County Commission
Focus Group Report
County commissioners’ perceptions of
University of Missouri Extension 2004
Prepared by Cassy Venters, Ed.D.
Program Evaluation Coordinator
Business Development Programs
University of Missouri Extension
December 2004
County Commissioner Focus
Group, 2004
Overview and Purpose
In November 2004, the University of Missouri Extension County Council Coordinator and
Coordinator of Constituent Relations organized a focus group for county commissioners with
the purpose of assessing key commissioners’ perceptions of how well extension was meeting the
needs of citizens in their counties as well as county commissioners’ needs. They planned to use
the information to inform decision making about marketing extension, improving
communications with commissioners and identifying programmatic actions that could be
undertaken to improve commissioners’ perceptions of extension. It was hoped that, ultimately,
the information gathered would provide insight into how to increase county extension
appropriations.
The main benefits sought by using the focus group to collect data were the ability to gather data
on the commissioners’ attitudes, feelings and beliefs about extension and to hear responses in
the commissioners’ everyday language. The interaction that occurred among commissioners in
the focus group enabled them to ask questions of each other as they re-evaluated and
reconsidered their own understandings of extension. The focus group also provided the
opportunity to demonstrate to commissioners that they are valued as experts and to empower
them as participants. It also was thought that the focus group could serve as a preliminary step
in creating a forum for information exchange with county commissioners. The data from this
study can serve to develop future projects and studies with commissioners. In fact, additional
studies are recommended due to the limitations of focus groups -- lack of the ability to
generalize to larger populations and the potential for bias in a group that is not a representative
sample.
Key Findings and Recommended Actions
Key Findings
Overall, responses from county commissioners reflect a desire to have an ongoing relationship with
extension faculty and staff -- one that involves regular communication to engender an understanding of
issues, needs and resources.
Responses to the focus group questions revealed that the commissioners wanted proactive, regular
communication conducted through multiple modes of conversation, print and audio materials, and the
Internet. Comments reflected the commissioners’ desire that extension faculty and staff take the
initiative in forging relationships and communications. They used words like “become our extended
staff” and “become our advocate” to describe roles for extension personnel.
The need for communications to be succinct was iterated repeatedly with examples of how
commissioners want to get information: bullet points, 1 ½ paragraphs, one sheet with 10 points, a 15minute training session. Commissioners also said they want information customized to respond to their
needs and issues. They expected extension faculty and staff to take the initiative in identifying needs and
2
.
.
.
issues from information
available to the public on the Web, in newspapers and in commission meeting
.
minutes.
.
.
While county commissioners
indicated they did not have a full understanding of extension’s capabilities,
they could, and.did, articulate needed services that they felt extension could provide. After reviewing a
.
list of named programs,
they identified areas where named programs could be adapted to meet county
government needs.
.
Some negative comments regarding extension’s value to the community surfaced. These related to
changes in extension programs, lack of clarity about the type of work extension staff might do and a lack
of information about extension programs. A potential negative fact emerged as the commissioners in the
focus group indicated county citizens do not talk to them about the value of extension in the county.
Commissioners indicated they did not use extension services. Perception exists among some
commissioners that the Internet can substitute for extension.
Recommended Actions
Regional directors and program directors should have planning sessions with regional and state
faculty to create action plans that respond to these findings, designating the highest priority
responses, identifying a project leader, and developing action plans and follow-up. Topics to
explore for follow-up might include:

Adapting current named programs to respond to county government/county
commissioner needs.

Creating new programs/projects that respond to county government/county
commissioner needs.

Creating plans and follow-up procedures to ensure county staff and extension councils
establish ongoing and proactive communication with county commissioners in a format
that responds to commissioners’ needs in terms of frequency, style and modes. Tips for
communication efforts could be prepared from information in this report.

Developing an advocacy effort to identify, coach and ensure extension service users
advocate with county commissioners and other legislators and funders about the value
of extension. Both formal and informal advocacy efforts should be promoted,
including letters, conversations and phone calls that would occur throughout the year as
well as at the time of budget requests.
Mechanisms to ensure that follow-up on recommendations occurs are needed from the Vice
Provost and Director of Field Operations levels.
Review of the focus group results was conducted with the Program Leadership Council at the
Dec. 14, 2004, meeting. A debriefing process used with the group identified actions PLC
members planned to take:

Regional Directors
o
Meet with county commissioners in their region.
o
Share the results of this study at County Program Director training, and ask
the CPD training committee -- now in the process of planning -- to find
resources to implement recommendations.
o
Ask regional faculty to:

Visit county commissioners.
3



Provide the commissioners new information on a continual basis.

Work with county extension council members so that they have
regular, ongoing communication with commissioners.

