Strategic Planning Framing Concepts

University of Minnesota Extension Service

 

Executive Summary

 

 

I.                   Description of University of Minnesota Extension Service

 

The University of Minnesota Extension Service (Extension) is the major outreach arm of the University, with offices in 86 counties, 18 regional centers and 118 campus faculty. Our mission is “making a difference by connecting community needs and University resources to address critical issues in Minnesota.”

 

Minnesota faces many challenges and opportunities in the areas of rural economic development, agriculture, environmental protection, leadership development and family and youth development. Extension helps the University fulfill its mission by bringing the results of its research in these areas to the people who need them.

 

Over the past three years, Extension has lost 202 FTEs, with almost two-thirds of these reductions in the field and slightly over one-third on campus. To adjust to these financial realities and to better align our programs with societal needs we implemented a major reorganization in January 2004.   The changes build much greater synergy between our campus and field staff and between outreach, research, and teaching efforts.  With counties now paying all costs for local positions, this gives them greater choice and accountability.

 

 

II. Criteria for Setting Priorities and Evaluating Programs

 

Extension is committed to enhancing the University’s mission of teaching, research and service within the context of the University’s criteria for setting priorities and evaluating programs.

 

Criterion 1. Centrality to Mission

 

Extension’s core mission is outreach—providing informal education to Minnesota citizens in nontraditional settings. Our outreach programs are closely integrated with research in the College of Human Ecology;  College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences;  College of Natural Resources;  College of Veterinary Medicine;  College of Education and Human Development and Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. 

 

Central to this mission are strong connections between Extension field staff and campus faculty. Our regional educators help campus faculty by raising research questions; providing case studies for the classroom; collaborating on field research; and reducing the need for faculty to travel around the state

 

 

Criterion 2. Quality, Productivity and Impact

 

We  measure quality by how well participants learn and change  behavior or decision-making. Each program has a business plan that outlines objectives and measures for success. Campus faculty and regional educators undergo periodic review.

 

Productivity is measured in various ways. Staff and faculty develop plans of work. We are changing the way we track participation in programs to determine whether goals are met.

 

Our impact is substantial, with programs reaching  over 300,000  Minnesotans each year. We are increasing emphasis on measuring impact and providing high-impact programs. Toward this end, we have reduced the number of programs from 280 to 57; increased field staff specialization; encouraged programs to generate revenue; and enhanced accountability.

 

Criterion 3. Uniqueness and Comparative Advantage

 

We are considered a national leader in outreach programs. We have five major sources of comparative advantage in informal education.

 

• We have close partnerships with a world-class research institution.
• We have field offices in 86 counties and 18 regional centers.
• We have a national network of sister institutions from which to draw program materials and expertise.
• We have a broad range of partnerships.
• We have a strong brand for our programs.

 

Criterion 4. Enhancement of Academic Synergies

 

Extension’s reorganization is increasing access to specialized Extension educators statewide, creating synergies between campus faculty and field staff and new efficiencies in the delivery of educational programs. Closer alignment between campus faculty and Extension field staff are leading to greater collaboration in teaching, research, and outreach.

 

The reorganization has reduced the number of staff needed and produced cost savings by reducing redundancy in areas such as newsletter production and program delivery. It is increasing citizen access to the University and increasing productivity of field staff and campus faculty.

 

 

Criterion 5. Demand and Resources

 

Extension is increasing fiscal viability with the adoption of social entrepreneurial best practices. All staff consider both our mission and financial implications when designing programs. Program teams are required to develop program business plans that assess needs and outline educational objectives, public value, competitors, promotion, delivery methods, costs, and expected revenues. Market research is used to assess value and viability of proposed programs.

 

Criterion 6. Efficiency and Effectiveness

 

In 2004, following major budget cuts, we shifted from field supervision to supervision by academic units. This improved efficiency by allowing staff and resources such as newsletters to serve a statewide rather than just regional clientele.

 

We are working to increase efficiency by decentralizing decision-making and sharing resources. Program business plans will provide information on the link between costs and outcomes, and on appropriate fees for programs.

 

Criterion 7: Development and Leveraging of Resources

 

Extension uses needs assessment to identify critical issues and marketing to best apply programs to local needs. These two will lead to greater outside grants and revenues.

 

The state’s $24 million in funding currently leverages $31 million in federal, county, and grant funding. We also leverage our resources through partnerships, business plans and external revenue; and new relationships with native communities. We are aggressively developing systems for generating more outside revenue.

 

Strategic Planning Framing Concepts

 

University of Minnesota Extension Service[1]

 

 

Introduction

 

The first part of this paper outlines the University of Minnesota Extension Service’s mission, goals, values, vision, principles, and organizational culture. The second part outlines the strategies for implementing the vision and how they fit the University’s criteria for setting priorities on programs.

