John G. Richardson
Ext. Prog. Del. & Acct. Leader
North Carolina State University

Joy Staton
County Extension Director
North Carolina Cooperative Extension

Ken Bateman
County Extension Director
North Carolina Cooperative Extension

Clayton E. Hutcheson
County Extension Director
Florida Cooperative Extension Service

Abstract

From its inception, Cooperative Extension has a history of being accountable for its programs and funding. With accountability continuously becoming of even greater importance, plans and proactive efforts must be undertaken to assure that useful program accomplishment information is made available to identified audiences in an aggressive manner. Yet, remaining continuously vigilant to the changing circumstances or political landscapes within a county or state is a critical must to assure that when questions of the value of Extension programs arise, its programs and budgets can withstand the scrutiny. Three case studies are described in which proactive measures have been undertaken to have program information information readily available and providing needed accountability information in a timely manner to policy makers and citizens. Changing political directions in the county governments and their implications are explained. Significant accountability measures prior to certain policy shifts, during the stressful period that resulted, and following the shifts, resulted in strong Extension programs being able to fend off adversity or to even gain greater support. In circumstances of political tranquility or in periods of great change, a large measure of organizational risk can be avoided by keeping Extension's accountability a step ahead of inevitable changing circumstances.

Introduction

Since its initial authorization, the United States Cooperative Extension System has always had to be accountable by law (Rasmussen, 1989). This accountability requirement is dictated by the federal government. While this accountability requirement is longstanding, any veteran extension worker knows from experience that many other entities expect and often require a multiplicity of accountability functions as well. As its name implies, Cooperative Extension has partners other than the federal government. These partners are the states and counties or cities who provide taxpayer funding, as well as numerous other groups or individuals. Each of these entities may expect or demand their own accountability information which may be quite different than what others expect. Such expectations can provide excellent opportunities for Extension to tell its story, but some expectations can create major pitfalls that if unattended or misjudged can lead to disastrous outcomes through reduced funding, employee layoffs, and office closures. These negative situations createcircumstance that Extension prefers to avoid. In seeking to avoid accountability misjudgments, the opportunity exists for proactivity on the part of Extension to provide the right information to the right people at the right time in the right format (NCCESTMTF, 1998). The key is to actively perform these rights insuch a manner that few if any accountability surprises occur that may have negative consequences.

This paper examines three case studies in which changed political or other circumstances resulted in Extension moving from the known to the unknown in meeting accountability requirements to positively meeting these changes. These case studies as well as inferences from similar circumstances that have occurred in other Extension locations appear to give some indicators th at may be useful for establishing an ongoing accountability system. If so, assurances of some degree of organizational protection may be provided, even when major political or other situational changes occur.

Results

A Western North Carolina County Experience

In a county located in western North Carolina, changing situations has placed all county departments on alert for policy changes. The county has a rapidly growing retirement community in addition to its strong agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Cooperative Extension has consistently maintained strong programs that have been driven by considerable citizen involvement in planning, implementing, and marketing its programs. The Extension staff has been on the forefront in utilizing program impact information in its communications to elected officials, clientele, the general public, its advisory committees, and to other local groups. The accountability efforts by Extension have been labeled as exemplary by administrators of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES). The staff s approach to publishing success stories that verify significant program impacts on the community and its citizens has been seen as a model and has been used in training presentations by NCCES both in North Carolina and in other states as well. Accolades have been given to the staff by the Governor of North Carolina, as well as some county commissioners and many citizens.

Over the past years, the county commissioners have consistently supported the Extension program in a positive manner and have been very receptive of the county Extension program. In the last couple of elections however, new people have been elected that know little about Extension or agriculture and typically are not originally from the area.

Under these changing political circumstances, in addition to the many accountability efforts delineated, even more efforts were focused specificallyon internal accountability. The county Extension director (CED) shared program information at county department head meetings. A quarterly packet of program information goes to the county manager, with all brochures, flyers, etc., indicating program activities, citizen involvement and program impacts. New commissioners were given information about Extension along with a letter from the county Extension director. The commissioners and county manager are invited to the annual Extension Highlights report to the people. Usually three out of the five commissioners attend. The Extension staff discusses programs with commissioners when the opportunity arises. This includes chairing Farm-City Day activities as well as being included in county volunteer recognition ceremonies by being asked to provide the keynote address.