Invite county commissioners to visit programs or view work and
projects of extension faculty.
o
Consider how extension faculty can bring county courthouse staff together
and how CPDs, regional faculty and new staff can be trained.
o
Consider public issue forums as a way to connect extension faculty with local
leadership.
o
Work with the extension County Council Coordinator to direct visits with
county commissioners, ensuring that one or two extension faculty join in
county commission visits.
Program Directors
o
Establish a local government team with members from each region to review
ideas from this presentation and wrestle with ideas. Connect campus
resources, such as the Truman School of Public Affairs at MU and other
campuses’ public policy resources, to the work of regional local government
teams and extension regional faculty.
o
Provide tools/templates/brochures to regional faculty and administrators to
inform county commissioners about the costs and benefits/impacts of regional
faculty’s work.
o
Provide tools/templates for regional faculty to engage commissioners more
directly with youth.
o
Change how we communicate about our program from “what we are doing” to
“here are the issues/problems, here’s a potential solution; here is the impact.”
Administrators, State Specialists and Others
o
Provide information to county commissioners and regional faculty that
explains how campus continuing education programs can meet county
government needs.
o
Begin to see county commissioners as an audience, not just a funding source.
o
Involve county commissioners in resource development and diversity efforts
so they understand the goals of these efforts.
o
Assign participants at new faculty orientation “homework” to meet their
county commissioners.
o
Make the county data available through OSEDA more dynamic and easier to
use with better linkages to summary reports.
o
Prepare mini policy briefs for counties.
o
Provide in-service training for CPDs and community development specialists
so they can become the “extended staff” of county commissioners.
4
.
.
o. Send out post card announcements to commissioners on major evaluation
. project results.
o. Teach county council members and others how to advocate for extension.
.
o. Set up mechanisms to systematically re-engage with county commissioners.
.
.
Mechanisms to ensure that follow-up occurs on recommendations are needed from the ViceProvost and Director of Field Operations levels.
Further review of the focus group results was conducted with the Program Leadership Council
at the Dec. 14, 2004, meeting. A debriefing process used with the group identified actions they
planned to take:


Regional Directors
o
Meet with county commissioners in their region.
o
Share the results of this study at CPD training and ask the CPD training
committee to find resources to implement recommendations.
o
Ask regional faculty to:

Visit county commissioners.

Provide the commissioners new information on a continual basis.

Work with council members so that county extension council
members have regular, ongoing communication with commissioners.

Invite county commissioners to visit programs or view work and
projects of extension faculty.
o
Consider how extension faculty can work to bring county courthouse staff
together and how CPDs, regional faculty and new staff can be trained.
o
Consider public issue forums as a way to connect extension faculty with local
leadership.
o
Work with the extension County Council Coordinator to direct visits with
county commissioners, ensuring that one or two extension faculty join in
county commission visits.
Program Directors
o
Establish a local government team with members from each region to review
ideas from this presentation and wrestle with ideas. Connect campus
resources, such as the Truman School of Public Affairs at MU and other
campuses’ public policy centers, to the work of regional local government
teams and extension regional faculty.
o
Provide tools/templates/brochures to regional faculty and administrators to
inform county commissioners about the costs and benefits/impacts of regional
faculty’s work.
o
Provide tools/templates for regional faculty to engage commissioners more
directly with youth.
5
o

Change how we communicate about our program from “what we are doing” to
“here are the issues/problems, here’s a potential solution; here is the impact.”
Administrators, State Specialists and Others
o
Provide information to county commissioners and regional faculty that
explains how campus continuing education programs can meet county
government needs.
o
Begin to see county commissioners as an audience, not just a funding source.
o
Involve county commissioners in the resource development and diversity
efforts so they understand the goals of these efforts.
o
Assign new faculty orientation participants “homework” to meet their county
commissioners.
o
Make county data available through OSEDA more dynamic and easier to use
with better linkages to summary reports.
o
Prepare mini policy briefs for counties.
o
Provide in-service training for CPDs and community development specialists
so they can become the “extended staff” of county commissioners.
o
Send out post card announcements to commissioners on major evaluation
project results.
o
Teach county council members and others how to advocate for extension.
o
Set up mechanisms to systematically re-engage with county commissioners.
Results
In response to the request to think back over the past month and identify issues that the county
commission had discussed either in formal meetings or informal discussions, commissioners identified
problems with increasing county expenses and decreasing county revenue most often, but they identified
additional issues as well.
County Commission Issues
Percentage of
Citations
Problems with increasing county expenses and decreasing county revenues
64%
County administration or management: human resources, space, records storage
12%
County officeholders’ communication
12%
Other: election results, new county extension program director, annexation
8%
Communicating with the public about budget priorities and county needs
3.3%
As commissioners thought about how they used extension programs to deal with these issues, the group
concluded that they did not use extension services for issues that represented their major needs. However, they
cited times when extension services were used: correcting problems with storm water runoff in the city lake
that provides drinking water, facilitating a meeting for commissioners, providing a leadership education
program for juvenile offenders, developing a curriculum for poll workers, and helping citizens understand the
options to meet new laws related to onsite wastewater ordinances.
6
.
.
. words people in the community use to describe extension, the group said the only extension
When asked what
.
program they hear referred to is 4-H. However, group discussions provided further detail about their
.
experiences:
 In rural. areas, the way ag is declining, many people feel there are better ways to use funding; (they
. about extension because they don’t know what extension does.
are) negative
. has) lost its usefulness; clubs are not there for the ladies; 4-H isn’t as strong as (it) used to
 (Extension
. people who worked with it understand it, but not many are around any more.
be. Many