 

 

I. Description of University of Minnesota Extension Service

 

Overview

 

The University of Minnesota Extension Service (Extension) is a network of highly skilled educational professionals located at regional centers and local offices throughout Minnesota who partner with campus faculty to develop and deliver educational programs grounded in research and scholarship. The programs are designed to be relevant, timely, and appealing to adult learners and youth who are not enrolled in formal degree programs.

 

Extension is a major outreach arm of the University, with offices in 86 counties, 18 regional centers, and 118 faculty on the Twin Cities campus. The 240 educational staff [2] in the 86 county offices provide local programs for youth (4-H), nutrition education for low-income families, agricultural/horticultural services and education, and, in a few cases, selected other services and programs. All of these local positions are funded entirely by the counties or other local partners. The 140 Extension educators in the 18 regional centers are highly specialized educators who often work throughout the state. The 118 faculty located on campus include tenured faculty with joint research/Extension appointments and also P&A faculty who focus full time on Extension.

 

Over the past three years, Extension has lost 202 FTEs, with almost two-thirds of these reductions in the field and slightly over one-third on campus  To adjust to these financial realities and to better align our programs with societal needs we implemented a major reorganization in January 2004.  This greater specialization of our field staff builds much greater synergy between our campus and field staff and between outreach, research, and teaching efforts.  With counties now paying all costs for local positions, this gives them greater choice and accountability.[3]  

 

 

Mission

 

Our mission statement is: “Making a difference by connecting community needs and University resources to address critical issues in Minnesota.”

 

We add value to the University by translating its research into relevant, useful educational programs that touch real people in real time.  We are passionate about helping people from all parts of the state to help themselves.  We do this in many ways, all grounded in the discovery, advancement and application of knowledge. Extension is about the scholarship of outreach, about bringing knowledge to bear on real-world issues in an effective, timely, and relevant manner. We help people improve individually, in families, in businesses and in communities with special emphasis on rural areas, leadership, families, youth, natural resources and agriculture. Extension’s greatest relevance continues to be in  rural Minnesota, however many of our programs also strategically meet the needs of the growing urban/metro area. (e.g., youth/4-H; home horticulture, nutrition education).

 

 

Goal

 

 Extension’s goal is to be the best in the business of creating and delivering non-credit educational programs on issues critical to Minnesotans.

 

The information explosion means more competition for people’s time and attention. New technology and an increase in the number of education providers has resulted in increasing competition and the need for excellence in all our programs. We strive to be the best in the business in order to meet the increasing demands and expectations of a mobile and diverse public.

 

 

 

 

Values

 

The following values are central to our work:

 

• Our highest value is to serve Minnesotans by helping them learn to address critical issues to improve their lives.
• Scholarship and research guide our educational programs.
• We uphold the land-grant mission of the University of Minnesota, providing people throughout the state access to University research and scholarship, and bringing their wisdom and insights to the University.
• We value personal development of our staff and organizational learning.
• We honor the strength that comes from diversity of staff and of audiences.
• We work in teams, with each participant contributing unique and specialized skills to achieve common ends.
• We hold ourselves accountable for making a difference in the lives of Minnesotans.

 

 

Vision

 

Research from the University of Minnesota provides a rich menu of new approaches for dealing with these issues. Extension translates ideas from the laboratory and scholarly studies to practical approaches.  Minnesotans can use our educational programs to solve problems and build on opportunities. Extension helps Minnesotans apply research results to their own lives via non-credit educational programs that are accessible to people throughout the state.

 

Minnesota faces many challenges and opportunities in the decades ahead. Rural areas must work to maintain their economic bases. Farming is becoming much more sophisticated and specialized, requiring increasingly sophisticated technical and business skills. Large-scale agriculture poses new environmental challenges. Community leadership positions are difficult to fill in many parts of the state, especially in rural areas. Families are challenged by the demands of work outside the home and changing societal norms. Youth need help finding constructive ways to spend their time outside of school.

 

The vision for Extension is to continue a century old tradition in new ways that honor new audiences, new critical issues and new realities of public education.

