|
April 2005
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageA Cautionary Note About AttachmentsA few weeks ago, an author tried--and tried--to send me two submissions. Every time he tried, I'd get his message but not his attachments. Instead, I'd get the following: "Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed." But I wanted the submissions--and the author really wanted me to have them, needless to say. So I consulted some colleagues more technologically proficient than I. It turns out that the problem is all the fault of those dreaded viruses and worms, and of the lengths we have had to go to protect ourselves from them. The following explanation comes courtesy of Don Kindred, in Purdue's Department of Agriculture Information Technology: "If you really want to send an MS-Word document, then you want to make sure the file name includes only one period. In a nutshell, rename 'Orient.VAA.doc' something else like 'Orient-VAA.doc.' Including more than one period in a name is a tactic often employed in email-based viruses/worms. They do this to make something harmful look innocuous. For example, they might send a file called 'readthis.doc.exe.' Some mail readers will display this as just 'readthis.doc,' but if the user opens it, then it will actually execute the *.exe binary. This happens so frequently that some sites reject email containing an attachment filename of this type." I confess that I don't understand all of Don's explanation, but I now know enough not to send Word attachments with more than one period in the filename. I hope those of you who are planning to send submissions to JOE will take note, as well. By they way, I shared this information with the author, and I finally got his submissions. April JOEI like it when JOE articles resonate with each other. The first Commentary, "Applied Extension Research in an Era of Devolution," makes a case for an expanded role for locally focused applied Extension research as a way to convince local policy decision makers to continue funding some important programs. The first Feature, "The View from County Partners--Extension in Southwest Washington," examines how well Extension serves its clientele and also discusses discretionary funding from what the author calls "county partners." As these two articles suggest, evaluation, accountability, and proving our worth at the local level have never been more important. I also like it when JOE articles resonate with readers. "What Cooperative Extension Professionals Need to Know About Institutional Review Boards: Obtaining Consent" marks the end of a four-part Tools of the Trade series on Institutional Review Boards. Besides garnering lots of positive feedback, the series has also prompted an inquiry from an author proposing two more articles on the subject. The articles already published and the ones to come suggest that IRB's are increasingly important to Extension professionals who perform the kind of research that will continue to prove our worth. These are just three of the 28 articles in the April issue. They all have a great deal to offer, and they all prove our worth. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Applied Extension Research in an Era of DevolutionThomas W. Blaine 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
Douglas M. Stienbarger
Washington State University Extension
Brush Prairie, Washington
stiendm@wsu.edu
Extension offices in Washington State receive varying funding amounts from counties, primarily from counties' discretionary general funds. Extension in Washington State, as in many Western states, faces a serious crisis in funding from county partners due to increased budgetary pressures from other services, such as law and justice. Historically, Extension offices often received county funding with only modest scrutiny by county commissioners. In Washington State, counties provide, at a minimum, office space and equipment in addition to contributions to faculty salaries. Some counties may provide staff or funding for support as well.
In a climate of increasing urbanization and economic transformation, how do county commissioners perceive Extension? The study described here explored the relationship between Extension offices and elected county commissioners in six counties in southwest Washington State: Jefferson, Clallam, Clark, Skamania, Lewis, and Mason (Figure 1). The study attempted to gauge the perceived accountability and relevance of Extension programs to county governments.
The study derived, in part, from a need to evaluate perceptions that local decision-makers often view Extension programs as traditional and relatively static. This region was chosen because of its accessibility to the researcher. While limited to southwestern Washington, the study is relevant to other regions and states that utilize significant discretionary funding from local government partners, especially where those governments face increasing budget pressures.
Figure 1.
County Location
Table 1 provides a comparison of the six counties included in the study. The six counties studied have a combined population of over 560,000, with Clark County accounting for 61% of the total. Clark and Lewis Counties straddle the Interstate 5 corridor between Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington.
