FACTORS INFLUENCING DELIVERY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAMS TO URBAN AUDIENCES By Marie A. Ruemenapp A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Planning, Design and Construction – Doctor of Philosophy 2018 ABSTRACT FACTORS INFLUENCING DELIVERY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAMS TO URBAN AUDIENCES By Marie A. Ruemenapp This study employed a two-stage exploratory research design to empirically collect, verify and analyze the challenges and barriers that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programming and resources to urban residents. Each stage of the study was designed to build on the previous stage and to accomplish different objective. Stage one and two were designed to identify the barriers and challenges. The study found that the barriers and challenges that the Cooperative Extension Service encounters in its work in cities and metropolitan settings fall into five large theme areas, with a number of sub-themes. The first is the Environmental Conditions in which the Cooperative Extension Service operates and its staff work. The factors identified separated into two distinct and distinguishable sub-areas. The first set was around the Urban Context and the second were around the Cooperative Extension Service’s History and Culture. The second large barrier area was the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership, which encompasses the organizational leadership responsibilities or actions that affect the work of the staff and the organization in cities and metropolitan settings. The Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations in communities was the third place the study identified barriers. The Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations include such things as staffing, local offices and their operations, as well as program content and delivery. This barrier area broke down into five sub-areas. Two of them were around staffing - the paid Cooperative Extension Service Staff and the unpaid Volunteer staff. Two were around educational programming - the Educational Program Content and the Educational Program Delivery Methods. The fifth sub-barrier was urban Best Practices. The fourth large barrier area the study identified was the Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service. The two elements that study found that influenced the Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service were Extension’s community Partnerships and the Community Engagement Models that Extension uses to interact with urban residents and communities. The last large barrier area that the study identified was the Cooperative Extension Service’s Community Image in urban centers. This dissertation provides a discussion of these five large barrier areas, and their sub- areas, and puts forth detailed lists of specific barriers or challenges that the Cooperative Extension Service encounters in each of them. It concludes with a discussion of policy implications and recommendations for potential next steps, along with a few suggestions about potential future research to continue to move this field of study and the Cooperative Extension Service forward in its ability to provide expanded and relevant educational programs and resources to urban residents. This dissertation is dedicated to my mother who always supported and believed in me. You always made me believe that I could accomplish anything that I set my mind to. Thank you for instilling in me the courage to try and for helping me to believe in myself. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Zenia Kotval, for the support, advice and friendship she provided to me, all the way from when I was first considering applying to a doctoral program through the completion of this degree. Without her guidance and tenacious prodding this dissertation would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Brad Gaolach, Patricia Machemer, Mark Wilson, and Igor Vojnovic for their friendly guidance, thought provoking suggestions, and the general collegiality that each of them has offered to me. In addition, I want to thank Drs. Michelle Rodgers and Tom Coon, who supported and encouraged me to pursue my PhD; Dr. Scott Loveridge for the financial and moral support he provided to my research; and my employer, Michigan State University Extension, for allowing me the time to attend classes, conduct my research and write this dissertation. I would want to thank my family and friends. Especially my sister Chris who transcribed the countless hours of interview transcripts and assisted with editing this dissertation. My niece Julie for her encouragement and the guacamole and chips that got me through some of the long hours of writing. I also want to thank my new group of PhD student friends for their support, feedback, and friendship. You were always willing to listen to my grips when I was down and able to lift my spirits. Your successes inspired me to keep moving forward. I wish you the best as we are all moving on to bigger and better things with the completion of our PhDs. Lastly, I would like to thank my National Urban Extension Leaders colleagues from across the country. Without your input, feedback and participation I would not have been able v to conduct my research. I appreciate the interest you have already shown in this dissertation and the findings and conclusions presented in it. I hope my works lives up to your expectations and helps provide insights for the Cooperative Extension Service system to enhance and expand its work in urban and metropolitan settings. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. xii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ xiii CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 GAP IN KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................................................... 3 PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................... 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................... 5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................ 8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 9 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION ........................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2 – RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 13 EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT ................................................................................................ 14 RESEARCH APPROACH .............................................................................................................. 15 Research approach to philosophical worldview ............................................................... 15 Research approach to research design ............................................................................. 17 Researcher approach to research methods ..................................................................... 19 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................. 20 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING BARRIERS/CHALLENGES .................................. 22 DECRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 24 STAGE 1: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE & DOCUMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS ........................... 26 Collection of the documents for analysis ......................................................................... 27 Coding and analysis of the documents ............................................................................. 30 Development of a list of barriers and/or challenges ........................................................ 34 STAGE 2: INTERVIEWS WITH KEY EXTENSION STAKEHOLDERS ................................................ 36 Identification of key Extension stakeholders to interview ............................................... 38 Key Extension stakeholder interviews .............................................................................. 40 Development of a list of barriers and/or challenges ........................................................ 44 CHAPTER 3 – STAGE ONE: THEORETICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 48 LITERATURE MAP ...................................................................................................................... 48 EXTENSION CONNECTIONS TO PLANNING THEORY AND PRACTICE ........................................ 51 Incrementalism ................................................................................................................. 52 Communicative Planning .................................................................................................. 54 Advocacy Planning ............................................................................................................ 55 Citizen Participation .......................................................................................................... 57 URBAN CONDITIONS IMPACTING EXTENSION WORK .............................................................. 57 vii COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LITERATURE ..................................................................... 59 Cooperative Extension Service history ............................................................................. 62 Cooperative Extension work in urban context ................................................................. 63 HIGHER EDUCATION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .................................................................. 66 History of higher education’s engagement in community ............................................... 66 Community engagement models...................................................................................... 77 University-community partnerships ................................................................................. 80 PRACTITIONER THEORY IN LITERATURE ................................................................................... 81 Lack of a national Extension urban agenda ...................................................................... 82 Limited or declining resources .......................................................................................... 83 Cooperative Extension Service history and its politics ..................................................... 84 Programming designed for urban audiences ................................................................... 85 Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 87 CHAPTER 4 – STAGE 1 FINDINGS: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS .................................... 89 URBAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 92 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LEADERSHIP ..................................................................... 94 GENERAL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY OPERATIONS ............................. 98 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE STAFFING ....................................................................... 100 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE VOLUNTEER STAFFING .................................................. 103 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAM CONTENT ..................................................... 104 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAM DELIVERY ..................................................... 106 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................ 108 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY IMAGE ..................................................... 111 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY .......................................... 113 POST STAGE 1 RESEARCH SCHEME CONCEPT MAP ................................................................ 115 SUMMARY AND USAGE OF FINDINGS IN STAGE 2 OF STUDY ................................................ 117 CHAPTER 5 – STAGE 2 FINDINGS: KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ........................................... 119 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 121 Urban Context ................................................................................................................. 122 Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture ....................................................... 125 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LEADERSHIP ................................................................... 129 General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership ....................................................... 130 Leadership for the Allocation of Resources .................................................................... 135 Management of External Pressures ................................................................................ 137 Management of the Land-Grant University Relationship............................................... 140 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY OPERATONS ............................................ 142 Cooperative Extension Service Staff ............................................................................... 143 Volunteers ....................................................................................................................... 147 Educational Program Content ......................................................................................... 150 Educational Program Delivery Methods ......................................................................... 154 Urban Best Practices ....................................................................................................... 161 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................ 163 viii Partnerships .................................................................................................................... 164 Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models ................................. 170 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY IMAGE ..................................................... 174 POST STAGE 2 RESEARCH SCHEME CONCEPT MAP ................................................................ 179 SUMMARY AND USAGE OF FINDINGS IN STAGE 3 OF STUDY ................................................ 184 CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSION OF FINDINGS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ......................................... 186 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 188 ADDRESSING THE CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................ 192 POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 203 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 212 APPENDIX A – STAGE 1: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CODE LIST .................................................... 213 APPENDIX B – STAGE 2: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM ........................................................... 220 APPENDIX C – STAGE 2: SAMPLES OF KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW GUIDES ..................... 222 APPENDIX D – STAGE 2: DRAFT LIST OF FACTOR .................................................................... 229 APPENDIX E – STAGE 2: KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS CODE LIST ..................................... 231 APPENDIX F – STAGE 3: EXTENSION STAFF SURVEY ............................................................... 247 APPENDIX G – COMPLETE LIST OF URBAN PLAN BARRIERS/CHALLENGES ............................ 254 APPENDIX H – STAGE 2: KEY STAKEHOLDER BARRIERS/CHALLENGES ................................... 261 APPENDIX I – COMPARISON OF BARRIERS/CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED IN STAGE 1 & 2 .......... 270 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 277 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Barker Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices .............................................................. 78 Table 4.1: Stage 1 - Urban Environment Barriers/Challenges ...................................................... 93 Table 4.2: Stage 1 - CES Leadership Barriers/Challenges ............................................................. 95 Table 4.3: Stage 1 - General CES Operations Barriers/Challenges ............................................... 99 Table 4.4: Stage 1 - CES Staff Barriers/Challenges ...................................................................... 101 Table 4.5: Stage 1 - Volunteer Barriers/Challenges .................................................................... 103 Table 4.6: Stage 1 - CES Program Content Barriers/Challenges ................................................. 105 Table 4.7: Stage 1 - CES Program Delivery Barriers/Challenges ................................................. 107 Table 4.8: Stage 1 - CES Community Engagement Barriers/Challenges ..................................... 109 Table 4.9: Stage 1 - CES Community Image Barriers/Challenges ............................................... 112 Table 4.10: Stage 1 - CES Organizational History Barriers/Challenges ....................................... 114 Table 5.1: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers/Challenges .............. 123 Table 5.2: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – History & Culture Barriers/Challenges .......... 126 Table 5.3: Stage 2 - CES Leadership - General Leadership Barriers/Challenges ......................... 131 Table 5.4: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – Allocation of Resources Barriers/Challenges .................. 136 Table 5.5: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – External Pressures Barriers/Challenges .......................... 138 Table 5.6: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – LGU Relationship Barriers/Challenges ............................ 141 Table 5.7: Stage 2 - Community Operations – CES Staff Barriers/Challenges ............................ 145 Table 5.8: Stage 2 - Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers/Challenges ......................... 148 Table 5.9: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Program Content Barriers/Challenges .............. 151 x Table 5.10: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Delivery Methods Barriers/Challenges ........... 156 Table 5.11: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Best Practices Barriers/Challenges .................. 162 Table 5.12: Stage 2 - Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers/Challenges .................. 165 Table 5.13: Stage 2 - Community Engagement – Models Barriers/Challenges .......................... 171 Table 5.14: Stage 2 - CES Community Image Barriers/Challenges ............................................. 176 Table 6.1: Final List of Environmental Conditions – Urban Context and CES History & Culture Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors .................................................................................................... 194 Table 6.2: Final List of Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Sub -Barrier/Challenge Factors ..................................................................................................................................................... 195 Table 6.3: Final List of CES Community Operations – Staff, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Models and Best Practice Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors ..................................................................................................................................................... 196 Table 6.4: Final List of CES Community Engagement – Partnerships and Community Engagement Models Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors ....................................................................................... 198 Table 6.5: Final List of CES Community Image Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors .......................... 199 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Creswell's Modified Research Approach Framework ................................................. 14 Figure 2.2: Research Approach Framework for this Study ........................................................... 19 Figure 2.3: Post Literature Review Research Scheme Concept Map ............................................ 23 Figure 2.4: Research Design of Study ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.1: Concept Map of Theoretical Literature Map .............................................................. 50 Figure 3.2: Franz Engaged Scholarship Model .............................................................................. 79 Figure 4.1: Post Stage 1 – Research Scheme Concept Map........................................................ 116 Figure 5.1: Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map ......................................................... 182 Figure 6.1: Final Research Scheme Concept Map ....................................................................... 201 xii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS 1862s – Set of Land-grant Universities established in 1862 1890s – Set of Land-grant Universities established in 1890 ALPU – Association of Land-grant and Public Universities CES – Cooperative Extension Service ECOP – Extension Committee on Organization and Policy LGU – Land-grant University NIFA – National Institute for Food and Agriculture NUEL – National Urban Extension Leaders USDA – United States Department of Agriculture WEDA – Western Extension Directors’ Association xiii CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION For more than 100 years, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), a partnership of the over 100 land-grant universities, the United States Department Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and state and local governments, has provided the populace of the United States access to the research and knowledge base of the land-grant university system. Through its network of nearly 3,150 community based offices, Extension provides non-credit educational classes, workshops and learning activities that bring research- based, practical information to people in their homes, work places and communities to improve people’s everyday lives, address public needs and create positive changes (NIFA, 2018). Extension’s origins go back to the early 1800s agricultural clubs and societies that sprang up across the United States (NIFA, 2018). Over time, a number of these groups established or developed ties to educational institutions. In the latter portion of the century, one of the leading sets of educational institutions involved in this work were the agricultural land-grant colleges and universities established by the Morrill Act of 1862 (Bailey et al., 1909). The 1909 Report of the Country Life Commission (Bailey et al., 1909), commissioned by USDA and delivered to President Theodore Roosevelt, recognized that the land-grant colleges and universities were addressing the problematic issues of rural life in new and effective ways. Concerned with a general lack of education of the populace, the report suggested the expansion of the work that these colleges were doing by developing a nationwide extension system that would be connected to them, giving access to their knowledge base and research to the public and communities (Bailey et al., 1909). 1 The 1914 Smith Lever Act responded to the suggestion made in the Report of the Country Life Commission (Bailey et al., 1909) by creating the Cooperative Extension Service system, which established the USDA's partnership with land-grant universities and state and local units of government (MSU Extension, 2018). At that time, more than 50% of the United States population lived in rural areas and 30% of the workforce was directly involved in farming (NIFA, 2018). Hence the welfare and education of farmer, farm households and rural communities where they resided was of central concern and the initial focus of Cooperative Extension Service’s work (Peters, 2002). It continues to be a major programmatic theme of Extension work into the twenty-first century (NIFA, 2018). However, the vision for the Cooperative Extension Service, defined in the Report of the Country Life Commission (Bailey et al., 1909), was to do more than attend to the needs of agriculture and rural America. The report advocated for a national extension system that would extend the knowledge and resources of the land-grant college and university system to people across the country to improve the vitality of all communities and to create a better America (Bailey et al., 1909). From 2000 to 2010, the number of people living in urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or more grew by a remarkable 27.5 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2011). Today over 80% of the United States populace live in urbanized areas and only about 2% of the workforce is directly involved in farming (US Census, 2017). For more than 60 years, multiple state Cooperative Extension Service systems have been experimenting and exploring methods to expand their work into cities and metropolitan areas with limited success (Borich, 2001; Ford Foundation, 1966). Since the 1980s, the audience of some Cooperative Extension Service 2 programs, like the 4-H youth development program, has actually consisted of more urban residents than those living in rural settings (Christenson & Warner, 1985), and the trend in the shift of the Extension audience has continued through the present day (Raison, 2014). Yet, as the inhabitants of the country moved from rural communities to urban and metropolitan areas, national participant statistics show that Cooperative Extension Service’s work and audience has not shifted into these areas at the same rate as the population growth of these areas (NIFA, 2018). Furthermore, even with the growing urban audience, multiple studies conducted over the last 30 years show that the Cooperative Extension Service is not well known or visible in urban and metropolitan settings (Jacob, Willtis, & Crider, 1991; Loibl, Diekmann, & Batte, 2010; Miller,Jr., 1988; Nelson-Smith, 2011; P. D. Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant, 1996). This study looks to identify the challenges or barriers that Cooperative Extension Service encounters and needs to address if it is to be successful in working with the ever-growing number of urban and metropolitan residents. GAP IN KNOWLEDGE As the population in the United States has shifted from farms and rural settings into cities and metropolitan centers there have been growing calls, both internally and externally, for the Cooperative Extension Service to shift more of its focus and work into these areas (Henning, Buchholz, Steele, & Ramaswamy, 2014). There are a number of state, regional and national position papers outlining the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to move its work in to urban areas (Albertson, Holmes, & Force, 2007; MSUE Urban Agenda Task Force, 2017; NUEL Steering Committee (NUEL): et al., 2015; Urban Task Force, 1996; WEDA Urban 3 Task Force, 2010; Young & Vavrina, 2014). This study reviewed 17 such documents. All of these urban Extension positioning documents and journal articles identified multiple perceived barriers or challenges, and even some potential solutions to overcome barriers. However, a review of these documents has shown that many of them are not grounded in the literature or to research, nor have most of them been extensively peer-reviewed. There is also a substantive amount of practitioner literature on Extension’s urban efforts that posit multiple barriers or challenges to this work. The Journal of Extension, the leading journal in the field, has been publishing articles containing this type of information since its inaugural issue in 1963 (Blalock, Greenwood, & Abraham, 1963). Although the bulk of the practitioner literature is peer-reviewed and some of it is connected to a research base or grounded to literature, mostly other practitioner literature, for the most part it is still practitioner supposition. The researcher’s review of the Cooperative Extension Service organizational literature has produced limited empirical research studies to date that support the practitioner supposition in the literature identifying the barriers or challenges to Extension’s efforts to expand into urban areas. What research studies that have been conducted have generally used a small sample size and have been confined to looking at one, or at most a small number of issues within one state. No national studies looking at the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban and metropolitan areas have been identified. PURPOSE OF STUDY Fundamentally, the focus of this study is problem identification. More specifically, the objective of the study is to empirically collect, verify and analyze the challenges and barriers 4 that Extension staff working in cities and metropolitan centers experience or have to address in order to effectively deliver Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in those settings. Before the Cooperative Extension Service can move forward as individual state systems or at a national level to serve urban and metropolitan audiences effectively, a thorough understanding of the barriers and challenges that exist will be necessary. Consequently, the overall goal of this study was twofold. First, to use a grounded theory approach, which is the building of theory from study participant involvement (Creswell, 2014), to identify and validate the barriers and challenges that Extension staff working across the country identify to the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings. Then secondarily, employ a transformative approach, which places the examination of the research problem in a social justice framework (Creswell, 2014), to the analysis and dissemination of the study’s findings to encourage organizational change to the Cooperative Extension Service. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The central question that this research sought to answer was: What are the factors that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings? To answer this question the study employed a two-stage exploratory research design (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2009). Each stage of the study was designed to build on the previous stage and to accomplish a different objective. Stage one and two were designed to identify the 5 barriers and challenges, and the third stage of the study was designed to verify and validate them. Therefore, there were a set of sub-questions developed for each stage of the research. Both stages of the research utilized qualitative designs. While contributing to the overall goals of the study and providing insight into the study’s central research question, each stage of the study accomplished a different purpose and was designed to answer one or more of the study’s secondary research questions. Furthermore, the pluralistic methods research approach permitted the use of a transformative lens in the development of a more complete understanding of the organizational changes that Extension might make to expand access that urban residents have to relevant Extension programs and resources, as well as to the research and knowledge base of the land-grant universities. Stage one of the study involved a qualitative document and literature review of state, regional and national urban Extension position papers, describing how Extension was or needed to be working in cities and/or metropolitan settings. These were coded and analyzed for barriers and challenges that were either being addressed or identified as issues that needed to be addressed to effectively work in or address the needs of residents living in urban and metropolitan settings. The sub-question that the first stage of research sought to answer was: What are the barriers and/or challenges that Extension staff encounter in delivering Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings that have previously been identified by Extension practitioners either in the practitioner literature or in urban Extension position papers? 6 Since an initial analysis of the literature and urban Extension position papers examined found that many of them were more than 10 years old, the relevancy of the barriers and challenges identified in stage one of the study needed to be tested. Stage two of the study was designed to verify, update and potentially expand the set of barriers and challenges identified in stage one of the study. This was accomplished by conducting semi-structured, open-ended interviews with a group of sixteen key Extension stakeholders in high level administrative or leadership roles from across the country. The sub-questions for the second stage of the study were: Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders agree or disagree with the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders identify additional barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were not identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? The research approach, design and methods, briefly described in this section, are presented in more detail in CHAPTER 2 – RESEARCH DESGN AND METHODOLOGY. 7 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY The United States has become an urban and metropolitan country. If Extension is to survive and achieve a level of success in the twenty-first century similar to the level it achieved in the twentieth century then, it will be necessary for it to have a substantial presence in cities and metropolitan areas. At this time, it is important to avoid divisive debates such as those focused on “rural vs. urban” concerns. Rural and urban communities are not mutually independent, they are interdependent and Extension programs should continue to reflect this fact. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Association of Land-grant and Public Universities (APLU) Extension Committee of Organization and Policy (ECOP), and state-level Cooperative Extension Service leadership need to continue to recognize and support the fact that Extension’s work needs to include urban and metropolitan audiences. In order to embrace an effective urban Extension model, Cooperative Extension Service need not abandon its historic rural agendas. Rather, the Cooperative Extension Service system should incorporate the needs of urban and metropolitan audiences. In expanding its service to all audiences, Extension can continue to provide invaluable education and resources to the nation’s citizens to improve the vitality of all communities to create a better America. If Cooperative Extension Service can successfully achieve this end, just as it has shared its successful twentieth century model with many countries around the world, it will be able to be a role model for Extension work in cities and metropolitan areas across the globe (University of Minnesota Urban Agenda Task Force, 2007). 8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS As with every study, this study presumed a set of assumptions and limitations around its research design and approach. One major drawback of this study’s design, and one indicative to qualitative cultural analysis of the type, is that the data collection and analysis is time consuming. Therefore, a limitation of the study is that it is simply a snapshot of the Cooperative Extension Service at this time and it is dependent on internal and external conditions affecting the organization immediately preceding and during the period of the study. Given that all qualitative studies are unique, they are difficult to replicate, as is the case with this study (Datt & Datt, 2016). Another potential limitation of qualitative research methodologies, given that each study is unique, is that a particular problem could go unnoticed (Bowen, 2006). Furthermore, the personal experience and knowledge of the researcher influenced the analysis of the urban Extension plan documents, the key Extension stakeholder interview questions and analysis, and the conclusions reached as they relate to research problem. This can make it difficult to detect or to prevent researcher induced bias and coding errors (Datt & Datt, 2016). Additionally, when conducting qualitative research it is often difficult to discern the quality and quantity of information obtained from different respondents (Barbour, 2000). It is also difficult to investigate causality between different research phenomena, as qualitative research is mostly open-ended giving the participants a great deal of control over the content of the data collected (Datt & Datt, 2016). This was particularly true of information gathered in stage two of the study in the key Extension stakeholder interviewers. Therefore, the study is unable to verify the results objectively against the scenarios stated by the respondents. 9 The study also made a number of assumptions and assumed a set of limitations concerning the data samples and the data collection. The first assumption as related to the data collection was that the set of urban Extension plans reviewed in stage one of the study were a representative, in not a complete, sample. To ensure this, the study identified and collected them using a variety of methods over the course of about three years. Even after a review of the documents collected was completed in early 2017, additional inquires for urban Extension planning documents were made to key Extension stakeholders during the interviews. In the end, all but one of the urban Extension planning documents identified during the course of the study were included in the document content analysis sample. Then the study assumed that the steps taken to identify urban Extension opinion leaders were successful and that participants involved in the key Extension stakeholder interviews had not only a state perspective but also an understanding of the issues and concerns of the national Cooperative Extension Service system. The study also presumed that the interviewees were open, honest and candid in their responses to the interview questions. However, the study recognizes that there may have been unknown conditions or factors occurring with the key Extension stakeholders interviewed that could have biased the responses of the participants. Additionally, efforts were made to ensure that the sample set of key Extension stakeholders interviewed were geographically dispersed and representative of the national Cooperative Extension Service system. Lastly, the study presumed that efforts made during the course of the research project were enough to accomplish their intended role. 10 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION The remaining chapters of this dissertation are organized in a manner that follow the progression of the study. Chapter 2 will cover the study’s research design and methodology. This chapter provides an overview of the a two-stage exploratory research design used for the study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Mertens, 2009). The chapter explains in detail how the exploratory research design employed two-stages of qualitative data collection to explore the research problem. Stage one of the study’s research design consisted of multiple activities to inform the study and to begin to build theoretical foundation to complete stage two of the study. The first activity entailed an extension review of the literature, which will be presented in Chapter 3. This chapter provides an overview for the theoretical context of the study including the history and context for the study while exploring the central issues related to the study. The chapter builds bridges between related issues and seemly-unrelated issues associated with the research and substantiates the research problem identified for exploration through this study. Additionally, it lays the groundwork for analysis and coding of the urban Extension plans found in the literature and collected through various other means. The analysis and coding of these documents constitute the remaining activities associated with stage one of the study. The findings from the remaining activities conducted as part of stage one of the study are presented in Chapter 4. The chapter provides a detailed list of urban Extension documents reviewed and overview of the processes used to analyze and code them. It concludes with the presentation of an initial set of barriers and/or challenges to the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan audiences. 11 The findings from stage two of the study are presented in Chapter 5. This chapter covers the findings from the key stakeholder interviews conducted with sixteen high-level Extension administrators or leaders from across the country. It builds and expands upon the set of barriers and challenges to the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan audiences developed in stage one. Using a grounded theory approach, it concludes with the presentation of a theoretical concept map and set of barriers and challenges, developed using the findings from stage one and two of the study. While a discussion and integration of the findings from both stages of the study are presented in Chapter 6, along with proposed national and state level policy implications for the Cooperative Extension Service. The chapter closes with recommendations for potential next steps and future research to continue to move this field of study and the Cooperative Extension Service forward in its ability to provide expanded and relevant educational programs and resources to urban residents. 12 CHAPTER 2 – RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A number of academics writing about research development processes and approaches suggest that it is important for a researcher to understand their epistemological viewpoint (Crotty, 1998; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Patton, 1987). It determines how a researcher makes sense of the world around them, and governs how the researcher determines what is knowledge and in what ways knowledge is developed (Crotty, 1998). Furthermore a researcher’s epistemological viewpoint is the foundation for their philosophical worldview, or theoretical perspective (Crotty, 1998). Trede and Higgs (2009) posit that the framing of a study’s research questions needs to harmonize with the epistemological and philosophical worldview of the researcher. A researcher’s worldview, or theoretical perspective, is one of the three components that John W. Creswell (2014) states should form the conceptual framework for a scholar’s research approach. The other two are the research design and the research methods. Figure 2.1 is the a visual depiction of the research framework that Creswell’s (2014, p. 5) uses to illustrate how the interactions between a researcher’s philosophical worldview, the design of the study and research methods selected determine the research approach of a study. To reflect the importance of the researcher’s epistemological perspective, as advocated for by Michael Crotty (1998), Figure 2.1 has been modified to place Creswell’s (2014, p. 5) framework for research inside the epistemological viewpoint of the researcher. The diagram now depicts Creswell’s research approach framework within a researcher’s epistemology view, visually depicting how a researcher’s epistemological view should frame a study’s research approach. 13 Figure 2.1: Creswell's Modified Research Approach Framework – This diagram modifies Creswell’s research approach framework by laying a researcher’s epistemology view over it as recommended by Crotty. The model now shows how a researcher’s epistemological view should frame a study’s research approach, as well as how the interconnection of worldviews, design and research methods creates a study’s research approach. (Creswell, 2014, p. 5; Crotty, 1998) EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT The epistemological view for this research study is constructionism (Crotty, 1998; Patton, 1987). Constructionists believe that meaning is not discovered but constructed in the mind. Truth, knowledge and meaning are developed through people’s interactions and experiences with the world around them (Crotty, 1998). Crotty (1998) also indicates that in this view of the way knowledge comes into existence, different people may develop different meaning in relation to the same situation or phenomenon. 14 RESEARCH APPROACH This study utilized a pluralistic mixed methods research approach. The study collected and analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data minimizes the limitations associated with either approach and provided for the study to develop a more complete understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2014). A mixed methods research approach for this study was also selected because it allowed for the development of a better quantitative survey instrument, by first collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. Furthermore, the pluralistic mixed methods research approach permitted the use of a transformative lens in the development of a more complete understanding of the organizational changes that Extension might make to expand access that urban residents have to relevant Extension programs and resources, as well as to the research and knowledge base of the land-grant universities. Research approach to philosophical worldview This study incorporated several philosophical worldviews, multiple research designs and a variety of research methods. The complexity of the planned research approach is indeed a reflection of the researcher’s dominate philosophical worldview – Pragmatic (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 1987). After spending over 30 years as an Extension practitioner in Michigan working with a diverse set of Extension colleagues and clientele on a far-reaching set of issues in a broad range of communities from very rural to Detroit, the researcher is a pragmatist. Both as a practitioner and a researcher, the academic focuses on the problem and using any and all information, 15 activities, tools, research designs and/or methods to understand the problem and seek viable solutions. Pragmatism is recognized as a fairly new philosophical worldview, and one that is uniquely American (Patton, 1987). Michael Quinn Patton (1987) calls pragmatism a “utilization- focused” (p. 155) approach. Researchers whose worldview is pragmatic are problem-centered and real world practice focused (Creswell, 2014). They begin with the premise that research should be evaluated for its usefulness in real world settings and in solving real world problems (Patton, 1987). Creswell (2014) states that pragmatic researchers are not committed to any one philosophy worldview or theoretical perspective. They believe that research always happens within a social, historical, or political context and therefore the researcher may need to pull from several theoretical perspectives within a single research project. Pragmatists look to the intended consequences to determine ‘what’ to research and ‘how’ to conduct the research. Truth is what works at a particular moment in time or for a specific research problem (Creswell, 2014). Pragmatic researchers often utilize a mixed methods research design. According to Creswell (2014), this allows them to choose copiously from both quantitative and qualitative research designs and methods. The bottom line is that pragmatic researchers choose research methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing data that will best meet their needs and purposes. Creswell’s (2014) description of a researcher with a pragmatic philosophical worldview precisely describes the research approach undertaken for this study. Therefore, the dominate 16 worldview engaged for this study was pragmatic, but a constructivist theoretical perspective was laid over the research design, and the selection and use of most research methods. Utilizing a constructivist lens at these stages of the research approach permitted the study to focus on understanding and multiple participant meanings necessary for theory generation (Creswell, 2014). Research approach to research design To construct a good research design the components must work harmoniously together. To ensure this, Maxwell (2013) recommends using an “interactive approach” to qualitative research design. Thus, to develop a good qualitative research design it must be “constructed” and “reconstructed.” It is a process, according to Maxwell (2013, p. 3), “that involves ‘tacking’ back and forth between the different components of the design, assessing their implications for one another.” It is not a fixed set of steps or process, but instead involves assessing the connections and interactions between the various research design components (Maxwell, 2013). These include the study’s goals or purpose, its conceptual framework, the research questions, methods and validity. Using an interactive research approach allowed the researcher to make changes to the qualitative design and data collection methods to fit the context in which the study was being conducted, rather than being tied to a predetermined fixed research process or practice. According to Maxwell (2013), an interactive research approach has become popular in recent years. This research approach allows for engagement of stakeholders as collaborative members of a process, rather than research subjects who are studied but kept in the dark about the task at hand. 17 Data collected in the first two stages of the study led to the development of a theory, or set of theories, about the barriers and challenges present to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban and metropolitan settings (Creswell, 2014; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This inductive reasoning approach to theory development in research design literature is referred to as grounded theory (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 1987). Grounded theory is an inductive qualitative analysis strategy in which a researcher derives a broad, abstract theory of a process, action or situation grounded in the views of participants involved in the study (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2015). A particular strength of grounded theory is its potential to capture context and complexity in social interactions, to examine emerging topic areas and to shed new light on existing topics (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The use of a grounded theory approach to qualitative inquiry also allows the researcher to set up a framework for a coding procedure of the date with some standardization and rigor (Patton, 2015; Saldaña, 2016). Additionally, the sort of theory produced by grounded theory makes sense to those involved in the situation being researched. This makes grounded theory particularly useful when conducting research for a practitioner audience (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).This approach bears a significant resemblance to communicative action theory in the planning field, where theory is developed from the practice of planning (Fainstein, 2000; Innes, 1995). A transformative lens was utilized, in addition to the exploratory research design. It is the researcher’s hope that the dissemination of the findings from this study might provide insight into organizational changes that might be made to address the inequities and service as a call to action to the Cooperative Extension Service. 18 Researcher approach to research methods With a dominate pragmatic worldview, the study utilized a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods in this mixed methods research study. The major methods employed were document content analysis using an Eclectic Coding process employing several complementary coding methods, responsive interviews, Initial or Open Coding to identify emergent concepts and themes in the interview transcripts, and a survey. However, a number of other methods were used as well. A complete explanation of all the research methods that were utilized for this research are covered in more depth in the Description of Research Methodology section of this chapter. Figure 2.2: Research Approach Framework for this Study - Shows interconnection of worldviews, design and research methods. (Creswell, 2014, p. 5; Crotty, 1998; Patton, 1987) 19 In summary, Figure 2.2 is the modified Creswell (2014) research framework, incorporating the researcher’s epistemological view as suggested by Crotty (1998). It shows the epistemological viewpoint of the research undertaking the study, along with visually depicting the research approach, philosophical worldviews, research designs and major research methods that were used for this study. RESEARCH QUESTIONS As previously indicated, the researcher employed a two-stage mixed methods, exploratory sequential research design (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2009). Each stage of the study accomplished a different purpose. Therefore, this study sought to answer one central research question: What are the factors that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings? The intent of each stage of the two-stage mixed methods research design employed for the study was to accomplish a different objective and to build on the previous stage. The aim of stage one and two was to identify and validate the barriers and challenges. Therefore, there were a set of sub-questions developed for each of the stages of the study. Stage one of the study involved a qualitative document and literature review of state, regional and national urban Extension position papers, describing how Extension was or needed to be working in cities and/or metropolitan settings. These were coded and analyzed for barriers and challenges that were either being addressed or identified as issues that needed to 20 be addressed to effectively work in or address the needs of residents living in urban and metropolitan settings. The sub-question that the first stage of research sought to answer was: What are the barriers and/or challenges that Extension staff encounter in delivering Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings that have previously been identified by Extension practitioners either in the practitioner literature or in urban Extension position papers? Since an initial analysis of the literature and urban Extension position papers examined found that 59% of them were written in or prior to 2010, the relevancy of the barriers and challenges identified in stage one of the study needed to be tested. Stage two of the study was designed to verify, update and potentially expand the set of barriers and challenges identified in stage one of the study. To accomplish this, semi-structured open-ended interviews were conducted with a group of sixteen key Extension stakeholders in high level administrative or leadership roles from across the country. The study’s semi-structured interviewing process started with a specific set of topics to explore and with a few questions prepared in advance. As rapport was built with the interviewees, the conversation shifted into an unstructured format where the interview questions were formulated based in response to what the interviewee was sharing. The sub-questions for the second stage of the study were: Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders agree or disagree with the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? 21 Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders identify additional barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were not identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING BARRIERS/CHALLENGES Based on the theories presented by Cooperative Extension Service practitioners in the preliminary literature review, which are presented in Chapter 3 – Stage 1: Theoretical Literature Review, and the researcher’s personal Extension experience, a conceptual framework, or Concept Map, was devised for the study. The Concept Map visually depicts the study’s theoretical hypothesis and illustrates the potential areas where the study anticipates staff might experience barriers or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to effectively work and provide educational programs and resources to people living in urban or large metropolitan settings (Figure 2.3). In this Concept Map five areas are predictive as potential places where barriers might emerge to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban settings. They are the urban environment, the Cooperative Extension Service administrative leadership, the Cooperative Extension Service operations in urban centers which are comprised of its staff and the delivery of educational programs, the Cooperative Extension Service’s work or engagement with local residents, and the organizational image of Cooperative Extension Service in urban communities. 22 Figure 2.3: Post Literature Review Research Scheme Concept Map The urban environment is unique from other geographic environments and is the context in which Cooperative Extension Service’s work occurs and the first area barriers can appear. The urban environment is usually an environment made up of a large racially, ethnically and culturally diverse population dealing with multifaceted societal and environmental issues living in a politically complex set of multi-jurisdictional governmental units. The leadership for Cooperative Extension Service, its operations including both the staff working in urban centers and the educational programming offered there, and its interactions with urban residents all need to be contextually relevant. This means that they need to be pertinent, applicable image of Cooperative Extension Service in urban communities. Cooperative Extension Service’s image in urban centers is an additional area where barriers can arise and is germane to an urban context and not simply practices or models transferred from the Cooperative Extension Service’s leadership, operations and engagement experiences in rural or non-urban settings. The decisions made by the Cooperative Extension Service leadership are, or should be, affected by the urban environment. These decisions in turn influence and shape the Cooperative Extension Service’s operations in urban communities by determining the level and type of staffing along with the educational programming offered in urban centers. These operational factors sequentially impact the types of interactions and engagement Cooperative 23 Extension Service has with urban residents and within urban communities. If the Cooperative Extension Service’s leadership, operations and community engagement practices and models are not contextually relevant, these are additional areas where staff can experience barriers to their work in urban centers. Lastly, if leadership of the Cooperative Extension Service and its operations, and interactions with urban residents are not contextually relevant, then it can lead to a less than positive image of Extension in urban communities. Extension’s image in urban centers is an additional area where barriers can arise. As posited by Maxwell’s (2013) interactive model of research design, embraced by this study, toward the end each stage of data collection the Research Scheme Concept Map was revisited. The Concept Map was updated or revised to reflect the findings from each of the data sets to assist in the interpretation of the data collected. At the end of each stage of the study the revised Concept Map was also checked for alignment with the study’s outlined purpose, research questions and research methods. DECRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY As previously described, the study employed a two-stage exploratory research design. The study consisted of two phases of qualitative data collection. In the stage one and stage two qualitative phases of the study an interactive approach, previously described, was employed for the research design and data collection (Maxwell, 2013). Using this approach allowed the researcher to make changes to the qualitative design and data collection methods to fit the context of the study, rather than being tied to a predetermined fixed research practice (Maxwell, 2013). 24 Each stage of the study was designed to build on the previous stage and to accomplish a different objective. Stage one of the study was designed to begin to identify the barriers and challenges that can affect the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban areas. Stage two was designed to verify, refine, update and expand the set of barriers/challenges, along with verifying and validating them. Figure 2.4 provides a visual overview of the methodological stages and steps. Each stage of the research design, the steps involved and the methods employed are described in more detail in the remainder of this chapter. All necessary certifications and approvals were secured before starting the study. Figure 2.4: Research Design of Study 25 STAGE 1: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE & DOCUMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS The first stage of the study consisted of four activities, aimed to inform the study and begin to build a grounded theory about the factors that could potentially be barriers and/or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. The first activity was a review of the literature. It included the literature around Cooperative Extension Service work; links or connections to planning theory and practice; an overview of current urban conditions impacting Cooperative Extension Service work in urban and metropolitan settings; Cooperative Extension Service literature; and lastly community engagement literature around higher education’s and Extension’s involvement in community (see Figure 3.1 Urban Extension Literature Conceptual Framework). To inform the researcher and form the foundation to build the interviews conducted in stage two, the second activity consisted of a review of the Extension urban position papers and studies identified. The position papers and studies were identified in two manners. The first method was through a review of Cooperative Extension Service and urban Extension literature. The second method for collecting urban Extension position papers was a request to the members of the National Urban Extension Leaders Network (NUEL), this is a group of mid-level Extension administrators working in urban and metropolitan areas from about 35 states. In total seventeen documents providing information about seven states, one regional and two national urban Extension plans were identified. The documents were collected between December 2013 and March 2016 using several techniques. The third activity conducted as part of stage one of the study was the review and coding of the contents of each document. Coding facilitates the retrieval of specific content around the 26 barriers and/or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s in urban settings. The documents were analyzed and coded using a combination of complementary coding methods for barriers and/or challenges that were either being addressed or identified as issues that needed to be addressed to effectively work in or address the needs of residents living in urban and metropolitan settings. The barriers or challenges could have been expressed as a negative, positive or neutral factor, but nonetheless as a factor that influenced the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. Activity four of stage one, was the analysis and summary of the concepts and themes identified through the review and coding of the urban Extension plan documents. The coding and analysis of the concepts and themes identified as factors that could be potential barriers and/or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings was done to seek insight into the stage one research question: What are the barriers and/or challenges that Extension staff encounter in delivering Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings that have previously been identified by Extension practitioners either in the practitioner literature or in urban Extension position papers? Collection of the documents for analysis In late 2013 and early 2014, before entering a doctoral program, through the researcher’s interactions with NUEL the researcher acquired three documents containing 27 information about three urban Extension plans. The first was the Urban Extension: A national agenda document developed by Extension Committee on Organization and Policy’s (ECOP) urban task force (1996). The other two documents provided information about the multi-state regional urban Extension planning effort being conducted by the states in ECOP’s Western Region (WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010; Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008). In reviewing the WEDA Urban Task Force report (2010) a copy of Oregon State University’s urban Extension plan was discovered in the appendices (Oregan State University Extension, 2009). Then as the priori literature review for the study was conducted, two articles were found in the Journal of Extension that referenced urban Extension plans. One provided information concerning efforts in Texas (Fehlis, 1992) and the second discussed outcomes from an urban forum in Kentucky (Young & Vavrina, 2014). At about the same time, another Extension colleague from Washington State University, shared a third document with the members of NUEL that provided additional information about the Western Region’s urban Extension planning efforts (Washington State University Extension, 2014). Additionally, throughout 2015, at the request of ECOP, NUEL constructed A national framework for urban Extension (NUEL et al., 2015) that was added to the document collection. In 2016, Extension colleagues involved with NUEL from Texas and Kentucky were contacted to acquire additional documentation concerning their urban planning efforts described in the two articles that had appeared in the Journal of Extension (Fehlis, 1992; Young & Vavrina, 2014). Three additional documents, written over an eleven year period from 1990 to 2001, were obtained from Texas (Sub-commitee on Expansion Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 2001; TAEX Urban Task Force Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1999; Urban 28 Program Review Committee Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1990). The final report outlining the process and outcomes from the 2013 urban Extension forum held in Kentucky was also procured during at this time (Young, 2013). The final technique used to identify urban Extension plans was to make two requests to the NUEL membership. At the December 2016 meeting of the NUEL membership in Denver, Colorado, an overview of the study was presented to the attendees along with a request send any urban Extension planning materials that they were aware of to the researcher. This in person request was followed up by an email request sent in January 2017 to the full NUEL membership. Straightaway plans were forwarded from Florida (Urban Task Force, 2014), Minnesota (University of Minnesota, 2015), and Utah (Albertson et al., 2007). Then over the next couple of months, NUEL members sent two additional documents. An urban Extension planning report from North Carolina (Feierabend, 2017) and an unpublished article about Florida’s planning efforts that had been submitted and accepted to the Journal of Extension, which was subsequently published (L. A. Warner et al., 2017). A complete list of all documents reviewed is in Chapter 4 – Stage 1 Findings: Content Analysis of Documents. In fall 2017, after conducting the key stakeholder interviews, but before the development of the survey questions identified, one last urban Extension plan from Michigan was identified (MSUE Urban Agenda Task Force, 2017). This plan was excluded from document review because the researcher was extensively involved in its development and writing. Given this, the Michigan plan heavily reflected the research findings from stages one and two of the study and could have possibly skewed the stage one findings. Additionally, it was determined that the addition of barriers and challenges that might be identified in the review of the 29 Michigan plan would not add value to findings of stage one of the study because they had already been captured in the stage one and two findings. Coding and analysis of the documents In early 2017 the contents of each document were reviewed and coded for concepts and themes around barriers and challenges that were either being addressed or identified as issues that needed to be addressed to effectively work in urban and metropolitan settings or address the needs of residents living there. Concepts are the terms use to describe their perspective, work or world. They are the pieces of a puzzle or building blocks that are put together to understand their world. They are usually nouns (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Themes, on the other hand, are statements that summarize what is going on. They are used to explain a situation or suggest why something is done the way it is. Themes connect or create relationships between things (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). As suggested by Johnny Saldaña in The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2016) several coding methods were utilized to identify the barriers and/or challenges present in each document. Saldaña identifies two levels of coding methodologies – first cycle and second cycle. He describes “first cycle” coding methods “as those practices that happen during the initial coding of data” (2016, p. 68). These coding processes are fairly straightforward or direct. He breaks them down into seven categories: grammatical, elemental, affective, literacy and language, exploratory, procedural, theming the data, and eclectic (Saldaña, 2016). Each of these coding categories contains multiple sub-categories or sub-methodologies. 