 

 

Principles

 

The following principles guide Extension’s vision for its statewide delivery system:

 

Positioning Principles

 

1. Extension will be known for being the best in the business of non-credit educational programming in Minnesota. We will only do work that contributes to that reputation.
2. Extension will focus on geographic areas where it has the greatest comparative advantage relative to other outreach programs—primarily rural communities and counties.
3. Extension’s programs not only will be research-based and use the best educational methods; they will contribute to the research and teaching missions of the University.
4. Extension’s greatest visibility will be for educational programming, followed by educational services and information, all within focused areas that address critical issues.
5. Extension will be positioned as one system with many programs, which demands consistent operational policies and procedures and organizational marketing,

 

Programming Principles

 

1. Programming will have high-quality design, implementation, and evaluation components; programs will be current, relevant, research-based, accessible, and responsive to clientele needs.
2. Following the spirit of the original land-grant concept, our programs are available to people throughout the state of Minnesota. Regional center location will not determine access to programs.
3. Extension’s program teams will leverage the University’s technology infrastructure to enhance program access, quality, and efficiency.
4. Recognizing our increasing demographic diversity, we will achieve excellence through inclusion.
5. Local programming and services will augment and be aligned with campus and regional programming efforts.

 

Fiscal Accountability Principles

 

1. Accountability for public and other funding will be central to all programming efforts.
2. Extension’s funding and personnel structures/processes will be driven by program decisions.
3. Diversification of funding for Extension will help sustain and leverage public funding.

 

 

Organizational Culture

 

This section contrasts the culture prior to 2001 with the current culture. Over this time there have been two major reorganizations, driven both by finances and by the need to better serve our stakeholders. Prior to 2001, our field staff were very loosely tied to the University. Most worked independently, defining their work around problems they felt were critical based on local input. While teams did work together, there were many more individual efforts that were done in one place for one time. As a result, many programs were unable to develop and document statewide impacts.

 

Extension’s organizational culture has changed in the past two years. Five specific shifts are in progress. These are:

 

1.      greater teamwork between campus faculty and field staff

2.      greater focus on a limited number of programs

3.      greater focus on identification of the needs of target audiences

4.      greater specialization of field staff

5.      more accountable entrepreneurial efforts.

 

Teamwork

 

Each regional educator and campus faculty member is expected to be part of one or more program teams. Each team member has a specialized function on the team. Some do applied research: some do market research/needs assessment: some write curriculum: some market programs: some deliver: some evaluate.

 

 Number of Programs

 

We used to have many small programs, each unique to a given town and issue. This made it difficult for the staff to develop the depth needed to make the programs the best in the nation or even in the state. Now, the programs are fewer but more focused, making it possible for us to concentrate resources and enhance program quality. For a sample of the wide scope, see http://www.Extension.umn.edu.

 

Target Audiences

 

While campus faculty have worked with fairly targeted audiences for some time, many field staff have worked with a very large array of audiences. Only a few years ago, we had field staff who worked in community development but devoted 75 percent of their time to 4-H. These staff had to maintain contacts and advisory groups in several very disparate areas. Now, at the regional level, all staff are specialized in one of 18 areas of expertise.

 

 

 

Field Staff Specialization.

 

In 2000 almost all our field staff were generalists and focused most of their work on the county in which they were located. Now, 140 of the field staff are very specialized and serve either the entire state or major regions. Another 240 are located in county offices. Of these, 100 are specialized in the 4-H youth program and 100 are specialized in the nutrition education program. There are 40 county-funded generalists located in county offices.[4]

 

Accountable Entrepreneurial Efforts.

 

Currently we are funded largely by appropriated funds and most of our programs are provided for free or for very modest fees. This is rapidly changing. Every program now has a business plan outlining ways it will generate outside funds to help cover direct costs and eventually some staff time. This shift is a difficult cultural one because some people are used to getting these programs at low fees. In some cases teams are obtaining sponsors so they can provide the program at a low fee and still cover direct costs.

 

 

 

II. Criteria for Setting Priorities and Evaluating Programs

 

 

Criterion 1. Centrality to Mission

 

Programs and services are more highly valued if they contribute significantly to the core mission of the University of Minnesota.

 

To what degree is the substance of the activity pertinent to agreed-upon program needs, goals, and mission? [5]

 

 Extension’s core mission is outreach, defined as providing informal educational opportunities to citizens throughout the state of Minnesota.[6] Extension integrates and seeks to fulfill the three components of the University’s mission of teaching, research, and outreach.

 

The University of Minnesota has a tripartite mission of research, teaching, and outreach. Some see the core mission as research and teaching[7], with outreach needing to demonstrate how it enhances these. Others argue that all three are equally important, and that ultimately research and teaching need to reach all citizens. We see our role as teaching in nontraditional settings. All of our outreach programs are educational ones.

 

 Extension’s outreach programs are closely integrated with research in the College of Human Ecology (CHE); College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (COAFES); College of Natural Resources (CNR); College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM); College of Education and Human Development; and Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

 

There are excellent examples of close integration of research, teaching, and outreach in each of Extension’s partner colleges. CHE developed a faculty-led strategic plan in 2001 for implementing the concepts of engagement scholarship first proposed by Ernest Boyer[8], and later adapted by the Kellogg Foundation[9] and the Extension System.[10] Regional educators are becoming actively involved in field research with the faculty of COAFES. We have Extension faculty at three of the Agricultural Experiment Station’s Research and Outreach Centers (Grand Rapids, Morris, and Crookston). Faculty on research appointments at the Research and Outreach Centers work very closely with both our regional educators and campus faculty who have Extension appointments. Faculty from CNR are working with regional educators to explore new approaches for integrating these three parts of the University’s mission.