| Clallam |
Jefferson |
Mason |
Lewis |
Clark |
Skamania |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population |
64,525 |
25,960 |
49,405 |
68,600 |
345,238 |
9,900 |
| Population Change: 1990-2000 |
12% |
27% |
29% |
16% |
45% |
19% |
| Median age |
43.8 |
47.1 |
40.3 |
38.4 |
34.2 |
38.7 |
| Below poverty |
12% |
11% |
12% |
14% |
9% |
10% |
| Non-white |
11% |
8% |
12% |
7% |
11% |
8% |
| Average salary |
$24,800 |
$23,100 |
$26,400 |
$27,000 |
$31,670 |
$26,200 |
| Unemployment |
7.5% |
6.6% |
7.8% |
8.7% |
9.1% |
11.3% |
| Major employers: Services |
29% |
29.4% |
23.5% |
21.4% |
27.5% |
27.1% |
| Major employers: Wholesale/Retail |
21% |
18.3% |
19.7% |
25.8% |
21.9% |
10.8% |
| Major employers: Government |
18.5% |
16.7% |
20.7% |
15.1% |
12.8% |
27.8% |
| Major employers: Manufacturing |
12.2% |
13% |
12.9% |
|||
| (Northwest Area Foundation, 2003) |
||||||
Skamania forms the transition county between eastern and western Washington in the Columbia River Gorge. Its population is concentrated in small towns along the Columbia River. Mason County, while still rural, is located within commuting distance of large population centers along the southern end of Puget Sound. Although Clallam and Jefferson Counties extend across the Olympic Peninsula, their population clusters along the eastern side of the Strait of San Juan de Fuca and the west side of Puget Sound.
All six counties experienced significant population growth during the last decade. With the exception of Jefferson County, major employers shifted from government and manufacturing to service industries, followed by government and wholesale/retail industries. In-migration brought in people with different backgrounds and needs that, together with natural population increase, have placed greater demand on local services. All counties in the study except Jefferson exceeded the average state unemployment rate (7.3%) in 2002 (US Department of Labor, 2002).
In 2002, I conducted in-person, open-ended, semi-structured interviews lasting approximately an hour each with county commissioners in six counties. I also conducted phone interviews with Extension county directors from four of the six counties. Two of the 18 county commissioners declined to participate in the study for unstated reasons. Of the six Extension county directors, two did not participate, including the author.
Table 2 shows a group of commissioners generally older than the average resident, fairly experienced in office, with a range of educational backgrounds and a variety of previous occupations. All commissioners are long-time residents of their communities.
| Gender |
|
| Male |
15 |
| Female |
1 |
| Education |
|
| High school |
6 |
| College / degree |
7 |
| Graduate degree |
2 |
| no response |
1 |
| Years in Office |
|
| Average |
4.6 |
| Range |
1 - 10 |
| Age |
|
| Average |
59 |
| Range |
41 - 78 |
| Years in County |
|
| Average |
47.5 |
| Range |
17 - 77 |
| Occupations* |
|
| Teacher/Professor |
4 |
| Private Business |
4 |
| Public Service |
4 |
| Construction |
4 |
| Military |
1 |
| Law Enforcement |
1 |
| * Totals include multiple answers | |
Commissioners responded that they associated "Extension" most often with 4-H and agriculture, which they mentioned first almost equally (Table 3). These represent the two primary program areas Extension has promoted historically.
| Associated Terms |
Times Mentioned |
Order Mentioned |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First |
Second |
Third |
Fourth |
||
| Youth/4-H |
12 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
|
| Agriculture |
7 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
| Master Gardeners |
4 |
2 |
2 |
||
| Water Quality |
2 |
2 |
|||
| Information |
2 |
2 |
|||
| Education |
2 |
2 |
|||
| Rural |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
| Timber |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
| Nothing |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Weeds |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Environmental |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Dairy |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Resource lands |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Community |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Horticulture |
1 |
1 |
|||
| Budget |
1 |
1 |
|||
Eight commissioners stated they had some form of contact with Extension on a weekly basis, while a ninth commissioner had semi-monthly contact. Three mentioned monthly contacts, two had contact quarterly, while two did so only annually or semi-annually. Contact frequency was fairly consistent within each county, and there appeared to be no relation to the size of county population or to how well the programs were judged by commissioners.
When characterizing their relationship with Extension, nine commissioners talked of providing funding or office space, while four used the terms "cursory," "distant," or "little engagement." Two commissioners mentioned providing advisory input, and another said the relationship with Extension was "good."
Only two commissioners stated they knew how Extension prioritizes its programming. Ten did not assist with Extension's annual planning and two did, while the remaining four mentioned involvement in the budgeting process as their contribution to the annual planning process. One commissioner did not know 4-H was an Extension program.