30 While “second cycle” coding methods are described by Saldaña as coding techniques that “require such analytic skills as classifying, prioritizing, integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory building” (2016, p. 69). These coding methodologies are identified as eclectic, pattern, focused, axial, theoretical, elaborative, and longitudinal (Saldaña, 2016). Since coding decisions must be made on the methodological needs of the study (Saldaña, 2016), only first cycle coding techniques were used to code the documents in stage one of the study. The techniques selected were those that would provide the types of information necessary to answer the stage one research question. Since the stage one research question was epistemological, meaning it inquires about the knowledge and understanding of the barriers and/or challenges presented in the documents, coding methods that catalogue and reveal epistemologies were selected (Saldaña, 2016). An Eclectic Coding scheme was used. This is the process of combining two or more purposefully selected compatible first cycle coding methods, with the intent of conducting a more comprehensive analytical examination of the findings from first cycle coding using second cycle coding methodologies to code or recode the data (Saldaña, 2016). For this study, the barriers and/or challenges identified in the stage one data are combined with the barriers and/or challenges identified in the stage two key Extension stakeholder interviews, and compared and analyzed for similarities, differences and insights with both the findings from the interviews conducted in stage two and the survey administered in stage three. The initial coding of the documents used a Grammatical Attribute Coding process, which is a process of logging essential characteristic of the data, to group multiple documents from the same state or regional planning process together and organize them chronologically from 31 oldest to newest. Next, a set of Exploratory Provisional Codes were developed from the Post Literature Review Research Scheme Concept Map presented in Figure 2.3. Provisional Coding is the process of beginning with a list of researcher-generated codes based on what a study’s preliminary investigation suggests (Saldaña, 2016). These were the five main areas and two sub-areas – urban environment, leadership, community operations, work in community, community image, staffing, and programs – that were identified in the Concept Map. The plan was to use these Provisional Codes as the “parent” codes in the development of Grammatical Sub-Coding scheme (Gibbs, 2007). The initial set of Provisional Codes selected were:  Urban environment  CES leadership  CES operations – General o CES operations – Staffing o CES operations - Programs  CES community engagement  Community image These Provisional Codes were established as the “parent” codes in the development of a Sub-Coding scheme (Gibbs, 2007). Sub-Coding is a process of developing a set of nested codes where there is a set of high-level or “parent” concepts identified with a set of secondary concepts, or “child”, codes underneath them (Gibbs, 2007; Saldaña, 2016). A multiple set of “child” codes underneath a single “parent” code are referred to as “siblings” (Gibbs, 2007). 32 To pilot and test the parent level Provisional Codes, three of the documents were randomly selected from the group of seventeen documents for coding. After a preliminary coding of the documents the two sub-areas in the Research Scheme – staffing and program – were broken down further. Here is the expanded list of Provisional Codes:  Urban environment  CES leadership  CES operations – General o CES operations – Staff o CES operations - Volunteers o CES operations – Program Content o CES operations – Program Delivery  CES community engagement  Community image An Elemental Initial or Open Coding techniques was employed to identify the “child” codes. Initial Coding or Open Coding is often used in qualitative research as the first stage of grounded theory development (Saldaña, 2016). According to Saldaña (2016), Initial Coding uses a truly open-ended process for first review of the data. This creates a starting point to provide the researcher analytical leads for further exploration. The codes developed at this phase are tentative and provisional. Often the initial codes will need revised, modified and/or expanded as the data analysis progresses (Saldaña, 2016). Using the set of parent Provisional Codes, develop after the piloting process, all seventeen documents were then read, analyzed and coded with the parent level codes while 33 simultaneously using the Initial or Open Coding technique to develop child level Sub-Codes. In cases where more than one document was collected describing the same urban Extension planning process, the barriers and/or challenges from each of the separate documents were combined into one set of barriers and/or challenges. Development of a list of barriers and/or challenges At this phase of study, to get a comprehensive set of concepts and themes, the decision was made to develop a broad list of child level Sub-Codes to label the barriers and/or challenges present in the documents. Saldaña (2016) refers to this coding technique as “splitting.” Splitting requires careful scrutiny of the data (Saldaña, 2016), which the study’s methodology necessitated for a thorough investigation of the identified barriers and challenges in the key Extension stakeholder interviews conducted in stage two of the study. Initially a very robust set of Sub-Codes were identified, however, after a second round of analysis for potential opportunities to “lump,” a term Saldaña (2016) uses to describe the combining of similar code into a common code, the number of Sub-Codes were reduced slightly. Through the coding process one additional parent level code emerged and was added to the list of Provisional Codes as well. The additional code was label as “CES Organizational History.” It was used as the parent level code to identify the combination of ecological and historical elements that create Cooperative Extension Service context and culture. The final list of parent level Provisional Codes used in the document review, along with their definitions and child level Sub-Codes are in Appendix A. 34 After an analysis of the final set of “parent” and “child” sub-codes the first concept map for the study was developed using the Post Literature Review Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 2.3) as a framework for its development (Figure 4.1). A concept map, according to Joseph A. Maxwell (2013, p. 64), “is a ‘tool’ for developing theory and making that theory more explicit.” The concept map developed for this study is an abstract framework, or variance concept map (Maxwell, 2013), showing the purported relationships between the variables identified in the urban Extension plans as barriers and/or challenges that can potentially influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to delivery educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. Maxwell (2013) posits that a concept map is not a tool developed just once for a study, but instead a tool that should be repeatedly revisited and updated throughout the study. Using a repetition process of redevelopment of that concept map assists the researcher in understanding the phenomena being studied. The researcher adhered to Maxwell’s (2013) advice. The study’s concept map was revisited and updated at the culmination of each phase of the two-stage mixed methods, exploratory sequential research design. The revisiting and redevelopment of the study’s concept map was in alignment with the study’s methodology to achieve the development of a theory, using a ground theory approach, illuminating the factors influencing the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan audiences. A comprehensive discussion of the findings from stage one of the study are presented in Chapter 4 – Stage 1 Findings: Content Analysis of Documents. 35 The themes and concepts identified using this Eclectic Coding methodology and the insights gathered from the development of the concept map were then used in stage two of the study’s research design to develop a set of interview question guides to conduct interviews with sixteen key Extension stakeholders. STAGE 2: INTERVIEWS WITH KEY EXTENSION STAKEHOLDERS The second qualitative stage of the study consisted of six activities. The first two activities involved the identification and interviewing of key Extension stakeholder. The key Extension stakeholders were identified using two techniques in late 2016 and early 2017. First, through discussions with current and past chairs of ECOP and, secondly, through discussions with the seventeen member NUEL steering committee. From the set of key Extension stakeholders identified by the ECOP chair and NUEL steering committee sixteen individuals that were geographically distributed from across the United States were selected to be interviewed. The group included two or three individuals from each of the four ECOP Cooperative Extension Service geographic administrative regions, two individuals representing 1890 institutions, two individuals holding leadership roles with ECOP, and two individuals holding national Cooperative Extension Service leadership roles. The third activity was conducting the interviews with the selected set of key Extension stakeholders. One-on-one, 60-minute responsive interviews were conducted between the researcher and key stakeholder using one of two formats, either in face-to-face meetings or using distance technology. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim from the recordings. 36 Using the set of barriers/challenges identified in the urban Extension plan document analysis conducted in stage one of the study as a framework and an interactive research approach a set of interview guides were developed to conduct the interviews with the sixteen key Extension stakeholders selected. The objective of the interviews was to validate, update and expand the list of barriers and/or challenges identified in stage one of the study. Activity three was the verbatim transcription of the interviews. While, activities four and five involved the review, coding and analysis of the interview transcripts. The transcripts were analyzed and coded, using a combination of complementary coding methods, for barriers and/or challenges that were either being addressed or identified as issues that needed to be addressed to effectively work in or address the needs of residents living in urban and metropolitan settings. As in stage one of the study, the barriers or challenges could have been expressed as a negative, positive or neutral factor, but nonetheless as a factor that influenced the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. Activity five of stage two of the study, was the analysis and summary of the concepts and themes identified through the review and coding of the interview transcripts. The coding and analysis of the concepts and themes identified as factors that could be potential barriers and/or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings was done to seek insight into the research questions for stage two: Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders agree or disagree with the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or 37 metropolitan settings that were identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders identify additional barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were not identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? The final activity conducted in stage two of the study was the development of a combined list of barrier and/or challenges identified as factors influencing the Cooperative Extension Service’s delivery of educational programs and resources to residents living in cities and metropolitan settings. Identification of key Extension stakeholders to interview In December 2016 and January 2017 key Extension stakeholders that might be potential candidates to conduct interviews with were identified using two techniques. For the purposes of this study, key Extension stakeholders are defined as Cooperative Extension Service employees that have key administrative or leadership roles for Cooperative Extension Service programming and/or operations. The decision to only conduct interviews with this group of individual, as opposed to all Cooperative Extension Service employees, was made because these individuals have some formal administrative or leadership responsibility within their state Extension system or at the national level. Given this, it was determined that they were likely to 38 be the most knowledgeable set of Cooperative Extension Service employees, able to identify major barriers to the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to working in urban and metropolitan areas, along with providing insight as to why the Cooperative Extension Service has not shifted its programmatic delivery into urban and metropolitan areas at the same rate as the population was moving into these areas. The final technique used to identify urban Extension plans was to make two requests to the NUEL membership. At the December 2016 meeting of the NUEL membership in Denver, Colorado, an overview of the study was presented to the attendees. Along with a requesting any urban Extension planning materials that they were aware, the researcher requested that they send the names of any Extension administrators who they felt were urban Extension leaders to her. This in person request was followed up by an email request sent in January 2017 to the full NUEL membership. Then in January 2017, the researcher discussed the study with the current chair, immediate past chair and a previous chair of ECOP. As part of these discussions, a request was made to each of these individuals to identify urban discussion leaders from amongst their Extension administrative colleagues from across the country. During these discussions, a request for an interview was made to the current and immediate past chair of ECOP. Both of them agreed to be interviewed. The list of names from the NUEL membership and list developed from the discussion with the ECOP chairs were combined. The highest priority, as potential interview subjects for the study, was given to key Extension stakeholders identified by the frontline staff involved in NUEL and the ECOP chairs. To ensure geographic representation from across the United States, 39 requests for interviews were made to three key Extension stakeholders from each of the four ECOP Cooperative Extension Service geographic regions. The three individuals from the North Central and Southern regions, and two of the three individuals identified in the Northeast and Western regions agreed to be interviewed. Two key Extension stakeholders were identified to represent the 1890 land-grant Cooperative Extension Service systems. Both of them agreed to be interviewed. Through the discussions with the ECOP chairs and the ECOP representative on NUEL two individuals at NIFA were identified as potential interviews. However, after a discussion with the NIFA chief of staff it was determined that neither of the two individuals identified would be available to be interviewed in the period designated for the interviews in the study’s timeline. Instead, the NIFA chief of staff identified two other high-level NIFA administrators that he felt meet the definition of “key Extension stakeholder” defined in the study and who would be knowledgeable about potential barriers to the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to working in urban and metropolitan areas. These two individuals were contacted and agreed to be interviewed. Key Extension stakeholder interviews Interviews were set up and conducted with the sixteen key Extension stakeholders throughout February and March 2017. The interviews were conducted one-on-one, for approximately 60 minutes in length using a responsive interview methodology (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Two formats were used to conduct the interviews. They were conducted either in face- to-face meetings or over the internet using a web-based platform. Six interviews were 40 conducted face-to-face with the key Extension stakeholders. Ten of the interviews were conducted using Zoom over the internet. The Interview Consent Form signed by all interviews is in Appendix B. The study used a responsive interviewing approach, which is a specific type of qualitative interviewing that emphasizes flexibility of design and expects the researcher to change questions in reaction to what they are learning from the interviewee. A responsive interviewing approach adjusts to the personalities of both the interviewee and the researcher. The model accepts that what people have experienced is true for them and that by sharing these experiences, the researcher can enter the interviewee’s world. Based on what the interviewee is expected to know, the researcher tailors each interview. Some questions are repeated from interviewee to interviewee, but with responsive interviewing there is no need for a standard list of questions to be used throughout a study (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Regardless of what questions are asked, the goal of responsive interviewing remains the same. The responsive interviewer seeks to build a solid and deep understanding of whatever they are studying based on the perspectives and experiences of the interviewees. The researcher’s role then is to gather stories, explanations, and interpretations from the interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The information collected is then put together by the researcher in a logical way that describes a culture in a way that interviewees and others from the culture being studied recognize as genuine, in this study the Cooperative Extension Service culture in urban settings. To allow for an effective use of a responsive interviewing approach (Rubin & Rubin, 2012), the interviews were conducted in in four phases with two to six interviewees in each 41 phase. An initial set of interview questions were developed using the barriers/challenges identified in stage one of the study. This set of questions was designed with two purposes. The initially purpose was to broadly explore and update the set of barriers/challenges identified through the urban Extension plan content analysis. The second purpose was to probe the interviewee’s knowledge of the Cooperative Extension Service in an effort to identify any additional factors that could potentially be a barrier and/or challenge to Extension’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. To accomplish these two objectives the base set of interview questions was adjusted and modified and used to develop individual interviewing guides for each interviewee. Interviews were conducted with an initial set of key Extension stakeholders using this approach. After each of the interviews the researcher would listen to the interview recording as soon as possible to begin identifying the barriers/challenges present. Using an Initial or Opening Coding methodology to identify emergent themes and concepts, a rough list of the barriers/challenges was assembled. This was done until the researcher was no longer able to identify new barriers/challenges in the interview recordings. Six key Extension stakeholders were interviewed using this approach. A sample of an Early Interview Guide can be found in Appendix C. Once no new barriers/challenges were being identified in interviews, the second stage of the key Extension stakeholders began. The second stage of the interviews continued to employ individualized interview guides, but with a slightly different purpose. A sample of a Midway Interview Guide is in Appendix C. After opening the interview with a couple broad questions to establish a rapport and set the stage, interviewees were presented with a draft list of potential barriers/challenges that 42 had been identified in the first six interviews. The list was reviewed with them. Interviewees were then asked if they agreed or disagreed with the list, and if there were other barriers and/or challenges that they could think of that were not on the list. Any new barriers and/or challenges they identified were explored with follow up questions. If the interviewee did not identify any new barriers and/or challenges, based on their unique knowledge and experience with the Cooperative Extension Service, the interviewer selected two to three of the barriers/challenged in the draft list to explore in-depth with them. If time, the interviews closed with one or two questions to explore the interviewees’ thoughts about the future of Extension. From the comments about the list and new barriers/challenges that were identified in this phase of the interviews the draft list of potential barriers/challenges was updated. A copy of the Draft List of Factors Impacting Extension’s Work in Urban Settings is in Appendix D. Interviews with five key Extension stakeholders were conducted in the second stage of the interviews. Four interviews were conducted in stage three of the interviews. Stage three employed the same processes for the development of the individualize interview guides and for conducting the interviews. However, there were two differences in this phase of the interviews. First, no additional updates were made to the Draft List of Factors Impacting Extension’s Work in Urban Settings. Secondly, the interviewer specifically identified two or three of the barrier/challenges from the list that had not been previously explored with other interviewees to probe. This ensure all barriers/challenges that appeared in the draft list were explored in- depth with at least one key Extension stakeholder. A sample of a Late Interview Guide is in Appendix C. 43 Two of the key Extension stakeholders were NIFA national program leaders. Because of their positions, these two individuals had a unique national perspective and a comprehensive programmatic viewpoint. They were interview in the fourth stage of the interview process. Individualize interview guides were developed that not only shared the previously identified draft list of barriers/challenged, but also specifically probe around educational program content and delivery methods which they had responsibility for in their positions. A sample of a Specialized Interview Guide can also be found in Appendix C. Development of a list of barriers and/or challenges An Eclectic Coding scheme was also used in stage two of the study. This is the process of combining two or more purposefully selected compatible first cycle and/or second cycle coding methods, to code or recode the data with the intent of conducting a more comprehensive analytical examination of the findings (Saldaña, 2016). In stage two of the study the first cycle coding with was followed by a revised second cycle coding with a more purposeful and selected number of methods. “First cycle” coding methods a happen during the initial coding of data that are fairly straightforward or direct (Saldaña, 2016). The first cycle coding techniques used in stage two of the study are Elemental Initial or Open Coding and Grammatical Sub-Coding scheme (Gibbs, 2007; Saldaña, 2016). The second cycle coding methodologies used in stage two of this study in addition to Eclectic are Pattern and Theoretical. “Second cycle” coding methods are coding techniques that “require such analytic skills as classifying, prioritizing, integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory building” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 69). 44 Once interviews were completed and about a half of the interview recordings had been transcribed verbatim, three interviews from phase one and three interviews from phase two were randomly selected to begin the initial coding and analysis. The codes identified and used in stage one of the study were discarded (Appendix A). Once again, for a first cycle coding scheme, an Elemental Initial or Open Coding technique was employed to identify a new set of emergent concepts and themes from the key Extension stakeholder interviews. The Initial Coding technique used was a truly open-ended process for the first review of the data as outline by Saldaña (2016) in The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Initial Coding is often used in qualitative research in grounded theory development (Saldaña, 2016), which is the primary purpose for conducting stage two of the study. Using an Initial Coding technique, a preliminary list of codes was created to be used to develop a set of codes that could be used to analyze all the key Extension stakeholder interviews. The codes developed at this point were tentative and provisional. After coding the six transcripts select the emergent concepts and themes were compiled, revised, and modified to develop a draft Key Extension Stakeholder Interviews Code List. The code list includes not only the codes, but definitions, rules when to apply the codes, and examples. Unlike in stage one of the study, the decision was made to combine or “lump” similar codes into common codes in stage two of the study. At this point in the study the methodology necessitated that the barrier/challenge themes and concepts be condensed into a reasonable number that could articulated as the findings of the study. A second cycle Pattern Coding scheme was employed to develop a set of nested high-level or “parent” concepts along with a set of secondary concepts, or “child” (Gibbs, 2007; Saldaña, 2016). Pattern coding is a way of 45 grouping or summarizing a larger number of similar concepts and themes into a smaller number of categories (Saldaña, 2016). In essence, according to Saldaña (2016), it is like factor analysis for qualitative data. Pattern codes are explanatory or inferential codes that are used to classify and explain emergent concepts and themes. Saldaña (2016, p. 236) states that they “pull together a lot of material from the first cycle coding into more meaningful and parsimonious units of analysis.” To pilot test the code list for the key Extension stakeholder interviews the six previously coded interview transcripts were recoded. A few small adjustments were made in the code application rules and a number of additional examples were added. The revised and final version of the Key Extension Stakeholder Interviews Code List is Appendix E. This list of Pattern Codes was then used to code and analyze the interview transcripts for all key stakeholder interviews. A compilation of the barriers/themes identified in each key Extension stakeholder interview were gathered and summarized in a transcript memo. All barriers/challenges identified in stage two of the study were compiled into one master list. No consideration, in accordance with using a responsive interviewing methodology, was given to the frequency that the barriers/challenges were identified. The master list of barriers/challenges were compared to the list of barriers/challenges identified in stage one of the study to determine if they agreed or disagreed with the barriers and/or challenges identified in the urban Extension position paper content analysis. The stage two master list of barriers/challenges was also examined for any new barriers and/or challenges were identified by the key Extension stakeholders what were not present in the urban Extension plans analyzed in stage one of the study. 46 After an analysis of the set of stage two master list of “parent” and “child” sub-codes the study’s concept map was revisited. The variables and their relationships were updated and expanded to include the new insights garnered from the analysis of the key Extension stakeholder interviews (Figure 5.1). The themes and concepts identified using this Eclectic Coding methodology and the insights gathered from the revamped concept map allowed for the development of a grounded theory about the factors influencing the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. A full discussion of the findings from stage two of the study are presented in Chapter 5 – Stage 2 Findings: Key Stakeholder Interviews. 47 CHAPTER 3 – STAGE ONE: THEORETICAL LITERATURE REVIEW Stage one of the study consisted of four activities to inform the researcher and to begin to build the theoretical foundation needed to conduct the interviews in stage two of the study. The first activity entailed an extensive review of the literature. As suggested by Creswell (2014), the researcher plans to use a review of the literature at different stages of the study to provide a context and connections, as well as insights into the findings and future opportunities for Extension. This literature review will outline the context for the study and to begin to build a theoretical framework to shape the study’s ground theory around. Additionally, it outlines the history and context for the study, explores the central issues related to the study, builds bridges between related issues and seemly-unrelated issues associated with the research, and substantiates the research problem identified for exploration. LITERATURE MAP To organize the literature reviewed for this study a literature map or conceptual literature framework was developed (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). As the literature review and research design was developed throughout the conceptual phase of the study the literature map evolved. The final version is presented in Figure 3.1. The literature reviewed for this study is organized and presented by the four major content areas identified in the literature map. They are: how Cooperative Extension Service work links or connects to planning theory and practice; an overview of current urban conditions impacting Cooperative Extension Service work in cities and metropolitan settings; a broad set of literature around the Cooperative 48 Extension Service; and lastly community engagement literature around higher education’s and Extension’s involvement in community. Each of the four major content areas has a set of sub-themes included in the literature review. The four sub-sets of literature reviewed around planning theory and practice were Incrementalism, Citizen Participation, Communicative Action, and Advocacy and Pluralism. The sub-sets of literature around the urban environment conditions includes population, political environment, social and racial changes and issues, and the general urban environment or context. The sub-sets of literature around the Cooperative Extension Service was the largest and broadest. It includes the Cooperative Extension Service’s organizational history, its previous and current work in urban settings along with the types of educational programs and delivery methods, the leadership for urban Extension, and staffing including specific competencies or training needed by staff working in urban setting. It also contains two areas that overlap with the community engagement literature. They are Extension and university community engagement models, and of this area history. The third sub-set of literature in the community engagement areas is the literature around community-university partnerships. The literature presented from the practitioner literature falls under the Cooperative Extension Service literature and addresses many of the minor literature topics presented in the literature map. The areas of practitioner literature presented are: the lack of a national agenda for urban Extension; the declining resources, the history and politics surrounding Extension’s work; the lack of programming specifically designed for urban audiences and staffing. 49 Figure 3.1: Concept Map of Theoretical Literature Map - Shows four major areas of literature reviewed, with literature sub-sets for each area. 50 EXTENSION CONNECTIONS TO PLANNING THEORY AND PRACTICE Modern planning theory calls for the planning process to focus on many aspects of a community. One considerable community focus of the profession over the last century has been on the built environment. This seems logical given that modern planning theory has grown out of the works of such early thinkers as Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright (Fishman, 2012), all of which proposed physical models for their ideal urban utopia (Fishman, 2012). However, as planning theory has evolved through the twentieth century, planning theoreticians have turned their focus to the social, cultural, economic and/or political concerns associated with the practice of the planning profession (Fainstein, 2000). As the focus of planning theory has turned to the social, cultural, economic and/or political concerns associated with the practice of the planning profession in researcher’s opinion it has aligned more closely with the theoretical underpinning of Cooperative Extension Service work. As the researcher has become more familiar with planning theory, she has come to realize that planning theory and practice rose out of the interest to control and plan the built environment of communities. Over time practitioners and scholars realized that to successfully achieve this goal that the people who live in these environment or communities needed to be positively engaged in the process. While Extension theory and practice rose out of the interest to improve the social and economic systems of communities and has always focused on impacts that benefit the people who live in these environment or communities. These two sets of theoretical frameworks have a very common set of community focused goals and practitioners in both fields, in most cases unknowing, are actually pulling from both professional fields’ conceptual foundations. 51 Incrementalism Charles E. Lindblom’s (2012) piece on The Science of “Mudding Through, was written about planning processes, but in the researcher’s opinion he could have just as easily been writing about the processes that Extension employs in communities. Both planners and Extension professionals actively practice the science of “muddling through”, or incrementalism. Incrementalism is a process by which change happens in public policy or decision-making slowly in small calculated steps; more a process of evolution than revolution, according to Lindblom (2012). But the processes and theory of incrementalism has been expanded over time to describe a process of slow, methodical environmental, behavioral, community or even systems change. The incrementalism approach is taken by implementing a set of successive limited comparisons. This results in a process that does not rely heavily on theory. In it the selection of value goals and empirical analysis of the needed action are not distinct from one another, but rather they are closely intertwined. Since the means and the end are not distinct, then conducting a means verses end analysis is often inappropriate or very limiting. Instead, the test of a good policy, or next step in a process, is typically that various types of analysis independently agree that is the next best or most logical step to be taken. In an incrementalism model analysis is radically limited, important possible outcomes, alternative potential solutions and affected values are neglected (Lindblom, 2012). With the latitude to pursue their own scholarly interests accessible to university academics, that is extend to Extension educators, it is not surprising that the development of partnerships between universities and community organizations or governments might need to 52 follow a different planning model than the traditional rational models, according to Wim Wiewel and Michael Lieber (2000). They suggest that when planning or community development process occurs in a shared power or collaborative context that it is less likely to follow the standard model of progression from problem definition, to development of alternative solutions, and then on to implementation. Therefore, within collaborative or shared power processes, that are the hallmark of Extension’s community work, the doors must be open to a planning process that is more explicitly oriented toward building relationships, taking advantage of strategic opportunities, and remaining fluid or messy. This alternative approach that they are calling for is incrementalism as outlined by Lindblom (2012). Wiewel and Lieber (2000) argue that incrementalism is the only appropriate approach in a shared power or collaborative planning context because in these situations the partners are more likely to agree on the process than the substantive goals. Therefore the means cannot be separated from the ends (Wiewel et al., 2000). It is commonly recognizes in Extension literature (King & Boehlje, 2000; Langcuster, 2009) that Extension educators are muddlers. They prefer to work through problems over time, and the more complex the situation the more time that is generally devoted to it. It is in our nature, and our organizations standard mode of operations. Many Extension educational programs are explicitly developed to elicit behavioral or community change over time, meaning incrementally. Creating collaborative knowledge in a shared space is as intrinsic to the Extension experience as mom, apple pie and baseball are to the American way of life. Extension has been in the power sharing, collaborative, partnership building business for 100 years (Peters, 2002; Rasmussen, 1989). 53 Communicative Planning Communicative action planning theory was a paradigm shift in planning theory because it drew little from previous planning concepts and methodologies (Innes, 1995). Instead the communicative model drew from the works of such critical thinking theorists as Habermas, Foucault, and Dewey (Fainstein, 2000; Innes, 1995). The basis for the theory was the observation and actual work experience of practicing planners. It focused on communication, interaction, and dialogue, and emphasizes the planner’s role in mediating among stakeholders. The theoretical model calls for planners to be deeply embedded in community, politics and public decision-making. The planner’s principal purpose in this model is to listen to people’s stories and assist in building a consensus among differing viewpoints rather than providing technocratic leadership. In this model the planner is an experiential learner alongside stakeholders and ensures that all voices are heard in the planning process (H. Campbell & Marshall, 2012; Fainstein, 2000, 2012; Healey, 2012; Innes, 1995). The elements of this model are recognizable to the researcher in Extension work. One of the primary roles of an Extension educator is to listen to people and assist in determining their own needs, building a consensus among differing viewpoints if there are some and the situation warrants it, and working with the community to build the capacity to achieve the agreed upon course of action. Generally, the foremost subject matter experience that an Extension educator brings to a situation is the ability to work with people and communities to carry out the aforementioned roles. In fulfilling these roles, the Extension educator often becomes an experiential learner alongside the group of stakeholders, or in Extension language clientele, that they are working with. 54 Advocacy Planning In 1965 Paul Davidoff published Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (Davidoff, 2012). Davidoff outlined the theoretical framework for the advocacy planning paradigm. Public participation is a central tenet of this planning paradigm; this model posits that citizens should play active roles in the process of deciding public policy. However, in Davidoff’s worldview there are large inequalities in the political system and in the negotiating process between groups that result in large numbers of people unorganized and unrepresented in public policy debates and planning processes. The advocacy model calls for all people to be equally represented by having planners advocate for the interests of the underprivileged who are not engaged in the process and by seeking social change on their behalf. A diversification and plurality of public interests is assumed, and the role of the planner is essentially as a facilitator who either advocates directly for underrepresented groups or encourages them to become part of the process. Davidoff argues that professional planners must perform an advocacy role and the idea of pluralism planning must be achieved by incorporating all people into the planning procedures and discussions (Davidoff, 2012). William Johnson (Johnson, 1997) went on to define three types of advocacy roles that planners might perform. The first is as the apolitical-technician who upholds the political choices of the dominant leaders and coalitions. The second is a covert activist who takes on the outward stance of an apolitical-technician role but becomes involved behind the scenes with political action in order to influence value choices that surround their plans. The third is as an overt-activist who openly supports politicians, political parties and causes that they believe in 55 and that are most in keeping with their personal values. Planners can do this by taking on the role as an advocate for a group of citizens who are politically and economically disadvantaged; by taking part in the elective politics and formal decision-making machinery; and/or taking on the role of a “power wielder” by personally being in a position by virtue of working for a powerful agency or company. Extension staffs are often called upon in their professional roles to advocate, or “educate” as we would describe it, for the needs of unrepresented or underprivileged audiences in discussions about public service needs or policy debates with elected officials, key community leaders and the general public at-large. Extension staffs do this regularly on behalf of youth audiences involved in 4-H programs; low income families, individuals and seniors who are participants in Extension nutrition programs; urban audiences; and ethnic or racially diverse audiences. However, in most subject or technical matter situations Extension staffs strive to play the apolitical-technician role, but not in support of any particular dominant leaders or coalition. Instead, they endeavor to not take any side, but to present research-based information and scientific facts in an unbiased manner. Now behind the scenes Extension staffs may indeed play the role of the covert activist in an attempt to influence value choices associated with a particular situation. Unlike planners, and because they are employed by a university, they would never take on the role of an overt-activist who openly supports politicians, political parties and causes. 56 Citizen Participation Extension professionals talk about the different types of citizen participation, but once again there is no clearly defined theoretical framework laid out in Extension theory or practice as the one Sherry Arnstein presents in the ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969). Most, if not all, the levels defined in the ladder have applicability to Extension work. For Extension professionals to be effective in any community – from the largest to the smallest – they need to appropriately engage people. The ladder of citizen participation can help Extension professionals not only better understand the different types of citizen participation, but also provides clear and relevant descriptions of the different levels (Arnstein, 1969). URBAN CONDITIONS IMPACTING EXTENSION WORK In the preceding 100 years, since the passing of the Smith-Lever Act, the federal Cooperative Extension Service enabling legislation (NIFA, 2017),the distribution of the American population has dramatically changed (Henning et al, 2014; US Census, 2015). Harriman and Daugherty (1992) indicated that by 1992 the U.S. population had shifted from rural to urban, family farms to commercial farms, and young to older, and that minority populations were growing rapidly. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2000 that over 80% of the population lived in metropolitan areas, and that this would continue to be an upwards trend for at least the next 10 years (US Census, 2017). This was confirmed , when 2013 USDA Economic Research Service data showed that 85% of America's population resides in metropolitan counties (Economic Research Service, 2014). 57 Additionally, in 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the national demographic projections over the next few decades showed that America will be an older and more diverse population (US Census Bureau Public Information Office, 2012) as Harriman and Daugherty has claimed in 1992. Today, an overwhelming majority of the population lives in and around metropolitan centers (US Census, 2017). The most pressing national societal problems have moved to our urban centers as the population of the country has moved (Urban Task Force, 1996). The complexities of metropolitan issues usually affect multiple entities and are often politically influenced. Most metropolitan areas encompass multiple governmental jurisdictions, governed by numerous city, county or regionally elected officials (Borich, 2001). Furthermore, in our most urbanized states the major of state and federal legislators are elected from the urban and metropolitan centers (US Census, 2017). A few community services, like planning and economic develop, may be coordinated across multiple jurisdictional boundaries or organized on a regional basis. However, many health, social and educational services are provided only within single jurisdictions or smaller regional area. Metropolitan areas frequently have not only multiple governmental service providers, but large numbers of not for profit agencies or organizations as well. Many provide similar or complimentary services to those that Cooperative Extension Service provides. These organizations can act as partners or competitors for Cooperative Extension Service (Krofta & Panshin, 1989; Swanson & Samy, 2002). No matter the size of the community, or whether it is urban or rural, the residents living in them are connected and interdependent. Multifarious social, environmental or economic 58 problems do not stop at the city limit or rural county line (Henning et al., 2014). Metropolitan and rural areas share common social, environmental and economic issues such as poverty and hunger, housing and homelessness, migration and population growth, public safety and health. Prosperous cities and sustainable rural economies are needed for shared success across the United States (Schwartz, 2015). COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LITERATURE In 1798 following the American revolutionary war and in the midst of the American Enlightenment period Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence who was a civic leader, social reformer, humanitarian, physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote: The business of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our country. The form of government we have assumed, has created a new class of duties to every American. It becomes us, therefore, to examine our former habits upon this subject, and in laying the foundations for nurseries of wise and good men, to adapt our modes of teaching to the peculiar form of our government (Runes, 2000, p. 1). The new-model of American style colleges that emerged during this period was exemplified by such institutions as Yale, Harvard, the College of New Jersey (Princeton), the King's College New York (Columbia University), and the College of Philadelphia (Penn) and the College of William and Mary. During this time these colleges, most of which were originally founded to teach religious philosophy and train clerics, were reformed and refocused to provide non-denominational liberal arts curricula that included natural philosophy (sciences) 59 including medicine, modern astronomy, math and law (Forest & Kinser, 2001; Frost & Sikkenga, 2003; Tocqueville, 1840). Despite the reframed intellectual focus and expansion of curricula at these colleges, they still remained private institutions, primarily accessible to wealthier Americans (Forest & Kinser, 2001; Katz, 1983). The Organic Act of 1837 added a new dimension to America’s system of higher education. It officially established the University of Michigan as a public university that was founded in the German Humboldtian tradition of discipline based research. This established a model for public research universities quite distinct from the colonial college model of liberal education (Fitzgerald, 2010). Then in 1862, in the midst of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed the first Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act. This legislation provided federal lands to each state to help fund and establish land-grant colleges that would be public institutions that would specialize their curricula on agriculture, engineering and other applied sciences, and be more accessible to the average American (Alperovitz, Dubb, & Howard, 2008; Ferleger & Lazonick, 1994). The passage of the 1862 Morrill Act has been described by some scholars as a teleological shift in the history of higher education in the United States (Kerr, 1963; McDowell, 2003; Ward & Moore, 2010). The legislation caused an unprecedented opening of higher education to a wider portion of the nation’s population than ever before and certified that the applied sciences were indeed appropriate material for university study (Ward & Moore, 2010). This had a democratizing effect on the curriculum that was just as transformative as the opening up of college enrollment beyond the socially and economically privileged classes (Veysey I, 1965; Ward & Moore, 2010). The linkages of the land-grant universities to the daily 60 lives of citizens earned them the designation of “democracy’s colleges” and cemented the connection between American colleges and universities to communities (J. R. Campbell, 1995; Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010). Michigan State University and Pennsylvania State University became the first and second designated land grant colleges by the federal government in February of 1863. Both universities, which were actually colleges at the time, had been chartered in 1855 as the Michigan State Agricultural College and the Pennsylvania Farmers’ High School respectively. Other states quickly followed using the MSU and PSU models – Indiana, Kansas, New York, Texas, Ohio and California to name a few (Ferleger & Lazonick, 1994; Fitzgerald, Burack, & Seifer, 2010a). Further expansion of America’s higher education system occurred when a second Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act was passed in 1890 creating a system of all-black land- grant colleges across the southern United States, which were dedicated primarily to teacher training (Mayberry, 1991). Although it is not clear from the research or literature how many land-grant college alumni actually became farmers, graduates did play an important role in agricultural industrialization, increasing agricultural production, and spearheading national conservation efforts. This was especially true after the Cooperative Extension Service was set up with the passing of the 1914 Smith-Lever Act. As land-grant colleges and universities established state- level Cooperative Extension Services trained agronomists were placed in almost every agricultural county across the United States to work directly with farmers to increase the production, food safety and security of America’s food system (Mayberry, 1991; Ross, 1969). The placement of these university employees in off campus and in communities served to 61 strengthen the relationship between higher education and communities (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). It is within this context that the seeds of a national Extension system to extend the research and knowledge of the land-grant college and university system was sown (Rasmussen, 1989). Cooperative Extension Service history The concept for Cooperative Extension Service grew out of a national Report of the Country Life Commission (Bailey et al., 1909; Peters, 2002). The report, released in 1909, called for “the expansion of new industries and economic interests; promotion of social cohesion; improved efficiency of local government; growth in a cooperative spirit that engaged people as participants and contributors; enhancement of games, recreation, and entertainment from native sources; preservation of the natural landscape and improved capacity of people to appreciate such beauty; creation of social centers where real neighborhood interests exist; and inspiring farmers, clergy, teachers, and others to answer the leadership call by lending their service to up building the community (Bailey et al., 1909; Peters, 2002).” In summary, the commission members determined, "To accomplish these ends, we suggest the establishment of a nationwide extension work (Bailey et al., 1909, p. 56).” Five year after the release of the Report of the Country Life Commission Senator Hoke Smith of Georgia and Representative A. F. Lever of South Carolina introduced the Smith-Lever Act, which was passed on May 8, 1914 (Peters, 2002; Rasmussen, 1989). Since its inception, Cooperative Extension Service has been a partnership of the land-grant universities with the federal government through the United States Department Agriculture’s (USDA) National 62 Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and state and local governments (MSU Extension, 2018; NIFA, 2017). As the Country Life Commission called for, the primary mission of Cooperative Extension Service has been to provide educational programming that translates science for practical application to empower people to change aspects of their practices, attitudes, behaviors, and lives (Bailey et al., 1909; Peters, 2002). Because in the early 1900s a majority of Americans were living in rural settings, and agriculture was the key driver of the economy, the welfare of farmers and the farm household was of central concern and the initial focus of Cooperative Extension Service’s work (Bailey et al., 1909; Peters, 2002). However, the vision for Cooperative Extension Service outlined by the Country Life Commission and implemented with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act was to do more than attend to the needs of agriculture and rural America, it advocated for an Extension system that would improve the vitality of all communities to create a better America (Gould, Steele, & Woodrum, 2014; Peters, 2002; Rasmussen, 1989). Cooperative Extension work in urban context While the traditional basis of Extension programming was founded on delivering programs to primarily agriculture and rural communities, in the twenty-first century there is a growing call for Cooperative Extension Service to recognize the fact that its mission should include serving the urban and metropolitan audiences, as well as rural (Argabright et al, 2012; Bloir & King, 2010; Borich, 2001; Fehlis, 1992; Harriman & Daugherty, 1992; Henning et al., 2014; Krofta & Panshin, 1989; Panshin, 1992; Urban Task Force, 1996; Webster & Ingram, 2007). 63 Despite more than a half-century of on-going internal and external debate around where the Cooperative Extension Service should invest its national and state-level resources – in rural communities or urban – there is no policy or legislation that prohibits Cooperative Extension Service, or its land-grant parent universities, from working in urban and metropolitan areas (Borich, 2001; Fehlis, 1992). In fact, Cooperative Extension Service’s enabling legislation, and subsequent changes to the Smith-Lever Act, continue to reinforce the charge for Cooperative Extension Service to serve all audiences no matter where they live (Borich, 2001; Henning et al., 2014). The call for Cooperative Extension Service to work in cities is not new. It actually dates back to at least the 1950s (Borich, 2001; Ford Foundation, 1966). In fact, in the mid-1950’s the Ford Foundation funded a multi-year, eight city “experimental” urban Extension effort in response to the substantial urban migration, the resulting urban sprawl, and the growing racial tensions in cities (Borich, 2001; Ford Foundation, 1966). Another reason is that many of the economic, social and environmental challenges and problems that have and continue to be present in rural America – poverty, economic prosperity, proper nutrition, food safety, youth-at-risk, family financial security, water quality, natural resources conservation, waste management., on and on – are the same challenges and problems facing residents of urban America (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Borich, 2001; Fehlis, 1992). Although the challenges and problems are often the same, the underlying causes are frequently different (Fehlis, 1992). As Fehlis (1992) explained about the situation in Texas, “Water quality and conservation programs in rural Texas focus on agriculture, while in urban areas the focus is on industrial and homeowner usage. Waste management programs in rural 64 areas focus on manure disposal at feedlots and dairies; urban programs focus on lawn clippings, leaves, and home recycling (Fehlis, 1992, p. 2FEA3 JO).” Notwithstanding the diversity of issues present in American cities, Cooperative Extension Service has a 100 year history of demonstrated technical expertise located at the national system of land-grant universities, and success in adapting and delivering educational programs to meet the needs of people (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Gould et al., 2014; Henning et al., 2014; NIFA, 2017; Panshin, 1992). As stated, this success has been more rurally located than in urban and suburban environments (Borich, 2001; Fehlis, 1992; JOE, 2018; Krofta & Panshin, 1989; Webster & Ingram, 2007), but Cooperative Extension Service is generally respected for its objectivity and neutrality and ability to connect people to research-based resources (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Henning et al., 2014; Urban Task Force, 1996). This is one of the major reasons that Extension scholars contend that urban challenges and problems could be addressed, and potentially successfully impacted as similar rural issues have, by Cooperative Extension Service educational programming and services (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Borich, 2001; Fehlis, 1992; N. K. Franz & Townson, 2008; Young & Vavrina, 2014). Nevertheless, Cooperative Extension Service’s historically perceived rural, agrarian focus has left many urbanites unaware of Extension’s existence (Christenson & Warner, 1985; Urban Task Force, 1996). Urban populations have traditionally scored low on studies on their awareness of Extension, much less their use of Extension resources or participation in Extension programs (Jacob et al., 1991; P. D. Warner et al., 1996). While those urban and suburban populations that do have some knowledge are generally skeptical that Cooperative Extension Service has the expertise or commitment to apply its resources to perform an important role in 65 cities (Albertson et al., 2007; Urban Task Force, 1996). Even so, urban communities have ever increasing and urgent needs for educational opportunities and research-based information (Henning et al., 2014; Raison, 2014; Urban Task Force, 1996). To be sure, Cooperative Extension Service faces a number of obstacles in expanding beyond its rural roots into cities (Borich, 2001; Panshin, 1992; Webster & Ingram, 2007). To be effective in cities and suburban areas Cooperative Extension Service should recognize and understand a number of trends that present it with challenges and potential opportunities (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Henning et al., 2014; Raison, 2014; Webster & Ingram, 2007). HIGHER EDUCATION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT History of higher education’s engagement in community As is evidenced by the many contributions described in this literature review to the American economy and society by land-grant college alumni (Mayberry, 1991; Ross, 1969) and those described by scholars in the twentieth century (Boyer, 1996; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a), it was generally assumed that education, including higher education, was an investment in the future of America and that the intellect of the population was a valuable asset that our society collectively needed to invest in to ensure the future success of the United States. In short, education was for the “public good”, helping people to be better, more informed citizens of our American democracy, contributing to a more civil and secure society, and ensuring that our citizens would be productive contributors to the growth and expansion of the American economy (Boyer, 1996; Runes, 2000). 66 In an article published in the History of Education Quarterly Michael B. Katz (1983) reviewed research that was conducted by Colin B. Burke (1982) and Peter Dobkin Hall (1982) on the impact that colleges and universities had in the United States throughout the nineteenth century. Katz (1983) determined from Burke and Hall’s research that higher education had indeed provided these historically expected economic and societal impacts. He concluded from their research that higher education had aided many young people, although recognizably mostly men, by providing them with the education and training to transition from living and working on farms and in rural communities to move into complex urban-based occupations. Besides providing the necessary education and technical skills, colleges and universities became centers for teaching and promoting middle-class values that served these young people on their journey to new urban located, white-collar occupations. Colleges and universities also prepared their graduates to assume many core community leadership roles in both rural and urban communities, hence providing even more opportunities for upward mobility (Katz, 1983). However, Katz (1983) concluded from Burke and Hall’s research, that upward mobility for graduates was not an impact seen uniformly across the American higher education system. There were in fact differences seen with the results from the very elite Eastern colleges. They became even more exclusive and contributed relatively little to upward social mobility because their students tended to be the offspring of already wealthy families, but they did play an important role in the formation of a Northeastern elite (Katz, 1983). Nonetheless, and despite Burke and Hall’s research findings, somewhere in the mid- twentieth century the long held American view that a primary contribution of higher education 67 was to produce and promote public good began to erode in the minds of Americans. More and more people, as well as government which provided the major source of funding for America’s higher education system, began to see higher education as part of the problem rather than a contributor to solution for national problems. Academics began to be seen as residing within Ivory Towers, too often behind wall, and not connected in meaningful ways to communities and the everyday lives of their residents. Consequently, higher education began to be seen as having more private benefits than public good (Boyer, 1996; Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010). Education-oriented social critics and reformists began to call for a new vision for America’s higher education system that would bind public financial support for higher education to the expectation it would use its scholarly resources in communities to address critical challenges and to transformation of society (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010). These concerns and challenges led to the call at the end of the twentieth century for institutions of higher education to embrace their role in serving people and communities, and to return to their roots of scholarship of community engagement (Boyer, 1996; Kellogg Commission, 1998). In the 1980’s higher education scholars (Bonnen, 1998; Boyer, 1987, 1990; Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Votruba, 1992) were concerned not only with the fact that the image of higher education as an investment in the public good was slipping, but also, and as a probable causes of the change in public perception, that higher education had drifted too far from its teaching mission (Boyer, 1996) and, especially for the land-grant institutions, too far from its historical commitment to meet the broad and diverse needs of society (Bonnen, 1998; J. R. Campbell, 1995; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Votruba, 1992). To address these concerns it would necessitate that higher education would need to embrace a broader definition of 68 scholarship-based teaching, research, and service (Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002; Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010) and be able to evaluate the quality and impact of this work (Hirsch, 2000; Lynton, 1996; Lynton & Elman, 1987). Colleges and universities would also need a commitment to solidly link with community efforts to resolve a wide range of societal problems (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010; Harkavy, 1996; McCall, Groark, Strauss, & Johnson, 1998). As a prominent scholar in the field, Ernest L. Boyer became a leading voice calling for change in scholarly practice (Boyer, 1987, 1990, 1996). After completing his M.A. at Ohio State University and Ph.D. at the University of South California, Boyer held many distinguished positions during his professional career. He served as the Director of the Western College Association’s Commission to Improve the Education of Teachers, the Director of the Center for Coordinated Education at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Executive Dean of the State University of New York System, the Vice President of the State University of New York System, and Chancellor of the SUNY system. He also served on the national education commissions for three U.S. Presidents; Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter. In 1979 he was named the President of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. A position he held until 1995 (Honan, 1995; Peska, 2008). In his book, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America (1987), he asserted that even at top level research universities that teaching should be as highly valued as research. In his follow up book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), he sanctioned the idea that the teaching and service missions of higher education institutions, along with the interdisciplinary integration of knowledge across disciplines, should be 69 recognized as equally important as the research being conducted at these institutions (Boyer, 1990; Honan, 1995). In October 1995, approximately two months before his death, Boyer delivered a speech at the induction ceremony of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, calling for American institutions of higher education to reaffirm their historic commitment to public service and doing public “good” by embracing what he called “The Scholarship of Engagement” (Boyer, 1996; Honan, 1995). This speech was adapted and published under that title in the inaugural edition of the Journal of Public Services & Outreach in early 1996 (Boyer, 1996). This article has become the seminal piece of literature for the scholarship of engagement. In the article Boyer states: We have built in this country a truly remarkable network of research universities, regional campuses, liberal arts and community colleges, which have become the envy of the world (1996, p. 11). Despite this prestige, Boyer (1996) noted colleges and universities were suffering from a decline in public confidence, and a nagging internal system’s feeling that they were no longer at the vital center of the nation’s work. In Boyer’s (1996) assessment this was because, for the first time since the birth of the United States, institutions of higher learning were not collectively engaged in working on solving some urgent national challenge. Yet, less than one hundred years earlier, Boyer (1996) posited that the words “practicality” and “reality” and “serviceability” were regularly used by America’s most distinguished academic leaders and scholars to describe the mission of American’s institutions of higher education. Boyer (1996) contended that what these scholars were in fact talking about was the “scholarship of engagement”, but that in recent years many colleges and universities had reduced their focus 70 and stopped talking about their historic commitment to serving communities and to the “scholarship of engagement” even though there was abundant evidence that demonstrated that the civic and academic wellbeing of any culture was enriched when scholars and practitioners authentically engage with each other. Boyer went on to write: Still, our outstanding universities and colleges remain, in my opinion, one of the greatest hopes for intellectual and civic progress in this country. I’m convinced that for this hope to be fulfilled, the academy must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems and must reaffirm its historic commitment to what I call the scholarship of engagement (1996, p. 11). Boyer (1996) resolved that the “scholarship of engagement” meant two things. First, as the above Boyer quote suggests, it meant connecting the bountiful resources of higher education institutions to society’s most pressing social, civic, economic and ethical problems. Second, it meant creating a special climate in which the academic and civic cultures communicate more continuously and creatively with each other, helping to enlarge the universe of human discourse and enriching quality of life. In the article he refers to the new model of scholarship that was articulated more fully in his 1990 book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Boyer, 1990). The model assigns four interlocking functions that scholars at higher education institutions should be performing. The first Boyer (1990, 1996) identifies as the “scholarship of discovery”. This is basic research function performed by universities through which they endeavor to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Boyer (1990, 1996) strongly contends that this is a function that must be continued by the professoriate in order to ensure a free flow of ideas that might otherwise be hampered if the function was performed by government and/or businesses. 