 

How essential is the program or activity to the core mission of the University?

 

Extension is a cornerstone to the University’s outreach mission. It also helps to strengthen the research and teaching mission as outlined above.

 

Extension’s 2004 reorganizational move toward specialization is strengthening connections between Extension field staff and campus faculty (both those on Extension funding and those with teaching/research appointments).

 

Specialization of Field Staff. Specialization of regional educators and closer connections to campus faculty promote higher quality programs. Previously, field staff were generalists, spread among too many areas of work to develop in-depth understanding of the research base and pedagogy. There is a robust literature on the value of specialization by Extension field staff. Specialization of our regional staff means:

 

·        Regional educators have more specialized roles and job definitions. For example, instead of hiring a regional educator/­agriculture, we hire a regional educator/­livestock/dairy. As a result, regional educators can focus and build in-depth programs with statewide and national reputations.

·        Job qualifications for new regional educators are increasing. The requirements have shifted from a bachelor’s degree (in any field) with a master’s degree preferred, to a master’s degree in the area of expertise, in a few cases with a Ph.D. preferred. This enhances the quality and credibility of our programs.

·        Regional educators are not limited to specific parts of the state. Most regional educators serve statewide in their area of specialization. This allows them to gain diverse experience that enhances the quality of their programs and expands the impact of Extension and the University.

 

Other steps to encourage closer working relations between field and campus include:

 

• shifting supervision of field staff to campus faculty, who report to Extension associate deans
• limiting program development to areas in which we have teaching or research faculty who can provide the intellectual framework for the work
• including both campus faculty and field staff on every program team
• requiring program teams to prepare business plans
• including campus faculty on search committees for regional educators
• establishing coordinate campus positions at Crookston, Morris, and Rochester to develop closer connections between non-Extension faculty and Extension work.

 

Benefits to Campus Faculty of Regional Educator Specialization.  We expect regional educators to be specialists who are consulted by public and private influence leaders. This benefits our faculty in several ways.

 

• It enriches research and teaching. As field staff become well grounded in the academic disciplines, they are in a better position to raise questions that need attention in research and to provide case examples that are useful in the classroom.
• It promotes collaboration in field research. In addition to doing research necessary to prepare outstanding outreach programs, regional educators are required to work on a research project led by a campus faculty member.
• It allows faculty to focus on on-campus responsibilities. At one time, campus faculty with Extension appointments spend several months traveling to share information with citizens around Minnesota. Now their role is shifting to a train-the-trainer model, giving them more time to spend developing and testing new outreach programs and integrating outreach into their teaching and research.

 

 

Criterion 2. Quality, Productivity, and Impact

 

Programs and services should meet objective and judgmental standards of high quality, productivity, and impact.

 

 Extension is increasing quality, productivity, and impact by focusing on areas that build on the University’s reputation for excellence.

 

Extension’s 2002–05 Change Plan emphasizes program quality and excellence as a key goal. Simply put, we strive to make each of our outreach educational programs the “best in the business.” In today’s global education market, that means the best in the world.

 

What are the most appropriate measures to apply to a given program or service?

 

Extension measures both the level of participation and the degree to which participants learn new knowledge, attitudes, and skills and to which that knowledge changes their behavior or decision-making processes. Our most recent Federal Accomplishments and Results Report (2002–03) reported that more than 309,000 Minnesotans participated in our educational programs. In addition, the Extension Web site was used by 2.4 million people for 6.4 million visits. Info-U, our automated telephone answering system, logged 669,470 visits to Web documents. Details are available in our federal report. [11]

 

Each of the program business plans outlines its educational objectives and measures for success.

 

Are measures being applied consistently and transparently?

 

We are posting the business plans and reports on the internal Web. We are moving toward complete transparency in gradual steps.

 

With respect to quality, how do we measure the excellence of a program or service?

 

The Extension programs of campus faculty on joint Extension/research appointments are reviewed by peers as part of their promotion and tenure process. The regional educators have a similar review process that includes both field staff and campus faculty. In each case, we examine not only the educational outcomes and impacts but also the relevance and the quality of the curriculum and pedagogy.

 

With respect to productivity, how do we measure output taking into account a blend of qualitative and quantitative measures?