This data suggest a fundamental disconnect with county partners and indicate that Extension offices need to better align their programming to county priorities. Most offices have not successfully made the connection in commissioners' minds, although several commissioners stated they did not want to be significantly involved in directing Extension due to already heavy workloads. One commissioner, echoed by others, commented, "I don't hear any complaints, so I assume they are doing good work." None of the commissioners participate in faculty evaluations, although six thought this could be important.
All but one commissioner could cite successful collaborations with Extension. Usually these involved program efforts aimed at addressing an issue important to the commissioner. When asked how they would change their local Extension office, four commissioners liked the status quo, one would prefer to eliminate Extension, and six would like more non-county funding for Extension programs and staff. Three wanted Extension to work more in non-traditional youth programs.
Commissioners had few suggestions on changing Extension at the state level because they had little idea how the Extension system was structured beyond the local office.
The most interesting findings reveal commissioners' perspectives of how well Extension programs address critical county issues (Table 4). Table 4 also demonstrates important differences in the views of Extension county directors and commissioners. Commissioners listed the actual Extension programs they perceived as the most important for their county, but they did not perceive that these programs address what they saw as critical local issues. Some Extension work may mesh with critical county issues, but commissioners did not perceive it that way. For example, work done to increase small non-industrial private forestland profitability may provide economic benefits to county residents in ways that do not clearly link program impact to economic development. Clearly, Extension offices could do a better job defining how their programs are linked to counties' critical issues.
| Commissioners |
County Directors |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issues/Programs Listed |
Critical Extension Programs |
Critical County Issues |
Critical Extension Programs |
Critical County Issues |
| Youth |
10 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
| Agriculture |
6 |
1 |
||
| Forestry |
5 |
2 |
||
| Land Use |
3 |
3 |
||
| Stewardship |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
| Food/Nutrition |
1 |
|||
| Water Quality |
1 |
1 |
||
| Master Gardener Program |
1 |
1 |
||
| None |
1 |
|||
| Budget (less $) |
9 |
1 |
||
| Economic Development |
5 |
3 |
||
| Law & Order/Justice |
4 |
2 |
||
| Growth Management |
4 |
2 |
||
| Transportation |
2 |
|||
| Flooding |
2 |
|||
| Employees |
1 |
|||
Extension county directors' responses essentially matched commissioners' responses with respect to which Extension programs they considered important. However, the two groups matched much less closely on views of the critical issues facing their counties. Commissioners view policy issues as top priorities while Extension county directors view program issues as top priorities. When asked if Extension could help address their critical issues, only four thought Extension could help, and then only on very specific issues (Table 5), such as helping with Endangered Species Act impacts. This aptly illustrates that Extension offices have not made the case to commissioners that Extension programming positively affects the issue areas concerning commissioners. Two commissioners stated:
"Extension does not keep up with issues in changing times."
"[Extension reminds me of] an antiquated piece of equipment."
| No |
4 |
| Maybe/Unsure |
6 |
| On Specific Issue |
4 |
| No Response |
2 |
Commissioners' uncertainty about Extension's competence to help address urgent problems reinforces the county perception that, while important, Extension programs are not essential when pressures mount on a county's general funds.
Despite the disconnect noted above, 11 commissioners believed that the rate of return on their investment in Extension was good or very good. One categorized the return as poor, while four thought they received a fair return. When asked if their investment was well matched by WSU, nine commissioners responded yes, while four did not know, and two wanted increased WSU funding.
This generally positive perception possibly arises in part from the relatively minor percentage that Extension budgets comprise of each county's general fund. In western Washington, county general fund dollars contributed toward Extension offices tend to be less than 1% of a county's general fund, and are often less than 0.5% in more populous counties (C. Beus, personal communication, October 22, 2002). County service structures largely eclipse the size and funding for local Extension offices in this region.
Commissioners also tended to see the benefit of being connected to the university and its resources, even though they did not know the amount WSU actually contributed in actual dollars or indirect support.
Even though Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) outline the nature of the partnerships between Extension offices and county governments, none of the commissioners were familiar with this document. Six mistook annual budget amendments for the base MOA. This result stems partially from the age of many MOAs, most of which were written or last revised in the 1980s. Three of the four county directors interviewed did not know when their MOAs were last negotiated or signed.