(Extension is) now more in the social services area. The general public doesn’t understand why
extension services exist in the county; urban people don’t know how it might relate.
The focus group provided an opportunity for commissioners to learn from each other. When one
commissioner said, “I’ve never talked with someone with a new experience in 4-H,” another responded, “We
have. We have new kids in ours. We have some Hispanic people, some Ukrainians. We have many homeschooled kids, and they use 4-H as part of (their program). New clubs have started up and there is a shift in
clubs.”
As the group focused discussion on how extension could meet county government and county commissioner
needs, commissioners identified how extension could increase its value to the commission. Commissioners
expressed that they would like extension to respond to the commission’s priority needs: “How many times
have we heard extension say, ‘What can we do for you rather than what can you do for us?’” The focus group
participants made specific suggestions for how extension could be of service to them:
 Help find funding for the county; find grant sources; tell us what other counties have used as funding
options.
 Provide free, good legal advice. County prosecutors aren’t necessarily skilled in contracts.
 Find out what is going on in other counties, and tell us what is working. Develop information and
referral sources. You don’t have to BE the source, but know where the sources are.
 Help us formulate policies. Provide research, but take the next step and pull policies from like
counties and tell us what is working.
 Help rural counties get access to GIS.
 Coordinate roles with the regional planning commission.
 Develop consortiums to help pay for services that several counties might need and use.
 Provide strategic planning that involves elected officials so all elected officials in the county know
where the county is headed and buy in.
 Do a market study on salaries for us.
 Express to the Legislature through your lobbyist the things that counties need and don’t need.
Become our advocate for our problems at the state level.
 Strengthen training with extension councils on how to interact with county government.
 Prepare statistics on the county and bring it to us.
Commissioners expressed some statements reflecting difficulty in understanding extension:
 Rather than us telling extension what we need from you, it would be better if you decided who you
were; there is so much we can get from you that we can’t narrow it down; extension needs to narrow
themselves down a bit; I want you to survive and give me expertise from the University, but it’s hard
to figure out how that fits with county government.
 How far will you go on things? Will we just get research, or will you help us write policies? Write
grants?
 Extension could compile solutions to problems and be a resource point. Would help when trying to
budget for extension service in the county. The problem is, (we hear) why do you have to budget for
that other than (what) is mandated in the statutes? (We) have to explain why (we are) budgeting for
extension.
 We’re missing out on a lot of service that we could use extension for, just because we don’t know
about it.
 I don’t think of extension as someone to call on to help with a problem. The Internet has taken away
lot of what extension used to be for; (I) can turn on the computer and get the answers.
As discussions progressed, commissioners were asked how they preferred to have communication with county
extension staff and learn about extension programs. They responded:
7