 

Each field staff person and campus faculty develops plans of work, which are reviewed and discussed with their supervisors. These need to be consistent with a program team’s business plan. Productivity must be measured in very different ways in outreach programs. For example, a team of four staff working on community economic development programs can reach five to six communities per year, while four youth workers who deliver training to adults working with children can reach thousands of youth. We have tracked participation on an annual reporting cycle. We are currently shifting to an online registration system.[12]

 

With respect to impact, how significant is the contribution? How far does it reach?

 

Annually we reach 309,000 people in Minnesota. Our federal report outlines the nature of these impacts. For example, our grain marketing program helped farmers earn more than $2.6 million more per year, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 53 to 1. There are many water-quality problems from the 600,000 households on septic systems. Our natural resources Extension educators trained more than 2,500 individuals on alternative wastewater options for unsewered communities. More than 470 individuals were trained to train others on these options. More than 450 community leaders in 15 communities were trained in an action-research community economic development program.[13]

 

Our January 2004 reorganization has put much greater emphasis on measuring the impacts of our programs and focusing on programs that deliver high impacts.

 

Just as the University has been focusing its efforts on a limited number of centers of excellence, since 2002 we have reduced the number of programs we offer from 280 to 57. and focused on enhancing program quality. We made three major changes to achieve excellence in our programming:

 

·        specialization of field staff

·        revenue generation—the “double bottom line” of mission and money

·        accountability measures

 

Specialization of Field Staff. The benefits of specialization of field staff were discussed on page 7.

 

Revenue Generation. Each of the program teams has had to prepare a program business plan that outlines new ways to generate outside revenue, including sponsorships, direct participant fees, grants, and licensing programs and products. Effective demand reflects the amount people are willing and able to pay for a program. The greater the quality of the programs, the more people will be willing to pay. We are providing incentives to program teams to do this and support for the planning efforts.

 

Accountability Measures. While individual Extension programs have had their own evaluation systems, Extension has not had a system for comparing impacts across programs. We are making the following improvements:

 

• We are developing an online program catalog and registration system as well as standardized evaluation procedures that can be customized for each program.

• The associate deans are more likely than previous supervisors to expect field staff to use effective teaching methodology.
• The more centralized supervisory structure allows us to require staff to participate in more outreach pedagogy training. For example, this fall our annual conference focused on distance education teaching methods, program evaluation, clarification of the public value, and addressing the needs of diverse audiences.
• Funding for programs is contingent on program teams implementing improvements in their programs.

 

 

Criterion 3. Uniqueness and Comparative Advantage

 

Programs should be evaluated based on exceptional characteristics that make the program a strength for this University compared to other programs in Minnesota or at other peer institutions.

 

Extension has five major sources of comparative advantage in informal education. These are:

 

• Extension is the only outreach system in the state with such close partnerships with a world-class research institution, including the partial funding of nearly 118 campus faculty in academic departments.
• Extension is the only outreach system in the state with field offices in 86 counties and 18 regional centers.
• Extension has a larger national network of sister institutions from which to draw program materials and expertise than any other outreach system within the state.
• Extension has a broader range of partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies and with private-sector interest groups than any other outreach program in the state (see Appendix I).
• Extension has a stronger brand for outreach programs than other programs, particularly for rural areas and with the agricultural and natural resource industries.

 

The University of Minnesota is not only the state’s major research university; it is also a land-grant university. This combination is duplicated in only a few states across the country and provides a great opportunity to inform and educate the citizens of the state. No other institution or system in Minnesota offers the resources Extension can make available to the public.

 

What is the rationale for the program at the University of Minnesota?

 

Without Extension programming intimately integrated with the University of Minnesota, citizens of the state would not have the advantages of the new ideas, new products, and new services developed by the University’s research. Researchers and classroom teachers would find their opportunities for engagement and the intellectual stimulation of working on real-world problems significantly reduced.

 

Is the program a strength of the University in comparison to peer institutions?

 

The University of Minnesota Extension Service is seen as one of the national leaders in outreach programs. Many of our programs and materials, such as Ecommerce, Post Harvest Marketing for Agricultural Producers (Winning the Game), and Family Financial Literacy (Who Gets Grandma’s Yellow Pie Plate?) developed in Minnesota are being used in other states.

 

Does the program contribute to the comparative economic or cultural advantages of Minnesota?

 

Extension contributes to both the economic and cultural advantages of Minnesota in numerous ways. A brief outline is provided for each of our five capacity areas.