Only two commissioners mentioned potentially important items (water issues and the position of the Extension Chair in the county hierarchy) that might be included in an MOA. This indicates that the nature of Extension's relationship with county partners has become "assumed" and that county partners do not see the MOA as a means of re-envisioning the relationship with WSU. Rather, changes occur based primarily due to pressures on counties' discretionary funding. This might also explain the dearth of similar studies in the literature: Extension has not bothered to systematically explore its relationship with its primary local partner.
It may be time to renegotiate MOAs to better reflect today's funding realities. While posing a risk for Extension offices, renegotiating MOAs could strengthen Extension links with counties. Extension offices risk losing some autonomy, but they could gain increased budget certainty by renegotiating contracts that more explicitly align the work of local Extension offices to county priorities and build in accountability standards. In the long term, this could increase the perception of county partners that Extension constitutes an essential service to county residents. Well-crafted MOAs need not compromise the neutrality of the university any more than grant funding with its requirements for deliverables.
While county commissioners in southwest Washington like Extension programming, they express little ownership in that programming, they often view Extension programs as unchanging and traditional, and they cannot articulate how Extension meets the pressing needs of their communities. Most commissioners do not invest much time in the relationship with their Extension office. Commissioners also express ambivalence about how Extension fits into the work the county does for its residents as well as how Extension itself fits within the county structure.
This dysfunctional relationship threatens Extension budgets when discretionary funding at the county level shrinks. In this environment, Extension is often viewed as the "first to go." At a minimum, Extension needs to stress how it leverages county funds in the form of grant and partnership funding. Clearly, Extension needs to better communicate with, and demonstrate to, commissioners that Extension addresses county priorities, but with a minimal demand on commissioners' time.
It is also critical to ensure programming meets the "attribution condition" whereby the benefits of programming are attributed to Extension (McDowell, 2001). Often, clientele associate programs with individual faculty members instead of Extension. This also happens with volunteer programs, such as 4-H, where participants and the public associate with the program, but do not relate the program to the institution.
Better alignment with local county priorities may be as simple as deliberately highlighting different aspects of current programming. For example, a program working with local non-industrial private forest owners to better manage their forests might emphasize the economic development aspects of this work. In other cases, alignment with county priorities may mean refocusing existing programs. For example, if substance abuse is a local priority issue, 4-H offers the infrastructure to work with youth on this issue.
In more extreme cases, some programs may simply not fit local priorities even when they continue to draw participants. The challenge becomes how Extension sheds these less relevant programs heavily invested in by staff. Extension programs often get "captured" (McDowell, 2003) by clientele groups whose adverse reactions Extension prefers not to risk, regardless of the merits of reallocating resources. This contributes to the perception of an antiquated Extension.
The survey certainly indicates that Extension in southwest Washington should work to identify county priorities (perhaps through strategic planning documents) and determine how well its programming serves county residents. Extension must then decide how best to market or promote its programs to county commissioners. In some counties, it may be possible to work directly with commissioners, perhaps by choosing one project to focus on.
Renegotiating MOAs to include performance-based outcomes in return for some budgetary certainty represents another strategy. Crafting the MOA as a framework document would maintain flexibility for counties and Extension, while establishing more specific deliverables.
Some of these suggestions can be accomplished with modest effort, but structural issues contributing to this dysfunction will be more difficult to address. These are briefly discussed in the following section.
The data suggest institutional issues worth exploring. Extension hires most faculty with specialties who then run programs in their specialty area. Writing on the subject of university engagement, McDowell (2003) states: "In many cases the situational analysis . . . that guides programming is based on long-time experience with a particular audience and is accomplished almost intuitively."
But how accurate is "intuition" when a county urbanizes or undergoes other changes that necessitate different programs requiring other specialties? WSU Extension often lacks the flexibility to respond to rapid local and regional changes due to characteristics rooted in the academic model. Whereas the on-campus locale may allow for a slow evolution of disciplines and/or departments as student demand changes, such a pace on the county level can result in programming ossification. As several commissioners noted, Extension programming often appears static or anachronistic.
Local funding becomes more critical to local offices as state support decreases. Increasing pressures on local funding increase the need for accountability, and static programming comes under closer scrutiny. Commissioners rightly ask what positive, demonstrable impact a program has on residents and their behaviors in addressing critical issues.