Changed Circumstances Requiring Program Defense

In 1999, a generally conservative fiscal climate was set by the Board of Commissioners and supported by the county manager. Each county department was instructed to justify its programs or face budget reductions or elimination. Subsequently, some departments were faced with reduced budgets. Cooperative Extension, however, used its program impact data as well as its strong citizen support to fend off any reductions. In gaining approval for filling a vacant agent position, the Extension Advisory group played a pivotal role in influencing the commissioners to match the state share of the position, and the position was subsequently filled. Without such citizen support, the initial indications from the board were that there would be difficulty in securing approval for the position.

Present Situation

As a result of its many proactive and ongoing accountability and program marketing efforts, Cooperative Extension was able to engender needed support even as other departments were suffering. Some county departments have had people dismissed, and there have been personnel shifts in other departments. Each county department is going through an intensive review by the commissioners, but no negative actions have befallen Cooperative Extension. The CED credits the sustained accountability efforts of the staff and citizen supporters for enabling the county center to satisfactorily weather intense budget and program cuts in county government.

Johnston County Extension Faced Changed Situation

Johnston County is located in the east central part of North Carolina. It is adjacent to the bustling metropolitan areas of the Research Triangle, which includes Raleigh and Durham as the two largest cities. The county hashistorically been a major agricultural county, but it now has the fastest growing population in the state. With this rapid growth, the demographics of the county have changed dramatically. With these changing demographics, political change has also occurred.

For many years the members on the Board of Commissioners has predominantly been of one party. The composition of the citizens of Johnston County is changing, and the past two elections have changed the composition of the board to another political party. The resulting change in controlling parties resulted in the county manager of about 18 years being dismissed. Obviously, a new county manager was employed who was more suitable to the majority of the Board of County Commissioners. Very quickly, it became evident that the new administration had a greater interest in accountability than had the long-entrenched administration that was ousted. The CED reported that emphasis was now being placed on impacts of programs of each of the county departments rather than on each agency's activities.

Past Accountability Functions

Historically, Johnston County Extension has had a program of accountability for the county administration and the general public. The problem was that from the Extension staff's point of view, they never knew if the administrators were listening. The Johnston County Extension Director stated that ... we never really knew if they were getting our message. We were going through the motions and our faithful (advisory groups) were listening, but we did not know about the commissioners.

However, the staff persevered in their accountability efforts. Each month, individual staff members completed a Commissioners' Report providing statistical information on the number of group activities, the number of individual contacts and the use of mass media. Also included was a short narrative of staff activities for the month. A summary was prepared and delivered to the County Manager's office for inclusion in the monthly agenda for the commissioner's monthly meeting. The CED stated that ... program effectiveness was never addressed. We were trying to earn their favor through good works.

In addition to the Commissioner's Report, each year the Extension staff invited the Extension Advisory Council and county commissioners to a Report to the People Luncheon, where the staff gave a yearly summary of their activities. They always gave a written report for the commissioners to take with them. For many years the report was a book, but it was finally acknowledged that it was not being read. Then, the staff report was changed in format to a bulletin, but it was deemed to be no better than the book: The staff observed that most copies were simply being left on the table where the commissioners had sat.

A shift has now been made whereby only a one-page summary is provided in the Commissioner Report each month. The summary is very brief, with the individual narratives focusing exclusively on program impacts on county citizens rather than on Extension program activities. This changed focus to an impact-laden single-page summary has proven to be quite popular with the Commissioners as well as the county manager. Also, a single sheet entitled "Johnston County Success Stories" has proven especially popular with the Commissioners. Again, the success story leaflet contains only people successes resulting from Extension's programs. The commissioners have requested copies of these success story leaflets to hand out at functions in which they are speaking. They have indicated that the success stories demonstrate that the tax dollars they are appropriating for Extension are producing real impacts on county citizens. Indeed, they are using the success stories to use as a blanket description of how they are efficiently spending taxpayers' money.

Impacts on Extension Programs From Political Change

Even though the entire political landscape changed in Johnston County rather quickly, Cooperative Extension's programs were never threatened. Credit for this positive development came about because of the long-standing efforts of Extension to involve and educate a large number of county citizens about its programs. An active Advisory Leadership System gave structure to the citizen support and input efforts. Also, a continuous program marketing effort through local newspaper reports helped citizens to be aware of Extension's presence in the county and of its many activities. However, the staff s ability to recognize and immediately respond to the shifting requirements toward program impacts rather than activities helped to endear Extension in the commissioners minds, as a county agency that is worthy of strong support. As a result, during the past two years, Extension's budget has been increased 30% and an additional county-funded agent position has been added as well. Proactive accountability and continuous program marketing has proven to be effective for Johnston County Extension. The shift to reporting program impacts rather than activities has been the impetus for significantly increased support in this new political landscape.

