RESPONSE TO PROJECT UI EXTENSION REPORT
R.G. Hoeft, Interim Associate Dean and Director Extension and Outreach
The overall report was very well written and provides an excellent analysis of the current
situation as well as offers several recommendations that have potential to help move UI
Extension to a more solid funding base. More importantly the recommendations offer
potential to develop a program base that will allow for delivery of research information
that is integrated across more departments and colleges within the University.
.Expanding the research base will enhance the ability to better address the needs of the
citizens of Illinois and the unique needs of increasing urban populations.
Following are comments on each of the recommendations. The recommendation is in
italic and followed by comments.
1. The University must clearly articulate its goals and aspirations for U of I Extension
and input to this decision-making must be made available as broadly as possible on
campus, among faculty, students, deans, department heads, and campus
leadership. As part of this discussion, the differences between outreach, public
engagement, and U of I Extension activities must be defined, so that the distinction
is clear to campus leaders and faculty.
The articulation by the University of the goals and aspirations for U of I Extension
is a critical as the mission of Extension evolves to address societal needs in
Illinois. In the past, individual Extension employees frequently receive praises
from constituents about a job well done, but there has been no clear message of
what the University wants or expects from Extension as part of the land-grant
mission of the University. The large FY11 budget cut, while justified on the basis
of Extension being a non-tuition generating unit, sends a message that Extension
is of less value to the University than other units. It also raises the issue of what
the future role of Extension will be within the University when facing continual
and significant budget cuts. One only has to look back a few years and note that
when tuition was increasing at a slower rate than general revenue, there was no
differential adjustment made in favor of Extension. This brings into question the
long-term plans of the University for supporting Extension and what proportion of
the non-tuition state appropriation should be allocated to sustain the land-grant
mission.
2. Campus and University leadership should commence a conversation with State
legislators about the possibility of treating U of I Extension as a separate line-item in
state budgeting, rather than lumping U of I Extension funding in with the rest of the
campus general revenue funds. Other states in the region do this–for example, Ohio
and Wisconsin. As part of that discussion, we should request that state legislators
articulate some broad priorities for U of I Extension. One potential benefit of this
arrangement is that U of I Extension could be clearly supported and tasked by the
legislature. A potential risk is that U of I Extension funding, expressed as a separate
item with a fairly large dollar amount attached to it, could become a target for
legislators seeking to cut state spending.
The recommendation elucidates the two potential scenarios that could occur
with the movement of state GRF out of the University budget to an individual
line of the state budget. Careful consideration should be made when
considering what level of funding would be needed for a separate budget line.
Funding of $15 million in GRF was provided to ACES in FY10 for extension
related activity. Of this total $10 million was allocated to U of I Extension and
$5 million to academic departments in ACES, mainly for extension related
faculty salaries. It must be clearly understood that the GRF allocated to ACES
for faculty support in departments directly impacts the U of I Extension
mission of delivering research based information to the citizens of Illinois. U of
I Extension cannot stand on its own without faculty research and their
involvement in Extension programs. Please note that the committee did not
suggest that the new line go through another state agency. That is a potential
third scenario that could result in a reduction of the state GRF allocation to
the University by an amount equal to or greater than that previously allocated
by the University to Extension. Extension funded through a state agency and
the management of Extension by the legislature would be of great concern.
3. U of I Extension should improve the visibility of its activities on our campus by
publicizing Extension programs, their impact, and the opportunities they present, to
the entire campus community. Although the main mission of U of I Extension is to
conduct educational programs beyond the campus, expanded intellectual,
professional, and social engagement with the campus community will enhance its
effectiveness in carrying out that mission.
The visibility of UI Extension must be improved, both on and off campus.
Historically, Extension presumed that evidence that Extension programs had
resulted in the improvement of the lives of Illinois citizens was sufficient
information for determining that programs were effective, and that those who
participated in Extension programs would convey the message and value of
Extension to the public. However, the knowledge of and value of Extension
within the University is quite limited outside of ACES. In addition, societal
changes in Illinois require more active publicizing of U of I Extension to
populations currently underserved and in urban areas.
4. U of I Extension should improve the reach and visibility of its activities in our state by
marketing its programs to target audiences, including nontraditional users of
Extension services, in the appropriate languages, and by ensuring that these
programs are presented at a variety of times and places, through a variety of media
(including online and public broadcasting), so as to maximize their availability to the
public. To be viable and to be of service to the state, U of I Extension must reach
beyond traditional rural and agricultural audiences and address emerging urban
issues, audiences, and environments. To serve a changing citizenry, U of I
Extension must be organized to adapt to changing circumstances, today and
tomorrow. We also note that rural communities are currently collecting and
contributing millions of dollars to support U of I Extension; as U of I Extension
expands programming in urban areas, it will have to develop funding sources to
serve this market. As U of I Extension consolidates its county offices to save some
of the $4M it now spends on rent, it should consider co-locating some of its offices or
activities in public libraries, which could save money for Extension, contribute to the
support of libraries, and make Extension activities, especially those focused on
youth and family life, more visible in the community.
