Summary of University of Illinois Extension Comments
There were 12 comments submitted regarding the University of Illinois Extension report. The comments
focused on issues related to Extension’s mission, the institutional placement of Extension, Extension’s
funding model, and critiques of data found in the report. The following summarizes the main issues
presented in those comments:
Extension’s mission





Extension has a much broader focus than agriculture
Community and economic development staff should be more clearly organized into Extension’s
mission
The relationship between Extension and Public Engagement should be clarified
Extension primarily serves agricultural interests across the state
Extension should address the increasingly diverse set of needs across the state, including urban
health and lifestyle aspects.
Institutional placement of Extension



Extension should be moved out ot ACES and become a campus-level unit
The campus should not reorganize Extension as a campus-level unit until we have demonstrated
success from a campus-level public outreach office
The two other campuses should be included in Extension
Extension’s funding model






The funding sources for Extension and the Ag Experiment Station are different
A portion of Extension’s GRF funding should go to grant writers
Illinois ResourceNet (IRN) provides technical assistance and education to local communities on
how to secure federal funding and it could serve as a successful model for increasing external
funding
The 1 to 1 GRF investment proposed by the report is not realistic and such a financial matching
model could lead to unwise GRF investment (both too high or too low)
Fund matching opportunities need to be explored
Rural partners and communities are a significant source of funding and this should be considered
when evaluating whether to reduce rural programming to focus on metro programming.
Report Critiques


The report’s contention that Extension underserves urban populations is not correct
ACES is incorrectly referred to as the “College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Economic
Sciences” in two places
Other comments

Current efforts to reorganize Extension internally should be reevaluated or halted in lieu of this
report



It would be helpful to know who was identified as the 195 Extension stakeholders as referenced
in Attachment 11
Why wasn’t Extension mentioned in the Public Engagement report?
The UIUC Office of Continuing Education should be considered as a partner, as it has expertise
that may be helpful with respect to delivery mechanisms, collaborating, and program
development.
I think we better be careful as we progress with this review of Extension and understand that as
an entity it CANNOT be everything to everyone in the state. It is not meant, nor created to be a
remote campus substitute for all subject areas. As noted, it was created by Smith Lever and
connected to the Morrill Act which focuses on specific things. There are many things NOT
noted, or perhaps not known, by the group reviewing Extension. As a person who volunteers
both with several programs within Extension IN AN URBAN AREA, it isn't all about
agriculture.
4-H'ers are learning leadership, business, photography, rocketry, small computers, robotics, etc.
4-H is teaching things about public speaking and interpersonal skills that these young people
aren't getting from their parents anymore. This sure isn't agriculture! I agree we can look for
other synergistic opportunities at all times for Extension to make an impact (this is healthy to
do), but I am concerned by the committee's lack of understanding that what is being done at
current levels is too strongly tied to Agriculture. Agriculture is the #1 industry in Illinois, so we
actually need to do more work in promoting the areas of Urban agriculture, sustainable
agriculture, etc., and make more people aware of the rewards and benefits of agriculture-including the health benefits of eating high quality foods, and even the health benefits of doing
the actual gardening and Agri-tourism (Food Science, Rec/sport/tourism and Crop Sciences
connections).
I completely disagree that we underserve our urban populations (as demonstrated by large sums
of money being shifted to Cook County and other large metro areas over the past 10 years in last
minute state budget pushes by legislators). Perhaps it is more of a way Extension approaches
urban populations that isn't working rather than the message they are trying to share.
I would caution an effort on big projects that are top down instead of bottom up approaches. If
anything there is a need for more people "on the ground and in the trenches" rather than so many
administrative level positions. We, as users of the services need more "hands on deck" to
implement the programming than administrators directing traffic from behind a desk.
I caution shifting the pendulum too far one way and forgetting the rural partners and
communities that continue to FUND significant local dollars that go to Extension. It wouldn't be
fair to fund metro areas on the backs of rural communities and then reduce the rural
programming to focus on metro programming.