Palm Beach County Makes Proactive Adjustments

Palm Beach County, Florida, is a heavily populated county of 1,040,000 with seemingly polar opposites. On its west side, a major production agriculturalindustry of 565,000 acres exists, while the east side is a major population center with significant industry and tourism. Changing political circumstances in the early 1990s along with a national trend toward increased expectations for accountability significantly impacted Palm Beach County's Extension program.

The difficulty with the county budget was in 1993. It was during the recession and a reinventing-government emphasis by the Board of County Commissioners. Several new commissioners had been recently elected. The chair was new, and she had a point to make. The whole issue was exacerbated by the economic slump. With the Cooperative Extension Service, then titled the County Agriculture Department, being at the top of the budget workshop list, all of the budget issues came to Extension first.

Response to Adversity

As a result of the threats on its budget, Extension formed a group of citizens, while the budget process was ongoing, to look at what Extension was about and to recommend some changes. These were a cross section of people who were Extension's friends and some who knew nothing about the agency. In the end they did a report suggesting changes that should be made.

At that time the recommendations called for Extension to look for more funding from sources other than the county, charge for some programming, hire a public relations director and take other action.

Upon analyzing the recommendations in retrospect, a primary factor that made Extension much stronger in Palm Beach County has been the acquisition of more grants and other funding. While it hasn't generated tremendous amounts of dollars, the county budget narrative for the Department is used to communicate and reflect county funding, grants, state funding and private support. The latter has been running about $250,000 a year. The support of the Friends of the Mounts Botanical Garden is significant. This support group, started by the County Extension office in 1983 for the office s botanical garden, has helped to focus and capture support from the urban horticulture audience.

With outside funding coming in, the county has never said, "We will cut your budget because you have more dollars and don t need as much county support." Instead, in at least two cases, matching funds from the county have been provided when a grant from someone else became available. It appears more aggressive efforts in seeking outside funds generates more respect from the county thereby, creating a stronger partnership.

Extension Looked to for Leadership

In 1994 the county was funding a strong economic development program, and they wanted to do something to "stabilize, diversify and enhance" agriculture. They provided Extension $500,000 to conduct agricultural economic development programming. An agricultural enhancement council was formed to meet monthly and give Extension consultation and guidance. It is still ongoing with a $200,000 annual budget. It is a challenging effort with the county expectation of new jobs, new businesses and creation of value added products providing a great deal of pressure to succeed. The deputy county administrator selected Extension to be the lead, and 5 years later it is being funded as an annual supplemental budget request. Agriculture sales are at $1 billion annually, which has prompted the county commissioners to acknowledge its importance and help maintain its viability.

As a county department, Extension has attempted to take advantage of anything that will allow any Extension agent to be involved in projects that are of great importance to the county commissioners. This has included the restoration/clean-up of the Lake Worth Lagoon (the inter-coastal waterway in Palm Beach County). Several Extension agents have been intensely involved inassisting in resolving issues relating to the agricultural reserve which is receiving tremendous pressure for urban development.

Supporter Involvement

During the budget crisis in 1993, Extension reached out to involve its supporters. However, the CED was threatened by the chair of the board of county commissioners with his job if the supporters got too carried away. Since that time, however, that same county commissioner has been described as a reasonable person and has said a few nice things about Extension from time to time. During that time, for one year, a decision was made to keep the Extension office open on Saturdays to see if more people could be served. This experiment did not help much and caused considerable morale problems among the staff. Since then, the office has reverted to being open Monday - Friday, although the botanical garden is open seven days a week.

The botanical garden support group is very close to finalizing a deal with the county for 100 more acres to develop a major new botanical garden attraction on their own, that will be privatized. It is anticipated to be a $30 million capital project. The county has committed $1 million, and a private donor is to commit $5 million before the end of the year.

Ultimate Outcome

In a retrospective analysis, Extension did some of the things that the study committee suggested in 1993 but not all of them. A publicity person was never hired. Extra funds have been raised. Restructuring the local Extension office was not significant. The Family and Consumer Sciences program, which was most in jeopardy, was retained and strengthened. It resulted in the Family and Consumer Sciences program leader going for grants where there had not been the stimulus before. There are almost $200,000 in the Family Nutrition Program grant. An additional grant with the city of West Palm Beach for $20,000 provides a half-time Extension agent to work with first-time home buyers to insure they do the saving and money management necessary to keep their home. To date there have been zero defaults, and more than 80 homes have been purchased.

Extension charges for some of the programs. There is a very large landscape industry in the county. The professional landscape industry personnel were continually wanting to send their personnel to the Master Gardener training but never returned the volunteer time. A 15-week professional landscapemanagement (PLM) course was created, very similar to the Master Gardener program, and is offered once a year. There is a $250 registration fee with 20-25 persons generally enrolled. When they pay their $250, they are serious. Other programs have fees, but the PLM course is the most expensive. Two 16-session courses for sugar cane growers have been conducted with only $25 for registration.