71 The second priority function is called the “scholarship of integration”. This, according to Boyer (1990, 1996), involves placing discoveries within a larger context and initiating more interdisciplinary conversations leading to a new knowledge paradigm. The third priority Boyer (1990, 1996) assigns to the professoriate is the “scholarship of sharing knowledge”. Boyer (1990, 1996) stresses that scholarship is a communal act. He posited that to ensure continuity of knowledge it must be shared not only with other scholarly peers, but also with future scholars/students and, when applicable, to public at-large. The final function Boyer (1990, 1996) identifies is the “application of knowledge”, which is necessary to make knowledge useful and avoid irrelevance. To achieve this scholars must become reflective practitioners, moving from theory to practice and then from practice back to theory in an effort to direct their work toward humanitarian ends (Boyer, 1996). Boyer (1996) concluded that in the next century, the total American higher education system, not just land-grant universities, but all research universities, regional campuses, liberal arts and community colleges, need to become more dynamically involved in the urgent issues of American society like the land-grant colleges did a century ago when they helped farmers industrialize and increase agricultural production (Bonnen, 1998; Mayberry, 1991; NASULGC, 1987; Ross, 1969) and educate engineers and technicians so that they could become the workforce necessary to build America’s technology-based economy (Ferleger & Lazonick, 1994; Marcus I, 2004). Today, an overwhelming majority of the population lives in cities and metropolitan areas (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Henning et al., 2014; Kellogg Commission, 1998; US Census, 2017). As the population of America has moved to urban and metropolitan areas, so have many of the most pressing national societal problems (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Boyer, 72 1990; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a; Harkavy, 1996; Kellogg Commission, 1998). The problems of urban life are enormously complex with no simple solutions, but with the success or failure of American cities will determine the success or failure of this country (Boyer, 1996; Harkavy & Puckett, 1994; Harriman & Daugherty, 1992; Kellogg Commission, 1998; Rodin, 2007). Boyer (1996, p. 19) specifically called for colleges and universities to focus the resources on working in cities. With education-oriented social critics and reformists demanding change (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010) and prominent higher education scholars expressing concerns about the state of the American higher education system (Boyer, 1996; Harkavy, 1996; Lynton, 1996), the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) sought funding from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation to examine the future of public higher education and the extent to which public universities were prepared to meet societal needs of the twenty-first century (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010; Kellogg Commission, 1998). NASULGC was convinced that its state and land-grant institutions were in need of structural changes as deep and significant as any that had been made to them in history (Kellogg Commission, 1998). In 1996 the Kellogg Commision on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, made up primarily of former and current university presidents, was organized to create an awareness among public universities of the kinds of reforms higher education required to meet the challenges of the new century (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010; Kellogg Commission, 1998). Drawing heavily on the ideas articulated by Boyer (1990, 1996), the Kellogg Commission called on America’s public universities to “renew their covenant” with society. This renewed covenant would refocus the scholarship agenda to place students at the forefront and elevate the status 73 of teaching and public service within the context of institutional mission and faculty rewards (Glass & Fitzgerald, 2010). The third, of six planned reports, to address this new agenda that the Kellogg Commission released was Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution (1998). In this report the Kellogg Commission indicated that it was time for colleges and universities to go beyond outreach to communities and serve to what they defined as “engagement” with community (1998, p. 13). By “engagement”, the Kellogg Commission meant: . . . institutions that have redesigned their teaching, research and extension and service functions to become more sympathetically and productively involved with their communities, however community may be defined (1998, p. 13). In the report (1998) the Kellogg Commission went on to distinguished “engagement” from the more familiar terms “public service,” “outreach,” and “extension.” The new approach the Kellogg Commission proposed challenged faculty to move beyond “outreach,” as it was conceptualized in the land-grant colleges with their agricultural and applied engineering roots. Whereas existing conceptions of “outreach” and “service” involved one-way transfers of university expertise, the Kellogg Commission, like a number of other scholars (Cox, 2010; Van de Ven, 2007), noted that engagement necessitated a systemic, two-way relationship between higher education and society. The Kellogg Commission made the distinction between the two quite explicit: Engagement goes well beyond extension, conventional outreach, and even most conceptions of public service. Inherited concepts emphasize a one-way process in which the university transfers its expertise to key constituents. Embedded in the engagement ideal is a commitment to sharing and reciprocity. By engagement the Commission envisioned partnerships, two-way streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for what each brings to the table (1998, p. 13). 74 To advance higher education’s movement toward “engagement” the Kellogg Commission (1998) developed a Seven-Part Test with seven guiding characteristics that define an engaged institution were responsiveness, respect for partners. academic neutrality, accessibility, integration, coordination, and resource partnerships (Kellogg Commission, 1998). Although many of the recommendations presented in the Kellogg Commission Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution (1998) report were more theorical than practical based (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a), the Commission’s challenge for higher education to return to active engagement with communities was a significant catalyst for action (Cox, 2010; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). In turn, higher education has attempted to step up and respond strongly to its critics. In the twenty years since the Kellogg Commission report was released a plethora of scholarly activities has been occurring (Doberneck, Brown, & Allen, 2010; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). There are now numerous conferences and professional development opportunities held regularly by colleges, universities, collaborations and coalitions (Doberneck et al., 2010). A quick search of the web provided numerous examples from such places as Michigan State University (Learning Opportunities. 2015), University of Minnesota (University of Minnesota, 2015), the University of Colorado at Boulder (“Outreach & Engagement,” 2015), Roger Williams University (“University Outreach & Engagement,” 2015), Oregon State University (Outreach and Engagement, 2015), and the Engagement Scholarship Consortium (Engagement Scholarship Consortium, 2015). While new individual and institutional membership associations have been formed (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a) liked the Engagement Scholarship Consortium (Engagement 75 Scholarship Consortium, 2015) and the National Collaborative for the Study of University Engagement (National Collaborative for Study of University Engagement, 2015). Higher education’s efforts to embrace engagement received national visibility when the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed a “Community Engagement” certification system for colleges and universities (“Carnegie Classifications,” 2015; Driscoll, 2008; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). This elective classification for institutions requires them to demonstrate an exchange of knowledge and resources between higher education institutions and their larger communities in a context of partnership and reciprocity (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). According to Amy Driscoll (2008), who analyzed the classification system and provided her insights in an article published in The Magazine of Higher Learning, the classification’s framework is intended to respect the diversity of institutional contexts and approaches to engagement, to encourage a reflective inquiry and self-assessment process that is practical and provides useful data, and to affirm good work while urging even better. There is also a number of scholarly, peer reviewed journals that regularly publish articles on outreach and engagement (Caret, 2007; Cox, 2010; Doberneck et al., 2010). They include the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Metropolitan Universities, Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Manifestations: Journal of Community Engaged Research and Learning Partnerships, and Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education. While the number of books published on the subject are too numerous to address, but some universities or university presses have begun to assemble collections on the subject. Michigan State 76 University Press’ Transformation in Higher Education series is an example of such an effort (“Transformations in Higher Education Series,” 2015). Community engagement models In addition, a whole new area of literature around University-Community Partnerships has emerged (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a; Fitzgerald, Burack, & Seifer, 2010b). Countless evidence- based models for partnerships have been developed and disseminated as part of this expanding literature field (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). One that is often cited in the literature is Derek Barker’s taxonomy of emerging scholarship of engagement practices (Barker, 2004; Fitzgerald et al., 2010a). Building on Boyer’s (1996) work, Barker (2004) identified a taxonomy of five commonly referenced approaches to engaged scholarship, which is presented in Figure 6. The taxonomy provides more conceptual clarity for the application of Boyer’s (1996) and the Kellogg Commission’s(1998) recommendations (Chambers & Gopaul, 2010). The approaches, or practices, of engagement included in the taxonomy are: public scholarship, participatory research, community partnerships, public information networks, and civic literacy scholarship. The taxonomy of common practices around the scholarship of engagement constitutes a distinct, important, and growing undertaking that serves to broaden and deepen the connection between scholars and the public realm. Each of the five methodologies of engaged scholarship defined provide a context for renewed civic and community engagement (Barker, 2004). 77 Table 3.1: Barker Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices A taxonomy based on five practices of engaged scholarship can be represented as follows: (Barker, 2004) Nancy Franz, Associate Dean for Extension and Outreach, College of Human Sciences at Iowa State University, introduced another model that includes Cooperative Extension, presented in Figure 7 (N. Franz, 2009). Franz’s holistic model of engaged scholar, called The Engaged Scholarship Model, as with the previous models presented, builds on Ernest Boyer’s work (Boyer, 1990, 1996), as well as other scholars, by placing a simplified definition of engaged scholarship at the heart of the model, breaking the three university missions– research, 78 Figure 3.2: Franz Engaged Scholarship Model (N. Franz, 2009) teaching and outreach - into six entry points, and then adding internal factors, external factors, and assumptions as important aspects of successful engaged scholarship (N. Franz, 2009). The Engaged Scholarship Model was developed to help a broad range of faculty, including Cooperative Extension Service faculty, to envision and practice a more holistic and integrated engaged scholarship. The model has several implications for engaged scholarship practice. First, that the model is very useful in orienting and mentoring new faculty, including Extension educators, on opportunities to practice engaged scholarship. Second, it can help new faculty better understand the multiple concepts of engaged scholarship in order to be more competitive in promotion and tenure processes. Lastly, that the model also provides a clear case for involving teams of faculty with differing appointments - research, teaching, and 79 outreach/Extension - to join together in conducting more comprehensive and effective engaged scholarship (N. Franz, 2009). University-community partnerships Universities are well positioned to play a role in responding to the challenges facing our nation’s cities (Fitzgerald et al., 2010a; Hartley & Harkavy, 2010). There are numerous ways that urban universities can support and encourage engaged scholarship. However, in reviewing the literature around university-community partnerships there seems to be some agreement that urban universities because of their physical juxtaposition in cities, land-grant universities because of their historic mission as “democracy’s colleges”, and historically Black colleges and universities because they serve a largely minority audience and are often located in cities as well, have a special or moral obligation to engage in scholarly activities in partnership within cities and metropolitan areas (Boyer, 1996; Hartley & Harkavy, 2010; Rozman, 2010). However, a possibly even more compelling reason is that more than half of the nation’s colleges and universities are located in cities (Alperovitz et al., 2008; Hartley & Harkavy, 2010; Rodin, 2007). They represent significant contributors to the character of their cities and to the definition of the urban environment (Coletta, 2010; Harkavy, 1996; Hartley & Harkavy, 2010; Rodin, 2007). The Kellogg Commission report said: “It need hardly be said that we need a new emphasis on urban revitalization and community renewal comparable in its own way to our rural development efforts in the last century” (1998, p. 33). 80 However, Ira Harkavy (1996), another leading scholar in the area, believes that Boyer’s call to action although inspiring is not the real underlying reason that colleges and universities physically located in cities have become more connected and enthusiastic about meeting their civic and societal responsibilities. Harkavy believes they are more strongly driven by self- interest. For the urban colleges and universities the problems of their cities have become some of the most pressing challenges they are facing. They cannot move from their physical locations so the poverty, crime and general physical deterioration of many cities looms large just outside their doors (Alperovitz et al., 2008; Cox, 2010; Harkavy, 1996; Rodin, 2007). These issues impact their ability to recruit and retain students, faculty and other employees (Cisneros, 1996; Jackson & Meyers, 2000). They also present public relations, political and financial challenges given the major role higher education institutions play in shaping society (Harkavy, 1996; Harkavy & Puckett, 1994; Rodin, 2007). Regardless of the motivations driving them, urban universities used their access to public and private funding to address a wide variety of urban issues in their cities (Cox, 2010; Rodin, 2007). The literature is full of numerous examples. PRACTITIONER THEORY IN LITERATURE To be effective in urban settings Cooperative Extension Service should recognize and understand a number of trends that offer both obstacles and opportunities. These trends include history, Cooperative Extension Service structure, fiscal resources and local politics. Cooperative Extension Service should do a better job of using applied research and program innovation delivered by Extension personnel skilled in working in urban settings (Urban Task 81 Force, 1996). Cooperative Extension Service should also align its programming and program delivery methods with the needs, issues and interests of metropolitan constituencies. Cooperative Extension Service programming should take the rich urban tapestry of diversity and commonalities into account in its efforts to work in metropolitan and urban centers (Albertson et al., 2007; Urban Task Force, 1996; WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010; Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008). The following barriers or challenges to Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban and metropolitan centers is presented in the practitioner literature: Lack of a national Extension urban agenda Despite attempts to create one, up until late 2017 there was no sanctioned or endorsed national Cooperative Extension Service urban agenda (NUEL et al., 2015; Urban Task Force, 1996; Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008). In the mid 1990’s the Association for Public and Land-Grant Universities Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, which is the representative leadership and governing body of Cooperative Extension Service nationwide (ECOP, 2014) , created a National Extension Urban Task Force to research and make recommendations for the development of a national Cooperative Extension Service agenda (Urban Task Force, 1996). The Task Force’s report was published, broadly distributed throughout the national Cooperative Extension Service and discussed throughout the late 1990’s (Urban Task Force, 1996). The report, Urban Extension: A National Agenda (1996), clearly lays out the case for Cooperative Extension Service to work in cities and puts forth a set of goals and objectives for Cooperative Extension Service to achieve nationally to work 82 successfully in urban and suburban areas. Despite the clarity of this report (Urban Task Force, 1996), structural and programmatic elements identified for a Cooperative Extension Service urban model in the Task Force recommendations have never been fully embraced or implemented over the last twenty years (Albertson et al., 2007; WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010). However, in the last decade eight state Extension systems; Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, have independently or jointly developed updated recommendations creating three additional sets of recommendations for an effective urban Extension model (Albertson et al., 2007; WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010; Young & Vavrina, 2014) Other states, including Florida, are currently working on developing recommendations for state-level urban Extension models (Young & Vavrina, 2014). Limited or declining resources Over the past several decades, stable or declining budgets have inhibited Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to expand staffing in urban areas or develop new programs without it being at the expense of traditional constituencies and programs (Fehlis, 1992; Urban Task Force, 1996; P. D. Warner et al., 1996). The federal Cooperative Extension Service budget has remained relatively stable for over two decades (NIFA, 2017), and most state and many county Cooperative Extension Service budgets have been reduced as state and local governments lost revenue as a result of the economic recession that the United States, as well as the world, has experienced. 83 In the last few years another attempt to implement a national urban Extension agenda has begun, is currently underway and may be gaining steam (Fox, Ruemenapp, Proden, & Gaolach, 2017; NUEL et al., 2015). Cooperative Extension Service history and its politics For decades a philosophical debate has stirred across the national Extension system about how many Cooperative Extension Service resources should be focused on urban areas. An adversarial situation has arisen: rural verses urban (Panshin, 1992). There are strong voices on both sides of the debate both internally within Cooperative Extension Service; and externally amongst past, current and potentially new clientele groups. Those in favor of a rural, agricultural emphasis passionately and tenaciously argue that increased attention to urban areas will mean less resources for rural and agricultural areas (Panshin, 1992). These arguments are not without cause, given Cooperative Extension Service’s declining financial resources streams described above. On the other hand, Cooperative Extension Service has been present in cities for more than 50 years (Ford Foundation, 1966). Granted, it has frequently been a token existence in many locations (Panshin, 1992), but as discussed in the previous section of this paper, there is a substantial amount of successful Extension work being conducted in cities too and as noted earlier in this paper. Moreover, a 1985 national study showed that despite popular belief that two thirds of Cooperative Extension Service clientele lived in urban/metropolitan areas (P. D. Warner et al., 1996). Given Cooperative Extension Service’s mission to serve all people and large amount of current clientele that already live there, it is only proper and necessary that 84 Cooperative Extension Service have a meaningful presence in cities and metropolitan areas. Additionally, it would be politically naïve of Extension not to acknowledge the political imperative for it to work in cities. Not only does more of the population of the United States live in metropolitan and urban areas, but more of the federal and state legislatures that approve funding for Cooperative Extension Service are composed of representatives from urban/metropolitan areas than representatives from rural areas (Krofta & Panshin, 1989). Programming designed for urban audiences As communities began to change, due to expansion and shifts in populations, so did Extension programming (Borich, 2001; Schafer, Huegel, & Mazzotti, 1992; Webster & Ingram, 2007). In the last half century Cooperative Extension Service has diversified its educational programming portfolio in many ways to respond to the needs of people living in urban and metropolitan areas (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Christenson & Warner, 1985; Fehlis, 1992; Gould et al., 2014). However, much of the curricula, delivery methods, and programming offered in cities and metropolitan areas is adapted from rural experiences and not specifically developed for an urban audience (Krofta & Panshin, 1989; Urban Task Force, 1996; WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010). Although some of the materials and delivery methods adapt well (Borich, 2001), others do not. Urban audiences may have difficulty relating in meaningful ways to examples in teaching materials that were not designed from an urban perspective (Webster & Ingram, 2007). Program delivery methods and techniques need to vary widely to take into account the 85 rich urban tapestry of diversity and commonalities found in metropolitan and urban centers (Fehlis, 1992; Urban Task Force, 1996; WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010). Programs need to be targeted to key issues and audiences and planned for visible impact (Krofta & Panshin, 1989). To be relevant in metropolitan and urban areas, Cooperative Extension Service programs need to embrace this reality when deciding which programs will continue to be supported, how these programs are delivered, and what the composition of their staff should be. Strong Extension programs need to be informed by research and based upon best practices because urban issues are very complex (Urban Task Force, 1996; Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008). Their analysis and solutions do not conform to traditional university structures or academic calendars. Contributions and insights from single disciplines, while important, are not sufficient to help transform urban society. Any university response should therefore be interdisciplinary in nature. Progress towards sustainable, high quality urban environments requires an interdisciplinary approach formed by scholars from a broad spectrum of academic disciplines (Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008). According to Rasmussen (1989), the ability to effectively make adjustments to ensure programmatic relevancy and effective delivery will determine the future of Extension. Regrettably, despite decades of national discussion and a countless number of effective programs being conducted across the country, a common approach to urban focused Extension education and issue analysis does not exist (WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010). 86 Staffing Cities and metropolitan areas are a mixture of cultures, attitudes, norms, and beliefs that have become woven together to create a distinctive culture. Nonetheless, Cooperative Extension Service staff should realize that despite mixing that all ethnic minorities are not the same, nor do they all share the same types of experiences or values just because they live in the same community (Krofta & Panshin, 1989; Webster & Ingram, 2007). Webster (2007) stated that it is important for the Extension educators to understand the perspectives of urban communities and the historical, political, economic, and social nuances that have helped shape them. If an individual is seeking to program and work with individuals to improve the quality of life, a basic understanding of how people live and operate is very important to the success of the program and the acceptance of Cooperative Extension Service. However, many Extension educators have little or no experience working with such diverse audiences or communities as those found in urban/suburban areas (Webster & Ingram, 2007). Additional training on working with urban audiences and on educational delivery methods is needed (Fehlis, 1992; Urban Task Force, 1996; Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008; Young & Vavrina, 2014). Doing high-quality Extension work will require individuals with sound training in the field of community development, applied social sciences, or other closely related fields (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014). Therefore, Cooperative Extension Service needs to also consider what degrees, background, and experiences are necessary to adequately prepare an individual to serve as an urban Extension educator (Beaulieu & Cordes, 2014; Fehlis, 1992) . Extension needs to be seen as an organization staffed to meet the needs of 87 a broader, more diverse urban and metropolitan population (Harriman & Daugherty, 1992; Krofta & Panshin, 1989). 88 CHAPTER 4 – STAGE 1 FINDINGS: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS Between late 2013 and early 2017, using several techniques described in detail in Chapter 2, seventeen documents providing information about seven state, one regional and two national urban Extension plans were identified. The documents collected described factors that could potentially be barriers or challenges that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to provide educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. These become the ten sets of documents reviewed and analyzed in stage one of the study. The initial analysis of the urban Extension documents was an organization of the documents by logging essential characteristic of the data, to group multiple documents from the same state or regional planning process together and organize them chronologically from oldest to newest. These initial findings from the analysis of the documents was used to group and organize the documents into the following list to be used in the next stage of document content analysis:  Two national urban Extension plans 1. Urban Extension: A national agenda (1996) developed by the ECOP Urban Task Force 2. A national framework for urban Extension (2015) developed by NUEL for ECOP  One regional planning effort that included three documents providing information about the regional urban Extension planning effort by the ECOP Western Region, 89 which consists of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming 3. ECOP Western Region  Extension in the urban West (Western Region Program Leader Committee, 2008)  The final report to the Western Extension Director’s Association (WEDA Urban Task Force, 2010)  The Western center for extension and research (Washington State University Extension, 2014)  Seven state level plans, many of them with multiple documents 4. Florida  Florida Urban Extension Plan (Urban Task Force, 2014)  A Journal of Extension article called A strategic plan for introducing, implementing, managing, and monitoring an urban Extension platform (L. A. Warner et al., 2017) 5. Kentucky  Kentucky’s 2013 urban Extension forum report (Young, 2013)  A Journal of Extension article called Kentucky’s urban extension focus (Young & Vavrina, 2014) 6. From Minnesota, University of Minnesota urban agenda task force report – draft (University of Minnesota Urban Agenda Task Force, 2007) 7. From North Carolina, Challenges to working in an urban context 90 (Feierabend, 2017) 8. From Oregon, Oregon State University Extension metro initiative: Extension metro model - a work in progress (Oregan State University Extension, 2009) 9. Texas  Urban program review committee report to the administrative staff (Urban Program Review Committee Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1990)  A Journal of Extension article called Urban initiative (Fehlis, 1992)  Urban task force report (TAEX Urban Task Force Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1999)  TAEX urban task force (Sub-commitee on Expansion Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 2001) 10. From Utah, Metro Extension. . . the future is now (Albertson et al., 2007) The next steps were to analyze the content of each document set using the following set of Provisional Codes: 1. Urban Environment 2. CES leadership 3. CES operations – General 4. CES operations – Staff 5. CES operations - Volunteers 6. CES operations – Program Content 7. CES operations – Program Delivery 91 8. CES community engagement 9. Community image 10. CES Organizational History Through this content analysis of the ten sets of urban Extension planning documents 121 child level barrier and/or challenges were identified underneath one of the ten parent level Provisional Codes. The barriers or challenges identified in the documents could have been expressed as a negative, positive or neutral factor, but nonetheless they were identified as a factor that influenced the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. The findings from the document content analysis in this chapter will also be presented as negative, positive and neutral factors that can be potential barriers/challenges that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. The definitions of the Provisional Codes and a list of their Sub-Codes are in Appendix A. URBAN ENVIRONMENT In area of Urban Environment, which comprises the combination of environmental and ecological elements that create urban contexts, all ten sets of documents analyzed referred to two or more of 11 sub-areas identified as potential barriers/challenges. Table 4.1 provides an overview of the barriers/challenges identified in the Urban Environment area. The Utah plan identified the most barriers/ challenges, with nine. While the Oregon plan identified the least, at two. The most commonly identified barrier/challenge, present in nine of the sets of documents, was the size of the population, referring to the sheer number of people that live in 92 Table 4.1: Stage 1 - Urban Environment Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges within the urban environment identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U y k c u t n e K f o L L A NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES Urban Environment Population size Population diversity Faster than average pop. growth/decline Highest amount population Urban environment different than rural Complexity of environment Multifaceted problems CES can address Home to political power Blurring of jurisdictional boundaries Concentrated poverty Higher average education levels x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x urban and metropolitan settings. Next most commonly identified barriers/challenges, being mentioned eight times each, were the diversity of the population, referring to not only the racial-ethnic diversity but also cultural, social and economic diversity; the complexity of urban/metropolitan environments; and the multifaceted issues or problems present in them that the Cooperative Extension Service might have resources to address. Having a high percentage of overall population living in urban/metropolitan settings and having a high percentage of legislators being from these areas, or being home to the political structure, were both identified in five of the urban Extension plans. These were followed up, 93 being identified in four plans each, with the identification of a population that is growing or declining at a higher rate than average for the geographic area covered by the plan; the understanding that urban and rural are different kinds of places to live, work and play; and because of the large number of municipalities present, their jurisdictional boundaries often overlap and blur. Lastly, the concentrated poverty and the higher than average educational level of some urban/metropolitan residents, were each mentioned twice. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LEADERSHIP The Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area, which contains factors associated with the leadership responsibilities or actions that impact the work of the Extension staff and the organization in cities and metropolitan settings, was the area that contained the largest number of barriers/challenges identified in the plans with 22 sub-areas. All ten documents sets analyzed referred to five or more of nine sub-areas. Table 4.2 provides an overview of the sub- areas identified in this area. At the top were the sets of documents from Texas with 20, Kentucky with 19, and Florida with 18. At the bottom were the North Carolina plan with four and the set of Western Region plan documents with five. The most commonly identified barrier/challenge in the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area was having Extension leadership interest in and actively seeking new funding resources to support urban/metropolitan focused efforts and being competitive in garnering new resources. This barrier/challenge was identified in eight of the ten sets of urban Extension planning documents. Appearing in seven of the sets of documents was the need of Cooperative Extension Service Leadership to work effectively across all college, departments and units 94 within their parent land-grant university to collaborate or collaborate and gain access to relevant urban/metropolitan expertise. Also appearing in seven of the document sets was providing resources to support operational and programmatic needs that are uniquely urban/metropolitan, and establishing appropriate programmatic impact measures for urban/metropolitan areas. Lastly, was having Extension leadership that support giving staff the time necessary to participate in professional development and ensuring that the organization offers professional development opportunities to build and enhance urban/metropolitan competency skills of staff. Table 4.2: Stage 1 - CES Leadership Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES leadership from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Leadership Visionary leadership See need to change as environment changes Definition for what constitutes urban Urban work integrated in CES Understand differences working in urban vs. rural Understand & support for work Work effectively across all of university, internally Strong relationships w/local, state & federal legislators Equitable & responsible resource distribution for urban URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 95 h a t U x x x x Table 4.2 (cont’d) NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U CES Leadership - CONTINUED Reallocate base resources to urban Seek & be competitive for new resources Allocate resources to support things uniquely urban Use an effective fee for service model Adjust org policies to support urban work Support & reward innovative/ risk taking Appropriate programmatic impact measures Realistic performance expectations, rewards & recognition Support time & professional develop for staff to build urban competencies Develop effective staff evaluation measure for urban competencies, accountability Employ diverse staff who reflect community Provide competitive salaries Establish effective lines of supervision x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x There were six barriers/challenges that were identified in six of the sets of documents. The first was having the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership understand or see the need and then be supportive of taking the necessary steps to increase the size of the urban/ 96 metropolitan audience served as the size of that population grows. Then having Extension leadership that ensures that the work being done in urban/metropolitan settings is integrated into the overall organization and not treated as something separate along with building strong relationships by Cooperative Extension Leadership with local, state and federal legislators. The willingness to allocate, or reallocate, base Cooperative Extension Service resources to support urban/metropolitan programming and operations; and the development of an effective and appropriate fee for service model for urban/metropolitan areas were two more. The sixth one was having Extension leadership that understands the need to have effective staff evaluation measures for urban competencies and accountability built into the organizational structure. Competency and accountability measures that are potentially different from those that are effective for and/or used to evaluate Extension work in rural and agricultural settings. There were also six barriers/challenges identified in five of the document sets. They were having visionary leadership, having leadership that recognizes and understands that there are differences in Extension work in urban/metropolitan settings verses rural and agricultural settings, and having leadership that generally understands the work that staff is doing in urban/metropolitan settings and supports it. Additionally, having Cooperative Extension Service Leadership that is willing to distribute equitably and responsibly organizational resources into urban/metropolitan areas, along with adjusting organizational policies to fit urban/ metropolitan Extension work, and having leadership that supports and rewards innovation and risk taking in urban/ metropolitan settings. Having Extension leadership that recognizes and uses a consistent definition for what constitutes “Urban”; and having realistic performance expectations, rewards and recognition 97 for staff both appeared as barriers/challenges in four of the document sets. While employing a diverse staff that is reflective of urban/metropolitan residents along with establishing effective lines of staff supervision both appeared in three document sets. Providing competitive salaries for urban/metropolitan settings appeared as a barrier/challenge that Extension leadership needs to recognize and address in two of the document sets. GENERAL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY OPERATIONS All the document sets identified barriers/challenges in the General or Overall Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations area. The General or Overall Extension Community Operations area includes the combination of resources and activities occurring in cities and metropolitan settings that constitute Cooperative Extension Service community operations. Texas identified the largest number, with eight. While the North Carolina plan identified the least, at two. Nine sub-area barriers/challenges were identified in the General Operations area. Table 4.3 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. The top two barriers/challenges, identified in eight plans each, were having a set of best practices for Extension operations and programming in urban/metropolitan settings, and taking a multi-disciplinary team approach to the work. Operating with the understanding that there are strong urban/rural interdependencies; and having good, or high quality, physical office, satellite office and virtual office space each appeared as barriers/challenges in seven of the urban Extension plan documents. While needing soft county lines to determine program coverage and for allocation of local funding was identified as a barrier/challenge in six of the document sets. 98 Table 4.3: Stage 1 - General CES Operations Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES community based operations identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Operations - General Best practices for replication Rural/urban managed the same Strong rural/urban interdependency Soft county lines, soft county funding Metro area supervision of program staff Multi-disciplinary team approach Logic models guide work Good physical & virtual locations, offices Consumer oriented operations URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x h a t U x x x x x x x Appearing as a barrier/challenge in the General or Overall Operations area in four of the document sets was that the Cooperative Extension Service frequently manages operations, staffing and program the same in urban/metropolitan settings as it does in rural and/or agricultural settings despite the differences in the environments and many unique urban environmental factors, which were identified under the Urban Environment barrier/challenge area. Also appearing as a barrier/challenge in four of the document sets was the need to have local, urban/metropolitan supervision of staff and programming. Having consumer oriented operations was identified in three of the urban Extension planning documents. While using 99 logic models to guide and direct urban/metropolitan Extension work was identified in two of the document sets. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE STAFFING The Cooperative Extension Service Staffing area contained the second largest number of barriers/challenges identified in the plans with 19 sub-areas. The Cooperative Extension Service Staffing area encompasses the staff and/or human resource application and management in cities and metropolitan settings. At the top were the set of documents from Texas with 17, and the 2015 NUEL national plan with 16. At the bottom was the 1996 National plan identifying only one barrier/challenge under staffing and the Oregon plan identifying only two. Table 4.4 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. The most commonly identified barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service Staffing area, appearing in eight plans, were having staff with the appropriate skill sets to work in urban/metropolitan environments, and making sure that the staff had access to professional development to build, improve and expand the skill sets needed to effectively work in urban/metropolitan settings. Appearing in seven of the sets of documents around the Cooperative Extension Service Staffing area was the need to or lack of having flexible staffing positions and patterns; the need to or lack of having staff that are prepared and interested in working in urban/metropolitan setting; and the need to or lack of having staff that reflect and embrace the diversity of urban/metropolitan communities. 100 Table 4.4: Stage 1 - CES Staff Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES staffing identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Operations - Staff Staffing pattern Flexible staffing patterns Soft line coverage areas Majority of time allocated to local Skill sets to work in urban Staff prepared/interested in working in urban Ability to work in multi- disciplinary team Appropriate program area focus for urban Specialized program focus Professional development needed Recruitment, hiring & retention Titles, job descriptions Qualifications & backgrounds Staff need to reflect & embrace community diversity Unique position need - communications Unique position need - recruiting & managing volunteers Unique position need - resource development Unique position need - support staff tech needs & program delivery via tech Unique position need - local leadership relationship development URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 101 Six of the plans indicated that not using staffing patterns appropriate to serve the needs of urban/metropolitan residents, and staff not having appropriate qualifications and/or backgrounds for urban/metropolitan settings were barriers/challenges. Along with these, appearing in six plans, was the need to or lack of having staff with soft or flexible coverage lines that do not necessarily follow county lines of municipal boundaries. Having staff with appropriate programmatic area focuses for urban/metropolitan appeared in five of the plans as a barrier/challenge. Five barriers/challenges appeared in four of the plans. They were having the majority of time allocated to local programming efforts; having specialized program focuses; using effective or appropriate staffing recruitment, hiring and retention practices and policies; having appropriate job titles and job descriptions for staff that are appropriate for urban/metropolitan settings and probably different from rural and agricultural areas; and lastly, having a unique local position supporting the technology needs of staff and program delivery via technology. Having staff with the ability to work in multi-disciplinary teams was identified in three of the urban Extension plans in the Cooperative Extension Service Staffing area. While, appearing in two of the plans as barriers/challenges, was having a set of positions located in local offices or in the urban/metropolitan region There were four types of positions, that were each identified twice, they were having a local communications person, having a person recruiting and managing volunteers, having a local position focused on resource development, and having a local position focused on building relationships with local legislators and community leadership development. 102 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE VOLUNTEER STAFFING The Cooperative Extension Service Volunteer Staffing area had the smallest number of barriers/challenges identified in the plans with five sub-areas. The Cooperative Extension Service Volunteer Staffing area includes factors that influence Extension’s work around the recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers in cities and metropolitan settings. Table 4.5 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. At the top were the set of documents from Florida and the 2015 NUEL national plan each with four. At the bottom, identifying no barriers/challenges under volunteer staffing were the Minnesota and Oregon plans. The most commonly identified barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service Volunteer Staffing area, appearing in eight plans, was the effective use of volunteers. Not having flexibility with the variety of volunteer opportunities and Table 4.5: Stage 1 - Volunteer Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES’s use of volunteers identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stagte one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Operations - Volunteers Effective use of Variety of opportunities, lengths of involvement Reflect the diversity of community Training needs Engaged in needs assessment, program planning & evaluation 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N x URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x y k c u t n e K f o L L A x x 5 1 0 2 L E U N x x x x t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A x x x x x x 103 h a t U x x the length of involvement appeared in five of the urban Extension plans. Three plans indicated that having volunteers appropriate training; and engaging volunteers in needs assessment, program planning and program evaluation were potential barriers/challenges. Lastly, one plan, showed that not having volunteers that reflect the diversity of the community. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAM CONTENT In the area of Program Content, which encompasses the educational program content and curricula used by the Cooperative Extension Service that have been or need to be developed or adapted specifically for urban residents, nine sub-areas were identified. All ten sets of documents analyzed referred to two or more of nine sub-areas. The 2015 NUEL national plan identified the most barriers/challenges, with nine. While the Minnesota and North Carolina plans each identified only two. Table 4.6 provides an overview of the barriers/challenges identified in the Urban Environment area. The most commonly identified barrier/challenge, present in nine of the sets of documents, was having program content that is relevant to the diverse population that lives in cities and metropolitan settings. The next most commonly identified barriers/challenges, being mentioned eight times each, were having programming that is relevant to the urban context meaning content that appropriately addresses the economic, social and cultural needs and issues of these environments; and programming that has been developed and is assessed for impact in urban/metropolitan settings. Appearing in seven of the urban Extension plans was having issues-based programming content that proactively, and not reactively, addresses the 104 Table 4.6: Stage 1 - CES Program Content Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES program content identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N x x x CES Operations - Program Content Relevant to urban context Relevant to diverse population needs Unique to local context Issue based, proactive, not reactive Multi-disciplinary Accesses experts across LGU relevant to urban Effective needs assessment Develop & assess for impact High quality materials x x URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 5 1 0 2 L E U N x x x x x x x x x t s e W f o L L A x x x x x x x x a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x h a t U x x x x x issues and needs of urban/metropolitan residents and communities; and using effective programmatic needs assessments that engage a broad spectrum of urban/metropolitan voices. Having access to faculty expertise that is relevant to urban/metropolitan needs and issues from across Extension’s parent land-grant universities was identified as a potential barrier/challenge in six of the sets of documents. This was followed up, being identified in four plans, was having programming content that is uniquely developed and designed for an urban/ metropolitan setting. Appearing in three of the urban Extension plans was the need to have multi-disciplinary program content and having high quality programming materials that convey 105 the trustworthiness and integrity of the Cooperative Extension Service and their parent land- grant universities. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE PROGRAM DELIVERY All the document sets identified barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service Community Program Delivery area. The Cooperative Extension Service Community Program Delivery area includes elements around the educational program delivery methods used by the Cooperative Extension Service that have been or need to be developed or adapted specifically for urban/metropolitan residents. Utah identified the largest number, with ten; while the Minnesota plan only identified one. Thirteen sub-area barriers/challenges were identified in the Program Delivery area. Table 4.7 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. The barrier/challenge that was identified most commonly, in nine of the ten document sets, was using distance education and other technologies to deliver Cooperative Extension Service educational program content. The next most commonly identified barriers/challenges, being identified eight times, was the need to use mass and social media along with Extension websites to promote and deliver educational program content. This was followed by the need to focus on updating Extension’s program delivery modes and being creative in the approaches that Extension uses to deliver educational programming in urban/metropolitan settings appeared in seven urban Extension plan document sets. 106 Table 4.7: Stage 1 - CES Program Delivery Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES program delivery identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x CES Operations - Program Delivery Focus on updated, creative modes Offers from retail to wholesale Uses mass media, social media, websites Uses technology & distance education technologies Uses multiple delivery locations, offices Uses volunteers to deliver program Delivered through partners Uses engaged learner style Applied research, engaged scholarship Strong brand identity Reaches large numbers of people Reaches a diverse audience Targets local legislators & community leadership x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Four barriers/challenges were identified in five of the urban Extension plans. They were using multiple physical Extension offices and other local sites to deliver educational programs; engaging and using volunteers in the delivery of educational programs; using applied research and engaged scholarship approaches when delivering Extension educational programs; and making sure program delivery modes used are able to a reach diverse audience. Appearing as 107 barriers/challenges in three document sets was the need to use program delivery modes that are able to reach large numbers of people; and using program delivery modes from retail, meaning offering programs directly to urban/metropolitan residents, all the way to wholesale, meaning offering training to the staff of other organizations that would offer programming directly to residents. Having programs delivered through partner organizations and working to specifically target local legislators and community leadership as Extension educational program audiences were both identified as potential Program Delivery barriers/challenges in two sets of urban Extension plan documents. These were followed, being identified in one plan each, were the need to use an engaged learner style or approach when delivering educational programs; and having a strong brand identity. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement area, which encompasses the interaction techniques used by the Cooperative Extension Service that result in the co- creation, by academics and local residents, of solutions for local issues of concern, contained 13 barrier/challenge sub-areas. All ten document sets analyzed referred to five or more of the 13 sub-areas. At the top was the 2015 NUEL national plan with 11 and Utah plan with 10. At the bottom was the North Carolina plan with five and the Minnesota plan with six. Table 4.8 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. 108 Table 4.8: Stage 1 - CES Community Engagement Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES community engagement identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U CES Community Engagement Networker/partnership builder Catalytic/facilitative convener Build trust Evaluate for good partnerships, evaluate for outcomes Communicate about value & outcomes of partnerships Building partnerships in urban more difficult Build broad & effective community networks Build broad & effective LGU networks Effectively use Extension advisory councils Make sure advisory councils have broad representation Involve community/general public in needs assessment & program development Target community leadership Partners can be competitors, duplication of services x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x There were four potential barriers/challenges identified in nine of the urban Extension plan document sets. First, all but one of the document sets indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to focus on building networks and partnerships in urban/metropolitan 109 environments; and secondly, be able to evaluate the networks and partnerships Extension has or is building for outcomes and effectiveness. Nine of the documents sets also indicated that both the external community-based and internal land-grant university networks and partnerships built need to be broad and effective. Appearing in seven of the urban Extension plan document sets as Community Engagement barriers/challenges was the need for Extension to involve urban/metropolitan residents and communities in program needs assessments and program development; effectively using Extension advisory councils; and effectively communicating both internally and externally the value of having partnerships and the outcomes of those partnerships. Three barriers/challenges were identified in five of the document sets. They were having Extension act as a catalytic leader or facilitative convener in bringing the community together around issues and needs; targeting community leadership as an audience Extension should focus on when building networks and partnerships; and being aware that community partners can also sometimes offer similar or duplicative services to those that Extension offers. When this happens, these partners can then also become competitors. Making sure that urban/metropolitan Extension advisory councils have broad representation that is representative of urban/metropolitan residents appeared in four of the document sets. This was followed up, by appearing in three urban Extension plan document sets, was the need for Extension to realize that building networks and partnership in urban/ metropolitan settings can be difficult. This is due to things like the fact that there are so many potential entities to build networks/partnership in urban/metropolitan environments, partners can also be competitors, and it can be difficult to identify partnerships that will be effective and 110 result in community impacts or outcomes. Not having or the need to build trust in communities with potential partners and community residents was identified in two of the urban Extension plan document sets as a Community Engagement barrier/challenge. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY IMAGE Nine of the ten document sets identified barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service Community Image area. Cooperative Extension Service Community Image area includes the knowledge and impressions that urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has a perception about the Cooperative Extension Service. Kentucky identified the largest number, with 11. While the Minnesota plan identified no potential barriers/challenges. Thirteen sub-area barriers/challenges were identified in the Community Imagine area. Table 4.9 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. The most commonly identified barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service Community Image area were having Extension be visible and recognized in urban/ metropolitan settings, and having effective branding. These two barriers/challenges were identified in eight of the ten sets of urban Extension planning documents. Appearing in seven of the sets of documents was the need of Cooperative Extension Service to have an urban/ metropolitan marketing plan. There were three barriers/challenges that appeared in five of the document sets. They were the need to use mass media and social media to promote the Cooperative Extension Service in urban/metropolitan settings; the need to have high quality program and promotional 111 Table 4.9: Stage 1 - CES Community Image Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around CES community image identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U y k c u t n e K f o L L A NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES Community Image Urban marketing plan Internal marketing plan External marketing plan Visibility, recognition is important Effective branding Use mass & social media Use consultants to develop plan Need to change image in urban Need effective communication w/urban audiences Urban population less familiar w/CES Seen as consumer friendly High quality materials that reflect desired image, curb appeal Target community leadership x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x materials that reflect the desired image that Extension wants to portray, or as one document set described it “curb appeal’; and the need to specifically promote Extension to community leadership and elected officials. These were followed up by four barriers/challenges that were identified in four urban Extension plans. They were the need for Cooperative Extension to have an external marketing 112 plan; the need for Extension to work on changing its rural/agricultural image in urban/ metropolitan settings; the need to use effective communication tools, strategies and media to communicate with urban/metropolitan audiences; and lastly, the recognition that urban/metropolitan audiences are simply less familiar with the Cooperative Extension Service than people living in rural or agricultural areas. Appearing in three of the urban Extension plan document sets in the Community Image area was the need for Extension to have an internal marketing plan. One that specifically targets not only Extension employees, but the faculty and staff of Extension’s parent land-grant universities. Two of the urban Extension plans suggested using a consultant to assist Extension in its marketing and community image building. This was followed, appearing in one plan, by the need for Extension to be and to have the image of being consumer friendly and accessible. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY The Cooperative Extension Service Organizational History area was a new Provisional Code that was identified through the Initial or Open Coding process that was also used to identify the 121 sub-areas. The Cooperative Extension Service Organizational History area encompasses the combination of ecological and historical elements that create the Cooperative Extension Service context and culture. It had the second smallest number of barriers/challenges identified in the plans with seven sub-areas. Table 4.10 provides an overview of the sub-areas identified in this area. At the top, identifying five sub-areas each was the 2015 NUEL national plan and the Utah plan. At the bottom, identifying no barriers/challenges under the Cooperative Extension 113 Table 4.10: Stage 1 - CES Organizational History Barriers/Challenges – Shows the list of the barrier and/or challenges around the CES organizational history identified from the review of ten sets of documents in stage one of the study. NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Organizational History Urgency to address urban Lack of system direction Mission driven Historic rural/ag roots Current ag/rural clientele don't support urban work National network needed Global urban model URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x h a t U x x x x x Service Organizational History was the North Carolina plan. The most commonly identified barriers/challenges in the general context area, appearing in seven plans, was the recognition of the urgency to provide access to Extension’s educational programs and resources, and to address urban/metropolitan needs and issues; and to ensure that the work Extension is doing in urban/metropolitan settings is mission driven. Five plans indicated that not having an identified national direction for the Cooperative Extension Service system was a barrier/challenge. While four urban Extension plans indicated, that Extension needs to develop a national network of staff working in urban/metropolitan settings. Extension’s agricultural and rural roots was identified as a barrier/challenge in three of the document sets. This was followed, appearing in two plans, by the recognition that some current Extension agricultural and rural clientele do not support Extension’s interest and efforts 114 in providing educational programs and services to urban/metropolitan residents. Appearing in one plan, was the opportunity for Extension to not only create an effective urban model for the United States, but the recognition that such a model could have global application. POST STAGE 1 RESEARCH SCHEME CONCEPT MAP As suggested in Maxwell’s (2013) interactive model of research design embraced by this study, toward the end of the stage one data analysis process the researcher returned to the study’s goal and stage one research question to gauge alignment. Likewise, the post literature review Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 2.3) was assessed to determine how the stage one findings affected or influenced the conceptual framework, and to begin to interpret the data collected. Based on the expansion of the initial Provisional Barrier/Challenge Codes and the pattern of emergent Sub-Code themes and concepts identified in the ten urban Extension plan data sets, several adjustments were made to the post literature review Concept Map. These adjustments incorporated the additional barrier/challenge concepts and themes identified in the urban Extension plan content analysis process. The adjustments in the concept map include the addition of the Cooperative Extension Service organizational history, the splitting of the staffing area into paid Cooperative Extension Service staff and unpaid volunteers, and lastly the splitting of Cooperative Extension Service programs into the educational program content and programmatic delivery methods. The updated, post stage one Research Scheme Concept Map is presented in Figure 4.1. 115 Figure 4.1: Post Stage 1 – Research Scheme Concept Map Based on the stage one findings the Research Scheme Concept Map was updated to reflect the expanded set of ten potential places that staff might experience obstacles or impediments in their efforts to deliver Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban residents. These are identified as “barriers” or “challenges” in the Concept Map. The ten areas are the urban environmental conditions present; the organizational history and culture of the Cooperative Extension Service; the organizational leadership provide for the Cooperative Extension Service work being conducted; the field or community based operations of the Cooperative Extension Service which includes the areas of paid staff, volunteer staff, educational program content and program delivery methods; the community engagement models or methods used, and the Cooperative Extension Service organizational image in cities and large metropolitan settings. At the left of the concept map is the Urban Environment and the Cooperative Extension Service Environment or organizational history. The Urban Environment is the combination of ecological or environmental elements that create the urban context in which urban residents live and Cooperative Extension Service work is done. Next to the Urban Environment is the 116 Cooperative Extension Service Environment or organizational history. The Cooperative Extension Service Environment is the combination of historical and cultural elements that create the organizational context in which staff work and the Cooperative Extension Service provides educational programs and resources to urban residents. The map shows that the Urban Environmental Conditions and the Cooperative Extension Service Environment impacts or influences the decisions and action of the Cooperative Extension Service Organizational Leadership who provide administrative oversight for the “Components of Cooperative Extension Service’s Operations in Community.” These elements are the General Cooperative Extension Service Operations in Community; the Cooperative Extension Service staffing both paid Cooperative Extension Service Staff and unpaid Volunteer Staff; and the elements that lead to the delivery of Cooperative Extension Service programs which includes the Educational Program Content and the Delivery Methods. These are followed in the concept map by the Cooperative Extension Service Work Communities, which encompasses the delivery of educational programs by Cooperative Extension Service and the Interaction techniques used by staff that result in the co-creation, by academics and local residents, of solutions for local issues of concern. The experience urban residents have with the Cooperative Extension Service leads to the Cooperative Extension Service Community Image. SUMMARY AND USAGE OF FINDINGS IN STAGE 2 OF STUDY Appendix G provides a complete list of the potential barrier and/or challenges that were identified in the ten sets of urban Extension plans analyzed for content. The insights gathered from the updated Research Scheme Concept Map and themes and concepts identified in the 117 ten Provisional Codes and 121 Sub-Codes were then used in stage two of the study to develop a set of interview question guides to conduct responsive interviews with sixteen key Extension stakeholders. 118 CHAPTER 5 – STAGE 2 FINDINGS: KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Each stage of the study was designed to build on the previous stage and to accomplish a different objective. Since the document content analysis conducted as stage one of the study found that many of the urban Extension plans were more than ten years old and potentially contained dated information, stage two of the study was designed to verify, refine, update and expand the set of the barriers and challenges identified in stage one of the study. Stage two of the study consisted of conducting and analyzing responsive interviews with sixteen key Extension stakeholders. As in stage one of the study, when coding the interview transcripts the barriers or challenges identified in them could have been expressed as a negative, positive or neutral factor, but nonetheless they were identified as a factor that influenced the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. The findings from the document content analysis in this chapter will also be presented as negative, positive and neutral factors that can be potential barriers/challenges that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban or metropolitan audiences. However, the major difference in the analysis and presentation of the findings from stage one is that no attention was given to the frequency that the barriers/challenges were identified in the interview transcripts. Because responsive interviewing emphasizes a flexible approach and expects the interviewer to change questions in response to what is being learned, the information gathered in each interview is unique and contingent on the knowledge, 119 experiences and perspective of the interviewee. Used successfully, responsive interviewing brings out new information in every interview conducted. Therefore, the goal of the responsive interviewing conducted in stage two of the study was to gather information and insights about a broad set of potential barriers and/or challenge that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s delivery of educational programs and resources in urban setting, and not to search for congruency. Hence, the frequency in which specific barriers/challenges were identified in the interview transcripts was inconsequential to the relevancy of the findings in stage two of the study. In place of presenting frequency data, summaries of the conversations and quotes from interviewees will be presented in this chapter as evidence of the findings identified in the interview transcripts. Based on the pattern of emergent themes and concepts identified in the sixteen key Extension stakeholder interviews, there were 11 potential places identified where barriers might emerge to the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational programs and resources to urban residents. They are as follows: Environmental Conditions 1. Urban Context 2. CES History and Culture Cooperative Extension Service Leadership 3. CES Leadership  General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership  Allocation of CES resources  Managing External Pressures 120  Managing Relationship with Land-Grant University Components of the Cooperative Extension Service Operations in Communities 4. CES Staff 5. Volunteers 6. Educational Program Content 7. Educational Program Delivery Methods 8. Urban Best Practices Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement 9. Partnerships 10. CES Community Engagement Models Cooperative Extension Service Community Image 11. CES Image ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The key Extension stakeholders identified a number of barriers/challenges within the Environmental Conditions in which the Cooperative Extension Service operates and its staff work. The Environmental Conditions are the combination of ecological, social and historical elements that create urban contexts, the connections between urban and rural contexts, and Cooperative Extension Service culture and history. The factors identified separated into two distinct and distinguishable types of potential barriers/challenges. The first set were around the Urban Context and the connections that urban environments have with rural and/or 121 agricultural communities. The second were around the Cooperative Extension Service’s Organizational History and Culture. Urban Context The Urban Content is the combination of ecological, societal and economic elements that create urban settings and differentiate them from rural or agricultural settings. Specifically, ecological, societal and economic elements are such things as population size and diversity, multi-jurisdictional governmental units, politically complex environments, and complexity of societal, environmental and economic issues. There is also an intersection of urban and rural ecological, societal and economic elements that connect urban and rural contexts. These intersections create interdependencies between the two environments that affect the Urban Context and influences the work of the Cooperative Extension Service in both of them. The factors identified in the Urban Context in the data set being potential barriers or challenges are presented in Table 5.1. Key Extension stakeholders noted a number of differences between rural and/or agricultural communities and the people who live in these communicates as potential barriers/challenges. At the outset, the data disclosed that key Extension stakeholders believed that urban contexts are simply different from rural or agricultural communities’ context. Primarily because of the size and scale of these areas, working in cities and metropolitan settings was seen as more complex than working in rural or agricultural communities. The political complexities and the fact that the majority of federal and state legislators are elected from these cities and metropolitan areas were seen as two factors contributing to the complexity of the urban context. Others were the multi-jurisdictional nature of these settings, 122 Table 5.1: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers/Challenges Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts  Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag because of scale/size of communities o Politically complex, majority of federal/state political power resides in them, multi-jurisdictional and over lapping boundaries o Communities maybe need to be neighborhoods not whole city or metro area o Unique transportation and travel challenges  Population diversity o Size of population o Racial/ethnic/cultural diversity o Percentage of population living in urban/metro setting o High concentration of poverty  Socio/economic/ecological issues different, or have different causations than in rural/ag  Reciprocal or symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/ag communities CES seen as rural/ag serving organization, or not known   CES does not know urban/metro communities/populations or how to work effectively with them like they know rural/ag communities/ populations unique transportation or travel issues, and the ideal that Extension might or should be thinking about working with neighborhoods, or small geographic areas, instead of whole cities and/or Table 5.2: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – History & Culture Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.1: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers/Challenges metropolitan areas. An interviewee stated, “There are lots of organizations in urban environments. What is Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers and/or Challenges more difficult is that it's hard to know who the players are.” Another summed it up like this, Identified through Interviews  Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts  Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag “Urban work is not neat and tidy. And you can argue real work isn't, but I can argue that you because of scale/size of communities o Politically complex, majority of federal/state political power resides in can step into a rural area and kind of take a glance around there and decide what needs to them, multi-jurisdictional and over lapping boundaries happen. If you go to an urban area there's a bigger challenge there.” o Communities maybe need to be neighborhoods not whole city or metro area o Unique transportation and travel challenges  Population diversity o Size of population o Racial/ethnic/cultural diversity o Percentage of population living in urban/metro setting o High concentration of poverty 123  Socio/economic/ecological issues different, or have different causations than in rural/ag Key Extension stakeholders saw the population of cities and metropolitan areas as different or diverse from traditional rural/agricultural clientele too. Some specific differences noted in the data were the size of urban populations, the racial and ethnic as well as cultural diversity found in urban/metro settings, the overall percentage of state populations that live in urban/metro areas, and high levels of concentrated poverty found in many cities. “. . . for the first time now the majority of our first graders in school in the metro area are non-white,” stated one interviewee from a state with a population that is over 90% white. The social, economic and ecological issues found in urban/metro areas were noted as different, along with the causations of those issues. An informant stated, about urban residents, “They have time commitments that are different. They are even rearing their children different. . . . what they are eating. They’re eating different. The whole lifestyle becomes different when removed from rural areas.” Study informants noted the reciprocal or symbiotic relationship between urban and rural communities. One stated, “so that's part of what we want people to understand is all those people in [name of largest city in the state] have to eat. So it's really important for them to be agriculturally literate or, you know, environmentally literate.” Study informants indicated that beyond the ecological elements themselves being barriers, another challenge was that urban residents often do not recognize that the Cooperative Extension Service’s programs and resources as relevant in urban environments, or they think that it primarily services rural communities and agricultural producers. Alternatively, many urban residents have never even heard of the Cooperative Extension Service. The data also indicated that key informants believed that the Cooperative Extension Service did not 124 understand urban populations and communities, and therefore did not know how to effectively work in them. Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture The barriers/challenges identified in the Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture area encompass the combination of ecological and historical elements that create a Cooperative Extension Service culture. The ecological and historical elements are defined as the Cooperative Extension Service’s mission, historical ties to rural communities and agricultural producers, substantial amounts of Cooperative Extension Service funding being tied to agriculture, current clientele and funders not supporting work in urban settings, and current clientele and funders being concerned that if Extension is working in urban areas it will mean a loss of programming or access from them. The factors identified in the Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture area as potential barriers or challenges are presented in Table 5.2. Several issues around the Cooperative Extension Services agricultural and rural history appeared in the data set. This history was seen as a potential barrier/challenge; along with the fact that many urban and metropolitan residents and communities do not have this same historic connect to the Cooperative Extension Service. “If that is your organizational culture then the level of comfort and willingness to wade in an environment of uncertainty, you know by our human nature, makes us less apt to do that than to stay in our comfort zone. So, you know, we've had 100-year history of a comfort zone. Successes working in a more rural environment. And we have been much less assertive about investing in urban environments, even though there are a lot of arguments for making the investment, right. So we're comfortable with where we're comfortable,” stated one informant. 125 Table 5.2: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – History & Culture Barriers/Challenges Environmental Conditions – CES History & Culture Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities o Urban/metro populations/communities do not have the same historic ties to CES as rural/ag o Many of the CES 1980 LGUs have more history/traditions with working with urban/ metro populations/communities  CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/communities through its historic rural/ag lens  CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus expectations  State/federal legislators have expectations because funding provided o Expect CES to serve all populations/ communities o Expect CES to serve only rural/ag populations/communities o Urban legislators not as supportive as rural/ag legislators  Traditional rural/ag advocacy groups and clientele do not support CES work in urban/ metro o CES work in urban/metro seen as an either urban/metro OR rural/ag  Must be able to serve urban/metro audience without abandoning rural/ag audience  Current CES staff resistant to change or question value of CES work in urban/metro  Urban/metro CES work must be driven by organizational mission and relevancy  Need to understand CES history to change future  Nationally CES is a loose system, more of a confederacy of organizations than a tight system However, there was one notable difference around the 1890 Cooperative Extension Service systems. Key Extension stakeholders shared that a number of the 1890 land-grant Table 5.3: Stage 2 - CES Leadership - General Leadership Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.2: Stage 2 - Environmental Conditions – History & Culture Barriers/Challenges universities are located in cities or metropolitan areas and they have historically, and by Environmental Conditions – CES History & Culture mission, worked with minority and under-served audiences. Sometimes referred to as the Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews “Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” the set of 1890 land-grant universities were  History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities o Urban/metro populations/communities do not have the same historic ties to CES as created by the second Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act. They were created to address rural/ag o Many of the CES 1980 LGUs have more history/traditions with working with urban/ segregation at colleges and universities, with the intention of primarily serving the African metro populations/communities  CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/communities through its historic rural/ag American community (Mayberry, 1991). They are located primarily across the southern United lens  CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus expectations  State/federal legislators have expectations because funding provided 126 o Expect CES to serve all populations/ communities o Expect CES to serve only rural/ag populations/communities o Urban legislators not as supportive as rural/ag legislators States. Additionally, because of the Cooperative Extension Service’s historic rural and agricultural roots, interviewees indicated that the organization sees or approaches urban residents and communities through this historic lens. Key Extension stakeholders also identified a number of barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service’s funding model. The Cooperative Extension Service, in most states, receives funding from local units of government, state government and the federal government. The entire federal-level base funding for the Cooperative Extension Service system is allocated through the USDA, requiring that much of it be used to support agricultural and other traditional Extension program commonly developed for rural communities. Furthermore, many local and state level elected officials also have expectations, because of the funding these units of government provide. Key Extension stakeholders indicated that sometimes these elected officials expect Extension to provide educational programming and resources equally to all people, regardless of where they live. At other times, these elected officials, even those elected from urban areas, indicate that they are looking for Extension to focus its work on agriculture or in rural communities. One key informant said, “There's some of our traditional supporters, legislators, that want us to hone in on a narrow focus and with traditional clientele. “ But another key informant shared a different perspective when they stated, “We've got to be relevant in urban areas too because there's going to come a time when all of the legislators that are voting on our funding are from urban areas, then all of the citizens that are telling those legislators how they want them to vote, are going to be from urban areas. And if they don't understand us and don't see us as valuable then we'll be obsolete.” 127 Interviewees also indicated that in many urban areas the local units of government do not provide the same per capita funding level that the Cooperative Extension Service receives from the more rural local units of government. “We haven't had necessarily the support from [urban] county government to make that work in the same way we do in the rural communities,” stated an interviewee. “You know, them being able to come to the table and supporting us in the same way that rural county government does. So then we question whether we should be there or not, because that local funding is part of our partnership arrangement.” Traditional Cooperative Extension Service clientele and their advocacy groups, like Farm Bureau and a multitude of agricultural commodity organizations, according to informants, may not support and at times openly advocate against Extension working in cities and metropolitan areas. Key informants shared that rural and agricultural clientele can sometimes see the resources that Extension devotes in urban communities as resources that are taken away from them. The data set showed that the Cooperative Extension Service must be able to provide educational programs and resources to urban residents without abandoning its rural and agricultural audiences, and that resistance to expanding Extension’s urban efforts could come from current employees who question the value of this work. Additionally, the work that the Cooperative Extension Service does in urban areas, according to interviewees, needs to be driven by the organization’s mission. In order to change the future of the Cooperative Extension Service, and expand educational programming to urban residents, interviewees felt it would be important for Extension to understand and acknowledge its history. A key Extension stakeholder stated, “It's really interesting to study that 128 history because it really ties a lot of things together. If we don’t understand it, we might repeat history or stay in the same vortex.” Another key Extension stakeholder summed the conversation around organizational history up by sharing that one of their colleagues likes to say, “There's a reason why the windshield is much bigger than the rearview mirror. The rearview mirror you like to look back every now and then to just kind of remember where you came from, but the front windshield shows you where you're going.” Interviewees also recognized that the national coordination of the expansion of the Cooperative Extension Service’s work into urban areas would be challenging. This is due, according to multiple interviewees, to the fact that the national Cooperative Extension Service “system” is more of a loose confederacy or coalition of systems, who are more closely tied to their parent land-grant universities than they are to each other. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE LEADERSHIP Although the frequency and volume of the barriers and/or challenges that were identified by the key Extension stakeholders is inconsequential to the overall relevancy of the findings in stage two of the study, it was noted by the researcher that the key Extension stakeholders interview did identify the largest number of barriers/challenges within the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area. The Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area, for the purposes of the study, was defined as the combination of Cooperative Extension Service or its parent land-grant university organizational leadership responsibilities or actions that affect the work of the staff and the organization in cities and metropolitan settings. 129 Because the set of findings in the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area was large, the presentation of the findings for this area have been broken down into four sub-areas. The four sub-areas are General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership, Leadership for the Allocation of Resources, Management of External Pressures, and Management of the LGU Relationship. However, for the purposes of the study, the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area was not formally broken down into these four sub-areas. Unlike some of the other barrier/challenge areas that were officially broken down into sub-barrier/challenge areas because they had clearly distinguishable boundaries around the themes and concepts being identified, the four Cooperative Extension Service Leadership sub-areas are highly dependent and interactive with each other. This made it difficult, to almost impossible at times, to break the concepts and themes identified in the interview transcripts into clear, distinguishable and distinct sub-theme or concept. General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership The findings presented under the General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership heading include such things as the Cooperative Extension Service leadership/administration’s commitment and/or support of urban work, their understanding of urban/metro environments and the work Extension is or could be doing in urban/metro, and their willingness to allow for or make adjustments in Extension policies, procedures or operations to facilitate the work of Extension in urban/metro settings. The factors identified as potential barriers/challenges in the General Cooperative Extension Service Leadership area are presented in Table 5.3. 130 Repeatedly interviews expressed sentiments about how the work of the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan settings must be driven by the organizational mission. The data also showed that there was a strong belief in the fact that the Cooperative Extension Service mission called for Extension to be providing educational programs and resources to “all” populations, regardless of the geographic location of their residence. An interviewee stated, “A lot of us in Extension as well as out of Extension, we don't really realize our mission was -- the reason we were created was to take the university to the Table 5.3: Stage 2 - CES Leadership - General Leadership Barriers/Challenges CES Leadership – General Leadership Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Mission driven, serve all populations, integrate urban work into CES Need visionary leadership o Ability to lead through crisis, address leadership complacency in CES o Practical leaders o Willing to change the status quo and deal with CES inertia o Examine and make needed changes to CES policies and practices, especially around resource investments, community operations, staffing, programming, etc. o Open to and responsive to new opportunities o Take risks, support CES staff to take risks o Make CES a welcoming and supportive place for staff working in urban/metro o Need to embrace a broad LGU outreach and engagement agenda o Share vision broadly, with CES workforce, LGU administration, funding partners, community partners, etc., to build understanding and engagement  Committed to serving urban audiences/working in urban areas o Move beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro  Ensure CES is relevant and responsive to urban/metro o Understand and address urban socio, economic and ecological needs o Know the work that CES is doing in urban o Understand and acknowledge that urban/metro different than rural/ag and CES work in urban/metro must be different  Define appropriate urban evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them – triple bottom line? o Within CES incentivize and reward work in urban/metro  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU  Need “champions” at national level to move CES o Nationally coalition/confederacy of CES systems 131 people. That still is our mission, you know. I think if we stay focused on that we will be relevant to urban populations, and are we also relevant to the land-grant mission.” “If you look at the very beginnings of Extension [focusing on agriculture] that wasn't the intent,” another informant stated, “it really wasn't about agricultural commodities, you know. It was about bringing democracy and knowledge to everyone. And it just happened that in that period of time everything was rural.” Many aspects of visionary leadership were identified by key Extension stakeholders such as, the need for leaders or administrators who are practical, and who could or would provide effective leadership through crises and not succumb to complacency. One interview talked about several leadership challenges that the Cooperative Extension Service has faced in its 100- year history. The interviewee mourned about how they felt Extension leadership had been complacent in the face of these challenges, and how they were afraid that it might be happening again, right now. “We did nothing,” the interviewee lamented. “Our leadership in Extension watched it happen and did nothing. And one of the biggest concerns and fears I have about that is that I think that we are so limited in our imaginations. We believe that in order to serve the urban audience it requires us to be a social service instead of recognizing the role we can play in urban areas that has more to do with the sciences and the technology.” Other interviewees talked about the need to have leadership willing to change the status quo and deal with the inertia of the system. Along with leadership that is willing to examine the Cooperative Extension Service policies and practices and make adjustment or changes to support urban Extension efforts. As well as leadership that is open to and responsive 132 to new opportunities. Lastly, leadership that is not afraid to take risks, and support and encourage staff to take risks was identified. An interviewee, who at one time was in a national Cooperative Extension Service leadership position, shared: “I don't know how many times during anyone else's term that opportunities came to Extension from other federal agencies that were either ignored or not acted on. In one three-week period, I got a phone call from the chairman of the House ag appropriations committee to work on the Farm Bill. On some really cutting edge nutritional education opportunities. And the next week got a call from, and this came to our national office, from the Department of Energy. They wanted to see if we would partner with them to work on rural residential and small farms on energy efficiency. Now, I don't know if those phone calls have always been coming in. Or if we've ignored them.” The necessity to have leaders who could create Extension working environments that are welcoming and supportive for staff working in urban areas also appeared in the data set. It was mentioned as being of particular importance as the Cooperative Extension Service diversifies its workforce and employs staff that are racially, ethnically and culturally different from the current workforce. Another area of visionary leadership that was identified in the data set was the need to have Cooperative Extension Service leadership that understands and embraces a broad land- grant outreach and engagement agenda. Lastly, key Extension stakeholders indicated that it was important to share the vision broadly with the Cooperative Extension Service workforce, the land-grant university administration, funding partners, and with current partners and clientele to build understanding and engagement to the commitment to serve urban and metropolitan audiences. Actually being committed to serving and providing urban residents access to the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational programs and resources was another 133 factor identified. Key Extension stakeholder went on to posit that this commitment needed to move beyond the piloting or exploring opportunities for what the Cooperative Extension Service could do in urban communities. Other Cooperative Extension Service leadership barriers/challenges were identified around relevancy and responsiveness in urban and metropolitan communities. The factors in this area revolved around the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to understand and address the socio, economic and ecological needs and issues of residents living in cities and metropolitan areas. To do this it is imperative that Cooperative Extension Service leaders know and understand the work that Extension staff are currently doing in urban environments. Additionally, Cooperative Extension Service leadership needs to understand and acknowledge that working in cities and large metropolitan areas is different than the work done in rural or agricultural communities, therefore the work of Extension in urban areas might also need to be different. Key Extension stakeholders indicated one of the other areas that leadership needs to grapple with is defining appropriate evaluation and impact measures for urban/metro educational programs, using them to evaluate staff performance, and incentivizing and rewarding the work that staff do in urban settings. Although when probed, no interviews had concrete suggestions about what the evaluation and impact measures should be. However, more than one interviewee suggested that the standard Extension logic model was not the right tool for urban settings. More than one interviewee speculated that some evaluation and impact measures around community sustainability or health might be more appropriate. 134 “At a pretty high level,” an informant conjectured, “I think one possible bottom line for everything we do is around health. But not just human health, right? It's healthy people, but it's also a healthy economy and a healthy planet. And you will recognize those as the pillars of sustainability.” Other factors that could potentially be barriers/challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban settings was identified as the need for leadership to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across the Cooperative Extension Service and connect it to the larger outreach and engagement mission of the land-grant universities. The final area in the general Cooperative Extension Service leadership area was the need to have “champions” at the national level to move the Cooperative Extension Service’s urban agenda forward, but it was noted that this could be difficult given the fact that the Cooperative Extension Service system nationally is really more of a coalition or confederacy of willing participants than a tightly tied set of state systems working in unison. Leadership for the Allocation of Resources The findings presented under the Leadership for the Allocation of Resources heading encompass those factors that were identified as possible barriers and/or challenges around the allocation and distribution of the broad array of Cooperative Extension Service resources. More specifically, this area contains resource barriers/challenges the Cooperative Extension Service leadership/administration may encounter around the allocation and distribution of resources by leadership; and the Cooperative Extension Service’s leadership/administration’s commitment and ability to provide adequate resources for operations and staff in cities or 135 Table 5.4: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – Allocation of Resources Barriers/Challenges CES Leadership – Leadership for Allocation of Resources Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Define urban priorities and invest in them Invest for impact o o Allocation of resources must be driven by local needs/issues  Focus on expanding the funding “pie” o Explore and use new, creative/innovative funding models/sources o o o Share new/expanded resources across system to garner support for urban/metro Incorporate soft resources, limited time resources Identify resources to address the unique needs and issues of urban/metro audiences  Effectively management of complex funding streams o Must be able to manage budgets and components of community operations to handle the incorporation of new, soft and limited time resources  Understand/acknowledge that expanding CES work in urban/metro does not always take a large amount of resources, or new resources metropolitan settings. Table 5.4 contains the list of factors identified as potential barriers/challenges in the Leadership for the Allocation of Resources area that key Extension Table 5.5: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – External Pressures Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.4: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – Allocation of Resources Barriers/Challenges stakeholders indicated influence the ability of the Cooperative Extension Service to deliver CES Leadership – Leadership for educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews Allocation of Resources  Define urban priorities and invest in them Key Extension stakeholders identified one of the factors in this area as the need for the o o Allocation of resources must be driven by local needs/issues Cooperative Extension Service leadership to define its urban priorities and then invest in them Invest for impact  Focus on expanding the funding “pie” in ways that produce measurable impacts. Interviewees noted that the allocation of o Explore and use new, creative/innovative funding models/sources o o o Share new/expanded resources across system to garner support for urban/metro Incorporate soft resources, limited time resources Identify resources to address the unique needs and issues of urban/metro audiences Cooperative Extension Service resources needed to be driven by local needs and issues. There  Effectively management of complex funding streams were many different references in the data set to the need for Extension leadership to focus on o Must be able to manage budgets and components of community operations to handle the incorporation of new, soft and limited time resources expanding the funding “pie.” Interviewees suggested that this be done by exploring new,  Understand/acknowledge that expanding CES work in urban/metro does not always take a large amount of resources, or new resources creative and innovative funding models or sources including securing more grants and other soft funding streams, and identifying resources to address the unique needs and issues of cities 136 and metropolitan areas. However, interviewees also noted that it was important to share new or expanded resources, or the benefits that might come with them, across the whole Cooperative Extension Service system in order to garner and maintain support from the current Extension workforce, clients and community partners for Extension’s urban efforts. Along with the focus that key Extension stakeholders put on expanding the Extension funding “pie,” they also identified the need of leadership to be able to manage the complex funding streams that the Cooperative Extension Service has and would continue to expand upon in the future. It was noted that this might be particularly tricky when managing the different funding streams in a way that could effectively fund the multiple components of the Cooperative Extension Service’s community operations, principally around the incorporation of new, soft or time-limited funding that is often earmarked for specific expenditures. Lastly, interviewees acknowledge, despite the emphasis that many of them placed on the need for Extension leadership to work on expanding the funding “pie” that there was often a lot that leadership could do to enhance and expand the work of Extension in cities and metropolitan areas that did not require a lot of new resources. One informant referred to this as “low hanging fruit.” Management of External Pressures Table 5.5 contains the list of factors in the data set that key Extension stakeholders indicated were potential barriers/challenges in the Management of External Pressures area. The Management of External Pressures area contains barriers/challenges that affect the Cooperative Extension Service leadership’s ability and interest in managing negative external 137 Table 5.5: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – External Pressures Barriers/Challenges CES Leadership – Management of External Pressure Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Address funder expectations o Local, state and federal elected officials o USDA o Ag commodity groups or other outside funders o Balancing competing expectations/pressures o Be responsive  Political power located in urban/ metro  Must identify/develop urban advocates  Under funded on a per capita basis by local units of government in urban/metro pressures placed on Cooperative Extension Service around its work in cities or metropolitan settings. Table 5.6: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – LGU Relationship Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.5: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – External Pressures Barriers/Challenges Interviewees indicated that the numerous Cooperative Extension Service funders often CES Leadership – Management of had expectations around deliverables or services that they expected and regularly articulated to External Pressure Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews is channeled through the USDA comes with ties to specific deliverables and requires state  Political power located in urban/ metro  Must identify/develop urban advocates  Under funded on a per capita basis by local units of government in urban/metro matching funds. Or in the more recent history of the Cooperative Extension Service, that substantial pots of USDA funding have been allocated to competitive grants for specific projects. Key Extension stakeholders identified agricultural commodity groups who may provide funding for specific positions or who have advocated on Extension’s behalf for funding from local, state or federal elected officials, or other similar external funders or advocacy groups, 138 Extension leadership. “Pressure” from external sources frequently comes from state, federally  Address funder expectations and locally elected officials who provide the three base sources of funding for most state level o Local, state and federal elected officials o USDA o Ag commodity groups or other outside funders o Balancing competing expectations/pressures o Be responsive Cooperative Extension systems. In addition, interviewees indicated that the federal funding that regularly communicate their expectations to Extension leadership. Interviewees provided numerous examples of when pressure was brought to bear by external funders for or against the work that the Cooperative Extension Service is or was trying to expand to do in cities and metropolitan settings. One interviewee shared this story: “Right now, the legislature is in session in [State Name] and we're going to have a biannual budget created by the end of June. Among the tools that we frequently used is this common letter written by all those who support us. And in [State Name] we are big into seed production. And the Seed Growers Association has decided that because we have had to hold two open positions in one of the really productive parts of [State Name], they have simply said to us ‘we're not signing that letter until you either fill those positions or promise us that you will.’ So, we're now being held hostage, right?” Balancing and being responsive to these competing expectations and external pressures can be a real barrier and/or challenge for Cooperative Extension Service administrators. Balancing these expectations can at times influence or affect the decisions that Extension leadership makes concerning investments in urban centers, especially when traditional funders or advocacy groups are not supportive of the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. However, with over 80% of the population of the United States living in cities and metropolitan areas, the majority of the state and federal elected officials come from urban and/or metropolitan areas. This means that the political power in most states and nationally resides in urban centers. Given this, it is imperative based on data collected from the key Extension stakeholders interviewed that the Cooperative Extension Service identify and develop a set of urban based Extension advocates to supplement the strong, but often shrinking, set of Extension advocates from rural and agricultural communities. 139 However, a couple factors identified in the data set complicates this effort. It was noted by interviews that the Cooperative Extension Service can frequently be underfunded, on a per capita basis, by urban and metropolitan local units of government. Additionally, informants shared, that some locally elected officials from urban and metropolitan areas have indicated that they believe Extension should focus on working in rural and agricultural communities, and not in urban and metropolitan centers. Management of the Land-Grant University Relationship The potential barriers/challenges identified by key Extension stakeholders pertaining to or influenced by the location of the Cooperative Extension Service within its parent land-grant university is called the Management of the Land-Grant University Relationship. It encompasses the Cooperative Extension Service and/or university leadership/administration’s ability or need to effectively manage or build internal university relationships. These internal relationships of the placement of the Cooperative Extension Service within, or outside, of colleges of agriculture influences or impacts the Cooperative Extension Service’s access to university-wide resources, such as faculty, to conduct and support work in cities or metropolitan settings. Table 5.6 contains the list of factors in the data set that key Extension stakeholders indicated were potential barriers/challenges in the Management of the Land- Grant University Relationship area. To provide visionary leadership and withstand the external pressures that are frequently brought to bear by external funder or advocacy groups Cooperative Extension Service leadership need to have the support of their parent land-grant university administration and 140 Table 5.6: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – LGU Relationship Barriers/Challenges CES Leadership – Management of LGU Relationships Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need to have LGU leadership/ administration support  Director of Extension need to be seen as an equal to Deans to garner respect and facilitate access to broad range of LGU expertise  Focus on broad outreach and engagement across LGU expertise o Expand beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology/ family studies o Need to understand/know broad LGU expertise o Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across LGU and connections to CES  Need LGU presence in urban/ metro beyond CES that is coordinated leadership. This was a factor identified as a potential barrier and/or challenge by more than one key Extension stakeholder interviewed. Another factor identified by key Extension stakeholders Table 5.7: Stage 2 - Community Operations – CES Staff Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.6: Stage 2 - CES Leadership – LGU Relationship Barriers/Challenges was the need for the position with the title of Director of Extension to be seen as an equal CES Leadership – Management of LGU Relationships position to a Dean position at the land-grant university. Interviewees indicated that this was Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need to have LGU leadership/ administration support vital to garner the needed respect across the university to facilitate Extension’s access to the  Director of Extension need to be seen as an equal to Deans to garner respect and facilitate access to broad range of LGU expertise broad range of urban expertise available.  Focus on broad outreach and engagement across LGU expertise o Expand beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology/ family studies Additionally, informants indicated to successfully, or effectively, manage the o Need to understand/know broad LGU expertise o Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES relationship between Extension and the larger land-grant university that it is a part of,  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across LGU and connections to CES Cooperative Extension Service leadership needed to focus on a broad outreach and  Need LGU presence in urban/ metro beyond CES that is coordinated engagement across its parent land-grant university’s expertise that is relevant to urban settings. Interviewees indicated that this should be done by expanding Extension’s connections beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology or family studies but to do this it would be necessary for Extension leadership to first understand and then build relationships with colleges, departments, units and individual faculty with expertise relevant to urban and metropolitan 141 needs and issues. In order to build these relationships, informants suggested, that Extension would need to incentivize this engagement. An interviewee shared that the way that this is done in his state was through mini-grants and specific rewards and recognition programs focused on acknowledging faculty-Extension initiatives. To successfully build relationships with faculty, colleges, departments and units that have urban expertise, key Extension stakeholders stated that Extension leadership needs to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across its parent land-grant university and work to connect Extension to this mission. One last factor identified by interviewees was the need for Extension and university administration to support and help facilitate a larger land-grant university presence than that of just the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan areas. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY OPERATONS The key Extension stakeholders identified a number of barriers/challenges within Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations area. The combination of resources and activities occurring in cities and metropolitan settings constitute the Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations. These include such things as staffing, local offices and their operations, as well as program content and delivery. A number of general comments about how the Cooperative Extension Service needed to operate differently in cities and metropolitan were identified in the interview transcripts. However, through the analysis of the interview transcripts the factors identified in the Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations area separated into five categories 142 where potential barriers/challenges were identified. These five sub-areas had clearly distinguishable boundaries around the themes and concepts being identified in the interview transcripts which allowed from them to be broken down into clear and distinct sub-themes or concepts. Two of them were around the paid Cooperative Extension Service Staff and the unpaid Volunteer staff in cities and metropolitan settings. Two others were around Cooperative Extension Service Educational Program Content and the Educational Program Delivery Methods used in urban settings. The fifth barrier/challenge area was identified around the need to have a set of Cooperative Extension Service Best Practices for urban/metro. Cooperative Extension Service Staff The Cooperative Extension Service Staff area contains factors identified as potential barriers/challenges concerning the staff or human resource application and management in cities and metropolitan settings. These include factors such as the Cooperative Extension Service’s staff and/or human resource recruiting, position posting, hiring and employment retention policies and practices utilized to hire and retain a racially, ethnically and culturally diverse staff that is reflective of the population of cities and metropolitan communities that are interested in working specifically in urban/metro settings. The Cooperative Extension Service job titles and position descriptions that seek the technical knowledge and soft skills, and appropriate qualifications and experiences necessary to address the complex societal, economic and environmental needs and issues of urban/metro residents and communities. The staffing pattern used by the Cooperative Extension Service to determine the number, types of positions, programmatic focuses, and the geographic location of the Cooperative Extension 143 Service staff assigned to cities and metropolitan settings. Lastly, the professional development or training that the Cooperative Extension Service staff participate in that is specifically focused on building the technical skills and core competencies relevant or necessary for staff to work in cities and metropolitan settings. The factors identified as potential barriers/challenges by key Extension stakeholders in the Cooperative Extension Service Staff area are presented in Table 5.7. The data set showed that a barrier/challenge identified by key Extension stakeholders was that many state Cooperative Extension Service systems use historic and antiquated staffing patterns not based on population size or local need. “We got stuck in Extension in the numbers for our staffing model, which is every county gets two of everything whether they need it or want it or not, or if it serves their needs,” stated one interviewee. Another interviewee explained: “So, you know, the way we've always done it is that it didn't matter whether you were [Name] County which only has 4,000 people in the whole county. You get your two specialists. And then if you're in [Name Most Populous] County, which is [Name of Largest City in State], you still just get two specialists. That's the Noah's Ark model and, and it's archaic. It doesn't work anymore. Yet we cling to that model as if it's the only way to staff Extension and it's the right way to staff Extension because somehow given the fact we are publicly funded it makes sense. No, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense at all.” To change antiquated staffing patterns, key Extension stakeholders noted, that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to work to determine what the appropriate or adequate level of staff if for urban areas, to adjust its staffing patterns to meet urban needs, and expand the number of staff it has assigned to work in urban areas. While doing this, the Cooperative Extension Service also needs to modify or adjust the types of positions it places in urban communities. Meaning Extension needs to be more flexible about the position classifications it 144 Table 5.7: Stage 2 - Community Operations – CES Staff Barriers/Challenges Community Operations – CES Staffing Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Use same staffing pattern as in rural o Adjust staffing patterns to meet urban needs o Determine appropriate/adequate levels of staffing o Expand number of staff o Adjust types of positions employed, build in flexibility o Hire unique positions to urban settings, i.e. volunteer recruiter/manager  Have staff specifically assigned to urban o Assign specifically to urban area o Not necessarily by county  Hire staff with right skills/experience/backgrounds o Appropriate programmatic focuses for urban o Appropriate soft skills for urban o Demographically reflective of urban communities o Put resources behind hiring best people for urban o Adjust salaries to pay a living wage for urban settings o Hire people with urban experiences who want to work in urban o Adjust job descriptions to reflect desired skills o Do not necessarily need previous Extension experience o Recruit in non-traditional places to advertise positions to groups of people with desired skills  Need staff professional development focused on building appropriate/ adequate urban skill sets  Define appropriate urban/metro evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them  Look at CES employee retention policies/practices places in urban communities. The Cooperative Extension Service need to employ not just professional staff like educators or specialists in urban communities, but para-professional staff Table 5.8: Stage 2 - Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.7: Stage 2 - Community Operations – CES Staff Barriers/Challenges to provide program delivery, part-time staff, short-term staff assigned to specific projects, and people with specialized experiences or education relevant to the needs and issues of urban Community Operations – CES Staffing Barriers and/or Challenges communities. Interviewees also indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to look Identified through Interviews  Use same staffing pattern as in rural at establishing unique or specialized positions for urban areas. Suggestions were made around o Adjust staffing patterns to meet urban needs o Determine appropriate/adequate levels of staffing o Expand number of staff o Adjust types of positions employed, build in flexibility o Hire unique positions to urban settings, i.e. volunteer recruiter/manager 145  Have staff specifically assigned to urban o Assign specifically to urban area having one position in an urban area that is specifically focused on volunteer recruitment and management, or on networking and building community partnerships, or on building relationships with locally elected officials and governmental leadership. Staff coverage areas were identified as barrier/challenge in the Cooperative Extension Service staffing area. In most states, the Cooperative Extension Service coverage areas have traditionally been county lines. Sometimes staff were assigned to one specific county and at other times to multiple counties, but nonetheless, their coverage areas were generally defined by county boundaries. Informants indicated that in urban areas staff assignments needed to not necessarily be by county, but potentially by smaller areas. Key Extension stakeholders noted a number of barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service hiring practices and position descriptions. At the outset, the data disclosed that the Cooperative Extension Service need to examine if it is hiring staff with the right skills, educational training and experiences for cities and metropolitan areas. Position descriptions need to have programmatic focuses appropriate to address urban needs and issues and include the soft skills necessary to be successful working in cities and metropolitan environments. People hired need to be reflective of the demographic diversity of the urban communities they are working in and the Cooperative Extension Service needs to put resources behind hiring the best people that they can. People hired by the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan settings should want to be working in urban setting and preferably have previous urban experience, but not necessarily previous Extension experience, which is often indicated in all Extension job descriptions, according to interviewees. To identify candidates with these sets of backgrounds 146 and educational training the Cooperative Extension Service will need to advertise positions and recruit candidates from non-traditional places and to groups of people with the desired skills and experiences. Addressing some of the barriers/challenges identified by key Extension stakeholders, an interviewee described a recent hiring process: “So, we have just re-hired four of the five urban county coordinators and we're basically making their jobs 100 percent administration. Now, we assign them to a program area, but we really are evaluating them on their management of that county, not on what kind of programming they deliver. Also, the skills that we were looking for in those people, we didn't go out looking for program area skills. We went looking for management skills. We advertised -- and that was something that was a complete shift. We advertised on county manager list serves, city manager list serves, and in those types of places. And the people we've hired are very different from the employees we've had in those jobs before. So, I think that will add to our ability for those people to be in their county networks.” Once hired, according to interviewees, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to ensure that staff working in cities and metropolitan settings have access to professional development and training opportunities to build and enhance the skills they need to be effective in urban settings. While defining appropriate staff performance measures based on the position expectations outlined in urban-focused job description, and then using them to evaluate staff performance, according to interviewees. Along with looking at its retention policies and practices to keep the employees that they have hired. Volunteers Table 5.8 contains the list of factors in the data set that key Extension stakeholders indicated were potential barriers/challenges around the use of Volunteers the Cooperative Extension Service in cities or metropolitan settings. These include the Cooperative Extension 147 Table 5.8: Stage 2 - Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers/Challenges Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need to use more volunteers o Use volunteer to expand staffing/programming o Explore new/innovative volunteer recruiting practices relevant to urban environments o Volunteer demographics need to reflect the demographics of the community  Need to use volunteers in new, creative/innovative, non-traditional roles o Use across more program areas than just 4-H and Master Gardeners o Adjust curriculum and delivery methods to allow for utilization of volunteers o Have meaningful roles that utilize or build skills o Have roles with a variety of levels of responsibility and lengths of service  Need to provide adequate/appropriate training o Make sure training is affordable/accessible  Provide appropriate/adequate recognition and rewards  Have a CES position with sole job of recruiting Service’s recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers in urban areas. The types of jobs or roles, program areas and length of service in which the Cooperative Extension Table 5.9: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Program Content Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.8: Stage 2 - Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers/Challenges Service utilizes volunteers in cities and metropolitan settings. Along with efforts by the Cooperative Extension Service to recruit and utilize a broad array of volunteers that are Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews reflective of the racial, ethnical, and cultural diversity of urban residents. The training required  Need to use more volunteers and provided by the Cooperative Extension Service to volunteers that is relevant and supports o Use volunteer to expand staffing/programming o Explore new/innovative volunteer recruiting practices relevant to urban environments o Volunteer demographics need to reflect the demographics of the community the work they are doing on behalf of Extension in cities and metropolitan areas.  Need to use volunteers in new, creative/innovative, non-traditional roles o Use across more program areas than just 4-H and Master Gardeners Study informants indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to use more o Adjust curriculum and delivery methods to allow for utilization of volunteers o Have meaningful roles that utilize or build skills o Have roles with a variety of levels of responsibility and lengths of service volunteers in urban settings to expand the staffing to allow for increased educational program delivery. However, informants shared that in order to achieve this the Cooperative Extension  Need to provide adequate/appropriate training o Make sure training is affordable/accessible  Provide appropriate/adequate recognition and rewards  Have a CES position with sole job of recruiting Service would need to explore and implement new and innovative volunteer recruitment practices adapted to urban setting so that Extension is able to recruitment more volunteers and volunteers who are demographically representative of the community. 