|
April 2005
Printer-Friendly Version
|
       |
Applied Extension Research in an Era of DevolutionThomas W. Blaine Abstract: In recent years, the trend in devolution (placing funding burdens and decisions for programs at more decentralized levels of government) has not only taken shape, but has accelerated. With changing priorities for the federal government, it is clear that higher portions of funding for other government programs must be borne by smaller units of government--if they are going to be provided at all. This Commentary argues that applied Extension research conducted at the local level can keep the organization relevant and vital in this new era of devolution. Introduction and Problem StatementExtension has an impressive history of providing combinations of educational programming and applied research that have had important impacts on the lives of people throughout the United States. The traditional formula for funding for all of these initiatives has involved a blend of federal, state, and local government expenditures--along with nominal fees occasionally paid directly by clientele who use Extension materials or attend Extension programs, workshops, and seminars. In recent years, however, the trend has been clearly established that the federal government has been providing smaller portions of Extension budgets, leaving state and local governments to pick up the tab--or else requiring Extension to make substantial budget cuts that have led to a scaling back of a variety of Extension activities (McDowell, 2004). Despite euphemistic admonitions from marketing and management schools of thought about " doing more with less," the economic principle of opportunity cost achieves primacy here, as it always does. Fewer resources from the central government will in fact require Extension educators to change the way we operate--not by doing more with less, but by changing priorities within the context of our mission--and there appears to be a consensus that we should be prepared to do so (Bull, Cote, Warner, & McKinnie, 2004; King & Boehlje, 2000). It is important, in fact essential, to note at this point that the trend away from central government funding of Extension (devolution) is by no means limited to Extension. It includes government funding priorities all across the board, involving a host of publicly provided goods and services that Americans typically expect from government, especially related to environmental programs like recycling, but also impacting initiatives such as grants for child care programs. The trends in devolution show no signs of abating. With additional resources being devoted to the " war on terror," homeland security, expanded military operations abroad, along with prioritizing tax cuts, it seems very unlikely that the federal government will reverse recent trends in funding programs whose costs have been increasingly shifted to smaller, more localized units of government. But this will put local policy decision makers (county commissioners, city councils, state legislators) into positions where they must decide whether to raise revenues to continue these programs and, if so, how to fund them. Many of these officials will be faced with making decisions they previously would not have to have made. Examples include maintaining a recycling program in order to avoid having to create a new landfill now that the federal monies for the program have been eliminated; upgrading the water treatment plant now that the matching funds have been cut; and expanding or renovating local streets, roads, and bridges due to increased congestion once the time limit on revenue sharing for such projects has expired. Many other examples exist, including community counseling programs, youth activities, and creation and maintenance of parks and green space. There are almost certainly others for which these dilemmas are not yet obvious. Extension's Role--From Research to ProgramSo what does this mean for Extension? Because a large percentage of Extension work has always been at the local level and because Extension educators typically work to provide information to local officials, it seems clear that the trends in devolution are favorable to an expanded role for locally focused applied Extension research. This gains further support when considering Extension's association with the land-grant university system, which is among the premier research networks in the world (Smith, 2004; McDowell, 2001; Weiser & Houglum, 1998). So what is the direction this research should take? Much of it undoubtedly should be aimed at measuring public attitudes toward initiatives that have been proposed--what do residents believe about the merits of these programs?--how do they feel about local funds going to support them?--what should be the source of funding (property tax, usage fee, income tax, real estate transfer fee, etc.)? There is no doubt that local policy decision makers who have little experience in making these kinds of decisions are highly interested in knowing what their constituents think. Providing these officials with this kind of information should, at a minimum, constitute a significant component of Extension work in this new era of devolution. It seems almost axiomatic that we owe these officials this much. A key advantage of this kind of work that must not be overlooked, however, is how easy it is to turn this kind of research into programming, which is Extension's traditional strength (Cooper & Graham, 2001). Just as public officials hunger for public opinion results, so do residents in general. One way to get a community excited about Extension work is to produce a program based on public opinion results from members of that community. Locally driven Extension research projects do not just provide information that residents and officials find useful, they provide a way of demonstrating that Extension takes the community seriously enough to bring university resources to bear in conducting rigorous analyses of topics that are locally important or even vital. This commitment to local community is probably more important in an era of devolution than in previous times. The CaveatsObviously, many Extension educators reading this may be skeptical, because some caveats emerge as obvious. Let's address some of these.
ConclusionsWhile recent cutbacks in federal government funding of a host of services traditionally provided by the public sector (including Extension) have had some severe implications, this trend in devolution potentially offers a unique opportunity to Extension educators to conduct timely research projects for local officials and members of the public at large. Given that a higher portion of public sector decisions must be made locally now, along with Extension's traditionally high profile in local communities and its link to the research oriented land-grant university system, a symbiosis is emerging here that simply should not be overlooked. A shift in priorities toward issue-oriented local research is well within Extension's capabilities, but it will mean a change in the specific activities that Extension educators engage in. Integrating program evaluation research resources into activities centering around community-based, issue-oriented research; prioritizing the identification of timely issues in communities; and applying highly rigorous research procedures to these efforts will ensure that Extension provides the kinds of educational services that will benefit communities nationwide in this era of continued devolution.
|