From Single to Multicounty Programming Units

A county-based educational network has been the foundation for Extension program delivery from the land grant university system since Cooperative Extension was established in 1914. Throughout the century, major changes-first in transportation and then in communications, computers, and satellite technologies- have greatly impacted methods of informal adult education. These changes provide an opportunity to gain greater efficiency in program delivery, while still serving people with quality educational opportunities.

Today's Extension clients have more years of schooling and access to more sources of information than ever before. Consequently, Extension staff must be able to provide greater indepth information in educational programs. At the same time, programs are expanding to address high priority societal issues related to the environment, nutrition and health, waste management, and youth at risk. Educational programs using modern delivery methods to address issues require Extension staff with focused skills and expertise, rather than generalists. However, county Extension workers can't realistically be expected to have expertise in a number of programming areas, and county budgets can't support a number of specialized agents.

The compelling need for Extension field staff to specialize, along with limitations imposed by county boundaries, has forced Extension to become more serious about multicounty programming. Johnson found county Extension directors and state specialists enthusiastic about area Extension work and its potential for improving the efficiency of Extension programming. However, farm advisers weren't as uniform in their support for area programming as were the county Extension directors. Based on his findings, Johnson developed guidelines to implement area Extension work in the 60s.1 Barnett and Louderback found Extension agents derive satisfaction from their jobs, even in the wake of organizational change, when they feel an obligation to their clientele, have a positive attitude toward their jobs, and receive recognition from within the organization and appreciation from the clientele. Dissatisfaction occurs when organizational policies aren't clearly understood, changes in working conditions conflict with personal goals, or organizational changes reduce opportunity or ability to fulfill clientele expectations.2 Hutchins concluded that county clustering may be one approach to help develop more effective strategies for issues-based programming.3

In 1986, Nebraska Cooperative Extension administrators started exploring methods to gain greater efficiency, yet still serve Nebraskans with quality education and programs. This exploration resulted in developing multicounty Extension programming units (EPUs) to replace single-county programs. The program units were designed to increase the Extension agent's role as an educator within a specialized area and create a situation in which agents could be more proactive in responding to critical issues. Major staff changes implemented in the EPUs included having one agent coordinator for each program unit and assigning agents according to their area of special interest. In some EPUs, Extension assistants were employed for youth responsibilities.

Five pilot sites were targeted in 1986 to test the feasibility of implementing program units across the state. After the two-year pilot, 21 EPUs were formed. The five pilot program units established in 1987, and the 16 EPUs established in 1989, replaced 87 single-county program units (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Nebraska programming units.

Four assessments conducted over a six-year period tracked citizen concerns about reorganizing into multi-county units and identified citizen and staff opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness of EPUs in delivering the educational programs. The assessments were:

1. 1986 and 1988-Ten pre- and 10 post-focus group interviews with local citizens identified expectations and concerns as the EPUs were planned and initially implemented, and reactions to program quality along with their continuing concerns two years after the pilot sites were operational.

2. 1988-Five focus group interviews with staff in the five pilot sites identified staff feelings about program delivery and quality two years after the pilot EPUs became operational.

3. 1991-A mail survey completed by 52% of the Nebraska Association of County Extension Board members identified their reactions to and concerns about the EPUs' impact on delivering educational programs two years after all 21 program units became operational.

4. 1992-A mail survey completed by 61% of the Extension administrators, specialists, and agents identified staff feelings about the statewide EPU design two years after all 21 program units became operational.

Taken together, these four studies describe how a major structural reorganization in Cooperative Extension improved program delivery to lifelong learners in Nebraska.

After the pilot tests, agents and assistants indicated that reorganizing into EPUs presented new roles and new time demands for staff. Extension agents became more specialized as they focused on their specific area of expertise and they did more direct teaching. Agents spent more time planning and less total time preparing programs because they taught the programs throughout the unit rather than in just one county. Office service staff became more a part of the unit team as their roles were also targeted toward more specific tasks within the unit.