148 An interviewee shared this story to demonstrate one new volunteer recruitment opportunity that they had stumbled upon: “You know this was a wakeup call for me. We were working in [Largest City in State], and I was working with an individual that served on one of the major drilling company boards. He said to me, do you realize that we require all 3,000 of our employees to volunteer somewhere over the course of the next year. Well, I didn't realize that. And it would be hard pressed for me to think part of those 3,000 volunteers wouldn't be interested in youth, gardening or the environment as a master naturalist. Or some other area that we are working in in [Largest City in State] around.” The ways in which the Cooperative Extension Service utilizes volunteers was also identified as a factor that could be a potential barrier/challenge. To address this, interviewees suggested, that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to engage volunteers in new, creative and non-traditional roles, beyond 4-H and Master Gardeners. The roles need to be meaningful, vary in time commitment and level of responsibility, and utilize volunteer skills or help them build new skills. Furthermore, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to utilize volunteers across as many program areas as possible, but to do this Extension will need to look at educational program curriculum and delivery methods to ensure they are appropriate for use by volunteers, and then provide adequate training to the volunteers to ensure that they are properly prepared. It was noted that some current Cooperative Extension Service volunteer training programs are expensive, so the data set disclosed that the fee structure of volunteer training programs would need to be examined to guarantee that they were affordable, or accessible, to a broad range of potential volunteers. Providing appropriate levels of volunteer recognition and rewards was also shared by informants as a factor that could potentially be a barrier/challenge. 149 As was discussed in the Cooperative Extension Service staffing area, the idea of having a Cooperative Extension Service staff position in cities and metropolitan areas that focused on volunteer recruiting was suggested by several key Extension stakeholders interviewed. The informant quoted above went on to say: “And so, in this situation [the one described in the previous quote] what a volunteer coordinator could do is work with these great partners that we always ask to support us financially, but instead they would ask them can we work with your employee base to see if there's some good volunteer opportunities for them.” Educational Program Content The findings presented under the Educational Program Content area are those that key Extension stakeholders indicated influence the ability of the Cooperative Extension Service to deliver educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. They encompass the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational program curricula and content used in cities and metropolitan settings to address the needs and issues of residents, key community leaders, units of government and urban/metro communities. Along with the methods that the Cooperative Extension Service uses to gather input from urban and metropolitan residents, key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities around their unique needs and issues that might, or could be, addressed by Cooperative Extension Service programming. The Educational Program Content area also includes the Cooperative Extension Service’s use of research or evidence-based curriculum that can be transferred from rural and/or agricultural settings or is developed or adapted specifically for urban and metropolitan residents, key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities that addresses their needs and 150 issues. Lastly, it contains the barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to access and actually work with faculty from across their parent land-grant universities that have appropriate and relevant expertise to address the educational program needs and issues of urban and metropolitan residents, key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities. Table 5.9 contains the list of factors identified as potential barriers/challenges in the Educational Program Content area. Table 5.9: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Program Content Barriers/Challenges Community Operations – Educational Program Content Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Content must be relevant and responsive  Content same as in rural  o Need to adjust/adapt for urban/metro Layers/distance between faculty/research, CES staff and residents/communities o Lots of smart, educated people in urban/metro, need to differentiate CES, need to adjust CES traditional “expert” model  Transitioned from delivery of social sciences to delivery of social services   Need to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural/ag audiences Let go of content areas others can do better o Conduct effective programmatic needs assessments that engage urban/metro residents, local units of government, community agencies and CES partners  Build programmatic expertise relevant to urban o Build strong CES staff-LGU faculty connections o Develop relationships with LGU faculty that have expertise relevant to urban needs/issues o Build urban/metro content around CES and LGU expertise o Programming content must be backed by research  Find topical areas of interdependency and tailor/develop content to meet urban/metro needs and interests  High quality programs/content o Differentiate CES context from what people can access through an internet search  Content must be learner identified and learner driven o Not driven by experts/CES/faculty  Adjust program content to attract minority and under-served audiences o Adjust content to be culturally/racially/ethnically sensitive and appropriate Table 5.10: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Delivery Methods Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.9: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Program Content Barriers/Challenges 151 Community Operations – Educational Program Content Key Extension stakeholders noted above all that the Cooperative Extension Service educational program content must be relevant and responsive to the needs and issues of urban and metropolitan residents and communities. In the past, according to interviewees, much of the educational program content delivered in urban centers was simply the same content that was being delivered in rural and agricultural settings. Sometime this was appropriate and sometimes the educational programming content did not effectively address the needs and interests of urban residents. Therefore, key Extension stakeholders posited that the educational program content being delivered in cities and metropolitan areas needed to be adjusted or adapted to fit these settings. The data set also showed a barrier/challenge was the distance between the faculty with the technical knowledge and the program participants. A key Extension stakeholder described this barrier/challenged like this: “When you think about when Extension started, right, we knew what we were about. We were about getting our research information into the hands of citizens so they could use it. Whatever they [Extension Agents in the early years] were doing, that was cutting edge. They could not have been more cutting edge. And that technology transfer and then the iteration, citizens saying back to the researchers, “Yeah, but that ain't going to work here” that was important. That dynamic was so important. Then that dynamic got sort of rebooted almost during the depression and then the war, because the challenges became so great, right. And then the dust bowl and, you know, the enormous challenges for agriculture during that time period required Extension, required us to stay on our game, right. And then we hit the 60's. And in the 60's I think we started to get a little complacent about it. If you start looking at the curriculum that was offered through Extension in the 60's and the 70's, what began to happen was that we began to see this divide between the researchers and whatever was cutting edge and the people or the youth. . . Suddenly there started to be all these layers between the researcher and the farmer or 4-H youth so that they were no longer getting direct access to what was cutting edge research and everything else. But instead what they were getting was -- well it could be the same curriculum we used 10 years ago. And that trend continued, and it continued, and it continues until today. . . 152 We lost track of the fact that what we were doing was plugging people into the biggest advances, the cutting-edge research of our institutions. And so instead it became that the researcher was allowed to kind out float away from Extension.” Other key Extension stakeholders questioned if the Cooperative Extension Service’s historic “expert” model still works in urban settings, or if it needs to be changed or adjusted given the fact that there are generally many smart, well-educated people in urban environments. They indicated a need to be able to differentiate what is unique about the Cooperative Extension Service and the knowledge it brings to urban and metropolitan residents and communities. Interview informants cautioned that the Cooperative Extension Service needed to be cognizant that it stays on mission and not transition from delivery of social science into delivery of social services. In addition, interviewees advised that the Cooperative Extension Service needed to be willing to “let go” or transition out of topical content areas where other organizations or entities had stepped in and were now doing a better job of addressing the need than Extension. Moreover, the data set revealed that a barrier/challenge for the Cooperative Extension Service was the fact that it does not know urban and metropolitan audiences to the degree that it knows and understands rural and agricultural audiences, but Extension needs to in order to effectively deliver relevant educational program content. Consequently, key Extension stakeholders indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to make sure that it is conducting effective programmatic needs assessments that engage a broad and diverse segment of urban and metropolitan residents, community and governmental leaders, and community partners. 153 Key Extension stakeholders indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service needed to build programmatic expertise that is relevant to urban and metropolitan residents and communities. Interviewees recommended that the Cooperative Extension Service needed to build strong connections between Extension staff and land-grant university faculty, especially with faculty that have urban/metro expertise, and then develop content around the urban/metro expertise represented at it parent land-grant university and current applicable Extension expertise. A potential “sweet spot,” as described in the words on an interviewee, was shown in the data set around topical or programmatic areas of interdependency between urban and rural communities and residents, but the data set indicated that Extension would need to build or tailor curriculum to address the needs and interests of urban and metropolitan residents. The Cooperative Extension Service educational content needs to be of high quality, and according to interviewees, Extension must work to differentiate it from the information that people can access through an internet search, according to interviewees. Additionally, they indicated that the educational content must be learner identified and learn driven, not driven by the Cooperative Extension Service or faculty experts; and that the educational program content also needs to be culturally, racially and ethnically sensitive and appropriate to attract and meet the needs of minority and under-served audiences. Educational Program Delivery Methods The potential barriers/challenges identified by key Extension stakeholders pertaining to or influenced by the Cooperative Extension Service’s Educational Program Delivery Methods is 154 presented in Table 5.10. It contains factors around the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational program delivery strategies and methods for cities and metropolitan settings to provide Extension educational programs, resources and services to residents, key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities. This includes the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational program delivery strategies and methods intentionally designed to reach a diverse, large audiences, of not just residents but key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities as well. Barriers/challenges identified in the interview transcripts also include Cooperative Extension Service educational program delivery strategies and methods used in cities and metropolitan settings to ensure accessibility to large, diverse sets of residents, key community leaders, elected officials and government leadership, and urban communities. A number of factors that could be potential barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Services educational program delivery methods appeared in the data set. Key informants emphasized that, despite limited numbers of staff, the Cooperative Extension Service educational programming in cities and metropolitan areas must be able to reach large numbers of people. To accomplish this a variety of modern 21st Century, innovation and creative programmatic delivery methods were offered. Although the ideas suggested to update the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational delivery methods, noted an interviewee, might be more connected to generational differences than geography the utilization of technology was repeatedly identified in the data set as a method to reach increased numbers of people in cities and metropolitan settings. One informant shared that “the use of technology, it's not rural, it's not urban. It's just that in order to be able to reach more people who happen to live in 155 Table 5.10: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Delivery Methods Barriers/Challenges Community Operations – Educational Program Delivery Methods Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must be able to reach large numbers of people  Use up to date, 21st Century, innovative/creative program delivery methods o Adaptations to delivery methods is as much generational as it is geographic o Take full advantage of technology to deliver program 24/7, online course, distance education, webinars, webpages, email ask the expert, toll-free information lines, etc. o Adjust program promotion and delivery methods to attract minority and under-served audiences o Use 21st Century program promotion strategies, social media and mass media o Invest in online, e-learning, learner managed platforms that focus on the learner’s environment, flexible, innovative, accessible, learner identified, learner driven Invest in client management systems, build profiles around interests and target for future programming o o Build online/website content appropriate to largest number of users, often these are urban/metro audiences  Place offices in targeted communities, accessible to targeted audiences  Have a full-range of program delivery models, from wholesale to retail model o Target other agencies/organizations’ staff, local units of government o Use train-the-trainer model to delivering program directly to residents o Provide training for professional, CEUs, etc. o Conduct short-term project initiatives to quickly address specific needs/issues & move on  High quality delivery and materials  Co-sponsor/co-host programming with credible urban/metro community partners  Expand program delivery by using volunteers and other agencies/organizations to deliver  Delivery methods must be user friendly and welcoming o Figure out how to maintain personal touch/personal connects  CES programs and resources must be accessible, fees, offices, locations programs offered, traffic/travel/parking hindrances  Make sure program fees appropriate for urban/metro and target audience o Program cost cannot be prohibitive, but should not apologize for having a cost for a high quality program o Use 21st Century technology to allow clients to pay fees – broad acceptance of credit cards online, in offices and at programs urban areas an effective use of technology is something our organization needs to be looking at.” Table 5.11: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Best Practices Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.10: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Delivery Methods Barriers/Challenges The Cooperative Extension Service needs to incorporate a broader use of the many technologies available to delivery its educational program. These should include such things as Community Operations – Educational Program Delivery Methods Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must be able to reach large numbers of people  Use up to date, 21st Century, innovative/creative program delivery methods o Adaptations to delivery methods is as much generational as it is geographic o Take full advantage of technology to deliver program 24/7, online course, distance 156 education, webinars, webpages, email ask the expert, toll-free information lines, etc. o Adjust program promotion and delivery methods to attract minority and under-served conducting webinars and online courses; using distance education equipment to expand the number of locations that people can participate in programs from; increasing content on webpages, in YouTube and in blogs; more fully utilizing email to allow people to talk directly to Extension staff and on-campus researchers through email “Ask an Expert” features; and using toll-free call-in phone lines, instant messaging or online chat features. As the Cooperative Extension Service is examining and expanding its educational program delivery methods it needs to give consideration to how it does this to reach a broad racially, ethnically and culturally diverse segment of the urban population, along with other under-served urban audiences. One reoccurring theme in the data set was that people expect to be able to access information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational programs need to be available on that schedule. A number of barriers/challenges were identified around educational program advertising or promotion. The Cooperative Extension Service has historically depended on word-of-mouth marketing and other low-tech forms of publicity, but Extension needs to fully embrace more 21st Century promotion and advertising techniques including social media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram. Extension also needs to become connected to urban mass media and explore ways to increase its utilization for promotion and delivery of educational programs and resources. Online e-learning platforms that focus on the learner’s environment and can be learner managed to contain content that is identified by the learner need to be an additional priority for the Cooperative Extension Service. Likewise, key Extension stakeholders discussed their state’s efforts to build and use online client management systems to track clientele 157 participation in Extension programs, build client profiles, and then send clients targeted information and programmatic promotion announcements around their past engagement with Extension. Furthermore, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to understand what kind of educational program content online users are looking for and most frequently access. Then Extension needs to change or build its online presence to accommodate the interests of the most frequent users. An interview shared the following story about how their state Extension system was addressing this barrier/challenge: “So, we have done an intensive study of our website looking at the statistics. Last year we had over 16,000,000 hits to our website. It's a well-used website. So we really did the analytics around it. Who's going to the website? Where are they going? What kind of questions are they asking? Where are these hits coming from? We found, the number one reason that people go to our website is around gardening and the hits are coming from urban. We're doing a full redesign of our website to really get that website designed for people that are going to it. . . We are changing that website and we are looking at that audience. So that's a small way of changing thing. You know, to think that we would have gardening as the first part of our website instead of corn and soybeans. But that's what our study showed that our website should be.” In addition to having a more accessible relevant online presence, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to examine its physical presence in cities and metropolitan areas, according to interviewees. Extension also needs to ensure that it has physical office locations in targeted urban communities that are accessible by targeted audiences. Moving beyond the use of technology and office locations, key Extension stakeholders noted a number of other barriers/challenges around the delivery modes used by the Cooperative Extension Service. The data disclosed that the Cooperative Extension Service needs be targeting a broad range of audiences and utilizing educational program delivery to 158 reach them. Several interviewees referred to this as offering educational programming across the “wholesale to retail” continuum. At the “wholesale” end of the continuum, interviews suggested that Extension should be targeting the staff of community and human services agencies and organizations as well as the staff of local units of government. First, as a train-the-trainer of staff from agencies, organizations and units of government that provide educational programs or resources directly to urban and metropolitan residents and communities. Then secondly, to connect to the research and increase the knowledge of staff of agencies, organizations and units of government that influence the lives of residents, direction of communities, and make public policy decisions. According to key Extension stakeholders, at the “wholesale” level the Cooperative Extension Service should also pursue providing educational programs and training for professions and look at offering Continuing Education Units (CEU) for professionals who need them to maintain certifications and/or licenses, similar to how Extension offers educational programs that count as credits for agricultural and landscape pesticide applicators. One key Extension stakeholder describe it this way: “I see an opportunity to do more wholesaling and less retailing to other organizations to increase their capacity to serve urban communities. So in fact then we become a more powerful in an urban environment, but we're not doing all the work ourselves. It reminds me of the little sticker I have on my computer that says Intel inside. Well, I think we need to put Extension inside of other organizations.” Interviewees acknowledged that the Cooperative Extension Service has traditionally worked more at the “retail” end of the educational program delivery continuum. However, interviewees suggest one additional retail method that is not being widely utilized, but that they felt had applicability in urban and metropolitan settings. It was the idea of engaging with 159 partners, such as local units of government or community organizations, around short-term, project specific initiatives that could quickly address a specific need or issue. Once the specific programmatic content was delivered to the target audience, the initiative would end and Extension would move on to other work. Regardless of the educational program delivery method being used by the Cooperative Extension Service, interviews indicated that the delivery needed to be of a high quality, or done well, with high quality presentation materials that lived up to the high quality reputation that most land-grant universities have and that Extension wants in cities and metropolitan settings. To enhance the Cooperative Extension Service’s reputation in urban/metro areas interviewees indicated Extension should be working with and co-sponsoring, or co-hosting, educational programs with other community organizations and partners that are highly credible in urban environments. Educational program delivery could also be expanded by having volunteers or other urban-based agencies and organizations deliver Extension programs. Of high priority to interviews was the need for the Cooperative Extension Service educational delivery methods and its presence in cities and metropolitan settings to be user friendly and welcoming. Interviewees advised that Extension needed to figure out how to build and maintain personal relationships with current and potentially new audiences while increasing its audience size. The Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources must also be accessible, beyond Extension offices being accessible, informants discussed accessibility around locations where programs were offered, traffic and parking issues in cities, and program fee structures. In particular they shared concerns around the cost or fees charged for educational programs. One informant shared that Extension should not 160 apologize for the fees it charges for high quality programs, but on the other hand it needs to make sure that the costs are not prohibitive for any audiences’ participation. Another interviewee talked about the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to use 21st Century technology to allow clients to pay fees, specifically around the need to have credit cards accepted online, in local offices and at programs. One interviewee shared, “For a long time – I mean up until recently, you couldn't pay for a lot of our programs with a credit card. You couldn't pay for 4-H camp with a credit card which was asinine, you know. They [Extension clientele] don't want to drive an hour to get to their local Extension office. I don't want to drive to the county Extension office to pay my kid's camp fee. I want to just put in a credit card like I do everywhere else.” Urban Best Practices The Cooperative Extension Service is an organization with a long history and deep culture, which has been shared through the study’s literature review and repeatedly demonstrated in the findings in both stage one and two of the study. The Cooperative Extension Service system is an organization that embraces the traditions that come with this history and culture. Given this, a number of barriers/challenges were identified by interviewees around the concept of identifying or creating traditions for the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan areas. This set of factors is identified as Urban Best Practices. These have specifically been identified as the combination of Cooperative Extension Service community operation components in cities and metropolitan settings that are, or can be, used to ensure quality and effectiveness, and to serve as models for replication nationally and potentially globally. Table 5.11 contains the list of factors identified in the Urban Best Practices area. 161 Table 5.11: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Best Practices Barriers/Challenges Community Operations – Urban Best Practices Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need a national urban agenda, with priorities, implementation steps and some resources to help CES get there  Need leadership for national efforts o Must identify and implement Best Practices to move CES beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro  Identify principles/practices behind urban/metro successes and share them across national system o No well recognized or agreed upon, national system-wide, models of success o Multiple states are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to determine Best Practices that can be shared Identifying a national funding source to pilot an initiative has worked well as an implementation strategy for CES in the past, i.e. health initiative Identified Best Practices must have broad replication ability o o  Need to see some national, system-wide urban/metro successes that are shared, new successes  Establish CES positions unique to urban/metro that supports CES’s work there, i.e. volunteer recruitment, external partnership/networking, building relationships with local government Key Extension stakeholders noted a number of potential factors as barriers/challenges around Urban Best Practices. At the outset, the data disclosed that here was a need for a national urban agenda that defined priorities, outlined implementation steps, and discussed Table 5.12: Stage 2 - Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.11: Stage 2 - Community Operations – Best Practices Barriers/Challenges possible sources of resources to help the Cooperative Extension Service undertake the Community Operations – Urban Best Practices execution of the agenda. Several interviewees noted the work of the National Urban Extension  Need a national urban agenda, with priorities, implementation steps and some resources to Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews help CES get there Leaders (NUEL) around the development of such an agenda. However, several of them  Need leadership for national efforts o Must identify and implement Best Practices to move CES beyond piloting or exploring  o what CES does in urban/metro commented about the need for further leadership to come from “national champions” who Identify principles/practices behind urban/metro successes and share them across national system o No well recognized or agreed upon, national system-wide, models of success o Multiple states are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to could speak about the need and benefits of the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban as well as from ECOP. They indicated that there was a need to move Extension beyond the piloting or exploration phase around its work in cities and metropolitan settings. determine Best Practices that can be shared Identifying a national funding source to pilot an initiative has worked well as an implementation strategy for CES in the past, i.e. health initiative Identified Best Practices must have broad replication ability o To assist with this movement, interviewees indicated that a set of principles or practices  Need to see some national, system-wide urban/metro successes that are shared, new successes behind successful urban Extension work needed to be collected and share across the national  Establish CES positions unique to urban/metro that supports CES’s work there, i.e. volunteer recruitment, external partnership/networking, building relationships with local government 162 Cooperative Extension Service system. Currently there is no such set of “urban best practices” identified or in use. Multiple state Cooperative Extension Service systems are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to determine urban best practices with the intent of sharing what they learn for potential replication broadly across the national Cooperative Extension Service system. One interviewee suggested that NUEL and/or ECOP should provide leadership in securing some funding to pilot a national urban Extension initiative in a way that was done recently with a national Extension health initiative. Two other factors that were identified as possible barriers/challenges in the urban best practices area where the need for the national Cooperative Extension Service system to see new some new successes around Extension work in cities and metropolitan settings, beyond the small handful of usual cities that are held up as examples. Lastly, informants discussed the need for several types of unique Extension positions in cities and metropolitan settings. As previously shared, these include positions solely responsible for such things as community relationship building and maintenance and/or local units of government, and for volunteer recruitment and management. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A number of barriers/challenges were identified by key Extension stakeholders within the area of Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement. The Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement area covers the combination of community interaction techniques or engagement strategies, methodologies and/or activities that the Cooperative Extension Service employs that result in the co-identification and the co-creation 163 of solutions around local urban/metro issues by Extension staff, land-grant university academics, community and governmental partners, and local residents. The factors identified separated into two distinct and distinguishable types of potential barriers/challenges. The first set were around the community Partnerships and networking that the Cooperative Extension Service does in urban settings. The second were around the Community Engagement Models that the Cooperative Extension Service utilizes in cities and metropolitan areas. Partnerships The potential barriers/challenges identified by key Extension stakeholders pertaining to Partnerships and networking done by the Cooperative Extension in cities and metropolitan settings is presented in Table 5.12. It contains factors around the Cooperative Extension Service’s need and ability to build and manage a broad range of external community and internal land-grant university department, unit and faculty relationships, partnerships and networks to effectively develop and deliver Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources in cities and metropolitan settings. It also encompasses the need and ability of the Cooperative Extension Service to identify appropriate and effective community organizations and agencies, community leadership, and governmental leadership to network with and build relationships and partnerships with to enhance the work that Extension is doing in cities and metropolitan settings. Key stakeholder informants stated that the Cooperative Extension Service has always put a strong emphasis on building community networks, collaborations and partnerships in rural and agricultural communities. Multiple interviews indicated that Extension must place the 164 Table 5.12: Stage 2 - Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers/Challenges Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive networks and partnerships CES has in rural areas o o Take leaderships for building coalitions/collaborations where CES sees need and no Increases effectiveness and return on our investment in urban/metro coalition/collaboration exist in urban/metro  o CES needs to be a catalyst, facilitator and/or convener of urban/metro change Look to engage new and different kinds of partners, local/state/federal o o Urban serving universities o Focus on local units of government, locally elected officials, CES does not know them the Internally and externally way they know/work with them in rural/ag o Focus on urban/metro power brokers o Need to intentionally be thinking about partners representing or working with minority and under-served audiences, faith-based partners o Nationally, need ECOP to lead conversation to identify and connect with new urban/metro focused partners  Need to be working with the “right” players, difficult to know who the players are in urban/metro o Complexity of environment o Large numbers of organizations /agencies/units of government o Staff must be able to do rapid assessment o Turf issues, competition, duplication of roles/services  Need to have seats at the “right” tables  CES needs to complement other urban-serving organizations and universities o Will not always be leader, need to effectively lead from behind, and learn to follow others o Unique role of CES in community partnership building maybe to bring residents into community issue/needs discussions in current community coalition/collaborations, because CES sees the value of their input and knows how to include them in these sorts of discussions in meaningful ways  Must figure out how to measure collective impact of work and then communicate that and the value of the partnership o Share credit for work, but must not lose CES’s contribution in partnerships, important CES receives credit/acknowledgement of its role/value to partnership  Must build redundancy into connections to address staff turnover, internally and externally  Must be ongoing process same emphasis on building these sorts of relationships in cities and metropolitan settings to increase its effectiveness and expand its return on the investments it places in urban Table 5.13: Stage 2 - Community Engagement – Models Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.12: Stage 2 - Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers/Challenges communities. Key Extension stakeholders shared, just like in rural and agricultural communities, Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive networks and partnerships CES has in rural areas o o Take leaderships for building coalitions/collaborations where CES sees need and no Increases effectiveness and return on our investment in urban/metro 165 Extension needs to take leadership for building coalitions and collaborations where they see a need and not such networks or partnerships exist. Additionally, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to strive to be a convener and facilitation of urban collaborations and partnerships, and a catalyst for community change. “It comes naturally [building partnerships] in rural and areas. It's harder to do in metropolitan areas because we are not connected with some of the most important social movements in the metropolitan areas,” stated an informant. The data set supported this stated in many ways. The interviewee transcripts documented that the Cooperative Extension Service will need to approach this work of building networks, collaborations and partnerships differently than they have in the past in rural and agricultural communities. The Cooperative Extension Service will need to look to engage new and different kinds of partners at the local, state and national level. Partners that are urban- focused or urban-based. The Cooperative Extension Service will also need to look both internally and externally as they work to forge new partnerships. One potential, but potentially controversial set of partnerships according to informants, is the colleges and universities located in urban settings. Commonly referred to in academic circles as the “urban serving universities.” Although some of the 1890 land-grant universities fit into this group, most of the 1862 land-grant universities do not, meaning the Cooperative Extension Service is often not housed at a land-grant university fitting into this designation. Since the urban serving universities are physically housed in cities and have defined outreach and extension missions of their own, many of them often see cities as their “turf” and Extension as competition or duplicators of services that they already provide. The Cooperative Extension Service, according 166 to key Extension stakeholders, will need to learn to successfully deal with turf, competition and duplication of service issues that arise with the urban serving universities as well as dealing with these issues when they arise with other agencies and organizations doing similar work to Extension in urban settings. Local units of government and locally elected officials were another group of highly sought after partners identified by key Extension stakeholders. The Cooperative Extension Service often works very closely with government and elected officials in rural and agricultural communities, but there have been challenges and barriers to replicating these close working relationships in cities and metropolitan settings. Interviewees acknowledged, Extension simply does not know how to work with urban units of government and locally elected officials like they work their rural counterparts. One interviewee stated, “I just don't see Extension involved or having access to the people at the level of authority for decision making or elected officials in metropolitan areas that they have access to these people in rural. And I think that's a missing point. “ Nonetheless, besides striving to build closer partnerships with urban governmental leaders, interviewees posited that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to focus on identifying and building relationships with urban and metropolitan power brokers. These include community, business and faith-based leadership. While doing this, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to intentionally be thinking about who the agencies, organizations and other entities are that represent or are working with targeted, minority and under-served audiences that Extension wants to connect with. State Cooperative Extension Service systems 167 will need to provide leadership within their state, but ECOP needs to provide leadership for these efforts at the national level, according to interviewees. It can be difficult for the Cooperative Extension Service to successfully network and build partnerships in urban areas because of the complexity of urban environments, previously described in this chapter, and the number of entities – multiple governmental units, significant numbers of elected officials, large numbers of community agencies and organizations, other higher education institutions, substantial numbers of faith-based organizations, etc. One interviewee recognized when they stated, “In an urban situation there are just a lot more players and it's a lot harder to ferret out who's doing what, who's making a difference and who's not.” “It's a crowded field in some urban sectors,” said another informant. “There are large numbers of NGO's and 501(c)(3)'s that are doing work similar to us. If they're not crowding us out, they're at least meeting the need that we could be meeting. Even if they are not doing the work as well as we could.” Key Extension stakeholders agreed that it is important for the Cooperative Extension Service to determine who the “right” partners are to work with in cities and metropolitan environments. An interviewee said: “I think it's central to be involved in the right partnerships, involved with the right community projects. Maybe in a rural area you can have partnerships with lots of different organizations and work on lots of community projects because it's possible. But in an urban area, to really make an impact, you need to know who has credibility. You've got to partner with that partner. You really need to figure that out. And I think that's complicated. I think the approach to the work is the same. It just gets a little more diluted, I think, in that urban area. So that's takes time. Some of it is trial and error.” Hence, key Extension stakeholders acknowledged the need for Cooperative Extension 168 Service staff to be able to enter urban communities and rapidly assess who the credible players are that Extension would benefit from partnering with, along with determining which current community networks, coalitions and collaborations are the “right” tables for Extension to be sitting at. According to the data set, staff also need to know how to deal with the turf, competition and duplication of service issues from the get-go. The Cooperative Extension Service needs to be able to complement what other urban serving organizations are doing and carve out a unique role for Extension. When doing this, informants indicated that Extension will not always be the lead organizations, but instead Extension needs to learn how to follow the lead of other organizations and lead from behind in many urban communities. One unique role the Cooperative Extension Service might be able to play in many cities and metropolitan settings is to bring residents into discussions about their needs and issues happening in community coalitions and collaborations. The Cooperative Extension Service sees and understands the value of citizen input into these types of community discussion and knows how to work with residents effectively to engage them in meaningful ways in community discussions. When working with partners on collaborative community efforts interviews indicated a factor that could be a potential barrier/challenge is figuring out how to measure the collective impact of the work, sorting out which organizations or agencies’ efforts contributed to the effects identified, and then communicating the outcome of the work and the value that the partnership had to the results. In this process, it is also important that the Cooperative Extension Service contributions to the partnership and the work are acknowledged. Key Extension stakeholder indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service has not always been 169 good at claiming the recognition it deserved for the role it has played in communities and to the value it brings to community partnerships. Lastly, in the Cooperative Extension Service partnership area key Extension stakeholders pointed out that staff turnover, both internally within Extension and externally with community partners, creates many barriers and/or challenges to maintaining effective and successful community partnerships. Therefore, Extension needs to explore and build redundancy into its connections and collaborations with community partners in order to not lose ground and keep relationships with the “right” community players. Hence, building community networks, collaborations and partnerships must be an ongoing process in cities and metropolitan settings. Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models are a compromise of several elements. Table 5.13 contains the list of factors identified in the data set as potential barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models in cities or metropolitan settings. The factors identified included the community interaction techniques and models used by Cooperative Extension Service that result in the co- identification of issues and the co-creation of solution by Extension staff, land-grant university academics, community organizations, local governmental units and residents. The need and ability of the Cooperative Extension Service and its parent land-grant university to be honest, build trust, and listen to residents, community partners, and community and governmental leadership; and to respect the local culture and expertise. In addition, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to build appropriate and effective relationships with its parent land- 170 Table 5.13: Stage 2 - Community Engagement – Models Barriers/Challenges Community Engagement – CES Community Engagement Models Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need to get to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural audiences o Build relationships on trust, honesty and mutual respect o Need to abandon “Lone Ranger” or “Savior” models and embrace co-creation of solutions with urban/metro residents/communities o Work cooperatively with residents and community partners in the identification of urban/metro needs and issues and potential solutions o Respect community culture o Honor local knowledge/expertise o CES Remain unbiased and accessible to all  Must embrace and help lead national APLU conversation around community outreach and engagement o CES needs to think differently about how it does this o Ideas coming out of APLU, but do not have well developed implementation strategies, CES could help inform these  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU o CES needs to know broad LGU expertise o CES needs to engage LGU students in urban/metro communities  Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated o LGU and CES seen as same entity in urban/metro communities o Focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES  grant university departments, units and faculty, and to work to successfully connect these land- grant university collaborators with urban residents, community and governmental leadership, Table 5.14: Stage 2 - CES Community Image Barriers/ChallengesTable 5.13: Stage 2 - Community Engagement – Models Barriers/Challenges and community organizations to enhance Extension’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. Community Engagement – CES Community Engagement Models Several barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service Community Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need to get to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural audiences Engagement Models were identified as factors that could influence Extension’s ability to deliver o Build relationships on trust, honesty and mutual respect o Need to abandon “Lone Ranger” or “Savior” models and embrace co-creation of solutions with urban/metro residents/communities educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. These include factors o Work cooperatively with residents and community partners in the identification of such as the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to get to know and understand urban urban/metro needs and issues and potential solutions o Respect community culture o Honor local knowledge/expertise o CES Remain unbiased and accessible to all and metropolitan audiences as well as they know the rural and agricultural audiences that  Must embrace and help lead national APLU conversation around community outreach and Extension has historically worked with, according to the data set. engagement o CES needs to think differently about how it does this o Ideas coming out of APLU, but do not have well developed implementation strategies, CES could help inform these  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU o CES needs to know broad LGU expertise o CES needs to engage LGU students in urban/metro communities  Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated 171 The relationships that the Cooperative Extension Service establishes with these audiences must be authentic, built on trust, honesty and mutual respect. Extension cannot approach these audiences or urban communities with a “Savior” or “Lone Ranger” attitude. The Cooperative Extension Service must engage urban residents, community and governmental leaders, and community partners in the co-identification of individual and community needs and issues. Along with co-creating potential solutions or methodologies to address the identified needs and issues. This can only be done by the Cooperative Extension Service if they respect local culture and honor local knowledge and expertise, while remaining unbiased and accessible to all residents and communities. Key Extension stakeholders indicated that the APLU currently has a committee, or group, involved in a conversation around furthering higher education’s community outreach and engagement. According to one interviewee, this group is looking to build up and expand the agenda outlined in the Kellogg Commission report (1998) and this interview felt that it was imperative that the Cooperative Extension Service become part of this conversation. Several interviews claimed that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to be thinking differently about how it contributes to the scholarship of engagement. The interviewee who seemed most versed in the APLU efforts, indicated that the ideas coming out this discussion do not currently have well developed implementation strategies. They felt that Extension could help inform these. This would benefit not only the conversation, but the creditability of the Cooperative Extension Service in the discussion about the scholarship of engagement. At their parent land-grant universities, the data set revealed that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to value and support the university’s larger outreach and engagement 172 efforts. This value and support needs to extend beyond the colleges of agriculture and human ecology or family studies. One interviewee stated: “The critical part for Extension is figuring out within colleges of agriculture how they release their Extension capacity to the rest of the colleges in a way that the rest of the colleges think it's real. They actually believe that this is in their common interest. That this is a platform for engagement because these other colleges are already doing engagement. I mean the land grant universities’ missions are not exclusively to Extension or in colleges of agriculture. And to the extent that it's more narrowly focused, I think in the long term it [Extension] will become less relevant, except within a very small subgroup of large populations.” To embrace the land-grant universities’ broader outreach and engagement mission the Cooperative Extension Service, as indicated by the interviewees, needs to know the expertise at its parent land-grant university that is relevant to urban issues and needs and build relations with the appropriate faculty, colleges, departments and units. Extension should also explore ways to engage land-grant university students with cities and metropolitan centers around the work that Extension is doing in these communities. Another potential barrier/challenge area that key Extension stakeholders identified was the need to have a larger land-grant university presence in cities and metropolitan settings. A presence that is larger than just the Cooperative Extension Service because to most urban communities Extension and its parent land-grant university are the same thing. Urban residents usually link the work and image of the university and Extension together. Having a land-grant university presence that is larger than just the Cooperative Extension Service in urban center can also serve as an epicenter to bring the broad expertise of the university into the urban/metro area. The last area that was identified by key Extension stakeholders as a potential barrier/challenge around the Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Model 173 area was the identification and implementation of incentives for faculty to engage with the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan settings. One informant shared this: “So, the difficulty is we can't engage faculty that do not have Extension appointments. There's no incentive. They're not going to receive good evaluations annually in the merit review, and they're not going to receive the best evaluations in departments where research alone is the most important differentiator among faculty relative to both tenured promotion and towards merit.” COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COMMUNITY IMAGE The Cooperative Extension Community Image consists of factors that are potential barriers/challenges around Extension having or creating a positive organizational image with urban residents, community and governmental leadership, and community partners. The Cooperative Extension Service’s image is impacted by the reputation that Extension has, or does not have, in cities and metropolitan areas. The Cooperative Extension Service’s reputation is created or influenced by the way Extension positions and markets itself in urban centers. More specifically, positioning has been defined as the Cooperative Extension Service and/or university administration’s vision and/or commitment to effectively define, build and implement a unique niche differentiating the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities or metropolitan settings from other service providers or universities (Ruemenapp, 2017). The Cooperative Extension Service then needs to engage in marketing this “position.” So, marketing of the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan areas consists of the strategies and activities that Extension employs to comprehensively promote, advertise and increase awareness of the organization and its educational programs, resources and services. Table 5.14 174 presents the list of barriers/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Community Image area that were articulated in the interviews with the key Extension stakeholders. In the Cooperative Extension Service Community Image area were numerous factors identified as potential barriers/challenges concerning the image, positioning and marketing of the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan settings. At the onset, the data set showed that key Extension stakeholders believed, and research studies in the study’s literature review support this, that a substantial number of people living in rural and agricultural communities have used or at least know about the Cooperative Extension Service. They have a “history” with the Cooperative Extension Service. This is not true in cities and metropolitan communities. Most residents have no history or knowledge of the Cooperative Extension Service. Hence urban residents, community and governmental leaders, and communities do not even think of the Cooperative Extension Service as a potential resource to them because they do not know Extension. One interviewee shared this thought on the issue: “If you called [an urban resident] and said, ‘Would you be interested in an organization that is locally based, has a connection to a land-grant university, that has information that's research based and is going to help you find answers to your problems?’ Everybody would say, ‘Yeah, sign me up!’ So that's part of our urban issue. How do we introduce them [urban residents] to that.” On the other hand, even if urban residents, community and government leaders, and communities have heard of the Cooperative Extension Service they often believe that it is an organization that is relevant to only rural and agricultural residents and communities. As previously reported, key Extension stakeholders indicated in the interviews that in urban communities the image and reputation of the Cooperative Extension Service and its parent land-land university are inexplicitly linked together. Interviews that thought that the image was 175 Table 5.14: Stage 2 - CES Community Image Barriers/Challenges CES Community Image Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Many rural/ag residents know or have used CES, many urban/metro residents have not, no history with CES, urban/metro audiences do not know CES  Urban/metro residents, community/governmental leadership and community partners do not think of CES because they do not know CES  Rural/ag image  Coming in and out of communities leads to doubts of sincerity in urban/metro communities  Need comprehensive urban focused marketing plan, both on external audience, and internal CES and LGU audiences o May need outside, professional assistance  Must learn to talk and effectively communicate to urban/metro residents o Use social media o Mass media o Media targeted at specific interest groups, minorities and under-served audiences o Faith-based connections o Must be creative/innovative o Word of mouth marketing strategies are not enough in urban/metro  Must have visible and abundant CES branding in urban/metro areas o Brand to LGU, usually better known in urban/metro than CES  Provide abundant and high quality information about CES work and impacts in urban/metro to community and governmental leaders, community partners and residents  Define unique “niche” for CES based on mission, purpose, relationships and using technology o Vision for the future o Programmatically o Operationally o Partnerships o Community engagement o Address urban/metro population size and community scale issues o Focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro  Connect citizens to research/knowledge base in unbiased manner o Address 21st Century technology transfer needs o Compliment and connect what is happening in rural/ag  CES offices, online presence, programming, etc. must be user friendly and welcoming to new, diverse urban/metro audiences  Use a client management platform to track people and keep them engaged with CES  Need urban CES advocates, but to build urban advocates they need to see CES doing valuable/relevant work in urban/metro  Take incremental steps usually positive for the Cooperative Extension Service, but not always. According to interviewees, universities have had a habit of coming into communities, especially urban/metro communities, to solely conduct research. When their research study is completed the faculty Figure 5.1: Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept MapTable 5.14: Stage 2 - CES Community Image Barriers/Challenges CES Community Image Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews 176  Many rural/ag residents know or have used CES, many urban/metro residents have not, no history with CES, urban/metro audiences do not know CES  Urban/metro residents, community/governmental leadership and community partners do not leave the community. This has left a number of urban communities, who are frequently research subjects, feeling used and marginalized. Frequently these are disfranchised communities before faculty ever enter them, but their experiences with universities do not positively contribute to the overall well-being of these communities nor a positive image of universities. The Cooperative Extension Service can be associated with these sorts of experiences in urban communities as well. This is how one interviewee describe this type of experience, “Where we have gone in, done something, then backed out and stopped doing it, there are perceptions in some of those communities that we're not there for the right reasons and for the long haul. “ Numerous references to the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to engage in more marketing in cities and metropolitan areas were found in the data set. Factors identified included references to the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to have an external marketing plan as well as an internal marketing plan. It was suggested that the Cooperative Extension Service might need to engage external, or outside, professional assistance with its marketing efforts. Key Extension stakeholders indicated that to effectively market the Cooperative Extension Service in cities and metropolitan settings that Extension was going to need to learn how to effectively community with urban/metro audiences. The interviewees talked about the need to use social and mass media, and media that targeted specific interest groups, minorities and under-served audiences, and faith-based communities. Informants emphasized the need for the Cooperative Extension Service to be innovative and creative in its urban/metro 177 marketing strategies because tried and true historical promotion techniques, like word of mouth, will not be enough in cities and metropolitan areas. The Cooperative Extension Service needs visible and abundant branding in urban center, and branding to their usually better known parent land-grant university is positive and was recommended by key Extension stakeholders. The branding and marketing materials used along with the Cooperative Extension Service’s use of social and mass media must be of a high quality and include information about Extension’s work and impacts in urban settings. These high quality marketing materials should be distributed broadly in urban areas to community and government leaders, community partners and urban residents. One key informant shared this thought about marketing of the Cooperative Extension Service: “More and more legislators are coming from urban areas and they have no clue about Extension or our history or our successes or our impacts. So. I think we need to continue to be cognizant of that and then do some marketing to keep people informed in the public arena, legislators, county commissioners, and even on the campus, to tell them what Extension is really doing.” Beyond dealing with image and marketing issues, the Cooperative Extension Service needs to be thinking about its unique “niche” or how it positions itself in cities and metropolitan setting. When determining Extension urban “niche,” interviewees indicated that it needed to be based on the Cooperative Extension Service’s mission. Additionally, Extension urban “niche” needs to also be based on a future vision of the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. The “niche” needs to define how Extension will operationalize in urban settings, desired partners, and the community engagement models or values Extension will embrace while addressing the size and scale issues present with in N urban context. Extension also needs to bring the full range of its parent land-grant university to 178 bear by providing unbiased information and focusing on cutting edge technology transfer in urban communities. Around programmatic focuses or topics, key Extension stakeholders indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service should be looking for “sweet spot” around Extension and/or faculty expertise, and urban and rural interdependencies so that Extension programs in urban areas not only meet the needs of resident and communities, they also complement the work that Extension is doing in rural and agricultural communities. The Cooperative Extension Service’s physical offices, educational programming and online presence needs to be user friendly and welcoming to new, diverse urban/metro audiences. Investing in and using a robust online client management system to build client profiles, track client involvement with Extension, and to help keep them engaged is important according to the data set. The data set also showed that the Cooperative Extension Service should pay attention to identifying urban advocates and through its marketing efforts focus on keeping them informed of the relevant and valuable work that Extension is doing in cities and metropolitan settings. Key Extension stakeholders recognized that improving Extension image in urban communities, defining a well thought out unique urban “niche,” and effectively marketing Extension was difficult and complicated work that would need to be done incrementally. POST STAGE 2 RESEARCH SCHEME CONCEPT MAP The master list of barriers/challenges identified in stage two of the study (Appendix H) were compared to the list of barriers/challenges identified in stage one of the study. The two 179 lists were compared and contracted for similarities and differences. The stage two master list of barriers/challenges was also examined for any new barriers and/or challenges were identified by the key Extension stakeholders what were not present in the urban Extension plans. The two lists showed significant alignment. As theorized, the stage two list of barriers/challenges contained an expanded set of barriers/challenges. The key Extension stakeholder interviews were able to provide a depth and detail to the factors identified as barriers/challenges that was not present in the ten urban Extension plan documents. Again, as promoted in Maxwell’s (2013) interactive model of research design, the researcher returned the Post Stage 1: Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 4.1). As was done at the end of stage one of the study, the study’s goal, methods and research question were gauge for alignment with the stage two findings. Give the congruency of the findings in stage one and stage two of the study no adjustments were necessary. The concept map was also assessed to determine how the stage two findings impacted or influenced the conceptual framework and to continue to interpret the data collected. Based on the stage two of the study’s pattern of emergent themes and concepts identified in the sixteen data sets, several adjustments to the Research Scheme Concept Map were warranted. Urban Best Practices was added to the Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations area. The Cooperative Extension Service Work with Community area was expanded to include two sub-themes, Partnerships and Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models. Also based on the additional detail and richness the key Extension stakeholder interviews provided into the barriers/challenges the Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 5.1) is able to more copiously illustrate the interactions 180 and relationships between the areas where the Cooperative Extension Service can experience barriers and/or challenged in its work in urban settings. Based on the analysis of the emergent concepts and themes identified in stage one and stage two of the study, eleven potential places were identified where barriers and/or challenges might emerge to influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to provide educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. The eleven areas are: 1) the environmental conditions present in the urban context; 2) the environmental conditions present in the Cooperative Extension Service history and culture; 3) the organizational leadership provide for the Cooperative Extension Service work being conducted; 4) the Cooperative Extension Service staffing; 5) the use of volunteers in urban settings;6.) the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational program content; 7) the Cooperative Extension Service educational program delivery methods; 8) the urban Extension best practices identified; 9) the community partnerships that the Cooperative Extension Service develops; 10) the community engagement models used; and 11) the Cooperative Extension Service’s organizational image in cities and metropolitan settings. At the top of the Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map present in Figure 5.1 is the Environmental Conditions because these are the combination of social, economic and ecological elements that create the contexts in which urban residents live and the Cooperative Extension Service’s work is done. The concept map shows that the Environmental Conditions are split into two sub-themes. They are the Urban Context and the Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture. Both of these Environmental Conditions¸ shown by the arrow in the map, should impact or influence the decisions and action of the Cooperative Extension Service 181 Figure 5.1: Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map 182 Organizational Leadership who provide administrative oversight for the “Components of the Cooperative Extension Service’s Operations in Community.” These elements are the Cooperative Extension Service’s Paid Staff and Unpaid Volunteer Staff, the Educational Program Content and Educational Program Delivery Methods and Best Practices applied to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban communities. The arrows going from all three of these operational elements to each other signify that these elements are highly interactive between each other. There is also an arrow coming down from the Environmental Conditions to the box containing the five community operational elements indicating that these societal, economic and ecological conditions can and should influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s community-based operations. Moving down the page, the map indicates that the combination of the Cooperative Extension Service’s paid Staff and unpaid Volunteer Staff, the Educational Program Content and Educational Program Delivery Methods and Best Practices taken in combination create the “Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service.” The two elements that influence the “Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service” are the community Partnerships and networks built by the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Community Engagement Models that the Cooperative Extension Service uses. These experiences lead to the Cooperative Extension Service’s Organizational Image in urban and metropolitan communities. In turn, the Organizational Image that the Cooperative Extension Service has in the community impacts the three elements of its “Community Operations”, the decisions and actions of the Organizational Leadership, and can even impact or influence some aspects of the Environmental Conditions present. As the concept map 183 indicates and the findings presented from stage two of the study demonstrated, all of these areas are interconnected, influencing and impacting each other. SUMMARY AND USAGE OF FINDINGS IN STAGE 3 OF STUDY The master list of the potential barriers and/or challenges identified in the sixteen key Extension stakeholder interviews analyzed and presented in this chapter can be found in Appendix H. A list comparing the sub-barriers/challenges within each of the five large barrier/challenge areas from stage one to the stage two findings is presented in Appendix I. After analysis of the two lists the study determined that the key Extension stakeholder interviews expanded and updated the sub-barrier/challenge lists of factors, The additional detail also provide clarification around some of these items, causing them to be moved from one large barrier/challenge concept/theme areas to another. Additionally, after reviewing and comparing the two lists, it was determined that all the barriers/challenges identified in stage one of the study were also independently identified in stage two of the study and that the list of sub-barriers/challenges in each large concept/theme area was expanded. The insights gathered from the updated Research Scheme Concept Map and themes and concepts identified in the eleven barrier/challenge concept codes were initially compared and contrasted with the set of barriers/challenges from stage one of the study. This initial analysis concluded that the stage one list of barriers/challenges were represented in the stage two list of barriers/challenges. However, as theorized by the researcher, the stage two list of barriers/challenges contained a better-defined and refined set of barriers/challenges. The key Extension stakeholder interviews, as planned, were able to provide a depth and detail to the 184 factors identified as barriers/challenges that was not possible to ascertain through the content analysis of the ten urban Extension plan documents. The more expansive and detailed list of factors that are potential barriers/challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s delivery of educational programs and resources in urban settings was then used to develop a ground theory around the factors that are potential barriers and/or challenges and influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver educational program and resources to urban and metropolitan residents. 