University of Georgia Cooperative Extension 2010 Review of County Delivery Input from County Officials Delivered to Steering Committee for Review of County.

University of Georgia Cooperative Extension2010

Review of County Delivery

Input from County Officials

Delivered to Steering Committee for Review of County Operations

August 16, 2010

BACKGROUND

• County official input solicited via e-mailed invitation from ACCG Executive Director Ross King

• Invitation sent to 1000 county officials (commissioners, clerks, managers/administrators)

• 244 completed surveys (response rate > 24%)• Respondents represented 125 unique counties

(ranged from 1 response per county [N=58] to 12 responses per county [N=1])

• 9 respondents did not identify their county

Demographics of Responding Officials

Official Type• 59.5% (138) Elected Officials• 40.5% (94) Appointed Officials• 12 respondents did not identify

themselves

County Population• 15.0% (35) “small” [ < 10,000]• 59.2% (138) “medium” [10,000 –

50,000]• 25.7% (60) “large” [ > 50,000]• 11 respondents did not identify

themselves

SURVEY QUESTIONS (41)

• Value of Extension program/service types (18)

• Value of Extension program/service delivery methods (12)

• Return on Investment made in Extension (1)• Extension staffing models (3)• Potential collaboration with other counties (2)• Extension funding strategies (1)• Other (1)• Demographics (3)

Life Skills Citizenship and Youth Leadership

Youth in Agriculture Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

53.5%51.0%

42.1%

37.2%

82.7% 83.9%

78.9%75.6%

Rated 10Rated 8-10

Value of Extension program/service types: 4-H Youth

Value of Extension program/service types: FACS

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

35.7%32.9%

30.3% 29.9%26.3%

22.3%

73.4%71.6%

67.2% 65.6% 67.0%

59.1%

Rated 10

Rated 8-10

Value of Extension program/service types: A&NR

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

36.1% 34.9%32.1%

28.0% 27.6% 27.0%

20.2% 18.5%

74.7% 74.4%71.7%

69.4%65.2% 63.5%

56.9%53.0%

Rated 10

Rated 8-10

Return on Investment (by county size)

1 St

rong

ly D

isa.

.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

Importance of Full-time CEC (by county size)

1 St

rong

ly D

isa.

.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

1 St

rong

ly D

isag

ree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

10

20

30

40

50

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

Paraprofessionals in lieu of Agents (by county size)

1 St

rong

ly D

isa.

.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

5

10

15

20

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

Willingness to collaborate in support of CEA’s (by county size)

1 St

rong

ly D

isagr

ee 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

5

10

15

20

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

Willingness to collaborate in support of CEC’s (by county size)

1 St

rong

ly D

isagr

ee 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 S

trong

ly A

gree

0

5

10

15

20

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

If Extension office were to be closed, which funding strategies would you consider? (by county size)

Increase amount of local county funding 20-30%

Maintain current funding but collaborate with a neighboring county to fund Extension per-

sonnel

Support a property tax levy exclusively designated for Ex-

tension

Increase user fees for Exten-sion programs and/or services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

more than 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 25,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 25,000 0 - 10,000

“The service ____ County receives for the dollars spent on our Extension Service is amazing. They manage to do so much with so little. It is an incredibly popular agency in our community and the thought that their head is always on the "chopping block" when UGA officials look for cost savings makes no sense to me. This is the one agency in almost every county in Georgia that represents a presence of UGA locally. I certainly hope there is a way to save the Extension Service. It is the one local agency that is all positive government in the eyes of the public.”

[ OPEN-ENDED: POSITIVE ]

“In my opinion the extension service can be much more viable entity if the county residents were educated on the advantages and the services offered.”

[ OPEN-ENDED: SUGGESTIVE ]

“I have constituents telling me all the time, ‘the Extension Service is no longer needed with the internet. 4-H should be funded by the school system, not county government.’ ”

[ OPEN-ENDED: NEGATIVE ]

QUESTIONS ?

SUGGESTIONS ?

THANK YOU!