 

Agriculture, Food, and Environment. Agriculture, including farming, processing, and support industries, is a major economic sector in the state.[14] Our Agriculture, Food and Environment capacity area (AFE) offers nationally known outreach programs developed by field staff and faculty from the COAFES and CVM. While production agriculture is a primary focus of this capacity area, the audiences for agricultural programs are expanding from individuals whose primary work is farming to include agricultural professionals who serve farmers. Food safety programs are expanding in recognition of the economic importance of food processing and the food service industries and the public value of safety in the food chain. Horticulture, both commercial and private, is also growing in importance as the state becomes more urbanized.[15]

 

Community Vitality. The efficiencies created in production agriculture as a result of the University’s research and extension efforts, while very beneficial to consumers, has resulted in fewer jobs in rural areas. Extension’s Community Vitality capacity area, working with faculty in the Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, the Center for Small Towns, and the Center for the Study of the Individual and Society in College of Liberal Arts, has several internationally recognized programs for helping rural communities explore economic development strategies. This capacity area also has a number of nationally known programs on leadership development in rural communities.[16]

 

Natural Resources and Environment. Natural resources are important for quality of life, tourism, and the economy. The Natural Resources and Environment capacity area, working closely with faculty in CNR, has a number of exceptional programs in resource science and management including forestry, wildlife, water quality, wastewater, housing, and K–12 science education. In particular, this area provides the state’s only source of outreach related to building materials and residential building systems.[17]

 

Family Development. Families often list issues such as family finances, family relationships, and nutrition as areas in which they need additional educational assistance.   The Family Development capacity area delivers a number of programs that have received national awards for excellence.[18]

 

Youth/4-H. TheYouth/4-H capacity area is one of our largest areas of work. Counties have invested in more than 100 local program coordinators. Our 4-H program reaches more than 170,000 youth per year and serves as a source of new insights on effective ways to work with youth when they are not in school. Our community youth development program works with policy makers and trains adult youth program leaders. This program indirectly reaches many times the number of youth that our 4-H program does.[19]

 

Urban Programs. Each of the above capacity areas delivers selected programs to diverse audiences in the state’s urban areas. Examples include: nutrition education programs, the master gardener programs, community youth development, and the new immigrant farmer program.

 

Is the program an essential component to a unique synergy of ideas and activities?

 

Yes. Outreach depends on a strong research base and solid teaching methods. Research programs benefit from the input of outreach workers who attempt to apply new ideas and provide feedback from the public. Teaching programs benefit from examples of real world problems. Please see additional discussion under Criterion 1.

 

What would the loss, reduction, addition, or expansion of the program mean to the University, the state, and the region?

 

In both 2002 and 2004 Extension experienced major downsizing. Each time the public and the Legislature expressed their view that Extension is a value-added resource for the University.

 

Criterion 4. Enhancement of Academic Synergies

 

Programs should be organized in a way that facilitates intellectual synergies, creating new efficiencies and improvements.

 

Will the restructuring add value to the intellectual climate of the program or programs as well as creating cost savings?

 

 Extension is increasing access to specialized Extension educators statewide. This has created both intellectual synergies between campus faculty and field staff and new efficiencies in the delivery of educational programs throughout the state.

 

Our 2004 reorganization leads to closer alignment between campus faculty and extension field staff. This is leading to greater collaboration not only on outreach programs but also on research and teaching.

 

The closer alignment  stem from changes in supervision. Now all field staff report to a campus-based academic department. [20] As outlined on page 7, the field staff are more specialized, making collaboration between campus and field staff easier and more productive.

 

The new reorganization is more efficient in several major respects. First, the number of field administrators declined by 33 FTEs. Second, the number of secretarial staff declined by 89 FTEs. Third, the new supervisory structure allows the development of several statewide systems (e.g., newsletters, media reports, program delivery) that previously were duplicated in each county.

 

Will the restructuring better serve program participants, staff and/or faculty?[21]

 

Yes, we believe that the 2004 restructuring will help each of these groups.

 

Extension’s recent restructuring is increasing citizen access to the University in several important ways:

 

·        by placing specialized regional educators in 18 regional centers rather than concentrating specialists on campus

·        by providing toll-free telephone numbers for all regional centers and specialized toll-free numbers for farmers and those interested in family development issues

·        by encouraging the use of distance education (e.g., webCT training programs, Telnet presentations, DVDs, and conference calls)

·        by maximizing the value of our Web site (Minnesota’s Web site is the most frequently used Web site of any state Extension service, with 2.4 million visitors and 6.4  million visits per year)[22].

·        by locating 140 regional educators (funded with state and federal dollars) and 140 local educators (funded with county dollars) around the state.

 

For field staff and campus faculty, the restructuring allows them to be more productive and to make a larger difference in their area of expertise. This has professional benefits as well as greater job satisfaction.

 

 

Criterion 5. Demand and Resources

 

Evaluation of programs should consider current and projected demand and the potential and real availability of resources for funding program costs.

 

Do accurate measures project a rise or fall in demand for this program over the long term?