What happens when a faculty member's specialty does not coincide with local priorities? This currently depends almost entirely on the individual. Some will "reinvent" themselves through training or broadening their knowledge to meet the changing needs. Others continue to listen to their clientele and do what has worked for them in the past (and probably still works for them). There is little institutional incentive or assistance for faculty to make significant shifts.
Additionally, the academic evaluation system used by WSU Extension fails to reward the risk involved in reinventing oneself to meet emerging social changes. Conversely, the disincentive structure of the evaluation system is very weak, providing neither a stick nor a carrot to encourage faculty to make changes.
Often, the institution provides no coherent strategy to ensure that faculty identify and respond to these shifts in needs. Increased institutional encouragement and training could somewhat mitigate the effects. This could entail establishing a small team that deploys itself when needed to provide rapid situation assessment, followed by guidance and relevant retraining assistance. Any strategy for transitioning faculty and eliminating less relevant programs will require administrative support. Extension should better balance the long term benefits with the short term costs of such encouragement and training.
Moreover, Extension's response to other issues will remain constrained by the resources tied up in tenured agricultural faculty (Conone, 1991). Extension's tenure system contributes to and exacerbates this issue. Tenured Extension faculty members enjoy a "sinecure of position" that ably insulates them from retaliation for unpopular work as well as a "sinecure of place" that mirrors the campus version of tenure. Thus, even though WSU hiring documents state that Extension faculty are hired into the organization and not into a specific location, faculty are seldom moved. This makes the institution more family friendly, but also makes it difficult to move Extension faculty to locations where their specialties are most relevant to meet changing local and regional needs.
While morale would suffer in the short term if faculty were more mobile, morale will be no better when decreased funding eliminates positions (due in part to static or less relevant programming). Tenure sometimes insulates Extension faculty from the accountability necessary to demonstrate the relevance and impact of programs to local funders. This does not mean that tenure is not a viable system within Extension. However, it does point to the need to modify the model lifted straight from campus to better account for county realities. This requires institutional and individual leadership.
Other models exist, but most would require fundamental shifts in our Extension paradigm and may be as problematic as tenure. One such structure would entail contracting individuals to implement programming for specified terms. Bartholomew and Rinehart (1993) make the argument that "resources could be redirected rapidly from one program to another in response to . . . changing needs." Although speaking about Extension specialists, this applies equally to county-based faculty. Contract renewal would depend on whether programs still meet the priority needs of a locale.
The internal discussion and energy directed at engagement and making Extension university-wide should be better integrated into the issue of local relevance. Just as faculty at Cornell University remained disinterested in discussions on engagement (Franz, Peterson, & Randall, 2002), most WSU Extension field faculty remain largely uninvolved in on-going discussions on engagement. It is certain that commissioners pay no heed to these discussions. Making Extension stronger within will not matter if our most important local partners deem Extension irrelevant.
Fundamental changes would require philosophical shifts in what constitutes "Extension." However, as we seek ways to maintain what is valuable about Extension while increasing our ability to respond to our changing world, it behooves us to explore all alternatives in our struggle to craft such a system.
Bartholomew, H. M. & Rinehart, S. H. (1993). Extension work by contract: A proposal. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/f1.html
Conone, R. M. (1991). People listening to people... Or are we really? Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991fall/f1.html
Franz, N. K., Peterson, R. S., & Dailey, A. L. (2002). Leading organizational change: A comparison of county and campus views of extension engagement. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/rb1.html
McDowell, G. (2001). Land grant universities and extension: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
McDowell, G. (2003, July). What's the difference between Extension and engagement? Paper presented at the 2003 Western Extension Mid-Managers Conference, Newport, OR.
Northwest Area Foundation. (2003). NWAF indicator website. Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?FIPS=53000
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Local area unemployment statistics, labor force data by county. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://stats.bls.gov/lau/home.htm
LaRae M. Donnellan
Professor
School of Journalism and Graphic Communication
Florida A&M University
Tallahassee, Florida
larae9411@hotmail.com
Florita S. Montgomery
Associate Professor and Extension Communications Specialist
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
fmontgom@wvu.edu
Accountability. That's the challenge facing all Extension professionals. In recent years, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) network of federal divisions, land-grant universities, and state and county agencies and associations has been challenged to improve the system's outreach and increase its accountability (Richardson, Staton, Bateman, & Hutcheson, 2000; Kellogg Commission, 1999).