185 CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSION OF FINDINGS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Over the last 100-years as the population in the country has shifted into urban centers, there have been growing calls for the Cooperative Extension Service to move more of its work into these areas. There is a substantive amount of practitioner literature on Extension’s urban efforts. Although, the bulk of the practitioner literature is peer-reviewed and some of it is connected to a research base, for the most part it is still practitioner speculation about the barriers or challenges to Extension’s work in urban areas. An extensive review of the Cooperative Extension Service organizational literature for this research study produced limited empirical research studies that support the practitioner supposition. Research studies have generally used a small sample size and have been confined to looking at one, or at most a small number of issues within one state. No national studies looking at the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to effectively deliver educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan areas have been identified. Hence, the intention of this study was to empirically collect, verify and analyze the challenges and barriers that Extension staff working in cities and metropolitan centers experience and have to address in order to effectively deliver Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services. Before the Cooperative Extension Service can increase its effectiveness in urban centers, as individual state systems or at a national level, it is necessary for Extension to have a more thorough understanding of the barriers and challenges that 186 influence its work. Therefore, in the most simplistic terms, the intended purpose of the study was problem identification and validation. This study employed a two-stage exploratory research design (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2009). The overall goal of this research methodology was twofold. First, to use a grounded theory approach to identify and validate the barriers and challenges that the Cooperative Extension Service encounters to the delivery of educational programs and services in cities and metropolitan settings. Secondarily, to employ a transformative lens to the analysis and dissemination of the study’s findings to encourage organizational change to the Cooperative Extension Service. It is the hope that this research might help inform the implementation of the 2015 national urban Extension agenda currently underway, along with influencing the state level urban Extension initiatives that are ongoing in places like Michigan, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia and the Western states, to name just a few. The study specifically sought to answer one central research question: What are the factors that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings? The study was planned and conducted in two stages. The intent of each stage of the study was to accomplish a different objective and to build on the previous stage. The aim of stage one and two was to employ several qualitative methodologies to identify the barriers and challenges, and stage two also served to test, verify and validate the barriers/challenges identified in stages one. Therefore, each stage of the study had one or more research sub- questions it was designed to address. 187 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Stage one of the study involved a qualitative document and literature review of seventeen state, regional and national urban Extension position papers from ten states, describing how Extension was or needed to be working in cities and/or metropolitan settings. The sub-question that the first stage of research sought to answer was: 1. What are the barriers and/or challenges that Extension staff encounter in delivering Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings that have previously been identified by Extension practitioners either in the practitioner literature or in urban Extension position papers? The study postulated, based on the literature review and experience of the researcher, that barriers and/or challenges that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban settings would be found in the following areas:  Urban Environment in which the work occurs  Cooperative Extension Service Leadership  Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations such as Staffing and Programming  Cooperative Extension Service Work or Engagement with Urban Communities, and  Cooperative Extension Service Image in Urban Communities. This hypothesis was presented in the Post Literature Research Concept Map presented in Figure 2.3. As predicted, after a thorough review and content analysis of the seventeen urban Extension planning documents, this is clearly what was found. Appendix G is a table that 188 provides a specific and complete comparison of all the sub-barrier/challenge factors identified in stage one and stage two of the study. Furthermore, besides finding a set of urban environmental factors the urban Extension plan content analysis revealed an additional set of environmental barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service’s Environment. The concept map also predicted that Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations barriers/challenges would fall into two sub-categories: Staffing and Programs. The urban Extension plan content analysis showed that this was indeed the case, but within the Staffing area and the Program area the barriers/challenges in each area broke down into two distinct and distinguishable categories. In the Staffing area the sub-categories of barriers/ challenges were around paid Cooperative Extension Service Staff and unpaid Volunteer staff. Then within the Program area the sub- categories of barriers/challenges identified were Program Content and Program Delivery. The study’s theoretical hypothesis was updated (Figure 4.1) to reflect these additional barrier/challenge factors. Stage two of the study consisted of conducting and analyzing interviews with sixteen Extension stakeholders that have key administrative or leadership roles for Cooperative Extension Service programming and/or operations from a geographic representative set of states from across the country. Interviews with key Extension stakeholders were conducted to verify, refine, update and expand the set of the barriers and challenges identified in stage one, since many of the urban Extension plans were more than ten years old and potentially contained dated information. Stage two of the study sought to answer two sub-research questions: 189 1. Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders agree or disagree with the barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? 2. Do nationally recognized key Extension stakeholders identify additional barriers and/or challenges Extension staff experience in working in urban or metropolitan settings that were not identified in the literature and urban Extension position papers? Based on the content analysis of the seventeen urban Extension planning documents from ten states the study hypothesized that barriers and/or challenges that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban settings would be found in the following areas:  Environmental Conditions o Urban Context o CES History and Culture  Cooperative Extension Service Leadership  Cooperative Extension Service Community Operations o CES Staff o Volunteers o Educational Program Content o Educational Program Delivery Methods  Cooperative Extension Service Work or Engagement with Urban Communities, and  Cooperative Extension Service Image in Urban Communities. 190 This hypothesis was presented in the Post Stage 1: Research Concept Map presented in Figure 4.1. Once again as predicted, after a thorough review and analysis of the interview transcripts the key Extension stakeholder identified multiple barriers/challenges in all of the large concept/theme areas listed above. Therefore, in response to the first stage two research questions, the key Extension stakeholders absolutely agreed with all of the factors identified as barriers and/or challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in urban areas that were identified in stage one of the study. Moreover, in response to the second stage two research question, the key Extension stakeholders definitely expanded the list of identified barriers/challenges to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. Appendix I is a table that provides a specific and complete comparison of all the sub- barrier/challenge factors identified in stage one and stage two of the study. As anticipated, the interviews also added a great deal of depth, detail and richness to the large concept/theme areas and the multitude of sub-barrier/challenge areas identified during the urban Extension plan content analysis. Due to this additional detail, the Cooperative Extension Service Engagement with Urban Communities areas was split into two sub-areas, because of the distinct and distinguishable differences assessed. The two areas were Partnerships and Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models. Furthermore, because of the additional depth and richness gathered around a number of the sub- barrier/challenge areas in the interviews, a number of the sub-barrier/challenge areas identified in stage one of the study were moved into different large concept/theme areas. The five large theme elements identified at end of stage two of the study, presented in the Post 191 Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 5.1), were used to group and organize the more specific sets of sub-barriers/themes. ADDRESSING THE CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION The study specifically sought to answer one central research question: What are the factors that influence Extension’s ability to deliver educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings? The interviews with the key Extension stakeholders and the content analysis of the urban Extension planning documents provided great insights into the factors that are barriers and/or challenges that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to effectively work in cities and metropolitan setting. From the interviews and urban Extension plan analysis the study was able to confirm that Extension’s work is influenced by barrier/challenge factors within the Urban Context, by the Cooperative Extension Service history and culture and organizational leadership. Extension staff also encounter a number of barrier/challenge factors within and around the Cooperative Extension Service’s Operations in Community which included the Staffing both paid and unpaid Volunteers, and the Educational Program Content and Delivery Methods. Consistently at both stages of research, the study found that not having a recognizable and accepted set of urban “Best Practices” causes challenges for individual state systems as well as the national Cooperative Extension Service system. Extension also deals with a set of barriers/challenges around its Community Engagement efforts, particularly around its community Partnerships and the Engagement Models it uses. Lastly, both stages of the study indicated that the Cooperative 192 Extension Service experiences barrier/challenge factors around its Community Image in cities and metropolitan centers. Moreover, through the interviews and urban Extension plan analysis, the study was able to generate a comprehensive list of sub-barrier/challenge factor within the larger barrier/challenge theme areas. Furthermore, from the details gathered in the key Extension stakeholder interviews, the study was able to map the relationships and impacts of these barrier/challenge areas. The sets of sub-barrier/challenge factors and their relationships to each other, as well as their impacts on the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings are presented in the following fables and figures. Table 6.1 contains the Environmental Context barriers/challenges broken down by the two sub-sets that are the Urban Context and Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture barriers/challenges. Table 6.2 is the list of barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service Leadership. All the sub-areas - Staffing, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Methods, and Best Practices - that make up the set of barriers/challenges around the Cooperative Extension Service’s Community Operations are presented in Table 6.3. Table 6.4 encompasses the barrier/challenges in the Cooperative Extension Service ‘s Community Engagement sub-areas, which are community Partnerships and Community Engagement. Table 6.5 provides the list of barrier/challenge factors identifies through the study in the Cooperative Extension Service’ Community Image. 193 Table 6.1: Final List of Environmental Conditions – Urban Context and CES History & Culture Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors Urban Environment Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag because of scale/size of communities Population diversity, size, percentage of total, concentrated poverty Socio/economic/ecological issues are different, or have different causations than in rural/agricultural communities Reciprocal or symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/ag communities CES seen as rural/ag serving organization, or not known CES does not know urban/metro communities/ populations or how to work effectively with them like they know rural/ag communities/populations CES History & Culture History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities, urban populations do not have the same historic ties to CES, 1890 LGU’s have more urban history CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/ communities through its historic rural/ag lens CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus expectations Traditional rural/ag advocacy groups and clientele do not support CES work in urban/metro, current clientele see as an either/or State/federal legislators expectations because funding provided, expect to serve all or only rural, urban legislators not as supportive as rural/ag legislators Urban/metro CES work must be driven by organizational mission and relevancy Must be able to serve urban/metro audience without abandoning rural/ag audience Need to understand CES history to change future Current CES staff resistant to change or question value of CES work in urban/metro Nationally CES is a loose system, more of a confederacy of organizations than a tight system Table 6.2: Final List of Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Sub - Barrier/Challenge FactorsTable 6.1: Final List of Environmental Conditions – Urban Context and CES History & Culture Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors Urban Environment Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag because of scale/size of communities Population diversity, size, percentage of total, concentrated poverty CES History & Culture History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities, urban populations do not have the same historic ties to CES, 1890 LGU’s have more urban history CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/ communities through its historic rural/ag lens 194 CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus Table 6.2: Final List of Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Sub - Barrier/Challenge Factors Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Mission driven, serve all populations, recognition of urgency to address urban/ metro needs and issues, integrate urban work into CES, Examine and make needed changes to CES policies and practices, especially around resource investments, community operations, staffing, programming, etc. Make CES a welcoming and supportive place for staff working in urban/metro Share vision broadly, with CES workforce, LGU administration, funding partners, community partners, etc., to build understanding and engagement Know the work that CES is doing in urban, know CES has resources to address multifaceted urban/metro needs and issues Define appropriate urban evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them – triple bottom line? Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU Focus on expanding the funding “pie” Understand/acknowledge that expanding CES work in urban/metro does not always take a large amount of resources, or new resources Political power located in urban/metro Under funded on a per capita basis by local units of government in urban/metro Director of Extension need to be seen as an equal to Deans to garner respect and facilitate access to broad range of LGU expertise Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across LGU and connections to CES Need visionary leadership to lead through crisis that is practical, willing to change status quo/inertia Open/responsive to new opportunities Take and support risks Need to embrace a broad LGU outreach and engagement agenda Committed to serving urban audiences/working in urban areas, need to move beyond piloting Ensure CES is relevant and responsive to urban/metro, understand and address urban socio, economic and ecological needs Understand and acknowledge that urban/metro different than rural/ag and CES work in urban/metro must be different Within CES incentivize and reward work in urban/metro Need “champions” at national level to move CES Define urban priorities and invest in them, invest for impact, allocation of resources must be driven by local needs/issues Effectively management of complex funding streams Address funder expectations, balancing competing expectations/pressures, be responsive Must identify/develop urban advocates Need to have LGU leadership/administration support Focus on broad outreach and engagement across LGU expertise, expand beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology/family studies, need to understand/ know broad LGU expertise Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated Table 6.3: Final List of CES Community Operations – Staff, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Models and Best Practice Sub- Barrier/Challenge FactorsTable 6.2: Final List of Cooperative Extension Service 195 Table 6.3: Final List of CES Community Operations – Staff, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Models and Best Practice Sub- Barrier/Challenge Factors Staffing Use same staffing pattern as in rural, adjust staffing patterns to meet urban needs, multi- disciplinary teams Adjust types of positions employed, build in flexibility, adjust job descriptions to reflect desired skills Expand number of staff Determine appropriate/adequate levels of staffing Hire unique positions to urban settings, i.e. volunteer recruiter/manager Have staff specifically assigned to urban, not necessarily by county Hire staff with right skills/experience/backgrounds, soft skills for urban, people with urban experiences who want to work in urban, do not necessarily need previous Extension experience Appropriate programmatic focuses for urban Demographically reflective of urban communities Put resources behind hiring best people for urban Adjust salaries to pay a living wage for urban settings Recruit in non-traditional places to advertise positions to groups of people with desired skills Need staff professional development focused on building appropriate/adequate urban skill sets Define appropriate urban/metro evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them Look at CES employee retention policies/practices Need effective lines of supervision Educational Program Content Content must be relevant and responsive, issue-based, proactive not reactive, impact oriented Content same as in rural, need to adjust/adapt for urban/metro Layers/distance between faculty/research, CES staff and residents/communities, need to differentiate CES, need to adjust CES traditional “expert” model Transitioned from delivery of social sciences to delivery of social services Let go of content areas others can do better Need to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural/ag audiences Conduct effective programmatic needs assessments that engage urban/metro residents, volunteers, local units of government, community agencies and CES partners Build programmatic expertise relevant to urban, multidisciplinary Build strong CES staff-LGU faculty connections, develop relationships with LGU faculty that have expertise relevant to urban needs/issues, build urban/metro content around CES and LGU expertise, programming content must be backed by research Find topical areas of interdependency between rural/urban and tailor/develop content to meet urban/metro needs and interests High quality programs/content, differentiate CES context from what people can access through an internet search Content must be learner identified and learner driven, not driven by experts/CES/faculty Adjust program context to attract minority and under-served audiences Adjust content to be culturally/racially/ethnically sensitive and appropriate 196 Table 6.3: ContinuedTable 6.3: Final List of CES Community Operations – Staff, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Models Table 6.3 (cont’d) Volunteers Educational Program Delivery Need more volunteers, explore new/innovative volunteer recruiting practices relevant to urban environments Volunteer demographics need to reflect the demographics of the community Need to use volunteers in new, creative/innovative, non-traditional roles, have meaningful roles that utilize or build skills, have roles with a variety of levels of responsibility and lengths of service Use volunteer to expand staffing/programming Use across more program areas than just 4-H and Master Gardeners Adjust curriculum and delivery methods to allow for utilization of volunteers Need to provide adequate/appropriate training, make sure training is affordable/accessible Provide appropriate/adequate recognition and rewards Have a CES position with sole job of recruiting volunteers Urban Best Practices Need a national urban agenda, with priorities, implementation steps and some resources to help CES get there Must identify and implement Best Practices to move CES beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro Identify principles/practices behind urban/metro successes and share them across national system, currently no well recognized or agreed upon, national system-wide, models of success, multiple states are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to determine Best Practices that can be shared Must be able to reach large numbers of people, impact oriented Use up to date, 21st Century, innovative/creative program delivery methods, adaptations to delivery methods is as much generational as it is geographic Take full advantage of technology to deliver program 24/7, online course, distance education, webinars, webpages, email ask the expert, toll-free information lines, etc.; use 21st Century program promotion strategies, social media and mass media; invest in online, e- learning, learner managed platforms that focus on the learner’s environment, flexible, innovative, accessible, learner identified, learner driven; build online/website content appropriate to largest number of users, often these are urban/metro audiences Adjust program promotion and delivery methods to attract minority and under-served audiences Invest in client management systems, build profiles around interests and target for future programming Place offices in targeted communities, accessible to targeted audiences Have a full-range of program delivery models, from wholesale to retail model; target other agencies/organizations’ staff, local units of government; use train-the-trainer model to delivering program directly to residents; provide training for professional, CEUs, etc.; conduct short-term project initiatives to quickly address specific needs/issues and move on High quality delivery and materials Co-sponsor/co-host programming with credible urban/metro community partners Expand program delivery by using volunteers and other agencies/organizations to deliver Delivery methods must be user friendly and welcoming, figure out how to maintain personal touch/personal connects 197 Table 6.3 (cont’d) Urban Best Practices Continued Educational Program Delivery Continued Identifying a national funding source to pilot an initiative has worked well as an implementation strategy for CES in the past, i.e. health initiative Identified Best Practices must have broad replication ability, nationally, globally Need to see some national, system- wide urban/metro successes that are shared, new successes CES programs and resources must be accessible, fees, offices, locations programs offered, traffic/travel/parking hindrances Make sure program fees appropriate for urban/metro and target audience; program cost cannot be prohibitive, but should not apologize for having a cost for a high quality program Use 21st Century technology to allow clients to pay fees – broad acceptance of credit cards online, in offices and at programs Table 6.4: Final List of CES Community Engagement – Partnerships and Community Engagement Models Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors Partnerships Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive networks and partnerships CES has in rural areas, increases effectiveness and return on our investment in urban/metro, must have effective urban advisory councils Take leaderships for building coalitions/collaborations where CES sees need and no coalition/collaboration exist in urban/metro, CES needs to be a catalyst, facilitator and/or convener of urban/metro change Look to engage new and different kinds of partners, local/state/federal; internally and externally; focus on urban serving universities, urban/metro power brokers, local units of government, locally elected officials, CES does not know them the way they know/work with them in rural/ag; need to intentionally be thinking about partners representing or working with minority and under-served audiences, faith-based partners Must figure out how to measure collective impact of work and then communicate that and the value of the partnership; share credit for work, but must not lose CES’s contribution in partnerships, important CES receives credit/ acknowledgement of its role/value to partnership Nationally, need ECOP to lead conversation to identify and connect with new urban/metro focused partners Staff must be able to do rapid assessment Must build redundancy into connections to address staff turnover, internally and externally Must be ongoing process Need to have seats at the “right” tables, building partnerships in urban more difficult because of environmental complexity Unique role of CES in community partnership building maybe to bring residents into community issue/needs discussions in current community coalition/collaborations, because CES sees the value of their input and knows how to include them in these sorts of discussions in meaningful ways 198 Table 6.4 (cont’d) Partnerships Continued Need to be working with the “right” players, difficult to know who the players are in urban/metro; complicated by complexity of environment; large numbers of organizations /agencies/units of government, turf issues, competition, duplication of roles/services CES needs to complement other urban-serving organizations and universities; will not always be leader, need to effectively lead from behind, and learn to follow others CES Community Engagement Models Need to get to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural audiences Build relationships on trust, honesty and mutual respect Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated, LGU and CES seen as same entity in urban/metro communities, focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU; CES needs to understand/know broad LGU expertise; CES needs to engage LGU students in urban/metro communities Need to abandon “Lone Ranger” or “Savior” models and embrace co-creation of solutions with urban/metro residents/communities Work cooperatively with residents and community partners in the identification of urban/metro needs and issues and potential solutions, respect community culture, honor local knowledge/expertise, CES Remain unbiased and accessible to all Must embrace and help lead national APLU conversation around community outreach and engagement; CES needs to think differently about how it does this; ideas coming out of APLU, but do not have well developed implementation strategies, CES could help inform these Table 6.5: Final List of CES Community Image Sub-Barrier/Challenge Factors Many rural/ag residents know or have used CES, many urban/metro residents do not, no history with CES, urban/metro audiences do not know CES Rural/ag image, need to change image Cooperative Extension Service Community Image Urban/metro residents, community/governmental leadership and community partners do not think of CES because they do not know CES Need comprehensive urban focused marketing plan, both on external audience, and internal CES and LGU audiences; may need outside professional assistance Coming in and out of communities leads to doubts of sincerity in urban/metro communities Must learn to talk and effectively communicate to urban/metro residents and must be creative/innovative; use social and mass media; media targeted at specific interest groups, minorities, under-served audiences and faith- based connections; word of mouth marketing strategies are not enough in urban/metro Must have visible and abundant CES branding in urban/metro areas; brand to LGU, usually better known in urban/metro than CES Provide abundant and high quality information about CES work and impacts in urban/metro to community and governmental leaders, community partners and residents 199 Table 6.5 (cont’d) Cooperative Extension Service Community Image Continued Define unique “niche” for CES based on mission, purpose, relationships and using technology; must be vision for the future; needs to include program, community operations, partnerships, community engagement models and bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro; must be adjusted/ developed to address urban/metro population size and community scale issues Connect citizens to research/knowledge base in unbiased manner, address 21st Century technology transfer needs, compliment and connect what is happening in rural/ag CES offices, online presence, programming, etc. must be user friendly and welcoming to new, diverse urban/metro audiences Use a client management platform to track people and keep them engaged with CES Take incremental steps Need urban CES advocates, but to build urban advocates they need to see CES doing valuable/relevant work in urban/metro After analysis of the contributions of the staff survey responses to the study, the research returned to the Post Stage 2: Research Scheme Concept Map (Figure 5.1) to review the grounded theory illustrated in the figure. After additional analysis and reflections, the concept map was not updated and is presented in Figure 6.1 as the study’s final theory of the barrier/challenge factors, the process by which they influence the delivery of the Cooperative Extension Service’s educational programs and resources in urban communities, and interactions between the barrier/challenge factors. At the top of the Final Cooperative Extension Service Urban Ecological Map present in Figure 6.1 is the Environmental Conditions in which urban residents live and the Cooperative Extension Service’s work is done. The Environmental Conditions encompass the combination of social, economic and ecological elements that create the urban and Cooperative Extension Service contexts. 200 Figure 6.1: Final Cooperative Extension Service Urban Ecological Map 201 This concept, or ecological, map demonstrations that the Environmental Conditions factors influencing the Cooperative Extension Service’s work are split into two sub-themes. They are the Urban Context and the Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture. Both of these Environmental Conditions, shown by the arrow in the map, impact or influence the decisions and actions of the Cooperative Extension Service Organizational Leadership. Who, in turn, provide administrative oversight for the Components of the Cooperative Extension Service’s Operations in Community. These elements are the Cooperative Extension Service’s paid Staff and unpaid Volunteer staff, the Educational Program Content and Educational Program Delivery Methods and Best Practices applied to the Cooperative Extension Service’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. The arrows going from all three of these operational elements to each other signify that these elements are highly interactive between each other. There is also an arrow coming down from the Environmental Conditions to the box containing the five community operational elements indicating that the urban context societal, economic and ecological conditions can and should influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s community-based operations. Moving down the page, the map displays that the combination of the Cooperative Extension Service’s Staff, Volunteers, Educational Program Content, Educational Program Delivery Methods and Best Practices, taken in combination, create the Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service. The two elements that influence the Experience of the Community with the Cooperative Extension Service are the community Partnerships and networks built by the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Community 202 Engagement Models that the Cooperative Extension Service uses to interact with urban residents, community and governmental leadership, and community organizations. These experiences lead to the Cooperative Extension Service’s Organizational Image in urban and metropolitan communities. In turn, the Organizational Image that the Cooperative Extension Service has in the community impacts the three elements of its Community Operations, the decisions and actions of the Organizational Leadership, and can even impact or influence some aspects of the Environmental Conditions present. As the concept map indicates and the findings of the study demonstrated, all of these areas are interconnected, influencing and impacting each other. POLICY IMPLICATIONS After analyzing and reflecting on the findings, in this researcher’s professional opinion, the five large concept/theme areas that were identified in the study might indeed be exactly the same places that staff working in rural or agricultural settings would identify. Yet the findings show a difference in the way the literature, key Extension stakeholders and survey participants’ respond or react to most of the barriers identified through the study. It is the way that the Cooperative Extension Service acknowledges, addresses, and provides or does not provide solutions to the barriers/challenges identified. As might be expected, the literature and key Extension stakeholders used a number of different phrases or ways to describe this phenomenon. Some of the key Extension stakeholders describe it as the need to deal with the inertia of the system in order to implement changes in direction. Other interviewees, and in the literature, indicated that there is a need for disruptive innovation, change or leadership. One 203 interviewee defined it as a “leadership crisis.” Recognizing and giving voice to the array of barriers and/or challenges identified in this study, many of the key Extension stakeholder expressed a great deal of uncertainty about how to address them. A number of the key Extension stakeholders talked about the need to understand “why” or “how” the Cooperative Extension Service should be working in urban areas. Others indicated a need for a set of urban “Best Practices,” or lamented the fact that the system did not have any, as if searching for a road map or action plan to address the uncertainty. Unlike in rural and agricultural communities, for the most part, the Cooperative Extension Service approaches these barrier/challenge areas within urban environments with ambiguity and hesitation. In part, this might be because of the lack of consensus across the organization about how to address these barriers/challenges, demonstrated by the staff survey responses. Or that the size and scale of the urban environment, concerns and pressure placed upon the Cooperative Extension Service system and leadership by current clientele or funders to not take resources from current efforts to support urban work, or pressure on current and frequently dwindling resources, all of which were identified by interviews and/or in the literature. The list could go, and it might just be that it is so overwhelming to Cooperative Extension Service leadership and the system as a whole that it does not know where to start. The realization of the pervasiveness of this concept caused the researcher to think about messages from two scholars whose work the researcher has reviewed for this study or previously for other scholarly endeavors. The first scholar was Chester Fehlis, who had been the assistant director and then director of Texas A & M Extension AgriLife in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fehlis was one of the driving forces behind Texas A & M Extension AgriLife’s efforts 204 during this time to define and expand its work in cities across Texas. Fehlis (1992) wrote an article published in the Journal of Extension specifically talking about challenges Extension experiences in delivering programming in urban areas. Even though the article was published more than 25 years ago, Fehlis’ observations hold true for the range of barriers identified in this study. Fehlis stated that although the problems present in urban communities topically – meaning they are things like water quality, food security, housing, waste management, economic development, etc. – look the same as those present in rural communities, the causes of the problems are different. He specifically used a water quality example, stating that in rural communities many of the water quality problems have to do with agriculture, but in urban communities, water quality threats come from industry, homeowners and storm water run-off. Fehlis then pointed out, that although the problems may be the same, the causes of the problems are not the same in urban communities as they are in rural communities and therefore the expertise, programming and solutions cannot be the same. The Cooperative Extension Service needs to take this message to heart when striving to address the many barriers/challenges identified in this study. Although the barriers may be occurring in the same places as those experienced in rural and agricultural communities, and they may look the same as barriers experienced in rural and agricultural communities, the causations in urban environments are different. Therefore, to effectively address the barriers/challenges identified in this study the resources, expertise and solutions will mostly likely need to be different than those that have been effective in rural and agricultural communities. 205 The second scholar’s work that the study caused the researcher to reflect upon was that of Lisbeth Schorr’s and her book called Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage (1988). In this work, Schorr analyzed social programs that succeeded in effectively combating serious social problems experienced by disadvantage children such as high rates of single parenting, youth violence, crime, substance abuse and school failure. Ultimately, Schorr’s message was that we know what sort of interventions and social programs work to break the chronic cycle of poverty and disadvantage experienced by too many children in this country. All we have to do is look around us. She cited example after example of social programs and pilot projects that produced effective long-term outcomes for children. Schorr’s contention was that, as a country, we simple do not make the investment in these sorts of social programs necessary to have wide spread results. One of Schorr’s prime examples was Head Start and other preschool programs. Research shows these programs are highly effective in preparing children to start school and that early school success is a primary indicator of life-long success. In her work, she argues that if all children had access to high quality preschool programs, like Head Start, we could reduce a whole host of serious social problems from teen pregnancy rates, to substance abuse and rising prison incarceration rates. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence and desirable outcomes, the United States has not chosen to fully fund Head Start programs or make preschool programs widely available to all children, especially those living in poverty. Again, there is a message is Schorr’s work that the Cooperative Extension Service needs to heed when striving to address the many barriers/challenges identified in this study. It is “we know what works, all we have to do is look around us.” The Cooperative Extension Service has 206 been piloting urban Extension work and working in cities for close to 60 years. Some of these efforts have been and continue to be successful, but they are pilot projects or city specific and the lessons learned are not documented and broadly applied. To begin to address the barriers and/or challenges identified and empirically verified by this study the Cooperative Extension Service should begin by looking around at what is working and document the successes to begin to assemble a set of urban “Best Practices.” The set of urban “Best Practices” should address the five large barrier/challenge areas identified in this study, and as many of the sub-concepts/themes as possible. The literature can provide insights. The Journal of Extension has published a number of articles that address a single or a small number of the barrier/challenge factors. Additional research such as case studies of successful urban Extension programs, staffing models, partnership building, community engagement and marketing efforts, or focus groups with staff to explore best practices might be beneficial. The national Cooperative Extension Service also has a unique opportunity at this moment in time. In late 2015, ECOP embraced the second national attempt at creating and adopting a national urban Extension agenda. ECOP adopted an urban Extension philosophical framework and asked NUEL to develop and lead an implementation plan. NUEL is about to start the development of an urban Extension implementation plan. This study could, and should, be utilized to inform that plan. Furthermore, that implementation plan could serve as an initial collection and dissemination tool for a set of urban Extension “Best Practices.” Once compiled, ECOP could assist with dissemination to all state Cooperative Extension Service systems and lead a national effort encouraging acceptance and adoption of the “Best Practices.” 207 The study findings suggest that besides the acceptance and adoption of “Best Practices,” the national Cooperative Extension Service system and state level systems need visionary, committed leadership who will champion Extension’s urban efforts internally and externally. Leadership that understands the needs of urban residents, how Extension and its parent land- grant universities can address those needs, and is willing to take risks and be open to new opportunities. Leadership that takes the advice of Chester Fehlis and recognizes that Extension’s work in urban environments will need different expertise, programming content and delivery methods, staffing and other operational resources to be successful. The Cooperative Extension Service leadership also needs to be willing to use current resources to support this work and explore new, long-term stable funding to support it in the future. For stability and continuity of Extension’s efforts, work in cities and metropolitan areas cannot be funded primarily on soft grant and contract funding. New urban advocates need to be identified and stronger relationships with urban power brokers and political leadership need to be forged. There are leadership successes inside of Extension that can be looked to, but this is an area where Extension may need to turn externally to understand how to successfully make large-scale internal organizational change. There are also a host of urban-based organizations and agencies, who in many cases, have done a better job of connecting to urban power brokers and political leadership than Extension. Extension needs to understand how they have done this and replicate their successes. The tried and true methods that have works so effectively for Extension in rural and agricultural areas have not produced the same results in urban and metropolitan environments. 208 Extension leadership can also have significant impacts on addressing the sets of barriers and/or challenges identified in those elements of Community Operations, which include staffing, use of volunteers, educational program content and educational program delivery methods. Extension leadership makes decisions about how urban areas are staffed. They decide how many staff are assigned to urban areas, the types and expertise of positions placed there, and hiring and retention practices. Investments in appropriate professional development are also necessary. Likewise, leadership can choose to recognize the need for and invest in new programming content specifically developed to meet the needs and address the issues of urban residents, as well as supporting and encouraging the use of innovative deliver modes. The study findings suggest that the use of more technology that is learner driven and focused, and allows access to the range of relevant Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources 24 hours a day, seven days a week holds promise for allowing Extension to reach more urban residents. Several of the key Extension stakeholders talked about their systems’ efforts to develop electronic client management systems to continually engage people and push relevant educational content out to them instead of depending on them to initiate continued contact with Extension. Once again, Extension leadership can and should play an important role in helping their organizations build a vision for how to use a broad range of cutting-edge technologies, and then providing resources for the implementation of that vision. The whole Cooperative Extension Service system needs to focus more efforts around effectively marketing Extension programs and services in cities and metropolitan areas. Multiple studies show that urban audiences do not know the Cooperative Extension Service like 209 rural/agricultural audiences, and even if they are aware of Extension, they may perceive it to be an organization that serves rural/agricultural residents and not one that is relevant in urban settings. The study findings suggest that Extension leadership needs to work with staff, and leadership in other states, to identify a local and national unique urban “niche” for Extension. A “niche” that can be marketed nationally at the state level to secure new, stable resources and build new partnerships around. A couple of the key Extension stakeholders indicated that changing Extension’s image, building a new brand identity and learning how to effectively communicate to urban audiences may require the Cooperative Extension Service to seek external professional assistance. The United States has become an urban and metropolitan country. If Extension is to survive and achieve a level of success in the 21st century similar to the level it achieved in the 20th century then it must have a substantial presence in cities and metropolitan areas. At this time, it is important to avoid divisive debates such as those focused on “rural vs. urban” concerns. Rural and urban communities are mutually interdependent, and Extension programs should continue to reflect this fact. USDA NIFA, ECOP and the national Cooperative Extension System must continue to recognize and support the fact that Extension’s work must include and expand its reach into urban and metropolitan audiences. The findings of this study serve to verify and provide clarity to the barriers and/or challenges that the Cooperative Extension Service experiences in urban environments. The study also offers many insights into the factors that influence the Cooperative Extension Service’s ability to deliver effective and relevant educational programs and resources to urban audiences and potential solutions. 210 In order to embrace an effective urban Extension model, Cooperative Extension Service need not abandon its historic rural agendas. Rather, Cooperative Extension Service must incorporate the needs of urban/metropolitan audiences. In expanding its service to all audiences, Extension can continue to provide invaluable education and service to the nation’s citizens to improve the vitality of all communities. If the Cooperative Extension Service can successfully achieve this end it will remain relevant and in the words of one key Extension stakeholder interviewed, “A national treasure.” 211 APPENDICES 212 APPENDIX A – STAGE 1: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CODE LIST PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES Urban Environment URN ENV DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT CHILD CODES The combination of environmental and ecological elements that create urban contexts. Population size POP SZ POP DIV MUL PRB POL PRW HI POP URB DIF POP GR Population diversity Faster than average pop. growth/decline Highest amount population Urban environment different than rural Complexity of environment Multifaceted problems CES can address Home to political power structure Blurring of jurisdictional boundaries Concentrated poverty Higher average education levels HGH ED COM JUR BND POV CES Leadership LDR CES leadership responsibilities or actions that impact the work of the staff and the organization in cities and metropolitan settings. 213 Visionary leadership VIS LDR See need to change as environment changes Definition for what constitutes urban Urban work integrated in CES Understand differences working in urban vs. rural Understand & support for work Work effectively across all of university, internally Strong relationships w/local, state & federal legislators CHG DEFIN INTEG DIF WRK SPT WRK LGU COR EO REL PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT Equitable & responsible resource distribution for urban Reallocate base resources to urban Seek & be competitive for new resources Allocate resources to support things uniquely urban Use an effective fee for service model Adjust org policies to support urban work Support & reward innovative/ risk taking Appropriate programmatic impact measures Realistic performance expectations, rewards & recognition Support time & professional develop for staff to build urban competencies Develop effective staff evaluation measure for urban competencies, accountability Employ diverse staff who reflect community Provide competitive salaries Establish effective lines of supervision CHILD CODES EQ RES REAL RES COM RES RES UNQ FEE MD ORG POL RISK TK PRG IMP REWD PD TIME EVL MSR EMP ST SALARY SUP LINE CES Operations - General CES OP GEN The combination of resources and activities occurring in cities and metropolitan settings that constitute CES community operations. Best practices for replication BEST Rural/ urban managed the same Strong rural/urban interdependency R/U MNG DEPEND 214 PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT Soft county lines, soft county funding Metro area supervision of prg/staff Multi-disciplinary team approach Logic models guide work Good physical & virtual locations, offices Consumer oriented operations CHILD CODES SFT LNS METRO SUP MD TEAM LOG MD GD OFF CON OP CES Operations - Staffing CES OP STFF CES staff/human resource application and management in cities and metropolitan settings. 215 Staffing pattern STF PTN Flexible staffing patterns Soft line coverage areas Majority of time allocated to local Skill sets to work in urban Staff prepared/ interested in working in urban Ability to work in multi- disciplinary team FLEX STF SFT COV TM ALLOC STF INT ABITY MD TEAM Appropriate program area focus for urban APR PRG Specialized program focus Professional development needed Recruitment, hiring & retention Titles, job descriptions Qualifications & backgrounds Staff need to reflect & embrace diversity of community Unique position need - communications Unique position need - recruiting & managing volunteers SPEC PRG PD NEED HIRE JOB TITLE JOB QUAL STF DIV POS COM POS VOL PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT Unique position need - resource development Unique position need - support staff tech needs & program delivery via tech Unique position need - local leadership relationship development CHILD CODES POS RES POS TECH POS EO CES Operations - Volunteers CES OP VOL CES recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers in cities and metropolitan settings. CES Operations - Program Content CES PRG CONT Educational program content/curricula used by CES that have been or need to be developed or adapted for specifically for urban residents. Effective use of VOL USE Variety of opportunities, lengths of involvement Reflect the diversity of community Training needs Engaged in needs assessment, program planning & evaluation VOL JOB VOL DIV VOL PD VOL ENG Relevant to urban context PC RRB Relevant to diverse population needs Unique to local context Issue based, proactive, not reactive Multi-disciplinary Accesses experts across LGU relevant to urban Effective needs assessment Developed & assessed for impact High quality materials PC DIV PC UNQ PC ISSUE PC MULTI PC LGU PC NEED PC IMP PC HIGH 216 DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT CHILD CODES PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES CES Operations - Program Delivery CES PRG DLV Educational program delivery methods used by CES that have been or need to be developed or adapted for specifically for urban residents. CES Community Engagement COM ENG Interaction techniques used by CES that result in the co- creation, by academics and local residents, of solutions for local issues of concern. 217 Focus on updated, creative modes PD MODE Offers from retail to wholesale Uses mass media, social media, websites Uses technology & distance education technologies Uses multiple delivery locations, office Uses volunteers to deliver program Delivered through partners Uses engaged learner style Applied research, engaged scholarship Strong brand identity Reaches large numbers of people Reaches a diverse audience Targets local legislators & community leadership PD RETAIL PD MASS PD TECH PD OFF PD VOL PD PRTN PD LRNER PD SCHOL PD BRND PD AUD PD DIV PD EO Networker/ partnership builder Catalytic/ facilitative convener Build trust Evaluate for good partnerships, evaluate for outcomes Communicate about value & outcomes of partnerships CEM PRTN CEM CONV CEM TRST CEM EVAL CEM COM PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT Community Image COM IMG The knowledge and impressions that urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has or perception about CES. Building partnerships in urban more difficult Build broad & effective community networks Build broad & effective LGU networks Effectively use Extension advisory councils Make sure advisory councils have broad representation Involve community/general public in needs assessment & program development Target community leadership Partners can be competitors, duplication of services Urban marketing plan Internal marketing plan External marketing plan Visibility, recognition is important Effective branding Use mass & social media Use consultants to develop plan Need to change image in urban Need effective communication w/urban audiences Urban population less familiar w/CES CHILD CODES CEM DIF CEM BRD COM CEM BRD LGU CEM EFF AC CEM BRD AC CEM ENG CEM EO CEM COMPET COM PLAN COM INT PLAN COM EXT PLAN COM VIS COM BRND COM MEDIA COM CONSULT COM CHNG COM AUD COM FAM 218 PARENT THEME/ CONCEPT PARENT CODES CES Organization History GEN CON DEFINITION CHILD THEME/ CONCEPT Seen as consumer friendly High quality materials that reflect desired image, curb appeal Target community leadership CHILD CODES COM FRDLY COM QUAL COM EO The combination of ecological and historical elements that create CES contexts and culture. Urgency to address urban GEN URG Lack of system direction Mission driven Historic rural/ag roots Current ag/rural clientele don't support urban work National network needed Global urban model GEN DIR GEN MISSION GEN HIST GEN CLIENT GEN NET GEN GLBL 219 APPENDIX B – STAGE 2: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM Research Participant Information and Consent Form Email: ruemenap@msu.edu Cell: 989-284-6443 Office: 248-380-9100 You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Factors influencing delivery of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs and resources to urban and metropolitan audiences Researcher and Title: Marie A. Ruemenapp, Doctoral Student Department and Institution: School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: Michigan State University 28115 Meadowbrook Rd. Novi, MI 48377 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research study of the factors that Cooperative Extension Service (CES) staff experience in delivering educational programs and services to urban audiences. You have been selected as a participant in this study because you are familiar with CES programming and operations in urban areas. From this study, the researchers hope to learn more about the types of factors that impact CESs ability to deliver educational programs and services to urban audiences. Your participation in this study will take about one hour. The interview will be recorded. 2. POTENTIAL BENEFITS There will be no direct benefit to you from your participation in this study. You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS The potential risks in this study relate to the possibility of a breach of confidentiality if you happen to disclose any sensitive information. To reduce the risk your data collected during this study will be kept confidential, and information about you will be kept confidential. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Your participation in this research study will not be shared during or after the study with anyone outside of the research team. To protect your privacy you will be assigned an alias that will be used to identify you in all interview notes, recordings, transcripts and other project documentation. The alias key will be maintained separately, so that the data will not be able to be linked to you. All data will be kept in locked file storage only accessible by the research team. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may also choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. 