 

No. But we have established a system for program teams to study this question. The new needs assessment process requires the teams to look at long-term trends, future demand, and unmet educational needs.

 

Extension is increasing fiscal viability with the adoption of social entrepreneurial best practices.

 

We are shifting our culture to a more entrepreneurial one, in which all staff consider both our mission and the financial implications of programs.[23] Program teams are required to develop program business plans that outline educational objectives, public value, competitors, promotion, delivery methods, costs, and expected revenues. Business plans now include needs assessment that focuses on target audiences statewide in addition to county-based citizens groups. Market research techniques are used to consider program teams’ comparative advantages relative to other potential or existing providers, the size of the market, the ease of market penetration, the cost of development relative to the potential payoffs, and so on. Business plans have been completed for 57 programs.

 

Considering the University’s core mission, is there a need for the program, as distinct from a simple measure of demand for the program?

 

Each program team is asked whether another agency or educational institution is addressing the issue covered by its program. While sometimes other agencies are doing related work, we are careful not to duplicate their work for the same audience in the same geographic area. In every case we ask what our comparative advantages are for being involved in a program.

 

 Does the program have sufficient resources to support it?

 

Specific steps being taken to encourage the shift to a more entrepreneurial culture include

 

• providing four business advisors to help program teams learn how to write business plans
• providing a customized online template for the business plans
• offering staff training on business planning
• aggressively encouraging all Extension staff to act more entrepreneurially and to think in terms of a double bottom line (mission and money)
• giving each of our five program associate deans financial targets to meet by generating outside revenue, with all revenue exceeding the targets going back into that capacity area
• funding program areas only after they complete their business plans (2003–04) and implement one major improvement in the mission side of the program and one in the money side (2004–05)
• developing a needs-assessment process that uses market research to identify programs to be developed or discontinued and that provides state-mandated county Extension committees and groups such as the Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships a means to indicate their preferences for programs and positions  

 

 

Criterion 6. Efficiency and Effectiveness

 

Programs should be evaluated based on their effectiveness and how efficiently they operate.

 

In 2004, Extension lost $7 million in state and county funding. Counties reduced their funds by almost $5 million—almost entirely as a result of state aid reductions.  Despite this reduction of nearly 13 percent on a $55 million budget, we believe the organizational changes we have made will allow us to continue to serve the state well, and in some cases better than prior to the reorganization.  

 

The shift to supervision by academic units rather than a separate field supervisory structure allowed greater efficiencies in statewide delivery. Field staff can more easily travel to all parts of the state, some newsletters are distributed statewide with local inserts, and training and supervision can be more efficient and effective.

 

What is the rationale for a unique organizational structure within the University?

 

Extension’s outreach mission theoretically could be achieved by block granting all the dollars to colleges or by awarding the funds on a competitive basis to outreach efforts. Experience in Minnesota and other states has shown that colleges and departments have an overwhelming focus on their campus-based functions of teaching and research.

 

 

If a block grant system were used, it is highly probable that colleges facing financial pressures would diminish their field presence and reduce the access of the public to the University. Eventually, this would not only hurt outreach efforts but also diminish the effectiveness of the University’s research and teaching mission and disconnect the University from the citizens of greater Minnesota.

 

Likewise, a competitive grant process for funding outreach would diminish the development of close bonds and trust between the public and Extension field staff. A series of short-run projects would likely develop–many without adequate investment in outreach pedagogy.

 

While there are many potential organizational structures, the recently developed organizational structure captures the best of Extension’s tradition and the best of the University’s strengths to serve the public in the 21^st century.

 

Can valued functions be performed at less cost without a different organizational structure?

 

Over the past three years our budgets have declined by $7 million. We continue to search for additional sources of savings, but do not plan other major restructuring in the next few years.

 

Will functions be performed more efficiently and effectively at the unit level, with shared coordination among units, or system-wide?

 

We are moving toward decentralized decision-making within each of the capacity areas, with shared branding and shared organizational principles. We also will share technology, media, and business development support.

 

What outcomes of what quality for what costs?

 

Our individual program business plans are starting to provide us with this data. It will take us another 2 or 3 years to fully answer this.

 

What is the next best alternative use of the resources?

 

In addition to the data on costs and outcomes, we are exploring the public versus private value of each of our programs. We are working with Laura Kalambokidis, Department of Applied Economics, to apply state-of-the art public finance theory and practice to these questions.

 

Does the program have a clear business plan and a balanced budget?

 

Yes. Each of Extension’s 57 programs has a written plan. The budgets have a mix of public and private funding.

 

 Does it deliver service to those served at the right level and at the right cost?

 

This is a question that each program team is exploring. Traditionally, our programs have been provided at minimal direct cost to the participant. This is changing as a result of changes in public funding and our ability to demonstrate value to direct participants and sponsors.

