Extension Forestry in the U.S.: A national review of state-level programs

1

© 2013 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

11

Extension Forestry in the United States: A NATIONAL REVIEW OF STATE-LEVEL PROGRAMS

Eli Sagor, Amanda Kueper, Charles Blinn, and Dennis Becker

2


Workshops

4


Online survey

Census of 50 state-level Extension Forestry program leaders

November 2011 – February 2012

100% response rate

Telephone focus groups

One for leaders of large state-level programs: ≥9 FTE

One for leaders of small programs: ≤1.7 FTE

Administered by phone, 90 minutes

Two-stage data collection

5


Survey results

FTE Capacity

FTE capacity positively correlated with number of audience segments “specifically targeted”

r = 0.590, P < 0.001

Audiences

8


Content: Topics taught

9


TopicsRight side: % states teaching topic MORE now than 5 years ago

Left side: % states teaching topic LESS now than 5 years ago

10


Topics taught MORE now:

11


Topics taught LESS now:

12


Formats

13


Formats

14


Formats used MORE now:

15


Formats used LESS now:

16


Focus group results

17


FundingMany report reductions in funds and FTE capacity:

“…we’ve lost people significantly. We’ve lost three key Extension specialists, and three field agents with no money to replace any of those people. So, you know, the work has just been spread around among the people that remain.”

18


Shift to competitive funding

Increasing volatility from year to year

Challenge for long-range planning

Programs end when funding expires

Benefit: Increased coordination, partnerships

Challenges meeting needs of tradition-bound audiences

19


Shift to competitive funding

Transition more challenging for small programs

Morale: “We’re one funding cycle away from real problems.”

20


Shift to digital communications and peer learning“We feel like this is just… the wave of the future, this technology is how more and more people are communicating and getting information, and if we’re not a part of this game…, we’re just going to be left behind.”

Opportunity and necessity

21


Discussion

22


Doing more with less

Flickr: Morbuto (source)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/janekm/215294209/

23


Changing content

More instruction on forest health, climate, digital mapping.

Few topics dropped: Expanding portfolio.

24


Changing relationships between Extension and learnersMore efficient, more accessible, but less direct?

More coordination across agencies, organizations.

25


Opportunity: More targeting

Focus on narrower audience segments most likely to produce positive impact.

But… Tradition-bound audiences, public support?

26


Conclusions

Extension is a bridge between profession and public

Expanding content portfolio and delivery toolkit

Funding changes affect small and large state programs differently

27

© 2013 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this PowerPoint is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to the Extension Store at 800-876-8636.

Eli [email protected](612) 624-6948

Amanda KueperCharlie BlinnDennis Becker

mailto:[email protected]

Extension Forestry in the U.S.: A national review of state-level programs

Education

university of minnesota

funding cycle

conclusions extension

extension store

leaders of small programs

small programs morale

level programs eli sagor

competitive funding