This (the focus group) helps – we’re learning now.
Give me bullet points on one sheet of paper. Then give me a call if you want to talk about enhancing
that.
If the first paragraph and a half doesn’t make me think it’s worthwhile, (I’ll) file it in the trash.
Post it on the Web site with quick access to information. “It’s what people want today.”
I want a person to say, “This is what you need, I’ll work on that.”
Provide me with a sheet of 10 things you can help with. Send it out to every county commissioner
office – how extension can help.
Do a 15-minute session at the county commission training in February. You’ll get more calls than
you can handle. But, make sure you’ve got someone who can handle the calls; have a plan ready to
go. And be sure county staff know what was offered to the county.
And in response to a question about how extension could learn about county commission problems,
commissioners said:
 Our minutes are on the Web. Agendas are posted.
 Come in once in awhile and communicate.
 (You) have to show up at the office; stop by; especially when commissioners change over every two
years; have your bullet points about what you can offer; be the first ones there; don’t just come by
when you want budget.
 Some commissioners preferred extension staff set up an appointment to visit with them; others said a
drop-by visit was fine.
 Monthly extension council meetings were not identified as facilitating communications.
o We don’t learn anything; communication is not there. (They are) trying to speed through it
in a two-hour period, and there is just no way to do it.
o Some commissioners attended the extension council meetings and others did not … “just
can’t go to everything.”
o One suggested that there should be a liaison between the extension council and the
commission and added that the focus group had helped in understanding extension.
These themes also were reflected in responses to a final question: “How can extension move up in the budget
priority of the county?”
 Actually deliver services to the county.
 Don’t just come when you want money.
 Visit at least once a month.
 Come when you don’t want the money, like in June; then tell us you’ll talk about budget later.
 Reconsider bringing the big groups to advocate for funding. It is a negative.
 (Create) a cycle of information flow. Come up and offer your services throughout the year. Offer
solutions occasionally.”
 Listen to the news and come and offer assistance.
 Don’t wait for us to ask for help. You know what you can do. We don’t.
 Take us out into the community and show us what the needs are, what you are doing.
 One commissioner relayed a story of how an insurance company communicates with them and used
it as an example of how extension should communicate. “We had a costly incident the other day
(related to inmate medical costs). I got two calls offering solutions regarding insurance, ways to save
money. They approached us with a possible solution.”
 Be our extended staff.
As commissioners reviewed the list of named programs, they offered these ideas for services they could use:
 Provide us statistics on the county. “I know about beef production numbers because I was given the
statistics a long time ago. I still use them.”
 Provide statistics about issues in the county. But, don’t get in the middle. Be neutral.
 Add county government building energy audits to the list of home and farmstead energy audits.
 Have the SBDC (Small Business Development Centers) help us with our human resource policy
issues.
 See if there is an application from the EFNEP program to the jail dietary issues.
8
.
.
 Counties
for noxious weeds. Help us find natural plantings when seeding roadways,
. areinresponsible
particularly
urban
counties.
Get plants with determinant growth and low maintenance. Help us
.
get the right mixtures.
.
 A final comment reflected that for one commissioner, the named program list did not relate to county
.
commission needs. “Named programs have little to do with county government; very few that
people.in the community use; (you need to) restructure the whole damn thing.”
.
. positive thoughts about the focus group experience, “We probably learned more in this hour
The group reflected
and a half or two hours than in years; so there’s something wrong. You need 114 counties here. (It is just the)
same problems 114 times.”
Methods
University of Missouri Extension’s County Council Coordinator contacted 10 county commissioners
from across Missouri by letter and telephone to invite their participation in the focus group. These
commissioners represented rural areas where agricultural activity was declining, rural areas that were
maintaining their economic base, counties experiencing growth in population and economic base, and
urban counties. Three female and seven male commissioners were invited. The invitation letter is
included in Appendix A. The focus group and lunch were held from 11a.m. – 1 p.m. preceding the
opening session of the annual Missouri Association of Counties meeting Nov. 21, 2004. Seven
commissioners, two women and five men, attended the session with one commissioner leaving the focus
group early to attend a Missouri Association of Counties board meeting.
Questions were formulated to elicit discussion among the participants related to the focus group’s
objectives. A list of questions is included in Appendix B. The group was told how and why they were
selected, and ground rules for focus group participation were reviewed before the session began. Notes
were kept on flip charts and by a note-taker on the computer. The note-taker and one observer did not
speak during the meeting. The facilitator, note-taker and observer were all employees of University of
Missouri Extension.
Handouts about extension were on hand in case they were needed to give commissioners a description of
extension programs. These handouts were: 2004 Named Programs By Category, University of Missouri
Extension Improving People’s Lives impact sheet and Contacts for Local Government Officials. When
commissioners indicated they didn’t use extension programs and weren’t familiar with citizens’
experiences with extension, the handouts were disseminated.
Focus group notes were recorded and analyzed with Hyperresearch© to develop themes that arose
through the participants’ conversations.
Several potential limitations are noted in this study. Since not all invitees were able to attend the session,
the group was not as representative of the state as was desirable. While representatives of growth
counties were present, representatives of urban core counties were not. And although two rural counties
were represented, these did not represent economically hard-hit areas of the state. In addition, the session
was not tape recorded, which allows the possibility of bias in note taking. The potential for bias also was
possible because the group was conducted by a University of Missouri Extension employee, and other
extension employees sat in on the focus group. The use of an internal moderator is common among
social scientists doing qualitative research. It is commonly thought that moderators from outside of the
organization have the advantage of being neutral, but they also have the disadvantage of being unfamiliar
with the organizational culture. While internal moderators are more likely to be familiar with the
organization, they have the challenge of engendering the confidence and trust of participants. It is
unknown if the presence of extension employees inhibited responses, but it should be noted that one
employee is a former county commissioner and therefore may have added to the comfort level of the
group. It is notable that the commissioners’ feedback identifies specific actions extension should take
and included negative as well as positive comments. Finally, the results of this focus group are subject to
the same limitation as all focus groups in that the results cannot be extrapolated to all counties. Future
research and additional resources could mitigate some limitations of this study.
9
Attachments
Appendix A: Invitation letter ………………………………………………………Page 11
Appendix B: Focus group questions ……………………………………………….Page 12
Handouts
Appendix C: 2004 Named Programs By Category…………………………….Page 13
Appendix D: University of Missouri Extension Improving People’s Lives …..Page 17
Appendix E: Contacts for Local Government Officials ...……………………..Page 19
For further information, contact:
Cassy Venters, Ed.D.
Program Evaluation Coordinator
Business Development Programs
University of Missouri Extension
811 Clark Hall – MU
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8855
ventersc@missouri.edu
10
.
.
APPENDIX A
.
.
November 1, 2004
.
.
.
Dear [Name of Invitee],
.
I would like to invite you to .participate in a focused discussion group with some commissioner colleagues to gain
feedback about your perceptions of University of Missouri Extension.
As you know, Extension provides research-based educational programs to people in your communities to help them
improve their lives. As part of the University of Missouri’s unique land-grant mission, Extension is a three-pronged
partnership with the federal government through USDA; state government through the University; and county
government through appropriations from county commissions to the county extension council.
In January of this year, extension operations were consolidated on the Columbia campus, and MU was named the
managing partner in cooperation with the other campuses. At this point, Extension administration would like you to
help us take stock of how Extension is doing in meeting the needs of your county’s residents.
We thought an opportune time for this discussion might be in conjunction with the upcoming Missouri Association of
Counties meeting at Tan-Tar-A. I would be pleased if you could join in a discussion and box lunch from 11 a.m.-1
p.m., Sunday, Nov. 21, in Drawing Room Terrace, in bldg B past bowling alley and Black Bear lodge restaurant.
Please call 417-337-0605 or send e-mail to delongt@umsystem.edu to let me know of your availability. If you can not
attend, let me know of someone you think might be good for this discussion. On behalf of University of Missouri
Extension, I look forward to gaining your insights and hearing your suggestions.
Enclosed are some of the questions for you to think about, I hope this helps us get started quickly so as not to waste
your valuable time.
Thanks so much.
Your friend,
Tony DeLong
County Council Coordinator
11
APPENDIX B
Focus Group Questions
Question 1: Think back to the last month or so. What kinds of issues presented themselves to you
and the other county commissioners?
Question 2: How does the county use extension programs to address some of the issues you
identified?
Question 3: What words do people in your community use to describe extension?
Question 4: What University of Missouri resources would you like extension to bring to your
community?
Question 5: How could extension assist you in your role as county commissioner?
Question 6: What would it take to move extension up in the budget priority list?
12
APPENDIX C
.
.
.
.
.
. 2004 University of Missouri Extension
.
Named Programs
.
May 3, 2004
.
Following is a list of Named Programs that are congruent with the University of Missouri Extension 21st
Century Strategic Direction (http://outreach.missouri.edu/about/21stcentury/index.html).
The Named Programs, identified with a black dot (·), exist at the regional level or will be developed as
new programs during FY2005.
The open dots (○) indicate clearly identified curriculum and/or materials targeted to a specific group of
learners.
Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources





