5. Campus leaders should convene an open discussion on U of I Extension's core
areas, with a particular focus on urban life. The goal of this discussion should be to
understand how faculty across the Schools and Colleges on this campus might
participate in U of I Extension, collaborate with U of I Extension on externally funded
research, and benefit from U of I Extension's long-standing community networks.
This conversation should include a broad range of campus units that have existing
expertise in Extension's core areas. Some examples of relevant units to include
would be the College of Engineering (energy, environmental engineering), the
College of LAS (chemical and bio-molecular engineering, economic development,
state and local governance), the College of Education (programming for at-risk
youth; program evaluation; curriculum development; online education), the College
of Business (management, finance, entrepreneurship), the Graduate School of
Library and Information Science (youth and community information, community
decision-support, online education), the Institute of Genomic Biology (bioeconomic
development), the College of Fine and Applied Arts (urban and regional planning,
energy-efficient architecture), College of Applied Health Sciences (community
health; rural telemedicine; recreation and tourism), the College of Veterinary
Medicine (animal health, companion animals), the College of Medicine (family
wellness, nutrition, childhood obesity), and the College of Law (business and
environmental law, estate and tax law). This list is not intended to be a
comprehensive one, but rather to provide an illustration of how many U of I
Extension issues are addressed by researchers and teachers in campus units
beyond ACES. Of particular relevance, also, are the Surveys that comprise the
Institute for Natural Resource Sustainability; this organization is the same size (and
same cost in GRF) as U of I Extension, and it has a profile of activity, expertise, and
emphasis that seems highly complementary to U of I Extension's focus and
activities, as Extension's profile is to the Surveys'.
Both of these recommendations express the need for Extension to realign its
program priorities and ability to adequately address urban audiences. One of
the criteria affixed at the outset of the reorganization was flexibility to adapt to
changes in program needs. This would include adapting to changing clientele
base as well as changes in subject matter need of the clientele. The diversity
and language challenges of the urban population require significant staff and
resource investment at a time when resources are becoming more limited.
As the recommendations indicate, inclusion of a much broader base of
departments and colleges will provide a stronger research base upon which
to build integrated programs, programs that will provide the research data to
address emerging problems.
6. Campus and University leadership should consider moving U of I Extension from its
existing location within ACES to a campus-level position to promote broader
participation by faculty across the campus in the core research and education
missions of U of I Extension, and to increase opportunities for U of I Extension to
generate external research funding. By making this structural change, we would
capitalize on opportunities represented by current Federal funding trends that
mandate the integration of research, teaching, and public involvement in projects
that address major societal problems. We might also capture a broader range of
investments in the units that could be counted as matching federal dollars, thereby
reducing dependency on centrally invested GRF. Given the expertise of U of I
Extension staff, they should be engaged with campus researchers both in
collaborative proposal-writing and in the execution of those projects when funded. In
many neighboring state universities, Extension is organized this way, for example, at
Wisconsin (where Extension serves a ten-campus system), Nebraska, Iowa State,
and Ohio State. Some of these neighboring-state models also integrate Extension
and the Surveys, something it would be worth considering in our case as well. No
two of these models are exactly alike, so there are several possible models that
could be considered. In general, it is critical for U of I Extension to develop stronger
relationships with colleges beyond ACES, for three reasons:
1. Extension needs the expertise of campus. Because Extension professionals
serve rapidly evolving information needs, they must continually upgrade and
reevaluate their subject-matter expertise. Therefore, they require ready
access to educational resources across all disciplines and colleges, and that
can be effectively provided only if we facilitate their collaboration with campus
researchers and subject-matter experts.
2. The broader campus needs Extension as partner. As an example, many
researchers in the social sciences, health, education, and even engineering
could benefit from readier access to the community networks that Extension
represents. It would be understandable if Extension felt a certain proprietary
interest in those networks, but perhaps incentive structures or liaison
positions could be established that would encourage tenure-system
researchers and Extension educators to work with each another.
3. The campus must do better at educational outreach and marketing to
untapped and under-served populations. The traditional university structure is
changing— not just here, but everywhere. Formal learning in residential
settings will remain important, but education will increasingly be delivered ondemand, at any time, in any place. Extension knows how to do this and does
it well; there's strength in online education on campus as well, but the campus
as a whole must become better at this. Perhaps, as the campus considers the
report of other Stewarding Excellence projects, especially the report on
Campus Programs Supporting and the report on Revenue Generation, it will
emerge that the University would benefit from a campus-level consolidation of
resources for units wishing to launch their own online programs. U of I
Extension could be a key partner for campus in such an effort.
