Ten-Year Comparison of Extension Use

Through the years, Extension has tried to alter its programming to meet the varying needs of changing constituencies. While internal evaluations have monitored the effectiveness of specific programs, more general external indicators of the extent of Extension's impact have been less common. The availability of data from two statewide Pennsylvania surveys, conducted a decade apart, provided a recent assessment of changes in the number and characteristics of households using Pennsylvania Extension. Mail surveys carried out in 1980 and 1990 produced information from 9,957 and 3,632 Pennsylvanians, respectively. Respondents were asked whether, during the preceeding two years, any member of the household had participated in or received information from Cooperative Extension in each of four programming areas- agriculture and natural resources; family living, home economics, and nutrition; 4-H and youth; and community and public affairs.1

More households in 1990 than in 1980 reported using the services of Penn State Cooperative Extension. This was true whether considering the proportion of all households reporting usage (13% in 1980; 17% in 1990) or the estimated number of families reached (544,000 versus 773,000). Extension use increased in all four program areas. For community and public affairs programming, the estimated number of households served increased between 1980 and 1990 by more than 85%; for family living, home economics, and nutrition programs, the increase was 45%; 4-H and youth programs, increased by 33%; agriculture and natural resources, increased by 20%. Agriculture and natural resources was the most frequently used type of programming; family living, home economics, and nutrition was the second most widely used.

Extension continues to disproportionally serve farmers and nonmetropolitan residents. In 1990, farmers were more than four times as likely as nonfarmers, and nonmetropolitan residents were nearly twice as likely as metropolitan residents, to use Extension's services. But, Pennsylvania is predominately an urban state with more than 80% of its population living in metropolitan counties and only about 50,000 farms statewide. Consequently, nonfarm users actually outnumbered farm users by more than five to one, with more than two and a half times as many metro as nonmetro users.

In the past, Extension has been criticized for paying too little attention to lower-income families. In the current study, only the use of agriculture and natural resources programming was positively associated with income level; for none of the other program types was usage significantly related to income.

The results of this analysis provide support for the continuing and growing viability of Cooperative Extension. In 1990, more than one in every six Pennsylvania households used the services of Cooperative Extension. Although traditional nonmetropolitan and farm clientele continue to be important users, Penn State Extension serves a diverse audience, including urban, suburban, and rural users, and people from all income levels.

1. Steven G. Jacob, Fern K. Willits, and Donald M. Crider, Citizen Use of Cooperative Extension in Pennsylvania; An Analysis of Statewide Survey Data, AE & RS 224 (University Park: Penn State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, June 1991).