Agroforestry for Farm Improvement
Biotechnology Education
o MAGIC
Community Food Systems/Food Security
Dairy Heifer Development
Dairy Production Systems
o Grass Based Dairy
Environmental Business Programs
Farming on 40 Acres
Forage Production Systems
o Management Intensive Grazing
Forestry & Wildlife
o Master Tree Farmer
o Master Wildlifer
Home and Farmstead Environmental/Energy Audits
o Healthy Indoor Air
o Healthy Homes
Home Horticulture and Environment
o Master Gardeners
o Garden N Grow
Individual Wastewater Systems
o Onsite Sewage Systems for Real Estate Professionals
Livestock Production Systems
o Premier Beef
o Show-Me-Select
Missouri Crop Management
Missouri Grown – Vegetable Production
MO-Pork
o Pork Quality Assurance
o Trucker Quality Assurance
o Swine Welfare Assurance Program
Nutrient Management Planning
Plant Protection for 21st Century
o Private Pesticide Applicator Training
o Commercial Pesticide Applicator Training
Precision Agriculture
Profit Focused Agriculture
Safety, Health and Wellness
13



o AgrAbility
Soil & Water Conservation
Value-Added Agriculture
o NxLevel – Tilling the Soil
Watershed Planning, Management & Education
Business & Industry











Small Business Development Centers
o Understanding Financial Statements
o How to Control Cash Flow
o Predicting Future Cash Needs
o fisCAL
o The SMART Self-Assessment: The First Step to Adding Value and Improving Profits
o SMART
o Balance Scorecards for Small Business
o Business Performance: Measure, Manage and Succeed
o HR for Small Businesses: Avoiding the Landmines
o FastTrac Planning
o FastTrac Listening to Your Business
o FastTrac Manufacturing
o Foundations of Marketing
o Starting a Small Business: The First Steps
o Starting and Managing a Small Business in Missouri
o The Basics of Writing a Business Plan
o FastTrac New Venture
o First Step FastTrac
o FastTrac Developing your Family Child Care Business
o NxLevel: Tilling the Soil
Federal and State Technology – FAST
o FastTrac Tech
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers – PTAC
Market Development Program
Career Options
o FastTrac New Venture – Displaced Worker
o Career Options Workshop
Community Development
Building Inclusive Communities
o Alianzas
o Community Development Academy
o Organizational Development and Nonprofit Management
Community Emergency Management
Community Informatics
o Community Connection
Community Decision Making and Governance
o Community Deliberation Program: Making Choices Together
o CECH-UP
o Community and Economic Planning
o Community Decision Support
o Youth Government Days
Community Leadership Development
o EXCEL (Experience in Community Enterprise and Leadership)
o Youth EXCEL
14
.
.
Human Environmental
. Sciences
 Adolescence
.
o Adolescent .Pregnancy Prevention
o Adolescent .Mother Journaling Program
o Maltreatment & Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting
.
o Missouri Volunteer Resource Mothers
.
 Affordable Housing
. Revitalization & Affordable Housing
o Community