 

Are we identifying core competencies and assigning responsibilities and designing structure based on them?

 

Each of the program business plans outlines its key educational objectives and builds a set of educational activities to achieve those.

 

Are decisions being made at a level where there is expertise, experience, and information?

 

The program business planning process is managed by capacity area leaders (five associate deans, with three of them in CNR, CHE, and COAFES and two in centers within Extension). Detailed decisions on the programs are made by multidisciplinary program teams composed of campus faculty and specialized field staff. These program teams do the market research and needs assessment, develop the business plans, develop the curriculum, deliver the programs, and participate in the evaluations.

 

 

Criterion 7: Development and Leveraging of Resources

 

Both new and existing programs should be evaluated on their potential to develop new resources and leverage existing resources.

 

Will new programs or revisions of current programs, expand the application of existing resources and create new opportunities to expand the quality and contributions of the University?

 

Extension has adopted a new “needs assessment” process to address this question. The new process puts much greater emphasis on market research techniques to identify the critical issues that can be addressed by Extension resources. It also uses a marketing approach to most effectively apply existing programs to local needs. The combination of these two approaches will lead to greater outside grants and revenues.

 

Is the program strongly connected to other academic units in a manner that expands resources and opportunities for research, education and connection of the University to public needs?

 

Yes. Extension funds nearly 118 campus-based faculty in academic departments here at the University. Many of these are tenure-track positions with joint Extension/research/teaching appointments. As outlined earlier, the 2004 reorganization has created new synergies between our campus faculty and our field staff.

 

Are there opportunities for additional resource growth and leveraging that we are not taking advantage of?

 

Yes. As explained earlier, Extension is aggressively developing systems for generating more outside revenue. However, we are currently leveraging considerable outside funding.

 

The state’s $24 million in funding for Extension, provided by the Agricultural Special, leverages another $31 million in federal and county funding and grant funding. The federal and county funding would be greatly reduced if we lost the state funding.

 

We also leverage our resources in three other ways:

 

• statewide alliances and external partnerships
• business plans and external revenue
• new relationships with Minnesota’s native communities.

 

Statewide Alliances and External Partnerships. Extension partners with 352 state agencies, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations. See Appendix I.

 

Business Plans and External Revenue. Program teams are starting to generate additional revenue as a result of the increased focus on “the double-bottom line.” This past year, program teams charged $2.3 million in direct fees to participants. Teams now have to cover most of their direct costs from user fees, sponsorships, grants, or other outside revenue sources.

 

In addition, many programs had large amounts of in-kind volunteer effort. For example, 4-H volunteers donated more than 146,000 hours valued at more than $3 million, while Master Gardner volunteers donated more than 88,000 hours valued at more than $1.4 million.

 

 New Relationships With Minnesota’s Native Communities. As Minnesota’s 1862 land-grant institution, the University can make connections to the three 1994 land-grant universities at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, White Earth Tribal College, and Leech Lake Tribal College. These partnerships offer a special opportunity to provide educational programs to a major portion of the state’s Native American population. Extension is currently engaged with these institutions, and plans to expand those relationships.

 

While we envision future expansions of Extension, we expect these will come from outside contracts rather than from public funds. These expansions will come as our new systems of reporting our impacts start to demonstrate public and private value.

 

Are revenues placed in the most appropriate organizational setting to achieve desired results?

 

We are shifting from central control to giving capacity areas and program teams flexibility to use revenue generated in their units.  

 

Which programs could be discontinued so we can develop excellence in the core programs, thus attracting additional outside support?

 

We have been asking these questions since early 2002. At that time we had 280 programs. We now focus on 57 core programs. Each has a business plan that outlines the critical issue the program addresses, the program’s educational objectives, the research base, the delivery methods, program partners and sponsors, and financial strategies. Each is linked closely to an academic college.

 

In some cases community leaders want services rather than educational programs. While some at the University would not see this as core to our research and teaching missions, it is important to our outreach/teaching mission to respond to these requests. Because providing services is further away from the University’s core missions, we do so on a full-cost basis. Counties are currently funding the equivalent of about 120 full-time employees in local service positions. This change started in 2002, and the University no longer is subsidizing service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I

 

List of Extension’s Partners

 

 

The attached list of partners was drawn from the 2004 program business plans.

 

The first column shows the capacity areas:

 

AFE = Agriculture, Food and Environment

CV = Community Vitality

FD = Family Development

NRE = Natural Resources and Environment

Youth = Youth/4-H

 

The second column shows the program name.

 

The third column shows the type of partner.

 

The final column shows the specific partner for the program. Some of these are funding partners, others help to promote the programs, and others help on program delivery.