Additionally the group did not identify a fairly obvious partner, the UIUC Office of Continuing
Education, who provides both credit and non-credit outreach distance education by working with
the colleges and schools across the campus. This group has the expertise perhaps Extension
needs to think outside the box on delivery mechanisms, collaborationg, program development
and delivery. Additionally there are offices on the UIS and UIC campuses as well that could
perhaps be collaborating partners as well.
*********
Many of the ideas about the connection between a changing society and Land-Grant Universities
and Extension have been repeated over and over in the scientific and popular press. And now the
new materials of the recent examination come under close scrutiny, suggesting new concepts,
new institutions and new organizations. As the recommendations outlined by the Stewarding
Excellence Extension Review Committee have clearly noted the discussion now moves beyond
the question of change but rather quite properly to the methodology of change for Extension in
Illinois.
As recommended by the Extension Review Committee, the time is both right and fitting to
reconnect the Extension System to the larger University of Illinois System both for the good of
the overall university system and the citizens of Illinois. The recommendation to position the
Uof I Extension from its existing location within ACES to a campus-level position to promote
broader participation by faculty across the campus would not only allow for greater connection
of the university to diverse audiences, it would also allow for greater connection between Illinois
citizens and the University of Illinois at all levels, across all disciplines and all institutions within
the University system. While also eliminating duplication in the limited fiscal resources
committed to both Extension and the Outreach and Public Service department.
One of the existing issues that plague the Extension system is the limited perception that
Extension is established to serve the agricultural community. This well established perception
continues to be fostered in communities across the state in light of the connection to ACES and
lack of connection to the greater university system. While ACES has severed as a wonderful
home for Extension in the past, it is time to look at making Extension more usable by a larger
audience both within the University and across the state.
Should this recommendation be implemented, the current reorganization plans should be
immediately halted and reviewed to ensure that proposed plans would fit into the overall
University system and align with a broader university agenda. It is of great concern that
Extension in Illinois continues to reorganize rather than taking the time to do it correct the first
time. If Extension continues to undergo the vast changes as seen in 1992 and presently, local
support and funding will decline with increased frustration.
While the Uof I Extension research and outreach agenda has expanded over the years to be more
inclusive, it has become evident that the insular nature of the agricultural connection may be an
obstacle to meaningful and long-term change needed within Extension. In fact, numerous
research studies and popular press articles have called for Extension to respond to an increasing
diverse and complex research and outreach agenda and to forge links and new partnerships with
groups traditionally outside the current system. It should be noted that local community needs
and challenges do not function in isolation within contextual topics traditionally researched and
addressed by ACES faculty. As such, it is hoped that the University administration and
leadership teams would undertake the recommendation to seek a more integrated and synergistic
involvement of Extension across the University system.
Name (optional)
Michael Woods
*******
In addition to building relationships outside of ACES, why not include the other two U of I
campuses? There would be great benefit to Extension to have connections with the research and
projects that occur throughout the U of I system.
********
I was disappointed to see two references to the "College of Agricultural, Consumer and
Economic Sciences" in the document. Unless I missed a change in the past few years, the name
is "College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences."
Name (optional)
Jeana McAllister
********
Attachment 11: Email Survey of Extension Stakeholders.docx, generated by this Committee.
Email Survey of Extension Stakeholders
This following email was sent to 195 Extension stakeholders in the community, identified by Jim
Oliver and John Horton:
I would like to thank those who spent their time on the Extension Review Committee. After
reading the report I have a few questions about Attachment 11. It is my understanding that
Attachment 11 is incomplete. An email survey was sent to 195 Extension stakeholders. I would
like a list of the 195 Extension stakeholders in the community identified by Jim Oliver and John
Horton, listed by the counties they represent. If the names are confidential please send the
counties represented by the survey. Why are only 13 responses listed in the Stewarding
Excellence, Extension Review Committee, Final Report, June 2, 2010? Were there only 13
responses to 195 emails sent? Why are only excerpts of received responses listed and not all
responses in their entirety?