Not since the 1950s and 1960s (Miller, 1995) have Extension communicators had a potentially greater opportunity to add their voices to the discussion about outreach and accountability. However, the current opportunity adds fuel to the decades-old debate simmering among communicators, subject-matter specialists, and administrators: What is the communicator's role?
Traditionally, communicators at land-grant universities have been performing what Grunig and Hunt (1984) call a "public-information" role. This has involved creating products (such as publications, videos, or news stories) that support the educational programs developed by subject-matter specialists. Although Extension communicators traditionally have described themselves as "journalists" or "public information specialists," for decades, some communicators have questioned whether their skills could better be used to help plan and evaluate CES programs as well as support them (Kern, 1978; Evans, 1976; Evans, 1980; Snowdon & Evans, 1991). The authors of this article agree that Extension would be better served if most of the communicators it hires practiced "public relations," as defined at the First World Assembly of Public Relations Associations and the First World Forum of Public Relations:
Public relations practice is the art and science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organization leaders, and implementing planned programs of action which will serve both the organization's and the public interest (as quoted in Newsom & Haynes, 2005).
Extension administrators often call for marketing of Extension programs, but what people mean by "marketing" often varies. For some, marketing means promoting the image of the organization through a flood of news releases and through consistent signage, logos, T-shirts, and telephone greetings. For others, marketing also means assuming an advocacy role by telling Extension's story effectively. What the concept of public relations counseling adds to this discussion is the importance of understanding your organization and its publics and of setting measurable objectives to meet critical needs.
At the same time that this debate has been going on within communications units, Extension, as a whole, has been struggling to change its approach to educational outreach: from its traditional discipline-based programming to a more inclusive issues-based programming (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988). In the issues paradigm, all specialists on the CES team--including communicators--are needed at the table to help develop educational programming that is targeted for and delivered to appropriate audiences.
This article examines the roles communicators have played and makes recommendations for how administrators, specialists, agents, and communicators may be able to work together to better fulfill Extension's mission and tell its story. The authors conclude that Extension should fully support issues programming teams, which would include consulting communicators, to achieve organizational goals.
Land-grant communicators began as "scribes" who were hired to write down the work being done by early agricultural scientists (Kern, 1983). As audiences grew and the need for communication increased, "agricultural editors" developed specializations as editors, writers, graphic designers, and broadcasters (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000).
A major change in the role of CES communications was heralded in the 1950s, when the Kellogg Foundation funded the 7-year National Project in Agricultural Communications (NPAC). NPAC was the brainchild of the American Association of Agricultural College Editors (AAACE--later renamed Agricultural Communicators in Education and now called Association for Communication Excellence or ACE ).
NPAC formalized the use of social science research to help shape communications training, communications research, and program outreach (Miller, 1995). NPAC called for training state-based interdisciplinary teams that made communicators full participants in the CES' program development process. "What NPAC was and did . . . helped make ACE, and agricultural communication in the land-grant system and abroad, what they are today" (Miller, 1995, p. 9).
Another goal of NPAC was to "professionalize" the field of land-grant communications (Miller, 1995). Many universities created communication faculty positions that often involved teaching or training with production duties. Like their colleagues in the traditional CES disciplines, communicators were encouraged to do theoretical and practical research and to use their professional expertise to help shape CES programming, at least within agriculture. Kellogg funding expired before this expanded role could be implemented formally within home economics and youth development programs.
The Kellogg experience enriched the debate over communicators' roles. Kern (1978) outlined three possible roles for Extension communicators: the craftsman, the communication programmer, and the consulting communicator. Kern defines the consulting communicator as someone who applies knowledge of social science research to help plan communication strategies, analyze audiences, and select the best communication tools to achieve desired goals. These roles, Kern says, are not mutually exclusive, and communicators may perform different roles at different times
A handful of CES communications offices have had people officially serving as "consulting communicators" (Snowdon & Evans, 1991), although Kern said the term "named a role; it didn't create one" (as quoted in Nelson, 1979, p. 24). One problem was that "Many [communicators] . . . said they didn't feel competent to play a consulting communicator role--as differentiated from strictly a 'communications craft' role--even though they reported plenty of consulting anyway" (Nelson, 1979, p. 24).