 7. QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study please contact the researcher. Contact information is on page 1. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain 220 information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432- 4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at Olds Hall, 408 West Circle Drive #207, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 9. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study and that you voluntarily agree to allow the researcher to record the interview. You will be given a copy of this form for your records. ________________________________________ Signature _____________________________ Date 221 APPENDIX C – STAGE 2: SAMPLES OF KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW GUIDES Early Interview Guide Follow Up Questions: As the chair of ECOP, are they additional reasons why you choose to make it a priority? What did you hope to accomplish by doing that? I know you are pretty interested and supportive of urban Extension work. Would be willing to share with me why? What is your vision for an urban Extension nationally? How close and/or far do you think Extension is from your vision, or essentially, what would you like to see that is or isn’t happening? Follow Up Questions: Why haven’t we got there in the last 100 years What are the barriers or challenges to achieving his vision Follow Up Questions: How widely held to you think a vision like yours by other directors of Extension You’ve talked a lot about . . . (programmatic OR operational) . . . barriers/challenges. Are there other sorts of barriers/challenges that you’ve experienced or heard around. . . (programmatic delivery OR office or organizational operations)? Do you think we take (whatever level of support and resource deployment he has described) far enough to be effective in cities? What happens if we don’t . . . essentially achieve his vision? Wrap-up questions: I would like to return to talking about the programming needs of urban audiences, versus the program needs of rural audience or just all Extension audiences in general. How do you think Extension should be serving urban audience? Is it different than rural or non-urban audiences? How? We’ve been talking a lot about challenges, but let’s flip the conversation. Do you see opportunities for Extension in cities or large metropolitan areas that we haven’t discussed? Last Question: Is there anything that you’d like to share with me or anything that we’ve talked about that you’d like to add to? Or is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think we should? Review interview notes sheet to make sure you discussed all issues with her. Follow Up Questions: Explore differences and similarities? 222 Midway Interview Guide Based on what I’ve heard from (Names of CES staff that know him) and other staff involved in NUEL you seem to be a pretty out spoken supporter around the need for Extension to do more in urban areas? Why? Do you think (Name of LGU) State University Extension programs are relevant to urban audiences? And can you provide me examples? Do you think (Name of LGU) State University Extension provides enough programs or services to urban residents? Follow Up Questions: Do you think those programs and services are effective or successful in meeting the needs of urban residents and communities? Why? OR Why not? Follow Up Questions: Do you think that’s true nationally? Or what’s different? What could or should (Name of LGU) State University Extension being doing to serve the needs of urban residents and communities and be more relevant to them? Through my review of urban Extension literature and interviews of other state Extension directors, I have been able to identify nine potential areas that Extension might experience a barrier/challenge to working in an urban setting. They are: Urban Environment – Extension does not understand the social and environmental issues and opportunities in urban settings are often more complex than in rural area; they are impacted by size and racial/ethnic diverse of the population; urban areas usually have many units of government and other potential partner or competitors organizations; and the combination of these factors mean that they are often politically complex places to work. Organizational History – Extension is seen or expected to only have rural/farm expertise by university/Extension admin/staff, key community leaders and traditional clientele groups. Organizational Leadership – University or Extension leaders’ words and/or actions indicate that they are not fully committed to supporting Extension work in urban environments; among other things this could take the form of limited funding, staffing or other resources needed to develop and deliver Extension programs and services in cities and suburbs. Educational Program Content – Extension program content has not been developed or effectively adapted to meet the needs or to be relevant to urban residents. Educational Program Delivery Methods – Extension does not use or know effective program delivery methods to attractive or reach urban residents. Staffing – Extension does not provide an adequate number of employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs and issues of urban residents. Community Engagement Models – Extension does not use interaction techniques that result in the co-creation, by Extension/academics and local residents, of solutions for local issues of concern. 223 Partnerships – Extension is not have or understand the need for a broad range of connections with community organizations and agencies needed to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services. Organizational Image – When urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has no, an inaccurate or negative perception or opinion of Extension. Can you think of anything that might be missing? Identify a few to discuss in-depth. . . Follow Up Questions: What makes them the most challenging? What else? . . . Ask WHY at least three times about each one identified. Which one, two or three do you think are the most challenging for Extension in (Name of state)? REALLY TRY TO LEAVE TIME TO DICUSS THIS WITH HIM. . . Do you think Extension has a unique urban niche? What is it? Follow Up Questions: How should we go about defining one to successful position Extension in cities and metro areas? Do you think it is recognized? By whom? Who needs to be recognizing it but doesn’t yet? What do we need to be doing to communication that message to them? ASK ONLY IF TIME. . . Extension has been at the work of trying to serve urban audiences for over 60 years, but many state systems and nationally we are still talking about how to do a better job at it. Why haven’t we gotten to place where we are feeling as comfortable and confident in work in cities as we do about our work in rural areas? Follow Up Questions: What do you think you need to do in (Name of state) to achieve this level of success? What do you think Extension needs to be doing nationally? What happens if we don’t achieve some level of success or effectiveness in meeting the needs of urban residents? Last Question: Is there anything that you’d like to share with me or anything that we’ve talked about that you’d like to add to? Or is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think we should? Review interview notes sheet to make sure you discussed all issues with him. 224 Late Interview Guide Do you think (LGU Name) State Extension provides enough programs or services to urban residents? Follow Up Questions: What could or should (LGU Name) State Extension being doing to serve the needs of urban residents and communities and be more relevant to them? In my review of the literature and involvement in NUEL there doesn’t appear to be one, or even a small set, of urban Extension models where the Extension can point to as “there is an example where we are getting 75-80% of what we should be doing in cities right”. Why do you think that is? Follow Up Questions: Get him to talk about (two biggest cities in state) and why one city program seems to be more effective than the other? What factors contribute to that? So what should be Extension has a unique urban niche? What is it? Follow Up Questions: How should we go about defining one to successful position Extension in cities and metro areas? Do you think it is recognized? By whom? Who needs to be recognizing it but doesn’t yet? What do we need to be doing to communication that message to them? Through my review of urban Extension literature and interviews of other state Extension directors, I have been able to identify nine potential areas that Extension might experience a barrier/challenge to working in an urban setting. They are: Urban Environment – The population size is large and racial/ethnic diverse; urban areas usually have many units of government and other potential partner or competitors organizations; the combination of these factors mean that they are often politically complex places to work; Extension does not understand the social and environmental issues and opportunities in urban settings; Extension as an organization is not grounded in urban sociology or urban studies nor are most of its staff trained in those areas. Organizational History – Extension is seen or expected to only have rural/farm expertise by university/Extension admin/staff, key community leaders and traditional clientele groups; In most states Extension is part of the LGU’s College of Agriculture and nationally it is part of USDA; the inertia of Extension’s agricultural/rural historical focus makes it difficult to change the course of the organization. Organizational Leadership – University or Extension leaders’ words and/or actions indicate that they are not fully committed to supporting Extension work in urban environments; among other things this could take the form of limited funding, staffing or other resources needed to develop and deliver Extension programs and services in cities and suburbs. Educational Program Content – Extension program content has not been developed or effectively adapted to meet the needs or to be relevant to urban residents. Educational Program Delivery Methods – Extension does not use or know effective program delivery methods to attractive or reach urban residents. 225 Staffing – Extension does not provide an adequate number of employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs and issues of urban residents. Community Engagement Models – Extension does not use interaction techniques that result in the co- identification, by Extension/academics and local residents, of issues or of the co-creation of solutions for local issues of concern. Partnerships – Extension does not have or understand the need for a broad range of connections with community organizations and agencies needed to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services; Extension needs to develop new types of partnerships to effectively work in urban environments. Organizational Image – When urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has no, an inaccurate or negative perception or opinion of Extension. Can you think of anything that might be missing? Identify a few to discuss in-depth. . . Which one, two or three do you think are the most challenging for Extension in (state)? Last Question: Is there anything that you’d like to share with me or anything that we’ve talked about that you’d like to add to? Or is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think we should? Review interview notes sheet to make sure you discussed all issues with him. Follow Up Questions: What makes them the most challenging? What else? . . . Ask WHY at least three times about each one identified. 226 Specialized Knowledge Interview Guide Nationally about how many youth and volunteers are involved in 4-H across the country? Follow Up Questions: Do you have some idea of how many of those youth and volunteers live in urban areas – cities and suburbs? I know there are efforts to increase 4-H participation nationally. Are some of those efforts specifically targeted at engaging more urban youth and volunteers in 4-H? What are some the things that are being specifically done? Follow Up Questions: What have some of the challenges been in moving those efforts forward? What sorts of things have you been doing to overcome them? The 4-H clover is one of the most recognizable symbols in the world, but with that recognition also comes the perception that 4-H generally involved animals and agriculture and is for rural kids. What sorts of things have you been working on to change that image? Follow Up Questions: What do you think is the unique niche for 4-H in urban settings? What adaptations have been made to 4-H curriculum to appeal and be relevant to urban youth? Follow Up Questions: How have you determined that the topical focuses are relevant to urban youth? What sorts of adaptations have been made to programmatic delivery methods to reach urban youth? Follow Up Questions: Ask about volunteers? Challenges engaging youth and volunteers? Use of technology? Does the way Extension staffs 4-H positions need to change – meaning numbers, skills, training, educational backgrounds – need to be adjusted to be more effective in working with urban volunteers and youth? In what ways? What sorts of partnerships are necessary for 4-H to be effective in urban settings? Follow Up Questions: Are there differences in the types of partnerships that 4-H will need in urban settings verses rural? Through my review of urban Extension literature and interviews of other Extension administrators, I have been able to identify nine potential areas that Extension might experience a barrier/challenge to working in an urban setting. They are: Urban Environment – Extension does not understand the social and environmental issues and opportunities in urban settings are often more complex than in rural area; they are impacted by size and racial/ethnic diverse of the population; urban areas usually have many units of government and other potential partner or competitors organizations; and the combination of these factors mean that they are often politically complex places to work. 227 Organizational History – Extension is seen or expected to only have rural/farm expertise by university/Extension admin/staff, key community leaders and traditional clientele groups. Organizational Leadership – University or Extension leaders’ words and/or actions indicate that they are not fully committed to supporting Extension work in urban environments; among other things this could take the form of limited funding, staffing or other resources needed to develop and deliver Extension programs and services in cities and suburbs. Educational Program Content – Extension program content has not been developed or effectively adapted to meet the needs or to be relevant to urban residents. Educational Program Delivery Methods – Extension does not use or know effective program delivery methods to attractive or reach urban residents. Staffing – Extension does not provide an adequate number of employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs and issues of urban residents. Community Engagement Models – Extension does not use interaction techniques that result in the co-creation, by Extension/academics and local residents, of solutions for local issues of concern. Partnerships – Extension is not have or understand the need for a broad range of connections with community organizations and agencies needed to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services. Organizational Image – When urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has no, an inaccurate or negative perception or opinion of Extension. Can you think of anything that might be missing? ASK ONLY IF TIME. . . Extension has been at the work of trying to serve urban audiences for over 60 years, but many state systems and nationally we are still talking about how to do a better job at it. Why haven’t we gotten to place where we are feeling as comfortable and confident in work in cities as we do about our work in rural areas? Follow Up Questions: What happens if we don’t achieve some level of success or effectiveness in meeting the needs of urban residents? Last Question: Is there anything that you’d like to share with me or anything that we’ve talked about that you’d like to add to? Or is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think we should? Review interview notes sheet to make sure you discussed all issues with her. 228 APPENDIX D – STAGE 2: DRAFT LIST OF FACTOR Draft List of Factors Impacting Extension’s Work in Urban Settings: Urban Environment – The population size is large and racially/ethnically diverse; urban areas usually have many units of government and other potential partner or competitors organizations; the combination of these factors mean that they are often politically complex places to work; Extension does not understand the social and environmental issues and opportunities in urban settings; Extension as an organization is not grounded in urban sociology or urban studies nor are most of its staff. Organizational History – Extension is seen or expected to only have rural/farm expertise by university/Extension admin/staff, key community leaders and traditional clientele groups; In most states Extension is part of the LGU’s College of Agriculture and nationally it is part of USDA; the inertia of Extension’s agricultural/rural historical focus makes it difficult to change the course of the organization. Organizational Leadership – University or Extension leaders’ words and/or actions indicate that they are not fully committed to supporting Extension work in urban environments; among other things this could take the form of limited funding, staffing or other resources needed to develop and deliver Extension programs and services in cities and suburbs. Educational Program Content – Extension program content has not been developed or effectively adapted to meet the needs or to be relevant to urban residents. Educational Program Delivery Methods – Extension does not use or know effective program delivery methods to attractive or reach urban residents. Staffing – Extension does not provide an adequate number of employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs and issues of urban residents. Community Engagement Models – Extension does not use interaction techniques that result in the co-identification, by Extension/academics and local residents, of issues or of the co-creation of solutions for local issues of concern. Partnerships – Extension does not have or understand the need for a broad range of connections with community organizations and agencies needed to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services; Extension needs to develop new types of partnerships to effectively work in urban environments. 229 Organizational Image – When urban residents, governmental units, partner organizations or the community at large has no, an inaccurate or negative perception or opinion of Extension. What is missing? 230 APPENDIX E – STAGE 2: KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS CODE LIST Themes/ Concepts Environmental Conditions Code ENCON Definition Rule to apply code Examples The combination of environmental, ecological and historical elements that create urban contexts, the connections between urban and rural contexts, and CES culture. Evidence of environmental, ecological or historical elements or factors affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the EC sub-themes/concepts. - References to any environmental, ecological or historical elements or factors affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the EC sub-themes/concepts. ENVCON sub-themes/concepts Urban Context EC URB The combination of environmental and ecological elements that create urban contexts and differentiate them from rural or agricultural settings. (Environmental/ecological elements are such things as population size and diversity, multi-jurisdictional governmental units, politically complex environments, and complexity of societal, environmental and economic issues.) The combination of ecological and historical elements that create CES culture. Evidence that CES must or does not understand or take the urban environment and/or ecology into account when working in cities or metropolitan settings. Evidence that CES must or does not understand what differentiates urban environments from rural and/or agricultural environments. - Reference to challenges or differences, or actions taken to address them, associated with urban ecological elements like: CES work with large or racially/ethnically/culturally diverse populations; large numbers or governmental or community partners; politics of the environment; overlapping or blurring of jurisdictional boundaries, accessibility or transportation issues; and/or complexity of societal, environmental and economic issues. - Lack of knowledge or understanding or the need to have knowledge or understanding that cities are different places to work than rural areas because of the aforementioned numerous urban complexities. Evidence that CES culture and/or history affect its work in cities or metropolitan settings. - References to need to be or not being; able or interested in working with where the population of the country lives; driven by CES mission; or having a model that is applicable for the 21st century. - Concerns or lack of support by traditional clientele (i.e. ag Organizational History/Culture EC HIS 231 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples (Ecological/historical elements are such things as current CES clientele and funders having concerns or not supporting work in urban/ metropolitan settings; substantial amounts of CES funding being tied to agriculture; and CES being seen or expected to only have rural/ farm expertise by urban/ metropolitan residents and key community leaders.) The combination of CES and/ or university organizational leadership responsibilities or actions that affect the work of the staff and the organization in cities and metropolitan settings. Organizational Leadership ORLDR OL COM University or CES ORGLDR sub-themes/concepts Commitment and Understanding administration’s support and/or understanding, or lack of, CES work in cities or metropolitan settings. groups, rural residents, legislators) for Extension to be working in urban areas. - Historic funding tied to agriculture and/or rural communities, not able to shift or the need to find solutions to shift it. - Urban/metropolitan residents and key community leaders believe CES only has rural/farm expertise or only serves/is available to people living in rural areas or on farms. - CES location within the college of agriculture at most land- grant universities impact on clientele’s belief CES has access to the relevant and expertise necessary to effectively work in urban areas. - References to the need for or the lack of: visionary leadership that sees/understands the need of CES to change with the times and/or serve more people; relevancy; inertia of the organization; the need for or lack of having management or operational practices tailored for urban/metro that might be different from in rural/agricultural settings. - References to adjustments or the need for adjustments in organizational policies; programmatic impact measures; programmatic coverage areas or assignments; staff supervision; staff performance measures, rewards and recognition; professional development/competencies of staff. - References to any other components or factors of organizational leadership, either CES or university, affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the ORGLDR sub-themes/concepts. - Questioning by staff if administration supports or understands the work of staff working in urban areas. Or references to the need to have administration support and/or understanding. - References to administrative or organizational efforts not going “far enough” to have desired impact. - References to concerns or the lack of ability or interest of Evidence of organizational leadership components or factors affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the ORGLDR sub- themes/concepts. Evidence that university and/ or CES leadership does or does not or needs to commit or support CES work in cities or metropolitan settings. 232 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Resources OL RES University or CES administration’s commitment and ability to provide adequate resources for operations and staff in cities or metropolitan settings. Evidence that university and/ or CES leadership does or does not provide the level of resources necessary for CES staffs’ work in cities or metropolitan settings. Management of External Pressures OL PRES University or CES administration’s ability and interest in managing negative external pressures placed on CES about its work in cities or metropolitan settings. Location of CES at LGU OL LGU University or CES administration’s ability or need to effectively manage or build internal university relationships and access to resources based on where CES is housed/located within the university structure that affects CES’s work in Evidence that university and/ or CES leadership does or does not have the commit or ability to effectively manage the negative external pressures placed on CES by legislators, ag commodity groups or current clientele around its work in cities or metropolitan settings. Evidence that university and/ or CES leadership does or does not have the ability to effectively manage or build internal university relationships and access resources based on where CES is housed/located within the university structure that impact CES’s work in urban settings. leadership to build effectively relationships with urban/metropolitan key community agencies, organizations, leadership and the political structure. - References to concerns about having or the lack of ability of leadership to provide financial resources; or secure external or additional funding to support urban/metropolitan CES work. - References to adjustments or the need for adjustments in allocation of resources, budget processes, fee for service models or other financial processes to support CES urban/ metropolitan work. - References to concerns about having or the lack of ability of leadership to provide adequate office space or equipment, secretarial support, or access to other resources needed for staff effectively to do their jobs. - References to concerns about having or the lack of ability of leadership to provide resources to provide an adequate number of staff. - References to organizational leadership working with or needing to work with current clientele, legislators and ag commodity groups, or other traditional CES support groups, to manage or deal with negative pressures they are exhibiting or expressing around CES’s work or interest in expanding its work in urban/metropolitan settings. - References to advantages or disadvantages available to CES administration when working with or making connections to university colleges/units based outside the university’s college of agriculture that are dependent on CES being housed or positioned internally within the university structure either within or outside the college of agriculture. - Including references about the ability of the person serving in the director of Extension’s ability to be seen as or not as an equal to deans of other colleges that affects the conversations, requests and tables that can be sat at. 233 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Operations in Community OP COM Staffing STAFF STAFF sub-themes/concepts Hiring Practices ST HIRE cities or metropolitan settings. The combination of resources and activities occurring in cities and metropolitan settings that constitute CES community operations. (These include staffing, local offices and their operations, as well as program content and delivery.) CES staff/human resource application and management in cities and metropolitan settings. - References to any community operational components affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the STAFF, VOL, EPCONT, EPDEL, BESTP and their sub-themes/concepts. Evidence of that community operational components are affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments in areas not covered by the STAFF, VOL, EPCONT and EPDEL sub-themes/concepts. Evidence that the application and management of CES staff/human resources affect CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the ST sub-themes/concepts. - References to any issues, concerns or lack of understanding that the application and management of CES’s staff/human resources affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the ST sub- themes/concepts. CES staff/human resource recruiting, position posting, hiring and employment retention policies and practices utilized to hire and retain a racially/ethnically/ culturally diverse staff that is reflective of the population of cities and metropolitan communities and Evidence that the application and management of CES recruiting, position posting, hiring, and employment retention policies and practices are or are not resulting in the hiring and retention of a diverse workforce reflective of urban/metro communities, who are interested in working in urban/metro communities, - References to that CES recruiting, hiring and retentions policies and practices that result in hiring and retaining a diverse workforce that have the skills, abilities and interest to effectively work in urban/metro settings. - References to having or not having staff that: a workforce that reflects the racial/ethnic/cultural diversity of the population; are or are not specifically interested in working in urban/metro settings; have or do not have the technical skills to address urban/metro needs and issues and/or the soft skills to necessary to work effectively with urban residents, communities and key community/governmental leadership. 234 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Positions ST POS Staffing Patterns ST PTN interested in working specifically in urban/metro settings. CES job titles and position descriptions that seek the technical knowledge and soft skills, and appropriate qualifications and experiences necessary to address the complex societal, economic and environmental needs and issues of urban/metro residents and communities. The number, types of positions, programmatic focus, and the geographic location of CES staff assigned to in cities and metropolitan settings. and who have the technical expertise and soft skills necessary to be effective working in urban/metro communities. Evidence that CES job titles and position descriptions are or are not seeking the appropriate technical and soft skills, qualifications, backgrounds and experiences necessary in the CES workforce to effectively address the complex societal, economic and environmental needs and issues of urban/ metro residents. Evidence that the number of CES staff, types of positions, combination of position programmatic expertise, and geographic location of position assignment are or are not affecting CES operations and programming in cities and metropolitan settings. - References to CES needing to or not using appropriate job titles and position descriptions for urban/metro needs, issues or environments. - References to CES job descriptions seeking or not seeking candidates with urban/metro relevant degrees, technical expertise or soft skills necessary to address complex urban societal, economic and environmental issues. - References to the need to adapt or have flexibility in CES job titles, position descriptions, degrees, backgrounds, and job experiences to effectively address the needs and issues of urban/ metro residents and communities. - References to having the appropriate levels or low levels of staff for size of the population; use of the Noah’s Art Model. - References to having or not having: staff or enough staff with appropriate urban/metro programmatic focuses; a multi- disciplinary team of staff that can effectively work together to meet the needs of urban residents’; appropriate coverage areas or soft coverage lines; or time assigned to work locally or specifically in urban/metro. - References to using or having the need to: adapt staffing patterns from traditional models or those use in rural/ag settings; use flexible staffing patterns; and/or have positions that are unique to urban/metro environments (i.e. communication, volunteer management, resource development, partnership building). 235 Themes/ Concepts Staff Training Code ST TRG Volunteers VOL VOL sub-themes/concepts Use of Volunteers VOL USE Definition Rule to apply code Examples CES staff participate in professional development specifically focused on building the technical skills and core competencies relevant or necessary for staff to work in cities and metropolitan settings. CES recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers in cities and metropolitan settings. The types of jobs or roles, program areas and length of service in which CES utilizes volunteers in cities and metropolitan settings. Evidence that CES staff have or do not have access to or participate in professional development specifically focused on building the technical skills and core competencies relevant or necessary for them to work in cities and metropolitan settings. Evidence related to the recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers that affects CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the VOL sub-themes/concepts. Evidence that CES does or does utilize volunteers across a wide range of program areas/topics, and offers or does not offer a wide variety of types of jobs or roles for volunteers with varying lengths of service times in cities and metropolitan settings. - References to CES staff having or not having access to or participating in professional development opportunities specifically designed or focused on building technical skills or core competency skills to effectively work in urban/metro. - References to CES assigned to urban/metro areas having access or participating in the same training as all CES staff; no specifically designed or focuses professional development. - References to the need for CES urban/metro staff to have specific training or difference professional development training from CES staff as a whole in order from them to have the technical and core competency skills necessary to work effectively in urban/metro environments. - References to any issues, concerns or lack of understanding around the recruitment, management, training and utilization of volunteers that affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the VOL sub-themes/concepts. - Variety of opportunities, lengths, time commitments - Reference to CES utilizing or not utilizing volunteers: across a wide range of program focuses/topics; in non-traditional jobs or roles; in unique roles specific and relevant to urban/metro settings; or to expand CES staff with un-paid volunteer positions in urban/metro settings. - References to CES using or not using: expanded or increased number of volunteers; volunteers in a wide variety of roles or jobs; or in volunteer opportunities with different time commitments or levels of responsibility. 236 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Volunteer Demographics VOL DEM CES recruitment and utilization of a broad racially/ ethnically/culturally diverse set of volunteers that are reflective of the population of residents living in cities and metropolitan settings. Evidence that CES does or does not strive to recruit and utilize a broad racially/ethnically/ culturally diverse set of volunteers that are reflective of the population of residents living in cities and metropolitan settings. Volunteer Training VOL TRG CES training required and provided that is relevant and supports the work of volunteers in cities and metropolitan areas. Evidence that CES volunteers have or do not have access to or participate in training that is specifically focused on building skills and dealing with issues/needs that are relevant or necessary for them to work in cities and metropolitan settings. - References to CES engaging or not engaging volunteers in: program needs assessment, planning, delivery and evaluation; in meaningful roles that capitalize on volunteers’ skills and expertise; or in meaningful roles that help build the skills and expertise of volunteers. - References to the need to have or the fact that CES does not have a broad racially/ethnically/ culturally diverse set of volunteers that are reflective of the population of residents living in cities and metropolitan settings. - References to any issues, concerns, and changes that have or need to be made to CES’s volunteer recruitment strategies or practices to engage a broad racially/ethnically/culturally diverse set of volunteers. - References to any issues, concerns, and changes that have or need to be made to CES’s volunteer utilization strategies or practices to engage a broad racially/ethnically/culturally diverse set of volunteers. - References to CES volunteers having or not having access to or participating in training opportunities specifically designed or focused on building skills or dealing with issues/needs to work effectively in urban/metro. - References to volunteers working in urban/metro areas having access or participating in the same training as all CES volunteers; no specifically designed or focuses training for urban/metro volunteers. - References to the need for CES urban/metro volunteers to have specific training or difference training from CES volunteers as a whole in order from them to have the skills necessary to effectively work or deal with needs/issues specific to urban/metro environments. 237 Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Themes/ Concepts Educational Program Content EPCONT CES educational program curricula and content used in cities and metropolitan settings to address the needs and issues of residents, key community/government leadership and communities. Evidence that the CES educational program curricula and content affect CES’s work in urban/metro environments in areas not covered by the EPC sub-themes/concepts. Evidence that CES uses or does not use effective and appropriate methods to gather input from urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities around their unique urban/metro needs and issues that might or could be addresses by CES programming. Evidence that CES uses or does not use research or evidence- based curriculum that can or cannot be transferred from rural/ag settings, or is or is not developed or adapted for urban/metro residents, key community/government leadership and communities that does or does not address their needs and issues. - References to any issues, concerns, and changes that have or need to be made around CES educational program curricula or content that affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the EPC sub- themes/concepts. - References that CES does or does not engage: urban/metro residents, key community/government leadership and/or communities in programmatic needs assessments; use appropriate or effective engagement methods to gather input from urban/metro residents, key community/government leadership and/or communities; effectively engage urban/ metro residents, key community/government leadership and/or communities to identify unique urban/metro needs and issues that might or could be addresses by CES programming. - References to needing or having limited or no educational programs or relevant research to develop programs that are of interest to or address urban residents’, key community/ governmental leaderships and/or communities needs and/or issues. - References to CES’s effective or ineffective use of curriculum and programmatic content: that does or does not take urban/ metro context or audience into account; developed for rural or non-urban audiences; that does or does not appropriately or adequately address urban/metro residents’, key community/ governmental leaderships and/or communities needs and/or issues. - References to programming content is or is not: “right” for EPCONT sub-themes/concepts Needs Assessment EPC NEED Content EPC CONT CES methods used to gather input from urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities around their unique urban/metro needs and issues that might or could be addresses by CES programming. CES’s use of research or evidence-based curriculum can be transferred from rural/ ag settings or is developed or adapted for urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities that 238 Themes/ Concepts Access to Faculty with Relevant Expertise Educational Program Delivery Methods addresses their needs and issues. EPC FAC CES’s ability to access and actually work with faculty from across their parent LGU’s that have appropriate and relevant expertise to address the educational program needs and issues of urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities. CES educational program delivery strategies and methods used in cities and metropolitan settings to provide CES educational programs, resources and services to residents, key community/government leadership and communities. EPDEL Evidence that CES has or does not have the ability to access and actually work with faculty from across their parent LGU’s that have appropriate and relevant expertise to address the educational program needs and issues of urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities. Evidence that the CES educational program delivery strategies and/or methods affect CES’s ability to deliver CES educational programs, resources and services to residents, key community/ government leadership and communities in cities and metropolitan settings in ways not covered by the EPD sub- themes/concepts. Evidence that CES educational program delivery strategies urban audiences; relevant to urban context; adaptation or development for urban/metro settings; relevant to diversity of audience; and/or develop and access for urban/metro impact. - References to the ability of CES to access or not access and actually work with or not work with faculty from across their parent LGU’s that have appropriate and relevant expertise to address the educational program needs and issues of urban/metro residents, key community/ government leadership and communities. - References to the need for or the lack of urban research base and urban knowledge base within the faculty of Extension’s parent LGUs. - References to any issues, concerns, and changes that have or need to be made around CES educational program delivery strategies and methods that affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the EPD sub-themes/concepts. - References to CES educational program delivery strategies and methods that are or are not or need to be specifically Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples EPDEL sub-themes/concepts Audiences EPD AUD CES educational program delivery strategies and 239 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Delivery Methods methods in cities and metropolitan settings are designed to reach a diverse, large audience, including just residents as well as key community/ government leadership and communities. EPD DEL The educational program delivery strategies and methods employed by CES in cities and metropolitan settings to reach a large, diverse audience of residents key community/government leadership and communities. and methods in cities and metropolitan settings are or are not designed to reach a diverse, large audience, including just residents as well as key community/government leadership and communities. Evidence that the educational program delivery strategies and methods employed by CES are, are not or need to be adapted or developed to work effectively in cities and metropolitan settings to reach a large, diverse audience of residents key community/ government leadership and communities. Accessibility EPD ACC CES educational program delivery strategies and methods used in cities and metropolitan settings to ensure accessibility to large, diverse sets of Evidence that CES utilizes or does not utilize specific educational program delivery strategies and methods geared at ensuring accessibility for large, diverse sets of residents, designed to reach: urban/metro residents, key community/government leadership, racially/ethnically/culturally diverse audiences, and large numbers of people. - Questioning about Extension’s ability or understanding to utilize programmatic delivery methods to reach large, diverse urban/metro populations. - References to the using or the need for: creative, innovative program delivery methods; methods specifically developed or adapted for urban/metro audiences; methods that range from retail to wholesale programmatic delivery; the use of multiple delivery medium; multiple physical delivery sites; high quality, creditably executed delivery modes that live up to the reputation that Extension and its parent LGU has or desires. - References to using, not using or the need to use a variety of delivery methods such as face-to-face, distance education tools, online tools, websites, social media, mass media, direct face-to-face, train-the-trainer models, etc. - References to the need to or use of volunteers and partner organizations to effectively deliver educational programming to large, diverse urban/metro audiences. - References to the use of or the need to use applied research and engagement scholarship methodologies. - References to using, not using or the need to use program delivery methods that: reduce barriers to accessibility by urban residents; and take learn styles into account; and user friendly. - References to using, not using or the need to use: fee structures that are affordable that take into account the 240 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Best Practices BESTP Community Engagement COM ENG residents, key community/government leadership and communities. The identification and use best practices around the combination of CES community operations components in cities and metropolitan settings to ensure quality and effectiveness, and to serve as models for replication nationally and potentially globally. The combination of community interaction techniques or engagement strategies, methodologies and/or activities CES employs that result in the co- identification by CES, academics and local residents of issues or of the co-creation of solutions for local issues of concern in cities and metropolitan. key community/government leadership and communities. Evidence that CES does, does not or needs to identify and use best practices around the combination of community operations components to ensure quality and effectiveness, and need for CES to have an identified set of urban/metro best practices to serve as models for replication nationally and potentially globally. Evidence of that combination of community interaction techniques or engagement or strategies, methodologies and/or activities CES employs result in the co-identification by CES, academics and local residents of issues or of the co- creation of solutions for local issues of concern not covered by the PTRSHP, CEMOD and their sub-themes/concepts economic situation of urban/metro residents; multiple physical program delivery sites that are accessible by public or private transportation; appropriate modes of technology that enhance access and not prohibit access. - References to use or need to have an identified set of best practices around CES community operations components to ensure quality and effectiveness; or an agenda. - References to using or the need to have a set of CES urban/ metro best practices for potential national or global replication. - References to the need to have/create national connections or a national agenda to share information and connect staff across the United States. - References to any community interaction techniques or engagement components affecting CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the PTRSHP, CEMOD and their sub-themes/concepts. 241 The external community and internal LGU relationships and networks that CES builds and maintains in cities and metropolitan settings. PTRSHP sub-themes/concepts Building Partnerships PTR BLDG The need and ability of CES to build and manage a broad range of external community and internal LGU department, unit and faculty relationships, partnerships and networks to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services in cities and metropolitan settings. Themes/ Concepts Partnerships Code PTRSHP Definition Rule to apply code Examples Evidence related to the external community and internal LGU relationships and networks that CES builds and maintains in urban/metro environments not covered by the PTR sub-themes/concepts. Evidence that CES needs to and is able or unable to effectively or ineffectively build and manage a broad range of external community and internal LGU department, unit and faculty relationships, partnerships and networks to effectively develop, market and deliver CES educational programs and services. - References to any issues, concerns or lack of understanding around the need to have external community and internal LGU relationships and networks that CES builds and maintains that affect or impact CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the PTR sub-themes/concepts. - References to having, not having or needing: to understand the need for a broad range of relationships, partnerships and networks in urban/metro environments; to have a broad range of urban community partners; to have a broad range of LGU partners; to have an effective set of strategies, methodologies and activities to build and maintain a broad set of relationships, partnerships and networks in urban/metro settings. - References to CES being, not being or needing to be a catalytic convener or facilitative leader in urban/metro environments with the ability to lead from behind; needing to develop new types of partnerships to effectively work in urban/metro. - References to the differences or difficulties experienced by CES in building relationships, partnerships and networks in cities and metropolitan settings due to the combination of Urban Context and Organizational History/Culture Environmental Conditions previously identified. “Right” Partners and Tables PTR RGT The need and ability of CES to identify appropriate and effective community organizations/ agencies to network with and build relationships and partnerships with to Evidence that CES needs to and is able or unable to identify appropriate and effective community organizations/ agencies to network with and build relationships and partnerships with to enhance CES work in cities and - References to not having or knowing who the “right” partners are or selecting the right partners for an urban/metro context; understanding and acknowledging that there are differences from the rural/ag context to the urban/metro context when it comes to building and maintaining relationships, partnerships, and networks. - References to being, not being or needing to be invited to or sitting at the “right” tables where key community 242 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples enhance CES work in cities and metropolitan settings. metropolitan settings. Governmental and Community Leadership Partnerships PTR GOV CEMOD Community Engagement Models The need and ability of CES to build appropriate and effective community relationships, partnerships and networks with key governmental and community leadership to enhance CES work in cities and metropolitan settings. Community interaction techniques and models used by CES that result in the co-creation by CES, academics, community organizations, local governmental units and residents of issues or of the co-creation of solutions for local issues of concern. CEMOD sub-themes/concepts Building Relationships with Community CE REL The need and ability of CES and its parent LGU to listen and build trusting and honest community Evidence that CES needs to, is able to or unable to build appropriate and effective community relationships, partnerships, and networks with key governmental and community leadership to enhance CES work in cities and metropolitan settings. Evidence that CES uses or does not use community interaction techniques and models with urban residents, community organizations and local governmental units that result in the co-creation of issues or solutions for local issues of concern not covered by the CE sub-themes/concepts. Evidence that CES needs to, is able to or unable to listen and build trusting and honest community relationships, organizations and agencies discuss community needs, make decisions, craft initiatives, distribute funding, etc. - References to having, not having or needing relationships and/or partnerships with organizations that share a similar mission to CES, are willing to share credit and resources for work, can work with CES to evaluate for outcomes, and are not competitors or duplicators of service. - References to CES targeting or needing to target legislators, government leaders and community leadership to build relationships, partnerships and networks with. - References to any issues, concerns or lack of understanding around the community interaction techniques and models used by CES with community organizations, local governmental units and residents that affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the CE sub-themes/concepts. - References to CES working or not working to: listen to residents and community leadership or to build relationships on trust and honesty. - References to CES and its parent LGU using a “Savior”, 243 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Culture and Expertise CE CUL Co-creating Solutions CE SOL LGU Relationships CE LGU relationships, partnerships and networks with community organizations, local governmental units and residents to enhance CES work in cities and metropolitan settings. The need and ability of CES and its parent to understand and respect the local urban/metro culture and expertise in cities and metropolitan settings. Strategies and activities utilized by CES and its parent LGU to engage local residents’, community partners, and community leadership in co-identification of community issues and co- creation of solutions around community needs and/or issues in cities and metropolitan settings. The need and ability of CES to build appropriate and effective relationships with its parent LGU departments, units and faculty and to work to appropriately and effectively connect these partnerships and networks with community organizations, local governmental units and residents. “Paternal” or “Lone Ranger” approach; and/or CES/universities approaching urban residents and communities as “know-it-all” experts. Evidence that CES needs to, is able to or unable to understand and respect the local urban/metro culture and expertise in urban/metro environments. Evidence that CES does, does not or needs to utilize a comprehensive set of strategies and activities to engage local residents’, community partners, and community leadership in co- identification of community issues and co-creation of solutions around community needs and/or issues. Evidence that CES has or does not have the ability, or needs to be able to build appropriate and effective relationships with its parent LGU departments, units and faculty and to work to appropriately and effectively - References to or not to: observing, listening or valuing the opinions or expertise, beliefs or traditions of urban residents or communities; respecting local culture, diversity, expertise and community. - References of CES engaging, not engaging or needing to engage local residents’ in co-identification of community issues and co-creation of solutions of community needs and/or issues; or engaging residents and community leadership in needs assessment, program planning, delivery and evaluate. - References to CES and universities seeking, not seeking or needing to seek to interact with local residents as equals partners or engage in residents and community leadership in needs assessment, program planning, delivery and evaluate. - References to CES having, not having or needing to build appropriate and effective relationships with its parent LGU departments, units and faculty; and/or need for CES and LGU partners to work together for cumulative impact. - References to urban/metro residents, community leadership and communities seeing LGU and CES seen as same entity by urban/metro residents, community leadership and community 244 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples LGU collaborators with urban/metro residents, community and governmental leadership, community organizations to enhance CES work in cities and metropolitan settings. The image or reputation that CES has within cities and metropolitan settings. Organizational Image ORGIM ORGIM sub-themes/concepts Positioning OI POS CES vision and/or commitment to effectively define, build and implement a unique position or niche differentiating CES’s work in cities or metropolitan settings from other service providers. connect these LGU collaborators with urban/metro residents, community and governmental leadership, community organizations. Evidence related to the image or reputation that CES has within cities and metropolitan settings that affects CES’s work in urban/metro environments not covered by the OI sub- themes/concepts. Evidence that CES does or does not have a vision for and/or is committed to defining, building and implementing a unique position or niche differentiating CES’s work in urban settings from other service providers. Residents’ Image of CES OI IMG The image or reputation that CES has with urban/metro residents, key community and governmental leadership, and community collaborates that impacts Evidence that CES has a positive, negative or no image or reputation with urban/ metro residents, community and governmental leadership, and community partners and partners. - References to any issues, concerns or lack of understanding around the image or reputation that CES has within urban/metro settings that affects or impacts CES’s work in urban/metro environments in ways not covered by the OI sub- themes/concepts. - References to the need or lack of ability to ensure that urban/metropolitan programming is not seen as separate but as an integrated part of the CES. - References to concerns or the lack of emphasis by leadership to define a unique role/position/niche for CES in urban settings; the need to have a clear definition of “urban/metro”; the need or work of leadership to differentiate CES’s work from other service providers; and leadership believes CES can do the same thing it does in rural/ag settings and be effective in urban. - References to the need or the lack of having a strong brand identity in urban/metro settings. - References to urban/metro communities having, not having or needing: a general knowledge about CES or its programming or services; “Street Cred”; “Curb Appeal”; and/or it is not seem as having urban/metro relevancy. - References to CES having a poor or negative reputation because: it is not seen as a customer friendly, accessible, 245 Themes/ Concepts Code Definition Rule to apply code Examples Marketing CES in Urban/Metro OI MKT or affects CES’s work in cities and metropolitan settings. The combination of strategies and activities that CES employs to comprehensively promote, advertise and market the organization and its educational programs, resources and services in cities and metropolitan settings. this does or does not affect or impact CES’s ability to successfully work in urban. Evidence that CES has, does not have or needs to have strategies and activities to comprehensively promote, advertise and market the organization and its educational programs, resources and services in cities and metropolitan settings. reliable, or trustworthy entity; or it is seen as having only rural/ag expertise or serving only rural/farm clientele; and/or CES’s rural/agricultural roots as being a challenge or barrier. - References to CES’s need for or lack of an understanding of: how to communicate with urban/metro audiences; how to use urban/metro communication mediums effectively; how to market CES programs to urban audiences; how to reach large, diverse numbers of people with their messages. - References to CES’s lack of or a need for: a defined or recognized unique urban niche for Extension; an external and internal marketing plan; and/or effective urban/metro branding. 246 APPENDIX F – STAGE 3: EXTENSION STAFF SURVEY Extension in Urban Settings The purpose of this survey is to identify and assess factors that may influence Extension offices’ ability to deliver educational programs and services in urban or metropolitan settings. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate, end your participation at any time, and skip any question(s) that you do not want to answer. All results will be reported in the aggregate and no data will be reported in any way that may identify individuals in any manner. The survey should take about 20 minutes of your time to complete. It may take more or less time depending on your responses and the level of detail you provide. Should you have any questions about this study, how the results will be used, or are having any technical issues with the survey website, contact Marie A. Ruemenapp at ruemenap@msu.edu or Karen Clark at the Office for Survey Research at clarkk@msu.edu. By selecting YES below you indicate your voluntary consent to participate and have your responses included in the dataset Definitions: For the purpose of this study, please use the following guidelines when responding to the questions throughout the survey.    “Cities” are defined as central cities with a population of more than 50,000 people. “Metropolitan” areas are defined as metropolitan regions with a combined population of over 100,000 people. “Urban” is defined as an area that contains “cities” and/or “metropolitan” areas as defined in the two previous definitions.  For the purposes of this survey, “Extension” refers to the work of the Extension system in your state. 247 1. How many years in total have you worked in Extension in some capacity? 2. Which of the following best describes your current role within your Extension Office. a. Field-based Agent/Educator/Faculty b. Campus-based Faculty/Specialist c. Program Instructor/Associate/Assistant/Coordinator, Administrator d. Extension support staff (clerical, technical, business, finance, etc.) e. Other 3. How many years have your served in your current position? 4. Please select the college or university where you are currently employed [Select from drop down list of colleges/universities participating in study] 5. Which of the following best describes the program area in which you are currently working? a. Agriculture/ Horticulture b. Natural Resources c. Community & Economic Development d. Family Consumer Sciences e. 4-H Youth Development f. OTHER 6. Which of the following most closely describes your assigned work coverage area? a. One County b. Multiple Counties c. Statewide Coverage d. Campus-base e. OTHER 7. In which of the following geographical areas do you currently work (select all that apply)? a. Central city or cities with population over 50,000 b. Metropolitan region with a combined population of over 100,000 c. Small town(s) with population of under 50,000 d. Rural and agricultural areas e. OTHER 8. Please indicate the level of work you believe Extension is currently doing in urban areas in your state. a. A lot more than in rural and agricultural areas b. Slightly more than in rural and agricultural areas c. About as much as in rural and agricultural areas d. Slightly less than as in rural and agricultural areas e. A lot less than in rural and agricultural areas 248 9. In your opinion, is the amount of work Extension is currently doing in urban settings in your state: a. Far too much b. Moderately too much c. Slightly too much d. Neither too much nor too little e. Slightly too little f. Moderately too little g. Far too little 10. Is Extension housed or located completely or primarily within the College of Agriculture? BRANCH IF YES: [SCALE: VERY NEGATIVE (1) - VERY POSTIVE (5) 1. Does having Extension housed within the College of Agriculture have a positive or negative impact . . . a. Your ability to effectively work in urban settings b. Your ability to effectively build relationships and work with faculty in colleges or units outside of the College of Agriculture. BRANCH IF NO: 2. How does having Extension housed outside of the College of Agriculture have a positive or negative impact . . . a. Your ability to effectively work in urban settings b. Your ability to make build relationships and work with faculty within the College of Agriculture? 11. The following have been identified as challenges or barriers to Extension’s work in urban settings and with urban populations. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. [SCALE – STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) – STRONGLY AGREE – (5) ] a. Extension has a lack of broad knowledge or understanding of urban settings. b. Extension’s historic rural and agriculture roots and funding impedes Extension’s ability to work effectively in urban areas. c. There is a lack of support among Extension’s leadership for urban work d. Extension lacks the resources (staffing, programming, and/or operations) for urban work. e. Extension ineffectively uses volunteers in urban settings. f. Rural and agricultural Extension clientele do not support Extension’s work in urban settings. g. There is a lack of support among local elected officials for Extensions work in urban settings. h. Current Extension programing in urban areas is not focused on the needs of residents. i. The current ways in which Extension is delivering programming to urban residents is ineffective. j. Extension lacks a set of “Best Practices” that can be applied in urban settings. k. Extension lacks effective relationships and partnerships in urban communities. l. There is a negative image of Extension among residents, local leadership, and key stakeholders in urban settings. m. Extension lacks an effective or comprehensive urban marketing plan 249 12. Are there other barriers or challenges you or your colleagues have experienced when working in urban settings? 13. To what extent do you believe Extension Staff and Administration have a solid understanding of each of the following? Please provide a separate rating in each area for both staff and administration. [SCALE: NOT AT ALL (1) - TO A LARGE EXTENT (5)] a. That there are key differences between working effectively in urban versus rural environments. b. Urban sociology? c. Urban economics? d. The complexities of working with populations that are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse? e. The political complexities of working with urban units of government and elected officials 14. When working in urban settings and with urban populations, how important or unimportant is each of the following? [SCALE: NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL (1) – VERY IMPORTANT (5) ] a. Developing a set of recognizable or widely agreed upon "Best Practices" for urban settings. b. Work to ensure that Extension and its parent land-grant universities are seen as one entity by urban residents? c. Conducts appropriate needs assessments with urban audiences. d. Has the ability to access faculty expertise relevant urban needs/issues. The next series of questions focus on gathering more in-depth information to better understand the challenges and barriers Extension may experience when working in urban settings. 15. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? [SCALE – STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) – STRONGLY AGREE – (5) ] a. Extension’s historic rural and agricultural roots does not impact Extension's image in urban settings. b. Urban audiences know about Extension and the work of Extension in urban areas. c. Urban audiences have a positive image of Extension’s work in urban areas. d. Extension has worked to effectively position or create a specialized "urban" niche or market for Extension in urban settings e. Extension knows how to effectively communicate and market Extension to urban audiences. 16. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [SCALE – STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) – STRONGLY AGREE – (5) ] Extension’s leadership and administration . . . a. Understands the work of staff in urban settings? b. Is committed to providing the programmatic and operational resources necessary to work in urban? 250 c. Has the ability to overcome challenges or barriers that might exist with current funding d. e. streams to use those resources to support work in urban? Is supportive of securing new/additional funding resources to support current or expanded work in urban? Is willing to adjust or change organizational policies and guidelines to support the work of Extension staff in urban? f. Has the ability to manage or overcome any challenges or barriers that might exist with current clientele or local elected official to support and/or expand Extension work in urban? 17. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. [SCALE – STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) – STRONGLY AGREE – (5) ] When working in urban areas or with urban populations, Extension . . . a. Has enough staff to effectively deliver programming. b. c. Works to ensure that staff in urban environments is reflective of the population being Is committed to providing the necessary level of staffing/human resources needed. served. d. Uses flexible staffing patterns, with a mix of full-time, part-time and temporary staffing? e. Hires temporary and/or part-time staff to work on special or short term projects or initiatives? f. Hires people with the right training, experiences and expertise to work in the environment? g. Provides staff appropriate professional development to support their work? h. Should only hire staff with previous Extension experience? 18. When recruiting or using volunteers in urban areas or settings, Extension . . . [SCALE – STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) – STRONGLY AGREE – (5) ] a. Works to ensure the current volunteer base is reflective of the populations? b. Uses creative and/or innovative volunteer recruiting techniques? c. Offers a range of long and short-term opportunities for volunteers? d. Offers adequate training for volunteers? e. Is committed to ensuring the cost of some volunteer training programs is not a barrier to urban residents’ participation? 19. In which of the following program areas is Extension engaging volunteers in urban areas in your state? (Select all that apply) a. Agriculture/ Horticulture b. Natural Resources c. Community & Economic Development d. Family Consumer Sciences e. 4-H Youth Development f. Other 251 For the next series of questions, we would like to focus on how effective you believe Extension has been in program delivery in urban areas of setting. 20. Overall, how effective or ineffective has Extension been in delivering educational program content to each of the following groups? [SCALE VERY INEFFECTIVE (1) – VERY EFFECTIVE – (5) ] a. Urban residents b. Urban-based community service providers? c. Local units of government or local government leaders? 