Please let me know if this is public information that must be requested under "FOIA" or if this is
information you can provide to me. Again, thank you for your time. Sharon Buchanan,
sbuchann@illinois.edu
Name (optional)
Sharon Buchanan
********
You seem to combine the Ag Experiment Station and Extension or at least suggest that they are
hand in hand. The funding is totally different.
*******
First, I would like to thank the committee for their dedicated work to the U of I Extension
review. As Extension is currently in the midst of reorganization, I believe it would be important
to begin dialogue with the campus and Extension leadership on how the recommendations in this
report and the current reorganization strategy align. I further agree with the report that it is
important that all parties involved clarify the terms and activities of outreach, Extension and
public engagement and make the distinction clear to campus leaders, faculty, staff and
community stakeholders.
Secondly I agree that Extension staff should be engaged with campus researchers on
collaborative proposal development and specifically agree with related recommendation of # 7
that the campus should devote a portion of U of I GRF funding to support grant writers who
could work with faculty across campus and with organizations across the state to promote
externally funded research and would suggest community driven activities. There is currently a
joint program with U of I Extension and UIC Great Cities Institute that has been supporting local
governments and nonprofits to secure more federal funding. This initiative is known as Illinois
ResourceNet (IRN) and is providing technical assistance and education to secure the additional
funding. It is supported by a 2.25 million investment by a private foundation. IRN could serve
as a potential model and with the lessons learned in this 3 year initiative could be very beneficial
in helping to advance this recommendation. In the last two years IRN has provided technical
assistance on over 90 proposals. These proposals have yielded over 8 million dollars to local
communities in Illinois with an additional 150 million still pending. Where it has been possible,
IRN has connected with faculty in multiple departments.
Thirdly, I agree that Extension is able to generate an additional 3.68 dollars for every GRF dollar
making it a sound return on investment and merits an increase in GRF funding. In addition, I
would like to comment about ICR generation by Extension. First, this has only been an
organizational priority for about two years, and if one were to consider only the number whose
positions are expected to generate revenue the average would be higher vs total FTE.
Finally, I would support the recommendation to explore additional connections and departmental
involvement at both the campus level and multi-campus level. This would also provide access to
the research to address the very complex needs of a diverse and dynamic society.
Recommendation: Extension has a history and focus on community and economic development.
This role is critical in addressing issues by involving community members in decision making. It
would be important to enhance the presence of community and economic development staff in a
reorganized Extension system. Currently, as well projected this program area will have the
lowest number of FTE s represented in the four core areas. Community and economic
development should be a broad based strategy strongly linking the university to communities and
elected officials.
Name (optional)
Al Zwilling
********
I work on the sister campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago on the Illinois ResourceNet
(IRN) program. This program is a joint partnership between UIC and UIE. We provide education
and technical assistance to local units of government and non-profits throughout the state of
Illinois on federal funding opportunities. Our main goal is to increase the amount of federal
dollars that comes into the State of Illinois. After 2.5 years we have helped communities submit
over 215 million in federal grants with 164 pending and 6.5 million awarded. With this joint
partnership in mind I provide the following comments on the report:
1.Agree with clarifying the terms and activities of outreach, Extension and public engagement
and making the distinction clear to campus leaders, faculty and community stakeholders
2.Agree that staff should be engaged with campus researchers on collaborative proposal
development.
3.Agree with related recommendation of # 7 that the campus should devote a portion of U of I
GRF funding to support grant writers who could work with faculty across campus and with
organizations across the state to promote externally funded research and would suggest
community driven activities. IRN, as described above, could serve as a potential model and the
lessons learned in this 3 year initiative could be very beneficial to developing this
recommendation further.