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many scholars addressed the role of the consulting communicator (Browning, 1987; Cutler, 1977; Kern, 1978; Metcalf, 1981; Miller, 1983; Pates, 1987; Swanson, 1981). The University of Illinois is one state that embraced the consulting communicator concept. Snowdon and Evans (1991) noted that Illinois administrators tried "alliances with communications researchers on campus" and designating certain staff members as "communications planners" before settling on the use of "communications consultants." The new role required that all communications staff members be trained in analysis and planning, and it required that those skills be used to counsel administrators, specialists, and other clients in their communications needs.
In 1988, Illinois created a new position, "decision data specialist," which was filled by someone with research knowledge of marketing and business administration (Snowdon & Evans, 1991). Illinois continues that system today (Ken Spelke, 2003, e-mail correspondence).
The 1990s brought new challenges to land-grant communications. The decade was marked by the growth of new technologies, changes in the makeup of communications staffs, and the reshaping of the communications function. By the end of the century, the number of faculty positions within CES communications offices had decreased significantly.
Most of these positions required scholarly efforts that some administrators and communicators thought conflicted with production demands. Thomas (1996) reported a 59% drop in the number of tenure-track positions within agricultural communications units between 1987 and 1995. Donnellan (1999) found that only 11.9% of respondents in her study of land-grant communications offices currently had faculty positions and planned to hire more faculty in the future. A major reason for the loss of faculty positions has been the separation of academic and applied communications programs (Boone, Meisenbach, & Tucker, 2000).
Donnellan (1999) noted a change in the structure of many communications offices because of the increased demands that communicators also be technology specialists. Of the 30 land-grant offices that responded to her study, 16 housed communications and information technology (IT) within the same unit, and 14 had separate communications and IT offices. Another change has been the increased pressure placed on communications offices to provide marketing and public relations support for their institutions (Thomas, 1996; Kingsley, 2002).
In 1980, Evans identified six reasons that hold true today as to why CES communicators have had trouble with the role of consulting communicator:
They are trained as journalists, not as communication consultants.
They are biased toward the medium in which they are trained.
They aren't trained to "analyze rigorously the coverage and capabilities of specific communications media."
They are concerned about "news," not sustained campaign messages.
They aren't aware of how much message repetition is necessary to reach certain audiences.
They tend to jump immediately from the problem to a solution without doing research, establishing objectives, and implementing a measurable program.
As a result of the demands to "do more with less," communicators might add other reasons to this list (Snowdon & Evans, 1991):
Heavy workloads (especially because of fewer staff and the need to be technology savvy).
Lack of money to hire communications specialists to focus on analysis and planning.
Fears of alienating traditional clients (i.e., subject-matter specialists and administrators) who are used to having communicators doing their bidding.
Negative attitudes held by some communicators who feel that they were hired to "do," not "sit in on planning meetings."
The continued emphasis by administrators on production rather than planning.
The momentum generated by NPAC and by the champions of the consulting communicator concept seems to have wavered in recent years because of the increased pressure to do more with less and because of a mind-set of some communicators who see themselves as journalists and not as marketers or public relations specialists.
As NPAC's impact continued to recede within land-grant communications, a movement to adopt a similar outreach process began to emerge among USDA organizational development specialists. In 1986, CES recommended that its various units use a new paradigm--issues programming--rather than discipline-based programming. Issues programming depends on interdisciplinary teams to identify needs and problems; set priorities; plan, design and implement programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of those programs (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988).
Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) remind CES educators that the issues programming process, though broad in scope, does move through Extension's time-honored steps of program development. Those steps, however, are taken in new ways. First, an issue must be identified by a team representing diverse disciplines, skills, and external stakeholders, rather than by a narrowly focused group representing one or two academic disciplines. Then, after the major issue is identified, a fully integrated interdisciplinary team begins the Extension program development process: needs and problem identification, priority setting, planning, designing and implementing, and evaluating (Dalgaard, Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988).
While those supportive of the NPAC communications process may have experienced a glimmer of hope with the piloting of issues programming, some subject matter specialists and agents, on the other hand, were struggling with the new expectations. "Resistance," "conflict," and "frustration" were among terms used to describe specialists' and agents' reactions as they struggled to work on interdisciplinary, issues-focused teams (Taylor-Powell & Richardson 1990; Bahnl, 1991; Baker & Verma, 1993; Yang, Fetsch, Jenson, & Weigle, 1995).