o Home Ownership Made Easy
o Homeworks
o Rent Smart
Building Strong Families
o Adult Curriculum
o Youth Curriculum
Child Care Core Competencies
o Promoting Early Literacy in Young Children
o Socializing Healthy Habits in Young Children—Nutrition
o Socializing Healthy Habits in Young Children—Physical Activity
o Child Observation
Family and Community Resource Program
Family Financial Management
o Financial Security in Later Life
o High School Financial Planning
o Money Action Plan
o Rent Smart
o VITA/Income Tax Outreach
Family Nutrition (FNEP)
Food Safety
Home and Farmstead Environmental/Energy Audits
o Healthy Indoor Air
o Healthy Homes
Missouri Green Houses and Building
Nutrition and Health
o Food Power
o Chronic Disease Management
o Diabetes
o Health for Every Body
o Nutrition and Physical Activity
Parent Education
o Anger Management
o Basic Parenting
o Effective Black Parenting
o Family Meals
o Family & Community Resource Program (FCRP)
o Families & Divorce
o Focus on Kids
o Families & Divorce
o Prevention & Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
o Programs for Parents
Successful Aging
o Relatives as Parents
Textiles Recycling
4-H/Youth Development
Agriculture Education for Youth
o 4-H Animal Science programs
o Hatching Chicks in the Classroom
15








Character Education for Youth
Community Youth Development
o Civic Engagement for Youth
o Community Service Learning
o 4-H Global Education
o Youth EXCEL
o Youth Government Days
Family & Community Resource Program (FCRP)
o Mentoring Children of Offenders
Natural Resources Education and Environmental Stewardship for Youth
o 4-H Shooting Sports
o 4-H Sports Fishing
o 4-H Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
Parenting Education and Support
o Parenting Corners
Positive Youth Development During Out of School Time
o Educational trips and exchanges (4-H Congress, 4-H Teen Conference, Youth Forum, etc.)
o 4-H Project work in content areas
o 4-H Recognition and Scholarships
o 21st Century Community Learning Center Partnerships
o Youth Futures—College within Reach
Volunteer Leadership Development
Workforce Preparation and Information Technology for Youth
o After-School Computer Labs
o 4-H Mini-Society
16
APPENDIX D
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Improving People’s Lives
University of Missouri Extension improves the lives of one million Missourians annually and
adds economic value to the state. Following are examples of the many ways Extension
educational programs benefit the state economically:

4-H Youth Development: For every $1 invested in 4-H youth development programs from public resources,
Extension provided $2.30 in educational programs for young people, their parents, communities and funders.
4-H programs increase students’ academic skills, decrease their likelihood for involvement in high-risk
behaviors and increase their readiness for the workforce.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Research: Research conducted in five states and four
Environmental Protection Agency regions by Extension Commercial Agriculture faculty was used extensively
in EPA’s drafting of regulations that saved Missouri producers millions of dollars. Mike Scherer, Vice
President Agribusiness, Farm Credit Services of Missouri, said of the EPA-proposed regulations on
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: “I don’t think that anyone knows exactly what the financial and
personal impact would have been if impermeable lagoon covers would have been the only alternative for
existing lagoons ... I think it is safe to say in Missouri, the value of relatively new hog buildings owned by
independent producers that would have been abandoned would easily exceed $100 million and probably
$200 million.”

Show-Me-Select Heifers: The 10,000 Show-Me-Select® Replacement Heifers marketed through sanctioned
sales has generated $9.7 million in revenue, which provides tax dollars to support rural community
infrastructure. Improved herd management practices through Extension’s Show-Me-Select program allow
producers to retain more animals in the herd, increase production efficiency and improve the quality of meat
products for the domestic market.



Missouri Value-Added Development Center: Two new ethanol plants that received Extension assistance in
planning and market development could add more than 100 new jobs to the Marshall and Laddonia areas.
The plants, when fully operational, will generate more than $300 million in new economic activity for
Missouri. The Missouri Value-Added Development Center has had a role in the development and evolution
of more than two dozen value-added enterprises in the state.
Community Policy Analysis Center: After the city of Lebanon lost 750 jobs due to closure of the H.D. Lee
Plant, the Community Policy Analysis Center generated reports estimating $2.5 million in lost revenues to
Laclede County government. Two CPAC reports enabled local officials to negotiate purchase of the empty
manufacturing facility for roughly half of its appraised value. The city then converted the facility to an
industrial park. Using the industrial park as a tool for business recruitment, the city convinced a subsidiary
of Emerson Electric to expand its operations. Now 360 jobs will be added back to the city’s economy over a
two-year period.
Distance Learning: Attracting a growing segment of MU’s student population, distance and other nontraditional education represents a significant access point for members of Missouri’s workforce to pursue
17
professional development at their state University. Through Extension programs, MU offers more than two
dozen degree options that are completely or mostly online, as well as more than 100 individual distancelearning courses. MU In The Evening, established in 2001, allows mid-Missouri adults to pursue a
bachelor’s degree conducive to improving their career and earnings prospects. In 2002-2003, MU served
5,684 non-traditional college students through distance education and face-to-face programs delivered at
sites throughout Missouri. Most online-degree-seeking students are pursuing graduate-level work in teaching
and nursing. Twenty percent of MU’s overall graduate enrollments are in online courses.

