During the past several months Texas AgriLife Extension has devoted a tremendous amount of effort in developing systematic program interpretation plans. While we instinctively know that there is a direct correlation between interpretation of program outcomes and county commissioners' courts willingness to provide local funding for Extension educational programs we seldom point to research that documents this relationship. In 2007 James Lindstrom conducted a study entitled The Relationship among Washington State County Commissioners' Knowledge and Perception of Washington State University Extension and Their Willingness to Fund WSU Extension that investigates the relationship between effective interpretation and Commissioner Courts willingness to fund Extension programs.
This study (Lindstrom, 2007) was designed to determine whether Washington State Commissioners' Court members' perceptions, knowledge, and/or understanding of Extension are related to and may have predictability to their willingness to provide funding for local Extension programs.
Lindstrom (2007) conducted a census of all Washington State's County Commissioner Court members. Lindstrom (2007) received responses from all of the 39 counties in Washington State. In this study, the following was determined as a measure of commissioners' familiarity of Extension (Lindstrom, 2007);
- 70% of respondents participated in 4-H and Youth Development Programs, and 67% participated in Agriculture and Natural Resource Programs.
- 74% of the respondents had read an Extension Newsletter or brochure while 70% attended an Extension workshop or meeting.
- Over one half of the commissioners responding reported that they have met with an Extension educator for a personal consultation.
- Almost one quarter of the commissioners responded they or a family member has been a member of an Extension organization, such a 4-H.
- 93% indicated that Washington State University provided a good value for the county expenditure. No county commissioners responding to this survey indicated that Washington State University Extension was not a good value for the county expenditure.
- 97 % of the census respondents reported that the Agriculture program area was perceived as having good or adequate quality.
- 95% of the census respondents reported that the 4-H program was perceived as having good or adequate quality.
- 77% of the census respondents indicated that the family and consumer science programs having good or adequate program quality.
- 67% of the census respondents indicated that the community development programs having good or adequate program quality.
- 100% of the census respondents reported that Washington County Extension was cost effective or at least cost neutral.
- 98% of the census respondents indicated their willingness to fund Extension with adequate county resources.
- 96% of the census respondents indicated their willingness to fund Extension even with insufficient county resources to fund all county obligations.
- 82% of the census respondents view Extension as cost effective and were willing to continue to fund Extension.
- When comparing value of the county expenditure and willingness to fund Extension, 91% of the county commissioners were willing to continue to fund Extension.
- 90% of the respondents viewed the agriculture and natural resources program as efficient and were willing to fund Extension at current or increased levels.
- 86% of the census respondents viewed the 4-H program as being efficient and were willing to continue to fund Extension at current or increased levels.
- Of county commissioners who had accessed Extension through reading brochures or newsletters, 95% indicated that Extension was a good value.
- Of county commissioners who had attended an Extension workshop, 100% viewed Extension as a good value.
Lindstrom (2007) reported the following related to the relationship between willingness to fund Washington State University Extension and County Commissioners' Knowledge of Extension;
- Of those county commissioners that indicated that they have had a past personal experience with Extension program areas, 98% indicated they have a positive view of funding Extension programs.
- Of commissioners that utilized Extension through various program methods, 96% indicates that they have a favorable view of funding Extension.
Some lessons that Texas AgriLife Extension Service can learn from this research (Lindsrom, 2007) includes;
- Involvement of elected officials in Extension "Showcase Events" is imperative to increasing county commissioners and legislators knowledge and perception of Extension programs which in turn potentially impacts funding.
- District Judges and Commissioners Conferences hosted by District Extension Administrators are critical in enhancing relationships between Extension and elected officials. These events, when designed correctly, can be an excellent venue for program interpretation.
- Extension Making a Difference Newsletters that communicates Texas AgriLife Extension's public value can enhance elected officials knowledge and perception in Extension programs.
- Urban Capacity Program Highlight report for County Commissioners can enhance elected officials knowledge and perception in Extension programs.
- Formal interpretation events with elected officials conducted annually that communicates Texas AgriLife Extension's public value are critical to our future funding.
- Effective programming,
- Visibility, and
- Effective interpretation .
Reference
Lindstrom, J. H. (2007). The relationship among Washington State County Commissioners' Knowledge and Perceptions of Washington State University Extension and their willingness to fund WSU Extension. Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Montana.
.jpg)