Orientation for new county commissioners has been conducted but with mixed results. The botanical garden effort has brought some key Extension supporters in contact with county commissioners, and this has benefitted the entire Extension program.

Conclusion and Implications

Each of these case studies indicate the use of many key components of an effective accountability system. Obviously, Cooperative Extension s programs themselves must be effective. Also, the programs must be inclusive and meaningful to its audiences. With this inclusiveness comes the need for Extension to communicate within those audiences the many impacts that are occurring among program participants. Furthermore, other audiences, including the general public, need to be informed of program successes. These informational initiatives must be planned and maintained as an ongoing component of an Extension program. Then, with changing circumstances and situations inevitable, Extension will be prepared to proactively meet in asuccessful manner adverse circumstances that may arise.

To be effective, Extension must package its accountability efforts using the same criteria that it uses to package it educational programs. It has to be put in a format that the user can understand and interpret. It must be concise and yet have a punch that will be worthwhile to the end user. While Extension clientele seek information that is relevant to their situations, the people appropriating tax dollars want information that will assure voters that they are using the money in an efficient manner.

As a nonmandated public entity, Cooperative Extension must continuously project its program impacts in order to keep an established rationale for public funding. In order to accomplish this, public relations and program marketing efforts must be a prime consideration. Gone are the days when some of the commissioners or legislators grew up on a farm or had grandparents in farming. Many of the new commissioners or legislators being elected have never heard of Cooperative Extension. The question should be asked, if we are doing allof these wonderful things, why have some people never even heard that Extension exists? Many Extension employees function much like worker bees, by working and producing program impacts, but are often very poor marketers of those impacts resulting from Extension s programs. Unfortunately, there is often a lack of appreciation for the need to market Extension programs until it is too late or great pressure is being exerted. In this regard, there is apathy among many agents, and they may be described as wishing to hide from view (Boyle, 1999). These people are usually very dedicated individuals who are doing their job well and feel that is enough for the program to market itself. Yet, in the competition among agencies for public money, those who expect their good work to communicate its worth may come up woefully short.

The key to having the competing edge is to be focused. Extension brings many resources to the table and often claims that it can deliver all of these resources from the universities. However, in reality, there is only a certain amount Extension can do and do well. It is better to focus on the things that it does best and use them as the cornerstone of its programs. Often, people may question why Extension is involved in so many different things. However, we must continuously ask ourselves and those we serve, what their real needs are so that we can implement programs that have real impact on them as well as on the communities in which they live. Likely, the reason Extension is still viable after all these years is that its programs are quite different than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. The probable reason for this continued viability is that through the advisory committee process that depends strongly on citizen involvement, the organization is working to solve those problems of today and isn't still working on those problems of 10 years ago. This is probably even more so in those counties that are themselves undergoing significant change. As program shifts are made, it is important to effectively communicate Extension's programs and resulting impacts to elected officials to avoid the possibility of confusing them as to our programs, or appearing to be a little of everything and the answer to everything that needs fixing.

Programs that produce real results among real people with the active involvement of those real people are the ones that gain the support of policy makers. Effectively communicating the impacts of those programs to the correct audiences should also be a major focus. To accomplish this, programs must be understood and appreciated. Sustainability of needs-based programs is an important component for gaining familiarity with, impacts from, and the support needed for Cooperative Extension.

Political change is in evitable in our society, and with political change, there are usually policy shifts that reflect the changing circumstances. As shown in the case studies presented in this paper, the changes can be of a threatening manner, or quite positive. Program relevance that is founded upon effective listening and responding to clientele continues to be the foundation to assuring that attacks can be positively deflected. Empowerment of Extension's programs by and with the people has been shown to be the most effective means for program accountability. A proactive effort must be implemented and continuously maintained in order to tell Extension's story and adequately deal with changed situations and policies. While questions of relevance and program viability may be expected to arise at times, an adroit accountability effort that is well-planned and implemented which explains Extension's program impacts can help to keep at least a step ahead of threatening situations or events.

References

Boyle, P. (1999, June). Evaluation use...what do stakeholders want to know about our programs? Three stakeholder perspectives. A panel conducted at a providing leadership for program evaluation conference, Madison, Wisconsin.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension System Targeted Marketing Task Force (1998).Targeted marketing for accountability information. Task force report, NC State University, Raleigh, and NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC. May, 1998.

Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people-seventy-five years of cooperative extension. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.