County Weatherization Program: More than 550 people in Northeast and Northwest Missouri have
completed hands-on education on winterizing their homes, including weather-stripping and caulking
demonstrations by an Extension environmental design and community development specialist. One
participant reported that her utility expenses were $120 per month less than the previous heating season
because she implemented strategies recommended in the course. Another participant reported cutting the
family’s $300 heating expenses in half. If 75 percent of participants put “best practice” strategies to use for
an estimated savings of $120 per month for the three coldest months of the year, these limited- resource
families would have an additional $148,500 for the necessities of life.

Missouri Small-Business Development Centers: During FY02, the MO SBDC counseled 2,938 clients and
sponsored 283 training events for 3,721 individuals. A survey of clients by independent researchers indicates
that clients who received more than five hours of counseling generated $106.3 million in new sales and
created 1,057 new jobs. These same long-term clients generated an estimated $3.3 million in additional
federal tax revenues. Financing obtained by the clients totaled $49.4 million statewide, indicating that tax
dollars expended on the Small Business Development Centers were leveraged by public and private financing
at a ratio of 13.98 to 1.

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program: Recent national studies confirm that for every dollar
spent on the federally funded EFNEP program, there is a reduction in future medical cost for families of
$8.74. In Missouri, the $1.4 million invested annually in this nutrition education program results in an
estimated comparable annual reduction in medical costs of $12.2 million.

Commercial Agriculture Swine, Beef Programs: Making up-to-date technical information available to
producers has resulted in a $35 million investment in new construction in Missouri’s swine industry. The
Missouri Premier Beef Marketing Program, which adds value to feeder calves and provides a higher quality
beef product to consumers, has had a $430,000 impact statewide.

