to be rather negative toward the acceptance of outside funding, the intent is raise the reader's consciousness about all issues associated with nontraditional funding sources for Extension. Whiting (1995) identified the paradox associated with external funding--Extension needs to attract external funding but cannot allow that funding to drive programming and jeopardize Extension's reputation for unbiased information.

References

Healy, P., (1997, September 30). Extension services weigh pros and cons of charging fees to users. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Futures Task Force to the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (1987). Extension in transition: Bridging the gap between vision and reality. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service.

Whiting, L. R. (1995). Ten paradoxical challenges: A philosophical reflection. In J. A. Buford, A. G. Bedeian, & J. R. Lindner (Eds.), Management in Extension (pp. 323-336). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/1999august/ent-co.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.