Additional study needs to be given to recommendation 6 prior to implementation.
There are many challenges inherent in the university and Extension making
structural changes after decades of Extension operating within a College. There
would be much to be gained from faculty across campus and Extension staff
working more collaboratively to address societal/educational needs. Campus
faculty will need orientation to understand Extension’s commitment to Illinois
communities.
7. Appropriate principles and practices should be adopted to guide the integration
proposed in the preceding recommendation. For example, campus GRF funds
should be invested in U of I Extension in ways that are calculated to generate
external research dollars. U of I Extension should consider modifying the job
description for Program Leaders in Extension, so that a percentage of their time is
devoted to cultivating opportunities for collaboration with faculty, participating in
research groups, and in other ways bringing their experience and their networks
back to campus. From this new collaboration, campus could leverage new grant
opportunities, perhaps by stipulating a Co-PI arrangement on grants involving faculty
and U of I Extension agents, with some percentage of indirect cost recovery going
back to each. A related recommendation is that campus should devote some portion
(perhaps 1percent) of U of I Extension's onand off-campus GRF funding to support
grant-writers who could work (respectively) with faculty across campus or with
organizations across the state to promote and increase externally funded research
activities, greater campus involvement, and more of the twoway exchange of
information that ought to characterize the relationship between researchers within
the university and practitioners in the field.
As pointed out in recommendation 6, Federal Government funding now mandates
the integration of research, teaching and outreach, creating an opportunity for
funding in Extension previously not readily available. In order for Extension to take
advantage of these opportunities, a system will need to be established to alert
Program Leaders early enough in the planning process to allow them to identify
extension staff that have the technical expertise to carry out the extension portion of
the proposal. Other than in Food and Nutrition, time and effort invested to increase
external funding has met with limited success over the past decade. The much
smaller field staff base remaining after reorganization must focus their time and
effort on high impact programs. Therefore, work that they do to increase external
funding must have a high potential for pay back.
8. Campus leadership should consider revamping the way U of I Extension faculty
funds are distributed, to better represent the evolving focus areas of Cooperative
Extension and to engage faculty outside of ACES in fulfilling U of I Extension priority
areas. This change might include moving to term-renewable faculty funding (along
the lines of the Wisconsin model), with terms of several years renewable on the
basis of demonstrable of U of I Extension activity, pertinence to U of I Extension
priorities, and satisfactory evaluation of U of I Extension efforts. Pilot programs on
particular topics, using defined portions of U of I Extension funding, might be a safe
way to experiment with new mechanisms and engage new faculty. Addressing
emerging needs through pilot programs has a long history in Cooperative Extension
and could restore nimbleness to the enterprise (for example, see Atul Gawande,
"Testing, Testing" in the December 14, 2009, New Yorker).
Plans are being made to set-aside a portion of the budget for pilot projects.
Where possible, such projects will be interdisciplinary across program areas. An
example of such a program is the energy program currently housed in Urban and
Regional Planning. Team members from Ag & Natural resources, Youth
Development, and CED have expertise to contribute to this energy conservation
and energy production.
9. We should take a systems approach to redesigning U of I Extension, because U of I
Extension is itself a complex system, within a yet more complex State and federal
system. The Action Plan Diagram, below, shows what a systems approach might
look like and suggests how such an approach could provide a framework for
addressing the issues raised in this report, as well as issues arising in the future.
Any redesign or reorganization must consider both the needs of the State and the
goals of the campus, and it should result in an administrative structure that enables
true integration of teaching and research with U of I Extension. Although each
activity has a distinct purpose and may be carried out independently with success,
integration will produce added value for all parties.
We recognize that there are many complexities in any proposal to shift emphasis or
change the way money is distributed in a system as large as U of I Extension. In
particular, campus should not make changes that would imperil Smith-Lever or
Hatch Act funds; if anything, we should be looking for ways to increase those funds,
perhaps by increasing our overall U of I Extension activity with more externally
funded research. We also recognize that U of I Extension has a broad and vocal
constituency in the counties around the state, and that agriculture remains a core
concern for that constituency, so much so that agriculture will probably remain the
largest part of Extension for the foreseeable future. But we also believe that there is
a great deal of unrealized potential in the other core areas, and we would like to see
the University exploit those opportunities. We also think that there is unrealized
potential in the U of I Extension network itself, both for faculty researchers and for
prospective students, especially in health, engineering, and the social sciences, and
we urge the campus to ensure that that potential is realized more fully as well.
This or a similar model would be of help if and when the campus decides to
move Extension to a campus rather than a college program.