University of Missouri Extension leverages resources: On average, for every $1 the county commission
invests in extension programs in a county, the local extension council invests another $1.06. Additionally,
University of Missouri Extension at the state level contributes $6.61 or more to support educational
programs in the county. These state funds are used to hire regional specialists headquartered in the county
and region; provide support services such as Census data from the Office of Social and Economic Data
Analysis; assist with grant and contract applications; and more.
18
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
.
.
.
.
.
Contacts for Local Government Officials
Statewide:
Mary Simon Leuci
Assistant Dean and Community Development Program Director
University of Missouri
232 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-9034
leucim@missouri.edu
Johanna Reed Adams
Community Leadership Development State Specialist and Assistant Professor Rural Sociology
University of Missouri
232 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-3978
AdamsJR@missouri.edu
Bob Broz
Extension Assistant Professor and Water Quality Specialist
University of Missouri
205 Ag. Engineering Building
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-0085
BrozB@missouri.edu
Bill Elder
Director, Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis
University of Missouri
625 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-7396
ElderW@missouri.edu
Eric Evans
State Emergency Management Specialist
MU Fire and Rescue Training Institute
University of Missouri
240 Heinkel Building
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-8984
EvansES@missouri.edu
Ted Gallion
Extension Associate, OSEDA Information Technology Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
625 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-9648
GallionT@missouri.edu
19
Michael Goldschmidt
State Housing Specialist and Assistant Professor
University of Missouri
142 B Stanley Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-0905
GoldschmidtM@missouri.edu
Katy Haas
Alianzas Program Coordinator (Hispanic program contact)
00257 Hsb 331
University of Missouri
Kansas City, MO 64110
816-235-5840
HaasKA@umkc.edu
Steve Henness
Extension Assistant-VISTA
4-H Youth Development Program
University of Missouri
212 Whitten Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-6618
Hennesss@missouri.edu
Sandra Hodge
State Public Policy Specialist and Associate Professor – Rural Sociology and Conflict Resolution Center
University of Missouri
215 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-4435
Hodge@missouri.edu
Steve Jeanetta
State Community Development Process Specialist
University of Missouri
229 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-3018
JeanettaS@missour.edu
Tom Johnson
State Specialist and Professor - Agricultural Economics and Public Affairs
Director of Community Policy Analysis Center
University of Missouri
220 Mumford Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-2157
JohnsonTG@missouri.edu
Ken Pigg
State Extension Specialist and Associate Professor Rural Sociology (evaluation and transportation)
University of Missouri
106 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-4350
PiggK@missouri.edu
Gwen Richtermeyer
Director, BRIDG (Business Research and Information Development Group)
University of Missouri
00245 4747 Troost
Kansas City, MO 64110
816-235-6343
20
.
.
RichtermeyerG@umkc.edu
.
.
Elizabeth Scherrer
. Specialist
Public Management
Truman School of
. Public Affairs
University of Missouri
.
224 Middlebush Hall
.
Columbia, MO 65211
573-884-3632 .
Scherrere@missouri.edu
Judith Stallmann
State Community Economics Specialist and
Professor of Agricultural Economics, Rural Sociology and Public Affairs
University of Missouri
231 Gentry Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-6455
StallmannJ@missouri.edu
John Tharp
State Water Quality/Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri
205 Ag. Engineering Building
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-9647
TharpJ@missouri.edu
Central Missouri:
Ron Higginbotham
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
1012 N. Highway UU
Columbia, MO 65203
573-445-9792
HigginbothamR@missouri.edu
East Central Missouri:
St. Francois and Washington Counties
Shelley Bush
Community Development Specialist
County Program Director
University of Missouri Extension
1 N. Washington, #102
Farmington, MO 63640
573-756-4539
BushS@missouri.edu
Lincoln, Montgomery, Warren, Ste. Genevieve, St. Louis County, St. Louis City
Miranda Duncan
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
One University Boulevard
Room 362 Social Science & Business Building
St. Louis, MO 63121
(314) 516-6040
duncanm@missouri.edu
Jefferson County and Franklin County
B.J. Eavy
Community Development Specialist
21
University of Missouri Extension
P.O. Box 497
Hillsboro, MO 63050
(636) 797-5391
eavyb@missouri.edu
Tish Johnson
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
255 Market St., County Services Building
Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670
573-883-3548
JohnsonLK@missouri.edu
City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson Counties and included
municipalities
Julianne Stone, Director
Local Government Partnership
A cooperative effort sponsored by:
University of Missouri-St. Louis (MPPA)
University of Missouri Extension
East-West Gateway Council of Governments
UMSL:
One University Boulevard, 406 Tower
St. Louis, MO 63121
314- 516-4585
stoneju@umsl.edu
East-West Gateway:
One Memorial Drive, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
314-421-4220, (618) 274-2750
Julie.Stone@ewgateway.org
Northeast Missouri:
Lewis County
Amanda Cook
Agriculture/Rural Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
Courthouse Annex, P.O. Box 68
Monticello, MO 63457
573-767-5273
cookam@missouri.edu
Adair, Clark, Knox, Lewis, Linn, Macon, Marion, Monroe, Pike, Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Schuyler, Scotland,
Shelby and Sullivan Counties
David L. Hill
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
Courthouse Rm. 201, 100 S. Main
Palmyra, MO 63461
573-769-2177
HillDa@missouri.edu
Northwest Missouri:
Caldwell, Daviess, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Livingston, Mercer and Worth Counties
Dean Larkin
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
22
.
.
102 S. Broadway.
First Floor Courthouse
.
Princeton, MO 64673
660-748-3315 .
LarkinL@missouri.edu
.
.
Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Clinton, DeKalb, Holt, Nodaway Counties
.
Beverly Maltsberger
.
Community Development
Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
4125 Mitchell Ave., P O Box 7077
St Joseph, MO 64507
816-279-1691
MaltsbergerB@missouri.edu
Jerry Baker
Community Development Specialist
201 Highway 136 East
Rock Port, MO 64482
660-744-6231
South Central Missouri:
Camden, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Gasconade, Howell, Laclede, Maries, Miller, Oregon, Ozark, Phelps, Pulaski,
Shannon, Texas, Wright
Kevin Allen
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
Judicial Bldg 112 East 5th St
Salem, MO 65560
573-729-3196
AllenK@missouri.edu
Eber Cude
Information Technology Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
301 Historic 66 E. Ste. 127
Waynesville, MO 65583
573-774-6177
CudeE@missouri.edu
Southeast Missouri:
Janet Kline
Regional Director
University of Missouri Extension
P.O. Box 160
Portageville, MO 63873
573-379-5431
KlineJ@missouri.edu
Southwest Missouri:
Wayne Dietrich
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
260 Birdcage Walk
P. O. Box 1620
Hollister, MO 65673
417- 339-4431
DietrichW@missouri.edu
West Central Missouri:
Dennis Minzes
Community Development Specialist
23
University of Missouri Extension
1507 S. Noland Road
Independence, MO 64055
816-252-5051
MinzesD@missouri.edu
Lafayette, Henry, St. Clair, and Johnson Counties
Georgia Stuart-Simmons
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
135 W. Market
Warrensburg, MO 64093
660-747-3193
StuartSimmonsG@missouri.edu
Charles St. Clair
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
1901 NE 48th St
Kansas City, MO 64118
816-792-7760
StClairC@missouri.edu
Cynthia Zluticky
Community Development Specialist
University of Missouri Extension
1507 S. Noland Road
Independence, MO 64055
816-252-5051
ZlutickyC@missouri.edu
24