21. How would you rate each of the following delivery methods in terms of their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in reaching urban audiences? [SCALE VERY INEFFECTIVE (1) – VERY EFFECTIVE – (5) ] a. Face-to-face b. Train-the trainer c. On-line educational programming? d. Web-based? 22. How effective or ineffective has Extension been in . . . . . [SCALE VERY INEFFECTIVE (1) – VERY EFFECTIVE – (5) ] a. Reaching an audience that is reflective of the diverse urban population? b. Adapting programming originally developed for rural and agricultural residents to effectively meet the needs of urban residents? c. Developing program content specifically designed to meet the needs or address issues facing urban residents? d. Tailoring web-based (on-line) educational content to address the needs or address issues facing urban residents? e. Using creative or innovative program delivery models specifically targeted to reach urban residents? f. Modifying fee structures to ensure that they are appropriate for urban participants? g. Using physical locations for program delivery that are easily accessible to urban audiences? h. Offering programming historically delivered in an on-line environment in hard copy form. The next set of questions focus on building partnerships within urban areas. [SCALE VERY UNSUCCESSFUL (1) – VERY SUCCESSFUL – (5) ] 23. How successful or unsuccessful has Extension been in . . . a. Navigating through the large number of potential partners to build effective partnerships? Identifying the “right” partners to work with? b. c. Being present at the “right” community tables? d. Connecting to urban community leadership? e. Connecting to urban agencies, organizations, and potential partner entities? f. Connecting to urban units of government and/or political leadership? g. Building trust with urban residents? h. Listening to urban residents about their needs and issues? i. Respecting the beliefs or traditions of urban residents or communities? 252 j. Valuing and respecting the expertise of urban residents? k. Engaging urban residents in co-creating solutions for individual or community needs/issues? 24. Are there any other thoughts or comments you would like to share about the barriers or challenges that you believe Extension staff experience in working in urban environments? So that we can better understand our results, please answer the following questions about you. Please keep in mind that all your responses will be kept strictly confidential. 25. Do you most closely identify as: a. Male b. Female c. In another way (specify if you wish) 26. In what year were you born? 27. Are you of Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish descent? a. Yes b. No 28. Which of the following describes your race? a. Black or African American b. American Indian and Alaska Native c. Asian d. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. e. White or Caucasian 29. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? a. High School Graduate b. Some college (2 years or less) c. Associates Degree d. Bachelor’s degree e. Master’s degree f. Doctoral or professional degree 253 APPENDIX G – COMPLETE LIST OF URBAN PLAN BARRIERS/CHALLENGES NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES Urban Environment Population size Population diversity Faster than average pop. growth/decline Highest amount population Urban environment different than rural Complexity of environment Multifaceted problems CES can address Home to political power Blurring of jurisdictional boundaries Concentrated poverty Higher average education levels CES Leadership Visionary leadership See need to change as environment changes Definition for what constitutes urban Urban work integrated in CES Understand differences working in urban vs. rural Understand/support for work Work effectively across all of university, internally Strong relationships w/local, state & federal legislators Equitable & responsible resource distribution for urban URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 254 h a t U x x x x x x x x x x x x x NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A a t o s e n n M i URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS y k c u t n e K f o L L A CES Leadership - CONTINUED Reallocate base resources to urban Seek & be competitive for new resources Allocate resources to support things uniquely urban Use an effective fee for service model Adjust org policies to support urban work Support & reward innovative/ risk taking Appropriate programmatic impact measures Realistic performance expectations, rewards & recognition Support time & professional develop for staff to build urban competencies Develop effective staff evaluation measure for urban competencies, accountability Employ diverse staff who reflect community Provide competitive salaries Establish effective lines of supervision CES Operations - General Best practices for replication Rural/urban managed the same Strong rural/urban interdependency Soft county lines, soft county funding Metro area supervision of program staff x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a n i l o r a C h t r o N x x x x x x n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 255 NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x x x x x x x x CES Operations – General - CONTINUED Metro area supervision of program staff Multi-disciplinary team approach Logic models guide work Good physical & virtual locations, offices Consumer oriented operations CES Operations - Staff Staffing pattern Flexible staffing patterns Soft line coverage areas Majority of time allocated to local Skill sets to work in urban Staff prepared/interested in working in urban Ability to work in multi- disciplinary team Appropriate program area focus for urban Specialized program focus Professional development needed Recruitment, hiring & retention Titles, job descriptions Qualifications & backgrounds Staff need to reflect & embrace community diversity Unique position need - communications Unique position need - recruiting & managing volunteers Staff need to reflect & embrace community diversity x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 256 NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x CES Operations - Staff - CONTINUED Unique position need - communications Unique position need - recruiting & managing volunteers Unique position need - resource development Unique position need - support staff tech needs & program delivery via tech Unique position need - local leadership relationship development CES Operations - Volunteers Effective use of Variety of opportunities, lengths of involvement Reflect the diversity of community Training needs Engaged in needs assessment, program planning & evaluation CES Operations - Program Content Relevant to urban context Relevant to diverse population needs Unique to local context Issue based, proactive, not reactive Multi-disciplinary Accesses experts across LGU relevant to urban Effective needs assessment Develop & assess for impact High quality materials x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 257 URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x x x CES Operations - Program Delivery Focus on updated, creative modes Offers from retail to wholesale Uses mass media, social media, websites Uses technology & distance education technologies Uses multiple delivery locations, offices Uses volunteers to deliver program Delivered through partners Uses engaged learner style Applied research, engaged scholarship Strong brand identity Reaches large numbers of people Reaches a diverse audience Targets local legislators & community leadership CES Community Engagement Networker/partnership builder Catalytic/facilitative convener Build trust Evaluate for good partnerships, evaluate for outcomes Communicate about value & outcomes of partnerships Building partnerships in urban more difficult Build broad & effective community networks x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 258 URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A h a t U x x x x x x x x x CES Community Engagement - CONTINUED Build broad & effective LGU networks Effectively use Extension advisory councils Make sure advisory councils have broad representation Involve community/general public in needs assessment & program development Target community leadership Partners can be competitors, duplication of services Community Image Urban marketing plan Internal marketing plan External marketing plan Visibility, recognition is important Effective branding Use mass & social media Use consultants to develop plan Need to change image in urban Need effective communication w/urban audiences Urban population less familiar w/CES Seen as consumer friendly High quality materials that reflect desired image, curb appeal Target community leadership x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 259 URBAN EXTENSION DOCUMENTS 6 9 9 1 l a n o i t a N 5 1 0 2 L E U N t s e W f o L L A a d i r o l F f o L L A a t o s e n n M i a n i l o r a C h t r o N n o g e r O s a x e T f o L L A y k c u t n e K f o L L A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x h a t U x x x x x NAMES OF BARRIERS/ CHALLENGES CES Organizational History Urgency to address urban Lack of system direction Mission driven Historic rural/ag roots Current ag/rural clientele don't support urban work National network needed Global urban model 260 APPENDIX H – STAGE 2: KEY STAKEHOLDER BARRIERS/CHALLENGES Environmental Conditions – Urban Context Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts  Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag because of scale/size of communities o Politically complex, majority of federal/state political power resides in them, multi- jurisdictional and over lapping boundaries o Communities maybe need to be neighborhoods not whole city or metro area o Unique transportation and travel challenges  Population diversity o Size of population o Racial/ethnic/cultural diversity o Percentage of population living in urban/metro setting o High concentration of poverty  Socio/economic/ecological issues different, or have different causations than in rural/ag  Reciprocal or symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/ag communities   CES does not know urban/metro communities/ populations or how to work effectively CES seen as rural/ag serving organization, or not known with them like they know rural/ag communities/populations Environmental Conditions – CES History and Culture Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities o Urban/metro populations/communities do not have the same historic ties to CES as rural/ag o Many of the CES 1980 LGUs have more history/traditions with working with urban/ metro populations/communities  CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/ communities through its historic rural/ag lens  CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus expectations  Traditional rural/ag advocacy groups and clientele do not support CES work in urban/metro o CES work in urban/metro seen as an either urban/metro OR rural/ag  State/federal legislators expectations because funding provided o Expect CES to serve all populations/ communities 261 o Expect CES to serve only rural/ag populations/ communities o Urban legislators not as supportive as rural/ag legislators  Urban/metro CES work must be driven by organizational mission and relevancy  Must be able to serve urban/metro audience without abandoning rural/ag audience  Need to understand CES history to change future  Current CES staff resistant to change or question value of CES work in urban/metro  Nationally CES is a lose system, more of a confederacy of organizations than a tight system Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews General CES Leadership  Mission driven, serve all populations, integrate urban work into CES  Need visionary leadership o Ability to lead through crisis, address leadership complacency in CES o Practical leaders o Willing to change the status quo and deal with CES inertia o Examine and make needed changes to CES policies and practices, especially around resource investments, community operations, staffing, programming, etc. o Open to and responsive to new opportunities o Take risks, support CES staff to take risks o Make CES a welcoming and supportive place for staff working in urban/metro o Need to embrace a broad LGU outreach and engagement agenda o Share vision broadly, with CES workforce, LGU administration, funding partners, community partners, etc., to build understanding and engagement  Committed to serving urban audiences/working in urban areas o Move beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro  Ensure CES is relevant and responsive to urban/metro o Understand and address urban socio, economic and ecological needs o Know the work that CES is doing in urban o Understand and acknowledge that urban/metro different than rural/ag and CES work in urban/metro must be different  Define appropriate urban evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them – triple bottom line? o Within CES incentivize and reward work in urban/metro  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU  Need “champions” at national level to move CES  Nationally coalition/confederacy of CES systems 262 Leadership for Allocation of Resources  Define urban priorities and invest in them Invest for impact o o Allocation of resources must be driven by local needs/issues Focus on expanding the funding “pie” o Explore and use new, creative/innovative funding models/sources o o Incorporate soft resources, limited time resources Identify resources to address the unique needs and issues of urban/metro audiences o Share new/expanded resources across system to garner support for urban/metro  Effectively management of complex funding streams o Must be able to manage budgets and components of community operations to handle the incorporation of new, soft and limited time resources  Understand/acknowledge that expanding CES work in urban/metro does not always take a large amount of resources, or new resources Managing External Pressures  Address funder expectations o Local, state and federal elected officials o USDA o Ag commodity groups or other outside funders o Balancing competing expectations/pressures o Be responsive  Political power located in urban/metro  Must identify/develop urban advocates  Under funded on a per capita basis by local units of government in urban/metro Managing Relationship at LGU  Need to have LGU leadership/administration support  Focus on broad outreach and engagement across LGU expertise o Expand beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology/family studies o Need to understand/know broad LGU expertise o Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES  Director of Extension need to be seen as an equal to Deans to garner respect and facilitate access to broad range of LGU expertise  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across LGU and connections to CES  Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated 263 Community Operations – CES Staff Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Use same staffing pattern as in rural o Adjust staffing patterns to meet urban needs o Adjust types of positions employed, build in flexibility o Expand number of staff o Determine appropriate/adequate levels of staffing o Hire unique positions to urban settings, i.e. volunteer recruiter/manager  Have staff specifically assigned to urban o Assign specifically to urban area o Not necessarily by county  Hire staff with right skills/experience/backgrounds o Appropriate programmatic focuses for urban o Appropriate soft skills for urban o Demographically reflective of urban communities o Put resources behind hiring best people for urban o Adjust salaries to pay a living wage for urban settings o Hire people with urban experiences who want to work in urban o Adjust job descriptions to reflect desired skills o Do not necessarily need previous Extension experience o Recruit in non-traditional places to advertise positions to groups of people with desired skills  Need staff professional development focused on building appropriate/adequate urban skill sets  Define appropriate urban/metro evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them  Look at CES employee retention policies/practices Community Operations - Volunteers Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need more volunteers o Explore new/innovative volunteer recruiting practices relevant to urban environments o Volunteer demographics need to reflect the demographics of the community  Need to use volunteers in new, creative/innovative, non-traditional roles o Use volunteer to expand staffing/programming o Use across more program areas than just 4-H and Master Gardeners o Adjust curriculum and delivery methods to allow for utilization of volunteers o Have meaningful roles that utilize or build skills o Have roles with a variety of levels of responsibility and lengths of service  Need to provide adequate/appropriate training o Make sure training is affordable/accessible  Provide appropriate/adequate recognition and rewards  Have a CES position with sole job of recruiting 264 Community Operations – Educational Program Content Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Content must be relevant and responsive  Content same as in rural o Need to adjust/adapt for urban/metro  Layers/distance between faculty/research, CES staff and residents/communities o Lots of smart, educated people in urban/metro, need to differentiate CES, need to adjust CES traditional “expert” model  Transitioned from delivery of social sciences to delivery of social services  Let go of content areas others can do better  Need to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural/ag audiences o Conduct effective programmatic needs assessments that engage urban/metro residents, local units of government, community agencies and CES partners  Build programmatic expertise relevant to urban o Build strong CES staff-LGU faculty connections o Develop relationships with LGU faculty that have expertise relevant to urban needs/issues o Build urban/metro content around CES and LGU expertise o Programming content must be backed by research  Find topical areas of interdependency and tailor/develop content to meet urban/metro needs and interests  High quality programs/content o Differentiate CES context from what people can access through an internet search  Content must be learner identified and learner driven o Not driven by experts/CES/faculty  Adjust program content to attract minority and under-served audiences o Adjust content to be culturally/racially/ethnically sensitive and appropriate Community Operations – Educational Program Delivery Methods Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must be able to reach large numbers of people  Use up to date, 21st Century, innovative/creative program delivery methods o Adaptations to delivery methods is as much generational as it is geographic o Take full advantage of technology to deliver program 24/7, online course, distance education, webinars, webpages, email ask the expert, toll-free information lines, etc. o Adjust program promotion and delivery methods to attract minority and under- served audiences o Use 21st Century program promotion strategies, social media and mass media o Invest in online, e-learning, learner managed platforms that focus on the learner’s environment, flexible, innovative, accessible, learner identified, learner driven Invest in client management systems, build profiles around interests and target for future programming o 265 o Build online/website content appropriate to largest number of users, often these are urban/metro audiences  Place offices in targeted communities, accessible to targeted audiences  Have a full-range of program delivery models, from wholesale to retail model o Target other agencies/organizations’ staff, local units of government o Use train-the-trainer model to delivering program directly to residents o Provide training for professional, CEUs, etc. o Conduct short-term project initiatives to quickly address specific needs/issues & move on  High quality delivery and materials  Co-sponsor/co-host programming with credible urban/metro community partners  Expand program delivery by using volunteers and other agencies/organizations to deliver  Delivery methods must be user friendly and welcoming o Figure out how to maintain personal touch/personal connects  CES programs and resources must be accessible, fees, offices, locations programs offered, traffic/travel/parking hindrances  Make sure program fees appropriate for urban/metro and target audience o Program cost cannot be prohibitive, but should not apologize for having a cost for a high quality program o Use 21st Century technology to allow clients to pay fees – broad acceptance of credit cards online, in offices and at programs Community Operations – Urban Best Practices Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Need a national urban agenda, with priorities, implementation steps and some resources to help CES get there  Need leadership for national efforts o Must identify and implement Best Practices to move CES beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro  Identify principles/practices behind urban/metro successes and share them across national system o No well recognized or agreed upon, national system-wide, models of success o Multiple states are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to determine Best Practices that can be shared Identifying a national funding source to pilot an initiative has worked well as an implementation strategy for CES in the past, i.e. health initiative Identified Best Practices must have broad replication ability o o  Need to see some national, system-wide urban/metro successes that are shared, new successes  Establish CES positions unique to urban/metro that supports CES’s work there, i.e. volunteer recruitment, external partnership/networking, building relationships with local government 266 Community Engagement - Partnerships Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews  Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive networks and partnerships CES has in rural areas o o Take leaderships for building coalitions/collaborations where CES sees need and no Increases effectiveness and return on our investment in urban/metro coalition/collaboration exist in urban/metro o CES needs to be a catalyst, facilitator and/or convener of urban/metro change  Look to engage new and different kinds of partners, local/state/federal Internally and externally o o Urban serving universities o Focus on local units of government, locally elected officials, CES does not know them the way they know/work with them in rural/ag o Focus on urban/metro power brokers o Need to intentionally be thinking about partners representing or working with minority and under-served audiences, faith-based partners o Nationally, need ECOP to lead conversation to identify and connect with new urban/metro focused partners  Need to be working with the “right” players, difficult to know who the players are in urban/metro o Complexity of environment o Large numbers of organizations /agencies/units of government o Staff must be able to do rapid assessment o Turf issues, competition, duplication of roles/services  Need to have seats at the “right” tables  CES needs to complement other urban-serving organizations and universities o Will not always be leader, need to effectively lead from behind, and learn to follow others o Unique role of CES in community partnership building maybe to bring residents into community issue/needs discussions in current community coalition/collaborations, because CES sees the value of their input and knows how to include them in these sorts of discussions in meaningful ways  Must figure out how to measure collective impact of work and then communicate that and the value of the partnership o Share credit for work, but must not lose CES’s contribution in partnerships, important CES receives credit/acknowledgement of its role/value to partnership  Must build redundancy into connections to address staff turnover, internally and externally  Must be ongoing process Community Engagement – CES Community Engagement Modes Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews 267  Need to get to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural audiences o Build relationships on trust, honesty and mutual respect o Need to abandon “Lone Ranger” or “Savior” models and embrace co-creation of solutions with urban/metro residents/communities o Work cooperatively with residents and community partners in the identification of urban/metro needs and issues and potential solutions o Respect community culture o Honor local knowledge/expertise o CES Remain unbiased and accessible to all  must embrace and help lead national APLU conversation around community outreach and engagement o CES needs to think differently about how it does this o Ideas coming out of APLU, but do not have well developed implementation strategies, CES could help inform these  Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU o CES needs to know broad LGU expertise o CES needs to engage LGU students in urban/metro communities  Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated o LGU and CES seen as same entity in urban/metro communities o Focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES  Barriers and/or Challenges Identified through Interviews Community Image  Many rural/ag residents know or have used CES, many urban/metro residents have not, no history with CES, urban/metro audiences do not know CES  Urban/metro residents, community/governmental leadership and community partners do not think of CES because they do not know CES  Rural/ag image  Coming in and out of communities leads to doubts of sincerity in urban/metro communities  Need comprehensive urban focused marketing plan, both on external audience, and internal CES and LGU audiences o May need outside, professional assistance  Must learn to talk and effectively communicate to urban/metro residents o Use social media o Mass media o Media targeted at specific interest groups, minorities and under-served audiences o Faith-based connections o Must be creative/innovative o Word of mouth marketing strategies are not enough in urban/metro  Must have visible and abundant CES branding in urban/metro areas 268 o Brand to LGU, usually better known in urban/metro than CES  Provide abundant and high quality information about CES work and impacts in urban/metro to community and governmental leaders, community partners and residents o Even if urban/metro audiences have heard of CES, they often really do not know what CES does or could do  Position CES to be community change agent  Serve broad needs/interest of urban/metro residents and communities  Define unique “niche” for CES based on mission, purpose, relationships and using technology o Vision for the future o Programmatically o Define target audiences o Operationally o Partnerships o Community engagement o Address urban/metro population size and community scale issues o Focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro  Connect citizens to research/knowledge base in unbiased manner o Deliver what we claim to deliver – research-based neutral information o Address 21st Century technology transfer needs o Compliment and connect what is happening in rural/ag  CES offices, online presence, programming, etc. must be user friendly and welcoming to new, diverse urban/metro audiences  Use a client management platform to track people and keep them engaged with CES  Need urban CES advocates, but to build urban advocates they need to see CES doing valuable/relevant work in urban/metro  Take incremental steps 269 APPENDIX I – COMPARISON OF BARRIERS/CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED IN STAGE 1 & 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Urban Environment Urban context different from rural or agricultural community contexts Working in urban/metro is more complex than working in rural/ag because of scale/size of communities Population diversity, size, percentage of total, concentrated poverty Socio/economic/ecological issues different, or have different causations than in rural/ag Reciprocal or symbiotic relationship between urban and rural/ag communities CES seen as rural/ag serving organization, or not known CES does not know urban/metro communities/ populations or how to work effectively with them like they know rural/ag communities/populations Cooperative Extension Service History and Culture History of CES’s successful/extensive work with rural/agricultural populations/communities, urban populations do not have the same historic ties to CES, 1890 LGU’s have more urban history CES sees/approaches urban/metro populations/ communities through its historic rural/ag lens CES federal funding tied to USDA/ag and comes with agriculture and other traditional program focus expectations Traditional rural/ag advocacy groups and clientele do not support CES work in urban/metro, current clientele see as an either/or State/federal legislators expectations because funding provided, expect to serve all or only rural, urban legislators not as supportive as rural/ag legislators Urban/metro CES work must be driven by organizational mission and relevancy Must be able to serve urban/metro audience without abandoning rural/ag audience Need to understand CES history to change future Current CES staff resistant to change or question value of CES work in urban/metro Nationally CES is a lose system, more of a confederacy of organizations than a tight system Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Mission driven, serve all populations, recognition of urgency to address urban/ metro needs and issues, integrate urban work into CES, Need visionary leadership to lead through crisis that is practical, willing to change status quo/inertia Examine and make needed changes to CES policies and practices, especially around resource investments, community operations, staffing, programming, etc. Open/responsive to new opportunities X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 270 Stage 1 Stage 2 Cooperative Extension Service Leadership Continued Take and support risks Make CES a welcoming and supportive place for staff working in urban/metro Need to embrace a broad LGU outreach and engagement agenda Share vision broadly, with CES workforce, LGU administration, funding partners, community partners, etc., to build understanding and engagement Committed to serving urban audiences/working in urban areas, need to move beyond piloting Ensure CES is relevant and responsive to urban/metro, understand and address urban socio, economic and ecological needs Know the work that CES is doing in urban, know CES has resources to address multifaceted urban/metro needs and issues Understand and acknowledge that urban/metro different than rural/ag and CES work in urban/metro must be different Define appropriate urban evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them – triple bottom line? Within CES incentivize and reward work in urban/metro Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU Need “champions” at national level to move CES Define urban priorities and invest in them, invest for impact, allocation of resources must be driven by local needs/issues Focus on expanding the funding “pie” Effectively management of complex funding streams Understand/acknowledge that expanding CES work in urban/metro does not always take a large amount of resources, or new resources Address funder expectations, balancing competing expectations/pressures, be responsive Political power located in urban/metro Must identify/develop urban advocates Under funded on a per capita basis by local units of government in urban/metro Need to have LGU leadership/administration support Director of Extension need to be seen as an equal to Deans to garner respect and facilitate access to broad range of LGU expertise Focus on broad outreach and engagement across LGU expertise, expand beyond colleges of agriculture and human ecology/family studies, need to understand/ know broad LGU expertise Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across LGU and connections to CES Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated Cooperative Extension Service Staff Use same staffing pattern as in rural, adjust staffing patterns to meet urban needs, multi-disciplinary teams Adjust types of positions employed, build in flexibility, adjust job descriptions to reflect desired skills X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 271 Stage 1 Stage 2 Cooperative Extension Service Staff Continued Expand number of staff Determine appropriate/adequate levels of staffing Hire unique positions to urban settings, i.e. volunteer recruiter/manager Have staff specifically assigned to urban, not necessarily by county Hire staff with right skills/experience/backgrounds, soft skills for urban, people with urban experiences who want to work in urban, do not necessarily need previous Extension experience Appropriate programmatic focuses for urban Demographically reflective of urban communities Put resources behind hiring best people for urban Adjust salaries to pay a living wage for urban settings Recruit in non-traditional places to advertise positions to groups of people with desired skills Need staff professional development focused on building appropriate/adequate urban skill sets Define appropriate urban/metro evaluation and impact measures, and evaluate staff performance based on them Look at CES employee retention policies/practices Need effective lines of supervision Volunteers Need more volunteers, explore new/innovative volunteer recruiting practices relevant to urban environments Volunteer demographics need to reflect the demographics of the community Need to use volunteers in new, creative/innovative, non-traditional roles, have meaningful roles that utilize or build skills, have roles with a variety of levels of responsibility and lengths of service Use volunteer to expand staffing/programming Use across more program areas than just 4-H and Master Gardeners Adjust curriculum and delivery methods to allow for utilization of volunteers Need to provide adequate/appropriate training, make sure training is affordable/accessible Provide appropriate/adequate recognition and rewards Have a CES position with sole job of recruiting Educational Program Content Content must be relevant and responsive, issue-based, proactive not reactive, impact oriented Content same as in rural, need to adjust/adapt for urban/metro Layers/distance between faculty/research, CES staff and residents/communities, need to differentiate CES, need to adjust CES traditional “expert” model Transitioned from delivery of social sciences to delivery of social services Let go of content areas others can do better Need to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural/ag audiences X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 272 Educational Program Content Continued Conduct effective programmatic needs assessments that engage urban/metro residents, volunteers, local units of government, community agencies and CES partners Build programmatic expertise relevant to urban, multidisciplinary Build strong CES staff-LGU faculty connections, develop relationships with LGU faculty that have expertise relevant to urban needs/issues, build urban/metro content around CES and LGU expertise, programming content must be backed by research Find topical areas of interdependency between rural/urban and tailor/develop content to meet urban/metro needs and interests High quality programs/content, differentiate CES context from what people can access through an internet search Content must be learner identified and learner driven, not driven by experts/CES/faculty Adjust program context to attract minority and under-served audiences Adjust content to be culturally/racially/ethnically sensitive and appropriate Educational Program Delivery Must be able to reach large numbers of people, impact oriented Use up to date, 21st Century, innovative/creative program delivery methods, adaptations to delivery methods is as much generational as it is geographic Take full advantage of technology to deliver program 24/7, online course, distance education, webinars, webpages, email ask the expert, toll-free information lines, etc.; use 21st Century program promotion strategies, social media and mass media; invest in online, e-learning, learner managed platforms that focus on the learner’s environment, flexible, innovative, accessible, learner identified, learner driven; build online/website content appropriate to largest number of users, often these are urban/metro audiences Adjust program promotion and delivery methods to attract minority and under- served audiences Invest in client management systems, build profiles around interests and target for future programming Place offices in targeted communities, accessible to targeted audiences Have a full-range of program delivery models, from wholesale to retail model; target other agencies/organizations’ staff, local units of government; use train- the-trainer model to delivering program directly to residents; provide training for professional, CEUs, etc.; conduct short-term project initiatives to quickly address specific needs/issues and move on High quality delivery and materials Co-sponsor/co-host programming with credible urban/metro community partners Expand program delivery by using volunteers and other agencies/organizations to deliver Delivery methods must be user friendly and welcoming, figure out how to maintain personal touch/personal connects Stage 1 Stage 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 273 Educational Program Delivery Continued CES programs and resources must be accessible, fees, offices, locations programs offered, traffic/travel/parking hindrances Make sure program fees appropriate for urban/metro and target audience; program cost cannot be prohibitive, but should not apologize for having a cost for a high quality program Use 21st Century technology to allow clients to pay fees – broad acceptance of credit cards online, in offices and at programs Urban Best Practices Need a national urban agenda, with priorities, implementation steps and some resources to help CES get there Must identify and implement Best Practices to move CES beyond piloting or exploring what CES does in urban/metro Identify principles/practices behind urban/metro successes and share them across national system, currently no well recognized or agreed upon, national system-wide, models of success, multiple states are working on models that they hope are successful in an effort to determine Best Practices that can be shared Identifying a national funding source to pilot an initiative has worked well as an implementation strategy for CES in the past, i.e. health initiative Identified Best Practices must have broad replication ability, nationally, globally Need to see some national, system-wide urban/metro successes that are shared, new successes Partnerships Must build new connections, networks and partnerships in urban/metro like the expansive networks and partnerships CES has in rural areas, increases effectiveness and return on our investment in urban/metro, must have effective urban advisory councils Take leaderships for building coalitions/collaborations where CES sees need and no coalition/collaboration exist in urban/metro, CES needs to be a catalyst, facilitator and/or convener of urban/metro change Look to engage new and different kinds of partners, local/state/federal; internally and externally; focus on urban serving universities, urban/metro power brokers, local units of government, locally elected officials, CES does not know them the way they know/work with them in rural/ag; need to intentionally be thinking about partners representing or working with minority and under-served audiences, faith-based partners Nationally, need ECOP to lead conversation to identify and connect with new urban/metro focused partners Need to be working with the “right” players, difficult to know who the players are in urban/metro; complicated by complexity of environment; large numbers of organizations /agencies/units of government, turf issues, competition, duplication of roles/services Staff must be able to do rapid assessment Stage 1 Stage 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 274 Stage 1 Stage 2 Partnerships Continued Need to have seats at the “right” tables, building partnerships in urban more difficult because of environmental complexity CES needs to complement other urban-serving organizations and universities; will not always be leader, need to effectively lead from behind, and learn to follow others Unique role of CES in community partnership building maybe to bring residents into community issue/needs discussions in current community coalition/collaborations, because CES sees the value of their input and knows how to include them in these sorts of discussions in meaningful ways Must figure out how to measure collective impact of work and then communicate that and the value of the partnership; share credit for work, but must not lose CES’s contribution in partnerships, important CES receives credit/ acknowledgement of its role/value to partnership Must build redundancy into connections to address staff turnover, internally and externally Must be ongoing process Cooperative Extension Service Community Engagement Models Need to get to know urban/metro audiences as well as CES knows rural audiences Build relationships on trust, honesty and mutual respect Need to abandon “Lone Ranger” or “Savior” models and embrace co-creation of solutions with urban/metro residents/communities Work cooperatively with residents and community partners in the identification of urban/metro needs and issues and potential solutions, respect community culture, honor local knowledge/expertise, CES Remain unbiased and accessible to all Must embrace and help lead national APLU conversation around community outreach and engagement; CES needs to think differently about how it does this; ideas coming out of APLU, but do not have well developed implementation strategies, CES could help inform these Need to value and support the scholarship of engagement and outreach across CES and connections to LGU; CES needs to understand/know broad LGU expertise; CES needs to engage LGU students in urban/metro communities Need LGU presence in urban/metro beyond CES that is coordinated, LGU and CES seen as same entity in urban/metro communities, focuses on bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro Incentive broad LGU faculty engagement with CES Cooperative Extension Service Community Image Many rural/ag residents know or have used CES, many urban/metro residents do not, no history with CES, urban/metro audiences do not know CES Urban/metro residents, community/governmental leadership and community partners do not think of CES because they do not know CES Rural/ag image, need to change image X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 275 Stage 1 Stage 2 Cooperative Extension Service Community Image Continued Coming in and out of communities leads to doubts of sincerity in urban/metro communities Need comprehensive urban focused marketing plan, both on external audience, and internal CES and LGU audiences; may need outside professional assistance Must learn to talk and effectively communicate to urban/metro residents and must be creative/innovative; use social and mass media; media targeted at specific interest groups, minorities, under-served audiences and faith-based connections; word of mouth marketing strategies are not enough in urban/metro Must have visible and abundant CES branding in urban/metro areas; brand to LGU, usually better known in urban/metro than CES Provide abundant and high quality information about CES work and impacts in urban/metro to community and governmental leaders, community partners and residents Define unique “niche” for CES based on mission, purpose, relationships and using technology; must be vision for the future; needs to include program, community operations, partnerships, community engagement models and bringing broad expertise of LGU to urban/metro; must be adjusted/ developed to address urban/metro population size and community scale issues Connect citizens to research/knowledge base in unbiased manner, address 21st Century technology transfer needs, compliment and connect what is happening in rural/ag CES offices, online presence, programming, etc. must be user friendly and welcoming to new, diverse urban/metro audiences Use a client management platform to track people and keep them engaged with CES Need urban CES advocates, but to build urban advocates they need to see CES doing valuable/relevant work in urban/metro Take incremental steps X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 276 BIBLIOGRAPHY 277 BIBLIOGRAPHY Albertson, M., Holmes, D. L., & Force, U. M. U. T. (2007). Metro extension. . . the future is now. Logan, Utah. Alperovitz, G., Dubb, S., & Howard, T. (2008). The next wave: Building university engagement for the 21 st century. The Good Society, 17(2), 69–75. http://doi.org/10.1353/gso.0.0050 Argabright, K., McGuire, J., & King, J. (2012). Extension through a new lens: Creativity and innovation now and for the future. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 2COM2. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/comm2.php Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners3, 35(4), 216–224. Bailey, L. H., Wallace, H., Butterfield, K. L., Page, W. H., Pinchot, G., Barnett, C. S., & Beard, W. A. (1909). Report of the country life commission. Washington, DC. Barbour, R. S. (2000). The role of qualitative research in broadening the "evidence base: for clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 155–163. Barker, D. (2004). The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123–137. Beaulieu, L. J., & Cordes, S. (2014). Extension community development: building strong, vibrant communities. Journal of Extension, 52(5), 5COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014october/comm1.php Blalock, T. C., Greenwood, M. N., & Abraham, R. H. (1963). What the public thinks of Extension. Journal of Extension, 1(1), 47–54. Retrieved from https://joe.org/joe/1963spring/1963-1- a8.pdf Bloir, K., & King, J. (2010). Change, who... me? Journal of Extension, 48(1), 1COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/comm1.php Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The land-grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In R. M. Lerner & L. A. K. Simon (Eds.), Universtiy-community collaborations for the twenty-first century (pp. 25–70). New York: Garland. Borich, T. O. (2001). The department of housing and urban development and cooperative extension: A case for urban collaboration. Journal of Extension, 39(6), 6FEA2. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/a2.php Bowen, G. A. (2006). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research 278 Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Services & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3824459 Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer’s four domains. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Burke, C. B. (1982). American collegiate populations: a test of the traditional view. New York: New York University Press. Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2012). Utlitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (Third, pp. 111–131). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Campbell, J. R. (1995). Reclaiming a lost heritage: Lan-grant and other higher education initiatives for the twenty-first century. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press. Caret, R. (2007). Metropolitan universities and community engagement. Metropolitan Univerisities Journal, 19(1), 3–13. Carnegie Classifications. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ Chambers, T., & Gopaul, B. (2010). Toward a Social Justice-Centered Engaged Scholarship: A Public and Private Good. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change2 (pp. 55–70). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Christenson, J. A., & Warner, P. D. (1985). Extension’s future is today. Journal of Extension, 23(2), 2FEA6. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1985summer/a6.php Cisneros, H. G. (1996). The university and the urban challenge. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, (December), 1–14. Coletta, C. (2010). CEOs for Cities: Engaged Scholarship for Urban Development. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 2: Community-Campus Partnerships (pp. 373–379). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 279 Cox, D. (2010). History of the Scholarship of Engagement Movement. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 25–38). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fourth). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Datt, S., & Datt, S. (2016). Limitations and weakness of qualitative research methods. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5494-2_2 Davidoff, P. (2012). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (tHIRD, pp. 191–205). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Doberneck, D. M., Brown, R. E., & Allen, A. D. (2010). Professional Development for Emerging Engaged Scholars. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 391–409). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: intentions and insights. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/CHNG.40.1.38-41 Economic Research Service. (2014). USDA economic research service - population & migration. Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy- population/population-migration.aspx ECOP. (2014). Extension Committee on Organization and Policy Organizational Chart. Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment- and-renewable-resources/CFERR_Library/ecop-organizational-chart/file Engagement Scholarship Consortium. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://engagementscholarship.org/ Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478. Fainstein, S. S. (2012). Planning theory and the city. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (Third, pp. 159–175). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Fehlis, C. P. (1992). Urban extension programs. Journal of Extension, 30(2), 2FEA3. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a3.php Feierabend, K. (2017). Challenges to working in an urban context. Raliegh, NC. 280 Ferleger, L., & Lazonick, W. (1994). Higher education for an innovative economy: Land-grant colleges and the managerial revolution in America. Business and Economic History, 23(1), 116–128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23702838 Fishman, R. (2012). Urban utopias in the twentieth century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (Third, pp. 27–53). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Fitzgerald, H. E. (2010). Across the Higher Education Landscape. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 95–97). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Fitzgerald, H. E., Burack, C., & Seifer, S. D. (Eds.). (2010a). Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Fitzgerald, H. E., Burack, C., & Seifer, S. D. (Eds.). (2010b). Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 2: Community-Campus Partnerships. E Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Ford Foundation. (1966). Urban extension: A report on experimental programs assisted by the Ford Foundation. Forest, J. J. F., & Kinser, K. (Eds.). (2001). Higher Education in the United States: An Encyclopedia. Volumes I and II. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED468721 Fox, J., Ruemenapp, M. A., Proden, P., & Gaolach, B. (2017). A national framework for urban Extension. Journal of Extension, 55(5), 5FEA2. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2017october/a2.php Franz, N. (2009). A Holistic Model of Engaged Scholarship: Telling the Story across Higher Education’s Missions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(4), 31– 50. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/822505911?acco untid=12598 Franz, N. K., & Townson, L. (2008). The nature of complex organizations: The case of Cooperative Extension. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(120), 5–14. http://doi.org/10.1002/ev.272 Frost, B. P., & Sikkenga, J. (2003). History of American Political Thought. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analysing qualittive data. Lon: Sage. 281 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Glass, C. R., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2010). Engaged Scholarship: Historical roots, contemporary challenges. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 9–24). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7ztb0c Gould, F. I., Steele, D., & Woodrum, W. (2014). Cooperative extension: A century of innovation. Journal of Extension, 52(1), 1COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014february/comm1.php Hall, P. D. (1982). The organization of American culture, 1700-1900: private institutions, elites and the orgins of American nationality. New York: New York University Press. Harkavy, I. (1996). Urban University-Community Partnerships: Why Now and What Could (Should) Be Next? Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 1(2), 6–14. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/259 Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (1994). Lessons from Hull House for the Contemporary Urban University. Chicago Journals, 68(3), 299–321. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/stable/30012534?seq=5&sid=21105832630071& uid=2134&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70#page_scan_tab_contents Harriman, L. C., & Daugherty, R. A. (1992). Staffing extension for the 21st century. Journal of Extension, 30(4), 4FUT1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/fut1.php Hartley, M., & Harkavy, I. (2010). Engaged scholarship and the urban university. In Handbook of Engaged Scholarship (pp. 119–129). Michigan State University Press. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84898121686&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 Healey, P. (2012). Traditions of planning thought. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (Third, pp. 214–233). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Henning, J., Buchholz, D., Steele, D., & Ramaswamy, S. (2014). Milestones and the future for cooperative extension. Journal of Extension, 52(6), 6COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014december/comm1.php#discussion Hirsch, D. (2000). Ernest Lynton Remembered. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 6(1), 57–59. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/237 Honan, W. H. (1995). Ernest Boyer, national leader in education, dies at 67. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/09/nyregion/ernest-boyer-national-leader- in-education-dies-at-67.html 282 Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189. Jackson, G., & Meyers, R. (2000). Challenges of institutional outreach: A COPC example. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 5(5), 125–140. Jacob, S. G., Willtis, F. K., & Crider, D. M. (1991). Citizen use of cooperative extension in Pennsylvania: An analysis of statewide survey data. University Park, PA. JOE. (2018). The Journal of Extension - JOE. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/ Johnson, W. C. (1997). Urban planning and politics (Second). Chicago: Planners Press. Katz, M. B. (1983). The Role of American Colleges in The Nineteenth Century. History of Education Quarterly, 23(2), 215–223. Kellogg Commission. (1998). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Kerr, C. (1963). Uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King, D. A., & Boehlje, M. D. (2000). Extension: On the brink of extinction or distinction. Journal of Extension, 38(5), 5COM1. Krofta, J., & Panshin, D. (1989). Big-city imperative: Agenda for action. Journal of Extension, 27(3), 3FEA1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1989fall/a1.php Langcuster, J. (2009). Muddling through: The great extension dilemma. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https://missionextension.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/muddling-through-the- great-extension-dilemma/ Learning Opportunities. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://outreach.msu.edu/people/NCSUE.aspx Lerner, R., & Simon, L. (Eds.). (1998). University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century. New York: Garland. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. D. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (Fourth, pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lindblom, C. E. (2012). The science of “Mudding Though.” In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (Third, pp. 176–190). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Loibl, C., Diekmann, F., & Batte, M. T. (2010). Does the general public know the Extension Service: A survey of Ohio residents. Jouranl of Extension, 48(2), 2RIB3. Retrieved from 283 https://joe.org/joe/2010april/rb3.php Lynton, E. A. (1996). Ensuring the Quality of Outreach: The Critical Role of Evaluating Individual and Collective Initiatives and Performance. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/260 Lynton, E. A., & Elman, S. E. (1987). New Priorities for the University:Meeting Society’s Needs for Applied Knowledge and Competent Individuals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Marcus I, A. (2004). Engineering in a land-grant context: The past, present, and future of an idea. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interative approach (Third). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Mayberry, B. D. (1991). A century of agriculture in the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University, 1890-1990. New York: Vantage Press. McCall, R., Groark, C., Strauss, M. S., & Johnson, C. N. (1998). Challenges of university- community outreah to traditional research universities. In R. Lerner & L. Simon (Eds.), Universtiy-community collaborations for the twenty-first century (pp. 203–230). New York: Garland. McDowell, G. (2003). Engaged Universities: Lessons from the Land-Grant Universities and Extension. Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Sciences, 585(1), 31– 50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1049749 Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evalution. New York: Gullford. Miller,Jr., J. C. (1988). What’s their perception. Journal of Extension, 26(1), 1FEA1. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/a1.php MSU Extension. (2018). MSU Extension. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/about MSUE Urban Agenda Task Force. (2017). MSU Extension urban framework. East Lansing, MI. NASULGC. (1987). Serving the world: the people and ideas of America’s state and land-grant universities. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. National Collaborative for the Study of University Engagement. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://outreach.msu.edu/people/NCSUE.aspx Nelson-Smith, K. (2011). Extension’s role in urban education: Why aren’t we involved? Journal 284 of Extension, 49(4), 4COM1. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2011august/comm1.php NIFA. (2017). NIFA about us page. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifahtml NIFA. (2018). Extension: National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from https://nifa.usda.gov/extension NUEL Steering Committee (NUEL):, Ciantis, D. De, Fox, J., Gaolach, B., Jacobsen, J., Obropta, C., … Young, J. (2015). A national framework for urban Extension. Washington, D.C.: Extension Council on Organization & Policy. Retrieved from https://cityextension.osu.edu/sites/urban/files/imce/NUELUrbanInitiativeFramework_032 716FINAL.pdf Oregan State University Extension. (2009). Oregon State University Extension metro initiative: Extension metro model - a work in progress. Corvallis, OR. Outreach & Engagement. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://outreach.colorado.edu/ Outreach and Engagement. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.rwu.edu/about/university-offices/outreach-engagement Panshin, D. (1992). Overcoming rural-urban polarization. Journal of Extension, 30(2), 2TP1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/tp1.php Patton, M. Q. (1987). Tomorrow’s Extension professionals. Journal of Extension, 25(3), 3FUT1. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/1987fall/fut1.php Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Fourth). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Peska, S. (2008). Summit on redefining community: moving NIU forward. In Ernest Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation’s (1990) Six Principles of Community. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/stuaff/division_employee_resources/PresentationsPublications/pres entations/Boyer-SixPrinciples.pdf Peters, S. J. (2002). Rousing the people on the land: the roots of the educational organizing tradition in extension work. Journal of Extension, 40(3), 3FEA1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.php Raison, B. (2014). Doing the work of extension: Three approaches to identify, amplify, and implement outreach. Journal of Extension, 52(2), 2FEA1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014april/a1.php#.VHI6vz_wZfA.mailto Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people. Iowa State University Press. 285 Rodin, J. (2007). The University and Urban Renewal. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ross, E. D. (1969). Democracy’s college: the land-grant movement in the formative state. New York: Arno Press. Rozman, S. L. (2010). Engaged Scholarship at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 181– 195). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (Third). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ruemenapp, M. A. (2017). America’s changing urban landscape: Positioning Extension for success. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 5(2), 6–21. Runes, D. D. (2000). Epilogue: Securing the Republic - Benjamin Rush, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic. In P. B. Kurland & R. Lerner (Eds.), The Founder’s Constitution (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. Retrieved from http://press- pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s30.html Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (Third). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Schafer, J. M., Huegel, C. N., & Mazzotti, F. J. (1992). Expanding into the urban arena. Journal of Extension, 30(2), 2FEA1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a2.php Schorr, L., & Schorr, D. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Schwartz, B. (2015). Issue briefing: creating opportunity and prosperity through strengthening rural-urban connections. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from http://www.nado.org/issue- brief-creating-opportunity-and-prosperity-through-strengthening-rural-urban- connections/ Sub-commitee on Expansion Texas Agricultural Extension Service. (2001). TAEX urban task force. College Station, TX. Swanson, B. E., & Samy, M. M. (2002). Developing an extension partnership among public, private, and nongovernmental organizations. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(1), 5–10. TAEX Urban Task Force Texas Agricultural Extension Service. (1999). Urban task force report. College Station, TX. 286 Tocqueville, A. (1840). Democracy in America: Part the Second: The Social Influence of Democracy, Volume 2. (translated by Henry Reeve, Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Thomas, Cowperthwaite & Company. Transformations in Higher Education Series. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://msupress.org/books/series/?id=Transformations+in+Higher+Education Trede, F., & Higgs, J. (2009). Framing researc questions and writing philosophically: The role of framing research questions. In J. Higgs, D. Horsfall, & S. Grace (Eds.), Writing qualitative research on practice (pp. 13–25). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural- 2010.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Urban area criteria for the 2010 census, 76 Fed. Reg. 53029. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/24/2011-21647/urban-area-criteria-for- the-2010-census University of Minnesota. (2015). University of Minnesota: Urban Research and Outreach- Engagement Center. Retrieved March 4, 2015, from http://www.uroc.umn.edu/ University of Minnesota Urban Agenda Task Force. (2007). University of Minnesota urban agenda task force report - draft. Minneapolis, MN. University Outreach & Engagement. (2015). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.rwu.edu/about/university-offices/outreach-engagement Urban Program Review Committee Texas Agricultural Extension Service. (1990). Report to the administrative staff. College Station, TX. Urban Task Force. (1996). Urban extension: A national agenda. ECOP National Extension Urban Task Force. Urban Task Force. (2014). Florida urban Extension plan. Jacksonville, FL. Retrieved from http://extadmin.ifas.ufl.edu/media/extadminifasufledu/urban- extension/docs/pdfs/Urban-Extension-Strategic-Plan.pdf US Census. (2017). Census.gov. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.census.gov/ US Census Bureau Public Information Office. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12- 243.html 287 Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/lib/michstate/detail.action?docID=10194261 Veysey I, R. (1965). The emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Votruba, J. C. (1992). Promoting the extension of knowledge in service to society. Metropolitn Universities, 3(3), 72–80. Ward, K., & Moore, T. L. (2010). Defining the “Engagement” in the Scholarship of Engagement. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Bursack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions, Volume 1: Institutional Change (pp. 39–53). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Warner, L. A., Vavrina, C. S., Campbell, M. L., Elliott, M. L., Northrop, R. J., & Place, N. T. (2017). A strategic plan for introducing, implementing, managing, and monitoring an urban Extension platform. Journal of Extension, 55(3), 3FEA1. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2017june/a1.php Warner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., & Salant, P. (1996). Public perception of extension. Journal of Community Practice, 34(4), 4FEA1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.php Washington State University Extension. (2014). The western center for metropolitan extension and research. Pullman, WA. Webster, N., & Ingram, P. (2007). Exploring the challenges for extension educators working in urban communities. Journal of Extension, 45(3), 3IAW3. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2007june/iw3.php WEDA Urban Task Force. (2010). Final report. Retrieved from http://extension.oregonstate.edu/weda/secure/files/documents/final_report_of_the_urb an_task_force-april_2010.docx Western Region Program Leader Committee. (2008). Extension in the Urban West. Wiewel, W., Gaffikin, F., & Morrissey, M. (2000). Community-University Partnerships for Affordable Housing. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 5(1), 27–45. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/57023015?accou ntid=12598 Young, J. (2013). Kentucky’s 2013 urban Extension forum. Lexington, KY. Young, J., & Vavrina, C. (2014). Kentucky’s urban extension focus. Journal of Extension, 52(3), 3IAW3. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014june/iw3.php#.VHIgW1wpDi0.mailto 288