Name (optional)
Thea Crum, UIC Neighborhoods Initiative and Ast. Director IRN
********
Both the formal Extension organization and the other, more informal, public service (extension)
activities conducted within ACES clearly are valued by both ACES and the campus, as exhibited
by the level of financial investment made in these functions. Within this context of perceived
value, we raise questions here regarding two aspects of the present report, the criteria for GRF
investment in Extension and the discussion of Extension taking on a broader role, perhaps even
as a campus-level organization.
The project teams application of financial leverage (a 1-to-1, or greater, match of GRF
investment) as the criteria to determine the level of GRF investment in Extension raises concern.
It could be expected, instead, that the criteria would be more explicitly in alignment with ACES
mission or the campus strategic plan. Financial matching criteria alone easily could lead to
unwise GRF investment, either too high or too low. Further, if a separate state budget for
Extension is viewed as a potential liability (that is, that it could become a more visible target for
state spending cuts), the implication is that we believe that we are investing more heavily than
our legislature would and that the legislature is likely not as interested in financial leverage as a
metric for Extension.
Regarding the various possibilities of adapting Extensions role (to biological sciences, beyond
Ag-Bio, to emerging urban needs, etc.) or organizational location (to campus-level), it is
important to keep in mind that Extension currently is a fairly specific channel that operates
primarily between ACES and certain constituents within the state. This begs the question, then,
of whether such an organization could adapt in a cost-effective and timely manner to provide
efficient and effective mechanisms of connection for other engagement offerings from other
parts of campus to other constituents. Regarding moving Extension organizationally, it remains
unclear whether sharing such a channel across the entire campus is appropriate. At a time when
the existence of a campus-level outreach function (OVCPE) is being questioned, it seems
somewhat conflicting to propose moving Extension organizationally without demonstrated
success in more broadly benefiting a much greater portion of the campus.
Name (optional)
submitted by B.A. Vojak on behalf of Dean I. Adesida and the College of Engineering
********
The Senate Budget Committee (SBC) reviewed the report from the University of Illinois
Extension Project Team, and has the following comments. First, this committee had an extremely
challenging task. The current picture for the funding of the University of Illinois Extension is
bleak, in particular due to the heavy reliance on state and county support, all of which will come
under increasing pressure due to the State's financial crisis. It is encouraging that the UI
Extension has itself become proactive in planning for future reductions in both staff and offices
around the state. However, more will likely need to be done. The project team has made a
number of detailed recommendations to help address both short and long term budget reductions.
In the short term, we believe it will be critically important to have an open and accurate
assessment of the matching opportunities and requirements associated with running the UI
Extension and what that entails in terms of direct State support. For the longer term, we agree
with the report's main recommendation that, for future vitality, the UI Extension must address an
increasingly diverse set of State needs, including urban health and lifestyle aspects. Furthermore,
the university community should take more ownership in this effort, with a stronger and broader
exposure of the university's research capability being engaged, and a more thorough exploration
of possible synergies between public outreach, public engagement, and the UI Extension. Due to
the current financial crisis and the expected resultant state and local budget cuts, however, any
such steps to evolve the UI Extension will have to either be inexpensive or involve creative
research that leverages Federal funding.
The Members of the SBC,
Robert J. Brunner
Bruce Hajek
Regina M. Stevenson
Name (optional)
Robert J. Brunner for the SBC
********
Interesting that University of Illinois Extension does not get mentioned in the Office of Public
Engagement report as a possible collaborator. It seems to me that utilizing an existing network
in place throughout the state of Illinois would make quite a bit of sense rather than creating new
avenues. Issues in the communities in areas such a adolescent pregnancy prevention, substance
abuse, community and economic development, bullying are issues that faculty and students could
address through research and projects that would engage the U of I in communities. Please seek
out U of I Extension and at least interview someone from that department. Thank you.
********
It is important for the campus recommendations about Extension to be integrated into the
ongoing Extension reorganization process as soon as possible.