This struggle will continue because funders demand accountability through issues programming driven by community needs (Dalgaard. Brazzel, Liles, Sanderson, & Taylor-Powell, 1988; Taylor-Powell & Richardson, 1990; Bennett, 1996; Richardson, Staton, Bateman, & Hutcheson, 2000; Kellogg Commission, 1999; Barth, Stryker, Arrington, & Syed, 1999). Once again, Extension and other land-grant university units are being challenged to become "engaged" with their communities (Kellogg Commission, 1999; Ukaga, Reichenbach, Blinn, Zak, & Hutchison, 2002; Kelsey, 2002).
The new call for accountability should send administrators, specialists, and agents back to the original issues programming documents (Montgomery 1992). Patton (1987) said Extension must change its organizational culture--values, norms, rituals, shared beliefs, and metaphors--and then convince its traditional constituencies and funding sources that such a program-creation shift is necessary. Sanderson (1988) said issues programming calls for greater organizational flexibility, greater individuality, continual self-renewal, and increased staff development. Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) said for Extension to adopt issues programming, "appropriate education" will be needed throughout the system.
At the heart of the "issues" or "engagement" debate is one constant: staff development. Dalgaard and her colleagues (1988) foresaw this need. They recommended that Extension use the issues programming process to accomplish organizational change. Be a model, they said, by following the model. Implement internally the same program development process Extension would use in its communities. And provide appropriate staff development--especially for team members.
True to its NPAC roots, ACE has promoted a marketing model (Kingsley, 2000) that includes the consulting communicator's role in interdisciplinary teams--remarkably similar to those proposed through issues programming. Marketing--or as the authors prefer to call it, public relations--shares the same goal as issues programming: accountability (Table 1).
| Approach |
Use inter- |
Set goals/ |
Target markets |
Do formative research |
Set objectives |
Develop market position |
Develop plans |
Evaluate results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACE public relations / marketing model |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
| Issues-based program- |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
Extension administrators want communicators to be advocates, but they cannot be advocates unless the organization is--first and foremost--accountable. In other words, you must do the right programs well before you have a good story to tell.
If they haven't already done so, Extension administrators should institute and support interdisciplinary, issues-based planning teams that include consulting communicators. Communicators should not be brought in at the last minute to produce products that support educational programs designed by others. Programs must be issues-driven with measurable objectives, rather than pieced-together products that demonstrate output and not necessarily impact.
These planning teams must develop and communicate their measurable goals and objectives to all stakeholders.
Consulting communications--who have regular, direct access to decision makers and issues team leaders--should develop a clear, measurable communications plan that helps Extension meet its goals.
When recruiting new communicators, CES administrators and communications department heads need to link the communications skill sets they seek to the organization's communication goals and objectives. In other words, if you expect someone to market educational programs, require candidates to have audience-targeting, needs-assessment, program-evaluation, and other marketing skills--in addition to excellent writing skills.
Extension units need to craft job descriptions that reflect the different levels of expertise needed. All public relations counselors (i.e., consulting communicators) should be able to write well, but not all good writers need be consulting communicators. Communications staffs need both types of employees.
CES administrators and communications department heads need to link their
employees' professional development opportunities to the organization's
communications goals and objectives. In other words, if you expect existing
staff to assess program impact, make sure that they receive regular training
in program evaluation. In fact, all members of Extension planning teams
need training in how to write measurable objectives and how to develop
programs to achieve those objectives.
A possible measurable objective, for example, would be "To increase
use of Extension best management practices by 50 percent of our state's
beef producers within the next year." This is a programmatic goal,
but it entails communications goals as well. Communications products or
activities (e.g., news releases, Web sites, videos, workshop notebooks,
farm tours) should be crafted to help meet the programmatic objective.
If they do not support it, then those products or activities should be
revised or eliminated.
Administrators need to encourage and reward their communicators, as well as other subject matter specialists, who seek advanced public relations training that will better prepare them to be involved in issues programming and to perform higher-level communications functions.
Extension administrators should turn to ACE for training in marketing and public relations.
ACE could help Extension administrators better understand how to align communications goals and communications functions. Such help could include examples