Advantages of EPUs cited by agents and assistants were that changes allowed them to divide their work according to subject- matter areas, audiences were larger, programming was more flexible, and different types of program delivery methods could be tried, resulting in a wider variety of programs. Matters they noted as needing attention and concentrated effort during the reorganization process were the development of open communication and teamwork among the EPU staff, feeling excessive time pressure in new roles, logistical problems in keeping all county office sites open, and public concern about the possibility of less emphasis on 4-H, or losing county identity, offices, and services.

After the pilot tests, clientele indicated restructuring supported their expectations that agent specialization would provide better quality programs with less duplication of effort and agents working across county lines would result in more indepth programming. Extension clientele no longer were concerned about agents having less time to offer the same types of services they'd offered in the past, the length of time taken for clientele to obtain information, a decrease in audience participation, agents duplicating roles of specialists, and clientele bypassing the local agent.

Travel time for Extension staff was still a concern two years after restructuring. However, it emerged as a major problem in only the most sparsely populated EPU pilot site.

After all program units were operational for two years, Extension board members had a favorable reaction to the statewide EPU system. They believed: program units were a positive and futuristic approach to programming beneficial in their counties, program depth had improved, EPUs made better use of agents' knowledge and skills, agents should give the overall direction for the youth program but have assistants run most of the youth programs, and county costs hadn't been affected.

Board members had a strong desire to keep organizational decision making, especially budget and facilities, with county Extension boards. There was strong support for maintaining an office in each county. They also felt program units could function best with one EPU Extension board along with individual county boards.

After all EPUs were operational for two years, agents and assistants felt the program unit concept was a future-oriented approach for Extension. They reported that program quality and quantity increased, participatory planning improved, sharing responsibilities for implementing programs with co-workers in other units improved programming, programming made better use of staff knowledge, skills, and training, and EPUs allowed them to personally make better use of their individual talents. Opinions about clientele having opportunities for program input into the EPUs were mixed, however, with about half agreeing while the other half disagreed. Administratively, paperwork had increased, but duplication of effort was reduced. Staff didn't feel agent time was distributed equitably among the counties. They believed the program units could function better with individual county boards in conjunction with an EPU issue advisory committee.

Reorganizing Nebraska's statewide Extension System into multicounty EPUs rather than single-county programming units was viewed by Extension staff and Extension board members as a positive and futuristic approach to programming beneficial to the county. Based on the staff and clientele reactions to reorganization in Nebraska, here are recommendations to Extension personnel involved in forming multicounty units:

1. Choose a team leader who can work effectively with staff and agency boards, and emphasize that all staff members must learn how to communicate effectively with all others in a multicounty unit. Teamwork and communication among staff and good public relations with local leaders and Extension users are required.

2. Recognize the strong desire to keep organizational decision making with county Extension boards, especially for budget and facilities. Encourage boards to form a multicounty board that will work cooperatively with individual county boards. However, any merging process needs thorough discussion before taking action; as much as two years may be needed for implementing a joint board.

3. Keep office sites open within each county as multicounty units are formed. Staff may need to establish one of the county offices as their "home office." In counties that aren't an agent's "home office," an agent may need to commit a proportionately higher share of attention so clientele don't feel neglected.

4. Divide staff responsibilities according to special areas of interest and hire new staff accordingly; employ assistants to organize and conduct routine activities; be alert for signs of staff burnout as they cover multiple sites.

5. Provide special opportunities for office service staff to adjust to changing roles and learn new specialized tasks for their own changing roles. especially in sparsely populated counties.

6. Provide opportunities for staff to gain additional information on how to effectively use alternative delivery methods.

Multicounty programming units allow Extension to better meet the needs of current clientele. While a major reorganization is never easy, making such a transition may be necessary for Extension's continued viability as a provider of informal adult education.

1. R. L. Johnson, Area Extension Work: A Pilot Study (Manhattan: Kansas State University, Extension Service, 1966).

2. R. Barnett and L. Louderback, "When Organizations Change," Journal of Extension, XIX (Summer 1971), 9-14.

3. G. K. Hutchins, "Evaluating County Clustering," Journal of Extension, XXX (Spring 1992), 17-19.