Will Cooperative Extension Survive the '90s?

When Ronald Reagan ran for his first term as president, he asked us to consider whether we were better off than four years earlier. The Cooperative Extension System in this country should ask itself the same question.

During 19 years in Extension, I have seen us reorganize, restructure, rename, review, report, and reminisce ourselves to where we are today-in trouble! Cooperative Extension is smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable than at any time in my memory.

Organizational health can't be measured simply by size alone, but growth or decline is a good indicator of where the system is going. Thus, it's helpful to compare our statistics with those of four years ago:

• What impact are programs making on the economic vitality, environmental quality, and human development of this nation?
• How many fewer agents and program assistants do we have?
• How many fewer faculty are providing research for our programs?
• What resources are available for program delivery, travel, and technology?
• How many fewer clientele are impacted by our programs?
• How many states and counties have either threatened, cut, or eliminated Cooperative Extension?

In the face of these diminished resources:

• How many counties have experienced a reduced need for Extension programs, or a reduced demand from clientele?
• How many staff members have simply spread themselves thinner handling more subject matter with fewer resources?
• How many program assistants are doing what agents used to do?

The answers to these questions should alarm us all. It doesn't have to be this way! Our current situation wasn't caused by federal, state, and local deficits alone. Much of it was brought on by our own complacency and fear of changing our mode of operation.

As I travel the country, teaching staff how to market Extension programs, I'm struck by what I see and hear. Shrinking resources haven't convinced state and federal Extension leaders to devote adequate resources to marketing, media, and technology. Extension must realize these are the basic tools necessary for Extension to support and deliver programs in this technological age. What business or private college would operate without them? We're sending our staff members out into an increasingly sophisticated world. Do we really expect them to do the job with the same tools we provided for their predecessors 50 years ago? It simply can't work.

Extension must also face the fact we require new sources of revenue to provide needed educational programs. We must begin to charge user fees for our educational services whenever practical. The European extension systems learned this years ago. We seem shackled by a conservative, outdated mindset that says, because we're in part government funded, we can't charge for our programs. When is the last time you took a class at a public university or went to a state park for free? We know these institutions are government funded; however, we understand that user fees are essential to maintain their programs. Why should Extension be so different? Clearly, government funding isn't adequate to provide the level of programs our communities need from Extension. Nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. Realistic fee structures, grants, contracts with other agencies, private funding, and other nontraditional support will be essential to maintain a viable Extension System. If legal impediments to this exist, we must inform our legislators they have three choices: allowing us to supplement our public funding through fees and other revenues, supplying adequate public funding for our programs, or eliminating Cooperative Extension.

Many public officials are again speaking about creating systems to disseminate research from universities to the private sector to solve business and community problems. It's ironic that the one institution that's been doing that effectively for over 75 years is fighting for its survival.

As a veteran Extension agent, having worked in two states and four counties as a 4-H agent and now as the administrator of an Extension organization with a six-million dollar budget and a staff of more than 100, I firmly believe Extension has great potential, but alarms are sounding. If we only respond with more strategic planning, more reorganization, more regionalization, and more reports, we won't survive until the year 2000. If we get serious about new ways of funding, marketing, and delivering our programs, we can rebuild a proactive organization that truly meets the needs of Americans and makes a significant impact on the critical issues facing this country. We can build a foundation for a stronger, more effective Extension System for the future. Time is running out. Will we act?